Archive
You are currently browsing the archives for the 3 in Literature, History & Art category.
By admin
After 3,000 years it’s appears all but certain that the husband of the mummy of Djedmaatesankh has been found.
We know from her coffin that his name is Paankhntof. She was a musician at the temple of Amun-Re in Thebes - he was a doorkeeper at the same temple (actually something of an important position).
At the weekend symposium, researchers presented evidence that the mummy of her husband is now located at the Art Institute of Chicago.
Heritage Key broke the story a week ago here.
The research was presented by Gayle Gibson of the Royal Ontario Museum and Stephanie Holowka of the Hospital for Sick Children.
But first – the most interesting aspect – she may not be his only wife!
One curious thing researchers noted on the coffin of Djedmaatesankh was the grammar that was used to spell her husband’s name. It’s not clear what it means, but it’s possible that the writer is trying to get across the idea that Djedmaatesankh is his second wife – something quite common given that many women in Ancient Egypt died in childbirth.
It’s also possible – wait for it – that Djedmaatesankh is not his ONLY wife. “He could have had two wives at the same time if he was rich enough,” said Gibson. If that’s the case than a re-uniting could be, ahem, a little more complicated than we think.
Now, for the evidence that the two are husband and wife - the research breaks down three ways:
The name: On Djedmaatesankh’s coffin the name of her husband is spelled Paankhntof. The mummy at the Art Institute has its name spelled as Paankhenamun. This is very close and it’s possible that Paankhntof is a short form.
Professor John Gee told Heritage Key that different spellings of the same name are quite common. In fact - “you often find variations on the same coffin.” Gee is not a member of the research team but watched the presentation.
The coffins: Gayle Gibson said that the coffins are both Theban and are dated to the same time (ca. 850 BC). There are also numerous similarities in the coffins – just take a look at the two pictures in this blog.
Both have similar hair-doo (gold bands at the bottom of the hair), both have benu birds under the throat, both have wings, both have gold faces.
Perhaps the most interesting fact is that both of them have pairs of lion-snakes. Gibson says that, according to her research, between the 20th and 22nd dynasties this motif has only been seen on a total of 11 coffins. In later times it becomes very common.
Also, both coffins are un-provenanced – with archaeologists not knowing which tomb they come from.
The CT scans: Both mummies have had CT-scans performed on them. The scans reveal evidence that they are related. Both have their arms crossed at the groin (something common among temple staff). Both have scarabs and amulets in the same position. Both have their abdomens packed, both have wrappings inside the head, both are age 30-40 years.
Both had their brains taken out of their right nostrils. Both have neck packs done in such a way that, “the hyoid bone (which) forms part of the larynx, is pushed to the left side of them.”
The, “mummification and preservation given what we’re seeing on this were most likely performed by the same people,” said Holowka.
No smoking gun
The one thing missing from the analysis is a smoking gun. Something that will prove – with absolute certainty – that these two are husband and wife.
“They lived at exactly the same time, were embalmed by the same guy, that’s pretty clear, there coffins were made by the same bunch of artists,” said Gibson. “Pretty sure to say they were related.”
Thebes, at this time was a city in the tens of thousands. Not like a modern day metropolis. What are the odds of this being a co-incidence?
After she died, he appears to have outlived her by at least five years – possibly as much as 15. Like Djedmaatesankh he consumed a rough diet and had a lot dental problems as he got older. When he passed away he had the ability to afford a coffin with the same level of quality as his wife’s.
Will they be re-united?
Alas, it looks as if this couple is going to remains separated for the time being.
“It would be such a lot of fun if we could get it together,” Gibson said.
But bringing them together is risky. “Conservation departments don’t like you to so much as open the glass case – because they’re very fragile.”
