Stewart Books, The History of Richard III by George Buck, The History of Richard III Book 3

THE HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III THE THIRD BOOK

I intimated in the former books that some [politic] and malicious clerks, hating King Richard and seek[ing] to be gracious with his enemies, employed their w[its] and their pens to make King Richard odious and abhorre[d] and his memory infamous forever. That for this purpose they devised and divulged many scandalous reports, and made false accusations of him. And they made libels and railing p[am]phlets of him. And if haply they met with any of his [faults] (as they might doubtless, for there was never any man without fa[ults]), then, although these faults were small, and such unto which, or the like, even good men were obnoxious, they devise[d how they might] augment and amplify and aggravate them.

And so vehement and [constant] they were in their malicious prosecution thereof as that they did [not] only much defame and belie him in his lifetime, but so farforth as lay in them they persecuted even his shad[ow and] his ghost, and they scandalized extremely the memory of his fame and name. I And they would not suffer him to rest in the general place of rest, and where all men rest and are at quiet - to wit, in his grave and sepulchre - but they molested and troubled his mortal remains and exposed them unto the wind and to the weather so that they did not on[ly,] according to the old proverb, and impiously, Cum larvis luctari¹; they strove and they contended with his ghost and his immortal part, but also with his carcase and with [his ashes,] and barbarously, so that it cannot be said in the case of the king as it was wont,

Pascitur in vivis livor, post fata quiescit,

Tune suus ex merito quemquem tuetur honos.

Note 1. To wrestle with ghosts.

Note 2. Envy feeds on the living, it rests after death, then each one is protected by honor according to their merit. - See Amores Book 3 Lines 39-40.

But for these wrongs the times were most in fault, for then it w[as not] only tolerable and allowable to make and to publish such scandalous and infamous writings of him, but also it was meritorious and guerdonable. And on the contrary side to write well and honourably of him was an offence. And these men had learned the rule of the comical [P]arasite and observed it: Obsequium amicos, veritas odium [p]arit¹.

Note 1. Compliance creates friends, truth creates hatred. See Andria by Terence Act 1 Line 41.

And this malignant planet reigned a long time here. And it began to give [influence.] Namely, and now in a few words to particularize these writers and to make them known: Dr Morton, that politician, as before and often remembered. For he was the chief instigator and prime submover of all these treasonous detractions and the ringleader of these detractors and vitilitigators of King Richard. For he did not only bear malice and hatred to the princely family of York generally, [but m]ore particularly and more vehemently and more mortally toward King [R]ichard than to any other of them, as well because King Richard removed this prelate from the co[unsel table] because of his false heart, as also because this king [imprisoned] this doctor and Thomas Nandick of Cambridge, a notorious necromancer, and with other such to be attainted by Parliament of treacherous [p]ractices and of sorcery and of such peccadillos of the reprobate Portuguese as were [ne]xt in rank to No creer in Dios¹.

Note 1. "No creer in Dios" i.e. "Not to believe in God."

For this doctor, when the time served him to be revenged, took the advantage of the iniquous times, and he had it most proper and opportune for this revenge. And as is before intimated, he was a good clerk and learned, and made his pen the weapon and instru[ment] of his malice and of his rancour and of his hatred. And for this purpose he made a book [in Latin] of King Richard and reported his acts and chargeth him with many foul crimes, and aggravateth them. And on the other side, he extenuateth or suppresseth all his virtues and good parts.

And this book of Dr I Morton came after to the hands of Mr More, who had been the servant of Morton, and a man much renowned for his knowledge in poetry and in other good arts. But when he was young, and servant to Dr Morton, and also being a clerk to one of the sheriffs of London, and being then a man of small reputation, yet the[n] he was ambitious and desirous of preferment and of honour (as all the ingenious and best wits will for the most part), and it well appeared for a man of so mean fortune to have an aspiring mind and ambit[ion.] And for that purpose he must be provided with a good and fit viaticum of things. And he employed his wit and his best means and arts, and amongst them assentation and slander were of chief use.

