Help Please

I went out on a limb for one of my term papers. The class is Shakespeare and you can probably guess that I am questioning the history of Richard III. While I really enjoy the play, we all know its propaganda. I have done quite a bit of research, but if anyone has material I can cite, please send it along. Three weeks till my due date and I'm almost afraid of writing, I don't want to disappoint His Grace or my professor who seems please with my work to date (knock wood!!)
Thanks for any input!

Well done and best of luck!
I'm guessing what you really need is not so much historiographies of R3 but contextual analyses of WS? Kendall is a good starting point- not only author of the modern revisionist school, but he was actually a Professor of English too (rather than a professional historian). He makes good points about Shakespeare's indebtedness to Christopher Marlowe, who in 'The Jew of Malta' created a kind of anti-superhero, a style WS transposed onto R3 in his play.
This is quite interesting but be aware of plagarizing Harvard PhD's ;)
http://www.shmoop.com/richard-iii/literary-devices.html
Jeremy Potter's 'Good King Richard' is pretty much exclusively the story of his reputation in the hands of subsequent historians, with a couple of chapters on WS, but his referencing system for his sources is crap. I.e., it doesn't have one, a pretty severe problem in my book.
BTW, it occurs to me to ascertain, what level are you working at and qualification to obtain?
PS: welcome aboard!

--- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> I went out on a limb for one of my term papers. The class is Shakespeare and you can probably guess that I am questioning the history of Richard III. While I really enjoy the play, we all know its propaganda. I have done quite a bit of research, but if anyone has material I can cite, please send it along. Three weeks till my due date and I'm almost afraid of writing, I don't want to disappoint His Grace or my professor who seems please with my work to date (knock wood!!)
> Thanks for any input!
>

The May 2012 issue <http://www.historyextra.com/issue/may-2012> of BBC
History Magazine's lead article--Richard III, Why Shakespeare made him
a devil--is probably a good starting point for you. You can also find
digitized chronicles, histories, and memoirs that probably influenced
Shakespeare on the American Branch website here
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> .

Sorry if this is a repeat of what others have suggested.

Joan <http://joanszechtman.com/>

--- In , "merriannmclain"
<merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> I went out on a limb for one of my term papers. The class is
Shakespeare and you can probably guess that I am questioning the history
of Richard III. While I really enjoy the play, we all know its
propaganda. I have done quite a bit of research, but if anyone has
material I can cite, please send it along. Three weeks till my due date
and I'm almost afraid of writing, I don't want to disappoint His Grace
or my professor who seems please with my work to date (knock wood!!)
> Thanks for any input!
>

You'll be glad to hear that I've read what YOU write as closely, it appears, as you read what I have... "LOL", etc.

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> The May 2012 issue <http://www.historyextra.com/issue/may-2012> of BBC
> History Magazine's lead article--Richard III, Why Shakespeare made him
> a devil--is probably a good starting point for you. You can also find
> digitized chronicles, histories, and memoirs that probably influenced
> Shakespeare on the American Branch website here
> <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html> .
>
> Sorry if this is a repeat of what others have suggested.
>
> Joan <http://joanszechtman.com/>
>
> --- In , "merriannmclain"
> <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >
> > I went out on a limb for one of my term papers. The class is
> Shakespeare and you can probably guess that I am questioning the history
> of Richard III. While I really enjoy the play, we all know its
> propaganda. I have done quite a bit of research, but if anyone has
> material I can cite, please send it along. Three weeks till my due date
> and I'm almost afraid of writing, I don't want to disappoint His Grace
> or my professor who seems please with my work to date (knock wood!!)
> > Thanks for any input!
> >
>
>
>
>
>

"merriannmclain" wrote:
>
> I went out on a limb for one of my term papers. The class is Shakespeare and you can probably guess that I am questioning the history of Richard III. While I really enjoy the play, we all know its propaganda. I have done quite a bit of research, but if anyone has material I can cite, please send it along. Three weeks till my due date and I'm almost afraid of writing, I don't want to disappoint His Grace or my professor who seems please with my work to date (knock wood!!)
> Thanks for any input!

Carol responds:

Hi, Merriann. Exactly the way I started out as a Ricardian! What sources do you have already? One I would recommend even though I don't agree with the author on many points is Alison Hanham's "Richard III and His Tudor Historians." Someone else recommended Paul Murray Kendall's "Richard the Third" and Jeremy Potter's "Good King Richard," both of which I would also recommend, and by all means read Annette Carson's "The Maligned King" (though for your purposes you can probably skip the chapter on Edward IV possibly being poisoned (and come back to it when you're not pressed for time). You should also check traditionalist historians like Charles Ross and and A. J. Pollard to see which "crimes" they *don't* accuse Richard of committing. All of those books, especially the very recent "Maligned King," have bibliographies that may lead you to other sources.

Since you didn't tell us which sources you're already using, that's about all I can recommend for now.

Carol

Congratulations Merrian. What you learn will change your entire view of Shakespeare and set his work in the time, and realize it is not history but literature....... Lots of really fantastic people on this site, know an incredible amount about Richard III.

On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:55 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



"merriannmclain" wrote:
>
> I went out on a limb for one of my term papers. The class is Shakespeare and you can probably guess that I am questioning the history of Richard III. While I really enjoy the play, we all know its propaganda. I have done quite a bit of research, but if anyone has material I can cite, please send it along. Three weeks till my due date and I'm almost afraid of writing, I don't want to disappoint His Grace or my professor who seems please with my work to date (knock wood!!)
> Thanks for any input!

Carol responds:

Hi, Merriann. Exactly the way I started out as a Ricardian! What sources do you have already? One I would recommend even though I don't agree with the author on many points is Alison Hanham's "Richard III and His Tudor Historians." Someone else recommended Paul Murray Kendall's "Richard the Third" and Jeremy Potter's "Good King Richard," both of which I would also recommend, and by all means read Annette Carson's "The Maligned King" (though for your purposes you can probably skip the chapter on Edward IV possibly being poisoned (and come back to it when you're not pressed for time). You should also check traditionalist historians like Charles Ross and and A. J. Pollard to see which "crimes" they *don't* accuse Richard of committing. All of those books, especially the very recent "Maligned King," have bibliographies that may lead you to other sources.

Since you didn't tell us which sources you're already using, that's about all I can recommend for now.

Carol

Hi! Here are the chief bios:

Paul Murray Kendall, "Richard III"
Annette Carson, "Richard III: The Maligned King"
John Ashdown-Hill, "The Last Days of Richard III"

The specialty histories:

Alison Hanham, "Richard III and his early historians 1483-1485"
P. W. Hammond and Anne F. Sutton, "Richard III: The road to Bosworth fFeld"

These are the speculative, did-he-or-didn't-he books:

Jeremy Potter, "Good King Richard?"
Richard Drewett and Mark Redhead, "The Trial of Richard III"
V. B. Lamb, "The Betrayal of Richard III: An Introduction to the Controversy"
Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes"
Taylor Littleton and Robert R. Rea, "To Prove a Villain: The Case of Richard III"

There are, of course, numerous other sources, many of which are tough to find; I invite you to drop back by the forum as you have questions and I will whine & plead most prettily until one of the people who actually knows stuff can find it.

--- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> I went out on a limb for one of my term papers. The class is Shakespeare and you can probably guess that I am questioning the history of Richard III. While I really enjoy the play, we all know its propaganda. I have done quite a bit of research, but if anyone has material I can cite, please send it along. Three weeks till my due date and I'm almost afraid of writing, I don't want to disappoint His Grace or my professor who seems please with my work to date (knock wood!!)
> Thanks for any input!
>

McJohn wrote:
>
> Hi! Here are the chief bios:
[snip}
> There are, of course, numerous other sources, many of which are tough to find; I invite you to drop back by the forum as you have questions and I will whine & plead most prettily until one of the people who actually knows stuff can find it.

Carol responds:

Just a note as a former college composition teacher. If you do use our posts, you'll need to cite the source of your information. I don't know how your instructor feels about Internet forums as a source of information. I think you'd be better off with what he will consider reputable sources, including good old-fashioned books. Your university library will almost certainly have bound back issues of the Ricardian and Ricardian Bulletin, both of which contain scholarly articles. You should also check out the various Richard III Society websites, especially the main branch http://www.richardiii.net/ and the American branch http://www.r3.org/ The American branch's online library contains many important primary sources, including the Croyland chronicle. You may also want to check out Leicester University's Richard III site, http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/

There's also a recent, very scholarly article about Shakespeare's role in changing the raised shoulder attributed to Richard III into a hunchback (originally, probably, bunch-back). The title is unfortunate, but the article is a good one (though as I said, very scholarly): http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece

Good luck, and I hope you convince your instructor to become a Ricardian! (Mine gave me an A, which for those of you who are British is the highest grade short of an A plus, and told me that I should join the Richard III Society! That was too many years ago to count.)

Carol

Carol earlier:
>
> Just a note as a former college composition teacher. [snip]

Carol again:

Apologies to McJohn since my post appears to be a response to yours. I meant to address it to Merriann, who is writing a paper for her Shakespeare instructor.

Carol

[Loftily.] Surely our opinions are superior to the majority of hostile biographies, screeds, and outright propaganda that have dogged one of England's better kings for half a millennium?

Yes, I agree with Carol's caution, as sad as it makes me to defer to written sources when we have so many excellent brain-based ones here... citing a forum post is probably not going to be as definitive as, you know, an op. cit. from some dusty Latin original with monkish graffiti and tallow stains in the corners.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> McJohn wrote:
> >
> > Hi! Here are the chief bios:
> [snip}
> > There are, of course, numerous other sources, many of which are tough to find; I invite you to drop back by the forum as you have questions and I will whine & plead most prettily until one of the people who actually knows stuff can find it.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Just a note as a former college composition teacher. If you do use our posts, you'll need to cite the source of your information. I don't know how your instructor feels about Internet forums as a source of information. I think you'd be better off with what he will consider reputable sources, including good old-fashioned books. Your university library will almost certainly have bound back issues of the Ricardian and Ricardian Bulletin, both of which contain scholarly articles. You should also check out the various Richard III Society websites, especially the main branch http://www.richardiii.net/ and the American branch http://www.r3.org/ The American branch's online library contains many important primary sources, including the Croyland chronicle. You may also want to check out Leicester University's Richard III site, http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/
>
> There's also a recent, very scholarly article about Shakespeare's role in changing the raised shoulder attributed to Richard III into a hunchback (originally, probably, bunch-back). The title is unfortunate, but the article is a good one (though as I said, very scholarly): http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> Good luck, and I hope you convince your instructor to become a Ricardian! (Mine gave me an A, which for those of you who are British is the highest grade short of an A plus, and told me that I should join the Richard III Society! That was too many years ago to count.)
>
> Carol
>

[Laughing.] I was just grateful you didn't follow it up with, "Just... dude, quit writing and take up the guitar or something!"

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> >
> > Just a note as a former college composition teacher. [snip]
>
> Carol again:
>
> Apologies to McJohn since my post appears to be a response to yours. I meant to address it to Merriann, who is writing a paper for her Shakespeare instructor.
>
> Carol
>

Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!



--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> [Loftily.] Surely our opinions are superior to the majority of hostile biographies, screeds, and outright propaganda that have dogged one of England's better kings for half a millennium?
>
> Yes, I agree with Carol's caution, as sad as it makes me to defer to written sources when we have so many excellent brain-based ones here... citing a forum post is probably not going to be as definitive as, you know, an op. cit. from some dusty Latin original with monkish graffiti and tallow stains in the corners.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > McJohn wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi! Here are the chief bios:
> > [snip}
> > > There are, of course, numerous other sources, many of which are tough to find; I invite you to drop back by the forum as you have questions and I will whine & plead most prettily until one of the people who actually knows stuff can find it.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Just a note as a former college composition teacher. If you do use our posts, you'll need to cite the source of your information. I don't know how your instructor feels about Internet forums as a source of information. I think you'd be better off with what he will consider reputable sources, including good old-fashioned books. Your university library will almost certainly have bound back issues of the Ricardian and Ricardian Bulletin, both of which contain scholarly articles. You should also check out the various Richard III Society websites, especially the main branch http://www.richardiii.net/ and the American branch http://www.r3.org/ The American branch's online library contains many important primary sources, including the Croyland chronicle. You may also want to check out Leicester University's Richard III site, http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/
> >
> > There's also a recent, very scholarly article about Shakespeare's role in changing the raised shoulder attributed to Richard III into a hunchback (originally, probably, bunch-back). The title is unfortunate, but the article is a good one (though as I said, very scholarly): http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
> >
> > Good luck, and I hope you convince your instructor to become a Ricardian! (Mine gave me an A, which for those of you who are British is the highest grade short of an A plus, and told me that I should join the Richard III Society! That was too many years ago to count.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

"Where is the Yorkist propaganda?" is a rhetorical question - isn't it?
since I doubt there were any Yorkists left in Shakespeare's day.

On the other hand, Louise Gill claims in the first page of her first
chapter that Richard's progress after his coronation was "essentially a
huge propaganda campaign" (*Richard III & Buckingham's Rebellion*). On the
other hand, Rhoda Edwards described Richard's travels as "admonitory and
precautionary."

Guess the "spin" is still going on today.

A J

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:07 PM, merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for
> Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history
> or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I
> have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare
> and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to
> propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is
> the Yorkist propaganda???!!
> <snip>
>

I did my paper for a grad school Shakespeare course on the history
behind the play. Part of my approach was to trace the accounts of various
episodes (such as the death of Edward of Lancaster) from the earliest
mentions through the Tudor additions/changes & on up to Shakespeare's play.
I found* English Historical Documents vol. 4, 1327-1485* useful. Another
helpful book was volume 3 of *Narrative and Dramatic Sources of
Shakespeare*by Bullough. Thomas More was also useful. :-) When you
come down to it and
ignore all of the "some men deemeth" stuff, he tells you, for example, that
Richard protested against the death of Clarence.

Best of luck!

