History of King Richard III by Thomas More
**Overview of the History of King Richard III**
The "History of King Richard III," authored by Sir Thomas More, is a historical narrative that chronicles the life and reign of Richard III, weaving together themes of tyranny and moral governance. Written in the early 16th century, More's work is notable for blending humanist scholarship with dramatic storytelling, showcasing his skill in character depiction and rhetoric. The narrative captures the complexities of key figures, including Richard III, whose portrayal oscillates between malevolence and the tragic consequences of political ambition, and Queen Elizabeth, who embodies both pathos and resilience amidst turmoil.
Although More intended to extend his history to include the reign of Henry VII, he ultimately refrained, possibly to mitigate the risk of political repercussions. The work serves as a critique of usurpation and tyranny across the spectrum of monarchy, reflecting More's nonpartisan stance. Its vivid scenes, rich dialogue, and ironic humor have rendered it a significant precursor to later historical accounts and dramatic works, notably influencing Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III. Additionally, More's prose is recognized for its stylistic mastery and the impact it has had on the evolution of English historical writing. Overall, "History of King Richard III" remains an important text for understanding both the historical figure of Richard III and the humanistic traditions of its time.
On this Page
History of King Richard III by Thomas More
First published: 1543
Type of work: History
Time of work: 1483
Locale: England
Principal Personages:
Richard Plantagenet , Protector and then King of England, Richard IIIElizabeth , wife of deceased King Edward IVDuke of Buckingham , the ally of Richard
Analysis
About 1518, at the age of forty, Sir Thomas More stopped work on his HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III. This was the time when he was about to become a valuable member of the Council of Henry VIII, the beginning of a political career that would lead to his death and martyrdom in 1535. The work itself bears the mark of Thomas More the humanist scholar, rather than Sir Thomas the courtier or St. Thomas the martyr. Written in both English and Latin versions, presumably concurrently, the HISTORY was broken off at the speech of the Duke of Buckingham and Morton, Bishop of Ely, one week after Richard’s coronation. The English version was then completed by Richard Grafton and published in the Hardyng and Halle chronicles, before being published in 1557 as a separate work edited by More’s nephew, William Rastell. More had planned at first to extend the HISTORY to include the record of his own times, up to Henry’s VII’s death, but for reasons of his own he put the work aside.
These reasons may have had their roots in the polemical nature of the work. It is very much a treatise against tyranny and nonmoral statecraft, a refutation of Machiavelli some years before THE PRINCE was even completed. Far from being a Tudor apologist, as he is sometimes thought to be, More is nonpartisan. He is against tyranny in any king, whether it be Richard III or Henry VII. A sense of his own well-being, perhaps, is what leads him to draw his moral lesson from Richard alone and not risk extending his criticism to the kingship under Henry VII. This is the reason why one should remember that it is the Thomas More of the UTOPIA and not the Thomas More of the years of Tudor courtiership who is writing at this time.
The HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III is not only significant as an example of the humanistic education of princes, but it is also important as the model for other histories to follow. Historians tell us it was not equaled in excellence until the appearance of Sir Francis Bacon’s HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF KING HENRY VII, written more than a hundred years later. His historical methodology is not always exemplary, for much of what he says is based on conversations with others and much is used for the polemical thesis he is trying to develop. Though not objective, nor completely accurate, the facts he presents are probably closer to the truth than many scholars in past centuries, notably Horace Walpole, have been willing to admit. Nevertheless, what strikes the reader immediately is the vivid character of the writing and the ability to make the historical characters really seem to have once been alive. The fact that over a third of the work is in the form of speeches and dialogue indicates the book’s dramatic character.
The characters are wonderfully alive. Edward IV is not only a model prince who was politic in counsel and who treasured wisdom, thus fitting in well with More’s thesis about kingship, but also a lustful king whose youthful excesses are duly recorded yet pardoned by More because they did not interfere with the ruling of the kingdom. Jane Shore, moralized if not immortalized by Thomas Churchyard in A MIRROR FOR MAGISTRATES, is sympathetically drawn and her illustrious past contrasted with her harsh old age, for she was still living at the time of the writing. Henry, Duke of Buckingham, is treated as a surprisingly naive conspirator, and the gap between his supposed guile and his actual naivete gives More a chance to exploit fully the irony he sees present throughout the chronicle of the times.
