polydore virgil 1470-1555

curious about who polydore was and how was he able to quote
conversations between richard and buckingham, i did a little research
on him.

polydore was a young teen during richard's reign, but he appears to
have been well connected with the church. he also would have been of
an age to be attending university in the late 15thc.

here's virgil's report on richard and buckingham argument.
http://books.google.com/books?
id=Ex8IAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=polydore#PPA193,M1

starting with wikipedia i learned a lot about virgil's life and
associations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydore_Virgil

morton was made cardinal by the borgia pope in 1493. virgil was a
chamberlain to the pope in the waning years of the 1490s.

it is quite likely that morton and virgil met. morton dies in 1500.
virgil arrives in england in 1501 with his kinsman cardinal hadrian
castellensis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bishops_of_Bath_and_Wells_and_pre
cursor_offices

robert stillington was the bishop of bath and wells until 1492. he
was followed by richard foxe in that see. foxe was also an executor
of margaret beaufort, momma of h7. after foxe was oliver king.

there was an oliver king arrested at the council meeting where
hastings was accused of treachery. king went to france in 1484 and
raised a ruccus against r3. king was also at the university of paris.
did he meet virgil?

after king, who was an ardent tudor supporter, then came virgil's
kinsman as the bishop of bath and wells. only the kinsman went back
to rome and virgil was his proxy for bath and wells. interesting?

also i note that virgil skips lightly over stillington's revelation
of the precontract. he never mentions titulus regis. he talks about
cecily committing adultry. he does not bring up lady lucy or eleanor
talbot. he does say that richard called e4's children bastards. after
such a line up of tudor supporters holding the see of bath and
wells..no wonder there are no records of the precontract.

virgil was also a contempory of moore and wolsey, and he may have had
by the virtue of simply living in london until 1537 and his book
historia anglica being published in 1536 may have had an influence on
hall and hollingshed chronicles.

this brief foray into "who was virgil" could explain how virgil could
become privy to a supposed conversation between richard and the duke
of buckingham.

definitely virgil was a player in the international scene, and he
twisted the truth to appease and appeal to the lords temporal and
spiritual of the day.

roslyn
p.s. totally unrelated to r3. i'm out in the wilds of b.c. supposedly
with no internet ability.

however, via a radio ad, i learned about telus's wireless internet,
called sierra. available where one can pick up **digital** cellphone
signal, but you are unable to access adsl internet services.

i called the telus operator, asked to be connected to someone who
knew about the telus sierra wireless internet. this plan is extremely
affordable, about 40 dollars a month, and my internet connection and
speed are to me compareable to my cable broadband connection.

i'm sharing this info with you all, because i know there are a lot
canadians who are using dialup because they are not aware they can
access anything better. tell a friend..get them up to speed. the
telus sierra internet plan is called connect 33.

once i placed my order, it took less than 3 days to have the little
device couriered to me. and poof i'm back on line.

correction foxe was in paris in 1484, not oliver king.

--- On Tue, 8/5/08, fayreroze <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayreroze <fayreroze@...>
Subject: polydore virgil 1470-1555
To:
Received: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 12:52 PM






curious about who polydore was and how was he able to quote
conversations between richard and buckingham, i did a little research
on him.

polydore was a young teen during richard's reign, but he appears to
have been well connected with the church. he also would have been of
an age to be attending university in the late 15thc.

here's virgil's report on richard and buckingham argument.
http://books. google.com/ books?
id=Ex8IAAAAIAAJ& printsec= frontcover& dq=polydore# PPA193,M1

starting with wikipedia i learned a lot about virgil's life and
associations.
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Polydore_ Virgil

morton was made cardinal by the borgia pope in 1493. virgil was a
chamberlain to the pope in the waning years of the 1490s.

it is quite likely that morton and virgil met. morton dies in 1500.
virgil arrives in england in 1501 with his kinsman cardinal hadrian
castellensis.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ List_of_Bishops_ of_Bath_and_ Wells_and_ pre
cursor_offices

robert stillington was the bishop of bath and wells until 1492. he
was followed by richard foxe in that see. foxe was also an executor
of margaret beaufort, momma of h7. after foxe was oliver king.

there was an oliver king arrested at the council meeting where
hastings was accused of treachery. king went to france in 1484 and
raised a ruccus against r3. king was also at the university of paris.
did he meet virgil?

after king, who was an ardent tudor supporter, then came virgil's
kinsman as the bishop of bath and wells. only the kinsman went back
to rome and virgil was his proxy for bath and wells. interesting?

also i note that virgil skips lightly over stillington' s revelation
of the precontract. he never mentions titulus regis. he talks about
cecily committing adultry. he does not bring up lady lucy or eleanor
talbot. he does say that richard called e4's children bastards. after
such a line up of tudor supporters holding the see of bath and
wells..no wonder there are no records of the precontract.

virgil was also a contempory of moore and wolsey, and he may have had
by the virtue of simply living in london until 1537 and his book
historia anglica being published in 1536 may have had an influence on
hall and hollingshed chronicles.

this brief foray into "who was virgil" could explain how virgil could
become privy to a supposed conversation between richard and the duke
of buckingham.

