Academic geekery

[lareinenoire]

THIS is why I'm writing a dissertation on literary afterlives of historical figures. Because people think it's interesting! Because it provokes arguments! Because angevin2 occasionally makes awesome fingerpuppet videos involving said literary afterlives of historical figures.

(And because I'm a huge nerd. But moving on...)

This whole thing began after several people (myself among them) made joking comments about Shakespeare's Richard III being a Tudor hackjob. For me, it was joking. I don't know about anyone else. She then posted a very clear and interesting response that points out the flaws in the 'hackjob' theory, linked above. Personally, I'd love to see junediamanti and a_t_rain's thoughts on the subject.



I will admit that for some years I was a dyed-in-the-wool revisionist. I liked Nice Richard. Did I think he was a saint? Not really, but I was more or less convinced he hadn't murdered the princes if only because it was a heinously stupid thing to do. Of course, there's no evidence for his intelligence or lack thereof -- in fact, the evidence is more or less minimal on the whole -- but it really just seemed to me to be a terribly irrational crime.

Currently, I have no real opinion on the princes. I have accepted that it is a murder that will probably never be solved to everyone's satisfaction. What I'm more interested in is the afterlife, metaphorically speaking, of their oh-so-wicked uncle.

Shakespeare was an entertainer, first and foremost. He wrote plays for an audience, and the history plays in particular were merely falling in with an older tradition of historical poetry and chronicles, etc. Of course, he was also writing for an audience ruled by a Queen who was growing older and had no heirs. So, what better subject than The Awful Things That Happen When The Succession Is Threatened. The events of 1483-85 make wonderful dramatic fodder, as evidenced by the brilliance of Shakespeare's Richard III. Is it the truth? Probably not. Although the more important question is: Who cares?

We will never know the truth. Or at least I think the chances are slim to none. I love that it's spawned debate. I love that it has produced all kinds of pieces of literature, even if some are absolutely awful. What annoys me to no end is when historians (::coughAlisonWeircough::) regurgitate previous arguments and claim that within this book is contained The Truth. Weir in particular makes my hackles rise because she refuses to admit to the existence of *any* other points of view. The best biographies/histories I've found are the ones that take into account all the evidence, however scanty, regardless of whose side they come out on. They don't ignore things that don't suit their viewpoint.

As to what I think of Richard III? I don't think he was a saint. Nor do I think he was evil incarnate. I think he was a man, no better and no worse than the ones that preceded and followed him. He was fighting for power under very unfavourable circumstances, and in general, he seems to have had a rather awful run of bad luck. Whether that was his own fault is not for me to answer. One of my favourite books happens to involve a revisionist Richard, but Shakespeare's Richard III is easily one of my favourite plays. So I like to think I can see the merits of both sides, though I will admit I lean a bit more toward the revisionist end. Old habits die hard, after all.



In other news, note to self re: Oxford weather -- It doesn't matter how warm it is in the morning. Nor does it matter that you're planning to spend several hours in a library. It's the middle of October. Wear a coat. Because Murphy's Law demands that the day you leave the house wearing a sleeveless top is the day you return to the house in very cold rain.

At least I've started keeping the umbrella with me at all times.

Comments

[zoepaleologa.livejournal.com]

First question always is Cui Bono?

Was it a hackjob? The answer is probably, yes. Let's not consider Richard's character, but rather that of Henry and Morton.

Morton LOATHED Richard. He was Thomas More's master...

Henry VII was the sort of man about whom Machiavelli could have written "Il Principe". He was, I assert, a far better ruler than Richard, because he was untrammelled by such niceties as legalese, and keeping your word and all that sort of tiresome stuff that seems to have been Richard's entire modus.

Henry might have been envisaged by the Stanleys and all the other supporters as their catspaw, but they were wrong. He was his own man, and his own modus was to be king, and stay king.

When he ascended the throne, he must have looked at a number of things and shuddered.

1. The fact that Richard and the household knights came this close to killing him in battle. Henry makes memo to self: no bloody sodding battles.

2. The fact that certain principals had betrayed Richard on the battlefield and would be wanting the sort of payback that Henry had no intention of giving (Stanleys, Northumberland). Henry was smart enough to understand the concept of the Overmighty Subject. Henry's next memo to self: keep the Stanleys on a leash and watch them like a hawk.

3. That he had, by dating his reign the day before Bosworth, potentially created a huge future rebellion force in the children of the "traitors" he'd thus had executed for high treason in Leicester. Memo to self: keep executing Yorkist partisans, whenever the opportunity arises.

4. The fact that he had no more title to the crown that the average passer-by, and his one claim to descent (the Beaufort ancestry)had been specifically debarred from succeeding by the act of Legitimation signed by Richard II. Memo to self - execute anyone with a better claim than self. Not immediately - blood baths are overdoing it, but over time. Keep this task on the "long-finger".

Henry's specific actions that make it look like a hackjob:

1. The repeal of the Titulus Regius unread. Titulus Regius is the act that gave the crown to Richard III and bastardised all the
offspring of Edward IV. Henry could not marry an illegitimate Elizabeth of York (which would secure the title of his children, AND buy off the Woodville faction effectively, until he could find whatever trumped up charges to get rid of them, later). Marrying Elizabeth would reduce the likelihood of Yorkist rebellion. Why repeal it unread, unless you think it is a watertight bit of legislation? Answer, because it was a watertight bit of legislation.

2. If he repealed Titulus Regius it made Elizabeth's brothers legitimate. Where they dead at the point of Bosworth? I do not believe so. So he had to get rid of them, and find a scapegoat.

3. The double general pardon given to Sir James Tyrell (first one, then another some months later) is the giveaway. I believe Henry had Tyrell bump off the princes, and then encouraged him to run off and keep quiet. Tyrell fled to France. I don't blame him.

4. Henry was a deeply unlovable and unattractive person, unless compared with a man who was deformed (Mediaeval belief always conflated that with evil), a murderer of children, etc. So start with changing the Rous Roll (there is evidence this was tampered with, or retro-fitted). And roll from there.

The rest is History.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Brilliant argument. I wish that I had my books about Richard III available so that I could join in. (I have several, all of which were piled or packed away I know not where during my illness.)

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

What I find interesting is that so much of Henry's scheming was orchestrated by his mother. She was one who plotted to get him into the country in the first place, marrying Stanley for security, and I came across a curious theory not too long ago that blamed her for the murder of the Princes.

And I've always found the case for Henry having murdered the princes far more credible, mostly because it wouldn't have made any sense for Richard to have killed them, having already declared them illegitimate. His claim was tenuous enough and killing two children would not have helped him in any way.

The deformity is, of course, nonsense. If he'd been deformed, someone would have mentioned it during his lifetime, and nobody even brings it up until Rous in 1485. I saw a copy of the original Rous Roll and it was singing Richard's praises to the sky; then we have the new one featuring the hunchbacked Antichrist.