Richard III: His Life & Character, Reviewed in the Light of Recent ResearchMarkham, Clements R. (Clements Robert), Sir
History
Richard III: His Life & Character, Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research
Markham, Clements R. (Clements Robert), Sir
Great Britain -- Kings and rulers -- Biography; Richard III, King of England, 1452-1485
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 protégé of Pope Alexander VI. conceived the
idea of giving it a lurid Borgian colouring, better suited to the
latitude 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 assassins 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 André 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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account