It will be interesting, in conclusion, to examine the critical treatment of these questions by the latest historian who has written on the subject.[1] Mr. Gairdner argues in favour of the Tudor portrait of the last Plantagenet King, but only to a limited extent. The thick and thin believers in the Tudor caricature, such as Hume and Lingard, aroused doubts in many minds. Mr. Gairdner is the most formidable enemy to the memory of the gallant young King that has yet appeared, because he is, beyond comparison, the best informed author that has ever treated of this part of history, has conscientiously striven to be fair and impartial, and has stated both sides of the question, while retaining a belief in Richard's worst crimes. His predecessors, who have taken his view, simply adopted all the statements of Tudor writers as facts, and have depicted a cool, calculating, scheming, cruel, and most revolting villain without a redeeming feature. They thus portrayed at least a possible monster. But Mr. Gairdner, while striving to be fair and just, still clings to what he calls 'tradition,' {282} that is to the Tudor stories of crimes, told many years after the time. The two things are incompatible, so that he produces a monster which would be impossible anywhere. His Richard III. is a prince, headlong and reckless as to consequences, but of rare gifts and with many redeeming qualities. He was wise and able, brave, generous, religious, fascinating, and yet had committed two very cowardly assassinations before he was nineteen, murdered his defenceless nephews, and gratuitously slandered his mother. Such a monster is an impossibility in real life. Even Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are nothing to it. Let us see how Mr. Gairdner arrived at his two-sided monster. He explains his method in his preface. He demurs to the view of the late Mr. Buckle that commonly received opinions should be doubted until they are found to stand the test of argument.[2] He lays it down that no attempt to set aside traditional views can be successful until the history of the particular epoch has been re-written, and the new version exhibits a moral harmony with the facts of subsequent times and of times preceding.[3] 'Tradition,' Mr. Gairdner tells us, is an interpreter and nothing more, and seldom supplies anything material in the way of facts.[4] Yet he adds that the attempt to discard it is like an attempt to learn a language without a master, and he thinks that a sceptical spirit is a most fatal one in history. It is difficult to follow him when he announces that, in spite of this view of tradition, his plan is to place the chief reliance on contemporary information, and that this treatment of history should be adhered to.[5] {283}