The Daughter of Time

The Daughter of Time

First edition cover
Author	Josephine Tey
Language	English
Genre	Mystery novel
Publisher	Peter Davies
Publication date	1951
Media type	Print book (Hardback & Paperback)
Preceded by	To Love and Be Wise (1950)
Followed by	The Singing Sands (1952)

The Daughter of Time is a 1951 detective novel by Josephine Tey, concerning a modern police officer's investigation into the alleged crimes of King Richard III of England. It was the last book Tey published in her lifetime, shortly before her death. In 1990 it was voted number one in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time list compiled by the British Crime Writers' Association.^[1] In 1995 it was voted number four in The Top 100 Mystery Novels of All Time list compiled by the Mystery Writers of America.

Plot summary

Alan Grant, Scotland Yard Inspector (a character who also appears in five other novels by the same author) is feeling bored while confined to bed in hospital with a broken leg. Marta Hallard, an actress friend of his, suggests that he should amuse himself by researching a historical mystery. She brings him some pictures of historical characters, aware of Grant's interest in human faces. He becomes intrigued by a portrait of King Richard III. He prides himself on being able to read a person's character from his appearance, and King Richard seems to him a gentle and kind and wise man. Why is everyone so sure that he was a cruel murderer?

With the help of other friends and acquaintances, Grant investigates Richard's life and the case of the Princes in the Tower, testing out his theories on the doctors and nurses who attend to him. Grant spends weeks pondering historical information and documents with the help of Brent Carradine, a likeable young American researcher working in the British Museum. Using his detective's logic, he comes to the conclusion that the claim of Richard being a murderer is a fabrication of Tudor propaganda, as is the popular image of the King as a monstrous hunchback.

Themes and arguments

The book explores how history is constructed, and how certain versions of events come to be widely accepted as the truth, despite a lack of evidence and/or any logical plausibility. Grant comes to understand the ways that great myths or urban legends are constructed, and how in this case, the victorious Tudors saw to it that their version of history prevailed.

The novel's title is taken from an old proverb ("Truth is the daughter of time") which is quoted by Tey as the novel's epigraph. Like all aphorisms this proverb has been directly quoted, paraphrased or enhanced many times over the centuries by multiple famous literate thinkers such as Aulus Gellius and Abraham Lincoln (direct quotes); Sir Francis Bacon (enhanced quote: "Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority."^[2]); and Thales (paraphrase: "It is time that has discovered, or in due course will discover, all things that lie hidden.") to name just a few. Other famous quotes not unrelated to what Tey intended to communicate with her choice of epigraph and title would be: "Not being known doesn't stop the truth from being true." - Richard Bach; "People say they love truth, but in reality they want to believe that which they love is true." - Robert Ringer; "Truth is so hard to tell, it sometimes needs fiction to make it plausible." - Francis Bacon; and possibly even "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain.

The novel also explores and pastiches different types of historical writing. In his researches, Grant starts with children's history books, then moves on to general popular histories and the very scholarly but dull "Tanner's Constitutional History of England". He also reads Thomas More's History of King Richard III and a historical novel called The Rose of Raby by "Evelyn Payne-Ellis", about the life of Richard's mother Cecily Neville. Both Tanner's history and the novel are non-existent; it has been suggested that the title of the latter is derived from Guy Paget's 1937 biography of the same name.^[3]

Other alleged historical myths touched upon by the author are the commonly believed (but false) story that troops fired on the public at the 1910 Tonypandy Riot, the traditional depiction of the Boston Massacre, the martyrdom of Margaret Wilson and the life and death of Mary, Queen of Scots. Grant adopts the term "Tonypandy" to describe widely believed historical myths, such as the supposed shootings at the Tonypandy Riots, and believes popular accounts of Richard's activities to fall into this category. This line of thought reflects a dislike and distrust of emotional popular narratives concerning supposed historical injustices which also surfaces in Tey's other works.

Grant's case for the innocence of Richard III

Late 16C portrait of Richard III (National Portrait Gallery, London), copied from an early 16C one in the Royal Collections. A reproduction of this version is kept by Grant at his bedside.