By admin
3 Doors Down is an American hard rock band from Escatawpa, Mississippi, formed in 1997. The band consists of:
- Brad Arnold (vocals),
- Matt Roberts (guitars),
- Todd Harrell (bass),
- Chris Henderson (guitar), and
- Greg Upchurch (drums/percussion)
I like their lyrics and would like to share one of it with you:
Life On My Own lyrics
Living risky,
never scared, wander
Closer to the edge
Nothing valued think no fear,
Always wondering why you’re here
All your purposes are gone, nothing’s
Right and nothing’s wrong
Nothing ventured, nothing gained
Feel no sorrow, feel no pain
Kiss me while I’m still alive
Kill me while I kiss the sky
Let me die on my own terms,
Let me live and let me learn
Now I’ll follow my own way, and I’ll
Live on to another damn day
Freedom carries sacrifice,
Remember when this was my life
Looking forward, not behind
Everybody’s got to cross that line
Free me now to give me a place,
Keep me caged and free the beast
Falling faster, time goes by,
Fear is not seen through these eyes
What there was will never be,
Now I’m blind and cannot see
Kiss me while I’m still alive
Kill me while I kiss the sky
Let me die on my own terms, let me
Live and let me learn
Now I’ll follow my own way, and I’ll
Live on to another damn day
Freedom carries sacrifice,
Remember when this was my life
Kiss me while I’m still alive
Kill me while I kiss the sky
Let me die on my own terms, let me
Live and let me learn
Now I’ll follow my own way,
And I’ll live on to another damn day
Freedom carries sacrifice,
Remember when this was my life.
By admin
The Third Sign, Gregory Wilson
Calen Gollnet is a young man, student who lives in a tumultuous world, in the country of Klune, which is a territory surrounded by aggressive elements crooked on its destruction. Bordered by antagonistic armed forces, his nation Klune has been free for ten years, having thrown off the yoke of repression thanks to a tiny group of heroes known as the Covenant; but the cost of this freedom was great, and the nation’s liberty is becoming shaky. The Covenant is broken, and Klune is now kept harmless only because of a pact struck between the human king and a race of honorable but xenophobic mercenaries known as arlics who have patrolled Klune’s borders for the past decade. But the treaty is due to expire, and both the arlics and humans are restless, each are claiming that they have been weakened by their dependence on the other.
As negotiations between the two sides break down and dark armies gather while politics bogs down the governors of city and country, Calen flees from the army attacking his home city, unaware that there is more to fear than mortal warriors; the appearance of the horrifying Soul Wall and other omens point to the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Return, in which it is said that three signs will signal the return of a great evil. The first two signs have come to pass, but the prophecy is obscure on its final prediction: the tide of the conflict may be changed by the third sign, but no one knows what that sign is, or whom it will favor.
Because this is only the first in a planned series of books, a fair amount of time is spent introducing the characters and developing their place in the plot scheme. Once the action begins it moves at a fast and furious pace. Also, because it is the first in a series, the story doesn’t really reach a conclusion. Instead, a battle is fought but the war has only begun.
Gregory A. Wilson has done a terrific job with his first book. I’m sure that this new writer in the genre will excite fantasy readers.
By admin
As was the case with the 2nd Dynasty, establishing the chronology of the 3rd Dynasty has proven to be quite problematic. This has the following reasons:
* Except for Huni, who is accepted to have been the dynasty’s last king, the actual monuments of the 3rd Dynasty kings mention their Horus-names whereas the later king-lists are based on their birth names (nomen).
The king-lists apparently name kings that seem to be unattested by archaeological sources. It thus becomes necessary to match the names of the 3rd Dynasty monuments with those of the king-lists.
* The Turin King-list has placed Nebka at the head of the dynasty, before Djoser (Netjerikhet). Manetho has also placed a king before Djoser as the founder of the dynasty. Other King-lists do not mention Nebka at all, making Djoser the founder of the Dynasty. According to the Papyrus Westcar, which lists some of Kheops’ predecessors, Nebka must be placed between somewhere Djoser and Huni.
