Ricardian Bulletin
Ricardian Bulletin
2013-04-03 16:29:31
Somehow, this has only come through (so far) in a reply from Maire, so I hope I'm not confusing things more by responding:
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. As I said to another poster, > I have no
> problem with Richard having scoiliosis, in fact it wouldn't bother > me if he was
> four foot with a wooden leg, but what I am interested in is truth. > And we have
> no evidence whatsoever other than from Rous who said he had one
> shoulder higher
> than the other
Yes, as I said, we really need a proper medical opinion because we've had lots of varying interpretations from different people, all highly qualified in their own disciplines, but not in assessing degrees of scoliosis. But the worst anyone's said is that one shoulder may have been a little higher than the other - possibly invisibly with tailored clothing, or possibly visibly to a small degree, as Rouse states. I don't see anything problematic so far.
> And frankly, if the term 'deformity' is not PC now why is
> it PC to use it in respect of someone from another century
Lansdale and Boon were looking at what a 15th Century perception of scoliosis might have been; particularly Richard's perception of himself without the modern get-out clause of "oh, it's just genetics". I suppose the sub-header didn't need to use the word, but the fact that it has such negative connotations (hence it being a non-pc concept now) is central to the speculation.
> I'm a great admirer of Ian Mortimer, in fact it's a pity he doesn't > write on
> Richard, he's probably the best historian of this period that we
> have. It's his
> statement that the Society's purpose is 're-assessment of the
> material, not the
> rehabilitation of the man' that worries me. I know historians
> should maintain,
> wherever possible, a lack of bias and that's what he's getting at, > but would
> the Society really be there if we thought we were seeking to prove > a villain?
I think, in a sense, it comes down to semantics. The weight of evidence suggests absolutely that Richard was *not* a villain, therefore rehabilitation is best achieved by the objective presentation of it. Anything that smacks of special pleading can only be counter-productive. If people think we have a pre-conceived view, they'll feel justified in ignoring anything we say.
> And I have to say I haven't seen it rushing to Richard's defence
> when all and
> sundry continue to make headlines about finding the murderous
> hunchback.
That I can't comment on. I don't know how much the Society has tried to do, and how much it's been listened to or ignored.
> As for Ian being a member, I very much doubt it, but I wish he
> were. Â
I thought I'd read on here some while back that he at least used to be a member. I'd be surprised if he weren't currently one, because to write to the Bulletin - a comparatively obscure, members-only news publication, rather than an academic journal - would seem an odd thing for a non-member to do.
Jonathan
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. As I said to another poster, > I have no
> problem with Richard having scoiliosis, in fact it wouldn't bother > me if he was
> four foot with a wooden leg, but what I am interested in is truth. > And we have
> no evidence whatsoever other than from Rous who said he had one
> shoulder higher
> than the other
Yes, as I said, we really need a proper medical opinion because we've had lots of varying interpretations from different people, all highly qualified in their own disciplines, but not in assessing degrees of scoliosis. But the worst anyone's said is that one shoulder may have been a little higher than the other - possibly invisibly with tailored clothing, or possibly visibly to a small degree, as Rouse states. I don't see anything problematic so far.
> And frankly, if the term 'deformity' is not PC now why is
> it PC to use it in respect of someone from another century
Lansdale and Boon were looking at what a 15th Century perception of scoliosis might have been; particularly Richard's perception of himself without the modern get-out clause of "oh, it's just genetics". I suppose the sub-header didn't need to use the word, but the fact that it has such negative connotations (hence it being a non-pc concept now) is central to the speculation.
> I'm a great admirer of Ian Mortimer, in fact it's a pity he doesn't > write on
> Richard, he's probably the best historian of this period that we
> have. It's his
> statement that the Society's purpose is 're-assessment of the
> material, not the
> rehabilitation of the man' that worries me. I know historians
> should maintain,
> wherever possible, a lack of bias and that's what he's getting at, > but would
> the Society really be there if we thought we were seeking to prove > a villain?
I think, in a sense, it comes down to semantics. The weight of evidence suggests absolutely that Richard was *not* a villain, therefore rehabilitation is best achieved by the objective presentation of it. Anything that smacks of special pleading can only be counter-productive. If people think we have a pre-conceived view, they'll feel justified in ignoring anything we say.
