Ricardian reading (Markham and Lamb)
Ricardian reading (Markham and Lamb)
2012-10-01 23:08:06
I'm reduced for the moment to reading Sir Clements Markham's "Richard III: His Life and Character Reviewed" (free on Kindle), which has the double disadvantage of being outdated and sentimental. Still, he did try to stand against Gairdner (whose books I have yet to read) and he did inspire Josephine Tey (don't know her real name), whose "Daughter of Time" has led so many people to seek the truth about Richard. (My own inspiration, oddly, was Shakespeare's play!).
So far, I haven't learned much that's new though he does mention a source (Sandford) as his basis for rejecting Rous's statement that Edward of Middleham was seven and a half (and therefore born in 1476) at his investiture as Prince of Wales. Markham goes with 1473 instead based on that source. However, he doesn't further identify Sandford and later cites his as believing that Richard helped to drown brother George in the butt of malmsey, so perhaps his [Sandford's] arguments aren't worth considering!
I also found it interesting that Markham, whose chief purpose is to defend Richard III, would view Edward of Lancaster as "gallant" (whatever happened to "this boy . . . talks of nothing but cutting off heads and making war"?) and Margaret of Anjou as "courageous and loving" (in contrast to the usual Yorkist view of her as, if not the bloodthirsty "she-wolf of France," at least a determined dynast who would stop at nothing to ensure her son's succession). Must be his era that makes him see her so sympathetically . . . .
By the way, I just found Markham online (where it's much easier to check the notes instead of getting "no definition found" when I click on the link to a note). Here's the link for anyone who's interested:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
I'm also rereading Lamb's "Betrayal of Richard III" (which I own in paperback) and find her view that Henry VII invented the details of the suffocation story that appears in More a bit naive. Henry never went into details about anything. Vagueness was his forte, as shown in his various acts of attainder. She also thinks that Henry hated Richard, his dead and defeated enemy. I doubt that the feeling was so personal. Denigrating and defaming Richard was a propaganda technique, part of the survival strategy of a usurper without a legitimate claim. I doubt that Henry had any passions, and hatred, like love, is a passion. Just my take on the matter.
Carol
So far, I haven't learned much that's new though he does mention a source (Sandford) as his basis for rejecting Rous's statement that Edward of Middleham was seven and a half (and therefore born in 1476) at his investiture as Prince of Wales. Markham goes with 1473 instead based on that source. However, he doesn't further identify Sandford and later cites his as believing that Richard helped to drown brother George in the butt of malmsey, so perhaps his [Sandford's] arguments aren't worth considering!
I also found it interesting that Markham, whose chief purpose is to defend Richard III, would view Edward of Lancaster as "gallant" (whatever happened to "this boy . . . talks of nothing but cutting off heads and making war"?) and Margaret of Anjou as "courageous and loving" (in contrast to the usual Yorkist view of her as, if not the bloodthirsty "she-wolf of France," at least a determined dynast who would stop at nothing to ensure her son's succession). Must be his era that makes him see her so sympathetically . . . .
By the way, I just found Markham online (where it's much easier to check the notes instead of getting "no definition found" when I click on the link to a note). Here's the link for anyone who's interested:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm
I'm also rereading Lamb's "Betrayal of Richard III" (which I own in paperback) and find her view that Henry VII invented the details of the suffocation story that appears in More a bit naive. Henry never went into details about anything. Vagueness was his forte, as shown in his various acts of attainder. She also thinks that Henry hated Richard, his dead and defeated enemy. I doubt that the feeling was so personal. Denigrating and defaming Richard was a propaganda technique, part of the survival strategy of a usurper without a legitimate claim. I doubt that Henry had any passions, and hatred, like love, is a passion. Just my take on the matter.
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.