* Although most king-lists give five kings that can be placed in this dynasty, there are some inconsistencies involving the 4th king of the list. This king is referred to as Hudjefa by the Turin King-list, a reference normally used for kings whose names were deliberately or accidentally destroyed or damaged in the original source(s) consulted by the composer or copyists of the king-list. If the destruction of the name was deliberate, then this may be seen as an indication of some dynastic troubles.
The other king-lists, however, record the name Sedjes or Neferkare as the 4th king of the Dynasty. This can mean that either all three names refer to the same or to different kings. If all these names, including Hudjefa, refer to the same king, it is hard to explain why one king would be referred to as Sedjes and as Neferkare. If they refer to different kings then the Hudjefa of the Turin King-list refers to Sedjes, to Neferkare or to a third, unknown king. In this case, however, it would be hard to explain why the Turin King-list only notes 5 kings instead of 6 or 7.
* Manetho, through the different copies of his original work, lists even more kings in the 3rd dynasty and credits it with a total duration of over 200 years. Both the number of kings and the dynasties duration are generally accepted to have been largely exaggerated. However, the higher number of kings given by Manetho does suggest that the number of 5 kings mentioned in the older king-lists may be too low.
The builder of the famous Step Pyramid at Saqqara is identified throughout his complex as the Horus Netjerikhet. An inscription left by the 19th Dynasty prince Khaemwaset, the famous son of Ramesses II, in the complex crediting the building to Djoser, has allowed us to equate the Horus Netjerikhet with Djoser(-Ti) of the king-lists.
At least two other buildings, somewhat similar to Netjerikhet’s Step-Pyramid, have been started but left unfinished during the 3rd Dynasty as well: the buried pyramid at Saqqara and the layered pyramid at Zawiyet el-Aryan. Based on archaeological and architectural evidence, it is safe to say that both monuments were built after Netjerikhet’s. In the buried pyramid of Saqqara, the oldest of the two, the Horus-name of Sekhemkhet has been found. If an inscription found in this pyramid may be interpreted as Sekhemkhet’s Nebti-name, then Sekhemkhet may be equated to Djoser-Teti, the successor of Djoser (Netjerikhet)in the king-lists. This interpretation is perhaps supported by the style and location of his pyramid and by the mention of Imhotep, the architect of Netjerikhet’s pyramid, in an inscription in Sekhemkhet’s monument.
In the pyramid of Zawiyet el-Aryan, no royal name has been found. In a tomb located in a nearby private cemetery, however, the Horus-name of Khaba was found. This has led archaeologists to believe that the layered pyramid of Zawiyet el-Aryan was built by the Horus Khaba. This king would then come after Sekhemkhet but before Huni, which places him at the fourth position in the king-lists: king Hudjefa. Whether this forms sufficient basis to equate the Horus Khaba with king Hudjefa is not certain.
Two other kings, known only through their Horus-names, have belonged to the 3rd Dynasty as well: the Horus Sanakht and the Horus Qa-Hedjet.
Neither king can be placed with certainty. It has been suggested that Sanakht may have been the Horus-name of Nebka, but the sole argument that supports the identification of Sanakht as Nebka is a source found in the Sinai that mentions the Horus-name Sanakht and the sign ka that could be interpreted as part of the nomen of the king. In my opinion, however, the sign ka is part of a word that spells mefkat, meaning “turquoise”, the main mineral the Egyptians were after in the Sinai. If Sanakht can indeed be equated to Nebka, then it is clear that the Turin King-list has mistakenly placed Nebka before Djoser (Netjerikhet), as the archaeological record points to Netjerikhet having been a predecessor of Sanakht.
In view of the sources it may be tempting to equate the Horus Qa-Hedjet with Huni, the last king of the dynasty, particularly because the Horus-name of Huni is not known either. This equation, however, is purely hypothetical and not generally accepted amon Egyptologists.
