EDITION 4 SPRING ‘24 lux Illuminating Scholarship A collection of academic work by pupils at Queen’s Lux (noun - Latin); symbol lx (C19); a measure of light.
Front cover artwork by Alicia Dixon this page by Rhianna Ellinson page 14 by Ruby Whysall page 15 by Rhianna Ellinson page 23 by Lily Richards page 33 by Alicia Dixon page 47 by Ruby Whysall back cover by Hannah Longman
lux Welcome to the latest edition of Lux magazine – a showcase of scholarly endeavours from our Sixth Form students, encompassing an array of compelling subjects.Within this diverse compilation, you will find reports, crafted as part of the Extended Project Qualification (EPQ), a pivotal component of our Sixth Form curriculum. The EPQ represents an independent undertaking in academic research, structured into three parts: a research diary or production log, an academic report or artefact, and a presentation. Esteemed by universities, this qualification entails students conceptualising, planning, and executing individual projects, applying a range of organisational skills and strategies to achieve agreed objectives.The reports featured in this
publication exemplify the girls' adeptness in acquiring, discerningly selecting, and applying information from varied sources.They showcase the students' ability to analyse data, apply it judiciously, and demonstrate a profound understanding of the intricate linkages, connections, and complexities inherent in each topic. Lux offers a glimpse into a handful of exemplary works produced by the Sixth Form students at Queen's, as well as some of the outstanding A-level artwork. I am confident that, like myself, you will be thoroughly impressed. Sue Wallace-Woodroffe Headmistress
Contents
lux What was the most significant form of Tudor propaganda in Richard III’s portrayal as a tyrant? BY AVA BYRNE Page 4 lux What are the most significant factors behind Lewis Carroll’s portrayal of psychiatric conditions in Alice in Wonderland? BY ELLA REYNOLDS Page 16 lux What is the most significant benefit of fabric forming concrete in the world of contemporary architecture? BY KATIE TOWNSEND Page 24 lux To what extent is the growth of
Australia indebted to the presence of its transported convicts? BY LUCY MCBURNEY
Page 34
What was the most significant form of Tudor propaganda in Richard III’s portrayal as a tyrant?
BY AVA BYRNE
succession in 1377, ruled through a council of nobles who would provide him with the administrative experience he needed to rule effectively.The other proposition made by a foremost member of Edward IV’s council came from Lord Hastings, who made the proposition of forming a minority council who would serve as advisors to Edward.The formation of such council would consequently give Richard responsibility over King Edward’s person, as following the council’s formation it was concluded by parliament that the King’s uncle, Richard Duke of Gloucester, would act as chief councillor. To Richard, it was of integral importance to secure the position of protector, as failing to do so had the potential to threaten his dominance in the North of England, which would be transferred to his nephew, Edward V. However, even when successful in obtaining the role of protector, Richard would only have significant power up until Edward reached an age that made him suitable to rule independently.The role of protector would only shortly fulfil Richard’s supposed insatiable lust for power and complete supremacy. Hence, the only resolution to overcome this obstacle and assume total power would be to secure the crown for himself, through whatever means necessary, even if it meant murdering his own nephews. Moreover, it is this situation that acted as a backbone to claims made by Tudor historians that Richard usurped the throne, which was then further affirmed through speculation regarding the disappearance of his nephews from the public eye (4). One conclusion reached was that Richard had in fact smothered both of his nephews to death in order to secure the throne.
A tyrant: a person who has complete power in a country and uses it in a cruel and unfair way (1). The discovery of Richard III’s body in 2013 attracted the attention of both news reporters
and the general public alike, unleashing widespread curiosity regarding his reign.
Propaganda has painted a lurid picture of the Plantagenet monarch, one that is still prevalent today.This can be measured through the publication of various news articles following the discovery of Richard’s body. For example, an article published by Polly Toynbee titled “Britain mourns a monster” describes Richard as a “child-murdering tyrant” (2). Moreover, the discovery of Richard’s body has encouraged us to revisit his reign and re-evaluate it in order to determine if he really was the epitome of cruelty. In this essay I intend to analyse the different forms of propaganda in order to determine which was the most significant in earning Richard the reputation of a tyrant. The situation in 1483 The unanticipated demise of Edward IV in 1483 initiated a chain reaction of events that resulted in the displacement of two monarchs up until 1485. Edward IV’s heir apparent was the young Edward V, who at the premature age of 12 was to succeed the English throne. However, the succession of the young king presented some complexities due to the fact that Edward V was only 12 at the time.Young Edward was on the border between requiring a protector who would act as regent or having the right to rule the country independently (3).This concern hence stimulated debate amongst high-ranking Yorkists, regarding whether Edward should require a protector if he was to assume the role as King of England. One conclusion reached was that Edward would follow a similar path to that of seven-year-old Richard II, who, following his
4
Henry VII, by unseating Richard III, had altered the natural line of succession, abandoning the concept of the Divine Right of Kings (8). By doing this, Henry Tudor had arguably gone against God’s divine will. For this reason, it was pivotal that Henry portrayed his succession to having saved England from a regime that was tyrannical and despotic in nature.Tudor propaganda hence became a vital instrument in cementing the Tudor position. The Tudor Propaganda Machine For centuries, the repute of Richard has been disputed amongst a plethora of contemporaries, separating each of them into two main segments based on their beliefs. One group of ‘historians’ held the belief that Richard was a usurper with Machiavellian tendencies, willing to go by whatever means necessary to achieve his objective of the English crown.This was typically a more traditional perception of Richard that echoed Shakespearean propaganda, which targeted Richard’s physical form and aligned them with his psychological composition.This view had been almost permanently ingrained within contemporary society and had been unchallenged for over 100 years.These accounts were often written by those who championed positions as playwrights and clergymen rather than qualified historians (9). Nevertheless, they were successful in manifesting a coloured picture of Richard as an evil hunchback who saw no limit to satisfying his own ambition, even when at the expense of others. However, later historiography has come to Richard’s defence by dismissing such views and instead claiming that Richard was instead a victim of the Tudor propaganda- machine (10).
