NTICPORTRAITS A MV C( : 'fir « .-- : are » ■'•■ : •■ • ' : HflRT bHHbKIbc 'to?*' E« CVJ CO CO o LxJ m www II "S^i IEADII8 SOOWI MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS . 4lary c)tuart. ^mcffi rfJvra/irr *" -i/i u*idct4\j rfrr.ts . /rtnn the paintiuo nr'K 't/iJ.trr O/uft/r . NOTES ON THE AUTHENTIC PORTRAITS OF MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS BASED ON THE RESEARCHES OF THE LATE SIR GEORGE SCHARF, K.C.B., REWRITTEN IN THE LIGHT OF NEW INFORMATION BY LIONEL CUST LONDON: JOHN MURRAY ALBEMARLE STREET, W. MCMIII y^ Ballantyne Press London <&• Edinburgh IN MEMORIAM G. S. 01 *7^> 4t X < t* PREFACE The following essay on the authentic portraits of Mary, Queen of Scots, is an attempt on the part of the author to carry out to completion the un- finished work of the late Sir George Scharf, K.C.B., upon this particular subject. Further details as to the respective shares in this work of the author and his predecessor in office at the National Portrait Gallery will be found in the Introduction. The author has endeavoured to consult every authority, past or present, likely to throw any light upon this disputed subject, availing himself of the assistance now so plentifully accessible through the agency of photography, and espe- cially of that rendered by the minute and careful drawings in the note-books of Sir George Scharf, now in the National Portrait Gallery. The author has received most valuable assist- ance from M. Henri Bouchot, of the Cabinet d'Estampes in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris; M.J.J. MarquetdeVasselot, of the Louvre at Paris; M. L. Dimier, of Valenciennes ; Mr. James L. Caw, Curator of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery ; and Mr. S. Arthur Strong, Librarian to the House of Lords and to the Duke of Devonshire, to all of whom the author wishes to acknowledge a special debt of gratitude. London, September 8, 1903. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS I. Various coins and medals, illustrating the portraiture of Mary Stuart II. Mary Stuart, at the age of nine years. From the drawing in the Musee Conde at Chantilly III. Mary Stuart, as Dauphine of France. From the draw- ing in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris IV. Mary Stuart, as Dauphine of France. From the minia- ture-painting in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle V. Francois, Dauphin of France, and Mary Stuart. From the miniature-painting in the " Livre d'Heures " of Catherine de' M^dicis in the Louvre at Paris VI. {a) Mary Stuart, as Dauphine of France. From a set of miniature-paintings, representing Henri II., Catherine de' M^dicis, and their family in the Uffizii Gallery at Florence (b) Mary Stuart. From a miniature-painting in the Collection Carrand in the Museo Nazionale at Florence VII. The Death of Henri II. From a woodcut, by Tortorel and Perrissin, in the Print-room, British Museum VIII. Mary Stuart, as Queen of France. From an engrav- ing published by Hieronymus Cock IX. Mary Stuart, as Queen of France, in her widow's dress (Deuil blanc). From the drawing in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris X. Mary Stuart, as Queen of France, in her widow's dress (Deuil blanc). From the painting at Windsor Castle XI. Mary Stuart, as Queen of France. From the bronze bust in the Louvre at Paris XII. (a) Silver Testoon (enlarged) with the head of Mary Stuart, when Dauphine. From the unique specimen in the British Museum (b) Medallion by Primavera, with a portrait of Mary Stuart in later life b ix XIII. Mary Stuart, and her son, James VI. From the engraving in " De origine, moribus, et rebus gestis Scotorum " : by John Lesley, Bishop of Ross, 1578 XIV. Mary Stuart, in captivity at Sheffield Castle, 1578. From the painting by P. Oudry, in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, K.G., at Hardwick Hall XV. Mary Stuart, in captivity at Sheffield Castle, 1578. From the painting in the National Portrait Gallery XVI. Mary Stuart. From a miniature-painting in the possession of Lady Orde XVII. Mary Stuart. From the painting by Daniel Mytens in St. James's Palace XVIII. Mary Stuart. From the painting in the collection of the Earl of Morton at Dalmahoy XIX. Mary Stuart. From the painting in the Imperial Gallery in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg XX. The Trial of Mary Stuart at Fotheringhay Castle. From a drawing in Beale's MSS., in the possession of Lord Calthorpe XXI. The Execution of Mary Stuart at Fotheringhay Castle. From a drawing in Beale's MSS., in the possession of Lord Calthorpe XXII. Mary Stuart at her Execution. From the Memorial Portrait at Blair's College, Aberdeen XXIII. The Execution of Mary Stuart. Detail from the Memorial Portrait at Blair's College, Aberdeen XXIV. Mary Stuart. From an early engraving after the Memorial Portrait XXV. Mary Stuart. From the engraving by Thomas De Leu XXVI. Mary Stuart. From the engraving by J ohann Hogen- berg, in the Cabinet d'Estampes at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris XXVII. Mary Stuart. Bust (in three positions) from the monu- ment in Westminster Abbey XXVI 1 1. Supposed portrait of Mary Stuart. From the painting in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, K.G., at Hardwick Hall XXIX. Supposed portrait of Mary Stuart. From the painting by Lucas d' Heere, at Holyrood Palace XXX. Supposed portrait of Mary Stuart. From the painting in the Royal Collection at Buckingham Palace XXXI. False portrait of Mary Stuart, the ' Carleton ' por- trait. From the painting in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, K.G., at Chatsworth XXXII. False portrait of Mary Stuart, the 'Orkney' type. From the mezzotint-engraving by J. P. Simon XXXIII. False portrait of Mary Stuart, the ' Fraser-Tytler ' portrait. From the painting in the National Por- trait Gallery. XI INTRODUCTION. It would seem to many readers that some excuse should be given for inflicting upon the public any new work dealing with that ill-fated heroine of romance, Mary, Queen of Scots. Library shelves groanbeneaththeweightofbooksdealingwiththis subject, and yet no point at issue between Mary's admirers and adherents and those, who believe Mary to be guilty of every crime that has been laid to her charge, seems to be any nearer to a definite settlement than before, in spite of all that has been written upon one side or the other. The following pages will contain no attempt to throw any light upon the vexed questions of M ary's tumultuous life. They will not deal with the Cas- ket Letters or the Queen's complicity in Darn- ley's murder, her confinement in and escape from Lochleven Castle, her relations with Bothwell,her treatment by Elizabeth, and only incidentally with the sad events of her captivity and the last tragic scene in the hall of Fotheringhay Castle. The short essay to follow will consist merely of certain notes on the existing portraits, true or otherwise, which purport to be the likeness of Mary, Queen of Scots. It may be alleged that this subject is productive of as much dispute as, for instance, the Casket Letters. Still, it is hoped that by setting before the public eye such historical documents — treating portraits as such — which bear in themselves wit- ness of unimpeachable veracity, and also those whose authenticity it is not difficult to disprove, some approach maybe made towards settling this vexed question for all time. Itmayseem strange that there should be any open- ing for such a work on the portraits of Mary, Queen of Scots, with whose appearance perhaps all educated persons would deem themselves familiar. Yet few heroines of romance have been so idly regarded from the point of view of por- traiture as Mary, Queen of Scots, most people being in the habit of choosing, at their own plea- sure, that particular attributed likeness which tal- lied most with their own preconceived idea. Little had been done to elucidate the mystery which in- volved the countless and hopelessly discordant likenesses of this unfortunate queen, which are scattered about the world, until the circumstances which eventually brought about the existence of the present work. The first serious attempt to deal with the vexed question of the portraits of Mary Stuart was due to a Russian nobleman, Prince Alexander Laba- noff-Rostoff, one of the most zealous, the most industrious, and the most enlightened historians of the ill-fated queen. In 1856 Prince Labanoff publisheda work entitled "Noticesurla Collection des Portraits de Marie Stuart, appartenant au Prince A lexandre Labanoff, fir dcedfe dim rfcumd chronologique" first publishedatSt. Petersburgin 1856, and afterwards amplified, re-edited, and re- published in i860. In this valuable work Prince Labanoff collected together a catalogue of all por- traits, painted or engraved, of Mary Stuart, which were known to him to exist. U nfortunately Prince Labanoff, whose notes on the portraits show him to have been possessed of critical faculties of no little value, did not make an attempt in his cata- logue to separate those portraits, which had some claim to authenticity, from those, which were avowedly spurious. Exhibitions of portraits and relics connected with Mary Stuart were held at the Archaeological In- stitute at Edinburgh in 1 856, at the rooms of that Institute in Suffolk Street, London, in 1857, and at Peterborough in 1861. In the catalogue of the first-named Exhibition, published in 1859, verv valuable information was given by Mr. Albert Way, formerly Director of the Society of