definitely virgil was a player in the international scene, and he
twisted the truth to appease and appeal to the lords temporal and
spiritual of the day.

roslyn
p.s. totally unrelated to r3. i'm out in the wilds of b.c. supposedly
with no internet ability.

however, via a radio ad, i learned about telus's wireless internet,
called sierra. available where one can pick up **digital** cellphone
signal, but you are unable to access adsl internet services.

i called the telus operator, asked to be connected to someone who
knew about the telus sierra wireless internet. this plan is extremely
affordable, about 40 dollars a month, and my internet connection and
speed are to me compareable to my cable broadband connection.

i'm sharing this info with you all, because i know there are a lot
canadians who are using dialup because they are not aware they can
access anything better. tell a friend..get them up to speed. the
telus sierra internet plan is called connect 33.

once i placed my order, it took less than 3 days to have the little
device couriered to me. and poof i'm back on line.

fayreroze wrote:
>
> curious about who polydore was and how was he able to quote
> conversations between richard and buckingham, i did a little
research on him.
>
> polydore was a young teen during richard's reign, but he appears to
have been well connected with the church. he also would have been of
an age to be attending university in the late 15thc.
<snip>
> this brief foray into "who was virgil" could explain how virgil
could become privy to a supposed conversation between richard and the
duke of buckingham. <snip>

Carol responds:

I intended to respond to this post sooner. The simple answer is that
Polydore Vergil, Henry VII's official historian (who, of course, never
met Richard and did not even come to England until 1501, could not
have overheard a conversation between Richard and Buckingham, nor
could he have heard it from anyone present at the time. (As I noted in
another post, unless we accept the possibility that Edward V survived
and reported his information to More or Vergil, surely not at all
likely even if the human memory could be trusted to report such a
conversation accurately, all the participants in the conversation and
those who might have overheard it were all dead by 1485.

The humanist historians (setting aside Vergil's official position as
apologist and propagandist for Henry Tudor) were not historians in the
modern sense, careful to quote accurately and cite their sources and
at least attempting (too often unsucessfully) to interpret events
objectively. Their histories were composed primarily of largely
imaginary dialogues. (In another book, More invents an imaginary
dialogue involving Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. The speakers
and the scene are historical; the dialogue is wholly imaginary.) More
and Vergil were well read in the classics, but they were not concerned
with accurate depictions of events and people--much less
conversations, which they freely invented to suit their moral and
artistic purposes. They are imaginative dialogues written to
illustrate a point, speeches assigned to type characters (such as the
Wicked King) to point a moral message.

Although Vergil is famous for doubting the historical accuracy of
ancient Welsh chronicles, Renaissance historiography has little
concern for the historical accuracy or bias of its sources, especially
with regard to more recent events. It's more an art form than a record
of historical events, and it often makes a moral point. Polydore
Vergil's thesis was that the moral fabric of England was torn apart by
Henry Bolingbroke's usurpation of the throne from his cousin Richard
II and that Henry Tudor's victory over another "usurper", Richard III,
restored peace and harmony to England. A Henry toppling a Richard
causes chaos; another Henry toppling another Richard restores order.
Very neat, very poetic, very false, especially since Richard is
presented as monstrous and Henry VII as angelic.

Carol, noting that Vergil was accused in his own time of burning
documents, but they may have related to the history of Wales rather
than to Richard

while in most part i agree with you with regard to the morality tale synopis, it is however, entirely possible polydore spoke with and interviewed contemporaries who were alive and witnessed the events and conversations. especially those who had opposed richard in 1485, but had been with him on his progress in 1483.
 
margaret beaufort no doubt told her version to virgil.
thomas howard d. 1524, son of jock/john howard. the howards snuggled up to the throne pretty good after boswell.
 
so, i guess one needs to look at who was with richard until his death, and became supporters of the tudor era. this particularily includes the clergy, as virgil was a member of that class. the priests would be hearing confessions, and virgil had enough rank to "request" reports.
 

--- On Fri, 8/8/08, Carol <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: Carol <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: Polydore Vergil, 1470-1555
To:
Received: Friday, August 8, 2008, 1:12 AM






fayreroze wrote:
>
> curious about who polydore was and how was he able to quote
> conversations between richard and buckingham, i did a little
research on him.
>
> polydore was a young teen during richard's reign, but he appears to
have been well connected with the church. he also would have been of
an age to be attending university in the late 15thc.
<snip>
> this brief foray into "who was virgil" could explain how virgil
could become privy to a supposed conversation between richard and the
duke of buckingham. <snip>

Carol responds:

I intended to respond to this post sooner. The simple answer is that
Polydore Vergil, Henry VII's official historian (who, of course, never
met Richard and did not even come to England until 1501, could not
have overheard a conversation between Richard and Buckingham, nor
could he have heard it from anyone present at the time. (As I noted in
another post, unless we accept the possibility that Edward V survived
and reported his information to More or Vergil, surely not at all
likely even if the human memory could be trusted to report such a
conversation accurately, all the participants in the conversation and
those who might have overheard it were all dead by 1485.

