Richard III Society

Tonight I was surprised to find something called The Richard III Society on the internet. It is not an international confederacy of assassination-minded dictators, nor a bad historical romance novel (either of which could be a menace to society). Rather, it is a club with the following mission:

In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the role of this monarch in English history...

Richard’s infamy over the centuries has been due to the continuing popularity, and the belief in, the picture painted of Richard III by William Shakespeare in his play of that name. The validity of this representation of Richard has been queried over the centuries and has now been taken up by the Society.

The Society has over 3,500 members worldwide. It operates on many levels and is open to laymen and historians alike...

A whole society dedicated to vindicating and defending King Richard! Interesting, hm? Their website is here.

I find it somewhat touching that Richard has his partisans, after all this time. There seem to be plenty of them - their membership numbers are rather astonishing in fact, especially given that it'll cost you 26 quid to join up. And the most notable member would have to be their patron, the current Duke of Gloucester, whose name is actually Richard (!).

But what of the wicked Richard of Shakespeare, the "the troubler of the poore Worlds peace"? "Tudor propaganda," says the Richard III Society. Do we agree? Was the historical Richard innocent? C-Span may have the answer...

Re: Titus Andronicus - A Play about Family?

Wow, Shakespeare girl, that last post is really interesting. It took me back to my Roman Family Law course in college, where one of the basic rules we learned was that the Roman pater familias held the the "patria potestas" - the father's power. This power did in fact include the right of life and death. It also extended over the whole household, including all descendants in the male line (so the younger Lucius would be under Titus', not his own father's power, legally).

In practice, the right to kill one's own descendents was largely theoretical, and was eventually done away with, which was a very good thing, especially if you happened to be an ancient Roman. Of course, killing *other people's* descendants, which so far seems to be also much of what this play is about, was not okay (an exception in the play to this might possibly have been the death of Alarbus, since he's a captive of Titus, and slaves were under patria potestas. Except the whole human sacrifice thing was totally disgusting and seems highly, highly unrealistic for late Imperial Rome, but anyways...).

I wonder how much Roman law influenced Shakespeare in writing this play - I'll be watching out for these family law themes, as I finish up the play! (perhaps that will give me something else to think about other than "yuck!" and "gross!").

La Pucelle - History and Movie Review

If you read Henry VI part 1 and you're anything like me, you might have been slightly annoyed at Shakespeare's treatment of Joan of Arc. She's inspiring and disarming (literally) when we first meet her, but by the end of the play, Shakespeare has turned her into a medieval Sabrina the Teenage Witch - complete with a lively interest in boys and a slightly undependable spell-making ability.

Now, we can see why Shakespeare would write it this way - the English are the good guys in his play, and it would hardly do for him to add a plot point in which a French saint was led by holy visions to massacre them. But is there much truth in Shakespeare's portrayal of her? Well, I did a little research, and as much as I like Shakespeare, the general conclusion seems to be no, probably not. As far as can be told, in reality she seems to have been a brave and clever peasant girl who sincerely believed in her visions and in French independence, not in witchcraft and dalliances with French royalty.

Of course, I suspect Shakespeare would not have been particularly upset about his departure from the historical record here (like many of his historical characters, she is there to fulfill a specific role in his story, not to educate us about the true personalities of famous people).

Joan of Arc by Jules Bastien Lepage (click to see a larger version of this amazing painting).

If you're looking for a dramatic portrayal of Joan that is in complete contrast with Shakespeare's propagandistic version, and you by some mischance have insufficient leisure to read Schiller's Die Jungfrau von Orleans in the original German, may I suggest the 1928 Danish film The Passion of Joan of Arc? It's even available on youtube.

This is an extraordinary silent film, directed by Carl Th. Dreyer. It covers the events leading up to Joan's death and focuses on the ecclesiastical trial - the script was made from actual excerpts - and religious complicity in her death (unlike Shakespeare's political emphasis). Although difficult to watch, it's one of the greatest films I've seen.

The actress Maria Falconetti as Joan. None of the cast in this production wore makeup.

