Much has been written about Mary Queen of Scots and her time, and various theories of her guilt or innocence in the conspiracy against her husband Lord Darnley1 have been propounded. The Casket Letters are the primary sources of evidence referred to in this seemingly endless debate. Another continuing debate is over whether or not Mary could have ruled successfully in Scotland. To this day, Mary, whom Elizabeth I referred to as “The Daughter of Debate,” remains an enigma. Although the basic evidence has changed little throughout the centuries, the attitude of writers towards that evidence has evolved.
A great deal was written about Mary during her lifetime. At first, it consisted of mostly eulogies and advice. Major controversy did not begin until her marriage to Lord Darnley in 1565. Thomas Jeney, Robert Sempill, John Knox, George Buchanan, Thomas Wilson, Nicholas Barnaud, and Richard Crompton attacked Mary, while Peter Frarin, John Leslie, David Chambers, and Adam Blackwood defended her. Mary’s supporters stressed her sufferings for Catholicism, and her opponents used accusations of immorality, murder, and treason against her. Unlike most of the writers, whose primary interest was political, Nicholas Sanders and William Allen dealt mainly with religious issues. Robert Wingfield wrote the official account of Mary’s execution.
George Buchanan, a friend of Moray and Morton, was the primary spokesman of the anti-Marian faction in Scotland. Detectio Mariae Reginae (1568), translated in 1571 as Ane Detectioun of the doinges of Marie, Quene of Scottis, and History of Scotland (1582) were two of his major works. According to W. A. Gatherer’s synopsis of Buchanan’s account of Mary in his History of Scotland, “throughout her personal reign Mary had schemed to establish a tyranny, had behaved recklessly and maliciously at all times, and had ultimately devised the murder of her husband at the hand of her paramour.”2
In The History of Scotland During the Reigns of Queen Mary, and King James VI. till His Accession to the Crown of England, originally published in 1847, William Robertson observes that previous historians were divided into two hostile camps, “animated against each other with the fiercest political hatred, embittered by religious zeal.”3 He criticizes the early historians for writing “an apology for a faction, rather than the history of their country” and those who succeeded them for simply repeating “their errors and misrepresentations.”4
With Mary’s Protestant son’s accession to the throne of England as James I in 1603,5 Catholicism was no longer a threat to established English political and religious institutions, so the more vitriolic attacks against Mary ceased. Protestant writers portrayed Mary as a victim of circumstances. The English historian William Camden utilized material from both Catholic and Protestant sources in his Annals. William Udall, another English historian, disagreed with Buchanan about Darnley’s murder and depicted Mary’s marriage to Bothwell6 as her response to adverse circumstances. The Scottish historians John Spottiswoode and David Calderwood ascribed her downfall to her “violence of passion” for Bothwell. Abroad, the most successful of Mary’s supporters was Pierre de Bourdeille, abbé de Brantôme, in his Vies des Dames Illustries, in which Mary was portrayed as a beautiful and romantic queen. Sir James Melville’s pro-Marian Memoirs of His Own Life, 1549-937 was published in 1683. The reprinting of Buchanan’s Detectioun of the doings of Marie, Quene of Scottis and the publication of Patrick, Lord Ruthven’s account8 of Darnley’s murder contributed to the attacks on Mary. Overall, Mary’s image was refurbished during the seventeenth century.
In the early eighteenth century the Scottish historian David Crawfurd published two works in defense of Mary. Malcolm Laing and Thomas Ruddiman wrote systematic responses to Buchanan’s attacks, but Ruddiman’s Jacobite sympathies inspired political debates. The publication of Samuel Jebb’s collection of pro- and anti-Marian treatises advanced Mary’s cause. James Anderson’s collection was more balanced. The first accurate edition of John Knox’s strongly anti-Marian History9 was published in 1732. Robert Keith included a compilation of documents in his history of Mary’s reign, in which he ascribed her downfall primarily to the chaos caused by the Scottish nobility. John Whitaker and Thomas Crawford accepted no criticism of Mary.