And moreover, he was in two sciences or professions more dexterous and more skilful and more delighted than many other witty men, to wit, in the studies of the law and of the art of poetry. And by these two arts or professions he might be holpen much in writing fables or in doing ofinjuries. For lawyers have a privilege to tell false tales, or, in the plain English, to be for advantage. And I find such fortunes and false arts in one of the translations of Mr More thus warranted: Ii qui cum usus postulat, et ad rem conducere vident, si mentiantur venia, immo laude plerique digni sunt¹. And much more is to this purpose in those his translations. And poets as well as painters have quidlibet audiendi aeqam potestatem². And that Sir Thomas More was a good poet and much delighted with poetry and with quaint inventions, his many poems and epigrams yet extant testify; besi[des] the many petty comedies and interludes which he made and oftentimes acted in person with the rest of the actors (as his loving and familiar friend Erasmus reporteth). And to these his practices fantastical and his Utopia may be added.

Note 1. Those who, when necessity demands, and who seem to be serving the purpose, if they lie, are worthy of pardon, rather, they are often deserving of praise.

Note 2. The power to hear whatever one wishes.

And this Mr More, having been a servant of Morton, and which is more, an understanding servant, knew that it was a chief duty of a servant iurare in verba magistri, ut supra¹. And therefore he had a care to make good and to confirm what his master had forged or hewed in his spiteful and slanderous anvil. And accordingly, he translated and interpreted and glosed and altered his mas[ter's] book at his pleasure, and then he published it.

Note 1. In the words of the teacher, as above.

And here that saying of King Dariu[s,] whch after became a proverb, bath place and use: [Hoc] calceamentum confuit Histiaeus, in[duit autem Aristagor]as¹. So Dr Morton, [acting the part of Histiaeus, made the book, and Mr More, like Aristagoras, set it forth] and added some things unto it.

Note 1. This shoe was sewn by Histiaeus, but it was worn by Aristagoras. Herodotus.

And he had a purpose to write the whole story of King Richard III (as he himself intimateth in the title of his book), but it seemeth by his cold proceeding that that he grew out of liking of that melancholic and uncharitable 5 work and weary of that base and detracting and scandalous style, and proper to the cynic of barking philosophers, who like curs growl and snarl and detract and slander their betters. And in truth it was more kind to such a maledicent mome as the deformed Thersites, who, as Homer writeth, was of such a railing disposition, and so immeasurably as that he reproached and reviled as kings and princes. And for these causes it is likely that Sir Thomas More left the story imperfect and defective, for otherwise he had time enough to have finished it. For he lived twenty-two [yea]rs after he undertook this work, and for the most part at his pleasure, [and] prosperously. For he began this work Anno Domini 1513, when he [was] Under-Sheriff, or clerk to one of the sheriffs of London, [and] in 1535 he died as he had lived, that is mocking and scoffing, [as Richard] Grafton reporteth.

ut yet he was much favoured of fame and of the partial affection of men as that his vices were not only concealed and smothered, but also have greater [commendation] ascribed to him than there was just cause. And for example, Mr More was [reputed a] great learned man, and also (and which is much greater praise) that he was [a very holy man.] But there is I no just cause for either of these praises. For albeit it is [tr]ue that he well understood the Latin and Greek [la]nguages - [which was then held great learn]ing - but that was not enough to give to him the style of a great clerk. [Bu]t contrariwise, he was held to be a man of small [lear]ning by the profoundly learned men and by the great clerks, insomuch as he was censured by Germanus [B]rixius to be no better than ineruditus (that is [unlearned]).

And doubtless this author had an ill opinion of Sir Thomas More. For besides this his censure of him, he giveth to him the sole attribute and titles of te[nebrio, ot] veritatis Evangeliae perversissimus osor¹, and of obstinatus cacophanta, [of im]pudens Christi adversarius². And then, speaking of the end of Sir Thomas More, saith that decollatus fuit in turre Londinensi, 6 die Julii, Anno Domini 1535. Capite ad magnum Lond[ini] pontem (ut proditoribus fieri solet) stipiti imposito, et nihilominus a papistis pro novo martyre colitur³. And thus he became a martyr, and this is his legend, according to Mr Baleus.