Peggy

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM, merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>wrote:

> I went out on a limb for one of my term papers. The class is Shakespeare
> and you can probably guess that I am questioning the history of Richard
> III. While I really enjoy the play, we all know its propaganda. I have
> done quite a bit of research, but if anyone has material I can cite, please
> send it along. Three weeks till my due date and I'm almost afraid of
> writing, I don't want to disappoint His Grace or my professor who seems
> please with my work to date (knock wood!!)
> Thanks for any input!
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

From: merriannmclain
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: Help Please

> I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist
> propaganda???!!

If you're prepared to take modern ecxamples, to some extent The Daughter of
Time by Josephine Tey is Yorkist propaganda. It's a wonderful and
beautifully-written book which examines Richard's true story, couched as a
historical investigation being undertaken by a modern detective who is in
hospital recovering from injuries. Her examination of Richard is excellent
and only makes one major and one minor error that I recall - she
understimates how widespread the rumour that the missing boys were dead was,
and she describes Richard as dark because she was influenced by a portrait
which had been darkened by yellowed varnish: in fact he had fair skin,
blue-grey eyes and rather fluffy-looking chestnut hair.

Where the propaganda comes in is that having cleared Richard of murdering
his nephews she then pins their deaths onto Henry VII, with even less
evidence than the Tudors used to pin them on Richard (unless Perkin Warbeck,
whom Henry eventually had executed, really was one of them). Henry's
history suggests that he was no keener on killing kids than Richard was -
although he was more willing to keep them imprisoned - and her twin
arguments, that Henry needed to be secretive about whether they were alive
or not because it was he that had killed them, and that he absolutely had to
kill them because by re-legitimising their sister (whom he was marrying) he
made the elder boy king again, are largely spurious. If Henry had been so
ruthless as to murder two schoolboys there was then absolutely nothing to
prevent his saying that Richard had killed them, and it didn't matter to him
all *that* much if the boys were illegitimate or not because the elder boy
had never actually been annointed and he, Henry, denied all Yorkist claims
anyway.

In fact Henry's behaviour suggests he knew the boys were alive, or at least
strongly suspected they were, because throughout his reign he was plagued by
pretenders claiming to be one of the boys and yet he never, ever said, or
even strongly hinted, "You can't be my brother-in-law because my
brother-in-law is dead."

The closest thing I can think of to true Yorkist propaganda is "The Arrival of Edward IV", given in full on the documentationally rich RIII American branch site:

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: merriannmclain
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Help Please
>
> > I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist
> > propaganda???!!
>
> If you're prepared to take modern ecxamples, to some extent The Daughter of
> Time by Josephine Tey is Yorkist propaganda. It's a wonderful and
> beautifully-written book which examines Richard's true story, couched as a
> historical investigation being undertaken by a modern detective who is in
> hospital recovering from injuries. Her examination of Richard is excellent
> and only makes one major and one minor error that I recall - she
> understimates how widespread the rumour that the missing boys were dead was,
> and she describes Richard as dark because she was influenced by a portrait
> which had been darkened by yellowed varnish: in fact he had fair skin,
> blue-grey eyes and rather fluffy-looking chestnut hair.
>
> Where the propaganda comes in is that having cleared Richard of murdering
> his nephews she then pins their deaths onto Henry VII, with even less
> evidence than the Tudors used to pin them on Richard (unless Perkin Warbeck,
> whom Henry eventually had executed, really was one of them). Henry's
> history suggests that he was no keener on killing kids than Richard was -
> although he was more willing to keep them imprisoned - and her twin
> arguments, that Henry needed to be secretive about whether they were alive
> or not because it was he that had killed them, and that he absolutely had to
> kill them because by re-legitimising their sister (whom he was marrying) he
> made the elder boy king again, are largely spurious. If Henry had been so
> ruthless as to murder two schoolboys there was then absolutely nothing to
> prevent his saying that Richard had killed them, and it didn't matter to him
> all *that* much if the boys were illegitimate or not because the elder boy
> had never actually been annointed and he, Henry, denied all Yorkist claims
> anyway.
>
> In fact Henry's behaviour suggests he knew the boys were alive, or at least
> strongly suspected they were, because throughout his reign he was plagued by
> pretenders claiming to be one of the boys and yet he never, ever said, or
> even strongly hinted, "You can't be my brother-in-law because my
> brother-in-law is dead."
>

"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!

Carol responds:

Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.

Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.

Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.

Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)

So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.

Carol

  It could account for his apparent 'Reluctance' to rush into Marriage with Elizabeth, [Make Sure the lads are disposed of & secretly buried? ]

Professionally 'Dig' their Burial site? 

Might reveal Tudor or Yorkist Artefacts?
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:10
>Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>The closest thing I can think of to true Yorkist propaganda is "The Arrival of Edward IV", given in full on the documentationally rich RIII American branch site:
>
>http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: merriannmclain
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: Help Please
>>
>> > I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist
>> > propaganda???!!
>>
>> If you're prepared to take modern ecxamples, to some extent The Daughter of
>> Time by Josephine Tey is Yorkist propaganda. It's a wonderful and
>> beautifully-written book which examines Richard's true story, couched as a
>> historical investigation being undertaken by a modern detective who is in
>> hospital recovering from injuries. Her examination of Richard is excellent
>> and only makes one major and one minor error that I recall - she
>> understimates how widespread the rumour that the missing boys were dead was,
>> and she describes Richard as dark because she was influenced by a portrait
>> which had been darkened by yellowed varnish: in fact he had fair skin,
>> blue-grey eyes and rather fluffy-looking chestnut hair.
>>
>> Where the propaganda comes in is that having cleared Richard of murdering
>> his nephews she then pins their deaths onto Henry VII, with even less
>> evidence than the Tudors used to pin them on Richard (unless Perkin Warbeck,
>> whom Henry eventually had executed, really was one of them). Henry's
>> history suggests that he was no keener on killing kids than Richard was -
>> although he was more willing to keep them imprisoned - and her twin
>> arguments, that Henry needed to be secretive about whether they were alive
>> or not because it was he that had killed them, and that he absolutely had to
>> kill them because by re-legitimising their sister (whom he was marrying) he
>> made the elder boy king again, are largely spurious. If Henry had been so
>> ruthless as to murder two schoolboys there was then absolutely nothing to
>> prevent his saying that Richard had killed them, and it didn't matter to him
>> all *that* much if the boys were illegitimate or not because the elder boy
>> had never actually been annointed and he, Henry, denied all Yorkist claims
>> anyway.
>>
>> In fact Henry's behaviour suggests he knew the boys were alive, or at least
>> strongly suspected they were, because throughout his reign he was plagued by
>> pretenders claiming to be one of the boys and yet he never, ever said, or
>> even strongly hinted, "You can't be my brother-in-law because my
>> brother-in-law is dead."
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
Subject: Re: Help Please


 
"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!

Carol responds:

Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.

Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.

Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.

Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)

So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.

Carol

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Help Please


> It could account for his apparent 'Reluctance' to rush into Marriage
> with Elizabeth, [Make Sure the lads are disposed of & secretly buried? ]

But then why would he never ever say, or even strongly hint, that they were
dead?

