Monthly Archives: February 2013

The Iron In Literature and Music

Posted on by

After reading We Grow Out of Iron and seeing Chapaev as well as clips from various movies in class, I have come to realize that the correlation between the two artforms in the aspect that they both the directions of “industrialization” themselves.  They both changed with the times and grew to reflect the ways of the working class people.

The literature, We Grow Out of Iron, took a more literal approach in the sense that it described the worker as becoming one with the machinery and with the metal itself. The iron is becoming one with the worker and the worker is in turn becoming one with the factory system.  In a way it was used to show how that Russia was finally becoming an industrial country but it also hinted at the fact that the workers were exploited in factories with terrible conditions and over crowding, thus they became one with the machines, one with the metal they worked.

The music of the time began to resemble the sounds of the factor.  With banging, sawing, hammering and other noises. These noises became popular soundtracks to movies depicting the revolution and industrialization. This music was used to emphasize the industrial evolution of Russia.  This even occurred in classical music where they began banging on symbols or gongs or even starting off pieces with single, repetitive notes.

So the popular artforms of this time began to merge together and started to depict the same frame of mind.  Russia had finally become an industrial country with the industry riding on the back of the newly established proletarian class.

Tey’s “The Daughter of Time”

Posted on by

Josephine Tey’s historical fiction novel “The Daughter of Time” is an intricately woven story that, while sometimes incredible, blends reality with fiction seamlessly. Tey tells the story of a bedridden cop (Grant) who decides to unravel the mystery behind Richard III, one of England’s most notorious criminals. Tey’s background in history allowed for her to incorporate many of the methods in research used by historians. What I found most interesting in this novel was Grant’s insistence on the ignorance and stupidity of historians. Do his thoughts on the subject mirror Tey’s? or is she simply creating a character?

After reading this novel, I understand why some people are suspect of history. For all we know, everything we learned in history class was a lie schemed up by biased individuals for political or personal gain. Tey terms this type of history “tonypandy.” The methods used by Grant and his research assistant in uncovering the mystery of Richard III correspond with the methods used by diligent historians. By researching a source to discover where it got its story from, Grant was able to learn that all the stories about Richard III killing his two young nephews came from one historian, who would personally lose everything if Richard III was allowed to continue in his rule.

One quote that I found correctly summed up the basic plot line of the book came towards the end: “It [the story of Richard III as a horrible villain] is a completely untrue story grown to legend while the men who knew it to be untrue looked on and said nothing” (Tey 104). Through the example of the Richard III story, Tey proves the importance of a historian to be diligent and not to simply take everything they hear for fact. It is by being meticulous in one’s research that a historian can be sure they did everything correctly.

False Accusations

Posted on by

After reading Josephine Tey’s Daughter of Time, I now realize how important primary sources are to a historian, more general history itself.  The book starts out with Alan Grant, a policeman, staring at a ceiling, in bed, in a hospital.  There is only so much the mind can create with just a blank ceiling.  After months of refusing to read books, his friend Marta brings him a stack of portraits of prominent figure in past centuries.  He goes through several of these portraits until he comes across the portrait of Richard III.  For some reason the facial expressions and other aspects of this portrait cannot leave Grant’s thoughts.  He eagerly decides to learn more about Richard III and the infamous accusations of the murderer of his two nephews.

Throughout the book, Tey establishes the importance of primary sources.  Although school textbooks, well known authors such as Sir Thomas More, say one thing, the facts may not be factual.  It puzzles me how such thing could be possible.  Only declaring history a few weeks back, I still have a lot to learn.  I was one who depended on text books and online websites (not Wikipedia as taught in grade school), not utilizing the primary sources that are available at public libraries, churches, government buildings, etc.

This book and the understanding of primary sources has definitely overlapped with my work in the archives.  It has given me a greater reason to believe in the importance for researching primary sources.  Although it may be difficult to piece together because there are so many articles and separate pieces, it is important for a true historian to be able to piece the information together.  One must not always depend on the information readily available and already pieced together because, like Tey depicted in The Daughter or Time, not all common knowledge is reliable.

