More and Contemporary Works
Why More wrote a work whose publication could only be problematic is not known. Polydore Vergil was writing the Tudor-backed Anglica Historia at the same time that More composed the History, and his friendship with More and Erasmus must have exposed them both to his new methods of historical research. Vergil had access to the extant documents (and destroyed those he disagreed with) and interviewed the surviving participants in the events of 1483-1485 - all of whom survived because they were in Henry's favor (Morton chief among them).[20]
The Anglica Historia is written as a story, with characters proclaiming their intentions in long set speeches. More's characters make similar stagy speeches. Vergil quotes his sources to lend authority to his assertions; More's History is littered with phrases such as "as men constantly say," "as I am credibly informed," and "it is for truth reported."[21] Such phrases read best as a parody of Vergil, whose work, although still unpublished, was well known in More's circles. Both were probably influenced heavily by the newly-rediscovered Annals of Tacitus with its portrait of the monster-king Tiberius. Notably, the Annals also contains long set speeches.[22]
One other favor may have played a part in More's decision to write the History. By 1513, Erasmus was preparing to write a book on the education of a price for leadership of the new nationalist states. Education of a Christian Prince (or Institution of a Christian Prince) was published in 1516. More's unchristian prince may have been intended to stand as an example and warning to his generation's rulers, the flip side of Erasmus' prince. More's work is darker, more realistic than Erasmus' work, in describing the Realpolitik of the day; it stands closer to Machiavelli's Prince, which was also being written (although it was not published until the year of More's death).
For whatever reasons More wrote his stunning little work, it was certainly not meant as Tudor propaganda. While it says nothing good about Richard III, it says virtually nothing at all about Henry VII, and More's silence was eloquent (as Henry VIII was to complaint twenty years later). That his elegant History is considered to be a Tudor apologia and/or the best of Tudor propaganda is an irony Master More would probably enjoy.
Footnotes
[20] Murray, Richard III, 423.
[21] Hanham, Richard III and His Early Historians 1483-1535, 159.
[22] Kendall, The Great Debate, 26.