Malcolm Laing based his 1804 history on William Robertson’s conclusions, and George Chalmers based his biography of Mary on Whitaker’s Vindication and included a refutation of Hume and Robertson. Hugh Campbell republished letters attributed to Mary. The discovery and publication of new source material, such as Maitland’s Narrative10, Blackwood’s History, Lord Herries’ Historical Memoirs, writings of Mary’s physician, Bourgoing, and her secretary, Claude Nau, Calendars of State Papers, various manuscripts, and several different editions of Mary’s letters, provided fuel for both sides in the debate. J. A. Froude depicted Mary’s primary goal as the destruction of the Reformation. John Hossack produced new documentary evidence by printing the Book of Articles. John Skelton portrayed Mary’s policy as one of moderation. Both David Hay Fleming’s biography and T. F. Henderson’s Casket Letters contain citations of references. Alphonse de Lamartine readily accepted Buchanan’s accusations. J. A. Petit and Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove wrote sentimental apologies for Mary’s actions. François Mignet’s scholarly Histoire de Marie Stuart includes Mary’s flight to England and an account of the Spanish Armada, while Martin Philippson’s Histoire du Regne de Marie Stuart ends in 1568 when Mary “lost all political importance.”11
Regarding Mary’s reign in Scotland, there are two main camps of historians: those who think Mary could have ruled successfully in Scotland, and those who think she did not stand a chance. In his Life of Mary Queen of Scots (1840), Henry Glassford Bell questions the possibility of Mary’s succeeding in bringing order to Scotland, since both her father King James V and, after his death, her mother Marie de Guise12, failed in the attempt. He states that Mary’s experience, as Queen Consort of France13, could not prepare her for Scotland’s “rebellious turbulence” or for being blamed, as Queen Regnant of Scotland, for “all unpopular measures.”14
Robertson argues that the government of an infant queen did not inspire reverence in the warlike Scots and that various factions, hoping for impunity, took advantage of the situation. He criticizes James V for not providing a regent, “the common remedy against the disorders of a minority” and describes James as “so little able to…defend his daughter and kingdom against the imminent calamities, that, in mere despair he abandoned them both to the mercy of fortune.”15
In Maria Stuart (1935), the Austrian writer Stefan Zweig wonders how Mary, a nineteen-year-old stranger in her homeland with no experience in ruling, could be expected to do what others could not: successfully deal with a poor country, a corrupt nobility, warring clans, Catholic and Protestant clergy, and a vigilant and dangerous neighbor (Elizabeth I)16. In Mary Queen of Scots (1969), Antonia Fraser characterizes the Scottish nobility as “a difficult, intractable, and above all highly unstable class to deal with,” who “presented an especial problem to a young queen, brought up in a foreign country, and lacking the knowledge and intuition of how to deal with such men.”17
In Mary, Queen of Scots (1974), Gordon Donaldson characterizes Mary’s policy as one that would win support from open-minded persons. He concedes that her policy of religious toleration, “suggest[s] opportunism and self-interest” in that “she would be all things to all men and commend herself to the dominant Protestants in Scotland and England without alienating the Roman Catholic minority there or the Roman Catholic powers on the Continent.”18
Jenny Wormald states that while all the previous Scottish monarchs increased the glory of Scotland, Mary failed to do this, although she does concede that Mary’s father James V left her with many difficulties. In Two Queens in One Isle: The Deadly Relationship of Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots (1984), Alison Plowden states that by the summer of 1542, “James had …lost the confidence of most of his nobility, who accused him of misgovernance.”19 In The Mystery of Mary Stuart (1904), Andrew Lang characterizes “Mary’s task ‘to quieten the country’” after Riccio’s murder20 and its aftermath as “perhaps impossible.”21
Wormald argues that Mary could have retained her authority in Scotland if she had been militantly and consistently pro-Catholic. Plowden states that the opposition to Mary was divided at the beginning of her reign, giving her an opportunity to consolidate her power.22 According to Robertson, Cardinal Beaton’s “death was fatal to the Catholic religion and to the French interest in Scotland. The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the nation, but, when deprived of the genius and authority of so skilful a leader, operated with less effect.”23 Robertson opines that Protestantism “had already taken so deep root in the kingdom that no discouragement or severity could extirpate it.”24 Andrew Lang describes Mary as being surrounded by enemies and does not see that she had much chance of ruling effectively in Scotland.25