> And I have to say I haven't seen it rushing to Richard's defence
> when all and
> sundry continue to make headlines about finding the murderous
> hunchback.
That I can't comment on. I don't know how much the Society has tried to do, and how much it's been listened to or ignored.
> As for Ian being a member, I very much doubt it, but I wish he
> were. Â
I thought I'd read on here some while back that he at least used to be a member. I'd be surprised if he weren't currently one, because to write to the Bulletin - a comparatively obscure, members-only news publication, rather than an academic journal - would seem an odd thing for a non-member to do.
Jonathan
Re: Ricardian Bulletin
2013-04-03 17:05:59
No, the website has being doing peculiar things for the last day or two.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing; it's just if the bulletin got passed to a journalist (as well it might at present) then the word 'Deformity' sends out all the wrong signals - back to Anthony Sher, Olivier's leg brace, you name it. We read it because it's our subject, but others skim. As you said to Maire, what people look like shouldn't really matter, but we live in an age where it does, more than ever.
And it will be so hard now for the Leicester team to retract Jo Appleby's hunchback statement. Can you imagine them putting out a bulletin saying 'er, we got it wrong, an expert's had another look and the bones probably got distorted in the grave'. I doubt it's going to happen.
As for Mortimer, I've read all his books, I think he's great but I'm sure Paul or someone said he'd written a hostile article since the find which doesn't chime with him being a member of the Society. He might have joined since though, I hope so. I don't mind a new more complex assessment of Richard, it's long overdue.
I have to say I think the bulletin still comes over a bit like a parish magazine. Perhaps with more membership and a bit of sponsorship from advertising they could do a more slick job?
So I think we actually agree to meet at least 50/50? Cheers H
--- In , "Jonathan" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Somehow, this has only come through (so far) in a reply from Maire, so I hope I'm not confusing things more by responding:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. As I said to another poster, > I have no
> > problem with Richard having scoiliosis, in fact it wouldn't bother > me if he was
> > four foot with a wooden leg, but what I am interested in is truth. > And we have
> > no evidence whatsoever other than from Rous who said he had one
> > shoulder higher
> > than the other
>
>
> Yes, as I said, we really need a proper medical opinion because we've had lots of varying interpretations from different people, all highly qualified in their own disciplines, but not in assessing degrees of scoliosis. But the worst anyone's said is that one shoulder may have been a little higher than the other - possibly invisibly with tailored clothing, or possibly visibly to a small degree, as Rouse states. I don't see anything problematic so far.
>
>
> > And frankly, if the term 'deformity' is not PC now why is
> > it PC to use it in respect of someone from another century
>
>
> Lansdale and Boon were looking at what a 15th Century perception of scoliosis might have been; particularly Richard's perception of himself without the modern get-out clause of "oh, it's just genetics". I suppose the sub-header didn't need to use the word, but the fact that it has such negative connotations (hence it being a non-pc concept now) is central to the speculation.
>
>
> > I'm a great admirer of Ian Mortimer, in fact it's a pity he doesn't > write on
> > Richard, he's probably the best historian of this period that we
> > have. It's his
> > statement that the Society's purpose is 're-assessment of the
> > material, not the
> > rehabilitation of the man' that worries me. I know historians
> > should maintain,
> > wherever possible, a lack of bias and that's what he's getting at, > but would
> > the Society really be there if we thought we were seeking to prove > a villain?
>
>
> I think, in a sense, it comes down to semantics. The weight of evidence suggests absolutely that Richard was *not* a villain, therefore rehabilitation is best achieved by the objective presentation of it. Anything that smacks of special pleading can only be counter-productive. If people think we have a pre-conceived view, they'll feel justified in ignoring anything we say.
>
>
> > And I have to say I haven't seen it rushing to Richard's defence
> > when all and
> > sundry continue to make headlines about finding the murderous
> > hunchback.
>
>
> That I can't comment on. I don't know how much the Society has tried to do, and how much it's been listened to or ignored.
>
>
> > As for Ian being a member, I very much doubt it, but I wish he
> > were. Â
>
>
> I thought I'd read on here some while back that he at least used to be a member. I'd be surprised if he weren't currently one, because to write to the Bulletin - a comparatively obscure, members-only news publication, rather than an academic journal - would seem an odd thing for a non-member to do.
