Looks Billy Wagestaffe did the heavy digging for him.
Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>In the case of Richard 3 Shakespeare was also resting on nearly a century of
>Tudor "history." By the time Henry VII died he had, quite successfully,
>killed almost everyone with the faintest taint of "royal" ancestry. Tudor
>intellectuals had a lot of work o do to tidy up affairs.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Nancy Gish
>> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:36 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: An Eliot Preference
>> I've spent much of my time for months reading Roman history and the wars
>> or Rome and Carthage. I is extremely revealing about Eliot, interestingly
>> enough. But I also realize how much we have simply seen many historic
>> figures through the eyes of Shakespeare--who was not writing but using
>> history. He knew a lot of it, but he used it for dramatic purposes. One
>> example is Mark Antony: he was not so great a figure as his great speech
>> the play makes him.
>> >>> Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> 02/07/13 1:14 PM >>>
>> There is no way Truth can triumph over Shakespeare (re Richard III). :-)