History Hub permalink
Did Shakespeare Know History?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Monday, 14th March 2011
That chap Shakespeare, who wrote the screenplay for Macbeth, didn't have take some liberties too.Â
Hoddles' aside, above, from the Most Inaccurate Historical Movies thread set me pondering.
I know that in some of the later historical plays he would have been forced to toe the court/political line, but for some of the earlier histories would this have been the case - I can't see that Macbeth would have very relevant to the Tudor or Elizabethan regime.
Did he make his errors simply because all he knew was Holinshed?
glen
PS. I'm not referring to gaffes such as the Roman clock (in Julius Casar, I think). -
Message 2
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 14th March 2011
I can't see that Macbeth would have very relevant to the Tudor or Elizabethan regime.Â
No, but witchcraft, a central theme of the play, was and his contemporary, John Middleton, had written a play called "The Witch" which intrigued Shakespeare. Moreover, James I, who succeeded Elizabeth in 1603, considered himself a descendant of Banquo and had written a book on witchcraft, while King of Scotland, in 1597 and the play was performed before James and Queen Anne at Hampton Court in 1606 although there is some dispute as to whether the play was written specifically for James or even in the Jacobean era.
Holinshed had written a "History of King Macbeth" from which Shakespeare drew his source material for the plot of the play although his plots, invariably second- or third-hand, are not Shakespeare's strongest suits and his works are generally remembered for other reasons. -
Message 3
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 15th March 2011
I can't see that Macbeth would have very relevant to the Tudor or Elizabethan regime.Â
It was very relevant to the Stuart regime under which it was probably written. Macbeth can be read as an allegory for the strife between Scottish cultures of Highland (represented by the violent, scheming Macbeth) and Lowland (represented by the saintly Duncan I and heroic Malcolm III).
Macbeth's powerbase in history drew from the Highlands and he may have been the last Scottish king to speak Gaelic. After Macbeth and his short-lived successor Lulach, power moved to the lowlands and English speaking kings.
The autonymous highlands and islands were still out of favour in James VI's day and posed a real military threat to royal power in the west/north. And the idea that a Scottish king could and should resort to English arms if needed was alive and well in the Stuart handbook - just as Malcolm in the play flees to England and is restored by the English. The English are also portrayed as Scotland's true friends in restoring the legitimate king. Shakespeare naturally passes over the self-interest that Macbeth's English enemies were also serving by ousting him. -
Message 4
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 15th March 2011
It was very relevant to the Stuart regime under which it was probably written. Â
I'll say.
The first *recorded* performance of "Macbeth" is 1611 (mentioned by Simon Forman in his "The Bocke of Plaies and Notes therof per Formans for Common Pollicie"), but most authorities agree that Shakespeare wrote - and revised - the tragedy between 1603 and1606. It is probable, as Allen D has noted, that a revised version of "Macbeth" was performed at Court during the summer of 1606, just a few short months after the foiled Catholic conspiracy to blow the Stuart king, his heir and most of the members of his government sky high The play is full of allusions to "equivocation" - a reference to the trial (March 1606) and execution (May 1606) of Father Garnet for his complicity in the Gunpowder Plot. Garnet had lied or "equivocated" his way through his trial in order to protect other Catholics. Equivocation was a huge joke with Londoners during the spring and summer of that year.
The play, on the surface, seems to pay graceful homage to James's kingship and to acknowledge the impressive learning England's new monarch had displayed in his "Daemonologie" (James's specialist subject was the dark forces). And yes, the positive presentation of the character of Banquo - James's remote ancestor - also suggests that Shakespeare was setting out - very sensibly - to write an acceptable piece of Stuart propaganda.
He wasn't. Superficial reading of any WS play is unwise, and flattery from Shakespeare came at a price. "Macbeth" actually features a trail of reminders of how very far James had strayed from his image of the ideal king. It was, like "King Lear" - that play about a foolish king who fancied himself wise - a very clever and subtle warning shot across the bows. Political warning shots, contrary to popular belief, were one of Shakespear's specialities - whether he was writing for the Elizabethan or Stuart regimes.
