Re: [Richard III Society Forum] More, was Re: Changing History?

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

> Disagree totally. More was a cruel and self
> interested hypocrite who led himself to the
> block with his obstinacy. Little of the real
> man in Man For All Seasons!

I have to agree with Paul here. Anybody who could
work for Tudor Jr. for over two decades before
something finally made him choke obviously wasn't
_too_ dedicated to principles. Besides, while it's
not impossible he could have grown up with a man like
Morton and still turned out honest- it's pretty darn
unlikely.


Take care,
Rogue

I didn`t say More`s principles were right, but that he
lived (and died) by them. I`m quite aware that he had
Lutherans and other "non-believers" burnt for heresy etc,
and probably revelled in it. But to do that he must have
been a man with strong (albeit perhaps cruel) beliefs,
which also accounts for his obstinacy. But it doesn`t
mean that he agreed during his translation of Morton`s
work with all of Morton`s versions of events.

As for More spending time with Morton, More was only
21/22 when Morton died so he wasn`t really with him
for decades.

If there`s one play/movie I detest above all others
it`s "A Man for all Seasons". It`s as historically
misleading as Shakespeare`s Richard III and many more
of the same ilk that I could name.

Alan

=====================

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> > Disagree totally. More was a cruel and self
> > interested hypocrite who led himself to the
> > block with his obstinacy. Little of the real
> > man in Man For All Seasons!
>
> I have to agree with Paul here. Anybody who could
> work for Tudor Jr. for over two decades before
> something finally made him choke obviously wasn't
> _too_ dedicated to principles. Besides, while it's
> not impossible he could have grown up with a man like
> Morton and still turned out honest- it's pretty darn
> unlikely.
>
>
> Take care,
> Rogue
>

Sorry Rogue. I`ve just realised that by Tudor Jr., you
meant Henry VIII. For some reason I thought you were
being you were using sarcasm on Morton. Just how long
was More with Morton, does anyone know?

Alan

================


--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> I didn`t say More`s principles were right, but that he
> lived (and died) by them. I`m quite aware that he had
> Lutherans and other "non-believers" burnt for heresy etc,
> and probably revelled in it. But to do that he must have
> been a man with strong (albeit perhaps cruel) beliefs,
> which also accounts for his obstinacy. But it doesn`t
> mean that he agreed during his translation of Morton`s
> work with all of Morton`s versions of events.
>
> As for More spending time with Morton, More was only
> 21/22 when Morton died so he wasn`t really with him
> for decades.
>
> If there`s one play/movie I detest above all others
> it`s "A Man for all Seasons". It`s as historically
> misleading as Shakespeare`s Richard III and many more
> of the same ilk that I could name.
>
> Alan
>
> =====================
>
> --- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > > Disagree totally. More was a cruel and self
> > > interested hypocrite who led himself to the
> > > block with his obstinacy. Little of the real
> > > man in Man For All Seasons!
> >
> > I have to agree with Paul here. Anybody who could
> > work for Tudor Jr. for over two decades before
> > something finally made him choke obviously wasn't
> > _too_ dedicated to principles. Besides, while it's
> > not impossible he could have grown up with a man like
> > Morton and still turned out honest- it's pretty darn
> > unlikely.
> >
> >
> > Take care,
> > Rogue
> >
>

I don't believe anyone knows, and I don't think any of
the scholars are terribly certain about Morton being
the source of More's narrative, much less the author
of the Latin version.

--- alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:

> Sorry Rogue. I`ve just realised that by Tudor Jr.,
> you
> meant Henry VIII. For some reason I thought you were
>
> being you were using sarcasm on Morton. Just how
> long
> was More with Morton, does anyone know?
>
> Alan
>
> ================
>
>
> --- In ,
> "alanth252"
> <alanth252@...> wrote:
> >
> > I didn`t say More`s principles were right, but
> that he
> > lived (and died) by them. I`m quite aware that he
> had
> > Lutherans and other "non-believers" burnt for
> heresy etc,
> > and probably revelled in it. But to do that he
> must have
> > been a man with strong (albeit perhaps cruel)
> beliefs,
> > which also accounts for his obstinacy. But it
> doesn`t
> > mean that he agreed during his translation of
> Morton`s
> > work with all of Morton`s versions of events.
> >
> > As for More spending time with Morton, More was
> only
> > 21/22 when Morton died so he wasn`t really with
> him
> > for decades.
> >
> > If there`s one play/movie I detest above all
> others
> > it`s "A Man for all Seasons". It`s as historically
>
> > misleading as Shakespeare`s Richard III and many
> more
> > of the same ilk that I could name.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > =====================
> >
> > --- In ,
> "Rogue" <roguefem@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > > Disagree totally. More was a cruel and self
> > > > interested hypocrite who led himself to the
> > > > block with his obstinacy. Little of the real
> > > > man in Man For All Seasons!
> > >
> > > I have to agree with Paul here. Anybody who
> could
> > > work for Tudor Jr. for over two decades before
> > > something finally made him choke obviously
> wasn't
> > > _too_ dedicated to principles. Besides, while
> it's
> > > not impossible he could have grown up with a man
> like
> > > Morton and still turned out honest- it's pretty
> darn
> > > unlikely.
> > >
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > Rogue
> > >
> >
>
>
>

This whole Richard III saga is a mystery in an emigma in a puzzle in
a conundrum in a mystery, as so are all the players in it.