Regardless of our problems in identifying some of its kings, the singlemost important achievement of the 3rd Dynasty in the history of Ancient Egypt was the transition in architecture from wood and brick to natural stone.
The building of the Step Pyramid complex for the Horus Netjerikhet at Saqqara represens a giant leap forward in technology and architecture. So great that it determined the general shape of Egyptian buildings for the millenia to come. Netjerikhet, under the name of Djoser, and even more his genious architect Imhotep, would remain renowned throughout Ancient Egypt’s long history.
Eventhough Netjerikhet’s immediate successors failed to continue the great building project of their ancestor, the 3rd Dynasty played a pivotal role in the transition from Early Dynastic Egypt to the Age of the Pyramids. This is why, in many history books, the 3rd Dynasty is placed at the start of the Old Kingdom and not at the end of the Early Dynastic Period. However, more and more Egyptologists are now inclined to include this dynasty in the Early Dynastic Period, because culturaly it resembles the two first dynasties more than it does the following.
The table below lists the kings that are placed in the 3rd Dynasty.
Name Manetho Kinglists Dates (*)
Netjerikhet Tosorthros Djoser / Djoser-It 2650 - 2631
Sekhemkhet Tyreis Djoser-Ti / Djoser-Teti 2631 - 2623
Khaba Hudjefa (?) 2623 - 2619
Sanakht Necherôphês (?) Nebka (?) 2619 - 2599
Huni Huni 2599 - 2575
By admin
“Ryan’s Daughter” is a love story that evolves into a love triangle set in the epic splendor of an isolated village on Ireland’s scenic Dingle Peninsula. Like all love triangles, it ends in a disaster that becomes a tragedy.
Rosy Ryan (Sarah Miles) seeks to find that certain something that is missing in her life and thinks she finds it when she announces her love for her former schoolteacher, Charles Shaughnessy (Robert Mitchum), who is old enough to be her father.
Unfortunately for Rosy, her marriage brings her love but not passion. It is passion she finds when she meets and instantly falls into the arms of Major Randolph Doryan (Christopher Jones), a young British officer assigned to the village.
Major Doryan is a World War I hero who ends up in the village as part of the British occupation while the war continues on in Europe. The villagers resent the British presence and will jump at a chance to fight for their freedom.
Tim O’Leary (Barry Foster) leads a resistance force that awaits the arrival of German weapons so they can finally arm and defend themselves against the British takeover.
The villagers become aware of Rosy’s infidelity through the village idiot Michael (John Mills) who is mute and considered a half-wit, but Michael is clever enough to steal away the major’s uniform and medal while he is busy making love to Rosy in a secluded island cave.
Michael adores Rosy but instinctively knows he has no chance. He feels a kinship with Major Doryan as they both suffer from profound limps. Both the limp and shell shock are from Doryan’s war injuries.
Tom Ryan (Leo McKern) is Rosy’s father and owner of the local pub. He is a big freedom talker who is taken at his word to be a freedom fighter by the rebel leader O’Leary, who leans on him for support in gathering up the German weapons that are dropped off at sea and floating to shore.
You just have to see the storm scene, huge waves are crashing against the rocky shore while villagers are scrambling to recover broken boxes of rifles, bullets and dynamite.
When the rebels seek to haul off the weapons stash, they are met by British soldiers who have been tipped off by Tom Ryan. O’Leary is shot by Major Doryan and captured while trying to escape. It is assumed he will be hung for leading the rebellion.
Once exposed, the villagers consider the unfaithful Rosy to be the “British officer’s whore” as well as a disloyal and dishonorable informant when in fact it is her father. Ryan, whose wife has died, has spoiled his daughter growing up, and it is he who is the silent informer for the British that is never exposed, even when he has an opportunity to save his daughter from harm.
The villagers become a mob and eventually beat up Rosy’s husband Charles, strip Rosy naked and cut off her lovely long hair. This is apparently the ultimate disgrace in an Irish village, being ostracized and then humiliated.