The original post mentions the "errors" in Shakespeare's "history". WS wasn't writing to please 21st century historians. He never bothered much about "correctness" - dramatic, historic or political. This tragedy and his earlier studies of English kings were never meant to be either text-book accounts of what "really happened", or (with the possible exception of Henry V) the praise of admirable rulers. Shakespeare was interested in men who sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
This is not the place to attempt a detailed look at Renaissance conceptions of "History", but it's worth noting perhaps that one humanist justification for the study of history was that the subject revealed "the fickleness of fortune and at the same time taught men how to rise above fortune and be indifferent to it". I think that's what fascinated WS.
I must get something to eat, but could I finish with what is my favourite comment about "Macbeth" - although to be fair it probably does not refer to the work of the man William Kempe fondly called "my notable Shakerags". Kempe made fun of "the miserable stolne story of Macdoel or Macdobeth or Macsomewhat for I'm sure a Mac it was though I never had the maw to see it."
That's all, folks. Hope I haven't killed the thread stone dead.
SST. -
Message 5
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Tuesday, 15th March 2011
I think I'm replying to this as a peasant.Seeing the plays not Reviewing them. I went to school not far away from Stratford and so was lucky enough to be able to be bused there at regular intervals.
For some strange reason I saw Judi Dench in "Twelfth Night" twice, to say nothing of Ian McKellern " doing" a full frontal nude scene as Edgar in "King Lear", we almost got thrown out because Kathleen giggled so much. So we saw plays we didn't study. Perhaps as they were meant to be seen.
The two which stand out as truly bad were, "Henry VIII" with Donald Syndon. total rubbish, all fake posturing, much grovelling and extremely stupid to a 13 year old mind. As for Richard III, I had to leave half way through. Whether it was to do with my mother's innovative Ryvita and Spam sandwiches on the way there OR the snarling, nastiness on stage, I cannot tell, BUT I felt sick and in the blackness of the "Gods" I had to decide whether to risk almost certain death and fall over the parapet to get out or be "ill" where I sat. I managed to get out!
In retrospect and in answer to your question, I can't help but think when I see youngsters and adults for that matter, struggling with the texts of the plays, (incidentally my stage struck mother would make us follow a text of a play if it was on TV to see how accurate it was, we didn't pay much attention, unless to catch someone out!) I can't think why? Shakespeare wrote plays to be performed. To read a text of one of his plays is like reading a film script without the actors and affects etc., Shakespeare's plays MUST be performed to be truly understood. The play is the thing!
Shakespeare was a playwriter. He was also a wonderful poet and possibly the best wordsmith the world has ever known BUT he was not an historian. It speaks volumes that he used Hollinshed so often. Hall and Hollinshed were like the "Mills and Boon" of their day, easily accessable and full of "drama"! They knew extremely little of History. Shakespeare's life and income depended upon putting "bums on seats". He had to make a living and he did with gusto! The glove-maker's son was one of the wealthiest men in Warwickshire when he died.
Macbeth is relevantly and basically about what will befall a "usurper" king. But as has been said Macbeth of History was an enlightened king of Scotland, some attempt to rehabilitate him to this day. He walked a fine line with "Richard II" due to Bolingbroke's/Henry IV's usurption, so making the House of Lancaster from whom the Tudors were descended, "respectable" with "Henry V" as his majestic "coup de gras". He runs into trouble with the catatonic schitzophrenic Henry VI and so others speak for him. The emphasis seems to shift to the nobles who surround him. Continuity from Henry IV and V to the chaos of Henry VI's reign. This of course culminates with the unbelievibly wicked and deformed Richard III. It is only due to the saintly Richmond/Henry Tudor, that this fair land is delivered from a demonically charming evil monster.
It doesn't have to be emphasized that due to the vague, almost non-existant claim to the throne Henry VII had, the king from whom the Tudors and Stuarts(Shakespeares patrons) would base their claim and right to be considered royal, the last Plantagenet king, Richard III would have to be depicted as truly, extraordinarily wicked.
Oddly enough Richard III was never described as hunch-backed, half-formed, with withered arms and wobbly legs etc., until this play took hold, how could a venerated soldier be in such a state? Shakespeare used the language and beliefs of the time, where a withered body was the reflection of an evil mind. As the question suggests, Shakespeare had little time for history, he had patrons to please, a living to make, crowds to cater for, he was also a predigeous writer, if only the enthralled audiences understood "poetic licence"! They didn't 400 years ago and still don't today.