The princes in the tower Following Richard’s coronation, rumour and speculation surfaced that suggested Richard had smothered the two princes to death in the Tower of London. Richard allegedly placed Edward in the Tower, alongside his other nephew, as an act of protection under his role as Lord Protector.This was not Richard’s first action taken following his new role, having campaigned to parliament claiming both sons of Edward IV to be bastards.This would make Edward’s claim to the throne illegitimate, making it convenient for Richard to take his place. Richard was supported by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who stated that Edward IV was involved in a pre- contract to marry Dame Eleanor Butler, hence by secretly marrying Elizabeth Woodville, all children from the marriage would be declared as illegitimate (5). However, the improbable nature and timing of the claim suggests the story was merely a device used by Richard to facilitate his usurpation of the English throne. Moreover, such occurrences have acted as a precondition to Richard’s malignant repute, not only amongst those of his time, but also people of the modern day. For example, the Richard III Society, which aims to restore Richard’s, once polished, reputation of being “a man of the people”, as Dr David Johnson states (6). Such events were significant as the reputation they created of Richard undoubtedly laid substantial foundations which would be built upon by Tudor historians, therefore acting as a precondition to the fuelling of the Tudor propaganda-machine. Why the Tudors wanted to blacken Richard’s reputation Henry VII’s claim to the English throne was not a strong one but was, in fact tenuous. Henry was not a Lancastrian claimant, and so had no substantial claim to the throne by bloodline (7). Therefore, Henry’s usurpation of the throne completely undermined long principles that had been firmly rooted within society for centuries.
5
John Rous, Historia Regum Angliae (1486), ed.T. Hearne (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1716), trans. Alison Hanham, in Richard III and his Early His- torians, 1483-1535 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975): (14). Here Rous compares Richard’s rule to that of an antichrist, describing his rule to be exceedingly repressive in nature.This statement completely contrasts his earlier descriptions of Richard as a “good lord” in his pro-Yorkist ‘Rous Roll’. However, the anti-Richardian sentiment riddled throughout the ‘Hisotria Regum Angliae’ is balanced slightly in this particular source. Rous credits aspects of Richard’s rule, describing him to have essentially fought to the death, demonstrating a sense of chivalry as he describes him to have fought like a “noble soldier”.At the same time, these words were said behind a degrading description of Richard’s stature that made him out to have been weak and fragile in comparison to Henry VII. This second extract from the ‘Rous Roll’ however is wholly negative about Richard and is more reflective of the nature of the content contained within Rous’ works following Richard’s death. “Richard of York, the protector, was born on 21 October at Fotheringhay in Northamptonshire; retained within his mother's womb for two years, emerging with teeth and hair to his shoulders…. Like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail. He was small of stature, with a short face and unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower.” (120-21) (15) John Rous, Historia Regum Angliae (1486), ed.T. Hearne (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1716), trans. Alison Hanham, in Richard III and his Early Historians, 1483-1535 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975): This second extract focuses on Richard’s physical abnormalities, which became a focal- point for the likes of Sir Thomas More, using them as a way to discredit Richard as well as its heavy use in Shakespeare’s play ‘Richard III’. Such descriptions successfully manifested the idea that Richard was a gross perturbation of nature, and many have taken this, and drawn parallel between his physical abnormalities to the way in which he ruled as king. By comparing both ‘Rous Roll’ and the ‘Historia Regum Angliae’, one can conclude that both were written in the context of self-expediency. Examining the timings in which both were written is fundamental in explaining such a conclusion.‘Rous Roll’, a largely positive reflection of Richard’s reign with descriptions of praise and high acclaim, is soon altered upon his death.After Richard’s defeat at the Battle of Bosworth, Rous changes his description of Richard completely and is instead seen to bolster the image of Tudor successor Henry VII in his work ‘Historia Regum Angliae’. Rous’
‘Rous Roll’ The grovelling English historian John Rous contributed significantly to the blackening of Richard’s reputation and laid solid foundation for the formation of further speculation surrounding Richard’s deformities. His infamous work, the ‘Rous Roll’, undoubtedly belongs to the reign of Richard III, with its contents displaying a pro- Yorkist tendency when unfolding English contemporary events of the period (11). Rous states Richard to be a “good lord” who “punishes oppressors of the commons”, this exemplifies a highly favourable narrative of his kingship (12). He is depicted as an upholder of law and stability, and also pictured in armour, which harnessed a symbol of duty and service to his subjects. However, such flattery toward the Plantagenet monarch was short-lived. Rous undertook serious back-peddling following Richard’s death, chastising his previous flattery and replacing it with quite the opposite.This is particularly exemplified in his publishing of the ‘Historia Regum Angliae’ following the death of Richard III. Historia Regum Angliae ‘Historia Regum Angliae’ was written by Rous during the reign of Henry VII, who seized the crown on the 22nd August 1485 following his victory at the Battle of Bosworth, which saw the defeat of previous monarch Richard III. It is stated to be a historical compilation that contains descriptions of British kings, ranging from the likes of Brutus to King Henry VII. Although the text held significant credence during the 16th century, many modern day historians have dismissed its credibility and have come to the conclusion that it holds no critical faculty. Despite its lack of viability in a modern context, it is still a valuable piece of historical text that is