Major Doryan ends up on the beach with Michael who has recovered some dynamite. When Doryan realizes his affair with Rosy is over, he uses the dynamite to commit suicide.
Rosy’s husband is aware of her adultery but hopes it will run its course, and he will be there when it is over. When he finds he is unable to handle it, he decides to leave Rosy. They both know that they must leave the village and are led out of town by Father Collins (Trevor Howard), the Catholic priest.
Director David Lean had to wait a year before a storm dramatic enough appeared on the Atlantic Ocean to film the weapons recovery scene. This turned into a masterpiece of filming by Freddie Young who won an Oscar for his effort.
Cinematographer Freddie Young captures the raw beauty of Ireland with its ocean cliffs, green countryside, lazy pastures and hidden forest love nest. Young shot the film entirely in a 65mm widescreen format and in Super Panavision. It was the last such film shot until 22 years later when Ron Howard filmed “Far and Away” in 1992.
The storm scene is nothing short of spectacular as well as real. Leo McKern (as Rosy’s father Tom) was injured and badly shaken up while filming the storm sequence and nearly drowned. McKern was so upset he vowed never to act again and did not for several years.
The film includes a passionate love scene between Major Doryan and Rosy who was partially exposed (pretty hot for a film released in 1970). In addition to Young’s Oscar, John Mills won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actor for his role as the mute half-wit. Mills bowed at the Academy Awards ceremony when receiving his Oscar and said nothing in the shortest acceptance speech in Oscar history.
Sarah Miles received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress and the film earned another nomination for Best Sound.
Mills also won the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor. Sarah Miles (Best Actress) and Trevor Howard (Best Supporting Actor) won Golden Globe nominations.
A lot of critics at the time were not kind to David Lean as director of Ryan’s Daughter. Lean was no slouch. He earned two Best Director Oscars for “The Bridge on the River Kwai
” and “Lawrence of Arabia”.
Lean was also nominated for a Best Director Oscar for “Doctor Zhivago” which won 5 Oscars and had 4 other nominations. Robert Bolt wrote Doctor Zhivago as well as Ryan’s Daughter and “A Man for All Seasons”. Bolt was twice married to Sarah Miles.
Lean would outperform his critics. He was voted the 9th greatest film director of all time in the BFI (British Film Institute) “Directors Top Directors” poll in 2002.
Ryan’s Daughter is a slow developing romance. The film runs for 3 hours and 16 minutes. Like almost all of Lean’s films, Ryan’s Daughter was hugely popular with moviegoers and movie lovers alike.
Ryan’s Daughter is a story about relationships and an epic film worth watching.
By admin
History A gifted historical novelist struggles to unify this account of Leonardo, Machiavelli and a Borgia The Artist, the Philosopher and the Warrior By Paul Strathern Cape Pounds 25
In June 1502, Cesare Borgia, son of the infamous Pope Alexander VI, captured Urbino with a characteristically audacious stratagem: he announced that its Duke was dead (which was a lie), and installed himself in the dukes palace. Cesare was attempting to conquer the whole of the Romagna, which stretched from Bologna to Ancona. His exploits during the military campaign were, according to the young diplomat Niccol Machiavelli, accompanied by a unique good fortune, as well as superhuman daring and confidence that he can achieve what he wants.
Machiavelli had been despatched by the government of his native Florence, on whose lands the Popes son was trespassing. You must pledge to support me, Cesare told him, If you do not want me as a friend, you will find me your enemy. Borgia had powerful allies (his father and the King of France) and Machiavelli had been instructed to appease him. As part of his charm offensive, he offered Cesare the services of the celebrated Florentine military engineer, and myriad-minded Renaissance genius, Leonardo da Vinci.
