The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-01-06

dbu SilBulf anu JuOuBH Tue limos were COu-
pactly knit he was not muscularly strong
His face, if we may Judge from contemporary
descriptions and existing portraits, was very
peculiar. II was rather short than long,
but the contrast between the broad
forehead and prominent cheek
bones and the sunken cheeks gave an
appearance of elongation to the whole face.
The upper part of the forehead was not at
all full but there was a marked protuberance
Immediately above the eyebrows. The nose
was we'll formed and slightly aquline. seem
ing to indicate sense and fair sagacity. The
eyes-the interval between which was very
small-seem in the portraits dreamy and self
centred, and the brow is contracted into
look of painful and anxious thought, APP
preaching in one portrait to something almost
sinister. The chin is particularly well formed,
firm, but prepossessing the lips are very thin,
and closely compressed almost into single
line The auburn hair falls in thick straight
masses on each side of his face, after the
fashion of his brother Edward, and indeed of
that age generally. The impression left by
the face is that of deep and anxious brooding
and of an intensely nervous but highly
strung organization.
1t is certainly not a face which inspires
confidence, though it excites an uncomfort-
able interest 1t is certainly, however, not
the face of q vulgar hypocrite and assassin,
and frank nature The deformity exagger-
ated by his maligners probably really con-
sisted in one shoulder being rather higher
than the other; he was certainly not hunch-
back in the sense which the word usually i'm
plies. He was active in his habits, and
courageous and enterprising in his spirit in a
more than ordinary degree. His manners,
on the other hand, seem to have been quiet
and reserved; his eyes, as the portraits also
testify ooid fo hava haaO holnituoliv mild
in expression, but became fierce and threaten
ing when his passion was once thoroughly
reused. He was courteous and pleasing in
his address, and he appears to have exercised
when he chose an extraordinary fascination
over those with whom he came in contact.
But with one or two exceptions the power he
thus obtained over the minds of others was
transient in its character, and, as a rule, he
seems to have been unable to retain the con-
fidence which he so strangely gained. Fran
els, Lord Lowell, indeed-''Lovell our dog
who appears to have been a ward of the great
Earl of Warwick at the same time that Richard
was himself under the care of the King
Maker, and about whose ultimate fate such
mystery hangs, clung to Richard to the last
with a fidelity worthy of the animal which
gave him his SOb13Quet. John and Thomas
Howard-the ss''jockey of Norfolk" and his
gallant son, Surrey, were also true in the
strong personal interest in the maintenance of
the power of Richard. Most, however, of the
men whom he seemed to have gained for the
time, forsook or betrayed him. The two in
famous Stanleys would probably have be-
trayed any one, If such O course seemed to
open path to their aggrandizement But
Hastings, whom he is said to have at one
time loved better than any man, and who
stood by him stoutly in the first crisis of his
cIr a,-;th NNanlu;llac phnO o4
friendship Immediately afterwards, and
sought his destruction. Percy, the restored
Earl of Northumberland, whom he honored
and trusted, and who seemed bound to his
interests, betrayed him on the very field of
BoswOrth Henry Stafford, Duke of Buck
ingham, who had seemed his alter ego, de-
ceived him grossly, though he did not escape
Just reward for his dissimulation and treach-
cry. On the other hand, Richard won over
Queen Elizabeth Woodville, and all
but won her son the Marquis of Dorset, even
after he was publicly credited with the MUIR
der of the Princes; and the young Elizabeth
of York would have been willing, it seems,
to accept the hand of Richards son, even if
the story is false that she would gladly have
become the wife of Richard himself. These,
again, all failed him in the hour of need.
In fact, men appeared to be won and lost
again by him in an equally sudden and in
SOIu IL NOulu
seem as if Richard, while he possessed the
power of discovering and appealing success
fully to some strong feeling or desire in the
mind of another, was not capable of grasp
ing a character as a whole, and through
this imperfect apprehension lost the hold he
had at first gained. Much of his ill-judged
violence, and equally ill-judged confidence,
may be traced to this cause. He destroyed
Hastings, whose interests, by q little Judi
cious moderation and management, might
have been identified with his own; and he
alienated Buckingham by his disregard of
some strong wish of the latter, after he had
made him only too powerful by his lavish
generosity. The extravagant confidence he
| placed in the Stanleys is notorious, and it is
alone sufficient to discredit his penetration
| into character. If Richard was a hypocrite
and dissembler, he certainly was very
poor proficient in his art, for it is an i'm
| petuous rashness and imprudence of con-
! duct, and an impatience of difficulties,
which made him always cut the Gordian knot,
instead of attempting to unloose it, that ap.
pear to be his characteristics. Under this
influence he was always either too violent OF
! too generous. 1t seemed as if he restrained
! his excitability, and concealed it under o
smiling face just long enough to give the
uncomfortable impression OF a deep and de-
signing nature, and then gave vent to it on
some momentary occasion, with the excess
| and abandon of man who took no thought
before he acted. 1t seemed as if his judg
ment were not we'll balanced enough to see
any medium between blind confidence AND
blind violence. His brother Edwards mind
even when seemingly palsied by sensual indul
gepce, was always clear, healthy, and active tha
of Richard was perplexed, morbid, and rest
less. He gave an impression of violence ant
| irreeularity far beyond the natural import o.