Note 1. A beetle, the most perverse enemy of the truth of the Gospel.

Note 2. A stubborn noisy-mouth, the shameless adversary of Christ.

Note 3. He was beheaded in the Tower of London, on the 6th of July, in the year of our Lord 1535. His head was placed on a post at the great London bridge (as is customary for traitors), and yet he is revered by the papists as a new martyr.

But there were other causes of his condemnation to death, as you shall see and know, and by his own testimony, having, as the prosecution declared, judged himself by his own mouth. For when he stood at the bar, arraigned and to be tried for his offences, he confessed that there had been some exceptions taken at him because he seemed to uphold and maintain the Pope's supremacy in England. And that he said that he could not see quomodo laicas, vel secularis homo poss[it vel] debeat esse caput status spiritualis aut ecclesiastici¹. [But] he insinuated that this opinion was taken hold of and urged for a colour to supplant and to subvert him. And he affirmed that the chief ca[use] of the king's displeasure against him, and the greatest cause of the troubles and calamities whereunto he was fallen, was h[is with]standing the divorce between the king and Queen Cath[arine] of Castile, his wife, and his marriage with that most noble and fair Lady Anne Boleyn, Marquise of Pem[broke.]

Note 1. How a layperson, or a secular man, can or should be the head of a spiritual or ecclesiastical state.

And his own words spoken to the judges, according as they were taken and set down by hi[s dear] friend George Courinus in a short discourse which he wrote [of Sir] Thomas [More's] death, are these: Non me fugit quamobrem [a] vobis condemnatus sim (videlicet) ob id, quod numquam volu[erim] assentire in negotium novi matrimonii regis¹. And these words were uttered by Sir Thomas More after the sentence of his condemnation was pronounced, and that is a time when no evasions nor any subterfuges would be of any worth or benefit, and therefore they proceeded from his heart and conscience. And before this he wrote a long [letter to Mr Secretary Cromwell, which I have seen, wherein he protesteth] that he is not against the king, either for his second marriage nor for the church's primacy, but wish[eth good success to the king and those affairs, etc. Which words we]ll considered, it will plainly discover that Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, was not so faithful and so stout a champ[ion] for the Pope and his sovereignty as many Romanists and his partial friends suppose.

Note 1. It does not escape me why I have been condemned by you (namely) because of the fact that I never wished to consent to the matter of the king's new marriage.

Neither was he so good a Christian as they think he was. For I have seen amongst the multitude of writings concerning the strange conferences, counsels, and deliberations and resolutions had about the alteration of the religion and for the suppressing of all monasteries and religious houses, and too many churches, that he [made no opposition to] that sacrilegious plot and gave also his consent to the suppression and destruction thereof, and the which profane and barbarous work [the] king had never done nor put in practice if the Pope and his agents and his [instru]ments had not withstood that his second marriage - [which] error and insolency they have all since repented them, but too late. And of both these faults or crimes and sacrileges [the Lord Chan]cellor More was guilty, and so farforth as that he could [not defend his connivance] and consent [with any] arguments of wit or of policy.

But it was a happy turn for this kingdom that he was so by [j]ustice at that time taken away. For if he had lived and flourished and enjoyed his former credit and authority, England had been defrauded and deprived of the best queen that was, the sacred and worthily eternized Lady Elizabeth, late Queen of England. For she was a kingly queen, and a masculine dame. And she was wise and learned and temperate and chaste and frugal, and yet liberal and rich, and in a manner far exceeding these much renowned Amazons, Thalestria, Penthesilea, Antianira, Hippolyta, and the rest, and also those imperial and monarchizing ladies Semiramis, Thomyris and Artemisia, as that they were but May-ladies and maidens in comparison of her.