>
> Jonathan
>
I don't think we're actually disagreeing; it's just if the bulletin got passed to a journalist (as well it might at present) then the word 'Deformity' sends out all the wrong signals - back to Anthony Sher, Olivier's leg brace, you name it. We read it because it's our subject, but others skim. As you said to Maire, what people look like shouldn't really matter, but we live in an age where it does, more than ever.
And it will be so hard now for the Leicester team to retract Jo Appleby's hunchback statement. Can you imagine them putting out a bulletin saying 'er, we got it wrong, an expert's had another look and the bones probably got distorted in the grave'. I doubt it's going to happen.
As for Mortimer, I've read all his books, I think he's great but I'm sure Paul or someone said he'd written a hostile article since the find which doesn't chime with him being a member of the Society. He might have joined since though, I hope so. I don't mind a new more complex assessment of Richard, it's long overdue.
I have to say I think the bulletin still comes over a bit like a parish magazine. Perhaps with more membership and a bit of sponsorship from advertising they could do a more slick job?
So I think we actually agree to meet at least 50/50? Cheers H
--- In , "Jonathan" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Somehow, this has only come through (so far) in a reply from Maire, so I hope I'm not confusing things more by responding:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. As I said to another poster, > I have no
> > problem with Richard having scoiliosis, in fact it wouldn't bother > me if he was
> > four foot with a wooden leg, but what I am interested in is truth. > And we have
> > no evidence whatsoever other than from Rous who said he had one
> > shoulder higher
> > than the other
>
>
> Yes, as I said, we really need a proper medical opinion because we've had lots of varying interpretations from different people, all highly qualified in their own disciplines, but not in assessing degrees of scoliosis. But the worst anyone's said is that one shoulder may have been a little higher than the other - possibly invisibly with tailored clothing, or possibly visibly to a small degree, as Rouse states. I don't see anything problematic so far.
>
>
> > And frankly, if the term 'deformity' is not PC now why is
> > it PC to use it in respect of someone from another century
>
>
> Lansdale and Boon were looking at what a 15th Century perception of scoliosis might have been; particularly Richard's perception of himself without the modern get-out clause of "oh, it's just genetics". I suppose the sub-header didn't need to use the word, but the fact that it has such negative connotations (hence it being a non-pc concept now) is central to the speculation.
>
>
> > I'm a great admirer of Ian Mortimer, in fact it's a pity he doesn't > write on
> > Richard, he's probably the best historian of this period that we
> > have. It's his
> > statement that the Society's purpose is 're-assessment of the
> > material, not the
> > rehabilitation of the man' that worries me. I know historians
> > should maintain,
> > wherever possible, a lack of bias and that's what he's getting at, > but would
> > the Society really be there if we thought we were seeking to prove > a villain?
>
>
> I think, in a sense, it comes down to semantics. The weight of evidence suggests absolutely that Richard was *not* a villain, therefore rehabilitation is best achieved by the objective presentation of it. Anything that smacks of special pleading can only be counter-productive. If people think we have a pre-conceived view, they'll feel justified in ignoring anything we say.
>
>
> > And I have to say I haven't seen it rushing to Richard's defence
> > when all and
> > sundry continue to make headlines about finding the murderous
> > hunchback.
>
>
> That I can't comment on. I don't know how much the Society has tried to do, and how much it's been listened to or ignored.
>
>
> > As for Ian being a member, I very much doubt it, but I wish he
> > were. Â
>
>
> I thought I'd read on here some while back that he at least used to be a member. I'd be surprised if he weren't currently one, because to write to the Bulletin - a comparatively obscure, members-only news publication, rather than an academic journal - would seem an odd thing for a non-member to do.
>
> Jonathan
>
Re: Ricardian Bulletin
2013-04-03 20:06:51
Having to reply via the groups page and hope at the moment!
Yes, I think we do agree much more than disagree - just perhaps approaching things from slightly different perspectives.
Re Mortimer and possible Society membership, I guess there are conviction members and academic members and, while it's possible to be both, as evidenced by this list, some might be exclusively one or the other. And I could easily see a medievalist like Mortimer thinking an annual sub worthwhile in order to access some genuinely good scholarship.
I quickly searched for the article you mention, and think I found it. Unfortunately, it's behind a Times pay-wall, but the headline and first para make the heart sink. But, interestingly, I found a much more open-minded interview with him that he did for the Society in about 2009. Maybe his position has hardened since, or maybe it was just journalism deliberately swimming against the stream. And, as Hector says in 'The History Boys', journalism and history are two very different things...