Robertson considers Mary’s tendency to be easily swayed by the opinions of others to be her greatest fault as a ruler.26 Plowden writes that her uncle, the Cardinal of Lorraine, advised her to “repose most upon them of the reformed religion”27 and her brother James Stewart, Earl of Moray28, “warned her not to attempt to meddle in religious matters.”29
Lang describes Mary as trusting and “unsuspicious.”30 In The Casket Letters (1889), T. F. Henderson describes Mary as “possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of will, …remarkably wary and acute, and…a match for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy.” Henderson further states that Mary could not be forced “into a course of action to which she had any strong aversion, and in all matters vitally affecting herself was in the habit of using her own independent judgment.”31
The Earl of Morton’s retainers32 “discovered the fatal Casket full of Mary’s alleged letters to Bothwell, and he was one of the most ardent of her prosecutors.”33 The Casket, described by Cecil34 as “a small gilt coffer, not fully one foot long, being garnished in many places with the Roman (Italic) letter F set under a king’s crown,” was opened 21 June 1567. Morton kept the Casket and Letters until shortly before his execution in 1581, when the Earl of Gowrie35 obtained the Casket.36 After Gowrie’s execution in May 1584, no more was heard of the Casket.37 Henry Glassford Bell points out that the lost Letters “were originally written in French, were afterwards all translated into Scotch, and three of the former into Latin.”38 The Letters were considered to be of the utmost importance in determining Mary’s involvement in the conspiracy to murder Lord Darnley. They were the evidence used against Mary in her First Trial. Antonia Fraser claims, “More ink has been spilt on the subject [of the Casket Letters]…than on almost any other textual mystery.”39
The heated copious debates of the eighteenth-century Marian controversy focused primarily on the Casket Letters. Jebb’s and Anderson’s collections of documents stirred up interest in them. Walter Goodall declared the Letters to be forgeries, based on philological evidence. David Hume and William Robertson claimed that the Letters were Mary’s. In a 1760 letter, Hume considers the circumstance that Elizabeth and her council could have compared the handwriting to that on letters known to have been written by Mary to be “a strong external Proof of the Genuineness of these Letters.”40 William Tytler, whose position was similar to Goodall’s, refuted both Hume and Robertson.
In his Life of Mary Queen of Scots (1840), Henry Glassford Bell finds the Letters to be “fabrications.” He explains that Moray, Morton, and their faction had to vindicate their imprisoning and dethroning Mary to avoid losing control of the government of Scotland, so they made up evidence against her. Bell points out that they had earlier declared Mary to be innocent of Darnley’s murder.41
Andrew Lang and T. F. Henderson brought the Casket Letters debate into the twentieth century. Lang argued against their authenticity, and Henderson attacked Lang’s hypothesis. Lang attacks the methods of Mary’s accusers as “so clumsy and so manifestly perfidious, that they all but defeat the object of the prosecution.”42 He doubts her guilt, contending, “The Letters extant in June and July 1567, were not wholly identical with the Letters produced in December 1568, and later published.”43 Lang points out that “many of the phrases [in the Casket Letters] were conventional” and how easy it would be to copy Mary’s orthography.44 Lang argues that Lethington directed the forgery. Lang quotes de Silva, the Spanish ambassador, who, upon mentioning the Letters to Elizabeth I, was told, “Lethington had behaved badly in the matter.”45 According to the Earl of Morton, Lethington was present at the opening of the Casket, which took place the same day as a meeting of the Privy Council: Lethington was not listed as attending. That same day, Lethington wrote a letter to Cecil and sent a verbal message to Melville.46
In The Tragedy of Kirk o’ Field (1930), R. H. Mahon argues that Darnley was plotting to murder Mary, and Robert Gore-Browne, in Lord Bothwell (1937), argues that there were three different groups of assassins present at Kirk o’ Field at the same time and exonerates Bothwell. M. H. Armstrong Davison argues that the Casket Letters were manipulated, rather than forged. E. Russell and Maurice Lee accepted the Letters as genuine and exonerated Moray.