> Might reveal Tudor or Yorkist Artefacts?

Roman ones, more like. It's a good point, though, assuming we actually know
where they were found. If they're Roman or Saxon there ought to be other
artefacts of the period down there and if there aren't, that would increase
the likelihood of their being later.

I'm not sure if we'd find Mediaeval artefacts there if they're the missing
boys, because in that case they would have been burried in a hastily dug
grave so you wouldn't find funeral goods or crockery or anything like that
which would last, just bits of clothing and/or shrouds. But if they're
Roman, then they were probably buried in an actual graveyard and there
should be signs of other graves nearby.

I recently Saw the Film 'Anonymous' which postulated that a Member of the Aristocracy, 
Persuaded Shakespeare to Claim to be the Playwright.

Assuming RIII Play was propaganda to please Elizabeth Ist, As I understand it the Play Richard II 
was used by Essex in an opposite way and played a part in his demise.

I would welcome comments,
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:03
>Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.
>
>Jonathan
>
>________________________________
>From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
>Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
>> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
>> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.
>
>Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.
>
>Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.
>
>Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)
>
>So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am sure that you are RIGHT that even if the exact place was found the Tower could reveal Artefacts of Any Era. 

However I will Always remember Philippa Langley when discovering that Richard's Back Was Abnormal. The danger of 'Pre-supposing' anything, [I suppose.]

How wonderful if the Tower grave site revealed a personal or clearly dated item. 
After Leicester ALL seems possible! 
[Sorry if ALL is shouting, it is NOT meant to be.- Former Professional Habit!!]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:16
>Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:56 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
>
>> It could account for his apparent 'Reluctance' to rush into Marriage
>> with Elizabeth, [Make Sure the lads are disposed of & secretly buried? ]
>
>But then why would he never ever say, or even strongly hint, that they were
>dead?
>
>> Might reveal Tudor or Yorkist Artefacts?
>
>Roman ones, more like. It's a good point, though, assuming we actually know
>where they were found. If they're Roman or Saxon there ought to be other
>artefacts of the period down there and if there aren't, that would increase
>the likelihood of their being later.
>
>I'm not sure if we'd find Mediaeval artefacts there if they're the missing
>boys, because in that case they would have been burried in a hastily dug
>grave so you wouldn't find funeral goods or crockery or anything like that
>which would last, just bits of clothing and/or shrouds. But if they're
>Roman, then they were probably buried in an actual graveyard and there
>should be signs of other graves nearby.
>
>
>
>
>

Too simple to see it as propaganda - I think Shakespeare was just looking for a rattling good story with an anti-hero who could compete with Marlowe's characters like Tamburlaine.

'Richard II' was dangerous because of the abdication - especially when Essex's supporters paid for a revival on the eve of the abortive rebellion.  I don't think any parallel with Elizabeth was intended, though.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:12
Subject: Re: Re: Help Please


 
I recently Saw the Film 'Anonymous' which postulated that a Member of the Aristocracy, 
Persuaded Shakespeare to Claim to be the Playwright.

Assuming RIII Play was propaganda to please Elizabeth Ist, As I understand it the Play Richard II 
was used by Essex in an opposite way and played a part in his demise.

I would welcome comments,
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:03
>Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.
>
>Jonathan
>
>________________________________
>From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
>Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
>> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
>> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.
>
>Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.
>
>Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.
>
>Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)
>
>So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol thank you for the very kind words and encouragement, also for reminding me where to start the process.  I realize that the working thesis is not focused enough for what I wish to say, perhaps something like "An inquiry into the historical fallacies of Richard III" or "...historical sources..."  I need that history thingy in there!

Thank you again!
merriann

An excellent point: in general, Shakespeare calls his historical plays "histories" and his fictions featuring legendary figures from English history "tragedies". That might have been either a wink at the reader that this was in no way to be considered a continuation of the histories, or possibly the printer realizing that this one wasn't quite as factually reliable as, say, Richard II. (If any of them were.)

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
> Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>
>  
> "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
> > Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
> > There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.
>
> Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.
>
> Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.
>
> Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)
>
> So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

The chain of custody on those remains is too broken to be able to say anything about them with any certainty; the bones interred at Westminster in 1678 are alleged to be the same as the ones unearthed by the workers in 1674, but even that isn't beyond question.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Arthurian
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
>
>
> > It could account for his apparent 'Reluctance' to rush into Marriage
> > with Elizabeth, [Make Sure the lads are disposed of & secretly buried? ]
>
> But then why would he never ever say, or even strongly hint, that they were
> dead?
>
> > Might reveal Tudor or Yorkist Artefacts?
>
> Roman ones, more like. It's a good point, though, assuming we actually know
> where they were found. If they're Roman or Saxon there ought to be other
> artefacts of the period down there and if there aren't, that would increase
> the likelihood of their being later.
>
> I'm not sure if we'd find Mediaeval artefacts there if they're the missing
> boys, because in that case they would have been burried in a hastily dug
> grave so you wouldn't find funeral goods or crockery or anything like that
> which would last, just bits of clothing and/or shrouds. But if they're
> Roman, then they were probably buried in an actual graveyard and there
> should be signs of other graves nearby.
>

[Scowling.] "Anonymous" is utterly irresponsible bunk. In fact, I bet you could make a good stab at being a great Shakespearean scholar if you just automatically assumed that anything you saw in "Anonymous" was completely untrue, and went from there.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> I recently Saw the Film 'Anonymous' which postulated that a Member of the Aristocracy, 
> Persuaded Shakespeare to Claim to be the Playwright.
>
> Assuming RIII Play was propaganda to please Elizabeth Ist, As I understand it the Play Richard II 
> was used by Essex in an opposite way and played a part in his demise.
>
> I would welcome comments,
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> >To: "" <>
> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:03
> >Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
> >
> >
> > 
> >Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
> >Subject: Re: Help Please
> >
> >
> > 
> >"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
> >> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
> >> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.
> >
> >Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.
> >
> >Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.
> >
> >Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)
> >
> >So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

I think there *are* hints in the text that not all "history" is reliable, as I've said before, but the use of "tragedy" in the title is more an indication that different dramatic conventions are at play; particularly Seneccan tragedy in this case.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

It seems reasonable to theorize that Shakespeare sure didn't intend it!

