’Historia Regum Angliae’ was particularly significant as it is the first instance where we are introduced to Richard’s deformity in writings. From this, it can be concluded that Rous’ work was the genesis of Richard’s maligned physicality. Therefore, Rous’ accounts were significant, as they acted as a primary source to latter historians, (such as Thomas More), whose account, built upon content contained in the ‘Rous Roll’, surrounds Richard’s deformity. However, it must also be noted that Rous would have had a vested interest to colour Richard’s image.This would have been in the hope of acquiring the good favour of the succeeding monarch, which in this case is Henry VII. Thomas More Another Tudor historian who played a vital role in the vilification of Richard III was Sir Thomas More, an English lawyer and renaissance humanist. Richard S. Sylvester suggests that More’s work could be acknowledged as almost a “handbook” for political tyranny (16). He goes on to further describe the work to be a “charter” for establishing the reign of the Tudors on the best moral grounds, as Elizabeth Story Donno also states (17). More was the author of the infamous ‘History of King Richard III’, from which he drew inspiration from the likes of John Rous as well as Dr John Morton. More’s relationship with Morton is important to examine when analysing his work. More lived alongside Morton, serving as a page in his household between the ages of 12 and 14 (18). Morton was imprisoned by Richard III, who at the time was named Duke of Gloucester for an attempt to crown deceased Edward IV’s elder son, Edward V. However, he was soon arrested at a council meeting, (Richard going on to accuse him of committing treason), which led to Morton’s imprisonment in the Tower of London (19). As a result of this, it is not wrong to assume that More was subjected to a biased pro-Tudor version of events through Morton, from whom he may have taken inspiration (20). This is supported by the fact that a century after Morton’s death the authorship of ‘The History of King Richard III’, was put into question, some believing that the work was in fact written by Morton himself. However, this theory is now widely discredited. The impact Morton had on More’s writings is, to some extent, limited slightly as he had access to a plethora of other anti-Richardian writings like that of John Rous. In addition to this, More came up with some of his own conclusions on Richard as well. John Rous’ brutal narrative of Richard in his work ‘Historia Regum Angliae’ is arguably the most influential source from which Thomas More built.This source supports the premise that More took inspiration from the work of Rous.
“He was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother, a short and sowre cowntenance, which semyd to savor of mischief, and utter evydently craft and deceyt.The whyle he was thinking of any matter, he dyd contynually byte his nether lyppe, as thowgh that crewell nature of his did so rage agaynst yt self in that lyttle carkase.Also he was woont to be ever with his right hand pulling out of the sheath to the myddest, and putting in agane, the dagger which he did alway were.” (226-27) Thomas More,The History of King Richard the Third (1513), in Works, ed.William Rastall (London: Iohn Cawod, Iohn Waly, and Richarde Tottell, 1557): (21). The extract above shows More commenting on Richard’s physical composition, describing him as being small in stature, with a deformed body and one shoulder higher than the other. Such descriptions are also observed in Rous’ ‘Historia Regum Angliae’, as he also states Richard to be of “small of stature, with a short face and unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower”. From this, it can be concluded that More did extract influences from sources that were written in a Tudor historiographical context, such as the work of John Rous. The work of Thomas More was significant in constructing Richard’s reputation and making him a figure of reproach.This is achieved by More through targeting Richard’s deformity, as well as stating him to be responsible for the murders of the two princes, the murders being the most probable outcome of his usurpation (22). However, More wrote ‘The History of King Richard III’ in 1513, during the reign of Henry VIII. For this reason, it can be argued that his work did not bolster the position of Henry VII, which was a typical line of argument for Tudor propaganda, but instead cemented the position of the Tudor dynasty as a whole by discrediting the previous Yorkist regime. Despite this, the fact that More’s work wasn’t published until after his death should not be overlooked. More’s work was unpublished during his lifetime; hence it can be concluded that More’s work wasn’t intended for publication.Therefore, it is likely that More’s aim, when writing ‘The History of King Richard III’ was not to feed the Tudor propaganda machine. Nevertheless, the work of More is still highly significant as it undoubtedly inspired the character of Richard in Shakespeare’s ‘Richard III’.This can be demonstrated through Shakespeare’s heavy exaggeration of Richard’s crooked back, which was an idea heavily- expressed in More’s work. Despite More’s significance, we must not ignore the role John Rous played in the creation of ‘The History of King Richard III’, as More drew substantial inspiration, his work further consolidating ideas initially proposed in the ‘Historia Regum Angliae’.
7
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software