May

More of Who Played

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.259  Friday, 30 May 2014

 

From:        John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 29, 2014 at 1:31:45 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Who Played

 

John Briggs wrote:

 

>The issue of forgery is discussed in Lothian & Craik’s Arden2 

>edition (1975) of “Twelfth Night” (with reference to previous 

>literature), and the conclusion there is that the entry is genuine.

 

Perhaps I should add that Collier misread one difficult word in his

transcription of the “Twelfth Night” entry in Manningham’s Diary - which is rather unlikely if he was the forger.

 

John Briggs

 

King Richard III to be Reburied in Leicester

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.258  Friday, 30 May 2014

 

[1] From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         May 29, 2014 at 2:43:10 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: R3-I Know the Kings of England and . . . 

 

[2] From:        Bo Bergstrom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         May 29, 2014 at 10:02:37 PM EDT

     Subject:    Richard III Was No 'Hunchbacked Toad', Research 

 

[3] From:        Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         May 30, 2014 at 2:18:49 AM EDT

     Subject:    More Richard 

 

[4] From:        Bud Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         May 30, 2014 at 4:09:16 AM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Richard III Reburial 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 29, 2014 at 2:43:10 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: R3-I Know the Kings of England and . . .

 

Thanks to Al Margary for his exhaustive list of the burial places of post-Conquest kings. I wonder if there is a similar list of the burial sites of pre-Conquest kings. Edward the Confessor is, of course, buried in Westminster Abbey, which he is credited with having built. Alfred and Cnut were originally buried in the Old Minister at Winchester, but their bones have since been scattered. And no one knows what happened to Harold II.

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Bo Bergstrom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 29, 2014 at 10:02:37 PM EDT

Subject:    Richard III Was No 'Hunchbacked Toad', Research 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/30/richard-iii-no-bunch-backed-toad-hunchback-research-lancet

 

Richard III was no ‘bunch-backed toad’, research suggests

Paper published in Lancet says king’s scoliosis probably caused him to be shorter but did not cause major physical deformity

 

James Meikle

The Guardian, Thursday 29 May 2014

 

He was English history’s most famous hunchback, but a sharp tailor and a skilful armourer may have disguised the curve in his spine, according to experts who examined the skeleton which has been identified as Richard III’s. They could not, however, have hidden how short he looked.

 

Severe scoliosis in the skeleton found under a Leicester car park less than two years ago – and DNA matches with a distant relative of the Plantagenet king – helped to confirm “beyond reasonable doubt” the identity of the remains. They are now bound for reinterment in the nearby cathedral following a failed legal challenge by descendants who favoured York minster as his final resting place.

 

But research funded by Leicester University and published in the Lancet medical journal on Friday suggests the king’s disfigurement was probably slight because a “well-balanced” sideways curvature in the spine would have meant his head and neck were straight, not tilted to one side.

 

Although the king’s torso would have been short relative to the length of his arms and legs, and his right shoulder a little higher than his left, a good tailor and custom-made armour could have minimised the “visual impact” of his condition, according to the paper.

 

There was no evidence that Richard would have walked with an obvious limp; his leg bones were symmetric and well-formed. Neither would the disease, which probably developed when Richard was an adolescent, have reduced his ability to exercise.

 

The researchers have already established that Richard would have been about 5ft 8in (1.7m) tall without his scoliosis, about average for a medieval man, although his condition meant he would have appeared several inches shorter. Tudor propagandists, especially Shakespeare, ensured Richard has been seen as hunchbacked for centuries.

 

The findings by experts at Leicester, Cambridge and Loughborough universities and the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust follow CT scanning of Richard’s spine, with 3D reconstructions of each bone being made from the digital model. The team used a 3D printer to create polymer replicas of each vertebra, which were then put together to recreate the shape of Richard’s spine during his life. This was photographed from 19 different points and the pictures stitched together digitally.

 

[ . . . ]

 

Phil Stone, chairman of the Richard III Society, which helped fund the dig which found the king’s remains, said the research confirmed “the Shakespearean description of a ‘bunch-backed toad’ is a complete fabrication”.