integral in understanding the development of Richard’s malignant reputation. The ‘Hisotria Regum Angliae’ can be viewed as the genesis of Richard’s exacerbated skeletal deformity, and additionally goes on to state that the murder of the infamous princes in the tower, Henry VI, Rivers, and Hastings, as well as the poisoning of Anne Neville, all occurred at the hands of Richard. Rous goes on to paint a lurid picture of Richard in his predominantly anti- Richardian account (13).The source below further exemplifies this. “This King Richard, who was excessively cruel in his days, reigned for three years [sic] and a little more, in the way that Antichrist is to reign.And like the Antichrist to come, he was confounded at his moment of greatest pride. … For all that, let me say the truth to his credit: that he bore himself like a noble soldier and despite his little body and feeble strength, honourably defended himself to his last breath, shouting again and again that he was betrayed, and crying ‘Treason! Treason! Treason! (f. 137r)”
6
’Historia Regum Angliae’ was particularly significant as it is the first instance where we are introduced to Richard’s deformity in writings. From this, it can be concluded that Rous’ work was the genesis of Richard’s maligned physicality. Therefore, Rous’ accounts were significant, as they acted as a primary source to latter historians, (such as Thomas More), whose account, built upon content contained in the ‘Rous Roll’, surrounds Richard’s deformity. However, it must also be noted that Rous would have had a vested interest to colour Richard’s image.This would have been in the hope of acquiring the good favour of the succeeding monarch, which in this case is Henry VII. Thomas More Another Tudor historian who played a vital role in the vilification of Richard III was Sir Thomas More, an English lawyer and renaissance humanist. Richard S. Sylvester suggests that More’s work could be acknowledged as almost a “handbook” for political tyranny (16). He goes on to further describe the work to be a “charter” for establishing the reign of the Tudors on the best moral grounds, as Elizabeth Story Donno also states (17). More was the author of the infamous ‘History of King Richard III’, from which he drew inspiration from the likes of John Rous as well as Dr John Morton. More’s relationship with Morton is important to examine when analysing his work. More lived alongside Morton, serving as a page in his household between the ages of 12 and 14 (18). Morton was imprisoned by Richard III, who at the time was named Duke of Gloucester for an attempt to crown deceased Edward IV’s elder son, Edward V. However, he was soon arrested at a council meeting, (Richard going on to accuse him of committing treason), which led to Morton’s imprisonment in the Tower of London (19). As a result of this, it is not wrong to assume that More was subjected to a biased pro-Tudor version of events through Morton, from whom he may have taken inspiration (20). This is supported by the fact that a century after Morton’s death the authorship of ‘The History of King Richard III’, was put into question, some believing that the work was in fact written by Morton himself. However, this theory is now widely discredited. The impact Morton had on More’s writings is, to some extent, limited slightly as he had access to a plethora of other anti-Richardian writings like that of John Rous. In addition to this, More came up with some of his own conclusions on Richard as well. John Rous’ brutal narrative of Richard in his work ‘Historia Regum Angliae’ is arguably the most influential source from which Thomas More built.This source supports the premise that More took inspiration from the work of Rous.
“He was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother, a short and sowre cowntenance, which semyd to savor of mischief, and utter evydently craft and deceyt.The whyle he was thinking of any matter, he dyd contynually byte his nether lyppe, as thowgh that crewell nature of his did so rage agaynst yt self in that lyttle carkase.Also he was woont to be ever with his right hand pulling out of the sheath to the myddest, and putting in agane, the dagger which he did alway were.” (226-27) Thomas More,The History of King Richard the Third (1513), in Works, ed.William Rastall (London: Iohn Cawod, Iohn Waly, and Richarde Tottell, 1557): (21). The extract above shows More commenting on Richard’s physical composition, describing him as being small in stature, with a deformed body and one shoulder higher than the other. Such descriptions are also observed in Rous’ ‘Historia Regum Angliae’, as he also states Richard to be of “small of stature, with a short face and unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower”. From this, it can be concluded that More did extract influences from sources that were written in a Tudor historiographical context, such as the work of John Rous. The work of Thomas More was significant in constructing Richard’s reputation and making him a figure of reproach.This is achieved by More through targeting Richard’s deformity, as well as stating him to be responsible for the murders of the two princes, the murders being the most probable outcome of his usurpation (22). However, More wrote ‘The History of King Richard III’ in 1513, during the reign of Henry VIII. For this reason, it can be argued that his work did not bolster the position of Henry VII, which was a typical line of argument for Tudor propaganda, but instead cemented the position of the Tudor dynasty as a whole by discrediting the previous Yorkist regime. Despite this, the fact that More’s work wasn’t published until after his death should not be overlooked. More’s work was unpublished during his lifetime; hence it can be concluded that More’s work wasn’t intended for publication.Therefore, it is likely that More’s aim, when writing ‘The History of King Richard III’ was not to feed the Tudor propaganda machine. Nevertheless, the work of More is still highly significant as it undoubtedly inspired the character of Richard in Shakespeare’s ‘Richard III’.This can be demonstrated through Shakespeare’s heavy exaggeration of Richard’s crooked back, which was an idea heavily- expressed in More’s work. Despite More’s significance, we must not ignore the role John Rous played in the creation of ‘The History of King Richard III’, as More drew substantial inspiration, his work further consolidating ideas initially proposed in the ‘Historia Regum Angliae’.
