Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: June ::
Re: William Catesby/Richard III
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1559  Tuesday, 25 June 2002

[1]     From:   Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jun 2002 08:38:59 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1549 Re: William Catesby/Richard III

[2]     From:   Jan Pick <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jun 2002 18:47:53 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1549 Re: William Catesby/Richard III

[3]     From:   Allan Axelrod <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jun 2002 09:49:55 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1549 Re: William Catesby/Richard III

[4]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jun 2002 21:31:29 +0100 (BST)
        Subj:   Early Modern Writers (was 'William Catesby/Richard III')


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 24 Jun 2002 08:38:59 -0500
Subject: 13.1549 Re: William Catesby/Richard III
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1549 Re: William Catesby/Richard III

Clifford Stetner writes:

>Richard as the hunchback Machiavel is symbolic
>of a kind of murderous tyranny that was ubiquitous in the European and
>Near Eastern states of the late Middle Ages replete with tales of
>brothers poisoning brothers, children poisoning their parents, wives
>poisoning their husbands, ad nauseum in the pursuit of power.

I would tend to identify Machiavelli (as a real person) and Machiavel
(archetype / bogey) as Renaissance figures rather than late Medieval,
though the terms are so loose that perhaps CS meant essentially the same
thing. I don't want to get nit-picky, but I think that tales of
fratricide, parricide and so on occur in all times, but that Richard as
a cunning, devious, hypocritical *politician* makes him much more the
Renaissance type of villain than the Medieval. He belongs to a group
that includes Claudius, various usurping dukes and a number of others.

Sophie Masson  writes:

>  If Henry Tudor was seen as a prototype Protestant, for instance--if
> Richard's name was blackened not only for dynastic reasons--to make out
> he was an evil tyrant, who needed to be overthrown--but also for
> religious reasons--and therefore the lily was gilded in Tudor _and_
> Protestant propaganda, then it is interesting to speculate on just the
> fact that almost alone of Shakespeare's villains, Richard has that 'Pulp
> Fiction' quality, if you like.

Why should Henry VII be seen as a proto-Protestant? He strikes me a poor
candidate but maybe I've missed something.

Cheers,
Don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jan Pick <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 24 Jun 2002 18:47:53 +0100
Subject: 13.1549 Re: William Catesby/Richard III
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1549 Re: William Catesby/Richard III

On the history question, WS made sacrifices to make a dramatic point.
The most heinous crime in Tudor England was the killing of children, so
the killing of the princes in the tower in RIII would be seen as
unforgivable and Richard as a monster.  There is evidence that Richard
and Anne had a close marriage, which was sacrificed to the plot!  WS was
probably influenced by the history of Richard III written by Sir Thomas
More 

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.