My friend Beth recently gave a paper that argues pretty much precisely what you're suggesting about More's Richard III -- her case centered primarily on Buckingham, who comes off as the brains of the outfit because Richard isn't allowed to have a significant presence in the text, for Tudor-legitimacy issues (she discussed it as sort of a clearing of the throne). However, this use of Buckingham is problematic since he defects to Richmond, and it's at this point that the narrative breaks down, since the implicit criticism of the Tudors would become explicit beyond that point. It was a brilliant paper and I'm totally convinced (though I too am the sort who is inclined to want to let More off the hook).
And of course, he's writing in the reign of Henry VIII, anyway, fairly distanced from the events he's describing (though he's certainly got access to eyewitness accounts, primarily Morton's) so shilling for the Tudor claim, such as it is, is not a major issue. Yes, the "Tudor myth" resurfaces in Elizabeth's reign, but that's because, given the succession anxiety of the 1590s, people keep wanting to take out the past and poke at it...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 02:05 am (UTC)My friend Beth recently gave a paper that argues pretty much precisely what you're suggesting about More's Richard III -- her case centered primarily on Buckingham, who comes off as the brains of the outfit because Richard isn't allowed to have a significant presence in the text, for Tudor-legitimacy issues (she discussed it as sort of a clearing of the throne). However, this use of Buckingham is problematic since he defects to Richmond, and it's at this point that the narrative breaks down, since the implicit criticism of the Tudors would become explicit beyond that point. It was a brilliant paper and I'm totally convinced (though I too am the sort who is inclined to want to let More off the hook).
And of course, he's writing in the reign of Henry VIII, anyway, fairly distanced from the events he's describing (though he's certainly got access to eyewitness accounts, primarily Morton's) so shilling for the Tudor claim, such as it is, is not a major issue. Yes, the "Tudor myth" resurfaces in Elizabeth's reign, but that's because, given the succession anxiety of the 1590s, people keep wanting to take out the past and poke at it...