It was only when I began to study history properly that I realised just how worrying Shakespeare was. Such a master of the spoken word I still love him knowing what historical chaos he has caused. In "Richard III" people who are dead come back to life, those faraway are made present, nasty traitors are depicted as gentle idiots and then there are the nasty side swipes which some of the sudience must have known about. White Surrey, Richard's war horse was as synonomous with him as was Copenhagen and Napoleon and yet we all know,"my horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse"!
Even Richard's keenest contemporary enemies say how he charged at Richmond/Tudor on White Surrey, possibly the last act of Chivalry in English history, to fight Richmond/Tudor man to man. White Surrey was killed from beneath him and Richard refused offers of other mounts. He was killed attempting to get at Richmond, which he very nearly did. Yet this last act of bravery is turned into pathetic cowardice by Shakespeare. Richmond/Tudor took no part in the fighting, cowering behind mercerneries. Shakespeare's version of events, via Hall and Hollinshed, are remembered by all.
Shakespeare served his paymasters well. And yet the interesting point here may be perhaps, that judging by their remaining libraries, Richard III was an intellectual compared to Henry Tudor. The "Golden Age of the Tudors" was hedged in by laws and fear and censorship, mainly due to their feelings of inadequacy, of not feeling really royal. When the Renaisannce wave hit these shaws with words and writings - what would a Shakespeare under a Plantagenet monarch have achieved? Would it have been a relationship like that of Lorenzo de Medici and Michael Angelo? One of cultivation and mutual admiration rather than obligigation and fear? Perhaps this Shakespeare would have written "true" histories with insight, not those of simple, yet wonderful, sycophancy. -
Message 6
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Tuesday, 15th March 2011
I found that extremely interesting SST. Any more along those lines?
Minette. -
Message 7
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Tuesday, 15th March 2011
Thanks for the replies. It seems I had underestimated how much the plays were influenced by contemporary attitudes, but perhaps I was right in thinking WS had limited sources to work from.
Whether he was a historian or not he was a great writer and perhaps it should be more stressed in education that WS should not be taken to be historically accurate - it certainly wasn't when I was at school. -
Message 8
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 16th March 2011
SST,
Thanks for the more in depth comments.
Minette,
Unlike Richard III, I think Macbeth has been completely rehabilitated (by historians at least). He was a successful warlord and then a successful king. A king who ruled for 17 years and died in his bed in the C11th must have been doing something right! Even his "usurpation" of the throne is accepted as a legitimate siezing of the throne from an ineffective king under whom Scotland was vulnerable to outside enemies.
Richard, however, is a more controversial figure - as you well know! -
Message 9
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 19th March 2011
Hi Cloudy,
In view of what you say: The autonymous highlands and islands were still out of favour in James VI's day and posed a real military threat to royal power in the west/north. Â
It was the Highlanders who came to the rescue of Bonnie Prince Charles,when he came back to claim his kingdom in 1745.
Tas -
Message 10
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 19th March 2011
Regarding Shakespeare's being sometimes a little off in history, we must remember how difficult it was in his time to produce books, to find appropriate books and to read them. I suspect he got hold of whatever history books he could find. On Scotland, he found Holinshed, he found something on Rome and wrote Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. From Richard II to Henry VIII it must have been a lot easier, since in some cases the events were not that old.
I guess based on the historical outline he got, he put together those great plots, those great characters, those magnificent lines. One thing interesting is how many great plays he wrote and how many great characters there are in everyone of his plays. And the beautiful analogies he uses:
"They were as cannons overcharged with double cracks"- Macbeth
"Teach not thy lips such scorn gentle lady, for they were made for kissing, not for such contempt" - Richard III.
"Was ever woman in such humor woed; was ever woman in such humor won?" - Richard III.
"This most excellent canopy, the earth, this brave overhanging firmament, this majestical roof lighted with a thousand fires" - Hamlet.
The lines, the thoughts the ideas are sometimes so delicate, sometimes so elegant, sometimes just plain wonderful, that we can forgive him for not being always bang on in history. After all he did not have access to wiki or the internet, (smile).
Tas -
Message 11
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 19th March 2011
"This most excellent canopy, the earth,.....Â
Sorry thinking from memory. I think it should:
This most excellent canopy the air........