7
particularly evident as he is described as being a “foul lump of deformity”.These abnormalities possessed by Richard aren’t only subject to condemnation at the beginning of the play, but undergo continuous referencing throughout the play’s entirety. “To wit, an indigested and deformed lump, Not like the fruit of such a goodly tree. Teeth hadst thou in thy head when thou wast born” William Shakespeare, Richard III (1592-93), in The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. G. Blakemore Evans and J. J. M.Tobin, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997): (26) This source shows Shakespeare particularly targeting Richard’s hunchback-like stature, then additionally goes on to equip Richard with a withered arm, as well as having been possessed with a full set of teeth from birth. Such descriptions of Richard are also observed in the account of John Rous in his ‘Historia Regum Angliae’, which was likely a source of inspiration for Shakespeare when constructing the character of Richard. Richard’s misshaped stature not only acts as a reflection of his own moral condition, but also provides an insight into the genesis of his psychological motivations. Shakespeare’s take on Richard can be viewed to have followed the contours of Tudor historiography, which aided in the presentation of Richard as being a maligned king, riddled with physiological blemishes (27). Both ancient and early modern texts on the physiological form of man confidently draw parallels to the physical composition in relation to their psychological state as well as their soul (28).This belief was highly prevalent during the period in which Shakespeare wrote and published the play, and was widely popular within the contemporary imagination. The play was written during the Elizabethan period, a time in which concern regarding physical deformity prevailed. For many Elizabethans it was widely accepted that bodily deformities were considered reflective of a person’s soul and hence lent itself to moral defect.As a result of this, child birth was considered a dangerous time for women during the Jacobean period. Not only did women have a short life expectancy due to child birth risks, but also the high infant mortality rate, with 14% of infants dying before their first birthday (29). In addition to such risks, many women at the time lived with additional fear of birth-defects throughout their pregnancy. It was a common contemporary belief that “a crooked body meant a crooked heart”, which is also echoed
Shakespeare Propaganda wasn’t only circulated through Tudor writings and literature, but was also embedded within the theatre.The theatre was immensely popular during the reign of Elizabeth I, appealing to both the likes of the nobility and gentry, but also those lower down the Elizabethan social- structure. One key factor that attributed to the widespread appeal of the theatre was the fact that it dealt with topical issues which the audience could all relate to, regardless of their social-standing. Shakespeare’s plays discussed themes ranging from romance to patriotism, as well as conflict between the forces of good and evil (23). For this reason, the theatre acted as a major prop in the delivery of effective propaganda as it allowed for widespread circulation of political messages amongst the general populace. It had been widely believed that Shakespeare was a puppet to the Tudor regime and his play acted as a tool to bolster the Tudor position. Historian P.W. Hammond states, in an article regarding the historiography surrounding Richard’s reputation, that Shakespeare’s play was “the final culmination of the Tudor picture of the man who was Richard III” (24). However, the role Shakespeare played in the blackening of Richard’s image has been subject to questioning in recent years.The Richard III Society has recently claimed that the play is no more than a mere product of the “Tudor myth” which saturated a large part of the popular imagination throughout the period.Therefore, the role of Shakespeare regarding the tyrannical reputation of Richard III is one to be carefully analysed. Although Shakespeare arguably lacked the intentional scheming and manipulation of Tudor propagandists, his well-renowned play ‘Richard III’ indirectly contributed to the formation of Richard’s unscrupulous perception, particularly within both Tudor and modern society.The line between Shakespeare being a Tudor propagandist and simply being aware of the heightened political feeling during the Elizabethan era however has been slightly blurred.This political atmosphere posed a threat to the theatre, hence it is questioned whether the makeup of his playmaking was merely out of self-expediency. Shakespeare played upon the work of both More and Rous, and successfully utilised Richard III’s physical deformity as a way to reflect him as being a merciless opportunist with an insatiable thirst for power. This premise has been supported by historian P.W. Hammond, who noted that the Richard III created through the works of Thomas More was transferred almost directly into Shakespeare’s play, reinforcing More’s tyrannical depiction of the Plantagenet king (25). As early as Act 1, Scene 2, the audience is introduced to the ‘usurper’, who is then seen to be lambasted for his unusual appearance.This is
8
with victor Henry Tudor, who acted as an agent of retribution, a stark contrast of the ‘usurper’. It would be unwise of Shakespeare to criticise Henry Tudor, who was Elizabeth’s grandfather (and who assumed the crown following his victory at the Battle of Bosworth 1485), as it would undermine the Tudor dynasty, hence undermining the current monarch, Elizabeth I. Although not an endorsement of the first Tudor monarch, the play instead acts as an exacerbated view of the tyrannical regime of Richard III, which was defeated by Tudor victor Henry VI. Hence, for this reason, it can be deduced that the play acted as Tudor propaganda, and an integral agent in bolstering the position of Queen Elizabeth I. Amongst the influence of Tudor historians, (as well as legitimising the Tudor regime), the influence of patronage of Shakespeare’s works is also noteworthy and should not be overlooked. Shakespeare relied heavily on patronage. Patrons were important not only for Shakespeare, but also for any playwright who hoped to cement their place in the world of Tudor theatre and gain repute.Typically, wealthy aristocrats and patrons were integral in securing a firm reputation amongst the high society elites, who held