In this novel, as in her other works such as The Franchise Affair and Miss Pym Disposes, Josephine Tey relies partially on physiognomy as a means of determining an initial assessment of a person's character. Grant's first impetus towards an intellectual investigation of whether Richard III really had the two main heirs to his dead brother's throne callously murdered in the Tower of London is his early certainty that Richard's face could not possibly be that of someone who would perform such a base crime as the cold-blooded murder of his two young nephews. However, this is just an initial 'gut feel'; the original spark that makes Grant want to know more about (and thus ultimately research and investigate) the true character and background of Richard III rather than any of the other historical personae of whom his friend Marta Hallard has provided him with images (in order to alleviate his bed-ridden boredom).

The subsequent police-like investigation that Grant undertakes during the remainder of the novel in order to find some circumstantial evidence that Richard (or anyone else) disposed of the princes reveals that there never was a Bill of Attainder, Coroner's inquest, or any other legal proceeding that contemporaneously accused — much less convicted — Richard III of any foul play against the Princes in the Tower. It also points out that the princes were not reported missing by anyone until after the Battle of Bosworth Field, by which time Richard was dead and the princes were now in Henry VII's custody in the Tower. Grant comes to the conclusion that Henry is a much more likely perpetrator of the dual regicide than Richard when the question of 'who instigated the killing of the princes?' is approached from the traditional crime detection perspective of means, motive and opportunity - particularly motive.

Tey's pro-Richard arguments repeat some of those made in Clements Markham's 1906 book Richard III: his life & character, reviewed in the light of recent research.^[4]

The main arguments presented in the book in defence of King Richard:

• There was no political advantage for Richard III in killing the young princes once he was king. Richard's own right to the crown was unassailable as he had been both popularly acclaimed King of England by the public as well as legitimately declared to be king by an Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius which declared, among other things, that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was a bigamous one since he was already party to a precontracted marriage to Lady Eleanor Talbot at the time. Consequently, the act declared that all of the deceased king's offspring via this later bigamous partnership - the two young princes and their sister Elizabeth of York - were illegitimate and thus debarred from ascending the throne. His niece and two nephews thus represented no threat to Richard once this act was passed and he had subsequently attained the crown.
• The two princes were much more of a threat to Henry VII as the foundation of his Tudor claim to the crown was significantly more convoluted than their more immediate Yorkist line of succession as both Edward IV's male offspring and declared heirs and Richard III's nephews. In order to bolster his own claim to the throne once he was crowned king, Henry VII married Edward IV's only daughter (and Richard's niece) Elizabeth. Since Titulus Regius (passed by Parliament on 25 June 1483) invalidated Elizabeth's claim to accession due to it declaring her and her two brothers as being bastard progeny, one of Henry's first acts as the newly crowned king was to order Parliament to repeal the Titulus Regius act and completely eradicate its existence from its records so that her claim to the throne would once again be legitimate. This suppression and official eradication of Titulus Regius was so successfully executed that an overlooked manuscript copy of the act wasn't discovered for another hundred years or so. However, in eradicating any trace of Titulus Regius Henry also caused the line of accession to the throne of her two older brothers to be similarly legitimate again, hence the two princes now represented a greater obstacle and threat to Henry's usurpation than his marriage to Elizabeth supported it. Repeal and retroactive suppression of Titulus Regius immediately made her oldest brother (Edward, Prince of Wales and uncrowned King Edward V of England between 9 April 1483, when his father Edward IV died, until 25 June 1483, when Titulus Regius was enacted) the legitimate reigning monarch once again, and her younger elder brother (Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York) his immediate legitimate heir. Consequently, once Titulus Regius was repealed and eradicated the two re-legitimised princes would similarly have to be 'removed' along with it.
• With Titulus Regius enacted the two princes represented no threat whatsoever to Richard once he was crowned king. With Titulus Regius repealed and suppressed the two princes had a much more legitimate claim to the throne than Henry Tudor did, even if he was married to their younger sister after he was crowned. Therefore, Henry had a strong motive for killing his future brother-in-laws once he initiated the repeal and suppression of Titulus Regius while Richard had no motive at all to dispose of his nephews once he had convinced Parliament to enact Titulus Regius.
• Although a Bill of Attainder was brought by Henry VII against Richard after the battle in Bosworth it made no mention of the princes' disappearance from the Tower - strongly suggesting that at the time the Attainder was presented to Parliament the princes were not yet missing. Henry effectively took over the custody of the princes on his victorious return to London after defeating Richard in Bosworth. If the princes had been missing from the Tower at that time it is inconceivable that Henry, or any of his supporting magnates, would not have immediately taken full advantage of such a propaganda trump card and made that fact widely known in order to defray any possible public resistance to Henry's effective Tudor usurpation of the Yorkist line of accession to the crown.
• The Bill of Attainder that Henry and his supportive magnates did subsequently file against the deceased Richard merely accuses him generically of "cruelty and tyranny" during his reign - there is no specific accusation, nor even a mention, in it of Richard's suspected complicity in the princes' disappearance / assumed deaths. Yet this very same Attainder falsely dates Henry's immediate accession to the throne to the day previous to the Battle of Bosworth Field in order that all of Richard's followers that survived the battle could be accused in the Attainder with treason against the now reigning monarch (Henry VII), when in fact at the time of the battle they were the loyal followers of an anointed king (Richard III) fighting against an invader / usurper (Henry Tudor). Despite this clearly unscrupulous falsification of the truth in the Attainder it did not occur to its authors to also include in it the true accusation (according to accepted modern day history) of Richard as the instigator of the princes' disappearance and subsequent deaths - or even just his incompetent protective custody of them in allowing their demise to happen while he was their Protector.
• The mother of the princes, Elizabeth Woodville, remained on genuinely good terms with Richard once he was king, and her daughters regularly took part in social events at his court. This was hardly the behaviour of a mother who believed, or even just suspected, that Richard had ordered the deaths of both her young sons.
• There is no contemporary recorded evidence that the princes were missing from the Tower before Henry VII took over custody of them. It is only after that juncture that the rumours and speculative accusations start to be recorded in historical documents. This may have been true when Tey published her novel in 1951, or it may have been false and she was simply unacquainted with those sources in her own reading of this period of history - see the comments re Alison Weir below.