 

[ . . . ]

 

Fighting the recent court case cost the Ministry of Justice, which granted the exhumation licence, £82,000, the city council £85,900 and Leicester University £70,158. The cathedral authorities, as interested parties, paid £7,000. None of them can claim any money from the Plantagenet Alliance, which lost its attempt to force a consultation on the king's next destination. The alliance registered as a non-trading shell company before the court battle to avoid legal costs, a move condemned by the justice secretary, Chris Grayling.

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 30, 2014 at 2:18:49 AM EDT

Subject:    More Richard

 

om

 

Welcome to the 24/7 Richard III News Channel, featuring all possible news of our new favorite royal. Top of the news this morning:

Study shows Richard III not 'hunchback toad' as though

http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2014-05-30/study-shows-richard-iii-not-hunchback-toad-as-thought/

and on and on.  We love this guy!

 

RICHARD III ‘NOT A HUNCHBACK’ SAY LEICESTER EXPERTS

Study shows Richard III not ‘hunchback toad’ as thought

Last updated Fri 30 May 2014

 

A study has shown King Richard III was not the “hunchback toad” described by Shakespeare, and was hardly affected by his spinal deformity.

 

Scientists who scanned his spine found that it had a “well balanced curve”, that could have been concealed by clothes or armour.

 

Hunchback depictions have been seen on stage and on screen, but his head would not have been straight and not to one side, and no evidence of a limp was found. These findings are also supported by accounts written when Richard III was alive.

 

Dr Phil Stone, chairman of the Richard III Society, said:

 

Examination of Richard III’s remains shows that he had scoliosis, thus confirming that the Shakespearean description of a ‘hunch-backed toad’ is a complete fabrication – yet more proof that, while the plays are splendid dramas, they are also most certainly fiction not fact.

 

History tells us that Richard III was a great warrior. Clearly, he was little inconvenienced by his spinal problem and accounts of his appearance, written when he was alive, tell that he was ‘of person and bodily shape comely enough’.

 

Cheers,

Al Magary

 

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Bud Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 30, 2014 at 4:09:16 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Richard III Reburial

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/277504.php

 

3D model provides new insight into King Richard III’s spinal condition

Friday 30 May 2014 - 12am PST

 

In 2012, the skeleton of King Richard III—the king of England from 1483-1485 - was discovered beneath a parking lot in the city of Leicester in the UK. Early analysis of the bones confirmed that the king had scoliosis - a condition that causes the spine to curve to the side. Now, a case study published in The Lancet reveals how the condition would have affected the king's appearance and mobility.

 

The mystery surrounding Richard III’s spinal condition had plagued researchers for years. Many historical references describe the King as a “crook-backed” or “hunch-back’d.” William Shakespeare even used such terminology in his 1593 play about the king.

 

However, it was unclear as to whether such descriptions were accurate or whether they had been conceived by enemies in order to harm his reputation.

 

Therefore, the discovery of his skeleton was largely significant, allowing researchers to finally put the mystery to rest. And it seems a team led by the researchers from the University of Leicester in the UK may have done just that.

 

Researchers created 3D replicas of Richard III's spine

 

It was archeologists from the University of Leicester, in collaboration with Leicester City Council and the Richard III Society, who uncovered the King’s bones in 2012.

 

On initial analysis, researchers confirmed that the King had scoliosis. But it was unknown as to what extent the condition may have affected his appearance, how it may have impacted his mobility and whether it was inherited.

 

The University of Leicester team, alongside researchers from the University of Cambridge, Loughborough University and the University Hospitals of Leicester, all in the UK, set out to answer these questions.

 

Prof. Bruno Morgan and the forensic imaging team from the University of Leicester closely analyzed Richard III’s remains by creating computer-generated and physical replicas of his spine.

 

They did this by carrying out computed tomography (CT) scans, and researchers from Loughborough University used these scans to create 3D prints of the bones.

 

“We analyzed the skeleton macroscopically for evidence of spinal curvature and related lesions. From CT 3D reconstructions of each bone, we created polymer replicas and built a model of the spine to recreate its alignment in life,” the researchers explain.

 

King had a 'small, but noticeable' physical disfigurement

 

From their analysis, the team were able to determine that Richard III was unlikely to have inherited scoliosis. Instead, they believe he had adolescent onset idiopathic scoliosis—a common form of the condition in which onset primarily occurs between the ages of 10 and 12 years.