The film almost didn't make it until the present day. Shortly after it was released, it was destroyed in a warehouse fire. Another cut prepared by the director from outtakes was destroyed in another fire! A few incomplete versions circulated for years. Finally, in 1981, a complete cut was found in a mental institution in Norway and was restored.

Part of what is most notable about the film is the use of the low angle face shot. Dreyer used it extensively for inquisitorial scenes that capture the businesslike horror of medieval "canon law." 

Special mention goes to the score, written by Richard Einhorn and performed by Anonymous 4 (I fell in love with this recording, which was released as a CD, before I ever saw the movie).

Now, I feel I could go on and on about how amazing this film is, but I've already taken on a lot in writing about it at all - how do you "review" a movie like Casablanca or The Seventh Seal? These are the guys that make the rules! And to me, this film is in a similar category, except very old, sad, European and silent (read: slow, for those of you that only like the action-packed!).

I'll just say that to me, this movie is a reminder of a historical fact: even when it seemed that all of the European supposed "Christians" were unified, there were those - persecuted, silenced and burned - whose beliefs were different. And ours too is a world where people are still persecuted and even killed because of religious differences or 'thought crimes.' Those who decry the multiple denominations and political factions in free societies and long for religious or political unity at any price, take note of the alternative.

Henry VI Help - Part 1, History

As I'm looking back on my Henry VI reading experience, I thought it might be helpful for anyone else who was about to embark on the same adventure if I were to go through the plays and give some general history background and some information about the important characters. As you may remember, I had some issues keeping all the characters straight - I'm working on a post on Henry VI character identification and organization that will hopefully be up later this week, but first I wanted to look at the whole issue of reading Shakespeare's histories.

With history plays like the Henry VIs, we're reading stories that Shakespeare based on real events that took place surrounding the nobles and monarchs of England. However, he took significant liberties with just about everything that really happened in order to make his story more dramatically compelling and exciting. Now, the Henry VIs just so happen to take place during The Wars of the Roses - an action filled, yet notoriously confusing, time in England's history.

My strongly held opinion is that one DOES NOT NEED to know much about the Wars of the Roses to enjoy the Henry VI plays! If you want to really dive into the history of 15th century England, you can certainly have a great time and learn a lot - some quick links about the Wars of the Roses are here and here. However, be warned - Shakespeare changes A LOT of the events, chronology, and motivations of the Wars of the Roses, so if you spend a lot of time memorizing things like dates of real battles, which important noble was involved with each event, etc., you may find yourself frustrated and confused.

A history book that I very enthusiastically recommend, however, is Peter Saccio's Shakespeare's English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama.

This handy little volume lays out the essential historical events and characters during the times of the kings dealt with in all of Shakespeare's history plays in a clear, thorough, interesting style. Saccio shows what the prevailing historical opinions were during the time the plays were written, as well as looking at how Shakespeare adapted or condensed the historical record for dramatic effect. Demystifying and accessible, this book is a valuable resource - I will definitely be turning to it when we read the remaining history plays later this year.

However, I think that anyone could basically get the gist of the H6 plays by understanding just a tiny little bit of the background, which I will now unfold to you in Shakespeare girl's patented "English History in One Paragraph!" Here we go!

England's kingship passes to the oldest son in the royal house in a hereditary manner - and the crown CAN be passed down through the female line. However, our title character's grandfather, Henry Bolingbroke, usurped the throne from the rightful king, Richard II. Henry Bolingbroke then became known as Henry IV. After his death, his son, Henry V, took the throne and proceeded to conquer France, which at the start of our play is ruled along with England by Henry's son, Henry VI. All these Henrys are identified by family as from the house of LANCASTER. Henry VI turns out to be a weak leader, which opens the door for one of his nobles, Richard Plantagenent, Duke of York, to assert a claim to the throne based on his the fact that his ancestors were, by birth order, in line for the throne before Henry VI's usurping ancestors. As the conflict escalates, the House of LANCASTER  (the King's party) takes on the emblem of a RED ROSE. The House of YORK (Richard's party) is represented by a WHITE ROSE.

As for the action of the plays, the English fight in France; they fight among themselves in England; and finally we have a few knock-down drag-it-out battles over who gets to be king. And I think that's enough information to get anyone started!