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Too simple to see it as propaganda - I think Shakespeare was just looking for a rattling good story with an anti-hero who could compete with Marlowe's characters like Tamburlaine.
>
> 'Richard II' was dangerous because of the abdication - especially when Essex's supporters paid for a revival on the eve of the abortive rebellion.  I don't think any parallel with Elizabeth was intended, though.
>
> Jonathan

That makes it just as historically accurate as his own plays.
----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Help Please



[Scowling.] "Anonymous" is utterly irresponsible bunk. In fact, I bet you could make a good stab at being a great Shakespearean scholar if you just automatically assumed that anything you saw in "Anonymous" was completely untrue, and went from there.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> I recently Saw the Film 'Anonymous' which postulated that a Member of the Aristocracy,Â
> Persuaded Shakespeare to Claim to be the Playwright.
>
> Assuming RIII Play was propaganda to please Elizabeth Ist, As I understand it the Play Richard IIÂ
> was used by Essex in an opposite way and played a part in his demise.
>
> I would welcome comments,
> Â
> Kind Regards,
> Â
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> >To: ">
> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:03
> >Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
> >
> >
> >Â
> >Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
> >Subject: Re: Help Please
> >
> >
> >Â
> >"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
> >> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
> >> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.
> >
> >Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.
> >
> >Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.
> >
> >Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)
> >
> >So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

As with Richard, DNA [Might] Tell?
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 16:41
>Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>The chain of custody on those remains is too broken to be able to say anything about them with any certainty; the bones interred at Westminster in 1678 are alleged to be the same as the ones unearthed by the workers in 1674, but even that isn't beyond question.
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Arthurian
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
>>
>>
>> > It could account for his apparent 'Reluctance' to rush into Marriage
>> > with Elizabeth, [Make Sure the lads are disposed of & secretly buried? ]
>>
>> But then why would he never ever say, or even strongly hint, that they were
>> dead?
>>
>> > Might reveal Tudor or Yorkist Artefacts?
>>
>> Roman ones, more like. It's a good point, though, assuming we actually know
>> where they were found. If they're Roman or Saxon there ought to be other
>> artefacts of the period down there and if there aren't, that would increase
>> the likelihood of their being later.
>>
>> I'm not sure if we'd find Mediaeval artefacts there if they're the missing
>> boys, because in that case they would have been burried in a hastily dug
>> grave so you wouldn't find funeral goods or crockery or anything like that
>> which would last, just bits of clothing and/or shrouds. But if they're
>> Roman, then they were probably buried in an actual graveyard and there
>> should be signs of other graves nearby.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

It Probably Is, however when Real facts are 'Sketchy'?

Recent Minds have Shakespeare as a Recusant Catholic and more!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 16:43
>Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>[Scowling.] "Anonymous" is utterly irresponsible bunk. In fact, I bet you could make a good stab at being a great Shakespearean scholar if you just automatically assumed that anything you saw in "Anonymous" was completely untrue, and went from there.
>
>--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>
>> I recently Saw the Film 'Anonymous' which postulated that a Member of the Aristocracy, 
>> Persuaded Shakespeare to Claim to be the Playwright.
>>
>> Assuming RIII Play was propaganda to please Elizabeth Ist, As I understand it the Play Richard II 
>> was used by Essex in an opposite way and played a part in his demise.
>>
>> I would welcome comments,
>>  
>> Kind Regards,
>>  
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>> >To: ">
>> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:03
>> >Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.
>> >
>> >Jonathan
>> >
>> >________________________________
>> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
>> >Subject: Re: Help Please
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
>> >> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
>> >> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!
>> >
>> >Carol responds:
>> >
>> >Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.
>> >
>> >Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.
>> >
>> >Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.
>> >
>> >Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)
>> >
>> >So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.
>> >
>> >Carol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 17:15
Subject: Re: Re: Help Please


> That makes it just as historically accurate as his own plays.

But rather less entertaining.

Jonathan






________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 17:15
Subject: Re: Re: Help Please


 
That makes it just as historically accurate as his own plays.
----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Help Please

[Scowling.] "Anonymous" is utterly irresponsible bunk. In fact, I bet you could make a good stab at being a great Shakespearean scholar if you just automatically assumed that anything you saw in "Anonymous" was completely untrue, and went from there.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> I recently Saw the Film 'Anonymous' which postulated that a Member of the Aristocracy,Â
> Persuaded Shakespeare to Claim to be the Playwright.
>
> Assuming RIII Play was propaganda to please Elizabeth Ist, As I understand it the Play Richard IIÂ
> was used by Essex in an opposite way and played a part in his demise.
>
> I would welcome comments,
> Â
> Kind Regards,
> Â
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> >To: ">
> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:03
> >Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
> >
> >
> >Â
> >Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
> >Subject: Re: Help Please
> >
> >
> >Â
> >"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
> >> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
> >> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.
> >
> >Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.
> >
> >Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.
> >
> >Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)
> >
> >So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Arthurian wrote:
>
>   It could account for his [Tudor's] apparent 'Reluctance' to rush into Marriage with Elizabeth, [snip]

Carol responds:

Yes, it certainly could, and for his claiming the crown "by right of conquest" rather than through marriage to Elizabeth, which he delayed by I forget how many months. He also delayed her coronation though she had already given him a son and heir.

Carol

Arthurwrote:
>
> I am sure that you are RIGHT that even if the exact place was found the Tower could reveal Artefacts of Any Era. 
>
> However I will Always remember Philippa Langley when discovering that Richard's Back Was Abnormal. The danger of 'Pre-supposing' anything, [I suppose.]
>
> How wonderful if the Tower grave site revealed a personal or clearly dated item. 

Carol responds:

Do you mean the spot where the bones were found? I'm not sure whether anyone still knows where it was. The workmen were "digging down some stairs" and found the bones ten feet deep under the foundations (a very unlikely place for a hasty secret burial, BTW). Does anyone know whether a new set of stairs was built to replace the old one?

In any case, the bones (which were apparently never full skeletons) were thrown on a rubbish heap until someone thought they might be those of the "princes," so any "artifacts" found would likely be seventeenth-century trash.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Help Please


> In any case, the bones (which were apparently never full skeletons)

Lending weight to the idea that they might be the remains of bodies burned
and partlially destroyed in the Boudicca war, or perhaps parts of
previouslycomplete skeletons disturbed from a pre-existing grave when the
foundations were laid. And if they were already disarticulated and
incomplete when found then they really *cannot* have been dressed in velvet
which disintegrated when exposed to the air - thus removing the only shred
of evidence that they are Mediaeval.

Merri Ann Mc Lain wrote:
>
> Carol thank you for the very kind words and encouragement, also for reminding me where to start the process.  I realize that the working thesis is not focused enough for what I wish to say, perhaps something like "An inquiry into the historical fallacies of Richard III" or "...historical sources..."  I need that history thingy in there!
>
> Thank you again!
> merriann

Carol responds:

You're welcome. It's the former English instructor coming out in me. I would change "of" to "surrounding" in your title if you're referring to Richard III, the man, or "in Shakespeare's 'Tragedy of Richard III'" if you mean the play. The thesis (main point) itself should be a complete sentence and it should be arguable (provable). Um, I'll be quiet now.

Good luck.

Carol

Yeah. So, Master Shakespeare, how's it feel to have a Hollywood studio do to you what you did to Richard III?

