My Review of More's "Richard III"
My Review of More's "Richard III"
2012-10-23 18:43:02
I've posted the following review of Thomas More's "History of King Richard III" on Google Books. Comments and corrections welcome!
"Despite its title, this book is not a history of Richard III or even of the Protectorate. It is primarily a work of the imagination, complete with invented dialogue. More was a child when Richard III died. Its sources were rumor, pro-Tudor historians and chroniclers (Vergil, Andre, and Rous), and, probably, a Latin manuscript by More's mentor and Richard's enemy, Bishop John Morton. More's highly embroidered account of the supposed murder of the "Princes in the Tower" is riddled with contradictions and absurdities, and More himself admits that it is only one of many versions currently circulating, including rumors that one or both boys survived. Richard's withered arm is More's own invention. The precontract on which Richard's claim to the throne was based involved the daughter of an earl, not a known court mistress. Although the manuscript was not intended for publication and therefore can't qualify as Tudor propaganda, it is far from accurate. Its sardonic tone and sly allusions, along with such phrases as "men constantly say" and "some wise men also deem," suggest that it is either a morality play with Richard in the figure of the wicked monarch (interestingly, he's given some traits of Henry VII) or a satirical drama making fun of Tudor historiography. (See Alison Hanham.) The opening statement giving Edward IV's age at death with seeming precision as " fifty-three years, seven months, and five days" should be a clue. Edward was, in fact, nineteen days short of his forty-first birthday. Whatever More is giving us, it isn't history!"
Carol
"Despite its title, this book is not a history of Richard III or even of the Protectorate. It is primarily a work of the imagination, complete with invented dialogue. More was a child when Richard III died. Its sources were rumor, pro-Tudor historians and chroniclers (Vergil, Andre, and Rous), and, probably, a Latin manuscript by More's mentor and Richard's enemy, Bishop John Morton. More's highly embroidered account of the supposed murder of the "Princes in the Tower" is riddled with contradictions and absurdities, and More himself admits that it is only one of many versions currently circulating, including rumors that one or both boys survived. Richard's withered arm is More's own invention. The precontract on which Richard's claim to the throne was based involved the daughter of an earl, not a known court mistress. Although the manuscript was not intended for publication and therefore can't qualify as Tudor propaganda, it is far from accurate. Its sardonic tone and sly allusions, along with such phrases as "men constantly say" and "some wise men also deem," suggest that it is either a morality play with Richard in the figure of the wicked monarch (interestingly, he's given some traits of Henry VII) or a satirical drama making fun of Tudor historiography. (See Alison Hanham.) The opening statement giving Edward IV's age at death with seeming precision as " fifty-three years, seven months, and five days" should be a clue. Edward was, in fact, nineteen days short of his forty-first birthday. Whatever More is giving us, it isn't history!"
Carol
Re: My Review of More's "Richard III"
2012-10-23 18:57:22
Well done, Carol. I've long held with the quasi-satire idea....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:43 PM
Subject: My Review of More's "Richard III"
I've posted the following review of Thomas More's "History of King Richard III" on Google Books. Comments and corrections welcome!
"Despite its title, this book is not a history of Richard III or even of the Protectorate. It is primarily a work of the imagination, complete with invented dialogue. More was a child when Richard III died. Its sources were rumor, pro-Tudor historians and chroniclers (Vergil, Andre, and Rous), and, probably, a Latin manuscript by More's mentor and Richard's enemy, Bishop John Morton. More's highly embroidered account of the supposed murder of the "Princes in the Tower" is riddled with contradictions and absurdities, and More himself admits that it is only one of many versions currently circulating, including rumors that one or both boys survived. Richard's withered arm is More's own invention. The precontract on which Richard's claim to the throne was based involved the daughter of an earl, not a known court mistress. Although the manuscript was not intended for publication and therefore can't qualify as Tudor propaganda, it is far from accurate. Its
sardonic tone and sly allusions, along with such phrases as "men constantly say" and "some wise men also deem," suggest that it is either a morality play with Richard in the figure of the wicked monarch (interestingly, he's given some traits of Henry VII) or a satirical drama making fun of Tudor historiography. (See Alison Hanham.) The opening statement giving Edward IV's age at death with seeming precision as " fifty-three years, seven months, and five days" should be a clue. Edward was, in fact, nineteen days short of his forty-first birthday. Whatever More is giving us, it isn't history!"
Carol
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:43 PM
Subject: My Review of More's "Richard III"
I've posted the following review of Thomas More's "History of King Richard III" on Google Books. Comments and corrections welcome!
"Despite its title, this book is not a history of Richard III or even of the Protectorate. It is primarily a work of the imagination, complete with invented dialogue. More was a child when Richard III died. Its sources were rumor, pro-Tudor historians and chroniclers (Vergil, Andre, and Rous), and, probably, a Latin manuscript by More's mentor and Richard's enemy, Bishop John Morton. More's highly embroidered account of the supposed murder of the "Princes in the Tower" is riddled with contradictions and absurdities, and More himself admits that it is only one of many versions currently circulating, including rumors that one or both boys survived. Richard's withered arm is More's own invention. The precontract on which Richard's claim to the throne was based involved the daughter of an earl, not a known court mistress. Although the manuscript was not intended for publication and therefore can't qualify as Tudor propaganda, it is far from accurate. Its
sardonic tone and sly allusions, along with such phrases as "men constantly say" and "some wise men also deem," suggest that it is either a morality play with Richard in the figure of the wicked monarch (interestingly, he's given some traits of Henry VII) or a satirical drama making fun of Tudor historiography. (See Alison Hanham.) The opening statement giving Edward IV's age at death with seeming precision as " fifty-three years, seven months, and five days" should be a clue. Edward was, in fact, nineteen days short of his forty-first birthday. Whatever More is giving us, it isn't history!"
