— William Tytler (1711 – 1792) and Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747 – 1813), father and son.
In 1571, Thomas Wilson created a “Scots vernacular” edition of George Buchanan’s Ane Detection of the Doingis of Marie Quene of Scottis, a work designed to discredit the exiled Mary Stuart and implicate her in the murder of her husband, Lord Darnley. Reading 150 years later, the Scottish lawyer and historian Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747 – 1813) is moved to a spirited defense of Mary’s honor. “What shocking calumnies!!!” he scrawls in the margin. “Not a syllable of proof of all this.”
Ane Detection was indeed a rather bald-faced work of propaganda, published with the discreet encouragement of the Elizabethan government even as Mary remained under house arrest in England. Buchanan accuses Mary of murder, adultery, and incest, among other vices, and he works to establish the authenticity of the (probably forged) “Casket…
Our seventeenth research blog of the 2017-18 class is by Rachael Buchan, and continuing the Mary Queen of Scots theme from this year’s course, she is examining GUA26613 (Clerk’s Press 1, p. 11), and BL487, relating to gifts made by Mary to the University.
The Clerk’s Press is the oldest surviving piece of university furniture, acquired in 1634 with the purpose of holding a collection of ‘vital records’ of property, finance, staff, students, and university decision-making. In this collection is the Annales Universitatis Glasguensis, a leather-bound parchment volume, measuring roughly 21x31x6cm. It is a general register of the university, copied in 1490 from an earlier manuscript now lost, and maintained as a current record thereafter. It contains transcripts of grants, privileges, writs, names of persons incorporated, and statutes of the university dated between the foundation of the university in 1451 to 1558. There have been many contributing authors to the volume, using various styles of hand. The transcript of Queen Mary’s letter is found on page eleven, and is written in a secretarial hand.
The transcribed letter was written under the signet of Queen Mary and her mother the Dowager Queen. It is dated the 8th of February 1555, during which time Queen Mary was in France and Scotland ruled under the regency of her mother, Mary de Guise. The letter is a royal tax exemption, excluding the ‘rector of the university, the dean of the faculty, and regent of the pedagogy’ from the payment of 10,000 pounds in tax,[1] for a tax granted to the clergy in January of 1554. The author of the transcript is unknown. There is no ornamentation or distinctive features present on the document. The page has been well preserved, and the transcript is fully legible. The original letter, from which this page is copied, is lost. The Annales Universitatis Glasguensis can be found in the Glasgow University Archives, where it is currently housed as part of its original Clerk’s Press collection.
BL847 is an original letter written under the signet of Mary Queen of Scots on 15th June 1556, again during her mother the Dowager Queen’s regency of Scotland. It written with the purpose of ‘exonerating the Rector of the University, the dean of the faculty, and regent of the pedagogy, beneficed clergymen, from a payment of a subsidy of 20,000 pounds’,[2] granted in May 1556. Importantly, this letter has extended the exemption of tax for the university to Queen Mary’s successors ‘in all times to come’.[3] The letter is written in a secretarial hand on paper. The signature of Mary Queen of Scots is present at the foot of the document, although obscured by a large tear in the paper. The document measures 29x19cm. The most distinguishing feature of the document is the red wax signet attached directly to the document, measuring roughly 3 inches in diameter, featuring the Scottish royal coat of arms. This coat of arms consists of a lion rampant under a closed crown and fleur-de-lys, which can all be clearly deciphered.[4] Although the signet is intact and its image clearly decipherable the document itself is badly damaged, with large rips and tears detracting from the content itself and rendering it almost illegible.
The language used is Scots. BL847 exists as a part of the Blackhouse charter collection, a series of documents that recount the expansion of the university through acts of transfer of property, settlements of court, donations, and royal grants, dated from 1314 to 1717.[5] As of 1573, the Blackhouse Charter collection belongs to the University of Glasgow Archives.
Both letters are thematically very similar in subject matter, both excusing the university from payment of a tax issued by the clergy, of 10,000 pounds in 1554 and 20,000 pounds in 1556. BL487 contains an important addition of tax exemption ‘for all time coming’, implying an acknowledgement of the long-standing financial problems faced by the university. Both letters were written during the regency of Mary de Guise, the Dowager Queen of Scotland and wife of King James VI who ruled the kingdom from 1554 to 1560 on behalf of her daughter, Mary Queen of Scots. Mary would not return to Scotland until 1561, after her brief reign as Queen of France was curtailed by the death of her husband Francis in 1560.
These letters are significant in understanding the financial situation of the University of Glasgow prior to the Scottish reformation, which began in 1560. At this point in history, Scotland held three universities – the University of St Andrews (1413), the University of Glasgow (1451), and the University of Aberdeen (1495), all founded by Papal bull as ecclesiastical institutions firmly embedded in the Catholic faith. The installation of a Scottish Protestant parliament in 1560 and the disintegration of Catholicism shook the foundations of the universities of St Andrews and Aberdeen, forcing them to respectively embrace elements of Protestant reform, or to initially resist them.[6] For the University of Glasgow however, the reformation jeopardised the very existence of the college. It would take the intervention of Andrew Melville in 1574 to save the institution and change its path from one of continuing decline to educational reform and prosperity.[7]
The tax exemptions of Queen Mary and the Queen Regent, dated four years prior to the onset of the Scottish reformation suggest the origins of the University of Glasgow’s financial difficulties predated the official installation of Scottish Protestantism, and the possibility of its extinction a result of long-standing financial hardship rather than from sudden and radical causes. Matriculation numbers for the university had been dwindling in the period before the reformation – in the first century of its existence the university rarely had more than sixty students at once.[8] These hit an unprecedented low in the 1550s, with only one student registered in 1552 and in 1554.[9] These low numbers can be attributed to a feeble academic community that did little to encourage new students, for whom universities and colleges on the continent seemed far more desirable. Glasgow University further suffered an absence of a thriving scholastic atmosphere in practical terms of staffing – the college lacked a chancellor from 1547 until 1550.[10]
Medieval universities were funded largely by the practice of annexing vicarages or bishoprics, and accumulating funds from parish revenues.[11] By 1556, the University of Glasgow had no such annexations or any kind of ecclesiastical patronage. It would not be until two years later in 1558 that the university finally acquired the vicarage of Colmonell under Chancellor Beaton, despite its annexation twenty-one years earlier in 1537. Unsuccessful annexations were common in these years for the university, with the vicarages of Cadder, Stobo, Linton and Kilbirnie never realised despite being promised in 1506.[12]. A dropping matriculation rate through the 1550s hindered income further through the loss of student fees. The university’s dire financial situation required its teaching staff to accompany their role at the university with an independent ecclesiastical position to generate an income.[13]
It is also important to consider the financial situation of the University of Glasgow in comparison to its accompanying universities in St Andrews and Aberdeen. Although they were not left untouched by the reformation, neither were as ill-equipped to handle the events of 1560 as Glasgow. In the immediate pre-reformation years both St Andrews and Aberdeen had noticeable advantages over Glasgow in terms of endowment and in academic reputation. Glasgow’s founding Papal bull did neglect to provide any sort of financial provision for the university.[14] There existed a multi-collegiate structure at St Andrews, with the third college of St Mary’s joining the existing St Salvator’s and St Leonard’s in 1554. Each college had significant autonomy and control over their curriculum and finances. The collegiate structure at St Andrews was financially advantageous, and enabled the colleges to independently support a large enough teaching pool.[15] In defecting education, discipline and funds to each individual college, St Andrews managed to rigidly control education while fostering a fervent academic atmosphere. Many students of St Andrews contributed to the Scottish reformation, and many were distinguished scholars in a European context.[16] The scholarly pursuits of St Andrews students were noticed even by existing Glasgow students, demonstrated by instances of undergraduates opting to continue their studies at St Andrews instead.[17]
By 1560 King’s College in Aberdeen benefitted from the revenues of five parishes, compared to Glasgow’s one.[18] Few definitive records exist from which conclusions can be drawn on the number of teaching staff in Aberdeen, but the records from 1560 where there is comment of approximately nine teaching staff is likely to hold true for the 1550s as well.[19] Aberdeen and St Andrews both held advantages over Glasgow in terms of collegiate structure, funding, and in fostering a successful scholarly reputation.
The June 1556 letter’s important inclusion of a tax exemption in perpetuity suggests an awareness that the problems affecting Glasgow would need consistent management. There are no such records known of similar exemptions made to either Aberdeen or St Andrews in the same period before 1560, suggesting that these exemptions were passed with the purpose of easing the financial strain on a problem specific to Glasgow. These exemptions would ultimately be of little use to a university already on the verge of bankruptcy – Mary would note the difficulties of the university of Glasgow again in the future, with further tax exemptions in 1557 and land grants and endowments in 1563 to address the problem of neglected buildings and disrepair. It would take alteration of the teaching system under Melville, beginning in 1574, to successfully change the course of the university towards one of progress, however, rather than these royal endowments.
All three Scottish universities would suffer as a result of the French and English battle for dominance in Scotland, particularly in 1559-60 as Mary of Guise’s forces retaliated to attacks by the Lords of the Congregation.[20] The installation of Protestantism and the formal rejection of Catholicism was an additional fissure in a country already aggrieved with pre-existing divisions among pro-French and pro-English factions; those who supported the regency of Mary of Guise and those who supported the Congregation.[21] The 1550s saw the rise of religion as an additional political component. Although these divisions would complicate the reign of her daughter, Mary of Guise successfully managed to maintain Scotland’s independence despite the constant vying of two kingdoms both exceeding Scotland in wealth and power.
Mary Stewart was sent to France at the age of six and raised in the court of Henry II, before marrying his son and heir, Francis, in 1558. He would ascend to the French throne in July 1559, and Mary became Queen in France as well as in Scotland. A minority government was in place since the death of James V in 1542, ruling where monarchs were otherwise unable to. Notoriously capable of falling victim to political skirmishes and self-interest, a minority government posed many problems for the political stability of a kingdom. The Scottish regency was a battleground for English and French dominance, with Mary of Guise replacing the pro-English Earl of Arran in 1554 with intentions to continue fostering close relations between Scotland and France. These conflicting political stances between the regent and many of her government would characterise her regency culminating in 1559-60 with her call for French troops to support her cause against the Lords of the Congregation. The absence of a monarch, especially a Catholic one such as Mary, allowed Scottish protestants to advance their position, although the French influence of Mary of Guise still posed a problem and was not necessarily welcomed by them.[22] The death of Mary Tudor in 1558 forced Mary of Guise to renege on her tolerance for Protestants and instead pursue her own goals of maintaining a Catholic kingdom for her daughter.[23]
Scottish foreign affairs would be dramatically altered by the reformation. In the process of religious upheaval, the ‘auld alliance’ between Scotland and France, characterised predominantly by Catholicism, would be replaced with closer ties to Protestant England. These letters not only demonstrate the condition of the University of Glasgow in the immediate years prior to the Protestant insurgence but the change in Scotland’s relations with other countries in Britain and in Europe.
As an original document written by a sixteenth century monarch, BL487 holds inherent importance to the Glasgow University Archives. Not only do they provide a crucial background to the university, these documents hold significant historical interest as they represent a tactile link to renaissance Scotland that is still readily accessible to visitors and guests.
These letters draw attention to the long, and at times difficult, history of the University of Glasgow, an institution which many individuals encounter in daily life without much consideration for its significance within Glaswegian or Scottish history. The tax exemptions by Queen Mary demonstrate the history of the university through the lens of two controversial and highly engaging periods of history within a Scottish context – the reformation, and the reign of Mary Queen of Scots. Historical events on a national or continental scale, as seen here, can have equally as tumultuous repercussions on local institutions, which may be of interest to those visiting the university.
Additionally, these sources provide an interesting insight to the early reign of Mary Queen of Scots, one of the most well-known figures of Scottish history. It may be interesting to the public, in light of the current political climate in Europe, to learn of the previously close links between the French and Scottish courts, and the crossover of both represented by Mary herself. These connections were so thorough that the early years of Mary’s own reign in Scotland were carried out in her absence, because of her role in the French court and eventually as queen consort. Mary of Guise’s regency would shape the reign of her daughter, specifically regarding Scotland’s connections with France and England.
These sources allow for considerable comparative studies in Scottish culture pre- and post-reformation, a historical event which dramatically reshaped both the domestic considerations of Scottish educational institutions and ecclesiastical endowment, and the kingdom’s wider foreign policy and political connections with the continent. These sources place the University of Glasgow’s history within the wider context of the reformation and the reign of Queen Mary, and so would benefit from an exhibition thematically connected to the two. In displaying these documents to the public, blog posts could be used as a practical way of presenting the information in these sources in their accurate historical context. Equally as important is a description of the situation in Scotland that faced Mary on the eve of her reign. With her return to Scotland a year after the installation of the Reformation Parliament in 1560, Mary was to learn to navigate a country very different to the one she had left in 1548. While doing so, Mary also needed to make attempts at protecting the facets of Scottish society, such as universities, for whom the transition to Protestantism was arduous, costly, and at times threw the whole future of the college in jeopardy.
Bibliography
‘Blackhouse Charters’ in Glasgow University Archives, http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb248-guabl, last accessed 22/11/2017
Brown, A.L. & Moss, M. (2001) The University of Glasgow: 1451-2001 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)
Cant, R.G. (1946) The University of St Andrews: A Short History (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd)
Durkan, J & Kirk, J. (1977) The University of Glasgow, 1451-1577 (Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press)
Hamilton, Duke of. (1991) Mary Queen of Scots: The Crucial Years (Edinburgh: Mainstream)
Haws, C. (1977) ‘The Diocese of Aberdeen and the Reformation’, The Innes Review, Vol 22 Issue 2
Innes, C. (ed) (1854) Munimenta Alme Universitatis Glasguensis: Records of the University of Glasgow: from its foundation till 1727 (University of Glasgow: Maitland Club)
Reid, S.J. (2010) Humanism and Calvinism: Andrew Melville and the Universities of Scotland, 1560-1625 (Surrey: Ashgate)
Stevenson, D. (1990) Kings College Aberdeen 1560-1641; from Protestant Reformation to Covenanting Revolution (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press)
Wormald, J. (1981) Court, Kirk, and Community: Scotland 1470-1625, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)
[1] Innes, C. (ed.) (1986) Munimenta Alme Universitatis Glasguensis: Records of the University of Glasgow from its Foundation til 1727, entry no. 34 pp.58-59
[2]Munimenta Alme Universitatis Glasguensis, entry no 35 pp.59-60
Our sixteenth research blog of the 2017-18 class comes from Claire Hammond, and provides us with an example from the alternative tradition of Marian propaganda, this time attacking her proposed marriage to the Duke of Norfolk.
To the English crown, Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots posed a serious threat. Grand-niece to King Henry VIII, and cousin to Elizabeth I, Mary’s alleged marriage to the Duke of Norfolk would have been an outrageous claim to sovereignty in England due to his status as the most senior peer in the realm. With the blood of the reigning Tudor dynasty running in her veins, Mary’s claim to the throne of England was legitimate and strong. Coupled with her Catholic faith, it roused hope in English Catholics that their faith could be restored through the enthroning of Mary at the expense of the heretic Elizabeth.[1] The Elizabethan government were aware of this potential for rebellion, and would subtly provoke anti-Marian feeling through a kind of ‘semi-publicity’ of Mary’s supposed evil-doings.[2] An example of this Anti-Marian semi-publicity can be seen in ‘A Discourse touching the pretended match betwene the Duke of Norfolke and the Queene of Scottes’ [Hereinafter referred to as Discourse]. Printed in London in 1569 by John Day, it tore the proposed marriage apart in a series of paragraphed arguments. Day himself was a committed Evangelical and also published George Buchanan’s ‘De Maria Scotorum Regina’, his anti-Marian feelings clearly evident. He is well known as the ‘Premier printer to the Protestant Regime’, and his works are well known in modern times.[3]
The bound volume that contains the Discourse measures 15 cm X 9 cm approximately. It contains not only the Discourse but also three other tracts; A Copie of a letter lately sent by a Gentleman, fluent in the laws of the Realme, to a frende of his concerning D. Story, A declaration of the lyfe and death of John Story, and, A collection of the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme concerning liueries and companies and Reteynours. In truth, it seems an unlikely collection of pamphlets, and may explain the MISCELL 1571 spine binding that was added at a later date. (See Figure 1.) The Discourse itself is Octavo, and runs to 12 pages. Its smaller size would make the production of the pamphlet less expensive, as it was not until after the Restoration that England had its own supply of printing paper.[4]
Figure 1. Spine of book with ‘MICELL 1571’.
The book has been decorated with blind tooling and the binding strengthened with an older velum parchment. Blind tooling is created by impressing on dampened leather with a heated brass finishing tool.[5] The older vellum parchment that has been inserted to strengthen the binding is almost indecipherable, however, there is just enough to make it out as English, and to see it is written in secretary handwriting. (See Figure 2.) This allows us to date this piece of parchment to the early Sixteenth Century, when this style was common.