In her 1969 biography of Mary, Antonia Fraser considers the Letters to have been a conglomeration of extracts from Mary’s letters, another woman’s love letters to Bothwell, and sheer invention. Similarly, in Mary, Queen of Scots (1974), Gordon Donaldson considers the argument that the Letters were “an amalgam of letters, some by Mary to Bothwell, some by Mary but not to Bothwell, some to Bothwell but not by Mary, with judicious tampering ” to be “convincing.”47 Donaldson agrees with Lang that it would have been easy to imitate Mary’s handwriting. He argues that parts of the letters would make no sense if Mary had written them and that it would have been easy to interpolate material into her letters.48
There has been a gradual trend from violent partisanship toward relative objectivity in historical writing about Mary Queen of Scots. At first, she was described as either a saint or a devil, and all of her actions were interpreted accordingly. Later, many historians endeavored to look at all the available information to come to their conclusions. One reason that later historians are more objective in their assessments of Mary Queen of Scots is that, since they neither took part in, nor lived through, the heated religious and political conflict of the sixteenth century, they were not directly affected by it; another is that they possess the benefit of hindsight.
1 Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, was Mary’s first cousin and second husband. He came directly after her in line of claim to both the Scottish and English thrones.
2 George Buchanan, The Tyrannous Reign of Mary Stewart, trans. W. A. Gatherer. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1958; reprinted Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978: viii.
3 William Robertson, The History of Scotland During the Reigns of Queen Mary, and of King James VI. till His Accession to the Crown of England, Aberdeen: George Clark and Son, 1847; reprinted Millwood, New York: Kraus Reprint, 1976: v.
4 Ibid.
5 He was already King James VI of Scotland.
6 James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell was Mary’s third husband. He was one of the most powerful noblemen in southern Scotland and had been loyal to the Queen Regent.
7 Sir James Melville of Halhill was a laird (a landowner who was not a peer) and Mary’s friend.
8 Lord Patrick Ruthven was a Protestant and one of Mary’s enemies.
9 John Knox was a Protestant clergyman who gave sermons at the church of St. Giles in Edinburgh and all over Scotland. He regularly attended meetings of the Synod and General Assembly. In 1559 (prior to Mary’s arrival in Scotland) he had published the “First Blast of the Trumpet” about the “monstrous government of women.” Henry Glassford Bell, Life of Mary Queen of Scots, 3rd ed., London: Whittaker and Co., 1840: 31.
10 William Maitland of Lethington was Secretary of State under Marie de Guise and Mary and a Protestant. His Scottish contemporaries referred to him as “Mitchell Wylie” or Machiavelli. Gordon Donaldson, All the Queen’s Men: Power and Politics in Mary Stewart’s Scotland, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983: 49.
11 Ian B. Cowan, comp., The Enigma of Mary Stuart, London: Victor Gollancz, 1971: 25.
12 Marie de Guise was Queen Regent of Scotland during Mary’s minority.
13 King Francis II was Mary’s first husband.
14 Henry Glassford Bell, Life of Mary Queen of Scots, 3rd ed., London: Whittaker and Co., 1840: 26.
15 Robertson 64.
16 Stefan Zweig, Maria Stuart, Vienna: Herbert Reichner Verlag, 1935: 74.
17 Antonia Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, New York: Delacorte Press, 1969: 150.
18 Gordon Donaldson, Mary, Queen of Scots, New York: London Universities Press, 1974: 71-72.
19 Alison Plowden, Two Queens in One Isle: The Deadly Relationship of Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1984: 17.
20 David Riccio was Mary’s secretary. Darnley, Moray, Ruthven, Morton, and others were involved in the plot to murder him.
21 Andrew Lang, The Mystery of Mary Stuart, New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1904; repr. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912: 60.