significant influence in determining a playwright’s success or failure (32). Shakespeare successfully secured the patronage of Fernando Stanley, (who was directly related to Thomas Stanley), who, at the Battle of Bosworth abandoned his previous loyalties of the Yorkist dynasty and instead supported the more likely victor, Henry Tudor (33).Although the factor of patronage could have indeed influenced Shakespeare in tarring Richard with the brush of tyranny, it is not of high significance when compared to the factors of cementing the Tudor position and the influences of Tudor historians such as More and Rous. Why Shakespeare was so significant Shakespeare played an integral role in the blackening of Richard III’s reputation and his play arguably the most significant factor in giving Richard his tyrannical reputation.The Richard we encounter in the play exerted powerful influence, not only during the Tudor period, but also in the 20th and early 21st century perceptions (34). Shakespeare’s play successfully reflected the Tudor obsession, which vilified Richard, as a way to legitimise the Tudor regime. In the play, Richard is portrayed as an “evil man who committed many terrible deeds”, effectively
throughout the play. It was popular belief during the era that physical appearance had a firm connection to a person’s character, hence why Richard’s tyranny was portrayed to be inevitable from birth. Shakespeare releasing his play at a time in which pre-conceptualised beliefs regarding deformity were already extremely high, arguably allowed for maximum impact upon the audience when drawing comparisons to Richard’s physical abnormalities in relation to his rule as king. Shakespeare’s plays, in general, were a main source of entertainment, not only for the upper- class gentry and nobility, but were made widely accessible to those of the lower middle-classes too; paying less than a penny for admittance to the yard (30). For this reason, Shakespeare’s plays held immense power and influence over those who attended, not only serving as a way to deliver political messages, but also, as demonstrated were highly reflective of the thought of Englishmen of the time.As Jeffrey R. Wilson states, Shakespeare’s ‘Richard III’ completely rebuts the concept of physiognomy of ‘accidental’ attributes. Instead, Shakespeare promotes the physiognomy of natural attributes and portrays them as an accurate representation of the wickedness he executes (31).This contemporary belief is also seen to be supported by English historian of the time John Rous.The historian claimed that, from birth, it was inevitable that Richard would live a malevolent life due to such abnormalities. The fact that Shakespeare wrote behind such a backdrop is significant.Writing at a time in which anxieties around deformity were already high provided the optimum environment for the play to have maximum impact amongst those who watched it.The message of Richard’s deformity being reflective of his own morality played on pre-existing beliefs within contemporary society and fermenting them.The fact that Shakespeare’s plays were also widely accessible allowed for the spreading of such ideas. Was the play written under Tudor influences? How does this limit the validity of the play? The play was released in 1597, behind the backdrop that was the questioning of Elizabeth I’s legitimacy, with beliefs that she was allegedly born out of wedlock.This issue of her legitimacy began the focal point of various coups, such as the Babington Plot of 1586 that aimed to unseat her from the throne of England, replacing her with the more favourable claimant, Mary Queen of Scots. For this reason, Shakespeare would have been subject to heavy censorship in the context of both heresy and politics when writing the play, and would have taken great care not to include content that would potentially discredit the current monarch or portray the current dynasty in a negative light. In the play, Shakespeare contrasted the tyrannical Richard
demonstrating Richard’s destructive and manipulative path to the English throne.
Shakespeare achieved this through his effective portrayal of Richard as a Machiavellian, who imposes fear upon his people through brute force, as well as using his deformity to mirror his reign as king. By discrediting the reign of Richard, it successfully portrays Henry VII to have acted
9
as an instrument of stability to have saved the country from the tyrannical rule of Richard. Moreover, it can be argued that Shakespeare’s crafting of Richard to be a cunning usurper played a significant role in Richard’s reputation as one of the most evil monarchs of all time. Richard’s skeletal deformation seen in paintings The portrayal of Richard III in art is equally as difficult as literature and history, (in terms of historical accuracy when determining what Richard was actually like). Such uncertainties are reflective of the profound depths of Tudor propaganda and how it was, in fact, successful in practically reconstructing and distorting Richard in a way that would help cement the Tudor position.
"croke backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right"
Earliest surviving portrait of Richard III – 1520 (35) From first glance, it is blatant Richard III’s representation of being a deformed hunchback is significantly underplayed in comparison to latter portraits of the king. His body ceases to be an ensemble reflective of the work of the likes of Thomas More and William Shakespeare, both of whom had rendered a defacing image of Richard. Thomas More’s comment on Richard’s appearance as “croke backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right”, is marginally reflected in the portrait with a slight unevenness of the shoulders, but not to the same extent as seen in latter 16th century portraits of the king during the Tudor occupation of the crown.The painting is kept at the Society of Antiquaries in London and is described as an almost ‘true representation’ as well as the most accurate painting of the king, being subject to the least amount of overpainting and alterations to his characteristics. Being one of the earliest paintings of Richard, it has been considered to be a preliminary version, produced during the king’s lifetime, estimated to have been painted between 1510 and 1540 (36).This is believed to be the painting with the closest likeness to Richard, and therefore can act as a more accurate reference when comparing his physical ailments, often subjected to exaggeration under the Tudor regime.
