Richard III: His Life & Character Part 20

[16] Grafton, p. 130.

[17] _Harl. MS._ 433.

[18] Sir George Buck was descended from John Buck, comptroller of King Richard's household, who was put to death after the battle of Bosworth.

Sir George served with the Earl of Ess.e.x in the Cadiz expedition of 1596. He was knighted by James I. in July 1603, and became Master of the Bevels in 1610, a post which he held until 1622. He died on September 22, 1623. His _History of the Life and Reign of King Richard III._, composed in five books, was published in 1646, with 'George Buck, Esq.,' as author. But the existence of the ma.n.u.script in the British Museum, with Sir George as the author, and in his handwriting, proves the subst.i.tution of 'Esquire' for 'Sir' to be a mistake. Camden speaks of Buck as a man of distinguished learning.

[19] Thomas Carte, _History of England to_ 1654 _inclusive_. 4 vols.

folio. 1753.

[20] Horace Walpole, _Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III._, 4to. 1768.

[21] John Bayley, _History and Antiquities of the Tower of London_, 2 vols. 4to. 1821.

[22] Laing, _Continuation of the History of Great Britain by Dr.

Henry_. 1795.

[23] J. P. Courtenay, _Commentaries on the Plays of Shakespeare_, 2 vols. 8vo. 1840.

[24] Miss Halsted, _Life of Richard III_. 2 vols. 8vo. 1844.

[25] Alfred O. Legge, _The Unpopular King_. _Life and Times of Richard III_. 2 vols. 8vo. 1883.

[26] Sharon Turner, _History of England during the Middle Ages_. 5 vols. 8vo. 1830.

[27] John H. Jesse, _Memoirs of King Richard III_. 8vo. 1862.

[28] Dr. W. F. Hook, D.D., _Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury_. 9 vols. 8vo. 1860-72. He considers the slander of the d.u.c.h.ess of York incredible.

[29] Sir N. H. Nicolas, _Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York_.

1830. He utterly rejects the story of Richard having poisoned his wife, and having wanted to marry Elizabeth of York (p. liii.) Dr. W.

Stubbs, _Const.i.tutional History of England_, vol. ii. Thorold Rogers, _Work and Wages_, ii. 212.

[30] Dr. Lingard, _History of England to the Revolution_. 4th ed.

1837; 6th ed. 1854.

[31] James Gairdner, _Letters and Papers Ill.u.s.trative of the Reigns of Richard III. and Henry VII_. 1861-63. _Memorials of Henry VII_.

1858. _History of the Life and Reign of Richard III_. 1878. _Life of Henry VII_. 1889. Article in the _English Historical Review_. 1891.

{184}

CHAPTER II

EXAMINATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RICHARD III

1. The Deformity.

2. Murder of Edward of Lancaster.

3. Murder of Henry VI.

4. Marriage with Anne Nevill.

5. Treatment of the Countess of Warwick.

6. Death of Clarence.

An indictment, in many counts, was brought against Richard III. after his death, by the authors who wrote during the reign of his successor, and in the interests of that successor's dynasty. It will be seen, in the course of the discussion, with what object these accusations were made, and why a belief in them was considered to be so important to the success of the Tudor usurpation. The reckless profusion of abuse was due to the complete license of the traducers. No one could appear for the accused. The brave young King was dead, his body subjected to cowardly insults, his friends proscribed, his people silenced. Calumny was triumphant and unchecked. Yet there was method and system in the scheme of the Tudor writers. Their accusations were all intended to lead up to a belief in the dead King's guilt with regard to one central crime. If he was to be deformed, if he was to be an a.s.sa.s.sin at the age of eighteen, the murderer of his brother and his wife, a ruthless usurper {185} and tyrant, it was because such a monster would be more likely to commit a crime of which he must be thought to be guilty in the interests of his wily successor. It will now be our business to examine these charges one by one. The first concerns Richard's personal appearance.