Anti- quaries, who had made a special study of the subject. The first person, however, to approach the sub- ject by a really scientific method was the late Sir George Scharf, K.C.B., Director, Keeper, and Secretary of the National Portrait Gallery. In his official capacity Scharf had occasion to examine, among other vexed questions of portrai- ture, that relating to the likeness of Mary, Queen of Scots. He quickly came to the conclusion 3 ^1 that, to use his own words, "the thoroughly authenticated portraits of Mary are very limited in number, but those few may absolutely be relied on, and are very consistent." In 1876 Scharf contributed a valuable note upon these portraits to the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries. Scharfs interest was subsequently further excited by the question of the identifica- tion of the so-called " Fraser-Tytler " portrait, now in the National Portrait Gallery, to which allusion will be made hereafter. In 1887 the ter- centenary of the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, at Fotheringhay, was celebrated by an Historical Exhibition in the Museum at Peter- borough of "Portraits, Rings, Missals, MSS^, and all Objects of Interest connected with that unfortunate Queen." This interesting Exhibi- tion was only open from July 19 to August 9, 1887, but the interest excited by it, in spite of its merely local object, attracted numerous visitors, including Scharf. The success of this Exhibition and the powerful influence of Scharf led to the formation of a strong committee of artists, enthusiasts, and ex- perts, who organised an Exhibition of Portraits, Relics, &c, connected with the Royal House of Stuart, which was held at the N ew Gallery, Regent Street, London, in the early months of 1889. This Exhibition met with most remarkable suc- cess, some considerable part of which was due to 4 the fact that, for the first time, the more important portraits of Mary, Queen of Scots, were brought together and exhibited in a way intelligible to the ordinary spectator. In theinterveningperiod, however, Scharf had al- ready been enabled to yield not only to his own in- clination, but also to the wishes of his friends, and to place the first fruits of his laborious researches in a permanent form. This he did in a series of four luminousand instructive letters to the Times, published on April 30, May 7, October 30, and December 26, 1888. These letters were widely read and appreciated, especially in view of the actual portraits themselves when exhibited at the New Gallery, and led, after the close of that Ex- hibition, to an offer being made to Scharf by the late Mr. John Murray to expand the letters into book form, with a view of publishing an illustrated monograph upon the subject. This offer was readily accepted by Scharf. Unfortunately, just when he had completed the collection of his ma- terials, advancing age and increasing infirmities compelled him first to lay aside, and finally to abandon altogether, any hope of preparing the work for press, so that it remained in this uncom- pleted state at the time of Scharf s death in April 1 895, shortly after his resignation of the director- ship of the National Portrait Gallery and his promotion to be a Knight Commander of the Bath. For a few years nothing was done, until 5 Messrs. Murray invited the present writer, as the official successor of Sir George Scharf, to take the manuscript in hand and prepare it for press. On examination it was found that only the merest fragment of the manuscript had been completed and arranged for press. In the light of further information, better reproductions of the portraits, and extended knowledge on the subject, it has been found necessary to examine and sift the whole material afresh, conclusions being come to in some cases which do not accord with those of Scharf, but which Scharf would probably, had the new evidence been submitted to him, have been ready to accept. It has thus come about that the ensuing monograph, although based upon the voluminous and industrious researches of Sir George Scharf, whose name must ever be con- nected with it, is to a great extent the result of original study on the part of the present writer, who therefore holds himself responsible for any opinions recorded therein, especially those which may not meet with general acceptance. Until the Stuart Exhibition in 1889 the various Exhibitions in which the portraits of Mary Stuart had been collected together had only served to make confusion worse confounded. Ladies with black, brown, or red hair, with black, brown, or 6 blue eyes, with aquiline noses or rdtrotissds, tall or short, thin or plump, all appeared in numbers, asserting themselves to represent the Queen of Scotland. Of all this medley but the merest frag- ment could really claim to have any authenticity. The interest in historical portraiture is of compa- ratively recent awakening. It can hardly be said to have existed before the publicationof Dr. Gran- ger's" Biographical History of England"in 1 769. The dilettante enthusiasm aroused by Horace Walpole and his friends, and other antiquaries of the same inclinations, had brought what was at first a mere collector's caprice into a fashionable craze. Portraits of historical personages were sought for high and low. Family history, county history, heraldry and genealogy, all became a ne- cessary adjunct to the libraries of the noble and the rich. Where portraits were not forthcoming, there was ever, as now, a horde of needy copyists ready to supply them. Shakespeares, Miltons, Eliza- beths, Raleighs, Nell Gwynns, began to bloom in every broker's window. Every Cavalier family found itself mysteriously possessed of important portraits of Charles I. and Henrietta Maria, be- stowed either by them or their son upon the family hero for services rendered during the Civil Wars. ForsimilarreasonsCromwell lowered from every parlour wall among Puritans and Nonconform- ists. Every family in Scotland, which could pro- duce or invent the slightest excuse, revealed some 7 portrait of the ill-fated Mary, Queen of Scots, which for various mysterious reasons had up to that time remained unnoticed. Most of these were endowed with apparently unimpeachable pedi- grees. In all these matters the critical faculty was conspicuous by its absence, being replaced, adequately in the owner's opinion, by enthu- siasm. Up to the period alluded to the interest in por- traiture had been chiefly of a family nature. The following pages will show that all the authentica- ted portraits of Mary Stuart can be traced to the possession in former days either of her own de- scendants or relatives, or of some person intimate- ly connected with her life. Some belong to the royal family of Great Britain by right of direct in- heritancefrom Mary Stuart. Others can be traced to the possession of the Dukes of Lenox, the most nearly related branch of the H ouse of Stuart, eitherbelongingto their actual representative, the Earl of Darnley, or to such families as acquired them at the dispersal of goods at Cobham Hall after the death of the last Duke of Lenox in 1672. At Chatsworth or Hardwick, which the Duke of Devonshire owns by direct inheritance from the famous "Bess of Hardwick," whose husband, the Earl ofShrewsbury,wasfor so long Mary Stuart's gaoler, it would be natural to expect to find por- traits of Mary Stuart, both for this reason and for the fact that the Countess of Shrewsbury married 8 her daughter, Elizabeth Cavendish, to Charles Stuart, Earl of Lenox, Mary Stuart's brother-in- law. Welbeck and Latimer, being other seats of the Cavendish family, come within the same cate- gory. Beyond these sources, few portraits, other than coins, can be traced with security. I n France there appears to be nothing contemporary, or of any but the most dubious authenticity, save, perhaps, a small bronze bust in the Louvre to be described hereafter. In Scotland, with the exception of the * * M orton " portrait at Dalmahoy, and the memorial portrait at Blair's College, aholocaust might prob- ably be made of the various portraits purporting to represent Mary, Queen of Scots, without the loss of any valuable asset bearing on this particu- lar question. Before entering upon any examination of the por- traits of Mary Stuart, it is quite necessary to keep continually in mind the principal events of her troubled and eventful life. This life falls easily in- to three periods : I. Fromthebirthof Mary Stuart on December 8, 1542, to her landing in Scotland on August 19, 1 56 1 , on her return from France. II. From the return of Mary Stuart from France to her arrival in England in May, 1 568. b 9 III. From the first captivity of Mary Stuart at Carlisle in May, 1 568, to her execution at Fother- inghay on February 8, 1 586-7. In each of these periods it is equally important to lay stress on the more important occurrences in Mary's life. Period I. 1542, December. Mary Stuart was born on December 7 or 8, 1542, the only child of James V., King of Scotland, and his queen, MariedeGuise, widow ofCharles d'Orldans, Due de Longueville. Her father was the only child of James IV., King of Scotland, by Margaret Tudor, sister of Henry VIII., so that he was first cousin to Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, failing whom and their issue Mary Stuart was the next heir to the throne of England. Her mother was the daughter of Claude de Lorraine, Due de Guise, by his wife Antoinette de Bourbon, and sister to the famous Francis de Lorraine, Due de Guise, and Charles, Cardinal de Lorraine, and Louis, Cardinal de Guise, the most famous among Mary Stuart's six uncles on her mother's side. Among her first cousins were the famous brothers, Henri, Due de Guise, and Charles, 10 Cardinal de Lorraine, who were assas- sinated at Blois in 1588. 