10
Richard III, broken sword, (1452-1485) (37) The painting of Richard and the broken sword, like that of the oil painting held in the National Gallery, was painted after the death of Richard III.After thorough examination of the medium on which the portrait was painted, the estimated timing of its creation falls between 1523 and 1555, well into the Tudor reign.The paintings are also similar in the way in which they both disproportionately exacerbate the height of Richard’s left shoulder in relation to his right, a feature that was a standard target in any Tudor propaganda, particularly in Tudor literature, as seen earlier. However, in this particular painting of Richard, he is also shown to be holding a broken sword.The sword is symbolic in the sense that it represents Richard’s defeat at the Battle of Bosworth, against Tudor claimant, Henry Tudor (37).The sword that Richard clutches in the painting is believed to signify the state, the breaking of the blade could be interpreted to represent the deterioration of his kingship, and the loss of control he now has over the state and his people (38). Following an X-ray examination of the painting, it was concluded that the left shoulder in the painting was raised higher again, however, it then underwent overpainting to lower it slightly. It was suggested that this likely occurred in the 18th century, when Richard’s reputation was, yet again, questioned.This is significant, as it demonstrates how his image has changed over time, and is reflective of the change in contemporary, and political environments, and how a person’s narrative can be determined by such factors, particularly in the case of Richard III. A vast majority of these paintings of Richard during the 18th century would have been exhibited in long galleries within grand houses of the Tudor period.These galleries acted not only as a source of entertainment for guests, but also as a form of education. Portraits of past rules have the potential to influence perceptions about past events, being used as moral exemplars (39). For this reason, Richard’s presence in such galleries would have been significant and would have been used to display the dangers of tyranny, acting as a warning against moral corruption. “Examining Richard’s physical profile can standardise against Tudor propaganda and act as a judgement to its credibility”
Is there validity to claims from the likes of More, Shakespeare and Rous? This view resurfaced in force following the discovery of Richard’s body in a Leicester car- park, sparking intrigue and curiosity, not only amongst historians, but also amongst the general public. Such events have acted as a catalyst to the revising of opinion on a man once considered to be the pure spawn of evil.Whilst DNA analysis was successful in confirming the body to be that of Richard III, further skeletal analysis is telling. Examining Richard’s physical profile can standardise against Tudor propaganda and act as a judgement to its credibility. Further analysis, using mitochondrial DNA, allowed scientists to confirm the body to be that of Richard III’s.This was soon followed by a clinical evaluation and diagnosis of Richard’s spine, which stated that the Cobb angle must exceed 10 degrees, being the minimum angulation for a scoliosis diagnosis. Richard’s curvature was a large 75 degrees (40). However, scientists concluded that the angle would have been exacerbated to a further 90 degrees throughout his lifetime. Moreover, it is arguable that Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard’s physical form is partially accurate as he was in fact a ‘hunchback’ with a skeletal abnormality. Further
11
work was, hence, significant as it laid the foundation for latter forms of propaganda, as it acted as the primary influence of Thomas More’s ‘The History of King Richard III’.The work of Thomas More was arguably more significant than that of John Rous in manifesting Richard’s tyrannical image. More successfully cemented the position of the Tudor dynasty by developing Rous’ ideas surrounding Richard’s deformity, using it as a way to discredit Richard III in order to glorify Henry VII’s victory during the Battle of Bosworth. More’s work was also significant in the sense that it acted as the main source of inspiration for Shakespeare’s play,‘Richard III’, which plays heavily on the ideas of deformity echoed in the works of both Rous and More. Paintings as a form of propaganda were also significant as they had the ability to portray Richard as a bad moral example, and influence the perception of past events. Despite this, their impact is not comparable to that of Shakespeare in terms of their accessibility. Such galleries were typically located in the homes of wealthy aristocrats, and therefore the paintings had a narrower scope in regards to their impact during the Tudor period (42). In contrast, Shakespeare’s plays were of more impact due to their widespread accessibility to people of both the high and low social orders.Therefore, after evaluating the different forms of propaganda, it can be concluded that Shakespeare played the most significant role in portraying Richard III as a tyrant. Shakespeare was able to successfully manifest Richard as a tyrant, using the idea of deformity to discredit Richard and his reign, and, as a result, solidifying the Tudor position. However, the work of Shakespeare would not have been possible without the influence of the likes of both Thomas More and John Rous, who undoubtedly underpinned Shakespeare’s ‘Richard III’.
examination concluded that Richard’s abnormal stature was probable, due to adolescent-onset idiopathic scoliosis, which would have developed around the age of 12.This eliminates the proposal made by the likes of Rous, claiming that Richard’s was a mere birth defect, and his reign was prematurely plagued as a result.Additionally, experts stated that although the Cobb angle was drastic, it was not critical enough to prevent him from engaging in demanding physical activity, like that of going to battle. In addition, Shakespeare’s reference to Richard having a “withered arm” was not shown in the skeletal analysis and therefore can be deduced as an exaggeration to further vilify the character of Richard in the play (41). Which form of propaganda was the most significant? Overall, it can be concluded that the role of Shakespeare was the most significant form of Tudor propaganda portraying Richard III as a tyrant. He targeted Richard III’s deformity to signify his tyrannical and despotic rule. Shakespeare’s additional description of Richard at birth, (to have been equipped with a full set of teeth), describing him as a “foul lump of deformity,” predetermined the nature of his rule to be despotic and plagued from the beginning. His portrayal of Henry Tudor is the antithesis of Richard’s, as Shakespeare cultivates a valiant image of the Tudor successor, having saved England from Richard’s oppressive rule. By doing this, Shakespeare was significant in bolstering the Tudor regime by portraying Henry to have restored stability, which quietened the speculation surrounding the alteration of the line of succession and the weak Tudor claim. He hence portrayed the succession of Henry Tudor not as an usurpation, like Richard III, but instead a conquest to restore stability. Shakespeare’s high yield of influence also contributed to his significance in the blackening of Richard III’s reputation. His plays were widely accessible to the English populace, which allowed for the widespread circulation of ideas expressed within the play. However, the roles of both Rous and Thomas More were also highly significant as they acted as the main source of inspiration for Shakespeare’s ‘Richard III’.The work of John Rous was arguably the root of Richard’s ‘deformity’, also stating that the reign of Richard III was plagued from the onset due to his far from normal birth. Rous’