The characters who are drawn in most depth are Queen Elizabeth and King Richard. Elizabeth, the widow of King Edward IV, is sympathetically portrayed. The great scene with her in the sanctuary of Westminster is marked by the pathos and even tragedy of her certain knowledge of what will happen if she allows her younger son to leave the protection of the sanctuary and yet the necessity for her to pretend that she trusts Richard. The verbal jousting between the queen and those trying to pry her son from her could be put almost directly upon the stage, and the final, dramatic separation of mother and son is equal to any scenes on the English stage before Shakespeare. Her clearsightedness, deliberately contrasted with Buckingham’s obtuseness, gives her tragic stature while it keeps him a figure worthy of contempt.
The blackness of Richard is dramatically, if not historically, justified. In a world turned upside down by revolt, he is the personification of unnaturalness. Everything about him is unnatural, grotesque, and evil. First, there is his unnatural appearance, his crooked back and malevolent look. More tells us he was born with teeth and came out of the womb feet first. As the unnaturalness extends from his appearance to his actions, we see him causing his blood relatives to be murdered. This evil is illustrated vividly in his scheme to destroy the two princes in the Tower, a deed assigned to Sir James Tyrell and carried out by his two lackeys, John Dighton and Miles Forest. Finally the poison spreads to the political order itself where the lack of rightful, thus natural, succession leads to many horrors. All this unnaturalness reaches a climax in the nightmares that More says came to Richard as his life drew to its violent close. These terrible dreams disturbed the restful nature of sleep and perhaps inspired Shakespeare in his own handling of the dream scene in THE TRAGEDY OF KING RICHARD THE THIRD.
The ability to depict vivid scenes such as that of Richard waking trembling from his sleep is another reason for the lasting interest of the history. This scene, the one with the queen, the dream of Stanley about the boar (symbol of Richard) with the slashing tusks, and especially the great “strawberry episode” in which Richard’s innocent, offhand request for some strawberries is swiftly followed by his seizure and execution of Hastings, accomplished with a speed that leaves the reader breathless and those around Richard with no time to object, are all examples of how Thomas More is able to develop the dramatic possibilities inherent in the historical situations. Perhaps the most dramatic scene of all, at least the one that best illustrates More’s gift for irony and humor, is the one in which the Duke of Buckingham and the Mayor of London are trying to prepare the people for Richard’s usurpation. Buckingham is much taken with his flair for rhetoric and expects that after his long speech the people will not only be reconciled to the usurpation but will cry out for Richard to be king. Instead, his speech is met with complete silence. Buckingham turns to the mayor, who tells him that perhaps the people had not understood what he said. Buckingham repeats the whole speech, with several more flourishes, but meets with the same response. Finally some of Richard’s men, planted advantageously throughout the audience, cry out for Richard, and the Duke replies that he is happy to see so many behind the new king. Not far behind the ironic detachment in the narration of this scene is a very severe condemnation of usurpation of any sort.
This depiction of character and scene is made possible by the vigorous prose employed by More. The HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III is a fine example of how English could be used for the purposes of rhetoric and represents a considerable prose achievement at a time when English was considered second to Latin as the language of the learned. The style is vigorous, humorous, ironic, and the rhythm is characterized by the balanced cadences. Some of the long sentences, never obscure though sometimes complex, have the balance of the prose of Samuel Johnson. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Johnson quoted extensively from More in his essay, “The History of the English Language,” which he appended to his Dictionary. As a work of prose, the HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III is a landmark.
Thus there seem to be four main facets of the work that demand attention and account for the book’s lasting worth. It remains a valuable example of More’s own thought and of the humanistic tradition in which he was educated. It is important as an example of English history, both for what it tells us of King Richard III’s life and time and for the model it sets for later histories. It is important in that it gave dramatic impulse for one of Shakespeare’s early plays and may have had some deeper influence on the development of his thought. But most of all, it is important for the style in which it is written and the dramatic characterization and confrontations which that style brings so vividly to life.