1 542, December 14. James V., father of Mary Stuart, died, so that his infant daughter, Mary Stuart, succeeded to the throne of Scotland at the age of only six days. 1 543, Septemberc). MaryStuart was crowned Queen of Scotland at Stirling by Car- dinal Beaton. 1546-7, January 28. Henry VIII., King of England, died, and was succeeded by Edward VI., and on March 31, 1547, FranfoisL, King of France, died, and was succeeded by Henri II. 1548, August 13. Mary Stuart, then aged five years and eight months, landed in France, having been affianced to the dauphin, Francis, and there she was brought up with the royal children at the Court of Henri II. and Catherine dd' Medicis. ^SS* July 6. Edward VI. died, and was suc- ceeded by Mary Tudor. 1558, April 24. Mary Stuart was married at Notre Dame, in Paris, to the dauphin, Francis, who, in the following N ovem- ber, received the title of King of Scot- land. 1558, November 17. Mary, Queen of Eng- 11 land, died, and was succeeded by Eliza- beth. Mary Stuart and Francis as- sumed the titles of King and Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland. 1 559, July 10. Henri II., King of France, died, and was succeeded by Francois II., husband of Mary Stuart. 1 560, June 1 1. Mary Stuart's mother, Marie de Guise, Regent of Scotland, died at Edinburgh. 1560, December 5. Fran> >> >> >> 1567, May 15. Mary Stuart married Both- well at Holyrood. ,, June 15. Battle at Carberry Hill. Mary Stuart brought captive to Edinburgh. „ June 17. Mary Stuart imprisoned at Lochleven Castle. „ July 24. Abdication of Mary Stuart. ,, July 29. Coronation of James VI. at Stirling. ,, August 22. The Earl of Moray ap- pointed Regent of Scotland - 1568, May 2. Escape of Mary Stuart from Lochleven, and arrival at Hamilton Castle. May 13. Battle at Langside. May 16. Mary Stuart took refuge in England. May 1 8. Mary Stuart taken captive to Carlisle. >' Period III. 1568, July 16. Mary Stuart taken prisoner to Bolton Castle. 1568-9, February 26. Mary Stuart placed under the custody of the Earl of Shrewsbury and removed to Tutbury, by Ripon, Pontefract, Rotherham, and Chesterfield. 1 569, April. Mary Stuart removed to Wing- field. >» >> >> 1569, May 15. Mary Stuart removed to Chatsworth. June 1. Mary Stuart returned to Wing- field. September 21. Mary Stuart returned to Tutbury. November 14. Mary Stuart removed to Coventry. 1569-70, January 2. Mary Stuart returned to Tutbury. 1 570, May. Mary Stuart removed to Chats- worth. „ November 28. Mary Stuart removed to Sheffield Castle, where she re- mained, either there or at Sheffield Manor House, for fourteen years, with occasional visits to Chatsworth, Bux- ton, and Worksop. 1584, September 3. Mary Stuart removed to Wingfield. 1584-5, January 13. Mary Stuart removed by Derby to Tutbury. 1585, April 17. Sir Amias Paulet appointed gaoler to Mary Stuart. ,, December 24. Mary Stuart removed to Chartley. 1586, August 8. Mary Stuart removed to Tixall. ,, August 30. Mary Stuart returned to Chartley. 15 1586, September 25. Mary Stuart removed to Fotheringhay. 1 586-7, February 8. Mary Stuart beheaded at Fotheringhay. 1587, July 29. Funeral of Mary Stuart at Peterborough. 1603, April 3. Death of Elizabeth. ,, October 11. Mary Stuart's body re- moved by James I. to Westminster Abbey. There are certain distinctive pointsinthe features of Mary Stuart, as shown in her portraits, which are of the greatest importance as aids to identifi- cation. Scharf writes that " among these the most remarkable is the colour of the eyes. They are de- cidedly brown, sometimes of a yellowish hue (ha- zel), but more frequently of an absolute reddish colour like chestnut and the paint known to ar- tists as 'burnt sienna.' With this, as seen in the pictures of Venetian women, especially those by Paris Bordone, the white of the eye sometimes par- takes of a blueish tint. I n all these portraits of M ary the eyes are not large, but possess asharpandsome- what penetrating expression. The upper eyelids are thick, with an interrupted curve, casting a par- tial shadow on the eye itself. The cheek-bones are high, and there is a singular space across the 16 temple between the eyes and the ears. The outline of the lower part of the cheek is full and the chin well developed, but not cloven or dimpled. The lips are always closely compressed, and the lower one, although full, is by no means projecting. The eyebrows are raised and arched, but not strongly defined, and the forehead lofty and capacious. There is also a considerable space above the nose between the eyebrows." Judging from her more youthful portraits Mary Stuart's hair was of a yellowish auburn hue, with dark shades in it, such as might be expected from the daughter of a Stuart and the grand-daughter of a Tudor on the one side and the daughter of the fair-haired Marie de Guise on the other. Bran- tome speaks of her hair as "blonds et cendrez" Later in life she, like most ladies of the period, varied her coiffure with false hair,and showed some predilection for a darker hue, even approaching to black. On June 28, 1568, when Mary Stuart was a prisoner at Carlisle, Sir Francis Knollys wrote to Cecil that she had "six waiting-women, al- though none of reputation but Mistress Mary Seaton, who is praised by this queen to be the finest busker, that is to say, the finest dresser of a woman's head of hair, that is to be seen in any country ; whereof we have seen divers experi- ences since her coming hither ; and among other pretty devices, yesterday and this day, she did set such a curled hair upon the queen, that was said c 17 . v to be a perewyke, that showed very delicately, and every other day she hath a new device of head- dressing without any cost, and yet setteth forth a woman gaily well." Nicholas White, who had an interview with Mary Stuart at Tutbury in February 1569, says that " Her hair of itself is black, and yet Mr. Knollys told me that she wears hair of sundry colours." Mary Stuart had, however, but little southern blood in her veins, and was a true daughter of the north. She was somewhat above the normal height for a woman, with a graceful and elegant, but well- developed, figure. H er neck was well-formed, but not unduly long or slim, and her shoulders were slightly sloped, leading to a vigorous and well- modelled bust. I n later years her figure lost some- thing of its grace and elegance through the stress of illness and confinement, but maintained its dignity up to the last hour at Fotheringhay. Her general appearance was that of a strong, clever, masterful woman, rather than a beautiful and delicate heroine of romance. 18 In the following pages the various portraits of Mary Stuart will fall into three divisions : I. The portraits, of which the authenticity may be regarded as certain. II. The portraits, which have been generally accepted as genuine, but of which the authenticity is doubtful. III. False and spurious portraits. 19 It is natural to consider first such portraits of Mary Stuart of which the authenticity may be regarded as certain. The first period of Mary Stuart's life begins with her birth at Linlithgow Palace on December 7, 1 542. She succeeded to the throne of Scotland six days later, and was crowned queen before she had completed her first year. When within a few months of completing her sixth year the little queen was taken toFrance and brought up at the Court of Henri II. and Catherine de'Medicis, until her marriage, at the age of fifteen years and four months, to the dau- phin of France. The child, who was accom- panied by only a small retinue, was met on landing at Brest by her grandmother, Antoi- nette de Bourbon, Duchesse de Guise, a some- what severe and strait-laced dame, of whom even Francis I. seems to have stood in awe, and who was noted as a model for all the domestic virtues. The Duchesse wrote to her eldest son, that " Nostre petite reyne " was " la plus jolye et meilleure que ce que vous veistes oncques de son age." A few days later the grandmother again writes of the little girl that " Elle est clere, brune et pence qu' estant en eage d'en bonpoint quelle sera belle fille, car le taint est beau et cler ; et la chair blanche, le bas du vysage bien jolly, les yeux sont petis et ung petit 20 enfonc£, le visage ung petit long, la grace et asurance fort bonne quent tout est dit elle est pour ce contenter."* No painted portrait of Mary Stuart as an infant is known to exist, but her early accession to the throne was the cause of the issue of an interest- ing little coin, which bears what was intended to be a likeness of the infant queen. Scharf writes that " no form of portraiture is so valuable for the illustration of history as that af- forded by coins and medals, provided that they are clear, and on a sufficiently large scale. They not only convey information by the addition of lettering, but, when issued under the auspices of a ruling power, it may be assumed that the best available artistic talent has been employed/' The coinage of Scotland is in this respect no less in- teresting than that of any other country, as may be seen from an interesting work, " The Coinage of Scotland, by Edward Burns, F.S.A. Scot, illustrated from the cabinet of Thomas Coats, Esq., of Fergus lie yi (3 vols. 4to, Edinburgh, 1887). OnMay3, 1547, an Act was passed by the Privy Council of Scotland for the issue of a small coin, called a penny, made of base metal, called billon, bearing the head of the infant queen Mary. It is noteworthy that this coin was issued immediately # Bibliotheque Nationale, f. fr. 20,468, fol. 165. See Gabriel de Pimodan, " La Mere des Guises" (Paris, 1889). 