History at times can be somewhat subjective; the interpretation of events and the information that is available can shape a person’s understanding of a subject. There have been disagreements about history because of the way that interpretation and evidence available has shaped the way that people describe historical accounts. This being said, there are more than just subjective differences in Shakespeare’s “Richard III” and Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time representation of who Richard III was as a person and the way that he became king. When encountering two writings that depict a person as being very different from the other there are many questions that come to mind: what about them that is so different; which is the truth if either; and why are they so different? Shakespeare wrote the play “Richard III” to describe a man that was very wicked and did not deserve to be King of England. On the other side Josephine Tey’s book, The Daughter of Time shows a man that form hundreds of years has been misrepresented and lied about. There are many important facts that are different in the two stories that are used to show the viewer their side of the story. Though these stories are fictional, they are also based on a person that actually existed and ruled England for a short time. In The Daughter of Time Tey’s character Grant points out that, Shakespeare’s play was written based on the accounts of John Morton who was the Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VII; neither Henry VII nor Morton liked Richard III (p.95). Due to their dislike of Richard, it is possible that they wrote a history of his that is not true in order to make Henry VII look like a better choice to be king. When analyzing the two stories, there are differences in... ... middle of paper ... ... of history there may important details that are missing that may change your understanding of history. Critically evaluating the source is necessary and evaluating where the information originally came from can make a source useful or worthless. Once you start to learn more about a topic it is essential that you come up with more questions to try to answer to further understand and clarify. By coming up with more questions it will help your find connections and holes in the material that is being used. The contradictions between two sources may start to become clearer which direction to take if you have developed a set of problems that you are directly trying to solve. When studying history it is necessary to not be limited by what is printed in history books but to also search for other sources that can expand and even correct the information that is found there
In his article, "Shakespeare 's King Richard III and the Problematics of Tudor Bastardy", Maurice Hunt gives a convincing (dare I say legitimate!) argument for why he believes Shakespeare took a large risk writing and performing his play King Richard III during the life of Queen Elizabeth I. Knowing the challenges Elizabeth faced during her childhood and into her reign because of her father, King Henry VIII 's ever-changing mind whether or not she was a legitimate heir or a bastard, I agree with Hunt in the fact Shakespeare took a huge risk with his performances of Richard III, if in fact she did see the performance which is something I will be touching on later on, but for the sake of the review of his article I will be focusing on his argument based on Elizabeth being present. Hunt also spends a great deal explaining the history of bastardry in the Tudor family so that we can understand why that
To explore connections between texts is to heighten understanding of humanity’s progressing values and the underlying relevant themes that continue to engage societies regardless of context. William Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) (RIII) and Al Pacino’s docudrama Looking for Richard (1996) (LFR) demonstrate how opinion is created through comparative study, both explore the struggle for power within differing contexts to determine the duplicity of humanity. Ultimately, despite the divergent eras of composition and textual form, these connections expose the relevant social commentaries of their composers, highlighting innately human values, which remain constant.
In her novel The Daughter of Time Josephine Tey looks at how history can be misconstrued through the more convenient reinterpretation of the person in power, and as such, can become part of our common understanding, not being true knowledge at all, but simply hearsay. In The Daughter of Time Josephine claims that 40 million school books can’t be wrong but then goes on to argue that the traditional view of Richard III as a power obsessed, blood thirsty monster is fiction made credible by Thomas More and given authenticity by William Shakespeare. Inspector Alan Grant looks into the murder of the princes in the tower out of boredom. Tey uses Grant to critique the way history is delivered to the public and the ability of historians to shape facts to present the argument they believe.
Shakespeare, William, and Peter Holland. The Tragedy of King Richard the Third. New York, NY: Penguin, 2000. Print.
From the beginning of the play, the character of Richard is depicted as amiss. Thomas More’s account of King Richard states that King Richard“was malicious, wrathful, envious, and, from afore his birth ever forward” (More, 2005:10).King Richard’s mother, the Duchesse of York is said to have had a hard labour at his birth. Richard is said to have come into the wor...
To study history, the facts and information must be passed down. To do so, historians record the information in textbooks and other nonfiction works. Whether or not the historians retell facts or construct their own version of history is debatable. History can be percieved as being “constructed” by the historians due to their bias, elimination of controversy, strive for entertainment, and neglect to update the information.