[Sidenote: Deformity]

It is stated that he was two years in his mother's womb,[1] that he was born feet foremost,[2] with a complete set of teeth,[3] and with hair down to the shoulders,[4] that he was hump-backed, that his right shoulder was higher than his left,[5] that his left shoulder was much higher than his right,[6] and that one of his arms was withered.[7]

Pa.s.sing over the obvious fables with the remark that they throw just suspicion on other statements from the same sources, we come to the hump-back. We do not find this deformity mentioned by any contemporary except Morton. If it had existed it is certain that so conspicuous a blemish would have been dwelt upon by all contemporary detractors.

Stow, the most honest of the later chroniclers, told Sir George Buck that he had talked to old men who had seen and known Richard, and who said that he was in bodily shape comely enough.[8] In the two portraits drawn by Rous no inequality is visible. Richard here has a handsome youthful face, slight build and good figure. The portrait at Windsor shows a face full of energy and decision, yet gentle and melancholy. The shoulders are quite even.

{186}

Rous, Polydore Virgil, and Morton are the authorities for the unequal shoulders. Rous says that the right shoulder was higher. Morton makes the left shoulder much higher. Their contradictory testimony shows the worthless character of both these authorities. Polydore Virgil merely mentions an inequality. Fabyan and the Croyland monk do not say a word against Richard's personal appearance. A curious piece of evidence was discovered by Mr. Davies of York, which bears on the question.[9] From the 'York Records' it appears that, six years after King Richard's death, a man named Burton was brought before the Lord Mayor accused of calling that prince, whose memory was so beloved in the north, 'a crouchback.' One John Poynter, who heard this remark, told Burton that he lied, and struck at him with a little rod he had in his hand. It would seem, therefore, that if there was any defect in Richard's figure, it was so slight that its very existence was matter of dispute among those who could well remember the King, while it was imperceptible to Stow's informants. On the whole, we may accept the conclusion of Miss Halsted that Richard was of slight and delicate build, and that the severe martial exercises in which his youth had been spent had caused the shoulder of his sword-arm to be very slightly higher than the other.

The story of the withered arm comes from Morton. That astute prelate always had an object in making his statements. This particular tale was invented to draw off attention from the real charge made by the Protector against the Woodvilles. It served its turn, and may be dismissed as false without any hesitation. {187} For it is not mentioned by a single other authority. The victor of Barnet and Tewkesbury, the leader of the brilliant charge at Bosworth, who unhorsed Sir John Cheney[10] and William Brandon, must have had serviceable arms.

The object of the Tudor historians in commencing their grotesque caricature of an imaginary monster with these stories of his personal deformity is transparent. They intended to make him detestable from the outset. They calculated that improbable crimes would be more readily believed if the alleged perpetrator was a deformed hunchback born with teeth. They were right. Nothing has more conduced to an unreasoning prejudice against Richard, and to a firm belief in his alleged crimes, than the impression of his personal repulsiveness.

Modern writers have also understood this method of treatment. Lord Macaulay was careful to prepare the minds of his readers for the alleged judicial crimes of Sir Elijah by telling them that little Impey was in the habit of stealing cakes at school.[11] The great essayist, as well as the Tudor historians, knew their public. The one invented the pilfering story and the others the deformity with the same motive.

If a judge had been a juvenile thief, or if a king had been a deformed little monster, the charges against them in after life would be more readily accepted as true. It is illogical, but it is human nature.

Richard was described as a venomous hunchback[12] and made to commit several atrocious crimes in order {188} to prepare men's minds to receive, without incredulity, the story of the murder of his nephews.

It was evidently antic.i.p.ated that this final draft on their powers of belief would be dishonoured unless the alleged murderer had been steeped in crime from his infancy.

At the early age of eighteen Richard is accordingly accused of having committed a cowardly and inhuman murder in cold blood after the battle of Tewkesbury, on evidence which would be insufficient to hang a dog.[13]

[Sidenote: Young Edward's death]

