February 1, 1888.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



75 



ing to which the story corresponds with the astrological 

 notions, admittedly mere superstitions, of those ancient 

 days. I woulil ask wliether it is more irreverent to main- 

 tain that a story which is almost certainbj 7ni/thical and 

 quite certai/ili/ relates to a superstition does not and cannot 

 belong to the inspired word of God, or to tell the world 

 that the inspired word of God may present ignorant and 

 superstitions fancies as if they were truths. INIen some- 

 times look at me sadly, especially if they are clothed in 

 sadly cleric garb, when I reverently proclaim the former 

 belief. They probably do not know how regretfully those 

 of reverent mind contemplate their placid acceptance of the 

 latter, a belief which did they but recognise its true signifi- 

 cance they would perceive to be altogether ii-reverent. 



SHAKESPEARE AND HISTORY. 



y ^Cji^jjM Sg ^ 1 1 E character of Richard III., in Shake- 

 speare's ])lay of that name, has ever been 

 considered one of Shakespeare's finest crea- 

 tions. Whether we consider the wonderful 

 variety of aspects under which the hunch- 

 backed tyrant is presented to us, or the force 

 and spirit with which each is drawn, we are 

 alike a.stonished and delighted. But this picture, which is 

 so excellent an illustration of the poet's power, is no correct 

 portrait of the third and worst of our English Richards, any 

 more than the bodily distortion attributed to Richard III. is 

 historically just. 



So much variety of opinion has existed among historians 

 in regard to Richard III., that it is difficult to form an 

 opinion as to the man's leal character. There is no part of 

 history which is involved in so much obscurity as the War 

 of the Roses. Many important incidents which, were they 

 well authenticated, might assist us to form an opinion as to 

 Richard's character, are diflerently stated by historians, or 

 even by some entirely denied. 



Possibly, I may remark in passing, the question of the 

 character of our English kings may in itself have little 

 interest for our readers, most of whom, I suspect, have gotten 

 over the foshion of regarding the lives of the Kings and 

 Queens of England as the most important parts of history. 

 Men of sense regard our English kings as only important 

 historically because of the immense amount of mischief 

 their rapacity, ambition, and general villany have occa- 

 sioned. Yet Shakespeare's creations are always worth 

 studying, and we cannot but take an interest in the com- 

 jiarisou of the picture of Richard III. drawn by Sliakospeare 

 and the real villain of history. 



It was perhaps natural that Shakespeare, who wrote at 

 a time when the intellectual progress that had begun when 

 the Tudors were established on the English throne had 

 reached a high development, should form an exaggeratedly 

 unfavourable estimate of Richard III. It was natural that 

 he should contemplate with something of horror a reign 

 whose annals are so dark, and should ascribe to that kmg 

 the largest share of the blame for all that disgraced his 

 time — for the savage manners and the dishonourable con- 

 duct which characterised nearly all the leading men of that 

 age. Another reason, probaljly, for Shakespeare's feeling 

 of intense dislike for Richard III. was that the last king of 

 the House of York was the personal enemy of Henry 

 Tudor, the grandfather of that queen who, with all her 

 faults, was the pride and glory of Shakespeare's time.* 



* Mr. Donnelly's assertion that the writer of the historical plays 

 hated and even despised Elizabeth is fairly disposed of by the 



Some historians even confirm the story that Richard III. 

 met his death at the bands of Henry VII.— a story 

 naturally accepted by Shakespeare as dramatically eifectivo ; 

 but there is not a shadow of evidence that they encountered 

 on the field of battle. Had they done so, the event of 

 Bosworth Field might have been difierent. For whatever 

 his faults may have been, Richard was a stark warrior. 



It is certain, be the explanation what it may, that Shake, 

 speare has drawn Richard's character darker — which was 

 by no means necessary — than historic truth would justify. 



In the contest between the rival houses of York and 

 Lancaster, Richard acquired early the reputation of a brave 

 soldier and an able general. He does not a])pear to have 

 been at that time in any way distinguished from his brothers, 

 Edward and George, or the young nobility who fought in 

 the same cause. Yet to this part of his life Shakespeare, 

 following Holinshed, attributes two of the most brutal 

 murders — the public stabbing of Prince Edward at Tewkes- 

 bury and the secret murder of Henry VI. in the Tower. 

 Other chroniclers than Holinshed confirm Shakespeare in 

 this, but it is exceedingly unlikely that Richard took any 

 personal part in either murder. 



In like manner, the murder of Clarence, which Shake- 

 speare attributes to Richard, and represents I^dward as 

 regretting, was almost certainly ordered by Edward alone. 

 Edward was as unscrupulous as Richard subsequently 

 proved to be, and Edward's sitspicions of George show that 

 in all probability the three brothers were fairly matched in 

 this respect. The Plantagenets, as a family, never allowed 

 kinship to interfere with their ambitions, any more than did 

 their Norman predecessors, or the Ttidors, who succeeded 

 the rival Plantagenet houses of York and Lancaster. 



On the death of Edward, Richard does not at first seem 

 to have entertained any idea of .seizing the crown. He was 

 justified in claiming the protectorate, not only by his near 

 relationship to Edward, but by the general prejudice against 

 the Woodvilles (the family of Edward's widow). But from 

 the moment Richard obtained the regency he was placed in 

 a position in which he found it impossible to maintain him- 

 self without constant watchfulness. The Queen's family 

 began to form plots and intrigues against him. He knew 

 that the authority he possessed while Prince Edward was a 

 minor would not secure him against future dangers. The 

 young Prince, as he grew up, would be most likely to side 

 with his mother. Beside.?, he could scarcely but recall the 

 fate of another Gloster who had held a similar position, and 

 had been murdered when the Prince for whom he had held 

 the reins of power had mounted the throne. It was with 

 such dangers before him that Richard was led to assume 

 the sovereignty, an act doubtless of treachery and villainy, 



closing scene of " Henry VIII.," when the historical plays merge, as 



it were, into contemporary history : — 



'■ The words I utter 

 Let none thinke flattery ; for they'l tinde 'em truth. 

 This Royall infant, Heaven shall move about her ; 

 Though in her cradle, yet now promises 

 Upon this land a thousand thousand Blessings, 

 Which time shall bring to ripenesse ; she shall be 

 (ISut few now living can behold that goodnesse) 

 A Patterne to all princes living with her. 

 And all that shall succeed. Salia v/ii" never 

 More covetous of wisdome and fair Vertue, 

 Than this pure Soule shall be I All princely graces 

 That mould up such a mighty piece as this is, 

 ■\Vith all the Vertucs that attend the good, 

 Shall still be doubled on her.'' 



With much more to the .same effect. All this in the folio edition, 

 where Mr. Donnelly reads his I'.aconian abuse and ridicule of Queen 

 Elizabeth. Note, moreover, that this was probably written after 

 Klizabeth's death (" Eichard III." was written many years before 

 that event). 



