Talk:Field of the Cloth of Gold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Field of the Cloth of Gold is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 "Field of Cloth of Gold" or "Field of the Cloth of Gold"? 2 Change of Name 3 Anyone know anything about the history of the term? 4 Something doesn't add up

[edit] "Field of Cloth of Gold" or "Field of the Cloth of Gold"?

I notice Field of the Cloth of Gold redirects here...but shouldn't "the" be in the title? That's how I've always heard it, and Google agrees 2600 to 791. I'm not entirely sure though (maybe the name is originally a translation from French?) Adam Bishop 22:58, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that it should be 'the'. -- Necrothesp 15:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid you are both wrong. The correct form is "Field of Cloth of Gold". "Field of the cloth of Gold" is a solecism. Note the title of one of the books cited as a source! A google search of "camp de drap d'or" (...of cloth of...) brings up far more French web sites than "Camp du drap d'or" (...of the cloth of...) I am going to change the title of this page in a few days unless good arguments against become clear. Stroika 12:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it a solecism and not just a mistranslation? There's nothing ungrammatical about it; it just specifies a (nonexistent) particular object rather than a material. Chronodm 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of Name

I just changed the name of this page back to its correct form. The reason is as follows. At this particular meeting place of the Kings of England and France there was a perceived preponderance of tents etc made from a material called "cloth of gold". It was not a particular piece of cloth but a material. Suppose everything had been made of denim would we say field of denim or field of the denim? The former. But it wasn't "denim" it was "cloth of gold". Therefore the correct term is "The Field of Cloth of Gold".

Google gives 22100 hits for "Field of the Cloth of Gold" [1] and only 665 for "Field of Cloth of Gold" [2]. Whatever the linguistic sense it has clearly come into general use as The Field of the Cloth of Gold and this should be the title. It is not Wkipedia's purpose to correct people's mistakes especially if they have now taken on historical momentum. We should simply report the situation. I propose it is moved back to the form generally used in English. Lumos3 12:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This page's title was changed ten days after I originally suggested moving it. I invited objections and none came. Why should we rely on Google? Google is a picture of the web. The web is not the only place English is written. Also note the title of one of the books cited as a source. "The Field of the Cloth of Gold" is simply wrong. It suggests that there was a field which contained a particular piece of golden cloth. That is not the point of the name. The name indicated that a particular kind of cloth was used. If they had used Damask it would be "The Field of Damask". Stroika 13:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore Lumos3 says "It is not Wkipedia's purpose to correct people's mistakes". Au contraire. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's what they do: provide knowledge and thereby correct mistakes. The point of redirects is to allow mistaken versions of a title to find the correct title. I am grateful for redirects every time I use wikipedia. Stroika 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, rightly or wrongly, the name Field of the Cloth of Gold has been in use for hundreds of years in English and that should be accepted. Stop trying to change things just report it, with maybe the observation that its mistaken. I will be changing it back. Lumos3 09:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a divergent form that grew up (I reckon) for one particular reason. The phrase "Field of Cloth of Gold" looks like it refers to a specific piece of cloth (say the Turin Shroud) and therfore needs a definite article. But "cloth of gold" is the name of a material like "denim" "linen" or "Damask". We would not say "Field of the Denim" if they were all wearing 501s, we would say "Field of Denim". The prevalence of a divergent form ("Field of the Cloth of Gold") is not significant if, as I have, you can show why there are special reasons for that divergence which show that it is a mistake pure and simple. Discuss before you change please. Stroika 10:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

An accepted form that has been in use for nearly 500 years and mentioned in English documents over the whole of that time is not about to change because a Wikipedia article thinks it should . We report the world as it is. The English speaking world uses this form and that is what they will look up.

Its also possible that because of its value and rarity it was originally given the definite article in Tudor English. The rules of English were not always as they are now. Lumos3 12:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First to deal with Lumos3's last point that owing to its value "cloth of gold" (referring to the kind of material) might have been called "the cloth of gold". This is demonstrably false. The OED (both editions) has five quotations for "cloth of gold" (begininning with Chaucer's Knight's Tale line 1710) and two more quotations for "cloth of silver". The form "the cloth of gold" is not found. I accept Lumos3's point that we must not assume the definite article has always been used exactly as now. In this case I think there is no significant difference.

It seems to me the case for both sides could be made as follows. I have put the case for retaining the definite article first at each point which I hope gives it an advantage.

1 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": the title in the 1911 Encylopedia Brittanica article from which the present WP article is derived.

1 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": the title of the book cited in the references.

2 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": this is the more common form on google.

2 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": Google only tells us what is on the web it does not tell us how to weigh what we find. Slipping a definite article in is natural to English speakers who do not necessarily realise that "cloth of gold" is a kind of material and not a particular piece of cloth (or several particular pieces). For all we know many of these references could be a direct copy of the WP article.

3 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": this is the most natural form for the actual words in English.

3 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": once it is explained that the phrase "cloth of gold" refers to a kind of material (such as "denim" etc) and not to a particular piece of cloth and that 'therefore' "cloth of gold" serves a different grammatical function it becomes natural to drop the definite article. In any case that is what redirects are for.

4 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": this form has a long history.

4 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": again simply due to a misunderstanding of the term cloth of gold (see 3 above) and in any case only within the last 200 years.

(Reversing the order in which points are made)

5 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": This is the form in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.

5 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": Which is supposed to outweigh the form in EB 1911?

I think that because it is the correct form "The Field of Cloth of Gold" is to be preferred as the title for this article. Am I right to assume that as far as Lumos3 is concerned "The Field of Cloth of Gold" is the correct form but "The Field of the Cloth of Gold" is to be preferred as being the more expected form? If so how do we resolve our difference? (I won't be able to respond to any replies for several days) Stroika 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's had centuries to become an English proper noun, whether the original translation is correct or not. Chronodm 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone know anything about the history of the term?

Although I meant earlier to change the article's title back I actually didn't succeed. (Serves me right for trying to do something without having the instructions open in front of me.) I don't really regret this as it occurs to me what is precisely lacking is a history of the term "The Field of (the) Cloth of Gold" who called it that and when? Presumably it is not something like Wars of the Roses which (I believe) is a much later coinage. What I'd really like would be some juicy quotations of the period using the phrase. Stroika 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Eighteenth-Century Engravings for the Society of Antiquaries of London are based on oil paintings now in the Queen's collection at Hampton Court which are of or uncertain date but are verifiabley pre 1588-9 when they were recorded as being cleaned. One is titled The Field of the Cloth of Gold. This puts the use of this name into the sixteenth century. See the notes by Bernard Nurse, Librarian for the Society of Antiquaries of London [3]. Lumos3 10:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something doesn't add up

"…a temporary palace covering an area of nearly 12,000 square yards (about 1,100 square metres)": Since a meter is only about 10% longer than a yard, these two numbers should be about the same order of magnitude. Clearly one or the other is wrong: which is it? Also, even after adjusting the numbers to the same magnitude, the conversion is still incorrect: 12,000 square yards is not 11,000 square meters but only about 10,000 (to be precise, 10,033)—or alternatively, 11,000 square meters is equivalent to over 13,000 square yards, not 12,000. Evidently whoever wrote this simply used a conversion factor of about 1.09 m/yd, neglecting to square it (1.19 sq m/sq yd) for areas. Can someone supply the correct numbers here? —Dodiad 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)