'Tradition,' in Richard's case, means the embellishments of later chroniclers writing long after the events, in the interests of another dynasty. Unfortunately Mr. Gairdner does not always adhere to contemporary evidence, but prefers 'tradition.'
In the case of Richard III. Mr. Gairdner thinks that it is not clearly shown that the story would be more intelligible without 'tradition,' and that the said 'tradition' is not well accounted for.
Let us endeavour to test these two propositions by the light of Mr. Gairdner's own admissions.
His Richard stood high in general estimation when Duke of Gloucester.[[6]] As King the people showed him marks of loyalty.[[7]] In the north undoubtedly, and perhaps with the common people generally, he was highly popular, and there was every evidence of devoted loyalty and personal popularity at the time of Buckingham's rising.[[8]] He was an able ruler,[[9]] he had the confidence even of his enemies in his justice and integrity,[[10]] he was generous not only to the widows and children of fallen enemies, but even to the wives of rebels in open revolt,[[11]] his generous acts were done graciously and in no grudging spirit,[[12]] there was nothing mean or paltry in his character,[[13]] his manners were ingratiating, and he had great influence over others.
A person so described is very unintelligible if the assassinations and infamies of 'tradition' have to be added. Richard's character is far more intelligible without them; and 'tradition' is perfectly accounted for by the necessities of the new dynasty, whose well-paid writers created it.
Mr. Gairdner acknowledges that 'tradition' seldom supplies anything material in the way of facts. Yet he maintains that traditional views cannot be set aside unless the history of the particular epoch is re-written, and the new version exhibits a moral harmony with the facts of subsequent times and times preceding.
Of course certain passages in history would have to be re-written when they were found to be erroneous. But the truth or falsehood of a particular accusation cannot be affected by facts of subsequent times or times preceding. Its truth or falsehood is not established by moral harmony with something else, but by contemporary evidence.
My detailed remarks on Mr. Gairdner's views respecting Richard's alleged crimes are intended to show that his conclusions are mistaken when they deviate from his own plan of placing the chief reliance on contemporary evidence; and that a sceptical spirit, in the special case of Richard, is absolutely necessary if the truth is to be reached.