The tyranny of Richard III

To Tudor historians Richard III was a quintessence of tyranny. This belief was derived from the informed opinion of many who had experienced his brief reign. To them a tyrant was one who came to the throne without right or who governed against the interests of the political nation. There can be little doubt that Richard usurped the throne: it is also the case that in one important respect his government alienated a significant section of the nobility and gentry. Following the revolts of late 1483 Richard systematically placed trusted northern adherents in control of the unreliable and hostile southern counties. This action transgressed the unwritten law that the rule of the counties lay in the hands of their native élites. Its highhandedness was recognized by the author of the Croyland continuation and its pattern can be reconstructed from the record of grants from the Crown during the reign. Not only does the settlement of 1483-4 provide dramatic evidence in support of the Tudor tradition, but its circumstances also suggest an explanation for the continuing controversy surrounding Richard's reign. What was thereby tyranny in the south was good lordship to the loyal north. It is conceivable that the conflicting interpretations of the last Plantagenet spring from this regional division.     

The tyranny of Richard III

To Tudor historians Richard III was a quintessence of tyranny. This belief was derived from the informed opinion of many who had experienced his brief reign. To them a tyrant was one who came to the throne without right or who governed against the interests of the political nation. There can be little doubt that Richard usurped the throne: it is also the case that in one important respect his government alienated a significant section of the nobility and gentry. Following the revolts of late 1483 Richard systematically placed trusted northern adherents in control of the unreliable and hostile southern counties. This action transgressed the unwritten law that the rule of the counties lay in the hands of their native élites. Its highhandedness was recognized by the author of the Croyland continuation and its pattern can be reconstructed from the record of grants from the Crown during the reign. Not only does the settlement of 1483-4 provide dramatic evidence in support of the Tudor tradition, but its circumstances also suggest an explanation for the continuing controversy surrounding Richard's reign. What was thereby tyranny in the south was good lordship to the loyal north. It is conceivable that the conflicting interpretations of the last Plantagenet spring from this regional division.     

李提摩太与一百万赏银

李提摩太认为,中国要富民强国,摆脱近代以来的屈辱境地,必须改革教育,兴办新学,而根据他的筹算,这需要每年至少一百万银两的经费投入.正是因此,他先后于一八八七年和一八九五年两次向清政府提出投入一百万银两或给予一百万赏银的建议,尽管由于清朝官员的短视及其他某些原因,李提摩太两次都未能如愿,但李提摩太的良苦用心和远见卓识还是不能被抹杀的.历史将会记住这位杰出的外国友人,而加诸他身上的各种误解、曲解和谩骂则终将会像乌云一样随风飘散.