Borgia enthusiastically enlisted Leonardo as the technical guru of his military operations. Meanwhile, Machiavelli was instructed to keep a watchful eye on Cesare during what was to be a triumphant Romagnian crusade. So it was that the artist (Leonardo), the philosopher (Machiavelli) and the warrior (Borgia) of the title of Paul Stratherns interesting but flawed book, passed the autumn and winter months of 1502-3 together, talking and scheming their way across the Romagna, as city after city fell to Cesare.
Strathern deftly interweaves the narratives of his three main characters and successfully evokes their odyssey, drawing principally on Machiavellis dispatches, which offer a chorus-like commentary on the unfolding drama. It comes as no surprise to learn that Strathern is a prize-winning novelist, as he has a sensitive ear for memorable phrases and a keen eye for striking detail. With considerable panache he serves up the scenes of murder, pillage, treachery and hedonistic excess with which the name of Borgia has become synonymous, and, in crisp and elegant prose, he explains the intricacies of 16th-century diplomacy, and keeps us up with all the entertaining court gossip.
Such, indeed, is Stratherns flair for vivid description and snappy dialogue that you cant help wishing, as you get a little way into this book, that he had written it as a novel. That reflection is also prompted by a consideration of the meagre historical evidence that has survived from the Romagna campaign, and of the way the author uses it. In a bid to cover up the gaps in the record he is often forced to stretch his flimsy facts to breaking point and sometimes they snap.
For example, while he cautiously tells us on page 112 that Leonardos notebooks contain three sketches that are widely thought to be of Borgia, only a few pages later he confidently cites them as evidence of Cesares brooding character. By page 317 his confidence has become certainty: he imagines Da Vinci drawing those three portrait sketches of Borgia as he lay stretched out in his chair before the fire, before going on to deduce from them the artists attitude to his master and to the evil nature of men in general.
Strathern frequently tries to flesh out the indistinct historical outline with this sort of pseudo-psychoanalytical speculation. Throughout, he recklessly attempts to decipher Leonardos intimate thoughts and private feelings from his notoriously cryptic notebooks. The very precision, he claims of certain notebook entries, can be read as evidence of the repression of tumultuous emotion. Given Sigmund Freuds spectacularly poor record on Leonardo much of his famous analysis of the artists life and the work is demonstrably wrong the author should perhaps have taken him as a warning rather than as a model.
It leaves you wishing that Strathern had gone the whole hog and invented imaginary conversations. The fictional form would have allowed him to shape his narrative, which is unwieldy, over-long and often loses its momentum. There are too many extraneous and unconnected facts, and a number of repetitions of scenes (Machiavellis first encounter with Borgia), phrases and even of illustrations. A judicious edit would have made The Artist, The Philosopher and The Warrior a readable, though average, work of popular history; only a bold decision to cast it as fiction could have transformed it into something worthy of its gifted author.
By admin
Two men and one woman new family
Trinogamous? Lamour de trous? Mariage a trois? Monogamy, but with more than one person? How does one talk about the unusual relationship between Sam, Samantha and Steven? After all, in Three of Hearts this is one of those stories you WILL want to talk about.
In his early twenties, Sam Cagnina, the oldest son of a mafia hit man, meets Steven, a handsome 19-year old college student and they fall in love. Soon Sam, charisma and energy to spare, gets an idea. “Hey, wouldn’t it be great to bring a woman into the relationship!?” Steven, being an easygoing guy, agrees. They spend the next seven years dating and looking for a woman they could both fall in love with who would agree to live in a “trio” relationship.
They know they have found that special someone else when they meet Samantha, a Toronto ex-pat struggling as an actress in New York City. Sam meets Samantha, and they fall in love. Samantha meets Steven and they fall in love too. The “trio,” as they are affectionately called, begin their journey.
We catch up with Sam, Samantha and Steven nine years later. They are going to have a baby; a baby about whom one thing seems certain: he/she will have an “S” name. Three of Hearts explores this unique union as they negotiate their living arrangements, have children and open one of the hottest wellness centers in New York.