21 after the deaths of King Henry VIII. of Eng- land and King Francis I. of France. The Act was probably a stroke of policy on the part of the Queen Regent and her Council. These pennies exhibit a round baby face, which is seen in full, the hair parted in the middle and hanging down on either side, lower than the ear. On the head is a single arched crown, while the neck and shoulders are covered by a regal mantle. Round the head is the legend, maria d. g. r. scotorvm, enclosed within a double line or ring. [See Plate I. No. 1 1.] This type of coin was re-issued by order of the Council on December 6, 1554, after Mary had been in France some years. The coins still repre- sent Mary as an infant, but she wears a double- arched crown, showing no hair across the fore- head, and her hair hangs more straightlydown on each side of the face, which appears to be slightly older. The head is set lower down in the coin in order to admit of the larger crown, and the double line or ring round the legend is omitted. [See Plate I. No. 12.] Unfortunately the few examples of these interest- ing coins which have survived, being of base metal, have been so worn by use as to make it difficult to get any clear idea now far the head on the coin may be accepted as a genuine likeness of the infant queen. 22 The earliest drawn or painted portrait of Mary Stuart, which can be accepted as authentic, is the chalkdrawing, in the style of Jean Clouet (Janet), which purports to represent the Queen of Scot- land at the age of nine years and six months. It would be impossible in these pages to enter fully into the much vexed question of French por- traiture in the sixteenth century, especially with relation to the numberless crayon drawings, the bulk of which have now been concentrated either in the Cabinet d'Estampes of the Bibliothkque Nationale, or in the Louvre at Paris, or in the Musde Cond£ at Chantilly. For fuller informa- tion concerning these drawings, reference must be made to the various works of M. Henri Bouchot, the distinguished keeper of the Cabinet d'Es- tampes at Paris, and to the researches, hitherto published in a sporadic form, of M. L. Dimier, M. J. J. Marquet de Vasselot,the late M. Natalis Rondot of Lyons, and others, who have been endeavouring to extricate the early history of French art from a somewhat inexplicable state of oblivion and error. It is singular that so admirable a chapter in art, as the portraiture of Jean and Francis Clouet, Jean Perrdal, Antoine Caron,the Quesnel, Jean de Court, Corneille de Lyon, and others should still be lacking proper interpretation. It will be sufficient here to note that from the days of Holbein to the early years of the seven- 23 teenth century the portrait painter usually had to becontentwith one sitting, or at the best very few, during which he made a careful drawing, accom- panied with notes as to colour, costume, &c. Any one of these drawings could be worked up in the studio with a painstaking accuracy, yet lacking, in most cases, the vitality of a portrait completed from the subject itself. Many of these drawings exist, and are often the sole origin, from which more advanced portraits were subsequently derived. These drawings must, however, be carefully dis- tinguished from those which were mere tran- scripts from paintings which already existed. It became the fashion towards the close of the sixteenth century to make such collections of portraits, usually of personages eminent in his- tory, and collections such as that in the Library at Arras, or the famous collection of miniature paintings, formed by the Archduke Ferdinand of Tirol, at Schloss Ambras, which is now in the I mperial Gallery at Vienna, are examples . Later collectors mixed these two kinds of drawings to- gether, regardless of differences in merit, be- queathing to posterity the difficulty of sorting out those which are original portraits and those which are only echoes of some known, though, much too frequently, lost original. The unfortunate vicissi- tudes of fate, which have befallen both the royal palaces in France and theckateaux of the nobility and gentry, together with the collections of works 24 s -u 12 /R of art formerly contained therein, are doubtless re- sponsible for the loss of many important historical documents, especially in portraiture. Under the intelligent direction of M. de Nolhac and M. Andr£ PeYate' at Versailles, a number of portraits, illustrating the history of France, have been ar- ranged, and in most cases their names rescued from oblivion. But the gaps are very evident. 1 1 is scarcely credible that in the age of Clouet and his followers the young Queen of France and Scotland, whose beauty was renowned, should have escaped being the cynosure of painters : yet no genuine painted portrait of Mary Stuart exists in France. Where, too, is the portrait of Queen Elizabeth, to obtain which the ambassador, M. de Lansac, took a well-known painter; over to England in 1580, as specially attached to his suite? It is to the enthusiasm of noble amateurs in Eng- land that the preservation is due of the invaluable collections of crayon drawings which, through the munificence and patriotism of the Ducd'Aumale, now form part of the treasures at Chantilly be- queathed by him to the French nation. The draw- ing of Mary Stuart as a girl forms one of a series of portraits of the French Court, which was pur- chased in Florence about 1760 by Frederick Howard, fifth Earl of Carlisle, and was preserved in this series at Castle Howard until 1 889, when the whole series was purchased by the Due d 25 d'Aumale from George Howard, ninth Earl of Carlisle, and removed toChantilly. It is inscribed in contemporary handwriting, "Marie royne des- cosse en leage de neufans edsix mots Ian 1552 A u mois dejuillet" The young queen is represented to the waist, at- tired in a tight-fitting bodice, arched across the breast, with slashed sleeves, puffed at the shoul- ders, and fitting tight to the arm in the French fashion of the time. The bust is covered with a transparent gauze partlet, worked with a lozengy pattern, fitting tight to the body and the back of the neck close up to the ears, the opening in front only leaving a very small portion of the neck ex- posed. At the back of her head her hair is encased in a richly jewelled and embroidered caul, flat at the back. Two rows of jewels encircle this caul, large jewels are in her ears, and a rich necklace of jewels round her throat ; over her shoulders lies a string of jewels, looped up across the breast, and bearing suspended at the centre a very large jewel as a pendant. The drawing, which is executed in red and black chalk only, has been a good deal rubbed, so that much of the modelling of the face is now lost. Enough, however, remains to show that the fea- tures are those of a young girl, in spite of the cos- tume, which would appear at first sight to be more suited to a woman of more advanced years. It is stated that this drawing was made by the 26 command of Queen Catherine de' Medicis, her future mother-in-law. The face is seen turned in three-quarters to the spectator's left, and, as Scharf describes, " is drawn and shaded with red chalk, blended with a few light touches of black (Italian) chalk onthedarker sides of the cheeks and forehead. The eyeballs do not appear to be intended for brown, because there is no admixture of red chalk in them, which is the case in the later Janet drawings. The dress is shaded with black Italian chalk, but the frilling or edge of the gauze round her neck is in red lines. Every other pearl of her festooned chain is red, and all the round jewels between the puffs down her sleeves are of the same colour. The large pear-shaped jewel at her breast is shaded pale red. Her lips and cheeks are very pale red. Her eyebrows are scarcely traceable, and the up- per eyelids are thick without anyindication of eye- lashes. The hair is plain black, soft and wavy." It will be noticed from this description that the artist, being limited to two colours, has confined himself to indicating the general effects of light and shade. Thisdrawingpresentssomespecialfeatureswhich helpto identifythe portraits of Mary Stuart. The forehead is high, round, and projecting, or bombe, at the top,and slopes rapidly backwards to the hair, the actual crown of the head being almost flat. The hair is drawn back tightly from the forehead and 27 slightly waved along it. It is also drawn back be- hind the ear, which is entirely exposed to view. The ear is unusually large for a woman, being long in the upper part and with a full lobe to the base. This drawing, which can hardly be said to err on the side of flattery, has every appearance of hav- ing been taken from life.