Figure 2. Vellum spine lining at the rear of the volume.
The Discourse runs to a signature of A⁸ (-A1,8), lacks a title page and therefore, any indication of date or place of publication. (See Figure 3) There are seven-sub headings; within each of which the writer states his thoughts: A Consideration of the Q. of Scots person, The Consideration of the Dukes person, Consideration of the Match, A consideration of the present state, A discourse upon the foresayd consideration, Now let us see what doubt groweth by the match of this abuse of the said qualities, and, A comparison betwene the home match and the foreine.
The original author of the Discourse himself is unknown, though it has been commonly attached to Thomas Norton, Thomas Sampson, or to Sir Francis Walsingham. Among historians there is much contention concerning the original author, with many books citing different potential candidates. Norton appears to be the favourite amongst historians, and is commonly cited as the premier author. Natalie Mears attributes it to Thomas Norton alone.[6] However, James Emmerson Phillips disagrees with Mears in that he places authorship of the Discourse upon the shoulders of Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth I’s then chief intelligence officer.[7]
The pamphlet pages are unannotated, and do not contain marginalia of any sort. However, through his bold, upright signature on two of the other pamphlets contained within the volume, it is evident that the notable book collector, Humphrey Dyson, was in possession of the Discourse. (See Figures 4 and 4.1.) Dyson is known to have had an intense interest in English history, and at the time of his death, had a huge collection relating to ‘the State Ecclesiastical as Temporall of the Realme of England’.[8]
Figures 4 and 4.1: Humphrey Dyson’s signature on two other pamphlets within the bound volume.
When Dyson died, the majority of the large library he amassed was sold by William Jumper.[9] The majority of the collection was purchased by Richard Smith, another keen book collector of the time. When Smith died in 1675, his collection too was sold at auction after a seven-year gap, due to his heirs wanting to sell his collection together at the same time.[10]The auction in question took place ‘at [an] auction house known by the name of Swan, in Great St. Bartholomew’s close’ as is advertised in the ‘True Protestant Mercury or Occurrences Forein and Domestick’ newspaper.[11] (See Figure 5.)
Figure 5. Newspaper advertisement for the sale of Richard Smith’s Library. (TPM) 1682.[12]
It is certain that Richard Smith acquired Humphrey Dyson’s copy, as the Discourse appears in sale catalogue of Richard Smith’s library in May 1682, the Bibliotheca Smithiana, by Richard Chiswell.[13] (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6. Bibliotheca Smithiana, May 1682. Page 368. Entry 190.
Its journey before it reaches the hands of Dr William Hunter is unclear, however, further provenance could be traced at the Bodleian Library. Dr William Hunter was a Scottish physician, anatomist and avid book collector, whose library came to amass over 100,000 books.[14] When he died in 1783, Hunter bequeathed his library to the University of Glasgow, and the Discourse became a part of Special Collections.
The original author of the Discourse being unknown is an important aspect of understanding the source and its immediate significance. Phillips is eloquent in his analysis of the proliferation of ‘clandestine pamphlets’ that sought to defame Mary and her character. With Mary regularly appearing at the centre of Catholic plots against Elizabeth, it was seen as necessary to devote time to the dismantling of her character, and to create a less attractive Catholic champion.[15] The lack of an author, indication of licence or place of publication ensured that the pamphlets could be officially disclaimed by Elizabeth I as being ‘unauthorised’ and would not affect her official attitude towards Mary as being one of benevolent neutrality. Elizabeth, in fact, would not tolerate any official word of derogation towards Mary.[16] Furthermore, Phillips goes further and argues that in fact there can be no doubt that Elizabeth, or at least her intimate councillors, were aware of, and approved these pamphlets.[17]
Though the official attitude of the English state towards these pamphlets was one of ignorance, Catholic defenders of Mary were not so unaware of the power and clout that lay behind such publications;
[there is] Small likelyhood, that either the writer of the Printer of this lewde Libell … would or durst endaunger them selves, with publishing such matters of State, and of such importance, if they were not sure of good authority to backe them.[18]
According to Phillips, the earliest of these unauthorised pamphlets was A Discourse touching on the pretended match betwene the Duke of Norfolke and the Queene of Scottes.[19]As previously established, the tract itself was printed by John Day in 1569. It seeks to discredit the marriage, Mary herself, and her effect upon the Duke.
In Religion she is either a Papist, whilke is evill, or els an Atheist, whilke is werse.[20]
Mary’s Catholicism, and her claims to the throne of England would make her marriage to the most senior peer in England, a serious threat to Elizabeth. The author inferred that Norfolk himself, was at best, a Papist sympathiser, and at worst, a Catholic conspirator and therefore a match between these two would bring about a Catholic union capable of overthrowing Elizabeth. It highlights the fear of the time over the Northern Rebellion, and its aim to enact such a plot.
Touching his religion how he is affected, I leave to God & his own conscience, but that he should not be settled in religion, it shall appeare by sundrie reasons to the contrarie.
First, his education of his sonne under the government of a Papist doth shew.
Secondly, the corruption of his house, his chief men of trust being Papistes.
Thirdly, the confidence and reposed trust he has in the chiefiest Papistes in the realme.
Phillips argues that Elizabeth’s government succeeded in creating a negative portrayal of Mary, especially on the Continent.[22] However, to say that Mary is a mere victim of English cruelty and jealousy on the part of Elizabeth is argued as neither ‘fair nor accurate’.[23] Mary’s captivity in England, her activities, and the doings of those who supported her, did indeed make her a very real threat to the Protestant throne of England, and the English policy of ‘semi-publicity’ was a shrewd political move designed for success.
The author emphasises more the negative influence of Mary’s personal character and her potential to pose a serious threat to Norfolke himself, and that she may lure him from his stately duties to England. [24] The author is also fervent in his use of biblical argumentation against the match.
[the] Law that forbade Solomon to marry with the Egyptian idolatresse, standeth in force stil, and forbiddeth the duke to marry with the Scottish idoaltress[25]
His implicit reference to Mary as an idolatress again brings the argument back to the seductive satanic powers she has due to her Catholic faith. The Discourse is written and published at the same time that Mary is being referred to in contemporary discourse as a witch and a ‘seductive Circe’.[26] In this way the source is immensely useful in discerning contemporary Protestant attitudes towards Mary just after the failed Northern Rebellion of 1569. It is an important aspect of the University of Glasgow’s collection as not only does the bound volume contain the valuable signature of Humfrey Dyson, but its contents allow for a detailed study of contemporary English anti-Marian propaganda. John Day being the printer of such a pamphlet is not unusual when examining his experience. Over a decade prior to his printing of the Discourse, between October 1553 and May 1554, at least eight works hostile to the Catholic regime of Mary I were published secretly and under a pseudonym.[27] Day may well have been responsible for these and it would certainly fit with his Modus Operandi of publishing anti-Catholic sentiments in secret, and the use of Garamond Roman Type, distinctive to Day’s publishing, and seen within the pamphlet.[28]
The Discourse is the first demonstration in a long reigning continuity of Protestant propaganda attacking Mary in the early years of her captivity in England. Whilst they were published with approval from Elizabeth’s government, they were done so in such a way that allowed her to maintain the façade of plausible deniability and official attitudes of neutrality.[29] Unofficially, they allowed Mary’s character to be explicitly attacked and defamed and provided the English state with justification to continue their imprisonment of the Scottish Queen.[30]
How could the source be used to engage the public?
The age of the exhibition is over. For centuries, the ‘cabinet of curiosity’ approach to history and heritage has been the premier technique of engaging the public. However, with the rise of the technological revolution, the need to revitalise this sector is long overdue. According to Anthony Head at the Bath School of Art and Design, Outdoor Digital Projection has the ability to ‘enchant and enthral’ audiences.[31] Mixing the old with the new, combining a text aged nearly 500 years and innovative technologies to bring history into the modern age and make it widely accessible, would encourage public engagement with the source. The public is more and more seeking interactivity with the past and with Scotland being rich with architectural history, there are ample opportunities to utilise architecture. The physical buildings are so often overlooked in favour of the history within. However, with the use of Outdoor Digital Projection, the source can be brought to life in ways that were not imagined a mere 20 years ago. Figure 7 is an example of how Outdoor Digital Projection can be used in conjunction with portraiture to bring an image alive, both vibrantly with colour and on a large scale.[32]
Figure 7. An example of Portraiture on architecture.
Extracts from a Discourse, along with portraits of both Mary and Norfolke, could be intensified with colour and projected on to the walls of any of the major Scottish palaces. The action of viewing this spectacle would be a passive one. However, if used to begin a new project of public engagement, it would encourage visitors to the building in question and inspire new interest in Mary. The walls of the buildings themselves, and the spaces within, are an untapped resource of public engagement and interactivity. An exhibition only promotes a one-way dialogue and imparts a set text. However, if the spaces were filled with actors, and contained small theatre pieces with the chance of interaction, then the scope for pubic engagement would be widened considerably. With regards to the source; A Discourse touching on the pretended match betwene the Duke of Norfolke and the Queene of Scottes, a small print shop set could be constructed. Combined with actors interacting with the set and given the information to answer questions, the public’s thirst for interactivity and stimulating experiences could be met. As well as engaging the public with the Discourse itself, and the use of propaganda in the times, the use of the printing press, dress, behaviour, and attitudes of the day could be shown in an engaging setting, and would not merely be relegated to an exhibition piece.
[1] Carole Levin, The Reign of Elizabeth I (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1984) p.41.
[2] Alexander Wilkinson, Mary Queen of Scots and French Public Opinion, 1542-1600 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004) p. 89.
[3] Elizabeth Evenden, Patents, Pictures and Patronage: John Day and the Tudor Book Trade (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008) p. 1.
[4] Richard Hill, Papermaking in Britain 1488-1988, A Short History (London: Athlone Press, 1988) p. 50.
[6] Natalie Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse in the Elizabethan Realms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) p. 150.
[7] James Emmerson Phillips, Images of a Queen: Mary Stuart in Sixteenth-Century Literature, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1964) p. 61. (The authorship and circumstances of the tract have been established in Read, Walsingham, I, 63-79, where a manuscript version of the work is printed)
[8] Jackson, W., ‘Humphrey Dyson’s Library’, The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 43, No. 3 (1949), 279 – 287; Dyson, Humphrey. “Catalogue of all such Bookes touching aswell the State Ecclesiastical as Temporall of the Realme of England.” MS 117, Codrington Library, All Soul’s College, Oxford.
[9] Nigel Ramsay, ‘Dyson, Humfrey (d. 1633)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Oct 2005 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37380, accessed 14 Nov 2017]
[10] T. A. Birrell, ‘Books and Buyers in Seventeenth-Century English Auction Sales’, in Under the Hammer: Book Auctions since the Seventeenth Century, ed. by Robin Myers, Michael Harris and Giles Mandelbrote (Oak Knoll Press, London, 2001) p. 56.
[11]Henry Ben Wheatley, Prices of Books; an inquiry into the changes in the price of books which have occurred in England at different periods (London, George Allen, 1898) p. 113.
[12] True Protestant Mercury or Occurrences Forein and Domestick (1680: Curtiss) (London, England), May 24, 1682 – May 27, 1682; Issue 145. 17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers
Reads: ‘(With a pointing figure for emphasis) Monday next being the KINGS birthday and Anniversary of his Restauration, the AUCTION of Mr Richard Smith’s library, now on foot in Great Bartholomew’s Close, is adjourned till Tuesday morning the 30th instant”
[14] Helen Brock, ‘Hunter, William (1718–1783)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14234, accessed 22 Nov 2017].
[26] Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and, Gareth Roberts., Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) p. 202.
[27] Evenden, Patents, Pictures and Patronage, pp. 29 – 34.
Our fifteenth research blog of the 2017-18 class was produced by Roisin McLinden, and provides another example of the rich range of texts by John Leslie on Mary that we hold in the University’s Special Collections.
A Treatise concerning the Defence of Honour of the Right, high mightie and Noble Princesse Marie Queen of Scotland… is a volume of work written by John Leslie, Bishop of Ross. Alongside his bishopric, Leslie was Lord of Session, a privy counsellor and ambassador for Mary Stuart at the English court. He has been described as her “prime champion”[1] existing “at the heart of government in Scotland”[2]. However, condemnation of Queen Mary and particularly of Catholicism throughout England compelled Leslie to print his Treatise under another name. It was at the advice of the Catholic Judge Sir Anthony Brown that Leslie attribute the Treatise to ‘Morgan Phillips’. The pseudonym was intended to divert attention away from Leslie at a time when he played a central role in a criminal plot against the Protestant Queen Elizabeth. Phillips, who had died in 1570[3], had no knowledge that Leslie would put his name to the Treatise. He was educated at the University of Oxford and ordained a Roman Catholic priest after he received his degree in 1542[4]. Phillips was a zealous supporter of Queen Mary hence his name signed on the Treatise was not unbelievable.
‘Mary, Queen of Scots’ – painted by Francis Clouet, National Portrait Gallery, London.‘John Leslie 1527-1596, Bishop of Ross’ – Unknown artist, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh.
The Treatise is a small book measuring 10cm in width, 15cm in height and 2.5cm in depth. The small size, rectangular shape and vertical chain lines are indicative of the book’s ‘Octavo’ gathering. The book consists of nineteen gatherings in total, however the first page of each section are cancels. It has a plain brown binding made of calfskin. Speckled edges and a simple “renaissance ornament”[5] tool design on the spine provide the only outer decoration; the latter is characteristic of book binding style circa 1530-1580. The text is worn, to the extent that both the front and back cover are completely detached. Similarly, the first page, which is blank except for an offset shelf mark, is dis-joined from the main text.
10cm width, plain binding15cm height2.5cm depthOff-set shelf mar
Renaissance ornament design on spine
The text was produced by relief printing, and displays a Roman style typeface throughout. ‘Shoulder notes’ have been printed alongside the main text in order to aid the reader’s interpretation. Similar to the ornamental spinal details, inside the text are ‘fleurons’ (floral-like geometric designs) which are typical of Renaissance works. In addition, the first letter of each ‘book’ is decorated, once again with inspiration taken from stylised, plant-like concepts[6]. Besides this decoration, the work as a whole is rather plain.
Fleuron‘Shoulder notesDecorated first letter of Preface (also shows the previous cancelled page)
The Treatise’s provenance is identifiable by two signatures – located on the title page of the volume and on the title page of ‘Book Two’ – of ‘Alexander Arbuthnott’. Arbuthnott was appointed principal of King’s College[7] Aberdeen “following a purge of Catholic staff by the Earl of Moray[8]” in 1569. He was entrusted to implement reforms at the University; being a zealous protestant and former student at St. Andrews and Bourges[9], Arbuthnott was seen as the perfect candidate to rid the institution of Catholicism. Yet, Arbuthnott’s library included other somewhat Catholic texts, such as works by the early Christian theologians – the Church Fathers, various philosophical and theological texts, an analysis of Latin poetry, a Latin Bible and the Book of Sentences[10].
Despite the expectation on Arbuthnott, no comprehensive plan to instigate reform at Aberdeen University was drafted until 1582[11], and even then reforms were not realised to their full extent. Such was not due to any religious vagueness on Arbuthnott’s part. Rather, the college “experienced severe financial and other difficulties, and therefore… fail(ed) to live up to the expectations of the new church.”[12] It is possible that as a student pre-1560, Arbuthnott’s book collection dates from a time before his career within the Protestant church. Equally, the Nova Fundatio for King’s College (like that of Glasgow University) included the study of sacred chronology within its curriculum. Considering this, it is likely that any Catholic-leaning works within Arbuthnott’s library formed part of the religious-history studied at Aberdeen. The educational link between the universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen paired with the fact that Arbuthnott and Andrew Melville were colleagues and friends could, in part, validate why this particular copy of Leslie’s Treatise came to reside in Glasgow University. The bookplate on the opening binding of the text originates from circa 1750-1850. Although the original year the book came into Glasgow University possession is not known, the Bibliotheca Universitaris Glasguensis confirms that the Treatise existed within the university library in 1791.
The inclusion of the Treatise within Arbuthnott’s collection highlights this text as one of importance to a Scottish humanist, particularly as the curriculum at Aberdeen included study of Classical Antiquity and the Latin and Greek languages. It is possible that the Treatise itself could be interpreted as a humanist text as it includes sections of Latin, Greek and Hebrew as well as various references to ancient Greek mythology. Moreover, the Treatise might be of interest to humanists in light of the fact that it was not attributed to its genuine writer, but to Morgan Phillips; scholars of humanism did often concern themselves with the discovery of authentic authorship. Lastly, it is important to recognise that Leslie saw himself as a humanist. His Treatise can be seen as a reflection of a humanist belief that he “had a strong… civic duty”[13] to defend Queen Mary and the Catholic Church.