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> That makes it just as historically accurate as his own plays.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>
>
> [Scowling.] "Anonymous" is utterly irresponsible bunk. In fact, I bet you could make a good stab at being a great Shakespearean scholar if you just automatically assumed that anything you saw in "Anonymous" was completely untrue, and went from there.
>
> --- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@> wrote:
> >
> > I recently Saw the Film 'Anonymous' which postulated that a Member of the Aristocracy,Â
> > Persuaded Shakespeare to Claim to be the Playwright.
> >
> > Assuming RIII Play was propaganda to please Elizabeth Ist, As I understand it the Play Richard IIÂ
> > was used by Essex in an opposite way and played a part in his demise.
> >
> > I would welcome comments,
> > Â
> > Kind Regards,
> > Â
> > Arthur.
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@>
> > >To: "@[email protected]>
> > >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:03
> > >Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
> > >
> > >
> > >Â
> > >Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.
> > >
> > >Jonathan
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
> > >Subject: Re: Help Please
> > >
> > >
> > >Â
> > >"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
> > >> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
> > >> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!
> > >
> > >Carol responds:
> > >
> > >Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.
> > >
> > >Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.
> > >
> > >Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.
> > >
> > >Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)
> > >
> > >So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.
> > >
> > >Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Grinning.] I'd put five for ten on DNA testing revealing that whosever remains are in the urns, they don't belong to any member of the house of York, but I don't think anybody here would take it.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> As with Richard, DNA [Might] Tell?
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 16:41
> >Subject: Re: Help Please
> >
> >
> > 
> >The chain of custody on those remains is too broken to be able to say anything about them with any certainty; the bones interred at Westminster in 1678 are alleged to be the same as the ones unearthed by the workers in 1674, but even that isn't beyond question.
> >
> >--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Arthurian
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:56 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
> >>
> >>
> >> > It could account for his apparent 'Reluctance' to rush into Marriage
> >> > with Elizabeth, [Make Sure the lads are disposed of & secretly buried? ]
> >>
> >> But then why would he never ever say, or even strongly hint, that they were
> >> dead?
> >>
> >> > Might reveal Tudor or Yorkist Artefacts?
> >>
> >> Roman ones, more like. It's a good point, though, assuming we actually know
> >> where they were found. If they're Roman or Saxon there ought to be other
> >> artefacts of the period down there and if there aren't, that would increase
> >> the likelihood of their being later.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if we'd find Mediaeval artefacts there if they're the missing
> >> boys, because in that case they would have been burried in a hastily dug
> >> grave so you wouldn't find funeral goods or crockery or anything like that
> >> which would last, just bits of clothing and/or shrouds. But if they're
> >> Roman, then they were probably buried in an actual graveyard and there
> >> should be signs of other graves nearby.

If so, let's talk about how the Earl de Vere died years before Shakespeare's greatest tragedies were written. As this was well before the invention of the Ouija board, that makes it difficult to explain how Shakespeare went from fronting "Romeo and Juliet" to coming up with "Hamlet" and "King Lear" after the ostensible author died.

To me, the whole argument that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare is a holdover from a time in which class consciousness reigned supreme: how could this rural glover's elementary-schoolkid move to London and start writing these fantastic, world-changing dramas without so much as a university degree? Ben Jonson, himself a university boy, made the point that Shakespeare's genius wasn't bred in a classroom, but that it wasn't less genius for that. (The second part of Jonson's statement, after "small Latin and less Greek," is often omitted.) Every 19th-century arguer of the it-musta-been-somebody-else school is a member of the upper class. Pissed them right off.

The usual questions you get are about how Shakespeare knew so much about court procedure (judicial and regal), marine technology, warfare, herbology, and a host of other topics without, you know, being a knight/sailor/herbologist/magician. Gee, maybe the fact that the guy lived in London meant he had people he could... ask?

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> It Probably Is, however when Real facts are 'Sketchy'?
>
> Recent Minds have Shakespeare as a Recusant Catholic and more!!
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur Wright.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 16:43
> >Subject: Re: Help Please
> >
> >
> > 
> >[Scowling.] "Anonymous" is utterly irresponsible bunk. In fact, I bet you could make a good stab at being a great Shakespearean scholar if you just automatically assumed that anything you saw in "Anonymous" was completely untrue, and went from there.
> >
> >--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I recently Saw the Film 'Anonymous' which postulated that a Member of the Aristocracy, 
> >> Persuaded Shakespeare to Claim to be the Playwright.
> >>
> >> Assuming RIII Play was propaganda to please Elizabeth Ist, As I understand it the Play Richard II 
> >> was used by Essex in an opposite way and played a part in his demise.
> >>
> >> I would welcome comments,
> >>  
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>  
> >> Arthur.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >________________________________
> >> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@>
> >> >To: "@[email protected]>
> >> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:03
> >> >Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >Whilst debating history v theatre, don't forget that the first Quarto was titled 'The Tragedy of Richard III' as opposed to, for instance, 'The History of Henry IV'.
> >> >
> >> >Jonathan
> >> >
> >> >________________________________
> >> >From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> >> >To:
> >> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 14:50
> >> >Subject: Re: Help Please
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >"merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you for the (lofty) sentiments! Carol, I am saving the forums for Western Civilization and will cite, never fear.
> >> >> Perhaps I should rephrase my request: The thesis is: Richard III, history or theater. I intend to begin with More, and the running dog of rumor. I have Walpole (that was a surprising read...wonderful!) and Markham.
> >> >> There is a journal article: "Lees and Moonshine" which is both Shakespeare and history. Are there books/journal articles tying the play to propaganda...I want reinforcements here but scholars' articles. Where is the Yorkist propaganda???!!
> >> >
> >> >Carol responds:
> >> >
> >> >Excellent. It sounds as if you've been well taught. But More isn't the beginning of the legend. You need to have some idea of his sources, too (other than rumor and the hypothetical manuscript by Morton that he may have owned. He certainly read Vergil, and Vergil read Rous. More is already building on a foundation of legend. It's also important, as I think I said earlier, to have some familiarity with Mancini and the relevant pages of the Croyland chronicle to see what was actually being said in Richard's time or soon after and compare that with More and Shakespeare. There's very little Yorkist propaganda unless you want to cite the "Arrivall of Edward !V," which praises Richard's performance as a young soldier of eighteen.
> >> >
> >> >Charles Ross's biography (a moderate traditionalist work, meaning that the author thinks that Richard killed his nephews and was rather ruthless and ambitious but nevertheless concedes some good qualities), talks about the London chronicle and other early sources, which are notable for what they *don't* say. You need to know what More invents, what Hall and Holinshed (Shakespeare's sources) add to that, and what Shakespeare contributes to the already black legend. Don't forget that Shakespeare's Richard also appears as Gloucester in Henry VI, part 3, The distorted chronology is very important.
> >> >
> >> >Markham and his rival, Gairdner, are important in illustrating the polarized view of Richard in Victorian times, but you'll need more recent sources (the ones we've already listed) for modern (still polarized) views. Scarce as the sources are, a lot of material has come to light in the last hundred-plus years. Also, quite a bit of research has been done relating to the bones in the urn since Tanner and Wright "proved" (working backwards from the "true story" in More) that the bones were those of the "princes" killed on the orders of their uncle.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, one more thing. I would change the thesis since whether Shakespeare is "history or theater" is really not debatable given the distorted chronology alone. Maybe you could argue that theater *became* "history" when even people who ought to have known better (Hume, Gairdner, et al.) mistook Shakespeare as a historian and his version of Richard was taught in schools as fact. (If you want to see a modern "historian" who still swallows Shakespeare whole, take a look at Desmond Stewart's "England's Black Legend." Make sure that you're not sitting near a window since you'll want to throw the book at a wall!)
> >> >
> >> >So many sources, so little time! I'll be quiet and let you get to work. Good luck and let us know what your instructor thinks of your paper.
> >> >
> >> >Carol
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Help Please


> To me, the whole argument that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare is a
> holdover from a time in which class consciousness reigned supreme: how
> could this rural glover's elementary-schoolkid move to London and start
> writing these fantastic, world-changing dramas without so much as a
> university degree?