* [See Plate II.] A small portrait, measuring 4 by 3 inches, slightly, yet somewhat coarselypainted in oil on panel, and evidently based upon this drawing, was first in the collection of the Comte de S. Seine, and then in that of Mr. Hollingworth Magniac, and at the sale of the Charles Magniac collection in July 1 892 it was purchased by Messrs. P. and D. Colnaghi & Co. for ^367 10s., from whom it passed into the possession of the Duke of Westminster, and is now at Eaton Hall. This painting is inscribed La Royne Dauphine, which testifies to the fact that, if contemporary, it must have been painted between the date of April 24, 1558, on which Mary was married to the Dauphin, and July 10, 1 559, when her husband became King of France. In this portrait the eyes are hazel-brown, and the hair of a dark rich brown chestnut, the head be- ing set against a greenish background in the style of the court painter Corneille de Lyon. There are some slight, but unimportant variations in the # This portrait was engraved, very inaccurately, in 1 82 1 , by Thomas Ryder, and published by Messrs. Colnaghi & Co. in London. 28 PLlL _ 1 1 an/ v'UiaH at the .n/t- trf nint i/.-.rr.' from, -the drawuiain. iht^rfturit bond* ai GAarUiJit/. treatment of the gauze covering over the neck. The bodice of the dress is red and gold with a striped pattern down the front, and the jewelled cap is rounder in form. The features shown in the drawing, now at Chan- tilly, are very distinctly shown in the head on the silver coin, or testoon, struck at Paris by the Scot- tish medallist, John Achesoun.* Ina register still preserved in the French Archives, there is an en- try, under the date of October 21, 1553: "Ce jourdhuy xxi jour d'October mil v c liii a este per- mis a Jehan Acheson, tailleur de la monnaie d'Escosse, de graver pilles et trousseaulx auxpor- traictes de la royne d'Escosse, par lui exibez a la dite Court, a la charge de fire les espreuves en la Monnaie de Paris, parentre Tun des gardes pour icelles faictes estre apportdes en la dite Court." The first coin with a portrait of Mary Stuart, struck by Achesoun in 1 5 5 3, shows the head of the queen # An account of the Achesoun (or Atkinson) family will be found in Burns's " History of the Coinage of Scotland." James Achesoun, goldsmith and burgess in the Canongate, was " master- moneyer" as early as 1526. John Achesoun, the coiner of the Mary Stuart testoon, who was at the French Court in 1553, returned to Scotland, and again to France in 1560. On the return of Mary Stuart to Scotland in 1561, John Achesoun returned finally to his native country. Certain coins struck in 1583 by Thomas Achesoun were often called Achesouns or Atkinsons. — Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. ix. 506. 29 in profile to the right with a crown on her head. The features are those of a young girl, and the slope of the bust is still childish. Her hair descends na- turally to the back of the neck. The nose is slightly retrousse, and the chin prominent. She wears an embroidered dress and a band round the neck. The head is encircled within a double ring, round which, enclosed in another ring, and continued round the coin, is the inscription mari a. dei . gra. r. scotorvm. On the reverse of the coin is an es- cutcheon with the arms of Scotland, round which is the inscription da.pacem .domine. 1553. [See Plate I., No. 1.] This inscription may possibly relate to the religious controversies which dis- turbed Scotland at this date. The second coin struck byAchesoun in 1 553, on a slightly smaller scale, shows the young queen in a decidedly older aspect. I n this coin the queen's head is turned in profile to the left and has no crown. The features have much the same cha- racter as before, except that the nose now shows a tendency to dip. The prominent round fore- head is very evident, as is also the flat top to the head and the hair tightly drawn back. At the back of the head the hair is gathered into a rich caul, as in the Chantilly drawing. The neck is now longer and more graceful and with the shoul- ders completely bare, save for a jewelled necklace, which falls in a festoon over the dress, which is cut very low, exposing the bust, with puffs to the 30 sleeves at the shoulders. The coin bears the in- scription round the head, but not completely round the coin, maria . dei . gra . scotor . regina. On the reverse is the inscription in . ivsticia . tva . libera, nos . dne . 1 553. [See Plate XII., No. i.] This coin is of the utmost rarity, only one exam- ple being known to exist, which is preserved in the British Museum. It was, perhaps,as suggested by Sir Augustus Wollaston Franks, only a pattern submitted by Achesoun to the French Court and not approved. The same model, with very slight modifications, was used for a gold coin, known as a ryal> struck by Achesoun in 1555, and repeated in 1557 and 1558. On the reverse is the escutcheon of Scot- land, with the inscription ivstvs. fide . vivit . and the date. [See Plate I., Nos. 2 and 3.] The young Queen of Scotland had been sent to the court of Henri II. and Catherine de' Medicis as the affianced bride of their eldest son, Franfois. On April 24, 1 5 58, at the age of fifteen years and four months Mary Stuart was married in the church of Notre Dame at Paris to the Dauphin, on whom the title of King of Scotland was then conferred. The well-known miniature-portrait in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle was probably painted at the time of Mary Stuart's marriage. It may have 31 been this portrait which Lord Seton brought as a present from Mary, when Queen of France, to Elizabeth in 1 5 6 1 , and which Sir N icolas Throck- morton mentions in his letters to Elizabeth more than once, and possibly also the little portrait which Elizabeth showed to Melville at the time of the latter's interview with the Queen of England in 1564. This little painting appears to be based upon a fine chalk drawing of Mary Stuart, which forms one of a series of drawings formerly pre- served in the Bibliotheque de S. GeneVieve at Paris, but which was in 1861 transferred to the Bibliotheque Nationale. # In this drawing the head alone is finished, the body, shown to the waist, being drawn only in faint outline. The face, as Scharf says, "is full of expression, and possesses that peculiar look of the eyes, with thick eyelids, so characteristic of M ary. " All the other features mentioned above are well shown here, the high forehead, large ear, long- shaped eyes and faint eyebrows, slightly project- ing upper lip, and round and full chin. The nose is long and straight, though not as yet in any way aquiline, although the tip shows an inclination to dip downwards when compared with the drawing at nine years old. # The early history of the collection of drawings in the Library at S. Genevieve is unknown. The Library itself was constructed early in the eighteenth century. The drawings themselves were removed to the Bibliotheque Nationale in June 1861, by order of the French Government. 32 \'l 111 yKaty t rtuari ,11 ./ tutphuH- >•/' :/ra/tc-e .'/rem the drau-ina in tit* SPiUktk^m*. \'a/irnaJr at 1/ttri.t. The reddish-brown hair is parted in the middle and frizzed into little curls round the forehead, not covering the ear. The hair seems to be bound in a single plait round the back of the head. A string of large pearls and smaller jewels encircles the head, passing behind the ear. Her dress is some- what similar in character to that worn at nine years old, the chemisette, or partlet, over the shoulders being the same, but this covering is carried round the neck up to the chin, where it ends in a small ruff, and it is not open in front, a pearl necklace being round the neck. The ear-rings are formed of single pearls. [See Plate III.] The same features appear in the aforesaid minia- ture painting at Windsor Castle, though the some- what mechanical accuracy of the painter has missed something of the charm and delicacy of the chalk drawing. This little portrait is interesting as being the earli- est authenticated and completed portrait in col- ours of Mary Stuart known to exist. It appears to have always been in the royal collection, and attributed to Janet, as far back as the days of Charles I., Mary Stuart's grandson. InVander Doort's catalogue it is described as follows : " Supposed to be done by the said Jennet. Item Done upon the right light. The second picture of Queen Mary of Scotland, upon a blew groun- ded square card, dressed in her hair, in a carna- tion habit laced with small gold lace and a string e 33 of pearls round her neck in a little plain falling hood, she putting on her second finger the wed- ding ring/' The dimensions are given as three inches long by two inches wide. The features are much the same as in the S. Genevieve drawing, but the shadows added by the artist have given a slightly harder and less pleasing expression to the face. The hair is light yellowish-brown, sha- dowed with sepia, arranged in small round curls, rather more crimped than in the drawing. The circlet of large pearls round the head is now sin- gle, and pearls and other jewels are twisted in the plait of hair round the back of the head. The eye- balls are yellowish-brown (or hazel according to Scharf ), shaded with sepia, and the eyebrows are delicately pencilled in a faint brown colour. The nose shows more tendency to become aquiline. The costume, however, worn by the queen in this miniature, is quite different to that in the chalk drawing. It is very rich, and more mature in cha- racter. The queen is shown to the hips standing, and with her left hand placing a ring on the third finger of her right hand. She is dressed in a tight- fitting robe rising to the ears, but open at the neck to show the white lining, and below the waist to show a white under-skirt. The bodice fits tight to the body and is brought down to a point at the waist. The sleeves come down to the waist show- ing white cuffs, and appear to be lined inside, and slightly puffed at the shoulders. The colour of the 34 PI. IV fh^vm the i _ Hart/ < Jtaarl MJ U mtphi/ie <>f '/rtun e ■zture paintintj in the ^AeiHtt^/i'/'rtirt/nt f (( inms dress is lilac-pink shaded with crimson ; it iscorded with gold lines and sewn with pearls. A rope of pearls encircles the dress at the neck, falls to a double row down the breast, and again encircles the waist. Takingthese details into consideration, and also the slightly older expression of the face, it seems possible that the chalk drawing may have preceded the miniature by some little time. The ascription of the miniature-painting to"Janet,"or rather Francois Clouet, is only traditional and hardly to be sustained in the light of modern in- formation. The miniature is painted on a flat rich ultramarine blue background, and all gold objects are painted with gold.