Shakespeare portrayed Richard III the way he did, because he got all of his information from a Tudor historian. Shakespeare portrayed Richard III as "as a deformed and ugly hunchback who would do anything to become king." Sir Thomas More made a deep impression on Shakespeare, which is also another reason he portrayed Richard III the way he did.
With regard to the history of Richard III, what is meant in the distinction between "Traditionalist" or "Revisionist" source? What is meant between the "Lancastrian" and "Ricardian"?
A traditionalist wants everything to remain the same as it was when their fathers' fathers were around. Traditionalists want everything to stay within the boundaries of tradition in their villages and kingdoms. A Revisionist wants things to change, and take different paths than the Traditionalist does. Richard III was obviously a revisionist. He wanted change in who was the king, and took drastic measures to make sure that he would become king. Lancastrian were on Henry Tudor's side, against Richard. A Ricardian, served under Richard III, some unwillingly forced to do so.
The first passage is definitely Lancastrian. The passage talked very disdainfully about Richard, and how he was violent and cruel to almost everyone. "This doone, Richerd, whose mynde partly was enflamyd with desire of usurping the kyngdom, partly was trubblyd by guyltynes of intent to commyt so haynous wickednes" explains partially how they portrayed him in the passage.
The second passage is certainly Ricardian. The writers gave Richard III more of a chance, instead of throwing him to the dogs the first chance they got. Even in the first sentence("With regard to the person of Richard, it appears to have been as much misrepresented as his actions") that was shown. They seem to take Richard's side more than being unbiased, however.
Missing really clear definitions; what source did you use? As for Shakespeare and More, be specific and explain what More said.
ReplyDelete