1750-1850 Glasgow University bookplateTitle page displaying Alexander Arbuthnott signature
The Glasgow University Library contains twenty-one works attributed to John Leslie. These include the original 1569 Defence of the Honour of… Queen Marie as well as Latin, Spanish and French translations it, the 1571 Treatise and a later 1574 Treatise defending both Mary and her son’s right to the English throne. The library also includes various other works by Leslie that both honour Mary and detail the inadequacy of other claimants to the throne, as well as two editions of his 1578 ‘Historie of Scotland’. Indeed, the Glasgow University Library is not the only collection in which Leslie’s work resides. Other copies exist in various libraries all over the world, particularly within university institutions. Edinburgh University Library, the National Library of Scotland and the British Library[14] host other copies in Britain. Outside this, the Treatise exists in five European countries and in seven countries worldwide.[15]
Contemporarily, the Treatise is also part of a wider collection. It is a revised edition of the aforementioned 1569 Defence. Both editions include three identically titled ‘books’ which together defend and assert Mary as the rightful Queen. Other editions include a Latin translation of the Treatise, published in 1580; this particular copy named Leslie author, which by implication meant that he “claimed authorship of the earlier, almost identical editions.”[16] The 1580 translation was distinct from the 1569 and 1571 editions in that, it contained book two and three only. In 1584, book two was published by itself in English and then in Spanish and French[17] two years later.
The First Book
The first book in the Treatise is a defence of Mary’s character. In particular, it is concerned with defending Mary against the charge that she had been privy to her husband (Lord Darnley’s) murder[18]; it also safeguards Mary’s right to the Scottish throne. The suspicion of Scottish nobles regarding Mary’s involvement in Darnley’s murder forced her to abdicate in 1567. By the time of the Treatise’ publication, accusations against Mary were circulating Britain, as were pamphlets condemning her honour. These included the 1569 Book of Articles and George Buchanan’s 1568 publication De Mara Scotorum Regina[19]. Leslie’s defence of Mary’s innocence was necessary in order to quell any further condemnation of her from circulating. Furthermore, book one intended to persuade Scottish nobles to re-accept Mary as their Queen. It highlights the indisputable strength of Mary’s lineage, thus presenting a devoted argument in favour of the Stuart monarchy. Leslie’s defence of Mary’s character and right to the Scottish throne was the first priority; in representing her as a moral leader, Leslie created a foundation on which his subsequent ‘books’ could be built.
The Second Book
Book two of the Treatise concerns ‘the Right… of Marie… to the… Croune of England.’ In this section of the 1569 edition, Leslie is very respectful to Elizabeth I. He acknowledges her as “most gracious sovereign”[20] with the foremost right to the English throne, establishing Mary’s right as secondary. The argument presented under the same title in his 1571 Treatise is contrary to this. Leslie is much “more offensive to the English court”[21] stating that Elizabeth has no right to the throne and that Mary is the one, true Queen. Leslie’s standpoint changed so drastically over the space of two years because his 1571 work was written with an ulterior purpose; indeed, it was “part of a larger scheme.”[22] A plot by prominent Catholic elites in Britain (John Leslie, Roberto Ridolfi and the Duke of Norfolk) intended to release Mary from captivity and place her on the thrones of Scotland and England. As Leslie was “accredited to Elizabeth’s court as the official ambassador of Mary” he provided an “important link in the chain”[23] for the scheme, which became known as ‘The Ridolfi Plot’. The plan involving Leslie’s Treatise was as follows: A Papal Bull excommunicating Elizabeth from the throne would be released in England. It “declared Elizabeth to be cut off from the communion of the faithful” and therefore “forbade her subjects to recognise her as their sovereign.”[24] Such would create a power vacuum throughout the country; Leslie’s Treatise would then be released. The Pope’s Bull would render England without a ruler, and the Treatise would provide one in Mary.
Such did not work out as intended. The Treatise had, in fact been completed in 1570. However, under the “vigilance of the Elizabethan authorities”[25], “the publication was prevented”[26]. Leslie “aborted (his) attempt to publish in England (and did so in Liege which) would account for the year’s discrepancy.”[27] When the Treatise’s publication did finally place in 1571, the imminence of the plot had passed. Despite this, the 1571 revised edition of book two became “one of the best published of all the works attributed to Leslie.”[28] It had resonance with Catholics throughout Europe, particularly in countries such as France, Spain and Italy where support for Mary was present. Although in 1571 Leslie did not recognise the religious aspect of the text, in 1574, “when Leslie was safely in France… he claim(ed) to be working day and night for the Catholic Church.”[29]
The Third Book
The final book in the Treatise entitled ‘A Treatise wherin is declared, that the Regiment of Women is conformable to the lawe of God and Nature’ stands out from the other two books, firstly because of its size. It is half the length of the other two books, indicating that Leslie did not believe it presented the most important argument within the composite volume.[30] Indeed, Leslie himself claimed that the third book might seem superfluous, as he had already given an adequate defence of Mary. Yet, “his mistresses’ claim… could still be challenged on the grounds… that women were, by their sex, disqualified to rule.”[31] Such was the contemporary view; an earlier work by John Knox was a scathing attack on female rule. His 1558 publication First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women vehemently deplored their right to rule. Although Knox’s work was initially directed at Mary Tudor, its argument was relevant to Elizabeth and, more importantly, to Mary. Hence, is it widely acknowledged by historians that book three was written in direct opposition to Knox’s work.[32] There were also political reasons for its publication. Rival claimants to the throne of England had arisen after “Queen Elizabeth’s… life had been endangered by smallpox in October 1562”[33], namely the Earl of Huntingdon. Huntingdon’s claim was weak. It provided no competition with Mary, whose lineage descended from the marriage uniting the houses of York and Lancaster. Nevertheless, contemporary reports from the house of “commons… favoured Huntingdon… (as he was) the only possible male heir.”[34]
Thus, the significance of the final book in Leslie’s Treatise lies in its originality. “Leslie… breaks free of the attitudes of most of his contemporaries … (by) contruct(ing) a far more generous view of women than had hitherto been published in England.”[35] In fact, the significance of this document as a whole cannot be understated. On a local level it is part of a collection within Glasgow University that holds a further twenty of Leslie’s works, and many more presenting the opposing argument in relation to Queen Mary’s right to rule (for example, George Buchanan’s De Maria Scoturum Regina.) Such could provide a compelling exhibition on the contemporary ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments of Mary as a ruler; certainly, this is the everlasting debate within the historiography on Mary Queen of Scots.
Nationally, it is crucial that contemporary defence of Mary is recognised. Although “some pamphlets could be found in Mary’s defence” it is largely “an achievement of the Bishop of Ross”[36] that it is known she was defended at all. Such demonstrates the necessity of Leslie within study of Mary Queen of Scots; he spearheaded the defensive argument for Mary (and the Stuart monarchy in general.) Even “if he couldn’t not secure Mary’s crown in her lifetime he could at least do something to protect her posthumous reputation.”[37] Similarly, the intention of the Treatise within the Ridolfi Plot provides an insight into the existence and determination of a Catholic elite that existed in Britain post-Reformation. On an international level, the Treatise’s significance lies in its innovative thought, particularly in relation to its third book. It “shows Lesley at his most original… and has the most resonance to this day.”[38] His argument that gender should in no way disqualify a woman to rule is pioneering when considered in its sixteenth century context. It has merit to be included within an exhibition on the history of women in power, or even on women’s rights in general.
In terms of engaging the public with the Treatise, it is important that it is exhibited alongside its earlier edition, as well as with other translations (the Glasgow University Library has the capacity to do this.) Similarly, it should be displayed with its rival works (from authors such as George Buchanan and John Knox) to provide context of the Treatise’s position within the wider debate on Mary’s right to rule. Yet, due to the fact that this particular copy of the Treatise is delicate, it could not be handled by the public. Also, the plain nature of the text does not make it particularly engaging to look at. A digitization of the work is the best option to address this issue. It would allow those who wanted to, to read excerpts of the text for themselves.
However, it is important that no member of the public is disengaged with this text, or its rivals. They are simply too important within the debate of Mary’s right to rule to be overlooked. One way that would captivate the public would be through dramatization. A ‘court-case’ scenario could be staged as part of a wider exhibition on Mary Queen of Scots, with a space reserved for performances to take place throughout the day. Within the court-case drama, an actress portraying Mary would be seated as the accused. Her lawyer, (an actor portraying Leslie) would then read passages from the Treatise as evidence in her defence. Indeed, the passages may have to be adapted slightly to aid public understanding. Conversely, actors portraying either John Knox or George Buchanan would read passages from their publications to present the opposing argument. It would work effectively if the ‘judge’ in this staging was an actor portraying a historian, whose script included prominent historiographical material; this way, secondary evidence could also be presented. The ‘jury’ -comprised of the public – would then confer and come up with a verdict on whether or not Mary should be considered fit to rule on the Scottish throne, the English throne, both thrones, or not at all. Indeed, an actor may need to be planted within the jury to stimulate and aid discussion. Once the verdict is declared, the scene would come to a close, leaving the public free to wander back to into the exhibition with (hopefully) a wider understanding of the contemporary ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments of Mary’s right to rule.
Dramatization of historical characters has been successful at various institutions throughout the country. In particular, Renaissance history at Sterling Castle is ‘brought alive’ within the sixteenth century palace of James V where “costumed interpreters set the scene and talk to visitors about the palace and the intrigues which took place within its walls.”[39]Although the set-up of a court-case dramatization would engage the public in groups (more akin to the Edinburgh Dungeons) the performative format has the potential to be equally as engaging and historically accurate.
Arthur, Archibaldi, Catalogus Impressorum Librorum Bibliotheca Universitaris Glasguensis, (In aedibus academicis excudebat Andreas Foulis, academiaetypographus, 1791)
Coles, Kimberly, ‘Printed at London Anonymous: Was there ever an attempt to publish the first edition of the of Mary Queen of Scotland in England?’, The Review of English Studies, (Oxford University Press, 1998), Vol. 49, No. 195, pp.273-281 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/518942] accessed 04.11.2017
Durkan, John and Anthony Ross, Early Scottish Libraries, (J.S. Burns, 1961)
Lesley, John, A treatise concerning the Defence of Honour (Apud Gualterum Moberium, 1571)
Lewis, Jayne, Mary Queen of Sots: Romance and Nation, (Routledge, 1998)
Mitchell, James, The Scotsman’s Library; Being a collection of anecdotes and facts illustrative of Scotland and Scotsmen, (Sherwood Jones and Co., 1825)
Pearson, David, English Bookbinding Styles 1450-1800: A Handbook, (Oak Knoll Press, 2005)
Reid, Steven, Humanism and Calvinism: Andrew Melville and the Universities of Scotland, 1560-1625, (Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2001)
Rees, D. Ben, ‘Morgan Phillips (d. 1570)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22117] accessed 17 Nov 2017
Stevenson, David, King’s College Aberdeen, 1560-1641: From Protestant Reformation to Covenanting Revolution, (Aberdeen University Press, 1990)
[1] Kimberly Coles, ‘Printed at London Anonymous: Was there ever an attempt to publish the first edition of the of Mary Queen of Scotland in England?’, The Review of English Studies, 49 (1998), p. 277.
[2]Margaret J. Beckett, ‘The Political Works of John Lesley, Bishop of Ross (1527-96)’, Scottish History Theses (2002), p. ‘abstract’.
Continuing the theme of pro-Marian propaganda, our fourteenth research blog of the 2017-18 class, by Colette McGinley, looks at another text by John Leslie, bishop of Ross, this time on Mary’s rights as a monarch.
(Figure 1: John Leslie N.G.S.)
The tragic narrative of the life and death of Mary Queen of Scots is one which has been of great historical interest, with scholars primarily deeming her as a weak political ruler.[1] Due to this simplistic and one-dimensional portrayal, the most popular contemporary texts have maintained this narrative by castigating her decisions and vilifying her monarchic rule. Conversely, those who wrote in favour of her reign have been less well known and consequently less thoroughly investigated. [2] An analysis of early modern printed books is a particularly valuable form of study as such texts afford insights into the contemporary ideas and messages of the time. To gain a fuller insight through utilising this type of material, ‘we must look at the written and printed words not [only] as texts, but as a process of communication in which meaning is made through the relationship between signs, structures and materials.’[3] However, it is important also to be mindful in any evaluation that such texts were often first, early editions that were not subject to the later printing and publishing protocols which established a text’s authenticity and derivation. Thus, verifying authorship, important as it is, often can be tricky and speculative. The book under investigation here is ‘A defence of the honour of the…Princesse Marie, Quene of Scotlande…’ (Sp Coll Hunterian Cn.3.37) which was anonymously published in 1569.
At the time of publication, the printing press had only been around in Scotland for about fifty years. Many historians attest that this text was written by Marian supporter, John Leslie, the Bishop of Ross (figure 1).[4] Although this position can be justified through consideration of his other historical works and his preeminent advocate activities for Mary, his authorship is not self-evident within the document. Further, a number of ambiguities surrounding the place of publication question the veracity of authorship. The print states that it was published in London by Eusebius Dicaeophile, however further research reveals that this is a false imprint and that it was in fact published by Jean de Foigny in Reims, France. Gleaned from inspecting the book, it seems that one of the original owners of the text ‘R.S. (1618)’ attempted to discover the author, as after the second edition was published in 1571 under a pseudonym, the owner has made a hand-written note on the book to state that it was ‘made by Morganne Phillipes’ (figure 2). In addition, directly on the previous page, it appears that there is an erased bibliographic note, possibly dated to the eighteenth or nineteenth century, recording that the publisher ‘Leodii’ confirms that it was made by Morgan Phillips (figure 3). Although this naming is misleading, it is relevant because Morgan Phillips was a Welsh Roman Catholic priest who would have most likely supported Mary Queen of Scots in her claim to the English throne. At this time the Catholic church believed that Elizabeth was not a legitimate heir because of her father Henry’s divorce and subsequent marriage to Anne Boleyn.[5] This is significant as this owner took an active role in the historical process by adding this information to the historical narrative.
Figure 2: had written inscriptionFigure 3: erased note confirming Phillips
At the beginning of the second book there is another hand-written inscription matching the italic handwriting inscribed at the beginning.[6] It reads, ‘the second book made by Morganne Phillipes’ with the ‘advise of Anthony Browne knight one of the Justices of the Comone Pleas’ (figure 4). This name reveals another significant player in Scottish politics, Sir Anthony Browne who was appointed chief judge a month before the death of Mary Queen of Scots. However, Elizabeth removed him because of his religion.[7] Arguably, this suggests that it was Elizabeth who was firm in her intention to execute Mary and was not persuaded by her nobility as her letters to King James VI suggest. [8] The common thread in both the names added is their known connection to Catholicism, most likely being prominent figures. Browne’s potential involvement in contributing to this text perhaps shows that Leslie’s opinion of Mary as the true heir was accepted by others. Added to this, Browne was perhaps part of the Catholic hierarchy because of the in-depth knowledge demonstrated and the access to publication resources that would be required to produce this book.
Figure 4: hand written inscription noting A. Browne
The physical aspects of the book can also provide some insight into its purpose, usage and value. The size of the octavo book (breadth 10 cm, length 14 cm, depth 3cm) is significant as it would be for private use rather than wider public consumption (figure 5). Other interesting physical aspects include, a cut off inscription on the third page at the top right-hand corner (figure 6). Unfortunately, it is difficult to make out what is written. Nevertheless, two pieces of important information can be taken from this. First, the secretary style handwriting dates the ownership to the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and the clean-cut line that runs through the inscription indicates that it was written in before the book was bound. Therefore, this would have been sold initially as more of a manuscript and perhaps was sold cheaply. The binding itself has gold tooling round the front which perhaps shows that the owner who had it bound was wealthy and that the book’s contents were of significant value to him. Perhaps this book was regarded as valuable and special because it challenged the prevailing critical, torrent waves of public opinion condemning Mary at this time.
Figure 5: Scale of the bookFigure 6: cut off hand-written inscription
At both the front and back of the inside cover there is an extra leaf that has been used to bind the book together (figure 7). This is particularly interesting because it appears to be a Latin list of names, perhaps a legal document of some sort as this was often used as ‘waste’ paper to bind books in this period.[9] Another note of interest is what appears to be a catalogue reference number to the ‘Anthenae Oxonienses’ which is a record of all writers and bishops who attended Oxford University (figure 8). We know that Morganne Phillips graduated from Oxford in 1542 however the specific reference does not match up to his name. [10] So, on balance, the works would most likely have been penned by John Leslie, as commonly held, although his need for anonymity, starting from the initial print, is not immediately obvious and requires further investigation.