For she was ever dreadful to her foes, and always victorious against her enemies, and a true parens patriae [parent of the nation] at home and everywhere and at all times. And she was a martial and true heroical virago [a woman of manly character], which better deserved the honourable title of mater castrorum [mother of the camp] [tha]n Victoria Augusta did, and yet by the testimony of Trebellius she was a wise and valorous and excellent woman. But yet I say still that Queen Elizabeth surpassed them all. And in aword, she was the phoenix of her sex. And the variety of her noble acts and of her many arduous achievements and of her victories and of her wise counsels and of her prudent policies is so great and so manifold and so exce[llent] with virtuous and good and pleasing matter as that the poets and romancers shall have no need to study for any new devices or delightful andartificial inventions to set them forth or to embellish their poesies of her, because this bringeth matter enough, and abundant of that kind.

But this place and the time will not serve to tell the least of her high praises and rare merits. And therefore I think it better to say little or nothing than not that which shall be worthy of her. And as for her early and cruel adversary [before she was in] rerum natura [the nature of things], Mr More, I have made bold to discover him and to pay him in his own coin and to paint him in his own colours. But yet I have not finished his character, but I will make it complete ere I finish this work. And in the meantime, if the Reader desire to know any more of this ungentle knight, I refer him to the ecclesiastical history of Mr John Foxe in the reign of King Henry VIII, and where you shall see him graphically described, and what a morosus morus [moody, grumpy] he was.

And I shall leave his description and ret[um] to his book, or to that his historical fragment, and wherein he took much pains to write the faults and false accusations and the evil fortunes of King Richard, and it was base and a bad subject and an incivil and inhuman argument. But yet his labours were well accepted, especially in that time when it was written, and was more safe to rail at King Richard than to tell his virtues and to praise him (ut supra [as above]). Therefore his writings were received plausibly and held as canonical and authentic, and not only by the readers of that time. But also annalists and chroniclers of this la[nd] succeeded him, or at the least of the weaker and more shallow sort, and who (tamquam ignavum et servum pecus¹) have followed him step by step and word by word, not having the judgement nor discret[ion to] consider his affections, nor his drifts, nor his arts, nor his placentine manners, nor his ends, nor to examine [the truth of] the relations which he maketh, nor to search out the truth of his writings.

Note 1. As a lazy and servile herd

[But] yet I must confess that there may some excuse be made for these more simple scribblers or romancers, [if i]t be considered that the authors of that story, namely Morton and More, [were reputed] men not only of great learning and of much experience, and also of much understanding in civil and public affairs, and both men of great credit and authority in this realm and kingdom. And by these means, if they had been men free from malice on the one side and ambition on the other, they must have committed the accidents of these times and the truth of events and all historical matters 5 growing in those times to writing, especially those which pertained to King Richard and to the whole princely family of York, as I intimated before, partly for their own aim and worldly ends, and for the respect of their preferment and advancement being men very ambitious and skilful and desirous to insinuate themselves into the favour of great ones of that state and to please the time, and to either of which King Richard was hateful.

And by these means, and by flattery and obsequious observation of humours and of affections, they gathered credit and promotion, and in this business they turned their style upon King Richard and much wronged him, smothered and concealed his virtues and the good acts on the one side, and they aggravated and exaggerated his vices and offences maliciously and in all extremity, and these on the better side, and to curry the more favour, and extolled the acts of Richard's flourishing foes and magnified them much above the cause and above their desert. And to my seeming Ammianus, speaking of certain sycophants, saith that they Id observantes conspiratione concordi, ut fingerent vere supprimerent Caesarem¹, as these men dealt with King Richard.

Note 1. Observing this with a united conspiracy, to falsely pretend and truly suppress Caesar.

