English History - The Real Richard III - Warning: Nothing to do with JWs.

by fulltimestudent 4 Replies latest social current

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    Warning for thoe who want to read only JW related material: This thread has nothing to do with either the real or imagined world of the JWs. Do not read if that upsets you!

    Demonstrating how imagination can prevail over reality, the recent discovery of Richard the Third's remains has enabled forensic scientists to check what he may actually have looked like, and have been able to demonstrate that Shakespeare's depiction of him was highly colored. Whether that was for dramatic effect or for political usefulness will be the topic for some interesting academic debates in the future.

    Shakespeare described Richard as an ugly hunchback. He is "rudely stamped," "deformed," "unfinished," "a bunch backed toad" and therefore unattractive to women, unable to "strut before a wanton ambling nymph."

    This affects (in Shakespeare's terms) Richard psychologically, who says: "I am determined to prove a villain / And hate the idle pleasures of these days."

    So what was he actually like?

    The analysis of the remains indicates a degree of scoloisis, but not so bad that he would have been a cripple or anything like Shakespeare's description.

    Here's what the forensic team have diagnosed.

    Dr. Jo Appleby said: "The major finding we have made is being able to reconstruct the three-dimensional nature of the scoliosis and understand what it would have looked like.

    "Obviously, the skeleton was flattened out when it was in the ground. We had a good idea of the sideways aspect of the curve, but we didn't know the precise nature of the spiral aspect of the condition.

    "The arthritis in the spine meant it could only be reconstructed in a specific way, meaning that we can get a very accurate idea of the shape of the curve. It's really good to be able to produce this 3D reconstruction rather than a 2D picture, as you get a good sense of how the spine would have actually appeared."

    "Although the scoliosis looks dramatic, it probably did not cause a major physical deformity. This is because he had a well-balanced curve. The condition would have meant that his trunk was short in comparison to the length of his limbs, and his right shoulder would have been slightly higher than the left, but this could have been disguised by custom-made armour and by having a good tailor."

    "A curve of 65-85 would not have prevented Richard from being an active individual, and there is no evidence that Richard had a limp as his curve was well balanced and his leg bones were normal and symmetric."

    Dr Phil Stone, Chairman, Richard III Society, said: "Examination of Richard III's remains shows that he had a scoliosis, thus confirming that the Shakespearean description of a 'bunch-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" and that he "was the most handsome man in the room after his brother, Edward IV".

    Source: http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/06052014/article/the-real-form-of-richard-iii-depicted-in-3-d-model

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I recall reading more than 40 years ago that Shakekspeare had to stay on Elizabeth's good side. Besides, Richard III's enemies wrote early biographies of Richard. It was not in their interest to show truth. I don't know for certain but it was not news in my day. His historical plays usually contain at least passing reference to how history is repeated in the present. Harold Bloom writes about the process. Perhaps I paid attention b/c of my major.

  • Mikado
    Mikado

    fulltimestudent i think the interpretation you are placing on the amazing finding is vastly different to that which many have placed on it. for generations it's been an accepted fact that Richard was in fact, not a hunchback and that it was all Elizabethan propaganda. Many were amazed with the discovery of his skeleton to discover that he was in fact, at least to a degree, hunchbacked...

  • StAnn
    StAnn

    Fascinating stuff. My son has scoliosis and also has a shorter trunk and longer legs as a result. Shakespeare was probably going for effect, as it was just a play after all, not a historical document that he was writing. Kinda like Oliver Stone and his "biographical" movies. Post here again when the political issues are discussed, it will be fun reading.

    StAnn

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this topic.

    Band on the Run:

    I recall reading more than 40 years ago that Shakekspeare had to stay on Elizabeth's good side.

    Political pressure and intrigue exist in every government, I guess. The possibility of such influences within the plays of Shakespeare, would be a fascinating perspective to explore, especially if we used Marlowe's plays as a contrasting element. Maybe someone knows of such a study - tell us if you do?

    It is not my major, but its interesting to think about.

    --------

    Mikado:

    fulltimestudent i think the interpretation you are placing on the amazing finding is vastly different to that which many have placed on it. for generations it's been an accepted fact that Richard was in fact, not a hunchback and that it was all Elizabethan propaganda. Many were amazed with the discovery of his skeleton to discover that he was in fact, at least to a degree, hunchbacked...

    I posted this recent report, not because the argument is new, but because it gives some finality to the argument.

    More it illustrates how modern techniques allow us a more accurate understanding of the past.

    Plus, I think its a great illustration as to how a dramatic representation (propaganda), controlled in some way or the other, permits the coloring of history.

    ------

    StAnn:

    Shakespeare was probably going for effect, as it was just a play after all, not a historical document that he was writing.

    I fully agree! But, would you agree that it's in the dramatisation of people and their lives, that the vivid (and lasting) images are formed, even though the audience is aware that its a dramatisation?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit