It occurred to me some years ago, that the picture of Richard the Third, as drawn by historians, was a character formed by prejudice and invention.  I did not take Shakespeare’s tragedy for a genuine representation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of imagination.  Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbable; and, what was stronger, contrary to his interest.  A few incidental circumstances corroborated my opinion; an original and important instrument was pointed out to me last winter, which gave rise to the following’ sheets; and as it was easy to perceive, under all the glare of encomiums which historians have heaped on the wisdom of Henry the Seventh, that he was a mean and unfeeling tyrant, I suspected that they had blackened his rival, till Henry, by the contrast, should appear in a kind of amiable light.  The more I examined their story, the more I was confirmed in my opinion:  and with regard to Henry, one consequence I could not help drawing; that we have either no authentic memorials of Richard’s crimes, or, at most, no account of them but from Lancastrian historians; whereas the vices and injustice of Henry are, though palliated, avowed by the concurrent testimony of his panegyrists.  Suspicions and calumny were fastened on Richard as so many assassinations.  The murders committed by Henry were indeed executions and executions pass for prudence with prudent historians; for when a successful king is chief justice, historians become a voluntary jury.

If I do not flatter myself, I have unravelled a considerable part of that dark period.  Whether satisfactory or not, my readers must decide.  Nor is it of any importance whether I have or not.  The attempt was mere matter of curiosity and speculation.  If any man, as idle as myself, should take the trouble to review and canvass my arguments I am ready to yield so indifferent a point to better reasons.  Should declamation alone be used to contradict me, I shall not think I am less in the right.

Nov. 28th, 1767.

HISTORIC DOUBTS ON THE LIFE AND REIGN OF KING RICHARD III.

There is a kind of literary superstition, which men are apt to contract from habit, and which-makes them look On any attempt towards shaking their belief in any established characters, no matter whether good or bad, as a sort of prophanation.  They are determined to adhere to their first impressions, and are equally offended at any innovation, whether the person, whose character is to be raised or depressed, were patriot or tyrant, saint or sinner.  No indulgence is granted to those who would ascertain the truth.  The more the testimonies on either side have been multiplied, the stronger is the conviction; though it generally happens that the original evidence is wonderous slender, and that the number of writers have but copied one another; or, what is worse, have only added to the original, without any new authority.  Attachment so groundless is not to be regarded; and in mere matters of curiosity, it were ridiculous to pay any deference to it.  If time brings new materials to light, if facts and dates confute historians, what does it signify that we have been for two or three hundred years under an error?  Does antiquity consecrate darkness?  Does a lie become venerable from its age?