At first it appears as though Hicks is impressed with Mancini and, like Seward, sees Mancini as a reliable source. He describes Mancini as: 'respectable, painfully fair and objective' (6) . To Hicks Mancini's work is: 'a complete, rounded and accurate narrative.'(7). It appears as though Hicks regards Mancini and his work in the same light as Seward, a fact that appears to be rather surprising from a pro-Ricardian writer.
Although Hicks says of Mancini and his work that, 'Both seem exemplary' (8), what he is in fact saying is that although Mancini's work appears, on the surface, to be fair and accurate a closer examination will show that it is not all that it seems.
To be fair to Hicks, he is at a disadvantage to Seward, with regard to Mancini's writing. The title alone is full of implications. As it is Hicks overcomes this by managing to cleverly turn the disadvantage of the title into an advantage. Hicks uses the title as a catalyst for the argument he puts forward that Mancini is biased. Hicks argues that the very title shows Mancini's bias. By appearing to accept the plaudits that have been
heaped upon Mancini, Hicks has given his comments a sharper edge. In other words he is not just another pro-Ricardian writer with sour grapes. Hicks doesn't seem to have
any problems with the times and dates as described by Mancini, it is his interpretation that Hicks criticises.
Hicks' devotes quite a lengthy section of his book to demonstrate how, in his opinion, Mancini is biased. He also questions all the accepted opinions of who Mancini was and why he was here; for example he casts doubt on the fact of Mancini just being a foreign visitor. Hicks’ believes that Mancini may have been sent here by Cato as a spy, not as
far-fetched as at first seems. In the Fifteenth century clerics played a major role in the politics of the day. Of Mancini Hicks comes to this conclusion:
' ....Mancini could hardly have been more forthright in his conclusions. He entitles his history The Usurpation of Richard III declares it his intention "to put in writing by what machinations Richard the Third, who is now reigning in England, achieved the high dignity of kingship", and intersperses his text with such comments as "Therefore the Protector rushed head long into crime". He believes that Richard's usurpation was premeditated from the start.' (9)
|