Figure 7: waste paper used to bind the book
‘A defence of… Marie, Quene of Scotlande’ (1569) includes three books in this edition. In the first and second book, John Leslie advocates for Mary Stewart as the true heir to succeed Elizabeth. In doing so, Leslie doesn’t directly question the legitimacy of Elizabeth’s claim but rather he defends the rights of women monarchs in the third book, which is perhaps why the book was allowed to be published. In this text Mary, as a woman, is presented as possessing Divine right rule, which is important because of the overwhelming public opinion against her personal authority as well as the questioning of her legitimacy to rule a protestant nation. This image is significant as there were also contemporary works which showed Elizabeth in this regal light, so perhaps Leslie was responding to this situation by advocating that Mary was equal to or even embodied more divine attributes than Elizabeth. This promotion of Elizabeth I as divine can be seen in her heraldic image posted on the cover of the Protestant Bishop’s Bible (1568).[11] Also, taking cognisance of the prevailing context, this defence of Mary could have been written as a response to John Knox’s treatise against women in which he argues that female monarchs were against the laws of nature.[12] Leslie tackles this notion of female unworthiness by highlighting the troubles in male monarchs’ reigns like King Stephen and Henry II.[13] The core and force of his argument is that it is not gender that ensures political instability and that women are as capable as men. To hammer home this point, Leslie quotes the Book of Genesis by stating that ‘A womã the Image of God, as vvell as man.’[14] However Leslie’s approach changes in the second edition, ‘A treatise concerning the defence of the honour of… Marie’ (1571). Leslie undermines Elizabeth’s sovereignty when he directly attacks her legitimacy as rightful ruler of England, arguing that Mary should depose her.[15] This controversial claim may explain why Leslie would feel the need to write under a false name and imprint, but it is unclear why he would choose to write anonymously in the first edition if it wasn’t directly challenging Elizabeth right to govern, unless he had a clear intention of scribing future works and was fearful of the consequences.
These irregularities and idiosyncrasies within the book posit some very interesting questions for the reader including, what was Leslie’s wider political role and why the need for secrecy? The main reasons could be that Leslie wanted the work to be read on its merits and not to be tarnished by the prevalence and competition between the political and religious factions. Also, if it was known that the author was a Catholic cleric, the book could be too easily rejected and disregarded because of the huge concern over Catholic motives and activity, further adding to the prejudicial ill-feeling towards Mary as a Catholic ruler. As a dedicated “solider”, to tactically advance Mary’s cause positively, Leslie perhaps decided that writing anonymously, and claiming that it was published in England, would increase its potential acceptability than if it was known it emanated from a loyal Catholic supporter and published outside the English borders. This would help to explain, in part, why he chose the names Morgan Phillips and Anthony Browne because it would be assumed that they wrote from a non-biased English perspective which would give the message more credence to challenge Elizabeth’s control of England. Added to this, it was only after Phillips died in 1570 that Leslie used this name, which may explain why his name wasn’t in the first edition.[16] This holds meaning as a dead man could not be held responsible for any ill-feeling directed toward this text or any consequence that resulted after its publication. If this is an accurate assessment of the rationale for seeking anonymity, then it indicates an extremely high-level of fear and fundamentally questions the extent of the power of the pro-Marian support in this era. Notwithstanding, Mary Queen of Scots remains an important historical figure in terms of her familial troubled relations, her royal legitimacy and legacy issues, as well as her role in resisting the increasing Protestant ascendancy. Therefore, any book which presents an argument and insight into a regal figure at the time of the Renaissance would be of interest, inter alia, to Enlightenment scholars and Scottish historians.
In some quarters, Mary has been characterised as a true renaissance queen in relation to her openness to new European ideas as well as an increased sense of realism that valued freer thinking, especially in relation to female rulers.[17] From his published writings, it is clear that John Leslie clearly thought of himself as a humanist.[18] Therefore, for example, a Scottish humanist would value this book as it informs the historical struggle to overthrow religious domination of civic matters and encourage citizens’ personal thinking and decision making based on individual understanding and preference rather than historical patriarchal categories.
It was during the period of the Scottish Enlightenment that William Hunter collected a full range of books and manuscripts, where following his death in 1807, Glasgow University library received 10,000 volumes from his private collection.[19] This work by John Leslie (Sp Coll Hunterian Cn.3.37) was included in this donation, a fact which is corroborated through his bookplate which appears on the inside cover (figure 9). Unfortunately, the original owner of the book cannot be identified, nor can a chain of ownership be confidently confirmed. The university now holds three books written by John Leslie, that all came from different collections. Sale records from the British Library show that William Hunter bought a copy of this work on the 2nd of March 1778 from the ‘Hoblyn’ sale for 5 shillings 6 pence. However, it appears that Hunter also bought a copy in the sale of ‘Dr., Rev B. Wilson, Mr J. Channing and “Unknown” on the 11th May 1778. Yet, we cannot confirm which copy is held in the university holdings as we don’t have digitised copies of the sale records. It appears that in the same collection gifted to the university, Hunter had the political writings of John Knox (a critic of Mary) as well as Tarbet’s defence of King Robert against claims of illegitimacy. [20] Therefore, this is significant as John Leslie’s work seems to have an important place within a historical collection addressing the nature and legitimacy of royal authority.
There are 28 known copies of this book worldwide (not including private collections). Sixteen of those copies are in German universities, two in Scotland, the other being located at the National Libraries of Scotland (Ser.49.12). Perhaps therefore, the other copy of William Hunter’s ‘A defence’ is located in the NLS. Overall, the fact that such volumes were gifted to Universities is noteworthy because it is likely that the owners saw a value in these work beyond their sale price and commercial value. Instead, they expected universities to catalogue, preserve and utilise these gifts for new knowledge research and posterity.
Figure 8: Oxford catalogue referenceFigure 9 : William Hunter bookplate
John Leslie’s work would be of great interest to the general public as it is very socially and politically relevant. For example, Leslie’s ideas concerning the rights and capabilities of women links cogently with contemporary feminist thinking and advancements all over the world. Further, the ideas of female equality inherent in a female ruler, performing what was generally considered a “man’s job”, lends itself to debates on the ascribing of gender roles today. In a political sense, the ideas of sovereignty and the nature of the Anglo-Scottish relationship is an important dynamic which has current traction. A Scottish queen being held captive and eventually executed by another monarch, especially an English one, exposes the traditional nature of English control over Scottish politics. A very sensitive and topical notion given the recent campaigns for Scottish Independence and the current nationalist government in Scotland.
In a marketing sense, potentially this book has popular appeal as the current year, 2017, marks the 450th anniversary of the capture and imprisonment of Mary Queen of Scots. To mark this occasion commemoratively and to raise awareness of the political writings of this period, perhaps a special anniversary edition of a chess game is fitting. This would entail the two queens – the most powerful pieces on the board and the two most prominent players in sixteenth century politics, Mary and Elizabeth – striving not only to capture one and other, but competing for the throne. In this sense, because the two powerful and independent queens ruled in their own right, without a man, the king chess piece on the board would be replaced with a throne in which they would seek to protect. To raise awareness about John Leslie’s work and others which tend to have been forgotten, each of the pieces in the chess game would represent a specific historical character who either supported Elizabeth or Mary’s claim to the throne; i.e. John Leslie the Bishop of Ross would be one of the bishop pieces on the Marian side. To educate the players, the game could be accompanied by a bibliographic fact file of cards of all the different pieces. Using the example of John Leslie, the corresponding card would tell the player about his significance in advancing Mary’s cause and the political writings that he published. Additionally, the piece could even have a gold mitre to make him stand out. Although the two queens never met, let alone faced each other in battle, it is an activity for people of all ages that would provide the chance to learn more about this period and about the forgotten people, like John Leslie, who worked tirelessly to further their religious and political cause through the written word. Such an endeavour would also help to bring history alive by embedding the historiographical approach into use through every day social activity and dialogue.
[1] See, Jenny Wormald, Mary Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost, (London, 1988), pp.103-131; Michael Lynch, ‘Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms’, special edition to the Innes Review, 38 (1987),pp.1-29.
[6] John Leslie, ‘A defence of….Princesse Marie, Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France, with, a declaration as well of her right… to the sucession of the Crowne of Englande, as that the regimente of women ys conformable to the law of God and Nature.’ (Rhemis,1569),p.50.
[8] ‘Queen Elizabeth to King James’, 14 February 1587, in Rait and Cameron (ed), King James Secret: Negotiations Between Elizabeth and James VI Relating to the Execution of Mary Queen of Scots, From the Warrender Papers (London,1927), p.194.
[9] Andrew Pettegree, The Book in the Renaissance, (New Haven,2010),p.38.
[15] John Leslie, A treatise concerning the defence of the honour of the right high, mightie and noble Princesse, Marie Queene of Scotland, and Douager of France. Made by Morgan Philippes, Bachelar of Diuinitie, (Leodii,1571).
[17] Michael Lynch, ‘Queen Mary’s Triumph: The Baptismal Celebrations at Stirling in December 1566’, The Scottish Historical Review, 69:187 (1990), pp.1-21.
[18] Margaret J. Beckett, The Political Works of John Lesley, Bishop of Ross (1527-96), PhD Thesis (2002), <http.//hdl.handle.net/10023/2015>, [accessed 19/11/17], p.4.
Leslie, John. ‘De titulo et lure…Mariae Scotorum Reginae, quo regni Angliae successionem sibi lustè vendicat, libellous: simul et Regum Anglie à Gulielmo Duce Normandie…genealogiam… in tabula descriptam…complectens…accessit ad Anglos et Scotos… Paraenesis.’ (Rheims, 1580).
Leslie, John., ‘A defence of…. Princesse Marie, Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France, with, a declaration as well of her right… to the sucession of the Crowne of Englande, as that the regimente of women ys conformable to the law of God and Nature.’ (Rhemis,1569).
Leslie, John., A treatise concerning the defence of the honour of the right high, mightie and noble Princesse, Marie Queene of Scotland, and Douager of France. Made by Morgan Philippes, Bachelar of Diuinitie, (Leodii, 1571).
‘Queen Elizabeth to King James’, 14 February 1587 in Rait, Robert S. and Cameron, Anne I. (ed) King James’ Secret: Negotiations Between Elizabeth and James VI Relating to the Execution of Mary Queen of Scots, From the Warrender Papers (London,1927).
Buchanan, George. A detection of the actions of Mary Queen of Scots: concerning the murder of her husband, and her conspiracy, adultery, and pretended marriage with Earl Bothwel : and a defense of the true lords, maintainers of the king’s majesty’s action and authority (1721), <https://archive.org/details/detectionofactio00buchiala>.
H., T.F., ‘John Leslie, (1527-1596)’, Dictionary of National Biography, (1877).
Lynch, Michael., ‘Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms’, special edition to the Innes Review, 38 (1987), pp.1-29.
Lynch, Michael., ‘Queen Mary’s Triumph: The Baptismal Celebrations at Stirling in December 1566’, The Scottish Historical Review, 69:187 (1990), pp.1-21.
MacRobert, A. E., Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters, (London,2002).
Our thirteenth research blog from the 2017-18 class is written by Michaela Vaskova, and is another example of propaganda defending Mary Stewart, albeit in this case from a posthumous perspective, by the Catholic priest Robert Turner.
Following her forced abdication, Mary Stuart entered England in May 1568 in hope that Queen Elizabeth would restore her by armed force to the throne of Scotland.[1] This decision was identified by a number of scholars, including P.J. Holmes and Michael Lynch, as one of the greatest mistakes of Mary’s life, which led to her captivity and execution.[2] Several months before the latter took place, she was put on trial and found guilty of conspiring against the life of Elizabeth. Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded at Fotheringhay Castle on eighth of February 1587, nearly nineteen years after her arrival to England.[3] Mary’s execution was an unprecedented event during which an anointed queen was put to death at the conclusion of judicial process and at the permission of another equally anointed queen.[4] Writers from the British Isles and the Continent produced a substantial body of literature dealing with Mary Queen of Scots during her lifetime. However, this long literary engagement reached its highest point after Mary’s death, between 1587 and 1589, as Mary’s accusers and defenders rushed into print in order to respond to her execution.[5] One of such responses, by an apologist of the executed queen, was Maria Stuarta, Regina Scotiæ, Dotaria Franciæ, Hæres Angliæ et Hyberniæ, Martyr Ecclesie, Innocens à cæde Darleana: Vindice Oberto Barnestapolio. Continet hæc epistola historiam penè totam vitæ, quam Regina Scotiæ egit miserè, sed exegit gloriosè.
Figure 1
The author of Maria Stuarta was an English Catholic priest of Scottish descent called Robert Turner. He was active in the Roman Catholic cause and, as many Catholics at the time, chose to leave the Protestant England.[6] The book was published in 1588 under the pseudonym Obertus Barnestapolius, derived from the name of the place where Turner was born, Barnstaple in Devon. At the time of writing and publication of Maria Stuarta, Turner worked as rector of the University of Ingolstadt and, accordingly, the book was published in the city of Ingolstadt by Wolfgang Eder. As indicated by a decorative bookplate on the inside front cover, the studied copy of Maria Stuarta belongs to the Hunterian Collection of the Special Collections of the University of Glasgow. As apparent from Figure 1, the bookplate contains a scored-out former shelfmark, as well as the modern shelfmark ‘Sp Coll Hunterian Cn.3.35’. Although many books were added to the core of the Hunterian Collection in the nineteenth century, there is an external evidence that the Scottish physician, anatomist and collector, William Hunter, owned this copy.[7] It was listed in the section M Octavo & Infra in the manuscript catalogue of the Hunterian Library number three, compiled by Hunter’s Trustees in 1785.[8] Hunter lived between 1718 and 1783 and the evidence points to the fact that the copy of Maria Stuarta was in Hunter’s possession at the time of his death. However, the copy’s title page contains late sixteenth or early seventeenth century italic handwriting, meaning that the copy had an early owner. As visible in Figure 2, this person wrote in black ink R Turnero seu potius Niniano Winzeto Scots Ab. Rat. in order to identify Obertus Barnestapolius. The inscription also describes Turner’s authorship and creates a link between his work and that of Ninian Winzet by the use of phrase seu potius, meaning ‘or more’. The same hand was responsible for the inscription Ex libris […] on the top of the title page. This phrase was used in a sense ‘out of the books or library [of someone]’ and indicated the name of the book owner, but this ownership description in the copy of Maria Stuarta was obliterated, as apparent in Figure 3. Despite the use of a magnifier, an ultraviolet lamp and a lightsheet that transmitted light from behind the title page, the inscription proved unreadable. Turner wrote the book in Latin and it was printed on paper in an octavo format with the collation formula A-E8 F4 ($ F4 blank). There is a mistake in signature statement, as D4 follows E3 in the gathering E. The text of the book was printed by the use of letter press with metal types and the leaves were framed by a metal rule frame. The title page is followed by a section called LECTORI on A1v, PRÆFATIO, which starts on A2r and ends on A6v, the main text, starting on A7r and finishing on F2r, and the final reiterations on F2v and F3r of the title, place of publishing, publisher and date. The main text is numbered and has 71 pages. Throughout the book there is a combination of italic and roman type, most visible in PRÆFATIO, containing mostly the italic type, and the main text, which is in the roman type. The opening pages of LECTORI, PRÆFATIO and the main text each have a highly decorative woodcut headpiece and an ornate initial letter, the ones of PRÆFATIO are visible in Figure 4. There are further decorations created by carved wooden devices on the title page and on F2v and F3r. The leaf size of the book’s gatherings is 145×95 millimetres. When compared to another copy of the same book from 1588 held by the Euing Collection of the University of Glasgow, the pages of the Hunterian copy are twenty-six millimetres shorter and ten millimetres narrower. This difference in sizes is apparent on Figure 5. They both have chain lines thirty millimetres apart and it is thus possible that they were printed on paper of the same stock, but the paper in the studied copy was later trimmed. During the handpress period, books were not bound at the place of printing, but at the workshops of retail outlets, meaning that each binding from this period, including the one of the copy of Maria Stuarta, is copy-specific.[9] Each of these workshops produced bindings of varying degrees of elaboration and quality in order to satisfy the needs of different customers.[10] The binding of the studied copy is more on the luxury side of the spectrum and it is likely that it was produced at the end of the sixteenth century. Its front cover is visible on Figure 6. The covering material of the book was made out of animal skin, which was treated by alum and salt in the process of tawing. Through tawing the skin acquired off-white colour and flexibility, which are the characteristic attributes of leather produced through this process.[11] The book cover was made out of the hair side of the animal and hair follicles are still visible. Both sides of this limp leather binding were decorated by gold tooling, which points to the fact that this binding was an expensive and elaborate product. The decorations include centrepieces in flower design, framed on each side of the cover by two distinct fillets of single line. The inner fillets further encompass cornerpieces that partly mirror the design ideas of the centrepieces. The copy has four sewing supports spaced evenly along the spine in material that was preferred for higher quality works for its durability- tawed leather.[12] The seven flyleaves at both the beginning and the end between the cover and the textblock were added with the rest of the binding. All pages in the book were given a gold edge colouring treatment. In the studied copy of Maria Stuarta, the blank page F4 which was integral to the last gathering of the book was taken out, possibly also during the binding process. Further indication that this binding was of higher price and quality is the fact that the whole book, with a very few exceptions, was interleaved by blank pages for writing notes. People who purchased books in the early modern Europe left the graphic design to the binders, but they could specify the price, which affected the resulting quality, as well as other functional aspects.[13] It is therefore possible that the person who bought this book wanted it to include the extensive amount of blank paper and intended to use it as a study copy. However, except for R Turnerus and Robertus Turnerus on A6v, in Figure 7, and the already mentioned inscriptions on the title page, there are no other annotations or comments in this copy. Despite a quite substantial number of marks of black and one of rusty colour, which probably represent impurities in paper and are exemplified well by Figure 8, the copy is in a good condition.