Of course you want to know about their families and their friends and, we’d guess, about the sex. Jam-packed with incident it is often hilarious but once accustomed to its more sensational elements, we begin to see this film for what it is, a rather remarkable journey of self-discovery for this threesome and for those of us with whom they’ve shared their lives. Now, what constitution is ready for this one!?
By admin
This is probably the best known round in the world. The origin of the words to the Three blind mice rhyme are based in English history. The ‘farmer’s wife’ refers to the daughter of King Henry VIII, Queen Mary I. Mary was a staunch Catholic and her violent persecution of Protestants led to the nickname of ‘Bloody Mary’. The reference to ‘farmer’s wife’ in Three blind mice refers to the massive estates which she, and her husband King Philip of Spain, possessed. The ‘three blind mice’ were three noblemen who adhered to the Protestant faith who were convicted of plotting against the Queen - she did not have them dismembered and blinded as inferred in Three blind mice - but she did have them burnt at the stake! A version of this rhyme was published in Deuteromelia or The Seconde part of Musicks melodie (1609). The editor of the book, and possible author of the rhyme, was Thomas Ravenscroft , who in 1609 was still a teenager. The original lyrics are:
Three Blinde Mice,
three Blinde Mice,
Dame Iulian,
Dame Iulian,
The Miller and his merry olde Wife,
shee scrapte her tripe licke thou the knife.
That this ancient rhyme has survived into the present day has been credited to James O. Halliwell[3] The modern words are:
Three blind mice. Three blind mice.
See how they run. See how they run.
They all ran after the farmer’s wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a sight in your life,
As three blind mice?
Less than convincing attempts to read historical significance into the words has led to the speculation that this musical round was written earlier and refers to Queen Mary I of England blinding and executing three Protestant bishops (History tells us that Ridley, Latimer and Cranmer were burned at the stake, not blinded). The earliest lyrics do not talk about directly killing the three blind mice and are dated after Queen Mary died, however, “she scrapte her tripe licke thou the knife” implies they were prepared and consumed if not a reference to tasting the blood of a slain adversary.
There is a narrative ambiguity at the heart of the rhyme, which is the question over whether the mice are chasing the farmer’s wife after she cut their tails off, or whether she cut their tails off after they began chasing her.
Amateur music composer Thomas Oliphant (1799-1873) noted in 1843 that:
“This absurd old round is frequently brought to mind in the present day, from the circumstance of there being an instrumental Quartet by Weiss, through which runs a musical phrase accidentally the same as the notes applied to the word Three Blind Mice. They form a third descending, C, B, A”
By admin
among the morning blossoms -
the stone turtle
more stones
bright lights in the coin shop -
jewelry worn off
the queen’s neck
my place
for the oranges -
gravity’s place
By admin
The Three Sisters by Anton P. Chekhov
The Anton Chekhov play “Three Sisters” begins with Irina saint celebration, in the middle of Russian nowhere someplace their father had been retired. Irina and her sisters Olga and Masha make attempts to put up with life in their rural home, but still dreaming about Moscow.
Olga, a school teacher, is the consistent and liable one, working all hours of the day. Masha is stuck in a marriage to a man she despises. Irina is desperate to get out of the house and find a job - and the freedom and sense of purpose she hopes will come with it - in the outside world. Through all their sorrow and bad luck, the 3 sisters one way or another keep the last sight of hope.
Lasting around three hours the play is definitely too long, but we did tell you the story much faster.
The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas, father
The Three Musketeers (Les Trois Mousquetaires) is a novel by Alexandre Dumas, father. It recounts the adventures of a young man named d’Artagnan after he leaves home to become a musketeer. The 3 musketeers of the title are d’Artagnan’s friends Athos, Porthos, and Aramis — inseparable friends who live by the motto, “One for all, and all for one”. To make story short, I’ll say it is about their war against the Cardinal Richelieu, with the King Louis XIII of France and…..well, conflict with the evil Milady de Winter!
Read it. It is easy and interesting.