12
References 1) Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com. (2022). tyrant noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. [online] Available at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/- tyrant?q=tyrant [Accessed 3 Oct. 2022]. 2) Toynbee, P. (2015). Britain mourns a monster – because he was a king. Richard III’s burial was absurd | Polly Toynbee.The Guardian. [online] 26 Mar.Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/26/britain-king-richard-iii-tyrant. [Accessed 17 Apr. 2022] 3) Pendrill, C. (2004). The Wars of the Roses and Henry VII: England 1459-c.1513. Heinemann , pp.68-70. 4) Leas, S.E. (1971).‘Richard III’, Shakespeare, and History.The English Journal, 60(9), p.1214. doi:10.2307/812772. 5) Pendrill, C. (2004). The Wars of the Roses and Henry VII: England 1459-c.1513. Heinemann, pp.72-73. 6) Johnson, D. (2022). A Man of the People: Richard III & the Pursuit of Justice - Richard III Society. [online] Richard III Society. Available at: https://richardiii.net/richard-iii-his-world/reputation/a-man-of-the-people-richard-iii-the-pursuit-of-justice/#:~:text= A%20Man%20of%20the%20People%3A%20Richard%20III%20%26 [Accessed 27 Apr. 2022]. 7) Pendrill, C. (2004). The Wars of the Roses and Henry VII: England 1459-c.1513. Heinemann, pp.89. 8) F. and Weinberger, J, B. (2018). The History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh. Cornell University Press. 9) Alexander, H. (2016b). Recreating Richard III:The Power of Tudor Propaganda . [online] p.24. Available at: https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcon- tent.cgi?article=1342&context=honors 10) Giles St Aubyn (2013).The Year of Three Kings, 1483. Faber & Faber, pp.56–57. 11) Wright, C.E. (1956).The Rous Roll:The English Version. The British Museum Quarterly , [online] 20(4), pp.77–81.Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4422536?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents [Accessed 26 Feb. 2022]. 12) Ross, C. and Iii, R. (1981). Richard III. London: Methuen. 13) The British Library (2019). John Rous, History of the Kings of England. The British Library. [online] doi:https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/john-rous-history-of-the-kings-of-england.[Accessed 26 Feb.2022] 14) R.Wilson, J. (2022). Richard III’s Deformities in Tudor Literature . [online] Harvard.edu. Available at: https://wilson.fas.harvard.edu/stigma-in- shakespeare/richard-iii%E2%80%99s-deformities-in-tudor-literature [Accessed 29 Apr. 2022]. 15) R.Wilson, J. (2022). Richard III’s Deformities in Tudor Literature . [online] Harvard.edu. Available at: https://wilson.fas.harvard.edu/stigma-in- shakespeare/richard-iii%E2%80%99s-deformities-in-tudor-literature [Accessed 29 Apr. 2022]. 16) TORREY, M. (2000).‘The plain devil and dissembling looks’:Ambivalent Physiognomy and Shakespeare’s ‘Richard III’. English Literary Renaissance, [online] 30(2), pp.123–153.Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43447599?read- now=1&seq=17#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 21 Mar. 2022]. 17) Donno, E.S. (1982).Thomas More and Richard III. Renaissance Quarterly , 35(3), pp.401–447. doi:10.2307/2861202 18) The History of England. (n.d.). History of Richard III by Thomas More – The History of England. [online] Available at: https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/resource/history-of-richard-iii-by-thomas-more/ [Accessed 14 Apr. 2022]. 19) Wikipedia. (2020). John Morton (cardinal) . [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Morton_(cardinal). [Accessed 1 May. 2022] 20) Zeeveld,W.G. (1940).A Tudor Defense of Richard III. PMLA, 55(4), p.956. doi:10.2307/458888. 21) R.Wilson, J. (2022). Richard III’s Deformities in Tudor Literature . [online] Harvard.edu. Available at: https://wilson.fas.harvard.edu/stigma-in- shakespeare/richard-iii%E2%80%99s-deformities-in-tudor-literature [Accessed 29 Apr. 2022]. 22) Pendrill, C. (2004). The Wars of the Roses and Henry VII: England 1459-c.1513. Heinemann, pp.73–72. 23) BBC (n.d.). Theatre, Shakespeare and the arts - Popular culture in Elizabethan England - OCR B - GCSE History Revision - OCR B . [online] BBC Bitesize. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z28vdmn/revision/1#:~:text=Shakespeare%20began%20writing%20his%20plays%20during%20Eliz abeth%E2%80%99s%20reign%2C [Accessed 2 May. 2022]. 24) Hammond “The reputation of Richard III” in Richard III: a medieval kingship, ed. John Gillingham (New York: St Martin’s Press ,1993) 140-141 25) Shakespeare,W. (1981). King Richard III. Methuen. 26) R.Wilson, J. (2022). Richard III’s Deformities in Tudor Literature. [online] Harvard.edu.Available at: https://wilson.fas.harvard.edu/stigma-in-shakespeare/richard-iii%E2%80%99s-deformities-in-tudor-literature [Accessed 29 Apr. 2022]. 27) TORREY, M. (2000).‘The plain devil and dissembling looks’:Ambivalent Physiognomy and Shakespeare’s ‘Richard III’. English Literary Renaissance, [online] 30(2), pp.123–153. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43447599?read- now=1&seq=17#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 21 Mar. 2022]. 28) The British Library and Schaap Williams, K. (2016). Richard III and the staging of disability. The British Library. [online] doi:https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/richard-iii-and-the-staging-of-disability. [Accessed 3 Mar. 2022] 29) BBC (n.d.). How could you survive in Tudor England? [online] BBC Teach.Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/how-could-you-sur- vive-in-tudor-england/znvmkmn#:~:text=Life%20in%20Tudor%20England%20was%20hard%20and%20you [Accessed 2 Mar. 2022]. 30) Shakespeare's Globe (2022). Audiences | Shakespeare’s Globe. [online] Shakespeare’s Globe. Available at: https://www.shakespear- esglobe.com/discover/shakespeares-world/audiences/. [Accessed 2 May. 2022] 31) R.Wilson, J. (2011). Richard III’s Deformities . [online] Harvard.edu. Available at: https://wilson.fas.harvard.edu/stigma-in-shakespeare/ri- chard-iii%E2%80%99s-deformities. [Accessed 6 May. 2022] 32) Sykes, G. (2016). Shakespeare’s Patrons: Henry Wriothesley. [online] Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Available at: https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/blogs/shakespeares-patrons-henry-wriothesley/#:~:text=The%20reason%20pa- trons%20were%20so%20crucial%20was%20because [Accessed 11 Mar. 2022]. 33) Ahmed,W. (2018). Shakespeare’s Richard III - Myth or Reality ? [online] Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Available at: https://www.shake- speare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/blogs/shakespeares-richard-iii-myth-or-reality/. [Accessed 11 Mar. 2022] 34) Breen, D. (2010).Thomas More’s ‘History of Richard III’: Genre, Humanism, and Moral Education. Studies in Philology , [online] 107(4), pp.469. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41059232?read-now=1&seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 30 Mar. 2022]. 35) Society of Antiquaries of London (n.d.). Richard III (arched) (1452-1485). [online] Society of Antiquaries of London. Available at: https://www.sal.org.uk/collections/explore-our-collections/collections-highlights/richard-iii-arched-1452-1485/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2022].
