Perhaps the central controversy involved with Richard III is the degree of its historical accuracy. Many scholars are of the opinion that the play was written as propaganda for the Tudor dynasty, not unlike one of Shakespeare's primary sources for the play, Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III, as well as several earlier plays with the same subject. Of course, Shakespeare and the other playwrights of the time had to walk a tightrope when dealing with topics like this one. That's why it's so astonishing to find this bit of coded commentary on whether or not "history" can be trusted. It comes from the first scene of the third act, and it occurs as part of a conversation between Richard, his henchman the Duke of Buckingam, and the young Prince Edward, who should have been crowned Edward V, but was instead murdered in the Tower of London (at Richard's orders according to the play, but there's disagreement on the subject among historians). The young prince shows his intelligence in his remarks regarding the difference between history that is "upon record" versus the type that is "reported", and of course the remarks can be extrapolated to apply to the entire play. And it's worth noting that Buckingham's reply to the prince's follow-up question isn't true. Here's the excerpt:

PRINCE EDWARD

Say, uncle Gloucester, if our brother come,

Where shall we sojourn till our coronation?

GLOUCESTER

Where it seems best unto your royal self.

If I may counsel you, some day or two

Your highness shall repose you at the Tower:

Then where you please, and shall be thought most fit

For your best health and recreation.

PRINCE EDWARD

I do not like the Tower, of any place.

Did Julius Caesar build that place, my lord?

BUCKINGHAM

He did, my gracious lord, begin that place;

Which, since, succeeding ages have re-edified.

PRINCE EDWARD

Is it upon record, or else reported

Successively from age to age, he built it?

BUCKINGHAM

Upon record, my gracious lord.

PRINCE EDWARD

But say, my lord, it were not register'd,

Methinks the truth should live from age to age,

As 'twere retail'd to all posterity,

Even to the general all-ending day.

GLOUCESTER

[Aside] So wise so young, they say, do never

live long.

PRINCE EDWARD

What say you, uncle?

GLOUCESTER

I say, without characters, fame lives long.

[Aside]

Thus, like the formal vice, Iniquity,

I moralize two meanings in one word.

PRINCE EDWARD

That Julius Caesar was a famous man;

With what his valour did enrich his wit,

His wit set down to make his valour live

Death makes no conquest of this conqueror;

For now he lives in fame, though not in life.

Further to Friday's post regarding the excerpt of Sir Thomas More, which may have been revised by Shakespeare, and Stanley Wells' book (Shakespeare: For All Time) which brought it to my attention (and which contains a reproduction of the manuscript) - a couple of things: 1. Wells rightly finds an echo of the last two lines ("... and men like ravenous fishes/ Would feed on one another") in a speech by Albany in 4.2 of King Lear ("Humanity must perforce prey on itself/ Like monsters of the deep"). And there are also Shakespearean touches in both the detailed descriptions of specific moments ("their babies at their backs") and the empathy that results. There is also the fact that the straightforward deployment of argument (as in debating) is so much a part of Shakespearean drama. Finally there is the example of word class conversion ("shark" as a verb) which shows Shakespeare's ability to transcend not only rules but expectations. I, for one, am convinced. The excerpt is the work of Shakespeare.

One of the most compelling moments in Stanley Wells' excellent 2002 book, Shakespeare: For All Time, is his discussion of the manuscript revision done to the anonymous play, Sir Thomas More, which may be Shakespeare's, and thus the only surviving literary work in his handwriting, aside from "half a dozen signatures". Wells explains that the play, never performed in its own time due to difficulties with the censors, contains many striking passages, including the following, which I'll let him introduce (I'll have some thoughts on it tomorrow):

"Since late in the nineteenth century many scholars have believed that one of the revisers was Shakespeare. The principal passage in what is known as Hand D impressively portrays events leading up to the riots of Londoners against foreign immigrants on 'Ill May Day', 1517. More, sent by the authorities as a peacemaker, subdues the rioters in powerful and humane speeches of controlled rhetoric: to the demand that foreigners - 'strangers' - be expelled he responds:

Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise

Hath chid down all the majesty of England.

Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,

Their babies at their backs, with their poor luggage

Plodding to th' ports and coasts for transportation,

And that you sit as kings in your desires,

Authority quite silenced by your brawl

And you in ruff of your opinions clothed:

What had you got? I'll tell you. You had taught

How insolence and strong hand should prevail,

How order should be quelled - and by this pattern

Not one of you should live an aged man,

For other ruffians as their fancies wrought

With selfsame hand, self reasons, and self right

Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes

Would feed on one another."