Partly that, yes, but also partly because there's little or no documentation
connecting the plays to the Will Shakespeare who lived in Stratford Upon
Avon. But to me that just suggests that possibly he might not be *the* Will
Shakespeare, but an uncle or cousin of the playwrite.

> The usual questions you get are about how Shakespeare knew so much about
> court procedure (judicial and regal), marine technology, warfare,
> herbology, and a host of other topics without, you know, being a
> knight/sailor/herbologist/magician. Gee, maybe the fact that the guy lived
> in London meant he had people he could... ask?

And he might perfectly well have been friends with de Vere, or any of the
other candidates, and have talked over plot points with them, without that
making them the author.

McJohn wrote:
>
> An excellent point: in general, Shakespeare calls his historical plays "histories" and his fictions featuring legendary figures from English history "tragedies". That might have been either a wink at the reader that this was in no way to be considered a continuation of the histories, or possibly the printer realizing that this one wasn't quite as factually reliable as, say, Richard II. (If any of them were.)

Carol responds:

That sounds like a valid distinction, but I'm afraid that Shakespeare didn't make it. Henry VI, Part 3, which introduces the villainous Gloucester (Richard) as a grown man fighting in battles that occurred while he was a child (and has Edmund of Rutland murdered at age twelve) was originally recorded as "The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the Whole Contention betweene the two Houses Lancaster and Yorke." "Richard II" is also billed as a "tragedie." The (equally unhistorical) Henry IV, Part 1, and Henry V, in contrast, are billed as histories: "The History of Henrie the Fourth, with the battell at Shrewsburie between the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Hotspur of the North, with the humorous conceits of Sir John Falstaffe" and "The cronicle history of Henry the fift, with his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient Pistoll."

"True Tragedie" suggests that he's blending genres, and he must have known that he was drastically condensing the chronology, altering known facts (such as they were), piling new and highly unrealistic deformities onto Richard, and inventing wholly imaginary dialogue (like Sir Thomas More before him).

Carol

Thank you Peggy. I did a bit of the reading today and I believe I have found my 'hook.' I found an engrossing article on Shakespeare and Memory. While the paper approached the play from a social standpoint, there was a large historical content - More, Fabyan, Mancini and Rous all in one document. My slant is now less calling into question the specific of history but the use of (slightly) historical content in a literary framework.
The argument is that human memory works in cycles of 20 to 30 years, revisiting pivotal events to re-evaluate them. Bosworth and Richard were such a moment.
"Richard III is not truly history nor simply theater, it is a literary exercise transcending memory and fact."
This from someone whose taste in poetry runs to "There once was a man from Alsace..."
Thanks again, Peggy!

--- In , PD <outtolaunch@...> wrote:
>
> I did my paper for a grad school Shakespeare course on the history
> behind the play. Part of my approach was to trace the accounts of various
> episodes (such as the death of Edward of Lancaster) from the earliest
> mentions through the Tudor additions/changes & on up to Shakespeare's play.
> I found* English Historical Documents vol. 4, 1327-1485* useful. Another
> helpful book was volume 3 of *Narrative and Dramatic Sources of
> Shakespeare*by Bullough. Thomas More was also useful. :-) When you
> come down to it and
> ignore all of the "some men deemeth" stuff, he tells you, for example, that
> Richard protested against the death of Clarence.
>
> Best of luck!
>
> Peggy
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM, merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>wrote:
>
> > I went out on a limb for one of my term papers. The class is Shakespeare
> > and you can probably guess that I am questioning the history of Richard
> > III. While I really enjoy the play, we all know its propaganda. I have
> > done quite a bit of research, but if anyone has material I can cite, please
> > send it along. Three weeks till my due date and I'm almost afraid of
> > writing, I don't want to disappoint His Grace or my professor who seems
> > please with my work to date (knock wood!!)
> > Thanks for any input!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Rufford Old Hall in Lancashire has records showing one 'Will Shakeshaft' visited there as a player.

Michael Wood covered this in his T.V. Series on the subject.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2013, 0:06
>Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>From: mcjohn_wt_net
>To:
>Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:45 PM
>Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>> To me, the whole argument that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare is a
>> holdover from a time in which class consciousness reigned supreme: how
>> could this rural glover's elementary-schoolkid move to London and start
>> writing these fantastic, world-changing dramas without so much as a
>> university degree?
>
>Partly that, yes, but also partly because there's little or no documentation
>connecting the plays to the Will Shakespeare who lived in Stratford Upon
>Avon. But to me that just suggests that possibly he might not be *the* Will
>Shakespeare, but an uncle or cousin of the playwrite.
>
>> The usual questions you get are about how Shakespeare knew so much about
>> court procedure (judicial and regal), marine technology, warfare,
>> herbology, and a host of other topics without, you know, being a
>> knight/sailor/herbologist/magician. Gee, maybe the fact that the guy lived
>> in London meant he had people he could... ask?
>
>And he might perfectly well have been friends with de Vere, or any of the
>other candidates, and have talked over plot points with them, without that
>making them the author.
>
>
>
>
>

It would make me feel better to think that he labeled his faction mashups so that readers would know not to take them as utter, unvarnished, uncompromised truth. If we lost the key later on, it wouldn't have been Shakespeare's doing.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> McJohn wrote:
> >
> > An excellent point: in general, Shakespeare calls his historical plays "histories" and his fictions featuring legendary figures from English history "tragedies". That might have been either a wink at the reader that this was in no way to be considered a continuation of the histories, or possibly the printer realizing that this one wasn't quite as factually reliable as, say, Richard II. (If any of them were.)
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That sounds like a valid distinction, but I'm afraid that Shakespeare didn't make it. Henry VI, Part 3, which introduces the villainous Gloucester (Richard) as a grown man fighting in battles that occurred while he was a child (and has Edmund of Rutland murdered at age twelve) was originally recorded as "The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the Whole Contention betweene the two Houses Lancaster and Yorke." "Richard II" is also billed as a "tragedie." The (equally unhistorical) Henry IV, Part 1, and Henry V, in contrast, are billed as histories: "The History of Henrie the Fourth, with the battell at Shrewsburie between the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Hotspur of the North, with the humorous conceits of Sir John Falstaffe" and "The cronicle history of Henry the fift, with his battell fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient Pistoll."
>
> "True Tragedie" suggests that he's blending genres, and he must have known that he was drastically condensing the chronology, altering known facts (such as they were), piling new and highly unrealistic deformities onto Richard, and inventing wholly imaginary dialogue (like Sir Thomas More before him).
>
> Carol
>

Generational memory shift, as past events are sifted either in consideration of additional research, or the loss of primary sources. There's a fascinating topic!