* [See Plate IV.] An enlarged version of this miniature, or adapta- tion from the same drawing, carefully executed in oil, was formerly in the collection of Colonel Meyrick, and is now in the Jones Collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum. In December 1 560, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton writes from France to Queen Elizabeth, and in various letters alludes to a portrait of M ary Stuart, which Lord Seton had persuaded the Queen of France to send to the Queen of England. This portrait may, as stated before, be the miniature at Windsor. It is uncertain if Lord Seton suc- ceeded in delivering this portrait to Elizabeth, but it is clear from James Melville's account in # This miniature has been reproduced in colours as the frontis- piece to " Mary Stuart," by Sir W. Skelton (Goupil et O). 35 his Memoirs of his interview with Elizabeth in 1 564, that the Queen of England had " dyvers little pictures wrapped within paiper and writen upon the paper their names with her owen hand," and that one of these little pictures represented the Queen of Scotland. Melville writes that " She appeared to be so affectionate to the queen her good sister, that she had a great desire to see her. And because their desired meeting could not be so hastily brought to pass, she appeared with great delight to look upon her majesty's picture. She took me to her bed-chamber, and opened a little cabinet, wherein were divers little pictures wrapped within paper, and their names written with her own hand upon the papers. Upon the first that she took up was written ' My lord's pic- ture.' I held the candle, and pressed to see that picture so named ; she appeared loath to let me see it, yet my importunity prevailed for a sight thereof, and I found it to be the earl of Leicester's picture. I desired that I might have it to carry home to my queen, which she refused, alleging that she had but that one picture of his. I said, Your majesty hath here the original, for I per- ceived him at the furthest part of the chamber, speaking with secretary Cecil. Then she took out the queen's picture, and kissed it, and I adven- tured to kiss her hand, for the great love evidenced therein to my mistress." The original drawing evidently was used as the 36 ^/Yanfirij, Csl- auphin af^Jrtuwc, an~7- ^yjlary Qstuart 1/reiti the miniature pa-intuit/ in tJir Clvtt d' ~/£eiLr Kary cSttuxrtetd^ueen ef France Jrom t/ic i>it>tvy Lttrt in t/u\J 'c tiers the bright, pleasure-loving Court of France to the gloomy cells and passages of Holyrood must have been disagreeable at first to Mary Stuart. There was little room for luxury or for the pursuit of the arts and letters in the rough and almost uncivilisedmetropolisoftheNorth. But in Holy- rood, at all events, Mary Stuart must have felt on her own ground. The Queen of Scotland, moreover, gained little in the way of repose or pleasure through her removal from France to Scotland. She had hardlylanded before her troubles began, and she found herself the chief actor in a drama of hatred and intrigue, which was to develop so quickly into one of passion, violence, and dishonour, with its melan- choly end in captivity and on the scaffold. The attitude adopted by Mary Stuart and her husband towards Elizabeth upon that queen's accession to the throne of England was not cal- culated to cause harmony between them, either as queens or cousins. Elizabeth, smarting under the stigma on her birth, published far and wide by Mary Stuart's assumption of the title of Queen of England and Ireland, could not help seeing in Mary Stuart her most dangerous enemy and rival. The enmity between them was dissimu- lated by rich presents and sugared words, but continued to increase in intensity until the bitter end. Mary Stuart was further unfortunate in her first choice of counsellors, her half-brother, James h 57 Stuart, the Earlof Huntly, and William Maitland of Lethington. James Stuart, the natural son of James V., afterwards better known as the Earl of Moray, stood as it were on the steps of the throne. Ambitious, unscrupulous, and tyran- nical, he proved his sister's worst and most dan- gerous enemy. Huntly, who might have proved a powerful friend to Mary, quickly drew on him- self the jealousy and enmity of Moray, who did not rest until he had hunted his rival down to death . M ai tland of Lethington was clever enough to retain the confidence of Mary, while enjoying that of Elizabeth and Lord Burghley, and at the same time to leave the question of his falseness or fidelity an enigma for posterity to solve. Shadows of coming events were cast when the ambassador of Savoy came to greet the queen of Scotland, bringing David Riccio in his train. A year or so later occurred the tragedy of Chaste- lard, with its injury to the good fame of the queen. Two days after Chastelard's execution, Mary's uncle, the Duke of Guise, her most important friend and ally, was assassinated. Then came the succession of marriage proposals for so important a political person as the young widow. Arch- dukes, royal dukes, andotherprinces weredangled before Mary's eyes in vain. Elizabeth inflicted a further insult by offering Mary the hand of her own lover, Robert Dudley. Finally came the fatal proposal from Mary's aunt, Margaret, 58 Countess of Lenox, that the queen should give her hand to her cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley,son of the Earl and Countess of Lenox, and the next heir after Mary herself to the thrones of Scotland and England. After many intrigues Mary Stuart was married to Henry, Lord Darnley, at Holyrood on July 29, 1 565, and con- ferred on him the title of King of Scotland. Six days later James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, returned to Scotland to be the evil genius of Mary Stuart's future career. During the whole of this period there is no trace of any fresh portrait of Mary Stuart as Queen of Scotland. It may even be doubted if the art of painting, other than for mere decorative purposes, was at that time known, or at all events practised, at the Scottish Court. As Mr. J. L. Caw, Curator of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh, says: "It is significant that amongst the authentic portraits of Queen Mary there is not one that was painted at home. The joyous days of her youth in France and the sad years of her English imprisonment have their portraits ; but, except the rude effigies on her coinage, nothing remains to show how she looked during her reign in her own country." # Even the portraits of Darnley all seem to date from his youth in England. The double portrait of Mary # " Scottish Portraits," with an Historical and Critical Introduc- tion by James L. Caw. Edinburgh, T. C. & G. C. Jack, 1902. 59 Stuart's parents, James V. and Mary of Guise, now at Chatsworth, is perhaps a compilation of a somewhat later date, founded on original por- traits, painted by some foreign artist, imported by Marie of Lorraine. As late as April 1586, when Mary Stuart wrote to M. D'Esneval, the French ambassador in Edinburgh, to ask him to obtain for her a portrait of her son, " drawn from his own person," D'Esneval replied "that he has given orders to a painter, the only one that was at Lislebourg, to make a portrait of the King, her son, not indeed from the life, but from a good portrait lately painted of him, and that her son seemed greatly obliged by this mark of affection- ate regard in his mother." # Failing any portrait, drawn or painted, of Mary Stuart at this period of her life, it is necessary to fall back upon such evidence as is given by coins and medals, as before. In 1 561 John Achesoun, the "master-moneyer," who, as has been stated before, had quitted Scot- land for F ranee in the summer of 1 5 60 and entered the service of "the queinis maiestie, the kingis grace Mother," designed a small coin or testoon, with a new head of Mary Stuart on it. On this coin, which was struck in silver as a testoon and also as a half-testoon, the queen's head is in profile to the # " Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots." Miss Strickland, ii. 172. 