Thanks for the info on the other thread Laura. Even though I`m partly
immobile, I may be able to check out the Queen`s library. Thanks for
your trouble, and also to all on the forum for their info on Mancini
etc.

Alan

======================


--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@...> wrote:
>
> I don't believe anyone knows, and I don't think any of
> the scholars are terribly certain about Morton being
> the source of More's narrative, much less the author
> of the Latin version.
>
> --- alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Rogue. I`ve just realised that by Tudor Jr.,
> > you
> > meant Henry VIII. For some reason I thought you were
> >
> > being you were using sarcasm on Morton. Just how
> > long
> > was More with Morton, does anyone know?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > ================
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> > "alanth252"
> > <alanth252@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn`t say More`s principles were right, but
> > that he
> > > lived (and died) by them. I`m quite aware that he
> > had
> > > Lutherans and other "non-believers" burnt for
> > heresy etc,
> > > and probably revelled in it. But to do that he
> > must have
> > > been a man with strong (albeit perhaps cruel)
> > beliefs,
> > > which also accounts for his obstinacy. But it
> > doesn`t
> > > mean that he agreed during his translation of
> > Morton`s
> > > work with all of Morton`s versions of events.
> > >
> > > As for More spending time with Morton, More was
> > only
> > > 21/22 when Morton died so he wasn`t really with
> > him
> > > for decades.
> > >
> > > If there`s one play/movie I detest above all
> > others
> > > it`s "A Man for all Seasons". It`s as historically
> >
> > > misleading as Shakespeare`s Richard III and many
> > more
> > > of the same ilk that I could name.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > =====================
> > >
> > > --- In ,
> > "Rogue" <roguefem@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disagree totally. More was a cruel and self
> > > > > interested hypocrite who led himself to the
> > > > > block with his obstinacy. Little of the real
> > > > > man in Man For All Seasons!
> > > >
> > > > I have to agree with Paul here. Anybody who
> > could
> > > > work for Tudor Jr. for over two decades before
> > > > something finally made him choke obviously
> > wasn't
> > > > _too_ dedicated to principles. Besides, while
> > it's
> > > > not impossible he could have grown up with a man
> > like
> > > > Morton and still turned out honest- it's pretty
> > darn
> > > > unlikely.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Take care,
> > > > Rogue
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@...> wrote:
>
> I don't believe anyone knows, and I don't think any of
> the scholars are terribly certain about Morton being
> the source of More's narrative, much less the author
> of the Latin version.



Really? I thought it was pretty well accepted that Morton was the
source, though characteristically enough, More did not credit him.

The narrative is clearly the work of two different authors. The style
changes so abruptly, literally in the middle of a page, that the
reader gets whiplash. The author of the second part is More, in his
characteristic turgid style. The author of the first part is
definitely not More, but instead a gifted writer whose prose is
absolutely cinematic.

As I recall, More served as a page in Morton's household for a couple
of years, from age 12. At age 10 he had been accepted as a pupil in
St Anthony's School in London, on Morton's recommendation.

More dedicated some of his later writing to Morton and often dropped
his name, suggesting that he was Morton's protogee. Morton did not
leave More anything in his will, nor even mention him.

Katy

--- oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Really? I thought it was pretty well accepted
> that Morton was the
> source, though characteristically enough, More did
> not credit him.
>
[snip]

I can't rummage through my entire bookshelf, but here
are three sources -- Sylvester, Potter, and Marius.

Richard Marius' colleague Richard Sylvester, in his
introduction to the Yale edition of More's _History_,
writes: "In beginning with the texts, and in assuming
More's authorship of them, we have relied to no small
extent upon the conclusions reached by R. W. Chambers
in his masterly essay, "The Authorship of the _History
of Richard III'_. A few details of Chambers' case can
be questioned, and more evidence can be adduced to
support his argument; his main thesis -- that Thomas
More was indeed the author of the extant versions of
the _Richard_ -- has never been refuted."