Tas -
Message 12
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Saturday, 19th March 2011
Historical accuracy aside, Macbeth is a masterly portrayal of a couple who allow ambition to be their driving force, and commit the heinous crimes of murder and regicide. After that, first Lady M and then Macbeth himself begin to crumble. As the proverb says, "Take what you want", says God."Take it; - and pay for it"
I believe that Shakespeare had no equal when it comes to portraying a human being who, because of some flaw in himself, has passed crisis point and is mentally disintegrating.
Othello is a study of jealousy; Othello is jealous in his love for Desdemona (young, beautiful and Caucasian, although the last is not as important as the other two) and sly, manipulative Iago is jealous of Othello's power and charisma.
Hamlet is shocked by his mother's speedy remarriage (no Table of Affinity there!) and blinded by his obsession with revenge.
Lear is blinded by his vanity which leads him to disastrously decide to divide his kingdom between two of his daughters (BIG mistake, as Henry I would have agreed).
You just see these people unravelling before your eyes.
When we lived in York, OH and I went to see Anthony Quayle and a cast of well-known actors in King Lear. Quayle, as Lear, was hardly off the stage, and he was about 70 (or nearly) then. It was the kind of performance you feel priviledged to have seen. -
Message 13
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Sunday, 20th March 2011
It was the Highlanders who came to the rescue of Bonnie Prince Charles,when he came back to claim his kingdom in 1745.Â
Or, to be historically accurate...
It was a minority of smelly* highlanders who set the precedent for 20th Century Fascist Blackshirts when they supported that 'Popish brat', the Young Pretender (who styled himself 'Prince of Wales', in true English fashion), in his attempt to stimulate a French invasion of England that he hoped would re-establish a brutal, tyrannical, absolutist, London-based regime (based on the notion that the Stuarts were divinely ordained rulers, complete with magical powers, whom the people had no right to question) that had previously been responsible for numerous attrocities committed against the Scottish people**, by treacherously rebelling against the progressive, proto-democratic constitutional monarchy with which the bulk of the Scottish and English populations were perfectly happy...
*for the highlanders' appalling personal hygiene, which was noticably bad even by 18th Century standards, see the contemporary letters of Edward Burt, a surveyor active in northern Scotland in the 1720s.
**eg the Massacre of Aberdeen, the depradations of the 'Highland Host', the widespread use of medieval torture instruments against dissidents, the 'Killing Times' etc, etc... -
Message 14
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 20th March 2011
Regarding Shakespeare's being sometimes a little off in history, we must remember how dificult it was in his time to produce books, to find appropriate books and to read them. I suspect he got hold of whatever history books he could find. On Scotland he found Holinshed, he found something on Rome and wrote Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. Â
Shakespeare got his ideas from many sources, Tas - you'd be surprised at just how much was available for him to read - and raid!
He didn't just rely on Holinshed's "Chronicles of Scotland" for "Macbeth". It seems very likely that he'd also read Buchanan's "History of Scotland" in its original Latin. Actually I think WS's Macbeth is much nearer to Buchanan's portrait of Macbeth than to Holinshed's! Buchanan says Macbeth
"...was a man of penetrating genius, high spirit, unbounded ambition and, if he had possessed moderation, was worthy of any command however great; but in punishing crimes he exercised a severity which, exceeding the bounds of the laws, appeared oft to degenerate into cruelty."
Holinshed speaks merely of him as a "valiant gentleman, and one that had he not been somewhat cruel of nature, might have been thought most worthy of the government of a realm."
It's also interesting that the account given by Buchanan of King Kenneth's remorse is likewise closer than Holinshed's to Macbeth's:
"His soul disturbed by a consciousness of his crime permitted him to enjoy no solid or sincere pleasure; in retirement, the thoughts of his unholy deed tormented him; and, in sleep, visions full of horror drove repose from his pillow. At last, whether in truth an audible voice from Heaven addressed him, as is reported, or whether it were the suggestion of his guilty mind, as often happens with the wicked, in the silent watches of the night he seemed thus to be admonished."
It's also been argued that Shakespeare knew the work of John Leslie, "De Origine, Moribus, et Rebus Gestis Scotorum" (1578).
