The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-25

bNCBAofaONo IN t11 &tCgAg AAG NAebSA
Hume, whose Iabors Ia ~calendariug the
Spanish State papers have placed Scottish
as we'll as English historians under obliga-
tons, has lately published q lively account
of the Lore Affairs Of Mary Queen OF Scots.
To another recent work. Father Pollen's
"Papal Negotiations, we are indebted for
the information that Mary, though a fer
vent Catholic, dared to marry Darnley
without a Papal dispensation. Only the
other day, too, Mr.. Andrew Lang set forth
a remarkable theory Of the Casket Letters
in a book called Mystery of Mary Stuart
The purport Of the work before us is to
deal less with the political than with the
personal aspects Of the Marian period, and
to deal even with these apart from eccle-
~siastical prepossessions, but On the assump-
ton that the praise and blame OF the
twentieth century are not quite applicable
to the sixteenth. Indeed, Mr.. Henderson
tells us that the more he has concerned
himself with the career Of Mary Stuart
the more has he been impressed with the
inapplicability to 1t, in any strict sense OF
the word, Of either praise or blame. What
ever might be the rights or wrongs OF
Professionalism or Catholicism, Mary appears
to have been very largely the mere victim
OF a bittor religious quarrel.
In the first two chapters our author
dwells at considerable length on Mary's
childhood in Scotland and her girlhood in
France. The troubles with which in her
childhood her mother, Mary Of Lorraine,
the widow of James ", was confronted
prefgured and prepared the still moro
insuperable difficulties with which Mary
harsnlf va, 81 nAN- Thn a,,han1ttnnf mr.
count Of life at the Court of Henry ii.
of Francis H., the boy husband OF the
girlish Scottish Queen, Is accurate and
vivid.
Was Mary Stuart really beautiful? She
certainly seemed so in some OF the por-
traits reproduced in these volumes, but
Mr.. Henderson speaks in a hesitating and
qualified way. He comedies that accord
ing to universal tradition, dating from
her early childhood, she was lowered with
a radiant and exquisite att~ractiveness.
She could he irresistible whenever she
wished to be so. Like her mother, she
became exceedingly tall, and her form
was symmetrical and graceful. Her COM
plexion was pale and delicate; with dark
brown eyes, she inherited the darklsh,
chestnut hair of her father; but" con-
tinues Mr.. Henderson, her features are
not remarkable for regularity or enc
She could hardly be termed pretty, and
her portraits do not indicate a beauty or
loneliness sufficient to Justify the con-
temporary eulogies.' Our author is doubt
less right in his surmise that much OF
Mary's charms depended On her air and
manner; she possessed a strong and re-
markable individuality, with apparently
peculiar histrionic gifts. She did not be-
long to the order Of cold, statuesque
beauty: it was herself, or what was sup
posed to be herself, rather h her feat
ures, that exercised the attraction.
Whether beautiful or not in the strict sense
of the word, it is easy to see, even from
her portraits, that she was a person of
marked distinction.
Like the young princesses OF the House
of Valois, and like her English kinswoman,
Elizabeth, and Lady Jane Gray. Mary Stuart,
during the years Of her girlhood spent at
the Court of Henry H., received a careful
educotion. not only in French literature,
but more particularly in history and geog-
raphy: and, in addition to a thorough mas
terry Of the chief modern languages, Span
ish, English and Italian, she acquired more
a smatt ering of Latin and Greek.
She was also taught dancing, music and
acting. There is reason to believe that
Elizabeth was a mere tyro in the art of
dancing compared with Mary, although Sir
James Melville fattered Elizabeth diplo-
matically by declaring that Mary 1dancit
not so hich and disposedly as sche [Eliza-
BETH did" Like many great ladies of her
tine, moreover, Mary was an excellent
musician, and though it may Re that, as
Sir James Melville automatically implies.
Elizabeth ~excellei her as a performer on
the virginals, there Is abundant evidence
that Mary had the sweet er and more musical
voice. Her gra ceful movements and his
trionic gifts were developed in the ballets
and mosques which had been introduced
at the Court of France by Catherine de
Medici.
II Is we'll known that after Mary's short
livei marriage to Francis II. had come to
an end she found herself in a false and
intolerable position at the French Court,
and after some projects Of marriage to
Continental ~potentates had been talked
about and given up. she found herself con-
strained, much against her will, to return
to Scotland, which neither she nor her
mother had had any reason to like.
Without following in detail our authors
account of Mary's Snort n troubled reign
in Scotland, We come at once to the crucial
inquiry, Did she connive at the murder of
Ter cousin and second husband, Henry
Darnley? Mr.. Henderson admits that,
apart from the direct evidence of the long
Glasgow ~letter-which is now generally
regarded as at least partly genuine there
may be said to be now an almost general
agreement Of opinion that Mary brought
Darnley to Edinburgh to facilitate the plIns
of Botawell against him, Taat Mr.. Lang
should have aoceded reluctantly TO this
conclusion is recognized In this book az at
least yresumrtive rroof Of the difficulty OF
arriving at any other verdict, for Mr.. Lang
has always devoted special attention to
those as7ects Of tie casa that might seem
likely to Prove MIry's innocence, or to
mitigate her guilt. Mr.. Henderson evi-
deLtly concnrs with Mr.. Lang, though he
is reluctant to do 30. Tlere Is no doubt
t.at the Queens subsequent marriage to
Bot4well, wAo was universally believed to
have been the chief actor in the assissina-
tioa of DArnley, was ACCEPTED at toe time,
and is acce!t ted now, as a strong proof Of