Carol
Re: My Review of More's "Richard III"
2012-10-23 23:10:35
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> I've posted the following review of Thomas More's "History of King Richard III" on Google Books. Comments and corrections welcome!
>
> "Despite its title, this book is not a history of Richard III or even of the Protectorate. It is primarily a work of the imagination, complete with invented dialogue. More was a child when Richard III died. Its sources were rumor, pro-Tudor historians and chroniclers (Vergil, Andre, and Rous), and, probably, a Latin manuscript by More's mentor and Richard's enemy, Bishop John Morton. More's highly embroidered account of the supposed murder of the "Princes in the Tower" is riddled with contradictions and absurdities, and More himself admits that it is only one of many versions currently circulating, including rumors that one or both boys survived. Richard's withered arm is More's own invention.
I would change that last sentence to merely say that the withered arm is an invention. We can't know if it is More's notion or Morton's, but it is probably Morton's, since it occurs in the account of the fracas in the council chamber, and unless all that is pure fiction, it has to have come from Morton.
Katy
>
> I've posted the following review of Thomas More's "History of King Richard III" on Google Books. Comments and corrections welcome!
>
> "Despite its title, this book is not a history of Richard III or even of the Protectorate. It is primarily a work of the imagination, complete with invented dialogue. More was a child when Richard III died. Its sources were rumor, pro-Tudor historians and chroniclers (Vergil, Andre, and Rous), and, probably, a Latin manuscript by More's mentor and Richard's enemy, Bishop John Morton. More's highly embroidered account of the supposed murder of the "Princes in the Tower" is riddled with contradictions and absurdities, and More himself admits that it is only one of many versions currently circulating, including rumors that one or both boys survived. Richard's withered arm is More's own invention.
I would change that last sentence to merely say that the withered arm is an invention. We can't know if it is More's notion or Morton's, but it is probably Morton's, since it occurs in the account of the fracas in the council chamber, and unless all that is pure fiction, it has to have come from Morton.
Katy
Re: My Review of More's "Richard III"
2012-10-23 23:48:37
Katy wrote:
> I would change that last sentence to merely say that the withered arm is an invention. We can't know if it is More's notion or Morton's, but it is probably Morton's, since it occurs in the account of the fracas in the council chamber, and unless all that is pure fiction, it has to have come from Morton.
>
Thanks for the input. I''ll change it to "More's (or Morton's) invention." Sound good?
Carol
> I would change that last sentence to merely say that the withered arm is an invention. We can't know if it is More's notion or Morton's, but it is probably Morton's, since it occurs in the account of the fracas in the council chamber, and unless all that is pure fiction, it has to have come from Morton.
>
Thanks for the input. I''ll change it to "More's (or Morton's) invention." Sound good?
Carol
Re: My Review of More's "Richard III"
2012-10-24 03:16:17
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Katy wrote:
>
> > I would change that last sentence to merely say that the withered arm is an invention. We can't know if it is More's notion or Morton's, but it is probably Morton's, since it occurs in the account of the fracas in the council chamber, and unless all that is pure fiction, it has to have come from Morton.
>
> >
> Thanks for the input. I''ll change it to "More's (or Morton's) invention." Sound good?
>
> Carol
Works for me.
Katy
>
> Katy wrote:
>
> > I would change that last sentence to merely say that the withered arm is an invention. We can't know if it is More's notion or Morton's, but it is probably Morton's, since it occurs in the account of the fracas in the council chamber, and unless all that is pure fiction, it has to have come from Morton.
>
> >
> Thanks for the input. I''ll change it to "More's (or Morton's) invention." Sound good?
>
> Carol
Works for me.
Katy
Re: My Review of More's "Richard III"
2012-10-24 23:22:10
Carol earlier:
> > Thanks for the input. I'll change it to "More's (or Morton's) invention." Sound good?
Katy responded:
> Works for me.
Carol again:
Great. It's done. Here's the link if anyone wants it:
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_History_of_King_Richard_the_Third.html?id=zQdyH83-G8EC
I've made a few other revisions, such as adding the title of Hanham's book. For some reason, my one-star rating doesn't show up, but at least I reduced the overall rating from 5 to 3!
Carol
> > Thanks for the input. I'll change it to "More's (or Morton's) invention." Sound good?
Katy responded:
> Works for me.
Carol again:
Great. It's done. Here's the link if anyone wants it:
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_History_of_King_Richard_the_Third.html?id=zQdyH83-G8EC
I've made a few other revisions, such as adding the title of Hanham's book. For some reason, my one-star rating doesn't show up, but at least I reduced the overall rating from 5 to 3!
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.