The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-01-06
RICHARD III.
From ihe London Snectntor.

as King of England. We see him for
moment as q child, mere puppet In the
hands of others, and then he disappears from
our sight for ever, and neither contemporary
curiosity nor modern research has been able
to penetrate the mystery which surrounds his
fate With his uncle, who supplanted him
on the throne. tho case is very different, and
vet we seem to know with certainty nearly as
little of Richard III as of his unfortunate
nephew. The writer's of the succeeding
period have left us portrait which is of
monster rather than of man. and even the
genius of great dramatist, assuming their
1 narratives as the basis for his creation, has
y hardly been able to rise above the present
ment of unmitigated stage villain. And
when we endeavor to ascertain the truth or
falsehood of this representation, which, not
withstanding the occasional skepticism on
the part of a few clever writer's, has been
generally received as true, we find ourselves
reduced almost entirely to choice between
the statements of unfriendly writers and the
inferences as to character which we may think
ourselves justified in drawing from a few
ascertaiped facts, generally isolated, and
some of which are not incapable of more
than one Interpretation. Under such circum-
stances an estimate of Richard must be ne
.cessarily imperfect, and on some points open
to doubt, but we think that some leading
features in his character may be ascertained
with tolerable certainty.
If the popular judgment has been so vio-
4 lently unfavorable to Richard. it is, on the
other hand, almost impossible for any candid
and impartial student of history not to feel
disposed to take up the defense of a man
whose memory has been exposed to such un-
friendly criticism. Whether Richard was the
villain he is said to be or not, it is quite cer-
tain that his traditional character is drawn
by those who were either violently prejudiced
against him, or interested in blackening his
fame-the partisans or iatterers of the prince
who had dethroned and slain him. Denun-
citation proceeding from such source cannot
fail to rouse q suspicion that something
might have been saio on the other side, if
Richard had been as fortunate in his biogra-
4 pliers as some of his predecessors, and we
seem to be making ourselves acces-
sories to an act of injustice in adopt
u ing without hesitation evidence SO
| palpably one-sided. This feeling is con-
hrmed when we find that, in one instance at
least the change of kings operated in a very
suspicious manner on the tone adopted by an
historical authority. One Of the most vio-
lent denouncers of King Richard is John
Rous, the antiquary and historian, who wrote
his history under the House of Tudor. But
fortunately for US, and unfortunately for his
reputation, we possess a roll of the Earls of
Warwick, drawn up by him in the reign of
Richard, one copy of which has escaped the
polite alterations of the author In this we
|
(ruling) full commercially, Furnishing often
ders of his laws, especially extortioners and
oppressors of his Commons and cherishing
those that were virtuous; by the which dis
Greet guiding he gat great thanks of God
and love of all his subjects, rich and poor,
and 9rc.S laud of the people of all other
lands about him." OF course, an historical
student will do well to distrust this panegy-
ric as much as the subsequent denunciation
but the case may serve as a warning against
receiving blindly the statements of the Tudor
historians. On the other hand, we must not
besmisled by the fact of exceptional I'M Justice
having probably been done to the memory of
Richard by these historians into the idea that
he was in reality IN no respect such man as
y they have depicted him, and that their por-
n trait is pure invention, rather than an ex-
4 aggeration and caricature of the real man.
AS far as Our present materials
enable us to judge, it seems
to us that, quite Independently of their
representations, the character of Richard is
not one which is deserving of much admira
tion, or even of high intellectual respect.
He was not, indeed, the exceptionally bad
man among his contemporaries that his Tudor
biographeIs have made him; he was probably
better man than several of those whose
regulations have been whitewashed by them,
but he certainly was neither good man mol
a very wise or great sovereign. Indeed, il
villain these writers have unconsciousy given
him credit for an undue amount of intellectual
[ capacity.
The first point which requires notice with
respect to Richard of Gloucester is the short.
ness of his life. The popular mind cherishes
the idea of an elderly villain, but the fact is
/ that Richard was killed before he had com.
pleted his thirty-third year. The actions OF
his life are, therefore, those of young man,
and should be Judged in a corresponding
light. The next point is, that the epoch al
which he becomes responsible agent in the
political events of that age must be placed
] much later than is popularity imagined, and
that consequently the time of his supposed
political Vaccinations must be limited to 6
comparatively few years. There was an in
terval in age of ten years between him and
his brother Edward, and on the first accession
of the latter to the throne Richard was only
between eight and nine years old. He was
only Just eighteen when he took refuge Will
Edward in Flanders, during the temporary
restoration of Henry VI, and he had moi
tinguished himself by his valor in the deci
sive battles of Barnet anC
Tewkesbury, and when Henry dice
twenty-s when his brother George of Ola
renee died in the same fatal fortress, and he
had not completed his thirty first year at the
date usually assigned as that of the murdel
of his two nephews. Even his undoubtedly
premature appearance on the stage of pub
lie life and the natural prococity of his cha
racter can only modify to a certain exten
this consideration of his comparative youth
ho,ra ac