Indeed, Shakespearian classics are eternal because they are, like stories from Bible, stories about humanity. By stretching the motifs of Hitler into Richard, Loncraine and McKellen’s adaptation of Richard III in 1995 is mainly making efforts to make Richard more tangible that people could correlate to, for example, and digest Richard’s characteristics by hearing their grandparents talk about Hitler , like how audience in Shakespeare’s time hear about Richard III.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
The content and construction of texts are inexorably influenced by the plethora of social, cultural, and historical factors relative to a composer’s context. Context thus becomes the principle medium for deciphering the complex and often didactic meanings within texts. Through the comparative study of Shakespeare’s historical tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s postmodern docudrama Looking For Richard, both texts explore the various connections explored through the protagonist Richard with respective societal influence affecting their portrayal. Shakespeare’s text strongly conveys a sense of providentialism which was influential by the Tudor monarchy whilst Al Pacino thorough the implement of modern day media portrays these influences to a secular, postmodern audience.
	Much debate and controversy surround the rise and fall of Richard the Third. It is hard to ignore such subjects due to the bonds and hidden reasons that many of the authors of the middle ages had towards Richard. In keeping an objective approach towards Richard III, the study of his rise and fall will be taken in the perspective of his royal acts and administration of England. Public sentiment over such things as the scandal surrounding the princes did have an effect over the rule of Richard, but there are many other underlying aspects that could have extended Richards rule, and changed the way history looks back on him.
Written during a time of peace immediately following the conclusion of the War of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancasters, William Shakespeare’s play Richard III showcases a multi-faceted master of linguistic eloquence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a character who simultaneously manages to be droll, revolting, deadly, yet fascinating. Richard's villainy works in a keen, detestable manner, manifesting itself in his specific use or, rather, abuse of rhetoric. He spends a substantial amount of time directly interacting and therefore breaking the fourth wall and orating to the audience in order to forge a relationship with them, to make members not only his confidants of murderous intentions, but also his accomplices and powerless, unwilling cohorts to his wrongdoings. Through the reader’s exploration of stylistic and rhetorical stratagem in the opening and final soliloquies delivered by Richard, readers are able to identify numerous devices which provide for a dramatic effect that make evident the psychological deterioration and progression of Richard as a character and villain.
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Second, the historian must place himself within the existing historical debate on the topic at hand, and state (if not so formulaically as is presented here) what he intends to add to or correct about the existing discussion, how he intends to do that (through examining new sources, asking new questions, or shifting the emphasis of pre-existing explanations), and whether he’s going to leave out some parts of the story. This fulfills the qualities of good history by alerting readers to the author’s bias in comparison with the biases of other schools of scholarship on the topic, and shows that the author is confident enough in his arguments to hold them up to other interpreta...
Throughout the historical literary periods, many writers underrepresented and undervalued the role of women in society, even more, they did not choose to yield the benefits of the numerous uses of the female character concerning the roles which women could accomplish as plot devices and literary tools. William Shakespeare was one playwright who found several uses for female characters in his works. Despite the fact that in Shakespeare's history play, Richard II, he did not use women in order to implement the facts regarding the historical events. Instead, he focused the use of women roles by making it clear that female characters significantly enriched the literary and theatrical facets of his work. Furthermore in Shakespeare’s history play, King Richard II, many critics have debated the role that women play, especially the queen. One of the arguments is that Shakespeare uses the queen’s role as every women’s role to show domestic life and emotion. Jo McMurtry explains the role of all women in his book, Understanding Shakespeare’s England A Companion for the American Reader, he states, “Women were seen, legally and socially, as wives. Marriage was a permanent state” (5). McMurtry argues that every woman’s role in the Elizabethan society is understood to be a legal permanent state that is socially correct as wives and mothers. Other critics believe that the role of the queen was to soften King Richard II’s personality for the nobles and commoners opinion of him. Shakespeare gives the queen only a few speaking scenes with limited lines in Acts two, four, and five through-out the play. Also, she is mentioned only a few times by several other of the characters of the play and is in multiple scenes wit...
History is very important for everyone, and everyone should learn about history. Learning History can help to learn about people situation and life from the past. It also helps to know about many events and even some fact from the past. When people want to learn history, they should search about any subject or event from the past and tries to learn the both side of the subject. They also need to try to find what is hidden from that subject, so they can learn more about it. They also need to find out who wrote the subject that they learn about, for not all the historian show the bad side of the event, and they just show the good side. When people know they both side the can have a good judgment about the event. For example, before taking the