For his Roman plays Shakespeare relied heavily on North's translation of Plutarch's "Parallel Lives". I was lucky enough once to attend a lecture by Professor Jonathan Bate and I remember that he pointed out that Plutarch's greatest importance for Shakespeare was his way of "writing history through biography". Plutarch himself explains his method here - this is from his "LIfe of Alexander":
"My intent is not to write histories, but only lives. For the noblest deeds do not always show men's virtues and vices; but oftentimes a light occasion, a word, or some sport, makes men's natural dispositions and manners appear more plain than the famous battle won wherein are slain ten thousand men, or the great armies, or cities won by siege or assault."
Good grief - is Plutarch talking about the human touch here? Is that allowed for historians?
Hi Minette, my old buddy, my misunderstood and much abused old pal! I'm glad you find my ramblings of some interest! Gosh how I miss the old days of the Elizabeth of York and the Monster thread. Where have Andrew Spencer, TwinProbe, Mikestone8 etc. disappeared?
SST. -
Message 15
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 20th March 2011
Hi Temperance,
That was a very erudite message and thank you for enlightening me.
I come to this board so often because among the messages, there are some that really inform you about new things, new ideas.
You are one of the contributors that I read most often; and not only about our friend Richard III, whom you left in the lurch like the treasonous Lord Stanley, at his hour of greatest need.
Tas -
Message 16
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 20th March 2011
Leave Richard III in the lurch? Moi? Those words have pierced my very soul.
It was all Andrew Spencer's fault - the serpent beguiled me and I did eat.
Tas, I now feel just like Enobarbus in "Ant and Cleo":
"I am alone the villain of the earth ... I will go seek/Some ditch wherein to die: the foul'st best fits/My latter part of life."
Actually I'm about to go seek some ditch wherein to move my compost heap. Back later.
SST. -
Message 17
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 20th March 2011
Tas, this might interest you. Did Willie S hear this story when he popped in for a take away after a night at the tavern and think, that's a good plot line?
-
Message 18
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 20th March 2011
Hi Ferval,
There does seems to be a lot in common between the two stories. Shakespeare using ancient Indian lore as source material! That is very strange indeed.
Tas -
Message 19
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 21st March 2011
MM,
White Surrey, Richard's war horse was as synonomous with him as was Copenhagen and Napoleon ... Â
Marengo was Napoleon's horse.
Copenhagen was Wellington's horse. -
Message 20
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Monday, 21st March 2011
I seem to recall that Napoleon had a stable full of horses called Marengo. May be apocrypha, I suppose.
-
Message 21
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 21st March 2011
I seem to recall that Napoleon had a stable full of horses called Marengo.Â
Given Boney's way-ahead-of-his-time gift for self-promotion, I wouldn't doubt it. -
Message 22
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 21st March 2011
I suppose Boney would also have had an extra high mounting block, or possibly just horses with very short legs.
-
Message 23
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 21st March 2011
Given the level of historical (?hysterical?) (in)accuracy that characterises Minette's posts, I hardly think her mixing up Boney and Wellington is at all remarkable...
The National Army Museum has Marengo's skeleton, or one of them, if there were several, which would explain why there are at least 6 antique ashtrays that are claimed to be made from Marengo's hooves.
What I'm interested in is whether Richard Nephews'bane needed help mounting his nag - it can't be easy to get onto a horse if one of your arms is withered and useless... -
Message 24
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 21st March 2011
And what about Richard's armour? It must have been especially designed to fit the hump.
-
Message 25
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 22nd March 2011
Where was Richard III buried?
-
Message 26
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 22nd March 2011
And what about Richard's armour? It must have been especially designed to fit the hump. A word of caution, ID: Dickon Kiddiethrottle's hump may not actually have been *quite* as large as contemporary portraits and eye-witness accounts tend to suggest...
There's *some* evidence to suggest that he went about with a small packet strapped to his back, containing a dagger, a garrotte and a flask of poison (just in case he ran into any *more* innocent youths he felt like murdering), that may have made the hump look slightly bigger...
-
Message 27
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Where was Richard III buried? Â
The remains of the last Plantagenet King of England are very possibly under the carpark of the DHSS offices in Leicester.