Figure 2
Figure 3
The primary significance of Maria Stuarta by Robert Turner is that it represented a piece of religious propaganda. The international Catholic community never accepted the marriage between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn and, consequently, the legitimacy of Elizabeth as a ruler of England. In their eyes, Mary Queen of Scots, being herself a Roman Catholic with a claim to the English throne through her descend, was the kingdom’s rightful queen.[14] Catholics and Protestants alike considered Mary to be a threat to Protestantism and she came to be perceived as a symbol by both sides of the confessional divide.[15] Throughout Mary’s life, writers manipulated her image in order to further their own, or a particular group’s, political and religious interests. On one hand, she was presented as a devoted wife and mother of supreme beauty and an innocent victim, while on the other as a murderer, adulterer, and a papist plotter.[16] Her death left Catholics outraged and in Paris, for instance, press reported that everybody was ‘in an extreme state of grief-all mortally hating the Queen of England who consented to such a cruel and merciless act.’[17] The English were careful to narrate the execution in their official account, compiled by Robert Wingfield, and in their later responses in a way that avoided the charge that Mary’s chief crime was her religion.[18] However, the violent scene allowed Mary’s defenders to claim that she had died for her Catholic faith and to transform her into a martyr. In their martyrological accounts, they drew on all available sources that dealt with the final hours of Mary and her execution and they put an emphasis on the aspects of these sources that could support their claim.[19] The defenders, however, did not need to manipulate the evidence too much, as Mary Queen of Scots laid the groundwork for her own martyrdom through ritualizing her death. She saw herself as a pious queen who was being executed for her Catholicism and her speech, clothing and overall behaviour during her final hours were all appropriate to her future role of a martyr.[20] After the execution, the Marian propaganda sought not only to elicit feelings of horror, but also to inspire religious and political responses in a form of conversion of heretics, promotion of Catholicism and military action against the English and Continental Protestants.[21] The martyrdom of Mary Queen of Scots was ‘more powerful than a thousand sermons’ in motivating this cause.[22] She bound together the Catholics of the British Isles, France, Spain, the Low Countries and Italy, many of whom were persecuted for their faith and driven from their homeland.[23]Maria Stuarta by Robert Turner, himself a Catholic exile, should be understood within this context. Works produced after Mary’s execution usually dealt with the illegality of the imprisonment of Mary prior to her death and, as was already established, the execution narrative.[24] Turner’s book was one of the very few exceptions that focused, at this late date, on Mary’s political innocence during her Scottish career. Already the long title of this book, meant to advertise the text to potential readers, contains a phrase which cleared Mary from the accusation of her complicity in the murder of her second husband, Lord Darnley- Innocens à cæde Darleana. Turner’s aim, as stated in his justification of the topic choice, was to show, through the example of Mary, how Protestants torment and persecute innocent people. The text therefore claimed that this disrespect of human and divine law was the consequence of toleration of heretics.[25] Linkage of Protestantism and disorder was one of the common themes of the contemporary religious propaganda and its use placed Turner’s work firmly into this tradition. The text was filled with numerous references to Mary as a martyr. As other Catholic writers at the time, Turner depicted Mary as extremely regal and the title page stresses her position as Queen of Scotland, dowager of France, heir to the thrones of England and Ireland. Inclusion of the title dowager of France also reflected the strengthening of emphasis on Mary’s French identity in the martyrological accounts.[26] Furthermore, Turner employed the theme which associated heresy with disease when he noted that Calvinism spread into Scotland as a ‘plague and contagion’.[27]Maria Stuarta was included on a list ‘of certain seditious books newly published’ that was sent in 1588 to Francis Walsingham, Queen Elizabeth’s principal secretary.[28] The fact that the book was considered to be damaging to the English might mean that it enjoyed popularity and had influence on the public opinion soon after it was published. This is also supported by the fact that in 1589 the book was afforded French translation and was expanded by Robert Guttery to include the execution narrative.[29]
Figure 4Figure 5
The book has a further immediate and wider significance. Mary’s opponents had to justify her enforced abdication of 1567 to Elizabeth and this was formulated by the learned humanist of international distinction, George Buchanan.[30] During the trial which took place soon after Mary’s arrival to England, the question of whether Mary should be restored to her throne was judged solely on the basis of her immorality. This was done so that the principle of inviolable sovereignty, and by implication Elizabeth’s own position, was not undermined.[31] Buchanan’s first justification of the deposition, Ane detectiounof the doinges of Marie queen of Scottes (1571), therefore stated that Mary had an affair with the Earl of Bothwell and that she took a direct part in Darnley’s murder.[32] This attack on Mary formed the basis of most subsequent works of Mary’s opponents and it was published in a number of editions and translations. In Germany it was published twice and the fact that Turner was moved to respond to it as late as 1588 testifies to the continual power and influence the work has enjoyed there.[33] Buchanan wrote two further works as a response to the deposition of Mary Queen of Scots- De Iure Regni apud Scotos (1579) and Rerum Scoticarum Historia (1582). The former defended the right of the people to legitimately resist and remove tyrannical rulers and it provoked the opposition of Ninian Winzet in his Velitatio in Georgium Buchananum (1582).[34] Both Turner and Winzet therefore made a direct response to Buchanan and both their works were published in Ingolstadt. This might be the reason why the owner of the copy of Maria Stuarta under study inscribed Winzet’s name on the title page as a part of the authorship description. Winzet was a Scottish Catholic priest who engaged in disputations with Protestants, including John Knox, on topics of religious controversy. He received the patronage of Mary Queen of Scots and, for a short time, he was a member of her household in both Edinburgh and in the English exile.[35] Winzet himself spent a substantial part of his life in exile and when he published Velitatio he held the position of Abbot of Ratisbon. As revealed by the surviving correspondence of Winzet, he and Turner knew each other and their letters were written ‘in terms of warm friendship’.[36]
Figure 6
The studied copy of Maria Stuarta belongs to a broader network of sources, as there are thirty-one copies that were published in 1588 held by various international libraries. A digital copy is available via the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. The copy under study has a price of four shillings written on one of its flyleaves and it was thus bought either by Hunter or the earlier owner in England. Continental books were routinely imported in sheets and bound once they arrived in England.[37] The binding design of the copy is similar to some English late sixteenth century bindings, meaning that the copy could have arrived to England at an early date and received its binding there. The copy later formed a part of the library of some 10,000 volumes of William Hunter that was open to a wider public. This library was received, including the copy, by the University of Glasgow in 1807.[38] As already alluded to, there is one more copy of 1588 held by the Glasgow University and, in the context of the United Kingdom, further eight copies exist, held by the British Library and the university libraries of Cambridge and Oxford.
Figure 7
Figure 8
The two radically different pictures of Mary created in the sixteenth century propaganda shaped the later literature dealing with the queen, which is rarely unbiased. One of her present-day depictions that stem from this tradition is Mary as a romantic and tragic monarch. This image engages the public interest to such an extent that Mary Stuart could be ranked as one of the most popular figures in history. The copy of Maria Stuarta this essay has dealt with would be therefore best presented in an exhibition on Mary Queen of Scots and her legacy, which is bound to attract the public attention. Another potential theme for an exhibition which would include this source is the early modern propaganda, which would explore various forms of propaganda and the imagery the authors employed in order to gain support for their political or confessional causes. Finally, the book is a unique object in its form not only in its content. It would fit well into an exhibition on bookbinding or book production in the early modern period, during which live presentations of the production could take place.
[1] Michael Lynch, ed., Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), p. 196.
[3]Debra Barret-Graves, ed., The Emblematic Queen: Extra-Literary Representations of Early Modern Queenship (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), p. 102.
[4] Alexander S. Wilkinson, Mary Queen of Scots and French Public Opinion 1542-1600 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 156.
[5]Jenny Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost (London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2001), p. 13.
[6] Peter E.B. Harris, ‘Turner, Robert (d. 1599)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by David Cannadine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27861> [accessed 6 Nov 2017]
[8] Karen Baston and Julie Gardham, ‘William Hunter’s Library: a Transcription of the Early Catalogues: Transcription of Museum Records 3, Trustee Catalogue of Printed Books, 1785’, William Hunter’s Library: A Transcription of the Early Catalogues, 2017 <http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/151114/3/151114.pdf> [accessed 15 Nov 2017], p. 259.
[9] David Pearson, English Bookbinding Styles, 1450-1800: A Handbook (London: British Library; New Castle, Del.: Oak Knoll Press, 2005), p. x.
[14] Kristen P.Walton, Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy: Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Politics of Gender and Religion (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 164.
[15] James E. Phillips, Images of a queen: Mary Stuart in sixteenth-century literature (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1964), p. 6.
[32] Caroline Erskine and Roger A. Mason, eds, George Buchanan: political thought in early modern Britain and Europe (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2012), p. 3.
Turner, Robert, Maria Stuarta, Regina Scotiæ, Dotaria Franciæ, Hæres Angliæ et Hyberniæ, Martyr Ecclesie, Innocens à cæde Darleana: Vindice Oberto Barnestapolio. Continet hæc epistola historiam penè totam vitæ, quam Regina Scotiæ egit miserè, sed exegit gloriosè. rationem tituli præfert frons sequentis pagellæ.(Ingolstadt: Wolfgang Eder, 1588)
Secondary Sources
Abbott, D. M., ‘Buchanan, George (1506–1582)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by David Cannadine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn 2006) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/3837> [accessed 17 Nov 2017]
Barret-Graves, Debra, ed., The Emblematic Queen: Extra-Literary Representations of Early Modern Queenship (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)
Baston, Karen, and Julie Gardham, ‘William Hunter’s Library: a Transcription of the Early Catalogues: Transcription of Museum Records 3, Trustee Catalogue of Printed Books, 1785’, William Hunter’s Library: A Transcription of the Early Catalogues, 2017 <http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/151114/3/151114.pdf> [accessed 15 Nov 2017]
Brock, Helen, ‘Hunter, William (1718–1783)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by David Cannadine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14234> [accessed 18 Nov 2017]
Burns, J.H., Ninian Winzet: The Defence of the Faith in Scotland (Glasgow: The Catholic Truth Society of Scotland, 1959)
— —, ‘Three Scots Catholic Critics of George Buchanan’, Innes Review, 2 (1950), 92-109
Cowan, Ian B., ed., The Enigma of Mary Stuart (London: Victor Gollancz Limited, 1971)
Dilworth, Mark, ‘Winzet, Ninian (1518/19–1592)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by David Cannadine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn 2010) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29784> [accessed 6 Nov 2017]
Erskine, Caroline, and Roger A. Mason, eds, George Buchanan: political thought in early modern Britain and Europe (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2012)
Ford, Margaret, ‘Importation of printed books into England and Scotland’, in The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain: 1400-1557, ed. by Lotte Hellinga and J.B. Trapp, 3 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 179-202
Harris, Peter E. B., ‘Turner, Robert (d. 1599)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by David Cannadine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27861> [accessed 6 Nov 2017]
Lynch, Michael, ed., Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988)
Marshall, Rosalind K., ‘Lesley, John (1527–1596)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by David Cannadine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn 2007) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16492> [accessed 6 Nov 2017]
Pearson, David, English Bookbinding Styles, 1450-1800: A Handbook (London: British Library; New Castle, Del.: Oak Knoll Press, 2005)
Phillips, James E., Images of a queen: Mary Stuart in sixteenth-century literature (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1964)
Walton, Kristen P., Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy: Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Politics of Gender and Religion (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)
Wilkinson, Alexander S., Mary Queen of Scots and French Public Opinion 1542-1600 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004)
Wormald, Jenny, Mary, Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost (London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2001)
Our twelfth blog of the 2017-18 class is by Isabel Thomas, and examines one of the major pieces of coinage propaganda from Mary Stewart’s personal reign, featuring her second husband Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley.
Mary Queen of Scots was Scotland’s reigning monarch from 1542-1567. During this time Mary released a variety of different coinage which is often divided into groups according to her marriages. Ian Stewart divides her coinage into: before her marriage with Francis, after her marriage with Francis, her first widowhood, the marriage of Mary and Henry and Mary’s second widowhood.[1] This medal was struck to commemorate the marriage of Mary Queen of Scots to Henry Lord Darnley on the 29th July 1565. The medal comes from the Lord Stewartby Collection. Lord Stewartby is a leading collector and is a well-respected scholar in the field of numismatics. He gifted his collection of Scottish coins to The Hunterian coin collection in March 2017. This collection is a bequest to The Hunterian in his will and the medal is currently deposited on loan (reg. no. IN.2017.4). Five specimens of the medal are known to exist, two in which Mary and Henry are crowned and three without crowns. The Hunterian collection is in possession of another specimen of the medal but without the crowns (GLAHM:37190). The medal in which the busts are not crowned was issued on the same occasion as the crowned medal, from which it only differs in the portraits.[2] The uncrowned version of the medal is currently on display in The Hunterian Art Gallery as part of their exhibition on Scotland’s Own Coinage which has been running since the 3rd October 201. This specimen was purchased in 2015 with aid from an Art Fund grant.
Marriage medal Mary and Henry Darnley 1565
In terms of its physical characteristics the medal’s diameter is 4.3 cm and the weight of the medal is 342.5 grains. It would have been minted in Edinburgh in 1565. Medallic Illustrations, notes that the medal is in very fine condition with slight ghosting from the die visible on the left thistle on the reverse of the medal and is very rare. It also notes that Patrick Cochran made an electrotype copy[3], it is not clear whether the medal at The Hunterian is a genuine medal or the nineteenth century electrotype copy. Concentrating on the medal itself the design is taken from the silver ryal issued earlier the same year.[4] The obverse shows the busts of Mary and Darnley facing each other, both crowned. Darnley is shown in profile on the left, wearing armor and wears a medal, while Mary faces him on the right of the medal wearing a doublet, high collar and earrings. Beneath them the date 1565 is stated, this is the year that they were married but may not be the year the medal was struck. The Latin inscription on the border states: “MARIA & HENRIC. D. G. REGI & .REX .SCOTORBM”, which translated into English is ‘Mary and Henry by the grace of God Queen and King of Scots’.[5] The reverse of the medal shows the shield of Scotland crowned, the lion rampant and with two Scottish thistles at either side. The reverse also has a Latin inscription around the border which states: “QVOS .DEVS .COIVNXIT .HOMO NON SEPARET” which translated into English is: ‘Whom God has joined together let no man put asunder’.[6]
The medal was struck to commemorate the marriage of Mary with Henry Darnley. Without waiting for the consent of her parliament she conferred upon him the title of King and ordered that all writs should run in their joint names. This medal must not be confused with the silver ryal that was issued the same year.[7] In comparison the silver has the busts uncrowned, and Henry’s name is stated before Mary’s. A specimen of the silver ryal is in the British Museum.[8] The medal is extremely rare as contemporary portraits of Mary are not very common. Her image is found in paintings, engravings, and certain Scottish coin issues. However, many of these are posthumous. Therefore, these medals show a rare contemporary image of Mary. The medals themselves have no monetary value instead they are used as a way to spread news and were often given as gifts to ambassadors or visitors. Medals would have to be cast or hard struck as they are bigger than coins a lot more pressure would have to be applied in order to imprint the image onto the medal.
