The History of Richard III. St. Thomas More, Richard S. Sylvester

1964 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-343
Author(s):  
Richard Luman
Keyword(s):  
2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-68
Author(s):  
Brendan Cook
Keyword(s):  

L’article explore les usages du terme latin prudentia dans l’Utopie (1516) de Thomas More. Cet article explique les apparentes contradictions du traitement de More du mot prudentia, à travers l’étude des utilisations du terme dans un éventail de sources, incluant les dialogues de Cicéron, les écrits éthique de l’humaniste italien du XVe siècle Lorenzo Valla, les écrits d’étude biblique du contemporain de More, Érasme de Rotterdam, et le History of King Richard III de More. Cet article cherche également à évaluer les différentes interprétations de la prudentia dans les versions anglaises de l’Utopie, offre plusieurs options pour les futurs traducteurs.


2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 687-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROSEMARY SWEET

ABSTRACTThis article offers a case-study of an early preservation campaign to save the remains of the fifteenth-century Crosby Hall in Bishopsgate, London, threatened with demolition in 1830, in a period before the emergence of national bodies dedicated to the preservation of historic monuments. It is an unusual and early example of a successful campaign to save a secular building. The reasons why the Hall's fate attracted the interest of antiquaries, architects, and campaigners are analysed in the context of the emergence of historical awareness of the domestic architecture of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as well as wider recognition of the importance of this period for Britain's urban and commercial development. The Hall's associations with Richard III and other historic figures, including Thomas More and Thomas Gresham, are shown to have been particularly important in generating wider public interest, thereby allowing the campaigners to articulate the importance of the Hall in national terms. The history of Crosby Hall illuminates how a discourse of national heritage emerged from the inherited tradition of eighteenth-century antiquarianism and highlights the importance of the social, professional, and familial networks that sustained proactive attempts to preserve the nation's monuments and antiquities.


1856 ◽  
Vol s2-I (6) ◽  
pp. 105-107
Author(s):  
James Gairdner

Moreana ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (Number 213) (1) ◽  
pp. 48-62
Author(s):  
Guillaume Navaud

Why did Thomas More write two versions of his History of King Richard III, one in English and the other in Latin? Critics tend to answer this question by arguing that the two versions were not destined for the same audience: the Latin for a continental elite, the vernacular for a larger British readership. Although perfectly convincing, this explanation may not be the only one: this paper tries to underline the existence of another motivation, one of a literary nature. The History of King Richard III indeed combines two historiographical models: the ancient and classical monograph as illustrated by Sallust, and the medieval tradition of the chronicle. The oscillation between English and Latin may reflect More's wish to renovate the genre of the medieval chronicle, accomplished by an hybridization with classical Latin models—as if More attempted to grasp the best of both traditions in order to initiate a new means of writing history.


1979 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 160
Author(s):  
Antonia Gransden ◽  
Richard S. Sylvester
Keyword(s):  

Linguaculture ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-34
Author(s):  
Siobhan Keenan

Abstract The discovery of the body of the historical Richard III under a Leicester car park in 2012 sparked fresh interest in one of England’s most controversial kings. Accused of murdering his nephews—the Princes in the Tower—Richard’s reign was cut short when he was defeated by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond (later Henry VII), at the Battle of Bosworth (1485). Richard was subsequently demonised in Tudor historiography, perhaps most famously by Sir Thomas More in his “History of King Richard the thirde” (printed 1557). It is to More that we owe the popular image of Richard III as a “croke backed” and “malicious” villain (More 37), an image which Shakespeare has been accused of further codifying and popularising in his Richard III. Today, the historical Richard III’s defenders argue for the king’s good qualities and achievements and blame early writers such as More and Shakespeare for demonising Richard; but, in Shakespeare’s case at least, this essay argues that the possibility of a sympathetic—and even a heroic—reading of the king is built in to his characterisation of Richard III.


Moreana ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 51 (Number 195- (1-2) ◽  
pp. 210-236
Author(s):  
Andrea Frank

In his History of King Richard III, Thomas More uses proverbs to demonstrate to the reader how to evaluate characters, events, and ideas in the narrative. Identifying and examining the proverbs reveals subtle irony and wisdom. For example, when Richard chooses “a sure foundation” for his plans, a proverb is the starting point from which the reader evaluates Richard’s actions, compares them to Edward’s, and raises perennial questions of how to govern rightly. Similarly, proverbs in the queen’s argument for keeping her son show the error of her decision. Finally, the bishop of Ely’s proverbs and fable demonstrate the power and danger of words in the government and highlight qualities of a good leader which are otherwise lacking in the History.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document