I posted a message ages ago (either on the Liz of York or the Monstrous Richard III thread) about the absolutely disgraceful way the body of Richard III - an anointed King - was treated after Bosworth. The Tudor usurper should never have allowed it. Showed, of course, what a petty, mean-spirited, horrible little man H7 was. I hope I am not being unduly emotional.
I'll see if I can dig it out. -
Message 28
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Dear Temperance,
I hope the compost is doing well. May it lead to many a Rose and may all your roses be 'White.'
I lived in Leicester once. If I had known our valiant hero was buried in a parking lot nearby, I would have made a point of making a pilgrimage there.
All our illusions sometimes come to Naught. On one of my trips to England, I have made a point of visiting Bosworth field and carefully examined the spot where Richard was standing when he observed the pretender Richmond, I have looked at the well from which he took his last drink of water before the battle, I have even looked at the spot where he was surrounded and killed by that infamous Sir William Stanley and his men. And now they tell me that my entire pilgrimage was for Nought. That the battle took place elsewhere and they wont even tell us where that site is. What is an admirer of our friend to do?
Tas -
Message 29
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Hi WhiteCamry,
I can't find my post, but this article gives lots of info:
SST. -
Message 30
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Tas, sorry for using the Daily Wail but this is a reasonably good article.
If you knew the area, perhaps you will be able to envisage where this is. -
Message 31
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Hi Tas,
Years and years ago I dragged my poor longsuffering husband to Bosworth. He sulked all the way there saying, "You think it's going to be gaily coloured booths and pennants flying in the wind - it'll just be a bl**dy boring field."
When we got there of course there *were* gaily coloured booths etc. and we too tramped all round the battle trail - actually had a great day.
But all completely wrong, as you say - the real site was a field a couple of miles up the road!
SST. -
Message 32
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
I'll see if I can dig it out.Â
Hope that is not Richard you are talking of digging out Temp! -
Message 33
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Thanks Ferval,
I guess it means a repeat visit to the actual site on my next trip.
I hope they have not picked up the emblem or badge from a soldier who was running away from the battle.
You guys are a lot less precise in locating the sites of one of your most famous battles. If you go to Gettysburg you see everything as if it was happening before you. The Wheat-field, Devil's Den, the Clump of Trees for which they were aiming during Picket's Charge.
I was hoping to see the site of the Battle of Tauton near York, on my next trip. I wonder if that is at all accurate.
Tas -
Message 34
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
the absolutely disgraceful way the body of Richard III - an anointed King - was treated after BosworthÂ
Good King Henry the Liberator gave Richard Crouchback a decent burial in an accessible place, which is rather more than poor, innocent, murdered Edward V ever got...
What is an admirer of our friend to do?Â
Grow up a bit, perhaps... -
Message 35
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Being perfectly serious for a moment (even though it's now the Easter holidays), one has to wonder why the hunchback's surviving henchmen didn't foster a 'cult of Richard III', such as grew up around Henry VI. Could it be because Henry was a popular king who was murdered, whereas Richard was unpopular and most famous for being a murderer? Alternatively, could it be because Henry was king for a fair length of time, and made an impact on the public consciousness, whereas Dickon was basically an historical nonentity, remarkable only for his misshapenness and cruelty?
-
Message 36
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Catigern it is still Lent! But you have never shown interest in facts. However, I would like to ask if you have a speech impediment, or why all these whistles?
I've just lost a post which took me two hours to write and feel miffed.
Probably loose this too, anyway, do tell about this Henry VI Fan Club! Is it secret? He was a lost soul and a baby king with severe medical problems, catatonic scitzophrenia, called being "Holy" by some and was married to the wife from Hell, Margaret of Anjou, under whom he lost France (apart from Calais) and then of course his throne to Edward IV. Not a good king. Some doubt that his heir was actually is, he did. When told of Edward's birth he stared at the floor for a long time and then said "Truly this must be the work of God"!
You are correct and I'm wrong White Canary, I was thinking of Alexander the Great's horse, Bucephalus and was afraid to spell it, then thought Morengo was a chicken dish served to Naploeon on campaign so went with Copenhagen! My mistake.