The Winter of Our Discontent

Posted on by

When William Shakespeare wrote his time honored classic Richard III, he wrote his main character as a murdering, calculating, and almost maddened individual, a perspective popular with the droves that filled the Globe Theater to take in the royal play-write’s latest piece, but more importantly, a perspective that would please Her Majesty and her Tutor court. While reading Tey’s treatment of the same man, I could not help but think of the importance of perspective when telling a story and the tendency of an audience to believe what they want to believe rather than finding facts on their own. I myself fell victim to a Shakespearean perspective with regard to the final king to be born of the House of York.

The more I read of Tey’s novel the more clear it became that I had never looked at King Richard through the eyes of a historian, which hammered home the point of reading this novel and shows how examining Tey’s treatment of Richard can be useful in terms of a larger study of what it means to interpret and write history. I had always seen King Richard in the light that Shakespeare had cast him. Even in school when I first learned about the War of the Roses, my teacher presented Richard as a murderous hunchback with a chip on his shoulder and a score to settle with his brother. I never considered the perspective that Tey presents through Grant’s bedridden investigation, a perspective that paints Richard as a benevolent ruler, and (as we later find out) a man who in all likelihood has been tried, convicted and ultimately executed by history for a double murder that he may not have ordered. In addition to my own personal eureka moment in terms of perspective, I found Grant’s method of investigation to be exactly how history is supposed to be done.

Grant never settles for an account without substantiated evidence, nor does he ever stop asking the question that every historian should hold true to their heart: “Where did you get that information?” He looks at a number of different sources to form his opinion on poor King Richard, ranging from a copy of an old painting to Sir Thomas More’s personal account of Richard’s life. His use of a diverse grouping of primary and secondary sources shows a depth of investigation that is essential to writing good history. Grant took no fact for granted, which to me embodies the ideal historical attitude. The greatest lesson Tey taught me was not about an English Monarch who’s death came too soon, but rather about how to properly execute writing and in a larger, more significant sense, interpreting history.

“Truth is the daughter of time”

Posted on by

Josephine Tey presents an enthralling historical mystery that envelops the minds of policeman Grant who is bedridden and bored in a hospital, and the American student,  Brent Carradine who is in pursuit of a worthwhile occupation. Tey’s novel begins simply, where a portrait inspires Grant to ask questions about the history surrounding Richard III’s reign and his villainous legacy. The process which he uses begins with asking his friends who visit him and the nurses who attend to him in the hospital about what they know. He reads two school textbooks and then asks for other historical works, from apparently legitimate historians. Through his investigations and police-like thinking and methodologies, in collaboration with Carradine, they uncover historical inconsistencies and “breaks” within the story.

I was thoroughly confused reading this novel, and it was difficult to keep track of all of the different actors, their motives, who they were related to and how, what dynastic titles they had and who was next in line to become king. The details of history, as Tey shows, are extremely important and primary sources, staying within the “account books” vs accounts of people are important to finding the truth. Grant’s position throughout the novel is similar to Tuchman, where she believes that historians must stay within the discipline of the facts. This is problematic though, because what constitutes facts? Often, as we saw with the discussion of John Dickinson’s birthday in class the other day, or in Thomas More’s history, historians base their writings off other historians accounts, without questioning it. So, detailed investigative work, using primary sources and questioning others interpretations of history is essential to telling a more truthful or accurate story.

 

After much time has passed, truth is birthed.