Cheers
Jonathan
--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> No, the website has being doing peculiar things for the last day or two.
>
> I don't think we're actually disagreeing; it's just if the bulletin got passed to a journalist (as well it might at present) then the word 'Deformity' sends out all the wrong signals - back to Anthony Sher, Olivier's leg brace, you name it. We read it because it's our subject, but others skim. As you said to Maire, what people look like shouldn't really matter, but we live in an age where it does, more than ever.
>
> And it will be so hard now for the Leicester team to retract Jo Appleby's hunchback statement. Can you imagine them putting out a bulletin saying 'er, we got it wrong, an expert's had another look and the bones probably got distorted in the grave'. I doubt it's going to happen.
>
> As for Mortimer, I've read all his books, I think he's great but I'm sure Paul or someone said he'd written a hostile article since the find which doesn't chime with him being a member of the Society. He might have joined since though, I hope so. I don't mind a new more complex assessment of Richard, it's long overdue.
>
> I have to say I think the bulletin still comes over a bit like a parish magazine. Perhaps with more membership and a bit of sponsorship from advertising they could do a more slick job?
>
> So I think we actually agree to meet at least 50/50? Cheers H
>
> --- In , "Jonathan" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Somehow, this has only come through (so far) in a reply from Maire, so I hope I'm not confusing things more by responding:
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. As I said to another poster, > I have no
> > > problem with Richard having scoiliosis, in fact it wouldn't bother > me if he was
> > > four foot with a wooden leg, but what I am interested in is truth. > And we have
> > > no evidence whatsoever other than from Rous who said he had one
> > > shoulder higher
> > > than the other
> >
> >
> > Yes, as I said, we really need a proper medical opinion because we've had lots of varying interpretations from different people, all highly qualified in their own disciplines, but not in assessing degrees of scoliosis. But the worst anyone's said is that one shoulder may have been a little higher than the other - possibly invisibly with tailored clothing, or possibly visibly to a small degree, as Rouse states. I don't see anything problematic so far.
> >
> >
> > > And frankly, if the term 'deformity' is not PC now why is
> > > it PC to use it in respect of someone from another century
> >
> >
> > Lansdale and Boon were looking at what a 15th Century perception of scoliosis might have been; particularly Richard's perception of himself without the modern get-out clause of "oh, it's just genetics". I suppose the sub-header didn't need to use the word, but the fact that it has such negative connotations (hence it being a non-pc concept now) is central to the speculation.
> >
> >
> > > I'm a great admirer of Ian Mortimer, in fact it's a pity he doesn't > write on
> > > Richard, he's probably the best historian of this period that we
> > > have. It's his
> > > statement that the Society's purpose is 're-assessment of the
> > > material, not the
> > > rehabilitation of the man' that worries me. I know historians
> > > should maintain,
> > > wherever possible, a lack of bias and that's what he's getting at, > but would
> > > the Society really be there if we thought we were seeking to prove > a villain?
> >
> >
> > I think, in a sense, it comes down to semantics. The weight of evidence suggests absolutely that Richard was *not* a villain, therefore rehabilitation is best achieved by the objective presentation of it. Anything that smacks of special pleading can only be counter-productive. If people think we have a pre-conceived view, they'll feel justified in ignoring anything we say.
> >
> >
> > > And I have to say I haven't seen it rushing to Richard's defence
> > > when all and
> > > sundry continue to make headlines about finding the murderous
> > > hunchback.
> >
> >
> > That I can't comment on. I don't know how much the Society has tried to do, and how much it's been listened to or ignored.
> >
> >
> > > As for Ian being a member, I very much doubt it, but I wish he
> > > were. Â
> >
> >
> > I thought I'd read on here some while back that he at least used to be a member. I'd be surprised if he weren't currently one, because to write to the Bulletin - a comparatively obscure, members-only news publication, rather than an academic journal - would seem an odd thing for a non-member to do.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
Yes, I think we do agree much more than disagree - just perhaps approaching things from slightly different perspectives.
Re Mortimer and possible Society membership, I guess there are conviction members and academic members and, while it's possible to be both, as evidenced by this list, some might be exclusively one or the other. And I could easily see a medievalist like Mortimer thinking an annual sub worthwhile in order to access some genuinely good scholarship.