And in this base kind, some tr[ivial] and clawing pamphleteers and some historical parasites have dealt with the famous and most magnificent and very royal p[relate] (if prelates may be said to have the epithets of royal) and namely Thomas Wo[lsey,] Cardinal and Archbishop of York, who bore the mind of a great king, and he was a man without peer in his time. Yet they wronged him, for they maliciously extenuated his virtues and derogated from his good parts, and have depraved or suppressed m[any] excellent things in him. And they have detracted from the honou[rable] and immortal merit of many good and glorious and sumptuous works, and instead thereof, they have imputed to him many vic[es] and excesses whereof he was not guilty, and they have laid many crimes upon him which he never committed. And thus much in that high and critical vein.

And now I will return to the writers of the story of King Richard; and wh[o] so many of them have followed the foresaid Morton and Mor[e,] although haply they were honest men, yet because they were [of] small learning and of lesser judgement, and some of them so simple and so credulous as that they could swallow any gudgeon and never examine the [style or faith] of those aforesaid authors nor bring th[em to the touchstone of verity;] but I contrarily they would believe anything and take any counterfeit and false coin of those crafty mintmasters for pure and current money.

And I advertise this by the way of caution, because they which read their books should be well advised to consider and examine what they read and make trial of such doubtful things as are written before they give credit unto them. And here also I signify to them of those injurious writers, that by their leaves or without their leaves I will reveal the frauds of their faults, and I will lay open their slanderous reports, and I will reprehend them and tax them for their slanders; and their false accusations and scandals and calumnies shall receive no better entertainment at mine hands than they deserve. And they must be content to suffer the same whip wherewith they have scourged others, and much better persons. And they must think and know that this is a just doom, and of the credit of an oracle, and recorded by the ancient and most wise Homer: Quale verbum dixisti, tale etiam audies¹. It is just and due that they hear ill which speak ill, and [therefore it must be said] to Sir Thomas More or to any of his followers, as the old Comedian said, Quod ah ipso allatum est, id sibi [relatum esse putet.]²

Note 1. As the word you have spoken, so also will you hear. Homer Iliad Book 20.

Note 2. What has been brought to him by the very person, he thinks has been brought back to himself. Terentius in Phormio.

And men have received and followed and passed for authentic many gross fables, and such other vain matters as all the world knoweth. And although Raphael Holinshed, Edward Hall, Richard Grafton, John Stow were honest men, yet they have incurred these faults, for they have followed the said Dr Morton and Mr More, and they have, without choice, transcribed the whole reports and speeces of these Antirichards into their stories and romances. And Polydore also so farforth may be numbered with them as he followeth Dr Morton's pamphlet. And in brief, the historians, chroniclers and romancers writing these matters are but the trumpeters and echoes of Morton and More.

The first of King Richard's great and more heinous crimes is said to be the murder of King Henry VI. And he were very much to be condemned if it could be proved against him. For this prince was not only a good prince, but also a sacred and an anointed person - that is, so much privileged and, as [the learne]d say, so sacrosanct, and as no man by the express and strict interdict of Almighty God might lay violent hands upon him, or so much asunreverently or rudely touch him, and much less to kill him. Wherefore the murder of a king anointed is so foul and so extremely atrocious a crime as that the perpetrator is worthy of the most sharp and most shameful punishments which may be devised.

And this King Henry, although he were of an usurper's line, yet he was so virtuous, so pious, and so religious a man as that he was styled and entitled by these grave and good men which knew him. Sanctus rex, [sanctus] Henricus, et rex sanctissimus¹, etc. Of this prince Richard thought well, and was never said to bear any evil affection towards him, and as [the] adversaries of King Richard (though obscurely) insinuate, as none of them imputeth the plotting and contriving of this murder to [him,] but disertly and only to the King Edward.

Note 1. The holy king, holy Henry, and the most holy king. Polydore Vergil.