The humanist historians (setting aside Vergil's official position as
apologist and propagandist for Henry Tudor) were not historians in the
modern sense, careful to quote accurately and cite their sources and
at least attempting (too often unsucessfully) to interpret events
objectively. Their histories were composed primarily of largely
imaginary dialogues. (In another book, More invents an imaginary
dialogue involving Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. The speakers
and the scene are historical; the dialogue is wholly imaginary.) More
and Vergil were well read in the classics, but they were not concerned
with accurate depictions of events and people--much less
conversations, which they freely invented to suit their moral and
artistic purposes. They are imaginative dialogues written to
illustrate a point, speeches assigned to type characters (such as the
Wicked King) to point a moral message.

Although Vergil is famous for doubting the historical accuracy of
ancient Welsh chronicles, Renaissance historiography has little
concern for the historical accuracy or bias of its sources, especially
with regard to more recent events. It's more an art form than a record
of historical events, and it often makes a moral point. Polydore
Vergil's thesis was that the moral fabric of England was torn apart by
Henry Bolingbroke' s usurpation of the throne from his cousin Richard
II and that Henry Tudor's victory over another "usurper", Richard III,
restored peace and harmony to England. A Henry toppling a Richard
causes chaos; another Henry toppling another Richard restores order.
Very neat, very poetic, very false, especially since Richard is
presented as monstrous and Henry VII as angelic.

Carol, noting that Vergil was accused in his own time of burning
documents, but they may have related to the history of Wales rather
than to Richard

fayre rose wrote:
>
> while in most part i agree with you with regard to the morality tale
synopis, it is however, entirely possible polydore spoke with and
interviewed contemporaries who were alive and witnessed the events and
conversations. especially those who had opposed richard in 1485, but
had been with him on his progress in 1483.
>
> margaret beaufort no doubt told her version to virgil.
> thomas howard d. 1524, son of jock/john howard. the howards snuggled
up to the throne pretty good after boswell.
>
> so, i guess one needs to look at who was with richard until his
death, and became supporters of the tudor era. this particularily
includes the clergy, as virgil was a member of that class. the priests
would be hearing confessions, and virgil had enough rank to "request"
reports.

Carol responds:

Margaret Beaufort, possibly, but she died in 1509, only five years
after Vergil began the Anglia Historica, which he did not finish until
1533. Since the portion of the work that focused on Richard's reign
came at the end of the work, he may have been occupied with research
on the earlier periods during what remained of her lifetime. Since she
only saw him at his coronation and on ceremonial occasions, never in
private or in council, he might not even have thought to consult her.

As for Thomas Howard, I can't imagine him speaking ill of the man for
whose cause he had fought so bravely at Bosworth and in whose cause
his own father had died. Thomas Howard probably kept his mouth shut.
He had been imprisoned for several years before having his lands and
titles restored, and while it was politic not to speak ill of "the
Tydder," I can't imagine a man who had served the Yorkist cause all
his life and who owed his title as Duke of Norfolk to Richard (Richard
had given the title to Thomas's father, John Howard, as rightful heir
of the Mowbrays) turning against Richard in his heart. He had, after
all, supported Richard's claim to the crown. On the other hand, like
Sir James Tyrrell (definitely still a Yorkist at heart as revealed by
his attempt to support Edmund de la Pole), he probably preferred
coming to terms with Henry to being permanently deprived of what was
rightfully his. (After the Battle of Stoke, in which John de la Pole
died, the Yorkist cause must have seemed hopeless. Better to be
content with Elizabeth of York's blood in Henry's heirs and not think
about Henry himself. From 1497 to 1514, he battled the Scots--exactly
the same sort of service that he had performed for Richard and
Edward--the only loyalty needed being loyalty to the crown of England,
whoever wore it. And though he got his own titles back fairly quickly,
he had to earn the title of Duke of Norfolk, his father's title,
through a victory over the Scots in 1514.) Loyally serving England or
the crown is not the same as being a supporter of Henry and his
dynasty in his heart.

As for "the Howards," Thomas's children were never at Richard's court.
His oldest son, another Thomas, was born in 1473 and would have been
just twelve when Richard died at Bosworth. An online source says,
interestingly: " With his brother Edward, he was placed in Henry VII's
household as a page. There they learned subservience to the new
dynasty while being trained as gentlemen and serving as hostages to
Surrey's repeatedly tested loyalty."

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/ThomasHoward(3DNorfolk).htm

Interestingly, this second Thomas Howard married Anne of York, Edward
IV's fourth daughter (counting Mary, who died at fourteen, as the
second daughter) in 1494/5. That marriage would have given him, and
his father, a connection with the Yorkist element of Henry's court--he
was brother-in-law to the queen. Any other Howards were even younger
and would not have known Richard.

At any rate, I can't imagine Thomas Howard, a soldier who had
repeatedly fought alongside Richard since Barnet, speaking
disparagingly of the late king he had bravely served to Henry VII's
imported Italian humanist historian, a man nearly thirty years his
junior. Two more unlikely associates would be hard to find.

Carol, who thinks that having his two sons as virtual hostages at
Henry's court was sufficient reason for the Earl of Surrey to serve
Henry VII, not as a courtier but as a soldier