 

In terms of the King’s physical appearance, they found that his spinal curve was well-balanced at around a 70-90 degree angle, meaning any physical disfigurement would have been small, but noticeable, “particularly from the rear if bending forward and bare backed,” Prof. Morgan told us.

 

Co-author Dr. Piers Mitchell, of the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Cambridge, explains:

 

“His trunk would have been short relative to the length of his limbs, and his right shoulder a little higher than the left. However, a good tailor to adjust his clothing and custom-made armor could have minimized the visual impact of this.”

 

If left untreated, scoliosis can cause severe damage to the spine, pelvis, chest, heart and lung. But based on their findings, the researchers say it is unlikely that Richard III's scoliosis would have affected his lung capacity, meaning he would have been able to exercise normally.

 

In addition, the researchers say his leg bones were well formed and symmetrical, so there is no evidence to suggest he walked with a limp.

 

Prof. Morgan told Medical News Today that the type of scoliosis that Richard III had would have probably caused him back pain, and if he had survived, the pain would have worsened. But he doubts the condition would have affected his ability to fight.

 

“Scoliosis of this degree is limiting and leads to loss of mobility and osteoarthritic back pain. However, I would not classify him as disabled. With good armor and a horse he could have fought effectively,” he added.

 

“A well-trained fighter with this scoliosis would probably be better than a badly trained fighter without. However, we probably would not recommend a modern scoliosis patient to go into battle!”

 

Prof. Morgan told us that another case study will follow that will provide a detailed forensic analysis of Richard III’s battle injuries.

 

[ . . . ]

 

Query: The Boar’s Head

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.257  Friday, 30 May 2014

 

[1] From:        Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         May 29, 2014 at 2:38:29 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Quickly Query 

 

[2] From:        Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         May 29, 2014 at 3:34:30 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Quickly Query 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Steve Sohmer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 29, 2014 at 2:38:29 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Quickly Query

 

Dear Friends,

 

Thanks to Larry Weiss for his help.

 

Maybe I should rephrase my question. John Fastolfe’s Boar’s Head was in Southwark. And while it’s clear that Falstaff’s tavern is in Eastcheap—and that Hostess owns the place, including the tapestries, etc. (2H4) – how do we know she owned the Boar’s Head in Eastcheap which burned in fire of 1666 ( its location still bears a plaque)? The identification seems to have originated with Theobald (b. 1688), who couldn’t have known the place first hand. But maybe that’s where the identification began. Can anyone throw further light on this?

 

I don’t think Shakespeare ever makes the identification explicit; perhaps because the Boar’s Head was turned into a kinda playhouse, i.e., a competitor to the Globe. He jokes that Falstaff is like an old boar eating a trough (or something like that).

 

If anyone has a good source on this, I’d be very grateful to hear about it.

 

Thanks!

 

Steve

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 29, 2014 at 3:34:30 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Quickly Query

 

But the historical Fastolfe owned a Boar’s Head in Southwark, whereas Quickly’s dive is said to be in Eastcheap, which is north of the river. And the Boar’s Head which was made into a playhouse for Robert Browne and Derby’s Men was yet another one—popular tavern name, even today.

 

I suspect the point of the question is that although “everyone knows” Hal and Falstaff hung out at the Boar’s Head in Eastcheap, nowhere in the original texts of 1 & 2 Henry IV does that inn name occur (though Eastcheap does) -- except in 18c and later stage directions added by editors. Perhaps they were thinking of Fastolfe’s other Boar’s Head? 

 

More of Who Played

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.256  Thursday, 29 May 2014

 

From:        John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 29, 2014 at 4:33:08 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Who Played

 

Pervez Rizvi wrote:

 

>The only thing stopping Shakespeare from writing Twelfth Night 

>in 1602 is John Manningham’s diary, which purports to record a 

>performance of it at Middle Temple on 2 February 1602. Both 

>Manningham’s and Simon Forman’s diaries were discovered at 

>about the same time (late 1820s / early 1830s) and by the same 

>two men, Collier and Hunter. Perhaps they’re genuine but

>it’s best not to be too credulous.

 

The issue of forgery is discussed in Lothian & Craik’s Arden2 edition (1975) of “Twelfth Night” (with reference to previous literature), and the conclusion there is that the entry is genuine.