SST you understand me! Thankyou so very much. Perhaps Andrew Spencer will come back with the swifts! Who can tell but I was a pain in his side too. Oh dear! So back to dear Shakespeare and when we think of Richard III we do tend to see and hear Laurence Olivier. Not many people know that not only did he take the lead role in the 1951 film but also produced and directed it. I have found a wonderful quote fro an interview he did at the time. It was just after Josephine Tey had written "Daughter of Time" and P.M. Kendall's "Richard III" had been published to much acclaim. He said, "and what a pity it would be if all legends were lost just because they had been disproven". I rather think he would have cared more had his own repuation been at stake.
Tas, wonderful things can be done with words, sub-consciously we all "see" Richard II, Henry IV and even Henry V in a certain way because of Shakespeare BUT there's the rub. Henry V was a bruiser, not a nice man or king, after Agincourt he ordered that all the French prisoners should have their throats cut. Shakespeare doesn't mention that. King Hal's rousing speach, "once more unto the breach dear friends..." was never recorded as such, never recorded in fact. However IF you read the recorded speach from Richard III before Bosworth you will find much used by Shakespeare and I believe re-gurgitated by Shakespeare and given to Henry V with embellishments. Shakespeare worked his rough, deep magic well. All that is lacking is the facts.
Can we blame Shakespeare for mis-representing historical figures? I'd say yes. A few years ago I did some research into literacy in the 1560s in East Anglia. The things people treasured most were their bedclothes and books! Far more people were literate than I had ever thought. Shakespeare was a Dramatist, quite simply. The people who make rubbish Hollywood un-Historical blockbusters today - look at the flagrent inaccuracies in "The Tudors" for example and so many more, want to make money. The trouble with Shakespeare is that he wrote so wonderfully well! People believed him, they wanted to. Little changes. BUT for over 500 years we have been indoctrinated by Shakespeare's wonderful words. People don't WANT to disbelieve him.
But logically how can Richard III have been an aging lothario aged only 32? Why would he have wanted to marry his illegitimate neice when he was planning to wed Joanna the Blessed of Portugal? Documents from the Vatican prove this to be so. How could he have been hunch-backed etc., when he was known as gifted soldier when only 18, leading the vanguards at the battles of Barnet and Tewksbury at the request of big brother EdwardIV? So it continues.
I've got to finnish quickly, but we feel comfortable with what we "know" and not what "should be". Shakespeare worked his deep, rough well. So well that to it feels uncomfortable to question it.
Cheers Minette. -
Message 37
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Apolgies that was a shambles!
-
Message 38
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Aplogies that was a shambles!
-
Message 39
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Shakespeare was a Dramatist, quite simply. The people who make rubbish Hollywood un-Historical blockbusters today - look at the flagrent inaccuracies in "The Tudors" for example and so many more, want to make money. The trouble with Shakespeare is that he wrote so wonderfully well! People believed him, they wanted to. Little changes. BUT for over 500 years we have been indoctrinated by Shakespeare's wonderful words. People don't WANT to disbelieve him. Â
Well said Minette. The similarities between this thread and the "Braveheart" thread are so obvious. We may try to excuse Will for using only one historical source, or taking liberties to fit a dramatic narrative, but why do we also criticize Holywood script writers who do the same?
In truth, we like Shakespeare's plays for the language and atmosphere he conjures up. And we like films like Braveheart because they're simple, evocative stories which take us away from our daily lives into a fantasy of good v evil where doing the right thing is obvious.
Having said that, as history fans we like to be smug about how much more we know about history than Shakespeare or Mel Gibson's script writers. -
Message 40
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
When I was at college, several of us went to see the film of Olivier's "Richard III"
By the end we were in hysterics! We laughed all the way back home, but were disappointed too because he was always held up to be 'the' great Shakesperean actor. Our tutor said he was really the last of the 'grand manner' performers. I understand his 'Othello' was a 'blacked-up' version of the same. Anyone else would have been called a ham. -
Message 41
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
cloudyj and raundsgirl!
You agree with me! It doesn't often happen, many thanks!
I'd love to have seen Lenny Henry as Othello, what about Denzil Washington? But I like to see him in anything! Minette. -
Message 42
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Hi Minette,
I could not face seeing Shakespears R3 following what I have learned on the History Hub, mainly from yourself!!
But then I guess he was working for a living in the Tudor times and if he had for instance shown Henry VII as killing the Princes his head would have been separated from his body quick smart.
