Would anyone like to counter this?
Would anyone like to counter this?
2013-02-25 08:36:03
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013/02/reading-richard-iii/
<http://http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013/02/reading-richard-iii/>
if no one has already done so - I've been away
<http://http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013/02/reading-richard-iii/>
if no one has already done so - I've been away
Re: Would anyone like to counter this?
2013-02-25 15:53:10
"favefauve@..." wrote:
>
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013/02/reading-richard-iii/
> <http://http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013/02/reading-richard-iii/>
>
> if no one has already done so - I've been away
Carol responds:
I see only a few problems with it, first that Shakespeare relied more on Hall/Holinshed than on Vergil, second that Vergil was not presenting an accurate picture of Richard, and third that it's not a matter of Tey vs. Weir as if they were the only participants in a debate (which would give the living Weir a distinct advantage over the dead Tey!). But his view of More as presenting a humanistic picture of tyranny rather than a realistic depiction of Richard is one held by many pro-Richard historians. Another (the one I hold) is that More was parodying historians like Vergil who relied on rumor and imagination in their depictions of Richard. More knew quite well that Henry VII had been a tyrant. What, if anything, he knew about the historical Richard is unclear.
My main objection to the article is that it's not coherent and reads as if transitional paragraphs explaining who More and Vergil were and how More relates to Shakespeare have been omitted to fit the required length of the article. I don't think that the average reader has even heard of Polydore Vergil. I'm actually happy to see the view that More is not a straightforward historian presented in an easily accessible article.
Maybe I need to reread the article, which I can't do without losing my post, but it seemed only mildly objectionable to me. Can you tell me what I missed that needs to be countered?
Carol
>
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013/02/reading-richard-iii/
> <http://http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013/02/reading-richard-iii/>
>
> if no one has already done so - I've been away
Carol responds:
I see only a few problems with it, first that Shakespeare relied more on Hall/Holinshed than on Vergil, second that Vergil was not presenting an accurate picture of Richard, and third that it's not a matter of Tey vs. Weir as if they were the only participants in a debate (which would give the living Weir a distinct advantage over the dead Tey!). But his view of More as presenting a humanistic picture of tyranny rather than a realistic depiction of Richard is one held by many pro-Richard historians. Another (the one I hold) is that More was parodying historians like Vergil who relied on rumor and imagination in their depictions of Richard. More knew quite well that Henry VII had been a tyrant. What, if anything, he knew about the historical Richard is unclear.
My main objection to the article is that it's not coherent and reads as if transitional paragraphs explaining who More and Vergil were and how More relates to Shakespeare have been omitted to fit the required length of the article. I don't think that the average reader has even heard of Polydore Vergil. I'm actually happy to see the view that More is not a straightforward historian presented in an easily accessible article.
Maybe I need to reread the article, which I can't do without losing my post, but it seemed only mildly objectionable to me. Can you tell me what I missed that needs to be countered?
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.