Grant and his American collaborator argue that there is little evidence of resistance to Richard's rule (ignoring Buckingham's rebellion). They allow that there were rumours of his murdering the princes during his lifetime, but they decide that the rumours had little circulation, and attribute them to the Croyland Chronicle and to the Lord Chancellor of France, and ultimately to Tudor sympathiser John Morton. They also propose that Morton was the actual author of Thomas More's biography of Richard, suggesting that the incomplete manuscript found after More's death was an unfinished copy by More of Morton's lost original. They conclude that the princes probably remained alive throughout Richard's reign and were later killed by Henry.

Alison Weir has pointed out several flaws in Tey's reasoning and the fact that she was not acquainted with some then-unpublished source material.^[5] For example, Dominic Mancini's account of his stay in England was not published until 1969. Mancini contradicts Tey's claim (following Markham) that there were no widespread rumours about the death of the princes in Richard's lifetime.^[4]

Literary significance and criticism

On its publication Anthony Boucher called the book "one of the permanent classics in the detective field.... one of the best, not of the year, but of all time". Dorothy B. Hughes also praised it, saying it is "not only one of the most important mysteries of the year, but of all years of mystery".^[6] The novel is listed as number one on the CWA's Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time list and number four on the MWA's Top 100 Mystery Novels of All Time list.

Winston Churchill stated in his History of the English-Speaking Peoples^[7] his belief in Richard's guilt of the murder of the princes, adding, "It will take many ingenious books to raise the issue to the dignity of a historical controversy", probably referring to Tey's novel, published seven years earlier. The papers of Sir Alan Lascelles contain a reference to his conversation with Churchill about the book.^[8]

In 2012, Peter Hitchens wrote that The Daughter of Time was "one of the most important books ever written".^[9]

Works with similar themes

• Mystery author Elizabeth Peters's novel The Murders of Richard III references Tey's book repeatedly.
• Colin Dexter uses the same plot device of the incapacitated detective solving an old mystery in The Wench Is Dead.
• Guy M. Townsend's To Prove a Villain is a detective novel about a series of modern murders that seem to be linked to Richard III. The hero, a history professor, launches a scathing attack on Tey's arguments as "hopelessly unprofessional and untrustworthy for her 'slavish' following of Clements Markham's argument".^[4]

References

External links

• Butler, Pamela J. "The Mystery of Josephine Tey". R3.org. Richard III Society (Internet Archive). Archived from the original on 15 April 2011. Retrieved 13 November 2013. 
• Review, Tor.com
• Review, The Washington Post
• Project Gutenberg Canada full text
• Website dedicated to Josephine Tey