 

-Eddie

Morals of Tey’s Daughter of Time

Posted on by

The first perception of Richard the Third offered to the reader is in the form of a portrait. Upon viewing it, Grant depicts him as the “monster of nursery stories. The destroyer of innocence. A synonym for villainy” (Tey, 28). The painting, however, displays different emotions to Grant. Having left out the hunched back, the painter depicted Richard III as a sickly and weathered man, brutalized from years of responsibility and illness. His curiosity peaked, Grant resorts to searching for his villain in English history books. What he finds does not shed much more light on the mystery; the king died in battle and became hated for his supposed deeds by all the British. Having established the commonly held belief of Richard, Grant gathers facts about Richard III from the limited company available to him. His sergeant, nurses, and friends allow him to develop a piecemeal background on what happened to the two princes. Grant consults many sources about the mystery of the boy’s demise, including children’s history schoolbooks and historical fiction on the subject. He discredits what might’ve been his most reliable source, a formal history text of Richard III’s life by Sir Thomas Moore, and continues to delve into first hand sources. Grant his assistant, Carradine, and Marta examine and analyze primary sources such as letters and notes from the time period of Richard III and his relatives. Through discussion of the facts which they gradually uncover, Carradine and Grant are able to discern the true nature of the affair between Richard and his two nephews who he supposedly murdered. They test theories with not only each other, but with the nurses as well. By a combination of deductive reasoning, fact compilation, and insights into the personalities of the royal figures in question, Grant concludes that Henry VII, of the Tudor house, had more to gain from the murder of the princes.

This story has several important morals to be taken into account while studying history. The first, and most prominent, is that the common perception of a man, woman, or event of kind is not necessarily correct. In the case of Richard III, the world believed him a murderer, but Grant proves this to be incorrect. The second moral is that the victors of the past write history. Indeed, it was the Tudors who prevailed in this situation and as a result, it is the Tudor story that is widely believed.

The Daughter of Time

Posted on by

The Daughter of Time, written by Josephine Tey, is Tey’s explanation of how to do history and historical research, as well as the problems faced by historians. The protagonist, Alan, endeavors to solve the mystery of Richard III’s death and the murder of his two nephews. Throughout the book Tey utilizes Alan’s profession as a policeman at Scotland Yard to illustrate the process of historical research through the lens of a detective’s investigative process. Initially Alan acquires a portrait of Richard III and it was interesting to read the characters variety of actions and perceptions of the man in the portrait prior to their knowledge of it being Richard III. The characters would describe the figure as being afflicted by “poliomyelitis” or a liver condition but upon learning it was Richard III they would describe the painting as a “portrait of a murderer”. Relating to our discussion of how to do history, it is interesting to see how preconceived notions can affect a person’s opinion or retelling of a historical event.

Initially Alan consults high school textbooks and contemporary accounts concerning Richard III and his nephews. One of the books was written by John Morton, a “trusted” historian of Richard’s life, who declared Richard was a calculating murderer whose sole concern was his throne. After learning more about John Morton, Alan discovers Morton was Henry VII’s(the ruler who succeeded Richard) Archbishop of Canterbury and an enemy of Richard III’s who had plotted an uprising against him. Morton also stood to gain through propagating the story in order to help legitimize Henry VII as the new ruler, and therefore increase his own chances of social mobility. Therefore Alan discovers that while doing history it is important to consider who the writer is and the possible biases which could affect their narration of events.

As Alan progresses in his research he rejects all “accounts” of the events written during the reign of Henry VII and the writings of any historians of the time given the bias he had already encountered with his prior sources. Alan moves on to primary sources from the time of Richard III which included personal letters and Parliamentary reports. From the new sources he encountered, which were less likely to have politically motivated bias, Alan sees a kinder and more caring side of Richard III, as well as the fallacies within the “history” of the murders of the two princes by the orders of Richard III.