 

John Briggs

 

King Richard III to be Reburied in Leicester

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.255  Thursday, 29 May 2014

 

[1] From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         May 28, 2014 at 4:34:33 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Richard III Reburial 

 

[2] From:        Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         May 28, 2014 at 9:25:30 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Richard III Reburial 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 28, 2014 at 4:34:33 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Richard III Reburial

 

>I do not really understand why King Richard III is not, as all 

>other kings of England, going to be buried in Westminster Abbey.

 

“All other kings of England” are not buried in the Abbey. Early Norman kings were usually buried in Normandy. The more recent ones (most recently Edward VIII) are entombed in Frogmore Mausoleum on the grounds of Windsor Castle. Comparatively few of those in between were buried in Westminster Abbey.

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         May 28, 2014 at 9:25:30 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Richard III Reburial

 

Anne Cuneo wrote:

 

>I do not really understand why King Richard III is not, as all 

>other kings of England, going to be buried in Westminster 

>Abbey. He has been slandered for centuries, why should he, 

>once again, remain apart, be a tourist attraction and not quite 

>a full fledged monarch, as if there was in him something of 

>Shakespeare’s Richard, which would make him not quite 

>kosher enough to be buried with the other kings. He was 

>as good a king as many who are buried in Westminster. 

>I wonder at the English, frankly . . . 

 

In fact, no English monarch has been buried in Westminster Abbey since George II in 1760, and there are now a total of 14 burial places (only 9 in England) of the kings and queens since the Conquest. The remains of 16 monarchs are in Westminster Abbey, 12 at Windsor Castle.  

 

A survey of the royal burials shows that Richard III’s bones are not the only ones to have been lost and supposedly found. As well, some remains have been subject to a number of reburials and a couple of tombs are only monuments. 

  • Westminster Abbey:  Henry III, Edward I, Edward III, Richard II (all in Edward the Confessor’s Chapel); Henry V; possibly Edward V (and his brother, the other Prince in the Tower, apparently found in the Tower in 1674, reburied 1678 in Henry VII Lady Chapel); Henry VII, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles II, Mary II, William III, Anne, George II (all in Henry VII Lady Chapel)
  • Windsor Castle: Henry VI (reburied from Chertsey Abbey by Richard III in 1484-85), Edward IV, Henry VIII, Charles I, George III, George IV, William IV, Edward VII, George V, George VI (all in St. George’s Chapel); Victoria, Edward VIII (royal burial ground at Frogmore)  
  • Abbaye de St-Étienne (Abbaye aux Hommes), Caen, Normandy:  William I (the Conqueror; possibly only one bone)
  • Winchester Cathedral:  William II (Rufus; some bones)
  • Reading Abbey, Berkshire:  Henry I (supposed)
  • Faversham Abbey, Kent:  Stephen (supposed)
  • Rouen Cathedral, Normandy: Empress Matilda (supposed; bones reinterred 1846 after two early graves at the abbey of Bec-Hellouin were destroyed); heart of Richard I (supposed)
  • Abbaye de Fontevraud, Anjou:  Henry II, Richard I (actual graves lost during French Revolution)
  • Worcester Cathedral:  John
  • Gloucester Cathedral:  Edward II
  • Canterbury Cathedral:  Henry IV
  • Leicester Cathedral: Richard III (to be reburied from ruins of Greyfriars, Leicester)
  • Chapel of St. Edmund, Church of the English Benedictines, Paris:  James II
  • Hanover, Germany:  George I (initially in Leine Castle Chapel, moved to chapel at Herrenhausen after World War II)

In addition, Lady Jane Grey is buried in St. Peter ad Vincula, Tower of London Oliver Cromwell’s remains were treated very badly, ending up in a pit at Tyburn, but Richard Cromwell is quietly at rest in the church at Hursley, Hampshire.

 

Of Shakespeare’s other kings, Duncan and Macbeth are possibly in Iona Abbey, while Malcolm was moved from Tynemouth to Dunfermline Abbey, or maybe Iona . . .   

 

The search for bones could go on: thanks to the discovery of R3, a small campaign was launched to recover the bones of Henry I somewhere in the ruins of Reading Abbey.

 

Cheers,

Al Magary

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.