| | Article in The Lancet on Richard's Spine | |
| | Author | Message |
---|
Wednesday Admin
Posts : 137 Join date : 2014-03-19
| Subject: Article in The Lancet on Richard's Spine Fri 30 May 2014, 00:17 | |
| The article linked below references a paper published in The Lancet, but doesn't provide further information on its contents. Perhaps someone has access to the professional journal and can let us know what it says? At last, a paper that says Richard's scoliosis was not that evident or disabling. I only wish we could read the entire Lancet article, that it wasn't buried away from the public. ARTICLE HERE | |
| | | Wednesday Admin
Posts : 137 Join date : 2014-03-19
| Subject: Re: Article in The Lancet on Richard's Spine Fri 30 May 2014, 11:55 | |
| You can register free at thelancet.com and access (and download -- they have provided links):
1. The entire Lancet article 2. Two supplementary videos 3. One audio file
discussing Richard's spine in detail.
At the moment, the paper is featured on the home page, and Lancet has been kind enough to make access public if one registers at the site. | |
| | | phaecilia
Posts : 62 Join date : 2014-03-29
| Subject: Re: Article in The Lancet on Richard's Spine Sat 31 May 2014, 14:51 | |
| - Wednesday wrote:
- You can register free at thelancet.com and access (and download -- they have provided links):
1. The entire Lancet article 2. Two supplementary videos 3. One audio file
discussing Richard's spine in detail.
At the moment, the paper is featured on the home page, and Lancet has been kind enough to make access public if one registers at the site. Thanks, Wednesday. It's good to hear a scientist say the Tudor version is inaccurate. I've felt that way for years. But I'm just a member of the "weird cult" that believes Shakespeare's and the Tudors' version wasn't history. phaecilia | |
| | | whitehound Admin
Posts : 187 Join date : 2014-03-20
| Subject: Re: Article in The Lancet on Richard's Spine Sun 01 Jun 2014, 21:15 | |
| I still want to know why they've reconstructed him with his right shoulder higher - that is, with the shoulder on the convex side of the curve higher. Every example I found on the net where there was a similar curve - admittedly not a large sample - had the higher shoulder on the concave side. I've a suspicion they've just said that to fit in with Rous but there's another contemporary quote (I forget where) which has his left shoulder higher, and the portraits also can't decide one way or the other. | |
| | | Constantia
Posts : 95 Join date : 2014-03-22
| Subject: Re: Article in The Lancet on Richard's Spine Sat 07 Jun 2014, 17:32 | |
| - whitehound wrote:
- I still want to know why they've reconstructed him with his right shoulder higher - that is, with the shoulder on the convex side of the curve higher. Every example I found on the net where there was a similar curve - admittedly not a large sample - had the higher shoulder on the concave side. I've a suspicion they've just said that to fit in with Rous but there's another contemporary quote (I forget where) which has his left shoulder higher, and the portraits also can't decide one way or the other.
As far as I know, there's no other contemporary reference to Richard's having one shoulder higher than the other. Mancini and Croyland don't describe him (unless you count a reference to paleness in the summer of 1485). The other descriptions merely mention his height, his slender limbs, etc. It's More (not a contemporary--he was a child when Richard died) who reverses the shoulders--probably because (according to Erasmus) he (More) also had one shoulder higher than the other. Assuming that More's left was higher than his right, he may have deliberately reversed them so they matched his own as part of the dark humor that permeates the piece. The reversal may be one of several hints that his parody (or whatever it was) was not intended as history--and his intended readers, among them Vergil, would catch the hints that modern historians (and ordinary readers) miss. | |
| | | whitehound Admin
Posts : 187 Join date : 2014-03-20
| Subject: Re: Article in The Lancet on Richard's Spine Sat 07 Jun 2014, 19:07 | |
| Could be, I guess - but then More certainly would have known a lot of people who had seen Richard. And we don't know which version of the portrait is nearer the truth, but the Society of Antiquaries one - which has the right shoulder lower - at least has proper 3D modelling. If you look at the way his ornamental collar hangs, it looks suspiciously as though the National Portrait Gallery/Royal Collection version, in which the right shoulder is higher, was done by painting his face from life, his hands from memory and his torso by draping a jacket and collar over a flat wooden cut-out. Here's the set of pictures which I collected this time last year, showing Leicester Uni's reconstruction of Richard's spine, and the X-rays and diagram I found which showed people with similar curves, and with the shoulders either level or slightly higher on the concave side. The diagram at top right corresponds well with the way his shoulders appear in the Society of Antiquaries portrait. | |
| | | Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: Article in The Lancet on Richard's Spine | |
| |
| | | | Article in The Lancet on Richard's Spine | |
|
Similar topics | |
|
| Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |