In chapter two I described the two ways in which Historians can approach there subject, they were as
follows:
1. The respective historians had already made up their mind with respect to Richard's guilt or innocence and to support their particular theory they have used selective quotes.
2. The respective historians approached the sources with an open mind, and came to their different conclusions via their own interpretation.
The two featured historians, Desmond Seward and Micheal Hicks, appear to be a good example of the
first definition. Although to be fair Hicks appears to be less of a sinner than does Seward, nevertheless neither have attempted to write a balanced history as per the second definition. As has already been recorded both authors have been open and honest about their intentions, it is this honesty about their approach that has devalued their efforts as academicaly sound or reliable.
It is obvious that Seward believing that Richard is one of the greatest villians history has ever produced and to prove this he has scoured every source he can to support his argument. Should any express the slightest doubt, Seward will gladly ignore it or use it in an atagonistic way. Whereas Hicks does not exactly take the opposite view. It is obvious that he does not agree with Seward's conclusions, he has, nevertheless, used similar tactics. Although Hicks has not been quite as extreme as Seward, he has been careful to ensure that his reader is taken along a particular theory, little is written to contradict it, and by the end the reader should wholly accept it.
Both writers have tackled the life and times of Richard III from a particular perspective and have been quite subjective. As neither has claimed to have attempted to write a definitive history this should be acceptable. The reader is made fully aware of each book's content and have chosen to read it on
those terms. If they had been claiming to be writing a definitive history then there would be grounds for academic criticism. It is interesting to note that both writers regard the Professor Ross history as definitive, for different reasons.
Seward believes that Ross endorses his view and Hicks praises Ross for endorsing his view. Ross
himself neatly sums up the difference between his style of historical writing to that of Seward and
Hicks. In his preface he wrote;
'Speculation about Richard III's character and motivation is an all to easy game. Arriving at the hard facts about him is less glamorous but no less rewarding.'(1)
|