He does not, however, apportion all the blame on the Woodville's, Mancini does make it quite clear that Clarence himself played a major role in his own downfall. The fact that Clarence ‘vented his wrath'(3) against the Queen and made: ‘bitter and public denunciation of Elizabeth's obscure family,' (4) obviously did not help his cause. Clarence's public behaviour is contrasted with that of Richard's, who, according to Mancini was:
‘....better at concealing his thoughts and besides younger and therefore less influential, neither did nor said anything that could be brought against him.’(5)
Mancini also reported that Richard:
‘....was so overcome with grief for his brother, that he could not dissimulate so well, but that he was overheard to say that he would one day avenge his brother.’(6).
The Croyland Chronicler also refers to a fued between the two brothers, of who he wrote:
‘each began to look upon the other with no very fraternal eyes'(7).
Croyland deals with the trail of Clarence, of who it was accused that he had:
'....falsely and traitorously intended and purposed firmly the extreme destruction and disinheriting of the King and his issue. He had spread the falsest and most unnatural coloured pretence that man might imagine, that the King our most sovereign lord was a bastard.' (8)
Mancini appears to exonerate Richard of anything to do with the death of Clarence.
Croyland implies that Clarence faced a hostile court that had been coerced by the king, either by bribes or threats, to find in his favour, that is against Clarence. According to Croyland the court sat in virtual silence, he wrote that:
'Not a single person uttered a word against the Duke except the King; not one individual made answer to the King except the Duke.'(9).
The Clarence affair is dealt with quite thoroughly by both authors. Seward's interpretation of events and of Richard's role in it that is the most interesting. Seward poses several questions for the reader, with regard to both himself and Richard. In the introduction to his book, Seward reviews the sources and their writers that he is going to use, he includes luminaries amongst them St Thomas More and Dominic Mancini. He has done this to establish the credentials of his sources.
Yet in this chapter he demonstrates how More, his main witness, is discredited by nearly all of 20th
century historians. He quotes Professor Charles Ross, whose history of Richard he regards as a
'magisterial scholarship'(10), as writing that More's 'fidelity to historical fact is scarcely relevant'(11). Even more damning, Seward also cites Dr Alison Hanham as saying that More, '....treated his sources with scant respect.'(12). Dr Hanham is also quoted as thinking that More's History of Richard the Third is a ‘satirical drama'(13), and dismisses it as a 'joke amongst Historians'(14). If all the evidence against
More's reliability, as evaluated by Seward, is compared to Seward's evaluation of Mancini, the impression is that More should be viewed with care, whilst Mancini appears the more reliable.
Yet when Seward examines the Clarence affair, he uses More and virtually ignores Mancini. The reason for this appears to be that Seward is able to find more incriminating evidence to damn Richard than in
More's work than in Mancini's. In the chapter, titled, The Rivalry with Clarence, Seward explores the theme that Richard and Clarence had been rivals since they were children. This rivalry was to dominate how either of them acted for the rest of their lives. Throughout the chapter, Seward compares the
respective careers and how the rivalry has affected them. He wrote that they arranged their marriages
to deprive the other of lands and titles. He writes that marriage had a calming affect on Richard and
that the birth of a son gave Richard:
' ....something to distract him from his feud with Clarence - though the birth of an heir made him still more ambitious'(12).
|