El Barbudo wrote:
I did mishear the sideways curvature as "slight" curvature, apologies for that
... but, nonetheless, they are saying it was a sideways thing (
scoliosis rather than the kyphosis that you'd have expected if Richard had been crookbacked or hunchbacked) giving him one shoulder visibly higher than the other, not a crooked back.
I don't think that "crookback" is the same as "hunchback". "Crookback" is clearly a shortening of "crooked back", which is what he had, and which is how such a condition would appear, and be naturally described. But, wasn't "crookback" his nickname anyway? And did Shakespeare use that word? I thought his phrase was "bunch-back'd". I can understand why as this is only one consonant away from "hunch-back'd" people might jump to conclusions, but Shakespeare was hardly a careless writer, and so whilst the usage of the description "bunch-back'd"
may have been familiar Shakesepeare's audience, or he may have just invented it, the fact seems to be that he didn't use "hunch" and that is I think certainly no accident.
Thomas More described Richard thus:
"'He was little of stature, ill fetured of limmes, croke backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right,"
... which is interesting, as it uses both the "crooked back" description, as well as expanding on it by pointing out one shoulder was higher than the other.