The battle took place on May 4, 1471. The young Duke of Gloucester had displayed valour and generals.h.i.+p, and had won for himself a name in chivalry. On the other side, Prince Edward of Lancaster, who was exactly one year younger than Richard, led the main battle of his army, and bore himself manfully. Carried away in the rout and closely followed by his victorious enemies, he was slain on the field of battle. There was one eye-witness who wrote an account of the battle of Tewkesbury. He said that young Edward of Lancaster 'was taken fleeing to the townwards and slain in the field.'[14] A drawing accompanies this writer's report, in which we see a horse on its knees, {189} the rider receiving his deathblow, the helmet struck off, and the bright golden locks sinking on the horse's mane.[15] This was the plain truth. He fell, fighting bravely, on the battle-field. All contemporaries, without an exception, corroborate this evidence. The next writer was Warkworth, but he was not present. He wrote 'There was slain on the field Prince Edward, which cried for succour to the Duke of Clarence.'[16] Bernard Andre, the paid historian of Henry VII., says the same, 'Is enim ante Bernardi campum Theoxberye proelio belligerens ceciderat.' The Croyland monk says that some of the Lancastrian leaders fell in the battle, others 'by the revengeful hands of certain persons afterwards,'[17] referring to the fact that some were executed after trial before the Earl Marshal and Constable. There is no hint here of the alleged a.s.sa.s.sination of Edward. Comines tells the same story, 'et fut le Prince de Galles tue sur le champ et plusieurs autres grans seigneurs.' Such is the unanimous testimony of contemporaries.

We now come to the other Tudor writers and their versions of young Edward's death. Fabyan, writing to please Henry VII., is the first who said that the Prince was captured and brought before Edward IV., {190} and he added the following tale: 'The King strake him with his gauntlet in the face, on which the Prince was by the King's servants incontinently slain.'[18] Fabyan's baseless gossip came before Polydore Virgil, and the protege of Pope Alexander VI. conceived the idea of giving it a lurid Borgian colouring, better suited to the lat.i.tude of Urbino than to that of Tewkesbury and calculated to make our flesh creep. It was thus that his ideas found words: 'King Edward gave no answer, only thrusting the young man from him with his hand, whom forthwith those that were present, who were George Duke of Clarence, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and William Lord Hastings, crewelly murderyd.'[19] This story was improved upon by Grafton, Hall, Holinshed and other Tudor chroniclers. Dorset was added to the list of alleged a.s.sa.s.sins by Habington, Grafton, and Hall. Gloucester is made to strike the first blow by Holinshed. Here we have a striking example of the gradual growth of a legend which has eventually become embedded in history.[20] Its original conception was due to an Italian, not to an English brain. It is {191} thus that the fable has become a part of the history of England. Honest John Stow is alone in rejecting the Italian's embellishment. He discredits the version of Polydore Virgil as a palpable fraud, and merely repeats Fabyan's statement.

It is very remarkable that three authorities patronised by Henry VII.

give no countenance to the fable of Polydore Virgil. Bernard Andre is in perfect agreement with the contemporaries, simply because Virgil's story had not been invented when he wrote. Rous is silent for the same reason. He was the originator of the birth with teeth and with hair to the shoulders. He heaped calumny on calumny, and would have eagerly repeated the Tewkesbury story if it had existed in his time. Morton's silence is still more singular except on the hypothesis that the slander was not then in existence.

Dr. Morton was actually present at Tewkesbury. If young Edward was murdered he must have known it. Yet in a work prepared for the express purpose of enumerating the alleged crimes of Richard he said {192} nothing. He had no scruples. He repeats all he can think of, with the object of heaping opprobrium on Richard's memory. But there is not a hint about a.s.sa.s.sinating Edward of Lancaster. Morton's silence, under these circ.u.mstances, amounts to a proof that the story was a fabrication of later times. Andre, Rous, and Morton wrote before Polydore Virgil, and when the Italian's calumny had not yet been invented. It cannot be that Virgil found out what the less vigilant Andre, Rous, and Morton overlooked. If anyone knew all the details of the battle of Tewkesbury at first hand, it was Morton. He was there.

His silence explodes the fable. It also convicts Polydore Virgil of having fabricated an exceptionally foul slander, with a rank scent of its Borgian origin:--

'Virgilii duo sunt: alter Maro: tu Polydore Alter: Tu Mendax: ille Poeta fuit.'[21]

Unless the testimony of those who were absent, and for the most part unborn, is to be preferred to that of eye-witnesses, and that of future generations to contemporaries, the fable of young Edward's murder ought never again to find a place in serious history.

[Sidenote: Death of Henry VI]