This copyrighted document may be freely reproduced and modified by faculty members at The Evergreen State College for classroom use at the college. Any other use or distribution of it without explicit permission from its author is prohibited. (It was created in AOLPress, a free graphic HTML editor, which is available for Macs and Windows machines at http://www.aolpress.com/download.html.)
by Don Finkel and Nancy Taylor
If you knew for sure that Josephine Tey were right, would your
reading of Shakespeare's Richard the Third be any different? Would
you have a different view of Thomas More? To call yourself an historian do
you have to tell the truth or at least make every effort to do so? Is that
a modern idea? Is it even possible? How much poetic license are you willing
to grant a writer? Can Shakespeare get away with more than Josephine Tey?
Can More get away with more than a modern historian like Conrad Russell?
In short, what are your biases about historians or writers that call themselves
historians? That is what this workshop is about. The exercise is in the form
of a debate so that you are forced to take a position to highlight the
issues.
Resolved: Josephine Tey has undermined the value of Shakespeare's Richard
III by forcing us to question Richard's guilt and therefore forcing us
to question More's and Shakespeare's integrity. Divide into groups of
eight.
Part 1 (60 minutes)
Discuss the resolution and come to a clear understanding of what it says
and what the major issues are. Since you are going to divide
into affirmative and negative teams after this discussion, begin thinking
about which side you support. Here are some questions to start your discussion.
Be sure to do the written parts in questions 1, 5 and 9.
1. What are the purposes of writing history? For example, are there other
reasons for writing history than attempts to tell the truth? Make a list
of these reasons.
2. What is meant by providential history? How does this relate to Shakespeare
and More?
3. Define the term Tudor Myth so every one understands it. Does proclaiming
the Tudor myth devalue Shakespeare's history?
4. Both More and Shakespeare claim to be writing history; so do Vergil,
Hall, and Holinshed. Given that fact and your knowledge of the professional
historians today how do you think the purposes have changed? Does this make
you judge earlier historians differently? Do modern historians get that much
closer to the Truth or are they just kidding themselves?
In making your list consider these questions: Responsibilities to whom? How
much poetic license are you willing to grant them? Does your answer depend
upon their reputation? their skill? their genre? their purpose?
5. What do you think are the responsibilities of historians? List them.
6. What motives do you detect in More's writing of his history of Richard
III, in Shakespeare's writing of Richard III, in Tey's writing of
Daughter of Time, in the writing as represented by the notes you've
been given which come from Alison Hanham's Richard III written in
1975?
7. What are the consequences of using history to teach a moral lesson when
it involves ignoring evidence? Is a writer justified in bending historical
stories to persuade someone or some group of people (i.e. a nation) to behave
in a particular manner?
8. What difference does it make if Richard's reputation has been defamed
by Shakespeare?
9. If a modern playwright chose to write an historical play based upon the
reign of Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy or any other American leader and
made his or her major thrust be that this leader was the greatest hero that
America has ever had or the greatest villain and bent the facts to suit that
thrust, how would you react? Is history an art and therefore covered by
guarantees of freedom of speech or is it a science governed by the imperative
to be accurate? Using the chart, list your support
for each statement.
Part II
Now as in a formal debate divide into two teams of four people each, one
team to make the case for the affirmative (supporting the resolution) and
one team to make the case for the negative (denying the resolution). (For
the sake of argument, make the teams equal in size even if it means compromising
someone's position. (In a formal debate you actually draw for sides and therefore
must be prepared to argue both positions.)
After you have divided into teams take a 15 minute break. Then resume your
work in teams of four.
(30 minutes)
I. Decide a strategy for defending your position. Choose one person to be
your official debater. Now decide which issues are most important? Which
ones make your position most vulnerable?
2. Make a list of the essential information you need to support your position.
Start with the chart which you have made in answer to question 9 above. If
you need specific information, assign members of your group to find that
information or formulate a statement asserting that position.
3. Now, together formulate a three (3) minute statement which supports your
position as clearly and forcefully as possible.
4. Anticipate your opponents' statement and formulate ideas toward a one
(1) minute rebuttal.
Part III (15 minutes)
Now return to your small group of eight and stage the debate. Choose one
person to keep track of time and proceed in this order.
3 minute affirmative statement: :3 minute negative statement;
2 minutes for each team to huddle to devise a strategy for rebuttal;
1 minute negative rebuttal; 1 minute affirmative rebuttal.
Discuss the results of your trial debate briefly.
Part IV (15minutes)
Now return to the large group to discuss the uses and abuses of history.
If we have time and you are so inclined we could stage one debate in front
of the whole class.