But I must confess that some of his accusers say that the said king his brother persuaded and commanded this his brother the Duke of Gloucester to execute the said murd[er.] But the request or tax and work be so foul and so base as that it is not credible that they were even moved or p[ropounded] to the Prince Richard. For first there is not any honourable and truly n[oble and] valorou!s person (and such as King Edward was), who would require so vile, so dishonourable [and hate]ful a piece of work to be done by a prince and by his own brother. And next it is not to be belie[ved that] the duke his brother, being a man of most honourable and noble and pious disposition, w[ould endu]re to hear such a villainous and nefarious motion made to him, and much less entertain the motion thereof. For such foul murders and treacherous assassinates be no offices nor actions for any heroical and honest and truly noble persons. Wherefore Quintus Curtius reporteth that the murder of the noble Clitus was heldthemore heinous and more odious because the king was the executioner and did the office of a hangman and of a villain: Detestabile carnificis ministerium occupaverat rex¹. For it is the mestier [profession] and the proper office of a ruffian and villain and of an assassino [assassin], as the Italians call them, to murder men cruelly and barbarously and to kill them secretly and treacherously.

Note 1. The king had taken up the detestable office of the executioner.

And Sir Thomas More himself is of opinion that King Edward would appoint th[at butcherly office rather to any other than] to his brother. Thus More. But he useth so much to speak ironically and in jest as that it is hard to impute so foul and so base and treacherous a design to a prince and to a man of equal blood and royal [lin]eage to himself, if it be considered that the king had plenty and great ch[oice] for [such] employments, and who had been bred in his long and cruel civil war[s,] and who would make no conscience of shedding any human blood, and were to be led by the reward and good look of the king, and who, as they knew, also was tender of the honour of himself and his dearest brother.

Besides, there is no man of any brave, noble courage and of the true and right noble and generous spirit, and truly valiant, or if he have any religion, who will ever plot or conspire, and much less act the secret and treacherous murder of any man, and above all other men, of a king anointed of God. And to this purpose also make these strong and inseparable principles in philosophy and in nature and in humanity, viz. Πάνδεινον φονικόν: omne timendum est cruentum¹. Or, as some say, Omnis timens est homicida: that is, every coward is bloody and cruel; and omnis vir fortis odit insidiosas homicidias et caedes insidiosas: that every truly valiant man hateth to shed blood secretly and by treachery and treason.

Note 1. Everything bloody is to be feared.

And there is no writer, either friend or foe of King Richard, who doth not confess and testify that he was a most valiant and most courageous prince, and one that feared nothing. And therefore he was obnoxious to treacherous effects and base practices of cowards. And besides all this, this duke is not charged [direc]tly by any creditable writer of that time to have committed that act. Ne[ither is it discovered by th]em who murdered King Henry VI. Because, [being the actor is so] concealed, it were no hard matter to acquit also King Edward, who was as noble and as magnanimous and as heroical and judicial as any hath been a long time.

But I fear it will be harder to acquit him than the duke his brother. And the Prior of Croyland maketh it the more suspiciou[s, because he] giveth the [ti]tle of tyrannus, i.e., tyrant, to him who was [the] actor in this murder of King Henry. And the proper interpretation of tyrannus is rex, id est 'king'. And whoever is rex is tyrannus, [according] to the genuine and ancient signification of tyrannus. For anciently and properly amongst the Greeks, τύραννος; was used for a king simply, were [he] good or bad. And when this murder was committed, [R]ichard was Duke of Gloucester, a subject and not a king. And there was not any king then in England but these kings Henry VI and Edward lV.

But I shall argue this question no further, but I will bring some authorities and only offer the words of the authors to the consideration of the judicious Reader and leave the [gloss to him:] Hoc tempore inventum est corpus [Regis Henrici Sexti] exanime in turre Londiniarum. [Parcat Deus et spatium] paenitentiae, ei donet [quicumque sacrilegas manus in Christum domini ausus immittere, unde et agens Tyranni et patiens gloriosi martiris titulum mereatur¹. Thus he, and this is] I that maketh against King Edward.

Note 1. At this time, the body of King Henry the Sixth was found dead in the Tower of London. May God spare and give space for repentance to him who dared to lay sacrilegious hands on Christ the Lord, by which both the doer of the Tyrant and the one suffering may deserve the title of a glorious martyr.