Servetus on Richard Plantagenet’s remains

[Left: Photo of skull identified by scholars as that of Richard III. Courtesy of University of Leicester, 2013. His teeth were in better shape than mine, probably because he ate way less sugar. Source.]

Editorial

Jas tells us that Richard III is trending on Twitter!

Today’s press reports from the University of Leicester confirm what’s been rumored for weeks — that multiple types of evidence definitively link the remains found in their excavation during the summer of 2012 to Richard III. This find is certainly significant for archaeologists, Ricardians and others with emotional ties to the Richard story, those among the Richard Armitage fan community who support Armitage’s ambitions, and, of course, for royalists everywhere. Congratulations to Philippa Langley et al. for their perseverance in pursuing their goals — and a special thanks to those fellow Armitage fans and all the others who donated their own money for the excavation when a big donor pulled out at the last second this summer.

Speaking as a person, I do have one reaction I’m clear on — I hope they bury him quickly and without too much fuss. Even though I recognize the scholarly value of excavations, Richard III was certainly a Catholic, by all indications at least as or more devout than the average man of his period, and he would have believed in a resurrection (et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum) in the physical body, as would the monks who buried him near the altar of their church — considered an prestigious position as it was further east, toward Jerusalem, whence contemporaries believed the Last Judgment and resurrection would come. Press reports indicate that the scholars had a priest present as journalists visited the remains to guarantee their dignity. Let’s hope.

Speaking as a historian, as far as the extent to which Richard III’s reputation will be completely revolutionized, as people involved with the dig and others are claiming, I personally find that hugely doubtful. And not because professional historians are anti-Ricardian meanies who’ve fallen into the Tudor trap. First of all, what historians today actually think about Richard is significantly different than what Ricardians regularly say historians think about Richard. Pace people who are not historians but got quoted on cnn.com anyway, these results will not force or even allow scholars to rewrite history. They do not address the biggest “blot” that marred his reputation in the popular mind — the disappearance or murder of his nephews, Edward IV’s sons — a crime for which no modern historian calumniates him (which, incidentally, is not the same thing as assigning responsibility). Nor do they provide any new sources about the burning questions that have tortured Ricardians, with the exception of the “hunchback” matter, which has, perhaps perversely, been explained by the findings from this excavation. Finally, they will do nothing to minimize the significance or impact of what William Shakespeare wrote about Richard III — because Shakespeare, too, is a significant cultural and literary figure.

In short: today’s historians don’t think Richard was an evil villain, and certainly not because of any physical condition from which he might have suffered! Guess what: we already don’t believe Shakespeare was writing as a historical scholar! Professional historians are interested neither in making heroes nor finding villains; we are looking to explain significance. Having Richard’s actual body in our hands today makes him no more nor less significant a historical figure than he was yesterday. Moreover, this discovery is not going to change the documentary evidence of Richard’s political maneuvers, or of his land- and fortune-grabbing in the years before he became king. Nor does it provide additional evidence as to his motives for seizing the crown from his nephew, nor does it add to the picture of the sort of government he was trying to establish in England and so and and so forth.

What we need for a better understanding of Richard III, in the absence of new sources, is better contextualization of his actions in the atmosphere of his time. This means both more research into the documentary sources of the English fifteenth century — and more popular writing that takes such research seriously and uses it to make ongoing encouragement to popular readers not to judge the man according to the anachronistic standards of our own age.

The position that Richard’s reputation needs redressing actually addresses the vision of the monarch in the popular mind. But that isn’t going to happen because of an archaeological discovery, I’m afraid.

What we need is a gripping story that captures the popular imagination — that emphasizes all the tensions, questions and ambiguities. Historians aren’t going to do this. So this event is primarily significant as something that could capture the attention of someone who’d make a great film, which would have the potential to achieve what history writing won’t do.

We all know who should make this film, already.

Support Richard Armitage’s ambitions to realize a Richard III film project here.

And come to the group read tonight at Twitter, at 9 p.m. U.S. East Coast time to enthuse about the possibilities. The chatroom is here. There are already people chatting! My usual weekly TSIS post will follow later today.

***

Fellow Armitage bloggers react: FedoraLady; White Rose Writings; RAFrenzy; mulubinba;

 

~ by Servetus on February 4, 2013.