I quickly searched for the article you mention, and think I found it. Unfortunately, it's behind a Times pay-wall, but the headline and first para make the heart sink. But, interestingly, I found a much more open-minded interview with him that he did for the Society in about 2009. Maybe his position has hardened since, or maybe it was just journalism deliberately swimming against the stream. And, as Hector says in 'The History Boys', journalism and history are two very different things...
Cheers
Jonathan
--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> No, the website has being doing peculiar things for the last day or two.
>
> I don't think we're actually disagreeing; it's just if the bulletin got passed to a journalist (as well it might at present) then the word 'Deformity' sends out all the wrong signals - back to Anthony Sher, Olivier's leg brace, you name it. We read it because it's our subject, but others skim. As you said to Maire, what people look like shouldn't really matter, but we live in an age where it does, more than ever.
>
> And it will be so hard now for the Leicester team to retract Jo Appleby's hunchback statement. Can you imagine them putting out a bulletin saying 'er, we got it wrong, an expert's had another look and the bones probably got distorted in the grave'. I doubt it's going to happen.
>
> As for Mortimer, I've read all his books, I think he's great but I'm sure Paul or someone said he'd written a hostile article since the find which doesn't chime with him being a member of the Society. He might have joined since though, I hope so. I don't mind a new more complex assessment of Richard, it's long overdue.
>
> I have to say I think the bulletin still comes over a bit like a parish magazine. Perhaps with more membership and a bit of sponsorship from advertising they could do a more slick job?
>
> So I think we actually agree to meet at least 50/50? Cheers H
>
> --- In , "Jonathan" <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Somehow, this has only come through (so far) in a reply from Maire, so I hope I'm not confusing things more by responding:
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. As I said to another poster, > I have no
> > > problem with Richard having scoiliosis, in fact it wouldn't bother > me if he was
> > > four foot with a wooden leg, but what I am interested in is truth. > And we have
> > > no evidence whatsoever other than from Rous who said he had one
> > > shoulder higher
> > > than the other
> >
> >
> > Yes, as I said, we really need a proper medical opinion because we've had lots of varying interpretations from different people, all highly qualified in their own disciplines, but not in assessing degrees of scoliosis. But the worst anyone's said is that one shoulder may have been a little higher than the other - possibly invisibly with tailored clothing, or possibly visibly to a small degree, as Rouse states. I don't see anything problematic so far.
> >
> >
> > > And frankly, if the term 'deformity' is not PC now why is
> > > it PC to use it in respect of someone from another century
> >
> >
> > Lansdale and Boon were looking at what a 15th Century perception of scoliosis might have been; particularly Richard's perception of himself without the modern get-out clause of "oh, it's just genetics". I suppose the sub-header didn't need to use the word, but the fact that it has such negative connotations (hence it being a non-pc concept now) is central to the speculation.
> >
> >
> > > I'm a great admirer of Ian Mortimer, in fact it's a pity he doesn't > write on
> > > Richard, he's probably the best historian of this period that we
> > > have. It's his
> > > statement that the Society's purpose is 're-assessment of the
> > > material, not the
> > > rehabilitation of the man' that worries me. I know historians
> > > should maintain,
> > > wherever possible, a lack of bias and that's what he's getting at, > but would
> > > the Society really be there if we thought we were seeking to prove > a villain?
> >
> >
> > I think, in a sense, it comes down to semantics. The weight of evidence suggests absolutely that Richard was *not* a villain, therefore rehabilitation is best achieved by the objective presentation of it. Anything that smacks of special pleading can only be counter-productive. If people think we have a pre-conceived view, they'll feel justified in ignoring anything we say.
> >
> >
> > > And I have to say I haven't seen it rushing to Richard's defence
> > > when all and
> > > sundry continue to make headlines about finding the murderous
> > > hunchback.
> >
> >
> > That I can't comment on. I don't know how much the Society has tried to do, and how much it's been listened to or ignored.
> >
> >
> > > As for Ian being a member, I very much doubt it, but I wish he
> > > were. Â
> >
> >
> > I thought I'd read on here some while back that he at least used to be a member. I'd be surprised if he weren't currently one, because to write to the Bulletin - a comparatively obscure, members-only news publication, rather than an academic journal - would seem an odd thing for a non-member to do.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.