Customer Reviews

The Yale Edition of The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, Vol. 2: The History of King Richard III

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book deals with the times of Richard III, perhaps the most contraversial of English kings. More describes him as a dark villain without a conscience, who set before himself a desire of the crown and waded through a sea of blood of his innocent victims to get it. Even though this book is titled "The History", it cuts off abruptly in the sixth month of Richard's two-year reign. But there are plenty of pages on which to tell us of his evil deeds, namely, the killing of eight people that stood on his way and that most horrible of all the crimes that he is charged with- the murder of his two nephews, the true heirs to the throne. This work was pronounced by some historians as the contemporary account of Richard's reign, and made them believe that if Sir Thomas More wrote it, it must be all true. But there is always room for reasonable doubt. This book was written in 1513 when More was just a young lawyer, not yet knighted, canonized, or recognized as "the most honest man". In fact, he was only seven when Richard died- not old enough to form social opinions of his own. His book is heavily biased since he spent his childhood in the household of John Morton, Richard's enemy and traitor, and therefore heard numerous rumors and only the evil about the king. More is said to have done a research before writing, talking to many people. Since the Tudor dynasty was now in power, who had less claim to the throne than Richard, it was treason to speak in praise of him(a historical fact). Many things in More's book are inaccurate. He states, for instance, that King Edward IV died at the age of 52, when in fact he was only 40. He also says that Richard's left shoulder was higher that his right, while historian John Rous, writing 23 years earlier(a true contemporary!), says vise versa. More is also the first one to "give" Richard a witheres arm eventhough Rous does not mention it at all. Furthermore, More states that James Tyrrel, who was paid by Richard to kill the two princes, was knighted by the king after performing that deed. But Tyrrel was knighted 13 years before by Edward IV for courage in battle. Apparently Thomas More's "sources" were not all that reliable; and seeing the falsification of such undisputable facts as the age of Edward IV at his death would make one wonder if the rest of this dark "history" is true, undoubtedly coming from the same sources.