John Rous, Historia Regum Angliae (1486), ed.T. Hearne (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1716), trans. Alison Hanham, in Richard III and his Early His- torians, 1483-1535 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975): (14). Here Rous compares Richard’s rule to that of an antichrist, describing his rule to be exceedingly repressive in nature.This statement completely contrasts his earlier descriptions of Richard as a “good lord” in his pro-Yorkist ‘Rous Roll’. However, the anti-Richardian sentiment riddled throughout the ‘Hisotria Regum Angliae’ is balanced slightly in this particular source. Rous credits aspects of Richard’s rule, describing him to have essentially fought to the death, demonstrating a sense of chivalry as he describes him to have fought like a “noble soldier”.At the same time, these words were said behind a degrading description of Richard’s stature that made him out to have been weak and fragile in comparison to Henry VII. This second extract from the ‘Rous Roll’ however is wholly negative about Richard and is more reflective of the nature of the content contained within Rous’ works following Richard’s death. “Richard of York, the protector, was born on 21 October at Fotheringhay in Northamptonshire; retained within his mother's womb for two years, emerging with teeth and hair to his shoulders…. Like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail. He was small of stature, with a short face and unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower.” (120-21) (15) John Rous, Historia Regum Angliae (1486), ed.T. Hearne (Oxford: Sheldonian Theatre, 1716), trans. Alison Hanham, in Richard III and his Early Historians, 1483-1535 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975): This second extract focuses on Richard’s physical abnormalities, which became a focal- point for the likes of Sir Thomas More, using them as a way to discredit Richard as well as its heavy use in Shakespeare’s play ‘Richard III’. Such descriptions successfully manifested the idea that Richard was a gross perturbation of nature, and many have taken this, and drawn parallel between his physical abnormalities to the way in which he ruled as king. By comparing both ‘Rous Roll’ and the ‘Historia Regum Angliae’, one can conclude that both were written in the context of self-expediency. Examining the timings in which both were written is fundamental in explaining such a conclusion.‘Rous Roll’, a largely positive reflection of Richard’s reign with descriptions of praise and high acclaim, is soon altered upon his death.After Richard’s defeat at the Battle of Bosworth, Rous changes his description of Richard completely and is instead seen to bolster the image of Tudor successor Henry VII in his work ‘Historia Regum Angliae’. Rous’
‘Rous Roll’ The grovelling English historian John Rous contributed significantly to the blackening of Richard’s reputation and laid solid foundation for the formation of further speculation surrounding Richard’s deformities. His infamous work, the ‘Rous Roll’, undoubtedly belongs to the reign of Richard III, with its contents displaying a pro- Yorkist tendency when unfolding English contemporary events of the period (11). Rous states Richard to be a “good lord” who “punishes oppressors of the commons”, this exemplifies a highly favourable narrative of his kingship (12). He is depicted as an upholder of law and stability, and also pictured in armour, which harnessed a symbol of duty and service to his subjects. However, such flattery toward the Plantagenet monarch was short-lived. Rous undertook serious back-peddling following Richard’s death, chastising his previous flattery and replacing it with quite the opposite.This is particularly exemplified in his publishing of the ‘Historia Regum Angliae’ following the death of Richard III. Historia Regum Angliae ‘Historia Regum Angliae’ was written by Rous during the reign of Henry VII, who seized the crown on the 22nd August 1485 following his victory at the Battle of Bosworth, which saw the defeat of previous monarch Richard III. It is stated to be a historical compilation that contains descriptions of British kings, ranging from the likes of Brutus to King Henry VII. Although the text held significant credence during the 16th century, many modern day historians have dismissed its credibility and have come to the conclusion that it holds no critical faculty. Despite its lack of viability in a modern context, it is still a valuable piece of historical text that is integral in understanding the development of Richard’s malignant reputation. The ‘Hisotria Regum Angliae’ can be viewed as the genesis of Richard’s exacerbated skeletal deformity, and additionally goes on to state that the murder of the infamous princes in the tower, Henry VI, Rivers, and Hastings, as well as the poisoning of Anne Neville, all occurred at the hands of Richard. Rous goes on to paint a lurid picture of Richard in his predominantly anti- Richardian account (13).The source below further exemplifies this. “This King Richard, who was excessively cruel in his days, reigned for three years [sic] and a little more, in the way that Antichrist is to reign.And like the Antichrist to come, he was confounded at his moment of greatest pride. … For all that, let me say the truth to his credit: that he bore himself like a noble soldier and despite his little body and feeble strength, honourably defended himself to his last breath, shouting again and again that he was betrayed, and crying ‘Treason! Treason! Treason! (f. 137r)”
6
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software