The significance of the medal surrounds one of the more controversial aspects of Mary’s reign; her marriage to Henry Darnley. After her return to Scotland in 1561 following Francis’ death, Mary was anxious to marry again. However, the question of Mary’s next husband did not just concern Scotland. As Jenny Wormald notes “‘the marriage of the Scottish queen was a matter which the English government was naturally anxious to control”.[9] This was because Mary’s marriage might possibly determine the future King of England. Elizabeth’s choice of husband for Mary was Robert Dudley, a man who was the suspected murderer of his wife and the supposed lover of Elizabeth. Instead of taking Elizabeth up on this offer Mary instead decided to find her own choice of husband. Henry Darnley was the son of Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox. There were good political reasons for the marriage; it was approved by the catholic kings of France and Spain and also by the papacy. Asides from this Darnley was also Mary’s half-first cousin through Margaret Tudor, which also put Henry in the line of succession for the English throne. As John Guy notes “If Mary married him, her claim to the succession would be greatly strengthened because, unlike Mary, he was male and born in England”.[10] However, there was domestic opposition to the marriage which had a radical effect on the political situation in Scotland. Mary’s relationship with Darnley grew as her relationship with her half-brother the Earl of Moray deteriorated. Moray refused to sign a document pledging his support to the union as he believed the marriage was too hasty and he also had issues with Mary marrying a leading Catholic figure. This led to the revolt known as the Chaseabout raid, this was rebellion led by Moray and his allies in which Mary chased the rebels around Scotland without ever meeting. Moray eventually fled to England where he was given asylum.
Silver ryal 1565, obverse showing Henry’s name placed before Mary’s.
The tensions surrounding Mary’s marriage to Darnley are visible in her coinage. Mary had granted Darnley the title of King of Scots on the evening before their marriage. This was done without the approval of Parliament and therefore Darnley was not officially crowned. As mentioned earlier the design on the medal is taken from a silver ryal issued earlier the same year. On this coin the obverse shows the busts of Henry and Mary face to face uncrowned, with the date 1565 below. The reverse shows the escutcheon between two thistle-heads, crowned with the Scottish crown.[11] The main issue of contention surrounding this coin was the placing of the name of Henry before that of Mary. As the Latin inscription on the obverse states: HENRIVVS. &. MARIA. D:GRA. R &. R. SCOTORVM,[12]. This caused a lot of controversy as Edward Hawkins states in his description of the medal this circumstance was remarked by Randolph to Cecil “who notes that though issued as a coin it was almost immediately called in.”[13] It seems that among the nobles there was resentment that on the coin his name was before hers with the implication that his status was at comparable to hers. Reflecting the tensions surrounding the marriage of Mary to Henry due to what was perceived to be Henry’s ambitions for the crown matrimonial.
In terms of the effects the marriage to Darnley had on Mary, Kristen Post Walton looks at Mary’s reign through the lense of gender, she argues that “The marriage to Darnley is the best example of her assertion of her own sovereignty at this point of her reign, and the Scottish reactions to the resulting Chaseabout Raid demonstrate that for the first time in her reign the queen appeared to be in an infinitely stronger position than her half-brother”.[14] Showing that the marriage to Darnley did have some positive effects in terms of Mary being able to assert her independence although the marriage was not an entirely happy one. However, in comparison with Jenny Wormald believed that Mary was ultimately a failure and that her failure cannot be attributed to her gender or religion, she believes that Mary put “marriage before monarchy”[15], and that this combined with Mary’s perception of Scotland and her obsession with the English throne, led to her own downfall. Shortly after the marriage of Mary and Henry, Henry’s real personality began to emerge. Although Darnley was physically attractive he was inept, weak, and had a drinking habit. By the time Mary realized what he was truly like she was trapped, as she had to maintain her independence and not be seen to be controlled by Elizabeth. In effect as John Guy notes “Mary’s marriage to Darnley would in the end become one of convenience”[16]. The catalyst for Darnley’s eventual downfall would be the murder of David Rizzio, which highlighted the tensions and resentment which had grown within Mary and Henry’s marriage. Since his arrival to Scotland in 1561, Rizzio had quickly risen through the ranks advancing to Mary’s secretary for French affairs. Rizzio was deeply unpopular with nobles as he was seen to be ambitious and too close to the queen. As a result of a plot David Rizzio was murdered by Darnley and some of the protestant lords, including Patrick lord Ruthven, Morton and Lord Lindsey in a well-organised and well executed plan. Rizzio was having a private supper with the queen in his bedchamber when he was dragged out and stabbed, all while the queen was present. As Wormald notes “Over 120 people were involved”[17], highlighting the opposition that had built up around this relationship. Darnley’s behavior was becoming an increasing liability, in autumn 1566 he appears to have been writing to the pope and the king of France and Spain, accusing his wife of failing to restore Catholicism to Scotland. The tensions within their marriage would once again be highlighted when after the birth of James, Darnley refused to attend the baptism casting doubts on the legitimacy of James. This would all lead to the eventual assassination of Darnley taking place eight months after the birth of James on 9th February 1567.
The growing rift between Mary and Darnley is visible in the coins that were produced. In the coins you can track distancing from Darnley with a move in the iconography shifting from Henry and Mary to just Mary. After the original silver ryal placing Henry’s name before Mary’s was recalled a new coin replaced it.[18] The new coin was minted in Edinburgh in December 1565, the obverse shows a crowned shield with a thistle on each side and unlike the first issue have Marys name before Henrys and show on reverse a crowned palm tree, up which a tortoise is climbing. [19]The obverse inscription around the border reads: MARIA & HENRIC’ DEI GRA R&R SCOTORV”, (Mary and Henry by the grace of God Queen and King of Scots, while on the reverse it states: DAT GLORIA VIRES” (Glory gives strength) with date below and legend: “EXVRGAT DEVS & DISSIPENTR. INIMICI EI'”, (Let God arise and his enemies be scattered).[20] This remained the design for three years, with Henry’s name being dropped after his death in 1567. These coins were popularly known as Crookston dollars, this is on the false assumption that the tree was meant to be a yew tree under which Henry and Mary were supposed to have sat at Crookston Castle in Renfrewshire however, there is no evidence for this. [21]
Mary silver ryal 1567, reverse showing a tortoise and a palm tree
This coin is particularly controversial and there is a lot of debate surrounding its meaning. Many interpret the tortoise to be representative for Darnley, while the palm tree is meant to represent Mary, symbolising Darnley’s pretensions to the Crown Matrimonial. Ian Stewart remarks that “on the back of the tortoise on the one-third ryal is a rose, apparently showing Darnley’s English descent from Henry VII”.[22] Burns also makes note of this “The device, no doubt, had its significance, which is not far to seek in the relative positions of Mary and Darnley, as queen and subject, before marriage.”[23] However, Lord and Lady Stewartby do not agree with this interpretation believing that the interpretation is fanciful as “the so-called rose is no more than a representation of the normal segmented pattern on the shell of any tortoise”[24]. Believing that in order to understand the coin it is necessary to contemplate the various situations the design was used. For example, the coin was introduced at the end of 1565 in order to counteract the controversy caused by the first issue of the silver ryal in July 1565. By 1566 Darnley was becoming increasingly unpopular and by 1567 Mary once again a widow so any reference to Darnley was irrelevant. It may be important to note that Mary reproduced the tortoise design in her captivity while doing needlework showing that this design may have had some meaning to her. Lord and Lady Stewartby make note of the fact that in Mary’s will a tortoise jewel is specified, it is possibly a gift from David Rizzio and seems to be important to her. [25]
Mary queen of Scots is an eternally popular figure who is still a source of fascination for many historians and with the general public. Michael Lynch believes the reason for this is that Mary’s story has all the features of a modern day soap opera as he states “her history shares the essential ingredients of popular fiction sex, murder and intrigue, with a dash of religiosity”[26]. As this medal concerns one of the most intriguing period of Mary’s reign, her marriage to Henry Darnley, there is reason to belive that this item would be of great interest to the general public. With the tensions surrounding the origination of this medal almost reflecting the controversy that would take place inside the marriage itself. In order to raise interest in this medal an exhibit seems to be the most traditional option and an easy way of making the medal accessible to the public. An interesting theme to hold this exhibit around would be the marriage coinage and medals of scotlands royals. As this would be able to provide some direct comparsion with the different images on the coins and it would not limit the exhibit to one royal in particular.
If possible it would be useful to make some 3d copies of some coins and medals of particular interest. This would provide an interactive aspect to the exhibit, which might be of interest in children in particular who may find it more interesting if they are able to actually hold a physical copy of the coins rather than simply look at them through a glass case. A somewhat cheaper option might be to have 3d images of the coins and medals on electronic touch screens so that people can zoom in to see the details of the coins and are able to see both sides of the coins. The Hunterian art gallery currently has an exhibit on Scotland’s own coinage showing that an exhibit surrounding coinage can be popular. An interesting fusion would be that between the past and present, combining these coins with new technology such as social media as a means of advertising the exhibit. Another way to make the public aware of the exhibit or the coinage in general would be to put up poster advertisement in the subway or at bus stops as these are places where people will have the time to be able to properly read the posters. The posters could consist of an image of the coin or medal with some general information regarding what the images on the coin represent and some information on its physical properities. Due to the history surrounding this medal it would be of importance to make it accessible to a wider audience.
Bibliography
Burns, Edward, The Coinage of Scotland (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1887)
Cowan, Ian B, The Enigma of Mary Queen of Scots (Sphere, 1971)
Guy, John, My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots (HarperPerennial, 2004)
Hawkins, Edward, Medallic Illustrations of The History of Great Britian and Ireland to the death of George II (Spink & Son, 1969)
Lynch, Michael (ed.) ‘Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms’, Innes Review 38 (1987), pp. 1-29
Skingley, Philip, Coins of Scotland, Ireland and the Islands (Spink & Son, 2002)
Stewartby, Lord and Lady, ‘Mary Stuart, The Tortoise and The palm-tree’, The Stewarts Vol.22 No.4 (2007), pp. 224- 227
Stewart, Ian, The Scottish Coinage (Spink, 1967)
Walton, Kristen Post, Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy. Mary Queen of Scots, and the Politics of Gender and Religion (AIAA, 2007)
Wormald, Jenny, Mary Queen of Scots: A Study in Failure (Collins & Brown, 1991)
[1] Ian Stewart, The Scottish Coinage (Spink, 1967), p. 80.
[2] Edward Hawkins, Medallic Illustrations of The History of Great Britian and Ireland to the death of George II (Spink & Son, 1969), p. 115.
Our eleventh blog of the 2017-18 class comes from Anne Traill, and is one of several works by the Bishop of Ross, John Lesley, defending the life and reputation of Mary Queen of Scots.
The life of Mary, Queen of Scots has long been a subject of great interest and debate for historians, but relatively little work has been carried out on her trusted advisor John Lesley. His defence of her is the subject of this study. John Lesley’s De titulo et iure is a Latin translation of the second two books his 1569 text entitled A defence of the honour of the Princesse Marie, Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France defending the right of Mary Queen of Scots to ascend to the English throne and the right of women to rule. Given Jenny Wormald’s scathing criticism of Mary for too great an interest in the English throne,[1] this is clearly another topic worth investigating. The title page gives the place and date of publication as Rheims and 1580, as well as naming Ioannes Fognæus as the publisher. Also known as Jean de Foigny and was active between 1561 and 1586, he was also a printer for leading Catholic figures in France. Most significantly, Jean de Foigny also published the first copy of the Defence under a false imprint in 1569, before publishing the Latin version in 1580.[2]
The text itself is a sixteenth century print book in good condition. A quarto, it measures approximately 22cm by 17cm, but is only a couple of centimetres thick. It is half-bound in green leather with a morocco pattern, but this binding most likely dates from the early nineteenth century, as the entry in the Gordonstoun sale catalogue, which lists the sale of the book in 1816, describes this specific binding clearly.[3] The title page has a relief printed woodcut border depicting various British coats of arms and the motto of the Order of the Garter: ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’[4]. This ties into the content of the book, which justifies Mary’s claim to the throne of the England.
The title page also includes an autograph from ‘Robertus Gordone’ and 5 shillings written in secretary hand in the top right-hand corner, most likely by Robert Gordon, the first traceable owner of the book. As Gordon was born in 1580, it is unlikely he bought the book before 1598 when he moved to St Andrews to study, so it is likely that the book had another owner who brought it to Britain and sold it to Gordon here. Furthermore, the Gordonstoun catalogue, which details the sale of this book in 1816, on its title page states that it is ‘A Catologue of the Singular and Curious Library, Originally formed between 1610 and 1650, by Sir Robert Gordon, of Gordonstoun’.[5] This therefore suggests that Lesley’s book came into Gordon’s possession at some point after 1610, so most likely had another, as yet untraced, owner before Gordon.
The title page of De titulo et iure
The book remained in the Gordon library for around 200 years. According to the catalogue, the Gordons owned another five Lesley texts, including the English and French translations of the Defence dating from 1584 and 1587, respectively. It was eventually sold in 1816 as lot no. 1432 to the Boswell family, witnessed by Sir Alexander Boswell, for 2 guineas.[6] This is noted in the Gordonstoun sale catalogue, as well as in the front leaves, with £2-2-0 written in pencil and another nineteenth century hand in pen describes the ‘Autograph of Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstoun/See Gordonstoun Catalogue No. 1432’. It remained in the Boswell collections until 1893, when it was sold to William Ridler, a bookseller based in London, for 8 shillings.[7]
De titulo et iure (left) and the Gordonstoun Catalogue (right)
From William Ridler, the trail goes cold, but at some point between 1893 and 1928 – when the book entered the University collections – it was bought by David Murray. As a lawyer and antiquary, Murray started collecting books at the age of eight and by the end of his life had accumulated a large library,[8] including De titulo et iure and the Gordonstoun Catalogue. This is clearly demonstrated on the beautifully marbled endpaper, which contains two bookplates: one from David Murray, and another from the book’s entrance into the University of Glasgow collections. Interestingly there is also a description of the text from a sale catalogue, but it refers to a different copy of the text bound in reindeer hide with red edges.
The marbled endpaper of De titulo et iure with bookplates from David Murray and the University of Glasgow
Other than those relating to the ownership of the book – including several stamps from the Glasgow University Library – there is very little marginalia. The only example is in the final leaf; a nineteenth century hand has pencilled a correction of the Latin on leaf 53b: correcting ‘Maxima’ to ‘maxim’. There is an ‘errata’ page at the end of the print book, but clearly some eagle-eyed reader in the nineteenth century noticed one that had been missed and noted it down. All of these details come together to create a book that is visually stunning and carries a lot of history within it.
The history of the book starts with its author: John Lesley (or Leslie). Born in 1527 and described by Knox as a ‘priest’s gett’,[9] John Lesley was appointed Bishop of Ross in April 1566.[10] Sent to France by the earl of Huntly and other Catholic nobles shortly after the death of Francis II, he tried to persuade her to return to Scotland via Aberdeen.[11] Although unsuccessful, he did become one of her most trusted advisors during her personal reign as according to his own accounts, he was entrusted with Mary’s jewels and will shortly after the birth of her son.[12] Appointed a member of the Privy Council 1565, records show he was a fairly diligent member of the council, appearing at most of the eighteen meetings that occurred between April 1566 and May 1567.[13] Following Mary’s flight to England and subsequent imprisonment, Leslie was summoned to defend her.[14] His writing of the Defence of the Honour could be considered a continuation of this attempt to have her released. After a brief incarceration in 1569, Lesley was appointed Mary’s ambassador to Elizabeth, before being imprisoned again in 1571 in the Tower of London due to his involvement in the Ridolfi plot.[15] Eventually released after writing a Latin oration to Elizabeth, he was exiled from England and hated in Scotland so went to France. He arrived in January 1574 and remained on the continent representing Mary’s interests in various settings, including the papal court, until his death in 1596.[16]
His Defence of the honour of the Princesse Marie, Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France was first published in 1569 under a false imprint,[17] and again in 1571, without him claiming authorship. The first time he claimed authorship was with the 1580 publication of De titulo et iure. This was most likely because he was in the relative safety of France, so could publish the text in his own name. Interestingly, Lesley gives his title as the Scottish Bishop of Ross (Episcopus Rossensis Scoti) despite having been made suffragan for the see of Rouen in 1579.[18] This can most likely be explained by the fact that the book is concerned with Mary, Queen of Scots, so he would want to emphasise his Scottish identity.
De titulo et iure itself is a translation of the second two ‘books’ of the 1569 publication. The first part of the 1580 edition (corresponding to the second original ‘book’) is a justification of Mary’s right to the succession of the English throne (anglici regni successionem). In this, Lesley used Mary’s ancestry as justification, inserting a genealogical table to prove his point, which is sadly missing in this copy.[19] Lesley also refutes the argument that Mary was ineligible to inherit the English throne because she was an ‘alien’, born outside England. This drew on, although did not explicitly mention, the discussion of the dual body of the monarch, which argued that the monarch had a body natural and a body politic, which was separate from any infirmities of the body natural.[20] As a result, Mary being born outside England did not disqualify her from becoming Queen of England as it was her body natural that was born outside England, which would be separate from her body politic should she become queen. The second argument against Mary succeeding Elizabeth was that Henry VIII’s will favoured the Suffolk line and prevented the descendants of Margaret Tudor and James IV from ascending to the English throne.[21] Lesley disputes existence of this will, but also argues that even if the will exists it was not possible for the king to dispose of his property as a private landowner might.[22]
The second text in the 1580 edition is a justification of the right of women to rule. While technically a distinct book with its own title page, the separate ‘books’ are bound together. In this, Lesley was seeking to refute those who argued that women were disqualified to rule by their sex. This included Knox,[23] as well as Calvin’s belief that female rule was a punishment for man’s sins.[24] The reasons for Lesley’s inclusion of this book is uncertain, having been advised by Plowden to remove it from the 1569 version,[25] but it was possible that Lesley wanted to ensure that all ends were tied, as well as potentially wanting to improve his relationship with Elizabeth, whose hatred of Knox was well known.