The Daughter of Time

Quote

Posted on by

The Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey, is a novel that describes Tey’s definition of history. Throughout the novel, the murder of Richard II’s nephews. This horrendous event is speculated about through the main character, Detective Grant. He is eager to find out the truth, but he comes to learn that what he thinks is the truth is hearsay. Hearsay and the stories about what happened are all questions and rumors. Grant reads Sir Thomas More’s account of Richard II, only to realize later that that story was just another version of the same story he had been hearing. Grant discusses his struggles with the other characters about finding out the truth. This is significant to us, the readers, because as we learn to write about history, it is important to find the whole truth, not simply the parts we hear most often. We had one example of this in the archives when we were debating John Dickinson’s birthday, and that although maybe 70% of sources said his birthday was November 8, the truth was that it was on November 2.

Discussing ones ideas with others around them is a good way to get new information that one may not have received already, or to confirm information one might have. Exchanging ideas is what happens with Detective Grant and Brent Carradine, they use each others ideas and knowledge of what they have researched and heard to uncover the truth about the murders of Richard II’s nephews. At one point of the novel, there is a conversation between Grant and Carradine about the point that Grant really wants to find a “contemporary account of events…not what someone heard-tell about the events that happened”. (Tey pg. 93) This statement is directly related to ‘how to do history’ because it tells the reader, and/or informs the scholar that primary sources are the best way to find accurate information on the topic at hand. Tey’s point in writing this novel was not only to tell a story of a detective and his assistant looking for details of an old crime, but rather the process they go through to find the information. Grant starts out just listening to old stories from people in the town, to getting a research assistant to help him separate folk-lore tales from possible accurate depictions. Next, the share the details they find with one another to see what matches up, and to show that asking questions and sharing information is the best way to go about conducting research. Finally, they use what information they have collected to build their case, however now Grant and Carradine are not sure if it was Richard II or his hired hand who killed Richards two nephews.

Tey: History is Made By Those Who Follow

Posted on by

Tey attempts to portray Richard III in a positive light, I am a befuddled as to her avenue of approach. She uses the novel as a format from which she can critique prior histories of Richard without actually establishing a solid thesis. By not establishing a thesis, Tey is able to use a train of thoughts in an attempt to demonstrate Richard as he truly was. While this works wonderfully for an attempt at solving out a “conspiracy theory”, this does nothing to create an actual fact-based historical argument.

Tey does do a solid job, however, on the explanation on how history is shaped and why it is shaped in the ways that we see today. If Richard III was as benevolent as Tey establishes, the Tudor’s depiction of Richard as a murderous tyrant reverberates across a common thread in history: people are what those who follow portray them as. While children for the past hundred years or so have learned that George Washington was an excellent general or  Abraham Lincoln believed in the need for equality between white men and enslaved blacks, it is only because we who have followed in the footsteps of these men have painted them to be that way.

I must admit, having read the various pieces of historical fiction lying around in AHEC’s gift shop, that Tey presents her take on history in an interesting way. By using the detective figure, she can use police methodology to create an interesting chain of thought to “solve” what truly happened. But by using this, Tey also creates her biggest fault; deductive reasoning. With Grant trying to solve history as if it were a crime, his method of reasoning goes against even the basic historical principles. By creating history based on what he thinks must have happened in the missing spaces rather than using the documents to prove what happened in the spaces, Tey through Grant takes what may or may not have been a possible position on Richard III and ruins all of her credibility. But as a historical novel? Tey manages to deliver a solid reading experience sure to intrigue even those with no interest in Medieval England.

The Usual Suspect

Posted on by

Carl Becker would be rather proud of Detective Grant—rather than a bespectacled academic pondering a weighty tome, the historian hero of Daughter of Time is a gruff, battered, longtime veteran of Scotland Yard who by his own admission gave little and less thought to history after his schooling. However, he finds himself unraveling a mystery of a rather different sort when a portrait of Richard III makes him question everything he thought he knew about the key.

Grant’s attempts to discover the truth behind Richard are quite interesting, demonstrating many historian’s techniques and thought processes, all from his hospital bed, with the aid of his American friend Brent. So too does he demonstrate the pitfalls of historical accounts relying on one another, with the case of More’s inaccurate portrayal of Richard being used by everyone else after him and thus tainting the truth of the man.