Received History
by F.R.R. Mallory
February 25, 2007

Received History

History as we know it isn't really history at all. Accepted history is the legitimate manipulation of events for political purposes. Like any story history is subject to the forces that shape all forms of fiction. It has authors. Those authors have positions, viewpoints, ideologies and dogma both as part of their individual identities and as opportunists in creating the spin which serves their individual or perceived national needs at the moment that history becomes documented. Facts or truths don't exist in a vacuum and they are not documented from an objective observer. Facts or truths are personal determinations given substance by declaration. In this way an event is only true within the very narrow context of receipt by other human beings who choose not to challenge the integrity of the truth's descriptive. History is fiction even when it is presented as nonfiction. If all events and facts are unstable or subject to constant change based simply on the viewpoint of the recipient, then history cannot help but be understood to be fictional.

What rises to the surface and is offered as history is really the story version that most successfully has silenced other versions of the event in question. History requires invested belief by its recipients. In this way history emerges from shared cultural agreements where commonly held beliefs will allow such histories to flourish until a feedback loop is created where a history is considered to be true because it is believed to be true. Histories are created by those persons in positions of authority whose success has overcome their challenger's viewpoint; these are the persons who control the majority viewpoint perspective. In this way all histories are vehicles of oppression which impose their viewpoint upon the oppressed and serve to establish, continue or maintain the viewpoint of the oppressor.

When we look at literary quasi-biographical works such as William Shakespeare's Richard III, it becomes important to question the assertions of the author about the entirety of the depicted history. In this case Shakespeare doesn't appear to have stated that his play was true, he relied on his media of choice to deliver his historical version to the audience of his choice. Because Shakespeare was a master of language, of crafting dramatic scenes of intentional oratory power, he, in his plays, becomes positioned as a magisterial speaker wherein only his sole voice can be heard (dissenting opinions having been silenced by the structure of the play itself.) Shakespeare tells us a story and for four hundred years his story becomes the history of Richard III. He is simply better able to tell the story and this position of authority is sufficient to stand as truth. His underlying objectives, alliances, and motivations informing this particular perspective of story remain unclear to me as I am not a historical scholar and I feel such an analysis is beyond my knowledge. However, I can speculate that the play was both accepted and perhaps endorsed by the political structures of its day since it has survived, apparently intact, to this day and if it were in conflict with the powered elite, then it would have caused repercussions potentially including the plays removal or imprisonment of its producer of which neither event appears to have taken place.

Bertram Fields in Royal Blood and Desmond Seward in Richard III, England's Black Legend, are among the growing list of author/historians who are re-examining the history of this particular king, rising after centuries to challenge the validity of this history. Seneca, mid-1st century Roman philosopher tells us, "He who profits by a crime, commits it" urging us to ask who profited from the story of Richard III as portrayed by Shakespeare. This type of revisionist inquiry is growing in popularity as recognition emerges that dissenting viewpoints may not support mainstream historical perspective and as the support base for the original history perspective decays over time the true believers dwindle and power shifts from elder powerbase positions to new powerbase positions and what used to be dissenting viewpoint becomes the NEW political purpose whose needs can now be served by a new legitimate manipulation of events for political purposes. So, though a new historical challenge may look vastly different when details are compared with the elder historical perspective, is it really any different? It is still a story, still a fiction, still in service, still offering a payoff to a new agenda. In our latest versions we could speculate that both Seward and Fields, among the host of their peers, have found yet another way to profit on the shoulders of Shakespeare's name - at the very least.

Who profits today? If Richard III is rehabilitated 'historically' in what way does this serve the political purposes of current political structures? Does it serve a political purpose? Certainly we could look at the acquisition of academic status by authors as well as the adoption of power through association placing such works within view or connection of a literary master. How broadly is Shakespeare being taught and with what weight are such associations influencing how information is being delivered to new generations? How might such material inform viewpoint on the modern English monarchy, worldwide? Such questions reveal opportunities for profit and I'm certain more could be asked.

Given this opportunistic process can we equate it with an innocent correction of facts when the process is used to rehabilitate other notorious leaders such as Adolph Hitler? Authors such as Seward and Fields challenge each of us to consider our concepts of fact, truth and history - to look with questioning eyes upon statues of heroes and tales of valor or villainy, to remember that events can be turned inside out and ascribed to countless meanings, should that serve the needs of the manipulator. We can't know Richard III through any of these explorations. There is no pure truth to attain, just new versions. In the end, what we have is great story and the visible machinations of those given to shaping the ideas and thoughts of other people for their own purposes.

Works Referenced

Fields, Bertram. Royal Blood. London: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. 1998.

Seward, Desmond. Richard III, England's Black Legend. London: Country Life Books. 1983.

What do you know about?

I've always found it interesting to listen to people who specialize in something, not that I listen for too long because their specialization seems to make them less clear, less understandable, more distant. When the situation becomes untenable I will attempt some maneuver to exit the area - and if it is television it is likely I will opt out with a channel click.

In this way the possession of knowledge seems a tricky business. Do we acquire knowledge to hoard it or through the intention of sharing it? Obviously each of us has our own answer.

I've never been much attracted to studying history in broad terms but I do find myself learning way too much about some silly detail. Why?

It's true that I like to have some kind of historical research if I am looking at an author who wrote during a particular time period - I don't think you can really understand a writer fully without a base comprehension of their circumstances. I also think it is important to read all of a persons works - not just one.

As a writer on the inverse side of this question I can say that all of my work is related yet those relationships may remain invisible to a casual reader who only looks at a single piece. For me, being on the inside, I can see periods of time in my writing where specific topics are examined in many different ways. This reminds me of those impressionist painters who repainted scenes many times often becoming more suggestive with each progression until they have moved from detail to imagined and reached a state of divine resolution.

Writers do the same thing - they try to work things through and their lens and brushes are words and ink on paper. In this way they fragment the remembered history of an event into innumerable reflective sides, each intact, each interdependent, making each whole and part at the same time.

I think most writers hope to eventually have spoken their silenced words, releasing them from their inner prisons so that in the beyond the body of story, they can blend into the wholeness of the underlying experience.

In this way all history is personal and all stories are a writer's history and a writer's specialization is the greater understanding of self. No one really wants to hear about the me or the us inside, except through the mechanism of fiction that allows for the inclusion of the reader, enabling them to co-create and in that co-creation bring forth their own silences and revealed stories.

HOME | MALLORY'S WORKS | COOL STUFF | JOURNAL | TRUNK | ABOUT MALLORY

© 2007 F.R.R. Mallory