13
36) University of Leicester (2014). The Arched Framed Portrait of Richard III - Society of Antiquaries of London. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbXETSOjKk [Accessed 22 Apr. 2022]. 37) Society of Antiquaries of London. (n.d.). Richard III (broken sword) (1452-1485) . [online] Available at: https://www.sal.org.uk/collections/explore-our-collections/collections-highlights/richard-iii-broken-sword-1452-1485/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2022]. 38) teachinghistory100.org. (n.d.). Teaching History with 100 Objects - Portrait of Richard III. [online] Available at: http://teachinghistory100.org/objects/about_the_object/portrait_of_richard_iii [Accessed 22 Apr. 2022]. 39) J. Faraday, C. (2019). Painted as a villain – Tudor portraits of Richard III. [online] Apollo Magazine. Available at: https://www.apollo- magazine.com/richard-iii-tudors-hever-castle/. [Accessed 22 Apr. 2022] 40) Alexander, H. (2016). Recreating Richard III:The Power of Tudor Propaganda . [online] p.14. Available at: https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcon- tent.cgi?article=1342&context=honors. 41) Hainsworth, S. (2015). The Death of Richard III: CSI Meets History. [online] www.gresham.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/richard-iii-bones [Accessed 8 May. 2022]. 42) Guide,T.T.T. (2018). The Tudor Gallery - The Wonder of the Tudor Age . [online] The Tudor Travel Guide. Available at: https://thetudortravel- guide.com/2018/09/29/the-tudor-gallery/ [Accessed 11 May. 2022].
14
15
What are the most significant factors behind Lewis Carroll’s portrayal of psychiatric conditions in Alice in Wonderland?
BY ELLA REYNOLDS
and factors within Carroll’s own life, that may have influenced his writing and encouraged his portrayal of psychiatric conditions within his characters.Throughout literature, the Victorian era has been seen as the epitome of repression in terms of both sexual and psychological constraint; I will consider here the extent to which a historical analysis of Carroll’s books could shed light on the depiction of mental illnesses in his characters. Part 1 - Social factors Carroll’s entertaining portrayal of madness allowed him to enter a ‘vibrant discourse during his era when defining mental illnesses and disability was troublesome’ (1) and in many ways it could be said that, through his work, Carroll sculpted a ‘positive and liberating’ (1) portrayal of madness in stark comparison to the negative and taboo attitudes of his time.This portrayal of madness has been defined as ‘seemingly contrary actions, rather than inherent medical or hereditary conditions’ (1), which broke from the rationale and order of Victorian society, contradicting the previously dominating notion of ‘violent madness’ (1) with a peaceful and unconstrained alternative. Carroll’s notion of ‘peaceful madness’ (1) can be seen as a rebellion against enforced order and restrictive social norms; this rebellion against social norms can be taken further with Alice’s frequent, and rather disturbing bodily transformations.Wonderland contains a mixture of restrictive and hard-to- navigate spaces which Alice must fit some standard size or body shape to explore. During the Rabbit Hole scene,Alice claims ‘What a curious feeling! I must be shutting up like a telescope!’, as she begins to shrink and transform into the ‘right size’ to fit through the door into Wonderland. Moments later she changes size once more,‘Now I’m opening out
Introduction Writing in 1865, Carroll proposed a playful insight into mental disorders through each of his characters in ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’; Wonderland itself defied many of the conceptions of madness that Victorian doctors had formed, and in many ways, Carroll sculpted a ‘positive and liberating’ idea of mental illness that was carried through into the 20th century. Carroll wrote in an era where there was a growing political problem with the care of mentally and physically disabled people, who could not function in a ‘neurotypical capitalist society’ (1).The definition of ‘mental illness’ was broad and varied during the 19th century and, despite the advances in treatments and asylums, anyone suffering from conditions such as alcoholism to psychosis was branded by the stigma and shame of insanity. Under the disguise of humorous madness lies a deep criticism of asylum culture, gendered class, and social norms; the parallels between Carroll’s mad world and the real world of Victorian England critiques the political and social constructs of his society – and through his characters and structures, breaks the binaries and hierarchies of the era, whilst revealing prominent afflictions in Carroll’s own personality and life. Carroll’s depiction of psychiatric disorders is arguably the result of an internalised struggle, derived from the strict social and moral codes of his era; these social factors - namely the social hierarchy of Victorian England under the towering rule of Queen Victoria, led to the acceleration of mental disorders in all classes of the population, and fundamentally the start of an asylum culture that would continue to haunt even modern-day psychology.Another way to analyse the complicated riddle of the Alice books is to look upon the author, Lewis Carroll, for cues and clues to explain his writing; in this section of my report, I will focus on the biographical elements,
16
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software