22 Plowden 62.
23 Robertson 72.
24 Ibid. 69.
25 Lang 22.
26 Robertson 177.
27 Plowden 62.
28 James Stewart, Earl of Moray, was one of Mary’s illegitimate half-brothers and a Protestant.
29 Plowden 63.
30 Lang 8.
31 T. F. Henderson, The Casket Letters, Edinburgh: 1889, quoted in Ian B. Cowan, comp., The Enigma of Mary Stuart, London: Victor Gollancz, 1971: 130.
32 James Douglas, Earl of Morton, was a powerful associate of Moray and a Protestant.
33 Lang 26.
34 William Cecil (later Lord Burghley) was an advisor to Queen Elizabeth I.
35 William Ruthven, Earl of Gowrie, was a Protestant and one of Mary’s enemies.
36 Ibid. 303.
37 Ibid. 304.
38 Bell 140.
39 Fraser 391.
40 Laurence L. Bongie, “The Eighteenth-Century Marian Controversy and an Unpublished Letter by David Hume,” Studies in Scottish Literature (1963-1964): 248-249.
41 Bell 140-141.
42 Lang viii.
43 Ibid. 168-169.
44 Ibid. 286-287.
45 Ibid. 292.
46 Ibid. 293.
47 Gordon Donaldson, Mary, Queen of Scots, 114-115.
48 Ibid.
Albion, G. “Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. 390-391.
Austen, Jane. History of England [Online]. URL http://home.earthlink.net/~lfdean/austen/history/fulltext.html.
Baring, Maurice. In My End Is My Beginning. London: William Heinemann, 1931.
Bell, Henry Glassford. Life of Mary Queen of Scots, 3rd ed. London: Whittaker and Co., 1840.
Bongie, Laurence L. “The Eighteenth-Century Marian Controversy and an Unpublished Letter by David Hume.” Studies in Scottish Literature (1963-1964): 236-252.
Bonner, Elizabeth. “Scotland’s ‘Auld Alliance’ with France, 1295-1560.” The Historical Association. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1999. 5-30.
Buchanan, George. The Tyrannous Reign of Mary Stewart. Trans. W. A. Gatherer. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1958; reprinted Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978.
Cowan, Ian B., comp. The Enigma of Mary Stuart. London: Victor Gollancz, 1971.
Davison, M. H. Armstrong. The Casket Letters: A Solution to the Mystery of Mary Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. Washington, D.C.: The University Press of Washington, D.C., and The Community College Press, 1965.
Donaldson, Gordon. All the Queen’s Men: Power and Politics in Mary Stuart’s Scotland. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983.
—. The First Trial of Mary, Queen of Scots. New York: Stein and Day, 1969.
—. Mary, Queen of Scots. London: English Universities Press, 1974.
Donizetti, Gaetano. Mary Stuart. Libretto by Giuseppe Bardari. English translation by Tom Hammond. English National Opera, 138 min., National Video Corporation, 1982, videocassette.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969.
Lang, Andrew. The Mystery of Mary Stuart. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1904; reprinted New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912.
Lewis, Jayne Elizabeth. Mary Queen of Scots: Romance and Nation. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Plowden, Alison. Two Queens in One Isle: The Deadly Relationship of Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots. Sussex: Harvester Press, 1984.
Read, Conyers. “Good Queen Bess.” The American Historical Review, 31.4 (July 1926): 647-661.
Robertson, William. The History of Scotland During the Reigns of Queen Mary, and of King James VI. till His Accession to the Crown of England. Aberdeen: George Clark and Son, 1847; reprinted Millwood, New York: Kraus Reprint, 1976.
Schiller, Friedrich. Maria Stuart [Online]. Projekt Gutenberg-DE. URL http://www.gutenberg2000.de/schiller/stuart/maria.htm.
Wormald, Jenny. Mary Queen of Scots: A Study in Failure. London: George Philip, 1988.
Zweig, Stefan. Maria Stuart. Vienna: Herbert Reichner Verlag, 1935.
Page 1