There's an example of a similar phenomenon in American economics. We had a period of what was, for the U.S., hyperinflation when I was a kid in the early 1970s. (I think the biggest reason was the abrupt spike in the price of fuel in the wake of what was then called the "Arab oil embargo", in that when you mess with the cost of a basic commodity, that tends to drive increases in costs of other basics, but that's just my opinion.) Although we're not talking anything like the disruptions in the German economy after World War I, it would be a mistake to consider 1970s inflation in the U.S. as mild or transitory: it was tough for people to make ends meet, and it is rightly remembered as a difficult time economically in this country.

By 1980, though, a curious thing had happened: every American economist of any note whatsoever had defined inflation as the very devil, the one thing the American economy had to avoid, no matter what machinations it took to avoid it. That opinion remained the majority attitude, driving policies in finance in both government and banking, for the next 30 years. It has only now started to lose its grip a little bit in favor of a notion that, if your economy is based on consumer spending, it makes sense to employ gainfully as many potential consumers as possible, so policies promoting employment are beneficial.

I think the real reason for the demonization of inflation as a threat to the economy stems from economists studying the fundamentals of their discipline during a time of economic upheaval. What you went through during your formative years is difficult to forget, and it impacted the careers of the professionals who ran the country's economic regulation for an entire generation.

Um... when you get the paper done, can we... uh... may we... read it?

--- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Peggy. I did a bit of the reading today and I believe I have found my 'hook.' I found an engrossing article on Shakespeare and Memory. While the paper approached the play from a social standpoint, there was a large historical content - More, Fabyan, Mancini and Rous all in one document. My slant is now less calling into question the specific of history but the use of (slightly) historical content in a literary framework.
> The argument is that human memory works in cycles of 20 to 30 years, revisiting pivotal events to re-evaluate them. Bosworth and Richard were such a moment.
> "Richard III is not truly history nor simply theater, it is a literary exercise transcending memory and fact."
> This from someone whose taste in poetry runs to "There once was a man from Alsace..."
> Thanks again, Peggy!

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Lending weight to the idea that they might be the remains of bodies burned and partlially destroyed in the Boudicca war, or perhaps parts of previously complete skeletons disturbed from a pre-existing grave when the foundations were laid. And if they were already disarticulated and incomplete when found then they really *cannot* have been dressed in velvet which disintegrated when exposed to the air - thus removing the only shred of evidence that they are Mediaeval.
>
Carol responds:

The bit about the scraps of velvet appears to be based on someone's after-the-fact assumption given that the original descriptions don't mention it and Tanner and Wright didn't find any (though they did find animal bones mixed with the human ones). Even the wooden chest in which they're often claimed to have been buried appears to be an assumptions since the original accounts follow "wooden chest" with "(as it seems)." The wording suggests that bits of wood were found with the skeletons and assumed to be a burial chest. Also, the original descriptions say "bones," not "skeletons," which suggests, as you say, that they were disarticulated. (Would complete skeletons in an intact wooden chest have been thrown on a rubbish heap? It seems highly unlikely.)

Carol

  Like Richard, there is a way to [Maybe?] find out.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2013, 19:08
>Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
>> Lending weight to the idea that they might be the remains of bodies burned and partlially destroyed in the Boudicca war, or perhaps parts of previously complete skeletons disturbed from a pre-existing grave when the foundations were laid. And if they were already disarticulated and incomplete when found then they really *cannot* have been dressed in velvet which disintegrated when exposed to the air - thus removing the only shred of evidence that they are Mediaeval.
>>
>Carol responds:
>
>The bit about the scraps of velvet appears to be based on someone's after-the-fact assumption given that the original descriptions don't mention it and Tanner and Wright didn't find any (though they did find animal bones mixed with the human ones). Even the wooden chest in which they're often claimed to have been buried appears to be an assumptions since the original accounts follow "wooden chest" with "(as it seems)." The wording suggests that bits of wood were found with the skeletons and assumed to be a burial chest. Also, the original descriptions say "bones," not "skeletons," which suggests, as you say, that they were disarticulated. (Would complete skeletons in an intact wooden chest have been thrown on a rubbish heap? It seems highly unlikely.)
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2013, 19:08
Subject: Re: Help Please


> Even the wooden chest in which they're often claimed to have been buried
> appears to be an assumptions since the original accounts follow "wooden
> chest" with "(as it seems)." The wording suggests that bits of wood were
> found with the skeletons and assumed to be a burial chest.

That seems feasible but the London soil is wet clay, which should preserve
wood quite well: I don't think wooden chests which were ... when were they
first found? mid 17th C, wasn't it? ... less than 200 years old when they
were exhumed would have been that far perished. So again, it sounds as
though when the foundations were laid they accidentally disturbed a coffin
burial in a Roman or Saxon graveyard.

   To me it 'Sounds as if ' We need to 'Investigate Fully' using Modern Methods, the time for guessing is OVER, That is, if we learned 'Anything from the Leicester / Richard Dig'.

   I REALLY Apologise if the above sounds 'Rude' or 'Disrespectful' however in Tandem with Richard's investigation MUST Surely go the rest of the 'Investigation', We may learn nothing New, but reading the Love, Praise, Curses and Damnation heaped on both the 'Quick & the [Long & not so Long] Dead'.

  Recently, I think in Scotland, a Grave was opened to try to determine the TRUTH as to an individual being a 'Child Killer', if we can use D.N.A. & Other Scientific methods to try to determine TRUTH in cases such as this, then those that involve our Nations History but cause NO harm to living people ---




 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 14:56
>Subject: Re: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2013, 19:08
>Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>> Even the wooden chest in which they're often claimed to have been buried
>> appears to be an assumptions since the original accounts follow "wooden
>> chest" with "(as it seems)." The wording suggests that bits of wood were
>> found with the skeletons and assumed to be a burial chest.
>
>That seems feasible but the London soil is wet clay, which should preserve
>wood quite well: I don't think wooden chests which were ... when were they
>first found? mid 17th C, wasn't it? ... less than 200 years old when they
>were exhumed would have been that far perished. So again, it sounds as
>though when the foundations were laid they accidentally disturbed a coffin
>burial in a Roman or Saxon graveyard.
>
>
>
>
>

I am sure you are Right, I was just hoping for the rest of the 'Puzzle', 
however who knows for sure till we try? 

Richard's grave was a 'Long Shot'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 20:17
>Subject: Re: Help Please
>
>
> 
>
>Arthurwrote:
>>
>> I am sure that you are RIGHT that even if the exact place was found the Tower could reveal Artefacts of Any Era. 
>>
>> However I will Always remember Philippa Langley when discovering that Richard's Back Was Abnormal. The danger of 'Pre-supposing' anything, [I suppose.]
>>
>> How wonderful if the Tower grave site revealed a personal or clearly dated item. 
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Do you mean the spot where the bones were found? I'm not sure whether anyone still knows where it was. The workmen were "digging down some stairs" and found the bones ten feet deep under the foundations (a very unlikely place for a hasty secret burial, BTW). Does anyone know whether a new set of stairs was built to replace the old one?
>
>In any case, the bones (which were apparently never full skeletons) were thrown on a rubbish heap until someone thought they might be those of the "princes," so any "artifacts" found would likely be seventeenth-century trash.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>