I have been reading "Here be Dragons" lately so have thought about you and your Princes of Gwynedd.
Gran -
Message 43
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 24th March 2011
Some 20 years ago Patrick Stewart played Othello on-stage as the lone white character in an otherwise all-black cast. A pity it was never put on screen.
-
Message 44
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 24th March 2011
Catigern it is still Lent!Â
Minette, sweetie, we are now nearly two weeks into the Easter holidays! At least, those of us at Oxford are, but that would, of course, exclude you (except in your more bizarre and outlandish fantasies)...
But you have never shown interest in facts.Â
Yeah, right, I've no interest in facts and you have. That'll be why I'm the Oxford DPhil with the flourishing academic career and string of publications, and you're the Warwick 2:2 who couldn't hack even a part time Masters course...
do tell about this Henry VI Fan Club! Is it secret?Â
Only to those who know little of fifteenth century history - more details when I can be bothered to rescue from the ignorance in which you seem content to wallow...
Toodle-pip! -
Message 45
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 24th March 2011
Catigern,
°Õ´Ç´Ç»å±ô±ð-±è¾±±è!Ìý
I thought, from reading P.G. Wodehouse in my childhood, the correct greeting was "Toodle-oo" and the response was "Pip-pip." I never heard of "Toodle-pip" before.
Tas -
Message 46
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 24th March 2011
Hi Minette,,
Once again I bow to the 'Dean' of this message board. You are the longest surviving member of this board.
Tas, wonderful things can be done with words, sub-consciously we all "see" Richard II, Henry IV and even Henry V in a certain way because of Shakespeare BUT there's the rub. Henry V was a bruiser, not a nice man or king, after Agincourt he ordered that all the French prisoners should have their throats cut. Shakespeare doesn't mention that. King Hal's rousing speach, "once more unto the breach dear friends..." Â
In the 1950s you used to have such great Shakespearean actors that once you saw them in a particular role, you could brook no one else in that role.
For me Hamlet will always be Laurence Olivier in his black and white 1947 film and every one else, even Richard Burton on the Stage as Hamlet in modern dress, on the Toronto stage; Kenneth Brenaugh, etc. always looked to me like impostors.
John Gielgud, will always be my Cassius, and Ralph Richardson my Duke of Buckingham, egging Olivier on in the great film Richard III. Olivier will always be my Henry V in his heroic way although I am aware of enough history to know of the killing of prisoners at Agincourt.
The diction of the 1950s crop of 'Sirs,' their complete mastery of blank-verse poetry has no parallel for me. They speak verse as if it were dialogue and yet keep the beauty of the poetry.
"Good Morrow brother! What means this armed guard with your grace" - Gloucestor (Olivier).
"His Majesty, tendering my person's safety, has appointed this Guard to convey me to the Tower" - Clarence (Gielgud).
" I wasted time and now time doth waste me!" Richard II (Gielgud) in Pontefract castle.
And Ophelia will always be for me Jean Simmons.
Tas -
Message 47
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 24th March 2011
Minette, my little, alcoholic munchkin...
There are countless references I could give you for the cult of Hal VI, but it amuses me to point you to this little article in a publication with which I assume you're familiar...
The Ricardian Volume 12 (2000-2002)
March 2000 No. 148
‘Henry VI and his Miracles’
Alison Hanham -
Message 48
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Thursday, 24th March 2011
Tas, I think Toodle-oo and Toodle-pip are valedictory. I have heard Toodle-oo used (and used it myself), but Toodle-pip is rather too upper crust for me.
Wasn't the greeting, 'What ho!'? (Though I can see how that might be misunderstood in America).
I'll shut up as I seem to be seriously off topic. -
Message 49
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
You truly are unpleasant. Why?
-
Message 50
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Dear Gran,
I'm flattered that you say that but also believe that you should see Shakespeare's Richard III. I can't tell you what to think, simply what is actually historically accurate and Shakespeare is not! History is information! But beautifully written words are magical - we can never take that from Shakespeare. I concentrate on his sonnets!
Do hope that you enjoy, "Here be Dragons"! Welsh history is so easily dismissed but it is fascinating, if sad. Would love to know what you think when you've read it.
Take care and best wishes, Minette.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.