Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 15th, 2013, 03:21 PM   #171

SPERRO's Avatar
Ex Cold War Warrior
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: North East England
Posts: 3,319

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
I can agree with you about Thomas More, was willing to stand up to Henry VIII, even when it cost him his life.
About his version of events of the resting place of the princes, it did seemed up in the air. Thomas was only a young boy when the battle of Bosworth happened and was instructed by John Morton, Bishop of Ely and one could image what sort of stories he could conjure.
I believe that Thomas More was 7 years old at the time of Bosworth, any history learned by him was probably hearsay
SPERRO is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 16th, 2013, 06:07 AM   #172
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,608

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPERRO View Post
I believe that Thomas More was 7 years old at the time of Bosworth, any history learned by him was probably hearsay
A number of people from the Richard III reign would still have been around when More was an adult. More's father, Judge John More, lived to the ripe old age of 79. A number of More's sources would have been fairly close to the action. Far closer than any of us, or any author who now consider themselves an expert. Of course none of this makes what More says automatically true. Yet its not as easy to dismiss as some modern writers claim.
jackydee is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 06:38 AM   #173

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,907

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackydee View Post
A number of people from the Richard III reign would still have been around when More was an adult. More's father, Judge John More, lived to the ripe old age of 79. A number of More's sources would have been fairly close to the action.
We can't say how close to the action More's sources were, since he does not name them. Much of what Thomas More mentions in clearly rumor. John More was a barrister when Richard was king. He was pretty far from the action. John Morton was a mentor from Thomas More. Morton would have been closer to some of the action, but far from unbiased. In the end, Thomas More let only a handwritten manuscript, so it appears he didn't think the work was ready for publication.
Fiver is online now  
Old January 16th, 2013, 06:53 AM   #174
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,608

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiver View Post
We can't say how close to the action More's sources were, since he does not name them. Much of what Thomas More mentions in clearly rumor. John More was a barrister when Richard was king. He was pretty far from the action. John Morton was a mentor from Thomas More. Morton would have been closer to some of the action, but far from unbiased. In the end, Thomas More let only a handwritten manuscript, so it appears he didn't think the work was ready for publication.
True, yet the fact that it was unpublished does lessen the charge that it was a propaganda exercise by More. There are times when More says he is unsure of what he is writing. The instance of wether the bones were moved being an example. More stated he "heard" they were moved but when people were questioned they could not confirm this. It does suggest at least some degree critical faculty in his manuscript.

It is also worth mentioning that More said nothing about Richard being a hunchback. That description was added later by others as the manuscript was finally published.
jackydee is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 07:02 AM   #175

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,016

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackydee View Post
True, yet the fact that it was unpublished does lessen the charge that it was a propaganda exercise by More. There are times when More says he is unsure of what he is writing. The instance of wether the bones were moved being an example. More stated he "heard" they were moved but when people were questioned they could not confirm this. It does suggest at least some degree critical faculty in his manuscript.

It is also worth mentioning that More said nothing about Richard being a hunchback. That description was added later by others as the manuscript was finally published.
I mentioned this earlier ... that More's hand apparently finishes around the point in the History where Morton is trying to persuade Buckingham to back Henry. This site - Sir Thomas More - claims that everything after this was written by John Hardyng, including the description of Richard's appearance.

But in the History, the description of Richard appears very near the beginning.

Does anybody know any more about this?
Sicknero is online now  
Old January 16th, 2013, 07:42 AM   #176
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,608

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
I mentioned this earlier ... that More's hand apparently finishes around the point in the History where Morton is trying to persuade Buckingham to back Henry. This site - Sir Thomas More - claims that everything after this was written by John Hardyng, including the description of Richard's appearance.

But in the History, the description of Richard appears very near the beginning.

Does anybody know any more about this?
Im trying to post a link, but cant find one at the moment. I did read however that it was Hardyng who inserted the part about Richard being a hunchback, not More.
jackydee is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 12:59 PM   #177

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,902
Blog Entries: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
I mentioned this earlier ... that More's hand apparently finishes around the point in the History where Morton is trying to persuade Buckingham to back Henry. This site - Sir Thomas More - claims that everything after this was written by John Hardyng, including the description of Richard's appearance.

But in the History, the description of Richard appears very near the beginning.

Does anybody know any more about this?
That is a really good link, its from the Foundation. It seems that they have added this as I have never seen it before.
It seems that Thomas Mores unfinished work had been doctored.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:10 PM   #178

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
That is a really good link, its from the Foundation. It seems that they have added this as I have never seen it before.
It seems that Thomas Mores unfinished work had been doctored.
Well, maybe. But the article has no sources and if Hardyng wrote the latter parts of the book (as stated in the link) then why is the description right at the beginning?

"The narrative is then continued by Hardyng, who brings it up to Richardís death. It is Hardying who gives a physical description of Richard, almost identical to Vergilís."
Sicknero is online now  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:22 PM   #179

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,902
Blog Entries: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
Well, maybe. But the article has no sources and if Hardyng wrote the latter parts of the book (as stated in the link) then why is the description right at the beginning?

"The narrative is then continued by Hardyng, who brings it up to Richardís death. It is Hardying who gives a physical description of Richard, almost identical to Vergilís."
The author of the link did not they name.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 02:02 PM   #180
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,608

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
Well, maybe. But the article has no sources and if Hardyng wrote the latter parts of the book (as stated in the link) then why is the description right at the beginning?

"The narrative is then continued by Hardyng, who brings it up to Richardís death. It is Hardying who gives a physical description of Richard, almost identical to Vergilís."
I did find this.

Ricardius Rex | The Richard III Foundation, Inc.

Moreís unfinished work, The History of Richard III, was found after his death and was subsequently published by his son-in-law, Rastell in 1557. The following foreword was part of this publication:
The History of Richard III (unfinished) written by Master Thomas More, then one of the under-Sheriffs of London about the year 1513 Which work hath been before this time printed in Hardyngís Chronicle and in Hallís Chronicle, but very much corrupt in many places sometime having less and sometime having more and altered in words and whole sentences, much varying from the copy in his own hand, by which this is printed.
jackydee is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
hunchback, iii, richard, spine


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Richard II: What's your take? Comet Medieval and Byzantine History 56 June 11th, 2013 03:37 PM
Richard III dynamexx Medieval and Byzantine History 11 October 30th, 2012 08:34 AM
Hunchback of Notre Dame Discovered crossroadclarence Art and Cultural History 7 August 19th, 2010 08:34 AM
Richard Ist Nicklord1 European History 17 January 9th, 2010 10:12 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.