This then bring us to the wider importance of De titulo et iure. One person to whom this wider importance is applicable is its first traceable owner, Robert Gordon. Born in 1580, the Gordonstoun catalogue describes him as ‘One of the Gentlemen of the Bedchamber to King James I. and King Charles I., Vice Chamberlain, one of the Lords of the Privy Council, and Premier Baronet of Scotland; Author of “The Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland,” &c.’[26] The precise date of purchase cannot be traced, as Gordon did spend time in France between 1603 and 1605,[27] but the price in shillings would suggest that it was bought in Britain, rather than Rheims, where it was published. He clearly had an important role in the running of country, so would why such a man want De titulo et iure? There are a number of potential reasons. First of all, Robert Gordon clearly had an interest in history, writing his family history, and this was an important text regarding relatively recent history. Secondly, he collected a large number of books, and amassed a huge library and may have merely been concerned with preserving knowledge, as he owned several different copies of the Defence in four different languages. There is also a somewhat tenuous link between Gordon and Lesley through the 4th Earl of Huntly that may explain Gordon’s interest in his works. Huntly was Gordon’s maternal grandfather, but also had links to Lesley as it was he who sent Lesley to France after Francis II’s death. Finally, De titulo et iure may also have been relevant to Gordon’s work as one of the Lords of the Privy Council, following James VI and I’s accession to the English throne. If James’s mother had the right to inherit, then so would James.
Therefore, as part of the university collections, De titulo et iure represents an important stage in Anglo-Scottish relations as well as providing some insight into discussions about gender in the sixteenth century. It is one of eighteen texts by John Lesley owned by the University, including all the editions of the Defence, from the 1569 and 1571 editions, to the Latin version of 1580, the English retranslation of 1584 and the French and Spanish translations of 1587. It is also one of thirty-seven extant copies of the Latin edition in the world,[28] which makes it surprising that Lesley has been the subject of so little research.
[1] Jenny Wormald, ‘The Reluctant Ruler, 1560-5’ in Mary, Queen of Scots: Pride, Passion and a Kingdom Lost revised ed. (New York: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2001) pp.103-131
[3] John George Cochrane, and Archibald Constable, A catalogue of the singular and curious library, originally formed between 1610 and 1650, by Sir Robert Gordon (Oxford, 1816), p.114
[5] Cochrane and Constable, Catalogue (Oxford, 1816), p.i
[6] Terry I. Seymour, Boswell’s books: four generations of collecting and collectors (New Castle, Delaware: Oak Knoll Press with support from the Book Club of California, 2016), p.258
[19] It is possible that the genealogical table was lost when the rebinding took place, but the record of the sale in Seymour’s Boswell’s Books states that the table was missing, so was likely lost before 1816.
[20] Geoffrey de C. Parmiter, ‘Edmund Plowden as Advocate for Mary Queen of Scots. Some remarks upon certain Elizabethan Succession Tracts’ in The Innes Review, Vol. 30 (1979), p.37
Our tenth blog of the 2017-18 class, by HarryPotts, examines two charters from the Blackhouse Charters collection relating to gifts made to the University of Glasgow by Mary Queen of Scots and her mother.
The two documents (BL287 and BL287a) are both part of a collection of records known as the Blackhouse Charters, as they were originally the property of the Dominican, or ‘Black’ Friars. Many of these records are deeds of the properties owned by the friars, which eventually became a part of the University of Glasgow when gifted in 1563 and 1573, by the Crown, in an attempt to aid the heavily declining university. Their significance lies not only in the fact they are some of the largest grants made by the Crown in the 16th century, but also because they show the expansion of the University of Glasgow. Now, the Blackhouse Charters are held at the University of Glasgow Archive Services.
The first document this blog will consider from the Blackhouse Charters, is BL287, which is a royal charter written in Edinburgh on the 16th of March 1567, involving Mary, Queen of Scots and her Privy Council. The main document of the charter is a rectangular parchment that is 28cm in length x 52cm in width. It has some damage to the bottom-left corner, which has been folded upwards and a pencil outline mark is visible on the left side of the parchment. Being in quite good condition, the bastard hand script is legible, mixing traditional elements with an upright secretary hand. Although the original charter is written in Latin, there is a translation into English that can be found in Volume 1, pt.2 of the Charters and other documents relating to the city of Glasgow. In addition, an almost identical twin charter, created for and in Edinburgh on the 13th day of the same month, can be found.
BL287 was created with the intention of providing much needed help for the foundation and maintenance of hospitals for the poor, and the support of ministers in Glasgow. This was to be achieved by uniting:
‘the lands, tenements, churches, chapels, dues, profits, and pertinents belonging to any chapels, altarages, prebends in whatever churches, chapels or colleges in the said city, together with all the mansions, annual rents and dues which formerly belonged to the Dominican or Franciscan friars within the said city, and with all the annual rents from any lands or houses in Glasgow due to any chapels, altarages or churches in Scotland, or the rents and duties exigible from the provosts and bailies of the burgh‘
into one trust, to be called Queen Mary’s foundation. The charter also mentions that the city of Glasgow would be expected to appoint someone to collect the ‘annual rents, fruits, duties, profits and emoluments whatsoever’ that formerly belonged to the Dominican Friars.
The charter states that the collectors themselves are not to benefit from these profits. The charter goes on to explain that this is because since the Reformation, many of the friars previously in charge of the land had been found to have used or sold it fraudulently for their own personal gain. This was made easier by the fact that the lands were often passed through generations through inheritable sasines. A sasine is a part of Scots law which involved the delivery of feudal property. Meaning, everything that naturally comes with the property, including buildings, trees and even minerals. Thus, the charter goes on to annul these previous sasines, with a new one, which is the second document, BL287a. However, the charter, which decrees that the new sasine was to be taken at the Tolbooth of Glasgow, goes on to state that ‘we reserve to them the use of the foresaid fruits and duties during their lives only’. Meaning, the chaplains, prebendaries and friars who benefitted before the Reformation were to retain their privileges, although these rights would not be passed onto their descendants.
Attached to the document by another small piece of weathered material, roughly 10cm x 4cm, is a seal, with a diameter of approximately 11cm. Carved onto the seal is a figure sat upon a chair, or throne, with a sceptre in his left-hand. The seal has been damaged significantly on its front left side, missing around 3cm and in addition the face of the image has no discernible feature. However, it is believed to be the seal of Andrew Hay, a former student of the University of Glasgow. The back of the seal features a crest topped with a crown. On the left-hand side, there is what appears to be a horse, or possibly a unicorn, whilst the right-hand side is missing, though presumably this would have been another animal. Perhaps a lion.
Finally, the charter is signed by several witnesses. Firstly, the 5th Earl of Huntly, George Gordon. His father, George Gordon the 4th, died after being captured at the Battle of Corrichie, which involved his forces against those of Mary, Queen of Scots. The 5th Earl of Huntly most likely signed the charter because of his alliance with James Hepburn, the 4th Earl of Bothwell and the second witness of the charter. The next witness is Richard Maitland, the Keeper of The Privy Seal between 1563 and 1567. Finally, James Balfoure, the clerk of rolls register and council, and John Bellenden, the justice clerk signed.
The second document, BL287a, was produced a few months after the royal charter, on the 13th of May 1567. This document, also written in Latin, is in worse condition than BL287, with chunks missing from the top part of the document. It is approximately 18cm x 30.5cm and straight away textual issue are present as this document is written rather messily, in secretary script. Also, although there is a Latin copy of this document in the Munimenta there is not an accompanying English translation, as with the BL287.
The document, as explained by the notary David Wylie, who leaves a distinct ‘W’ as his signature, describes the official ‘ceremony of delivering earth and stone as symbols of possession’. This involves vice-sheriff of Glasgow, John Hall, presenting the sasine to the representative of the ministers and hospitallers of Glasgow, baillie George Herbertson. The document is very specific, the ceremony taking place an hour before noon, before going on to list the witnesses, which included the Treasurer of Glasgow.
To understand why the charter and subsequent sasine were produced, it is necessary to consider them in a cultural context. To do this, we have to examine the personal and political affairs of Mary, Queen of Scots. The charter BL287, and its Edinburgh twin, were produced within five weeks of the brutal and suspicious murder of Mary’s second husband, Lord Darnley. Darnley, or Henry Stewart, was Mary’s cousin and the father of her first and only child, James, born the previous year on the 19th of June 1566. Unfortunately, the marriage quickly soured for various reasons, the main one arguably being Darnley’s involvement in the murder of Mary’s secretary of French affairs, David Riccio, on the 9th of March 1566.
The death of Rizzio and the murder of Darnley give insight into Mary’s quickly waning support. After Darnley’s murder, Mary was quickly considered a suspect and she began to realise she need to muster support. As a result, she made various attempts to improve her popularity. One of them being the charter of 1567. Mary’s charter was produced not only to benefit the city of Glasgow, but also as part of a wider campaign by Mary to promote her own self-image.
However, despite the fact that the sasine was enacted only a few months after the charter was written, later records show that the original intentions of the charter were not fully upheld but were redirected to benefit the University of Glasgow. To understand why, it is important to consider the changes that were happening to the University of Glasgow at the time.
The University of Glasgow records for the faculty of arts abruptly end in 1555 and for the entire university in 1558. Due to this lack of evidence, we are faced with the issue of trying to gage how the University of Glasgow reacted to the Reformation by looking at it within a wider framework of the Reformation However, there is some evidence from other sources that suggests Glasgow was not in a good condition.
In the lead up to the Scottish Reformation of 1560, the future of the University of Glasgow was uncertain, as we can see when the university chancellor of 1558, Archbishop Beaton, wrote ‘this perilous and dangerous tyme quhair detestabil heresies ryeses and increasis in the diocy of Glasgow’. Hay was referring to the fact that the University, founded originally as a Catholic institution was set to convert to Protestantism, with its principal John Davidson converting in 1559. Although there was surprise at his conversion, as expressed in a letter between his friends, the humanist Giovanni Ferrerio and Archbishop Beaton, arguments suggest it would have been genuine. This was because his conversion meant he could have lost his position as principal, due to the university still technically being a Catholic institution.
Further evidence that shows Glasgow, along with the other Scottish universities, faced a troubling time, were low matriculation numbers. At one point, it was ‘doubtful if St. Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen between them had as many as 100 new members each year’. In addition, in 1560 Archbishop Beaton was expelled from the University of Glasgow. Having no chancellor, and on the brink of the Reformation, the university and its teaching patterns were directly affected. For example, it became much harder to justify the teaching of canon law, one of the principals that the university was founded on.
With the visit of Queen Mary, two years after returning from France, to the University of Glasgow, on the 13th of July 1563, an official description of the university was issued under the Privy Seal stating ‘apperit rather to be the decay of ane Universitie nor ony wyse to be reknit ane establisst fundatioun’. Although this description does not indicate that the university had completely ceased to function, it confirms that only two teachers were present, in the figures of John Davidson and Robert Hamilton, and that the university was in desperate need of funds in order to repair various buildings in a state of decay. As a result of her visit, Mary made a donation, if someone small, to the University, of £100 Scots, which is thought to be roughly the equivalent of £60 today. Also, the university was granted immunity from clerical taxation, though this would not have been a very big help.
It is noted that Mary considered further donations to the university in 1563, however, no such donation was ever made. In fact, it was not till 1568, that the university received a donation as a result of the crown. This donation came through the Regent Moray, Mary’s half-brother James Stewart, as he redirected the proceeds of the 1567 charter. He granted a third of the chaplainries and altarages included in the previous charter to the Magistrates and Council of Glasgow. Then, provision was made to secure the salaries of the ministers. Finally, the University of Glasgow benefitted, as the funds stated in Mary’s charter were redirected to it, along with plans for the university to receive a new foundation.
It is believed that these funds were also redirected to the University of Glasgow because the Town Council thought that it would be a shame for the city if ‘the youth grow without training’ as a result of lack of funds. This reflects the similar view of the First Book of Discipline, created in April 1560, by appointment of the Lords of Counci. The attempted aim of this book was the encouragement and spreading of the new Protestant faith throughout Scotland. The Book ‘recognised the universities in Scotland as training ground of the ministry as well as of the commonwealth’.
However, the fact that it took so long for the University of Glasgow was even considered for proper funding, despite records showing it was in need of it, reflect that difficult situation in which it had to maintain itself. Sources credit the survival of the university to its Principal, John Davidson and rector Andrew Hay. In 1563, Davidson quickly rented out lands granted to the University for ‘twenty-eight bolls of malt’. Davidson was then supported by Hay, in 1569, when Hay petitioned to the regents and masters in the university to help Davidson collect rents to maintain the University. This proved to be successful, as we can see in a letter from Regent Moray on the 18th of January 1570 and from a decree made by the Lords of council, which orders the ‘occupiers of lands and tenements pertaining to the chaplainry to make payment to Davidson of the rents and dues’.
After considering that these documents are a part of a wider context of Glaswegian and Scottish history, they could be used in a number of different ways to promote Scotland. Especially after recent events, such as Brexit and the Scottish Independence Referendum, have put Scotland in the spotlight and as a result, sparked a renewal of interest in the country’s history. Particularly, it could be argued that the general public would be interested in these documents for the following reasons. Firstly, they give an in-depth insight into how Glasgow as a city has changed and the pivotal reasons for its development. Secondly, these documents obviously are greatly concerned with Mary, Queen of Scots. Her history has often fascinated people, particularly as she is one of the last Scottish monarchs to rule over just Scotland, before the kingdoms of England and Scotland were joined in the Union of the Crowns in 1603. This long-term fascination with Mary coincides well with the renewal of interest in Scottish history, particularly as a female monarch. To this day, Mary splits opinions in a similar way to current female, political figures, such as Mhairi Black and Nicola Sturgeon, meaning that any exhibition which looks into her history would be a significant reflection of the advancements women have made in Scottish history to the present day.
To encourage interest in these documents and the history they reveal about the University of Glasgow, and Scotland, I would propose creating a series of exhibitions which follow Mary’s own re-introduction to Scotland. A tour which follows her own royal progress, proposedly starting with Leith, the first place she returned to in Scotland after her time in France. Then a route of all the places of significance she visited between her arrival in 1561 and forced abdication in 1567 could be proposed. At each route, an exhibition giving details to the major events happening at that point in her life could be presented. One aspect I think these exhibitions could focus on is her age, seeing as it is often easy to forget she was orphaned, widowed, married three times separated from her son and forced to abdicate by the age of twenty-four. This is relevant to the documents as it would show people the context in which they were created and the places they were created would feature on this tour of Scotland.
The exhibitions could also encourage engagement with viewers by having interactive aspects. For example, visitors of the exhibitions could be encouraged to write their own ‘charters’ for the area they are visiting on the tour. Placing suggestions of improvement for each place, in a way that mimics the original intention of Mary’s charter. To add to the interactive aspect, the tour would have an online feature, such as a blog or Facebook page, where people could post pictures or their ‘charters’, documenting their discovery of Scottish history. One of the locations would also be the University of Glasgow, thus promoting it to the wider public.
Bibliography
Brown, A.L., and Michael Moss, The University of Glasgow: 1451-1996 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996)
Dickinson, W., Donaldson, G. and Milne, I. (1963). A source book of Scottish history, vol. 2, 1424 to 1567. London, etc.: Nelson.
Donaldson, G. (1983). All the queen’s men. London: Batsford Academic and Educational.
Durkan, J. and Kirk, J. (1977). The University of Glasgow, 1451-1577. [Glasgow]: University of Glasgow Press.
Mackie, J. (1954). The University of Glasgow 1451-1951. Glasgow: Jackson, p.59.
Marwick, J. and Renwick, R. Charters and other documents relating to the city of Glasgow, ed. by Sir James D. Marwick (Glasgow: Scottish Burgh Record Society, 1894-1906), vol. I, part 2, p. 131-137.
Reid, Steven. J., Humanism and Calvinism: Andrew Melville and the Universities of Scotland, 1560-1625 (Dawson Books, 2010)
Munimenta Alme UniversitatisGlasguensis, Records of the University of Glasgow from its Foundation till 1727, ed. by Cosmo Innes (Glasgow : the Maitland Club, 1856), I, p.71-74 (entry no 43).
From praise poetry to a literary assassination: the ninth blog of the 2017-18 class by Amy Winfield is an examination of a copy of Ane Detectiovn of the duinges of Marie Quene of Scottes, which reveals the vengeful side of the scholar George Buchanan. The context of this copy reveals the book’s importance.
Ane Detection is a polemic book about Mary Queen of Scots, where the famous Scottish writer George Buchanan voices his beliefs about the Queen’s final two husbands: Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley and James Hepburn, fourth Earl of Bothwell. Glasgow University’s special collection is in possession of two copies of Buchanan’s book, translated into the Scots vernacular. Glasgow Universities two copies are from separate collections, both donated to Glasgow, the Euing collection (1874)[2] and the Murray collection (1927)[3].
Despite being the original spark of printed literature which would set Mary Queen of Scot’s reputation ablaze with criticism, the book itself is relatively small, measuring nine centimetres in width, thirteen centimetres in height and one centimetre in depth from cover to cover. The book is therefore pocket size, comparable to smartphones on the current market, the new Google Pixel phone being a centimetre taller than the book[4]. The pages of this book have been tightly cropped, helping to create its compact nature, which would have made the controversial work easy to hide on one’s person. The 176 pages of the book[5] are unnumbered, perhaps because page numbers would have taken up space unnecessarily. To help the reader find specific parts of the book, there are several printed shoulder notes in the outer margin of the book, acting as headings for the compressed print. The pages of the book are collected in octavo gatherings, allowing the book its small size, with 16 pages of text being printed on a single folio. Furthermore, the details of the books printer and translator have been omitted. The translation is believed to have been done by Thomas Wilson (1523/4-1581) humanist and servant to Elizabeth I, and the printer is regarded as John Day (1521/2-1584)[6], a highly successful London printer.
The small book in the Murray collection is subtly decorated. The nineteenth-century binding is of goats skin, the most luxurious of bindings, the skins were imported from Morocco; known for having the optimum environment for producing hides which were both tough but flexible enough to make quality book-covers[7]. Unfortunately, as is the case with many of the historic books in Glasgow’s special collection, the front cover to the Murray copy of Ane Detection is now completely detached from the body of the book. Both the front and back cover have mirrored gold tooling. Three simple decreasing rectangles border the covers in thin gold and regulated fern-like swirls decorate each inner corner. The spine is more elaborate, with heavy gold tooling and five ribs. The second rectangular gap on the spine is the only place text is featured on the cover of the book. In simple Roman font and in block capitals are the words “Buchanan’s Detection”.
The pages of the book have also been gilded in gold. There are two more decreasing gold-tooled rectangles on the inside covers of the book. Incredibly, there is even gold tooling along the edge of the book’s covers, in a pinstripe pattern. Thus, despite the immediate lack of detail on the books front and back covers, when looking at the edges of the book, it appears to have been almost dipped in gold. The first and last two pages of the book feature colourfully-themed marbling and along with the following title page (featuring the forty-two word title printed) have been repaired, likely during a process of cleaning up the book before it was sold in the nineteenth century. The repair of this page may have removed signatures- indications of previous ownership of this copy of Ane Detection. The only handwritten additions to this book are pencilled notes of modern librarians. These notes include the presumed translator, printer and publication date. In the main section of the book, there is no handwritten script. The title page is in large clear Roman typeface, with the bulk of the main text consisting of lumped Gothic type.
The remaining interesting feature of the fabric of this copy of Ane Detection is David Murray’s bookplate, which covers most of the marbling in the left hand side of the inside cover. The central figure on the bookplate is (the upper half of) an old man, on top of an early-modern metal helmet. David Murray’s initials and name are both large features on the bookplate, along with “E Libris”, indicating this book was part of David Murray’s collection[8]. There is no known analysis of this bookplate, which is clearly symbolic and personal to David Murray, as opposed to being a filled-in templet[9]. The aforementioned figure has both a crown and belt of laurel leaves. The whole bookplate speaks of historical wisdom. Laurel leave crowns (particularly in gold) are known as symbols for victory, which could be tied in to Murray’s career as a successful lawyer. The sword in the right hand of the figure and the helmet at the bottom of the illustration continue the imagery of historic battle. In the figures right hand, is a large key, perhaps indicative of the popular nineteenth-century “key to the city” tradition, where a large golden key was given to those a city wished to honour[10].
The author of Ane Detection is the famous Renaissance poet, historian and politician: George Buchanan (1506-1582). Keeper of the privy seal for the Scottish government for the best part of a decade and the tutor of James VI, Buchanan spent the latter half of his life closely entwined with Scottish politics[11]. The previous years of Buchanan’s life saw his trial for heresy in Portugal and many periods of residence in France[12]. As such, Buchanan could hardly have been more delighted with a marriage alliance between his native country and his second home[13]. In a fairly elicit poem “Silvia IV”, Buchanan celebrated the marriage of Mary Queen of Scots to the Dauphine Francis.[14] Yet, just over a decade later, his passionate discrediting of Mary’s moral character immerged by way of Ane Detection. An internationally respected scholar, who was close to matters of government came out in harsh opposition to a Queen he once praised and sat beside[15]. James Melville outlined Buchanan’s worst quality to be that of his anger and taste for vengeance,[16] so perhaps a personal grievance to Mary sparked this great scholar’s bitterness. Indeed, Buchanan remained an admirer and associate of the Earl of Moary,[17] who had also once been close to Mary, but left Scotland after the murder of Lord Darnley[18].
The thrust of Ane Detection is towards Mary’s involvement with the death of King Henry Steward, Lord Darnley. Buchanan gave questionable evidence supporting his argument that Bothwell and Mary had a long-ranging affair[19]. He argued Mary’s passion for Bothwell lead to Darnley’s murder and subsequently Mary and Bothwell’s quick marriage. Historian James Mackay is a supporter of Mary and believes her mental illnesses caused trouble in her reign[20]. Mackay argues directly against Ane Detection, calling the book an “extremist protestant version of the events”[21]. Putting forward the evidence that Mary herself, along with members of her court, attributed her brush with death in 1566 to stress from her marriage to Darnley[22], Mackay maintains that although greatly vexed by her second marriage, Mary had no knowledge of the plot to end Darnley’s life[23] and indeed had both grown close to Darnley at Kirk ‘o Field before his murder[24]. Adding to Mary’s innocence of the plot to kill the king, Mackay outlines the queen has assumed Lord Darnley’s assassination had been intended for her, as Mary had been planning to stay in the Old Provost’s lodging’s the night they were blown up[25].
Mackay also strongly contests Bothwell and Mary’s alleged affair, arguing that although their falling in love was inevitable,[26] there were no carnal relations between the two[27] until Bothwell’s kidnapping of the Queen. Furthermore, Mackay evidences that Bothwell and Mary’s marriage was turbulent and unpleasant behind closed doors, with Bothwell often reducing the Queen to tears and Mary announcing she was suicidal.[28] The Queen was originally opposed to the marriage on account of Bothwell’s association with Darnley’s murder[29] and his guilt in the eyes of the public; she only agreed to the marriage after the Ainsley bond was presented to her, and Bothwell raped her[30], which Mackay sates in plain language. Mackay presents Mary’s story as a tragedy and Buchanan’s work as “ammunition for subsequent generations of character assassins”[31]. Ultimately, Mackay stages a modern defence against Buchanan’s slander of the somewhat romantic figure of the Queen of Scots.
If George Buchanan’s reasons for arguing against Mary were personal anger and dislike for a figure he had previously admired, what was Thomas Wilson’s motivation for translating the work? Wilson’s choice to admit his name from the publication reveals that he was concerned his involvement would put him in some sort of danger, so what lay behind this academic’s involvement? By 1560 Wilson had made a name for himself in England and abroad,[32] and eventually found himself in the service of Queen Elizabeth, were he commonly examined prisoners in the tower of London, extracting information[33]. Wilson is known for his 1560 publication Wilson’s Arte of rhetorique,[34]a work he was clearly proud to put his name to as a humanist scholar. The translation of Ane Detection was clearly of a darker nature. In 1558, Wilson from a position in Rome had found himself on the wrong side of the Roman Inquisition and had been tortured and imprisoned for nine months, escaping through sheer luck.[35] Wilson’s Arte of rehtorique was linked to his previous employer Katherine Brandon, the Duchess of Suffolk, a known hard-line Protestant[36], and coupled with his trouble in Rome it is safe to say Wilson was a Protestant with a strong dislike of Catholic power. As such, we can assume Wilson was strongly opposed to the dream held by many English Catholics who wanted to replace Elizabeth I with Mary Stewart. Indeed, Wilson examined those involved with the Ridolfi plot of 1571,[37] where Mary was believed to be involved with those seeking Spanish help to assassinate Elizabeth and place Mary on the English thrown[38]. Wilson, as such, was highly involved with trouble concerning Mary Stewart and translating Buchanan’s defamatory work into Scot’s vernacular was likely intended to influence Mary’s own countrymen to oppose any further plots to restoring Mary to a position of power. Wilson was looking to neutralise the threat Mary posed to Protestantism, and to Elizabeth.
The highly controversial nature of Ane Detection, particularly in the early 1570’s, is reason for its ambiguous translator and printer. The London printer which this copy and translation of Ane Detection is attributed to is John Day. Day has unknown origins but first emerges on record with sufficient funding for printing ventures and thus was either from a wealthy family or was a highly successful self-made businessman.[39] Day began printing in London in 1546, mastering the foreign technology of printing and producing Protestant works from the outset. With a monopoly on the “ABC with little Catechism”, Day was humanist in the materials he printed, with many important English translations and work of leading influencers such as John Calvin[40]. Day is well known for his quality printing of octavo books,[41] so Ane Detection in the David Murray collection is very feasibly from Day’s press. We also see great technical ability in the book, with the mixture of Roman and gothic typeface, varied font size and printed shoulder-notes as a navigational aid. The book was clearly expertly formatted to be a small and condensed work and Day’s press was more than capable of this. Day’s greatest work, is the famous Acts and Monuments by John Foxe,[42] which was eventually commissioned to be placed in every Cathedral and the homes of the senior clergy.[43] A technical feat for England, Acts and Monuments was an enormous book, with the first edition spanning one-thousand eight-hundred pages, and had many technical challenges, such as various fonts and marginalia.[44] Day’s press was thus capable of the high level of printing present in Ane Detection and was also on the royal radar, so when Elizabeth came to sanction the printing of Ane Detection a decade after Foxes work was released, Day was an obvious choice of printing press.
The events of 1571 were directly involved in the printing of Ane Detection. The uncovering of the Ridolfi Plot revealed how powerful, determined and indeed just how close Catholics were to placing Mary on the thrown. The Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Howard, had begun to gather English supporters to revolt against his cousin Elizabeth I,[45] marry Mary Stewart and rule England and Scotland as a Catholic nation. Roberto Ridolfi, an Italian banker and secret papal agent to England was attaining help from the Spanish by way of six-thousand troops[46] and as the mastermind of the plot lends his name to its title. When the plot was uncovered, English officials insisted Elizabeth have the heads of both Norfolk and Mary[47], yet it took Elizabeth almost half a year to execute Norfolk after he had been found guilty of high treason and Mary, admitting to knowing Ridolfi but claiming to have no involvement with his conspiracy[48], was spared the axeman for a decade and a half. Yet, Elizabeth did sanction the printing of Ane Detection, offering Mary a death by means of literature and public opinion[49]. Ane Detection opened up a literary scar on Mary which has never disappeared. The book was a bestseller,[50] and Elizabeth send a copy directly to Mary.[51] Queen Mary, as such, has read Buchanan’s damming work, declaring it to be the “lewd work of an atheist”[52]. Ane Detection was thus a political and a personal tool used by Elizabeth to attempt to neutralise the threat Mary posed to her.
Specific owners of the David Murray collection copy of Ane Detection are not traceable as there are no catalogues of purchase relating to this book, and the only marks of ownership in this copy are David Murray’s bookplate and various stamps and stickers of Glasgow University. Murray is an interesting character himself and was owner of a large book collection[53] and was clearly concerned with the preservation of historic materials. A close associate to Glasgow University, serving twice on the court of the University[54] and publishing his book “Memories of the Old College of Glasgow” a year before his death,[55] Murray clearly has a close affinity to his place of education. Furthermore, Murray’s youngest daughter Eunice Guthrie Murray was an active and published suffragist,[56] books such and Ane Detection showing the historic treatment of women across the board could have been sources of inspiration for Eunice Murray. Murray, by profession was a successful lawyer who specialised in commercial and property law[57] and contemporary books in his collection were based of banking, railways and canals.[58] Although Murray’s profession doesn’t reveal why he would be interested in material on a historic Scottish monarch, his passion as antiquarian is seen in his involvement with Society if Antiquaries in Scotland and the Glasgow Archaeology society, holding the position of president twice.[59] Murray’s collection contained fifteen-thousand books when he donated it to Glasgow University.[60] Due to his interest in preserving and studying the past, Murray had several hundred sixteenth-century prints amongst his collection and twenty-two incunabula.[61] The Murray collection also features a folio of Buchanan’s work, a Latin copy of Rerum Scoticarum historia,[62] a far less controversial work.
Modern fascination with Mary Queen of Scots is ripe, spearheaded perhaps by the inspired American TV series “Reign” which aired first in 2013 and had its finale in 2017[63] and a movie titled simply “Mary Queen of Scots”,[64] made by a Swiss director, both projects showing the international captivation with Mary Stewart. There is clearly wide interest of the general public not only in the Renaissance period but specifically in Mary Queen of Scots. To publicise the importance of Ane Detection a digestible YouTube video would be a suitable method for engaging the public with the literature. The video should be a short piece, explaining the chequered relationship of the author to the subject, Mary’s personal interactions with the book at the order of Elizabeth and the printer and translator’s motives for becoming involved with the work. A video is suitable as it is a presently popular form of consuming information and the delicate books are preserved by being available for many people to see but only being handled by one individual. David Murray’s involvement with the book could also be mentioned but copies of the book exist in many libraries and as such some may have more historical details of ownership which are more valuable to the scholar. An online transcript of the Ane Detection in modern English would also make the book more accessible, as the majority of people are unfamiliar with old Scots, an English transcript as opposed to photographs of the original pages of the book, would be helpful for modern academics and enthusiasts who wanted to look into contemporary criticisms of Mary. Currently in all its noted collections the book is only available to elite scholars who have access to archives where copies of the book are stored, online transcripts would open up the audience for Ane Detection.
Bibliography
Abbott, D. M.. “Buchanan, George (1506–1582).” D. M. Abbott In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, edited by H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. Online ed., edited by David Cannadine, May 2006. http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/view/article/3837
Bookplate Society, The., “An Overview of Principal Styles of Bookplates in Britain 1600-2000”, last modified 2008, accessed 19/11/2017 http://www.bookplatesociety.org/styles.html
George Buchanan, “ Ane Detectiovn of the duinges of Marie Quene of Scottes, touchand the murder of hir hufband, and hir confpiracie, adulterie, and pretenfed marriage with the Erle Bothwell. And ane defence of the trew Lordis, mainteiners of the Kingis graces actioun and authoritie. ” trans. Thomas Wilson (John Day: London, 1571), Sp Coll Mu6-h.6
Buchanan, George. Rerum Scoticarum historia (Antwerp, 1583), Murray. Mu50-a.5
“Day , John (1521/2–1584),” Andrew Pettegree in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford: OUP, 2004); online ed., ed. David Cannadine, January 2008, http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/view/article/7367 (accessed 12/11/2017).
Doran, Susan and Jonathan Woolfson. “Wilson, Thomas (1523/4–1581).” Susan Doran In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, edited by H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. Online ed., edited by David Cannadine, January 2008. http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/view/article/29688 (accessed 17/11/2017).
Foxe, John. Acts and Monuments, (John Day: London, 1563), The Unabridged Acts and Monuments Online, TAMO(HRI Online Publications, Sheffield, 2011). http//www.johnfoxe.org (accessed 13/11/2017).
[11] “Buchanan, George (1506–1582),” D. M. Abbott in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford: OUP, 2004); online ed., ed. David Cannadine, May 2006, http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/view/article/3837 (accessed 14/11/2017).
[32] “Wilson, Thomas (1523/4–1581),” Susan Doran in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford: OUP, 2004); online ed., ed. David Cannadine, January 2008, http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/view/article/29688 (accessed 17/11/2017).
[38] John Wagner, Historical Dictionary of the Elizabethan World: Britian, Ireland, Europe and America, (Routledge: New York, 1999) 262.
[39] “Day , John (1521/2–1584),” Andrew Pettegree in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford: OUP, 2004); online ed., ed. David Cannadine, January 2008, http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/view/article/7367 (accessed 12/11/2017).
glasgowuniscotrenaissance.wordpress.com 