Sylvester's analysis of the authorship question goes
on for another four pages and suggests that Sir George
Buck, the principal source for the notion that Morton
was the author, saw another document: "[T]here is some
evidence that an early Tudor 'Defense of Richard III'
was in circulation during the sixteenth century. When
Buc wrote his _History_, he knew of a manuscript
version of this work which attributed the defamation
of the king directly to Morton. If we identify
Morton's 'malicious slander' with the book possessed
by the Roper family later in the century, then it may
appear likely that Buc's marginal glass has a kind of
authority behind it. What Morton's book was like we
shall probably never know. If it was used by More --
and there is little doubt that some of his information
came in one way or another from Morton -- then it may
have directly affected the style and the content of an
early draft of the _Richard_. But whether it was
merely a series of notes or an extended narrative, it
cannot be identified with either the _History of
Richard III_ or the _Historia Richardi Tertii_, which,
in the versions now extant, were written not by John
Cardinal Morton but by Thomas More."

See the introduction, pages lix-lxiii. sylvester
footnotes the Chambers essay as _English Works, I,_
24-41. That would be _The English works of Sir Thomas
More ... reproduced in facsimile from William
Rastell’s edition of 1557, and edited, with a modern
version of the same by W.E. Campbell, with
introductions and philological notes by A.W. Reed ....
London, Eyre and Spottiswoode limited; New York, L.
MacVeagh, The Dial press, 1931.

(the above was keyboarded in haste and spellchecked
mechanically but may still have typos in it)

The late Jeremy Potter, former chairman of the Richard
III Society, accepts R. W. Chambers' analysis as
definitive. More's biographer, the late Richard
Marius, not only accepts the work as More's but
accepts it as accurate. (Let us not, please, speak ill
of the dead...)

Both of those chapters (Marius and Potter) are online
for folks' perusal at -- here comes the American
Branch website commercial! --
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/

I suspect that Chambers' essay is available through
both the Society's and the American Branch's libraries.

As the years have passed things have got a lot clearer. The only real
mystery is what happened to the sons of Edward IV, and an even bigger
mystery to me is, why do so many care? And why do so many of us allow
it to colour the rest of Richard's life and achievements
Buckingham's behaviour is difficult to account for unless one stirs
in the 15th century disease if ambition.
Paul


On 20 Aug 2007, at 21:41, alanth252 wrote:

> This whole Richard III saga is a mystery in an emigma in a puzzle in
> a conundrum in a mystery, as so are all the players in it.
>
> Thanks for the info on the other thread Laura. Even though I`m partly
> immobile, I may be able to check out the Queen`s library. Thanks for
> your trouble, and also to all on the forum for their info on Mancini
> etc.
>
> Alan
>
> ======================
>
>
> --- In , Laura Blanchard
> <lblanchard@...> wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe anyone knows, and I don't think any of
>> the scholars are terribly certain about Morton being
>> the source of More's narrative, much less the author
>> of the Latin version.
>>
>> --- alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry Rogue. I`ve just realised that by Tudor Jr.,
>>> you
>>> meant Henry VIII. For some reason I thought you were
>>>
>>> being you were using sarcasm on Morton. Just how
>>> long
>>> was More with Morton, does anyone know?
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> ================
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In ,
>>> "alanth252"
>>> <alanth252@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I didn`t say More`s principles were right, but
>>> that he
>>>> lived (and died) by them. I`m quite aware that he
>>> had
>>>> Lutherans and other "non-believers" burnt for
>>> heresy etc,
>>>> and probably revelled in it. But to do that he
>>> must have
>>>> been a man with strong (albeit perhaps cruel)
>>> beliefs,
>>>> which also accounts for his obstinacy. But it
>>> doesn`t
>>>> mean that he agreed during his translation of
>>> Morton`s
>>>> work with all of Morton`s versions of events.
>>>>
>>>> As for More spending time with Morton, More was
>>> only
>>>> 21/22 when Morton died so he wasn`t really with
>>> him
>>>> for decades.
>>>>
>>>> If there`s one play/movie I detest above all
>>> others
>>>> it`s "A Man for all Seasons". It`s as historically
>>>
>>>> misleading as Shakespeare`s Richard III and many
>>> more
>>>> of the same ilk that I could name.
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> =====================
>>>>
>>>> --- In ,
>>> "Rogue" <roguefem@>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Disagree totally. More was a cruel and self
>>>>>> interested hypocrite who led himself to the
>>>>>> block with his obstinacy. Little of the real
>>>>>> man in Man For All Seasons!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to agree with Paul here. Anybody who
>>> could
>>>>> work for Tudor Jr. for over two decades before
>>>>> something finally made him choke obviously
>>> wasn't
>>>>> _too_ dedicated to principles. Besides, while
>>> it's
>>>>> not impossible he could have grown up with a man
>>> like
>>>>> Morton and still turned out honest- it's pretty
>>> darn
>>>>> unlikely.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> Rogue
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"