7–10996.
In which the character of Richard III is rehabilitated, and this last of the Plantagenets is made to appear as “a good son, a devoted husband, and a loving father;” in which it is affirmed “that he cherished his relatives, was a kind and trusty friend, and an honorable and magnanimous foe.” (N. Y. Times.) The defense goes to prove that the two sons of Edward IV. did not die in the reign of Richard III. but survived until after the accession of Henry VII.
“He seems to imagine that to repeat a statement over and over again makes it true, and that citations from earlier writers take the place of original documents.”
| − | Acad. 72: 10. Ja. 5, ’07. 1220w. |
“The reasoning that Sir Clements Markham uses is very ingenious but hardly convincing, and he does not improve his case by attempting in his closing chapter to show that Mr. Gairdner is inconsistent in his portrayal of Richard.” N. M. Trenholme.
| + − | Am. Hist. R. 13: 134. O. ’07. 870w. |
“His book is ingenious, bright and readable; he marshals his arguments cunningly, and he scores some good points. But it is not too much to say that he approaches the whole subject in the spirit of an advocate, and consequently his essay can hardly be considered a serious addition to historical literature.”
| − + | Ath. 1907, 1: 220. F. 23. 750w. |
“Had Sir Clements been content to show that the allegations of Tudor historians were in some matters unfounded, we might have been more ready to accept a verdict of not proven on the serious charges; more than this he has not after all been able at the best to establish.” C. L. Kingsford.