hee.

[angevin2]

Bit of literary criticism (from an article I'm reading on historiography in Richard II, surprise surprise) that will amuse the histories geeks on my flist:
No one knows the extent of Shakespeare's sources for Richard II, nor what he thought of them. But literary critics, like historians, are Plantagenets or Lancastrians: they will take sides.

*

Comments

[cataptromancer]

There's something about the Richard II / Henry IV divide and its subsequent dramatization that makes scholars want to take sides in a really emotional way.

We should actually just have a kzoo panel that invites this, called something like "1399 Slapdown."

(Which brings to mind a joking panel name a grad school friend came up with once "Richard II: Sodomite or jerk?")

[angevin2]

"Richard II: Sodomite or jerk?"

Down with dualism! (as I said to ancarett: it's why we love him.)

I would be ALL OVER that Kzoo panel. Like the proverbial white on the proverbial rice.

[cataptromancer]

Yeah, the hilarity I found in the "Sodomite or jerk" panel is pretty nuanced. First of all, both. Second, the loving way it characterizes Richard (who, because of a habit in my orals and diss notes, I now always abbreviate as "Ric" to myself -- in my mind, "Ric" means Richard II) -- I mean, who would pose the "sodomite or jerk" question without having some loving/joshing affinity for the meta-historical personality that grew out of this guy who was once, we hear, an English king.

But yeah, maybe once I don't have to give every waking hour to expressly useful academic work I'll plan a 1399 slapfight panel...

All the lancastrians would put on their collars of disses.

for oon that ye merkyd ye myssed ten schore

[angevin2]

Yay metahistorical personalities! *waves flag of Dissertation Topic*

I wonder what a collar of disses looks like? I always assumed "SS" stood for something rude anyway. I'm not sure what, mind you.

Re: for oon that ye merkyd ye myssed ten schore

[angevin2]

HE SURE DOES.

[angevin2]

*looks innocent*