Bertram Fields (1929–2022)

Apparently written in a snit over the 1992 book The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir which repeats as true every slander against RIII ever made. There is very little but biased hearsay available after the Tudor scrub of whatever records they had, but Fields makes what case he can as a lawyer to weigh and present evidence. Entirely missing is consideration that had RIII not separated the Princes from their power and protectors he would not have been responsible for their fate. But he did, and was, so what happened to them became his responsibility even if it may not have directly been his fault. Of course his life, his son's life, possibly even his wife's life, were pretty much on the line and protecting England from the Woodville family would have been compelling.
As a read it lacked involving interest and Field's hobby horse leaves hoof prints through too many chapters.… (altro)

I found this to be a very good take on the who-killed-the-royal-princes question that still remains unsolved centuries later. As an attorney, Fields approaches the question with a clearer eye than most, laying down the motives for each proposed murderer. Like many, I feel that Richard III received a raw deal, but history's winners dictate the final version. However, the author provided me with full research, so that I wouldn't just say it was them darn Tudors.

Read the book and decide for yourself, since there will never be a conclusive answer to one of England's great mysteries. Still...those darn Tudors.


Book Season = Autumn (when the air is crisp)… (altro)

I've always been interested in the Shakespeare "authorship question." First off, I think the actor from Avon was the author of the plays, but I like conspiracy theories and watching otherwise sane people bend the silliest tidbits of evidence to fit their hypotheses. This is a breeze of a book to read, and is written for a general audience. Fields gives the background of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras and tries, as best as he can, to give both sides of the issue. The problem is, however, that it is apparent he doesn't think the Stratford actor was the playwright, and sometimes he is inconsistent with his logic. Thus, the Stratford actor couldn't have asked British travellers for information about Italy, but someone like Bacon could have asked a soldier about military information. Et cetera. There are several such examples where there are perfectly plausible explanations in favor of the Stratford man that are dismissed, but similar arguments, in fact silly ones, are made in favor of the other candidates. The problem with these "Shakespeare must have been a nobleman" types is that there is much in the plays that is coarse and low, there are scores of references to agriculture, which the Stratford man was probably intimately familiar with, and any allusions to "noble" pursuits could have been learned by a writer, and was intended to be understood by a mass audience. For instance, Fields makes much of the references to falconry. According to Fields, this means the plays were not written by the lowly Stratford man, but a nobleman. He discounts the theory that the actor could have learned these facts. But wouldn't it be silly for a playwright to make references to falconry metaphors the groundlings would not have understood? I mean, I've never owned a yacht, but I understand sailing metaphors. Right?

I ramble.

Still, all in all, a neat book if it can be found cheaply, and a superb introduction to the subject. I wish I could give this book four stars, but I can not. Why? First, the editorial decision to make everything brown. The text, the images, everything. But more egregious is that though it is obviously well researched, there are no footnotes, endnotes, or bibliography, which makes this book nearly useless as a reference work.… (altro)