60 left. Scharf says: "In the clearer impression of coins of this type the actual form of the profile is distinctly shown, the ample rounded forehead melting into the curve of the nose with a low dip at the end of the nose below the line of the nostril and the pushed forward lips with a re- cess under the lower lip are all peculiarly charac- teristic of Mary's countenance." The dress, which rises high up to the neck, ending in a small ruff, is similar in character to that on the marriage medal. The hair, however, is not only drawn back into a rich embroidered and jewelled caul, but also escapes from this caul in a long plait or queue down the back. This fashion of wearing the hair was much in vogue in I taly about this date, especially at the Courts of Eerrara and Urbino, and this may be the bonne fa I Italienne referred to by Brantome. [_See Plate I., Nos. 5 and 6.] JohnAchesoun returned toScotlandandresumed his place at the royal mint. The testoon, though dated 1561, does not appear to have been put into circulation before 1 562. Theobverse is inscribed . MARIA. DEI. GRA . SCOTOR . REGINA . with the date, 1 5 6 1 , on a tablet. On the reverse is an escutcheon surmounted by a crown and bearing the Arms of France and Scotland, with the letter m, over which is a crown on either side, and the inscription, SALVVM.FAC POPVLVM . TVVM . DOMINE . On the occasion of the marriage of Mary Stuart with Henry, Lord Darnley, which was celebrated 61 vi on July 29, 1 565, a medal was struck, bearing the heads of Mary and Henry. This medal was evi- dently based upon the previous marriage medal of Mary and Francois. The work is less fine, and consequently the heads are of less value as guides to portraiture. Darnley's bust appears in profile to right, clad in armour in the convention of the time ; MaryStuart's appears in profile to the left. Both heads are crowned. Mary wears a rich cos- tume fitting up to the chin as before, but her hair is differently arranged, being arrayed very full behind the ear and descending as far as the neck. Round the medal is the inscription, maria & HENRIC . D.G. REGI . & REX . SCOTORVM . and below the busts is the date, 1565. In another medal, struck on the same occasion with the same date and inscription, Darnley is bareheaded and Mary wears her hair dressed closer to the head, and a small hat or bonnet with a feather projecting from it behind. This coin or medal is of great rarity, an example being pre- served in the British Museum. Of greater importance than these two small coins or medals was the silver coin, known as a 'ryal,' issued at the same date. The arrangement of the heads are the same, but both Mary and Darnley are bareheaded. Darnley does not wear armour, and Mary Stuart, besides having herhairconfined in a caul as before, wears a different dress, cut square across the bosom, showing the chemisette 62 with a collar open at the neck. This coin is in- scribed, HENRICVS&MARIA.D.GRA.R.&R.SCOTORVM. with the date 1565 under the busts as before. On the reverse is the escutcheon of Scotland between two thistle-heads, and the inscription, qvos devs coivnxit . homo non . separet. This 'ryal' is of great rarity also, one example being in the British Museum. Its rarity can be accounted for, since the coin is mentioned in a despatch from Thomas Randolph, the English ambassador, to Sir William Cecil in December 1565, in which Ran- dolph says that it was almost immediately called in. This was perhaps due to the undue promi- nence given to Henry in the inscription. \_See Plate I., No. 10.] It is unnecessary in these pages to do more than allude to the disastrous events which followed on the marriage of Mary Stuart and Darnley, and which succeeded each other with such fatal rapidity. In little more than seven months oc- curred the murder of Riccio. A few months later came the birth of Mary's son, James, followed quickly by her narrow escape from death through fever at Jedburgh. From this Mary Stuart had scarcely recovered, before she was implicated, knowingly or otherwise, in the tragedy of Kirk o' Field, followed by the surrender of Mary Stuart to Bothwell, and her marriage to him within four 63 monthsfrom Darnley'sdeath. As Bothwell'swife, Mary Stuart — discrowned in favour of her infant son — became first a captive at Carberry Hill, and then a prisoner at Lochleven. Afew months later MaryStuarthadescapedfromLochleven,seenher cause shattered at Langside, and thrown herself, a miserable refugee, into the hands of her deadliest enemy, Elizabeth of England, in the futile hope of meeting with mercy and sympathy from her cousin. It was evident that there could have been little opportunity for portraiture during these tumultu- ous days. The whole story reads like one of the wild sagas of the north, rather than the honeyed and silken chronicles of Brantome. The third and concludingperiodof Mary Stuart's life began on May 16, 1 568, when, an exile from her own kingdom, over which her son had already been crowned in her place as king, she crossed the Solway Firth,and landed from asmall fishing-boat at Workington in Cumberland, whenceshe wrote a despairing letter to Elizabeth, imploring her protection. Mary was received by Mr. Richard Lowther, deputy governor of Carlisle, and con- ducted to Carlisle, where she was placed under the charge of Sir Francis Knollys and Lord Scrope, the governor of Carlisle, with his wife. Mary remained under strict supervision at Car- lisle until July 16, when she was taken as a 64 Plate xii & /:. !r \n) SILVER TESTOON (ENLARGED) WITH THE HEAD OF MARY STUART, WHEN DAUPHINE From the unique specimen in the British Museum (b) MEDALLION BY PRIMAVERA. WITH A PORTRAIT OF MARY STUART IN LATER LIFE prisoner to Lord Scrope's Castle of Bolton in Yorkshire. On January 26, 1568/9, Mary was removed from Bolton, and travelled by Ripon, Pontefract, Rotherham, and Chesterfield to Tut- bury, in Staffordshire, where she was entrusted to the charge of George Talbot, Earl of Shrews- bury. The Earl of Shrewsbury was then the greatest landowner in the Midlands of England. His chief seat was at Sheffield Castle, in the park of which was also situated Sheffield Manor-house. Besides these he owned the manor-houses of Wingfield and Worksop, the Castle of Tutbury, Rufford Abbey, and the Hall at Buxton. In addition to all this his wife, the famous Bess of Hardwick, owned Chatsworth and Hardwick in her own right. At Tutbury Mary Stuart was kept a close prisoner, and remained there, with the exception of two short visits to Wingfield, in Derbyshire, and to Coventry, until May 1 570, when she was removed to Chatsworth. I n the following N ovem- ber, probably in consequence of an attempt to es- cape from Chatsworth, Mary Stuart was removed for greater security to Sheffield Castle, another seat of the Earl of Shrewsbury. At Sheffield, either in the castle or the manor-house, the un- fortunate Queen of Scotland remained in captivity for fourteen years, only varied by occasional visits to Chatsworth and Worksop, or to the baths at 1 65 Buxton on account of her ill-health. In every in- stance she was lodged under the Earl of Shrews- bury's roof. The task entrusted to the Earl of Shrewsbury was no light one. The chief Courts of Europe were interested in her fate, and herfriends never relaxed their efforts to obtain her release or effect her es- cape, in the hope that a fourth marriage, if judi- ciously negotiated, might secure in her person the united thrones of England and Scotland and re- establish the Church of Rome in England. The only obstacle lay in the Queen of England, Eliza- beth, whoselife was worth but little in such a poli- tical game. Mary Stuart herself lent a willing ear, whenever she could, to these plots and intrigues, though it was difficult for her and her fellow-con- spirators to evade the vigilance or escape the snares of Burghley and Walsingham. Thewhole history of Mary Stuart's captivity is one of plot and intrigue, of lying and treachery, by no means only on her side. Everyservant, every tradesman, every messenger was a possible secret agent. It is important to bear this in mind when considering the question as to how far Mary Stuart, during her captivity, could have had any opportunity for sitting to any stranger for her portrait. During the first years of her captivity at Tutbury and elsewhere her confinement seems to have been very rigorous, and it can hardly be supposed that indiscriminate access to the royal captive was 66 permitted for outsiders. PublicopinioninEngland became subsequently greatly inflamed against Mary Stuart by the Ridolfiplot and the complicity of the Duke of Norfolk, but more especially by the famous Massacre of St. Bartholomew on August 24, 1572, in the blame for which Burghley and others tried to involve the unfortunate Queen of Scotland. When the horror caused by this event had abated, and after Mary Stuart had been some years longer at Sheffield, she seems to have been more kindly and less rigorously treated by the Earl of Shrewsbury. She even excited the jeal- ousy, at one time, of the termagant old countess, who alleged that the queen had exercised her powers of fascination on the Earl of Shrewsbury too far. A record, which seems to be fairly complete so far as events go, of Mary Stuart's later life in cap- tivity, is to be found in the correspondence and evidence of her secretary, Claude Nau, who ob- tained his position in 1575, after the death of Mary's uncle, the Cardinal of Lorraine, whom he had served in a similar capacity. Mary Stuart had lost her former secretary, Roullet, by death, and Nau's brother had been in her service before. The fact that he was recommended to Mary by Elizabeth is rendered suspicious by his being in Elizabeth's pay, though there was nothing in his conduct to suggest treachery to his mistress. In January during this year Mary wrote to James 67 --j. Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow, her envoy and representative at the Court of France and ad- ministrator of her revenues as Queen Dowager of France, and asked him to "obtain for me, I pray you, a fine gold mirror, to hang from the waist, with a chain to hang it to ; and let there be upon the mirror a cipher of the Queen and mine and some appropriate motto which the Car- dinal, my uncle, will suggest. There are some of my friends in this country who ask for my portrait. {II y a de mes amis en ce pays qui demandent de mes fteinctures.) I pray you, have four of these made, which must be set in gold, and sent to me secretly, and as soon as possible." It is possible that this commission was never carried out. The Cardinal of Lorraine had died at Avignon on December 26 of the preceding year, but heruncle, Louis,Cardinal de Guise, was still alive. The four fteinctures to " be set in gold and sent to me secretly "must have been intended to be miniature-paintings. The letter is moreover of special interest, as showing that there were ap- parently noavailableportraitsof Mary Stuart incir- culation either in England or Scotland, and that she had nothing by her in her captivity. It must be noted, however, that in the history of Scotland, published at Rome in 1578 by John Lesley, Bishop of Ross, under the title of " De origine, moribus et rebus gestis Scotorum," an engraved plate is introduced which contains medallion 68 Plate xiii ^U MARY STUART, AND HER SON, JAMES VI. From the engraving in " Dc origine, moribus, et rebus gestis Scotorum " : by John Lesley. Bishop of Ross, 1578 portraits of M ary Stuart, and also of her son J ames VI. at the age of twelve. Mary wears a dress cut low in the neck in undulating curves, a veil falls from her cap, on which is a crown. The features are unduly thin and sharp. [See Plate XIII.] The engraving would appear to have been done by an Italian artist from a miniature portrait. It was sufficiently, however, esteemed as a likeness on the continent for a copy to be taken in miniature for the famous collection formed by the Archduke Ferdinand of Tirol, at Schloss Ambras, near Innsbruck, which collection, now in the Im- perial Gallery at Vienna, was commenced in 1578 and terminated by the Archduke's death in 1595. John Lesley, Bishop of Ross, was one of Mary Stuart's most trusted friends and councillors, and wrote the Latin history referred to, while representing her interests at the Papal Court in Rome. The bishop is not likely to have published any likeness of Mary Stuart on which reliance could not be placed. It may have been the failure to obtain these por- traits from abroad which led to permission being granted by the Earl of Shrewsbury for a painter to have access to the Queen of Scotland at Shef- field. Perhaps, however, a simpler cause may have led to the painter's presence. The Countess of Shrewsbury, who was as ambitious as she was grandiose in her ideas of building, made a secret agreement with Margaret Douglas, Countess of 69 Lenox, mother of the deceased Lord Darnley, for a marriage between Darnley's younger brother, Charles Stuart, now Earl of Lenox, and Elizabeth Cavendish, younger daughter of the Countess of Shrewsbury by her second husband, Sir William Cavendish. By this marriage the Countess of Shrewsbury secured to her daughter's issue the reversion of the thrones of England and Scotland in the event of both Elizabeth and James VI. dying without children, Elizabeth was frantic at this manoeuvre, and both the in- triguing countesses were locked up in prison for a time. But this marriage brought nothing but bitterness and sorrow. The young Earl left his wife a widow in December 1576, leaving one little child, Arabella Stuart, Mary Stuart's niece, to be the future heiress and victim of this and other political intrigues. At Hardwick Hall there are portraits of the Earl and Countess of Lenox and their infant child. It is possible that the Countess of Shrewsbury may have summoned a painter to Sheffield Castle to take these portraits, and that Mary may have obtained leave from her gaolers to sit for her portrait to the same painter. At all events, on August 31, 1577, Nau wrote from Sheffield to the Archbishop of Glasgow in France, and said : " Je pensois faire accompagner la pr^sente d'un portraict de sa Majesty, mais le peintre ne luy a ceus donner sa perfection avant le partement de 70 cettedespesch e." It is generally believed that the portrait, then in course of completion, was the full- length portrait by P. Oudry, which still remains in the possession of the Cavendish familyat Hard- wick Hall. The fact that it has always belonged to the Cavendish descendants of the Countess of Shrewsbury makes it the more probable that this portrait, at all events, was done at the instance of the Countess of Shrewsbury rather than that of Mary Stuart herself. On the other hand, it is not absolutely certain, when this portrait of Mary Stuart first came into the Cavendish family, since it is not one of the numerous portraits detailed in the Countess of Shrewsbury's will, which she made in April 1601. The following is Scharfs description of this inter- esting portrait : "This portrait is painted in oil, upon solid panel, the size of life. The Queen is represented stand- ing, turned slightly towards the spectators left, the face being seen in three-quarters in the same direction. Her yellow-brown eyes look piercingly at the spectator. She is dressed entirely in black, and her long gown entirely conceals the feet. She rests her right hand flat on a red-covered table, and her left hangs down, with the fingers widespread, touching the end of her rosary. Behind her, to the right, are the gathered-up folds of a greenish-brown curtain. On the opposite side, above the table, is a tablet containing the 71 vJL following inscription in dark-yellow capital letters : MARIA D . G . SCOTIA PIISSIMA REGINA FRANCIS DOWERIA ANNO ^ETATIS REGNI Q [stC but REGNI Oft the picture itself] 36, anglic^e captiv it . [sic but cAPTiViE on the picture] 10 . s . h . 1578. "The edge of her black dress is arched in front across the chest, and above that, extending to the folds of her richly-bordered ruff, is a covering of quilted white linen. Her white muslin and lace-edged cap is bowed down on the forehead in the style usually associated with her hair. But the forehead is extraordinarily high. The rich dark-brown hair, clustered in round curls, bunches out on each side of the temples. She wears a small gold ear-ring, with a plain round drop of black jet hanging from it. The ruff is not closed in front, but tied across the neck by a fine white thread in a bow, the loops of which may be seen lying beneath a finely patterned necklace of black beads, interlacing in geometric lines, and forming an open net-work, with the well-known device of Mary, composed of two letters ' M ' combined, the one up and the other down, and a small black crown pendant in the centre. From the front edge of her ruff hang four white strings, two on each side, each terminating in tassels, consisting of small white balls clustered. This, although a small feature, is a peculiarity to be noticed here- after. A richly-wrought chain, apparently of 72 polished metal, is festooned across the upper part of her black dress, and hangs low down in front. From a plain black riband passing round her neck is suspended at her breast a small crucifix, consisting of a yellow cross, terminating almost in a point, and the figure of our Lord in flesh colour extended upon it. A larger cross, very different in character from this, is attached to the dark chain on her left side. This cross is of the Latin form, with a Gothic letter S on each of the golden limb and a disc in the centre, sur- rounded by a border with the words angvsti^s vndiqve upon it. In the centre are three figures, a female between two men, one of them wearing a scarlet robe, and the group undoubtedly repre- sents Susanna and the Elders, which, together with the surrounding motto, bore significant allu- sion to the Queen's peculiar situation. To this cross is attached a rosary, consisting of richly- ornamented beads, some of gold and others of a dark material patterned red. Over her shoulders falls a long transparent muslin veil, which reaches to the ground. It is bowed out with wire over the shoulders, on each side of the head, so as to form wings, as seen in portraits of Queen Eliza- beth, Catherine de'Medicis, and all ladiesof high rank at this period. She wears lace ruffles at the wrists to match the ruff round her neck. The dress is quite plain black. The pattern of the Persian carpet on which she stands is drawn k 73 without any regard to perspective. On the wooden cross rail of the table is written with a brush in black paint, p. ovdry pinxit. The pic- ture is painted upon three broad planks, fixed vertically. Its general appearance is harsh and unattractive, and maybe termed Chinese in taste and execution, but there is nevertheless an un- mistakable air of truth about it. The man who painted this portrait was neither an artist nor an inventor. H e must have had a reality before him. I am disposed to lay the greatest stress upon this picture as the original source from which so many modified types were derived." [See Plate XI V.] In the National Portrait Gallery there hangs a repetition of the ' Sheffield ' portrait, but on a different scale, as it shows the figure only to above the knees. That this portrait preserves its original dimensions is evident from the fact that the left hand is raised so as to rest on the hip, the elbow being extended akimbo, in front of the long lawn veil. In other respects the details are the same in design, though with numerous minor differences. In the National Portrait Gallery portrait the face is long, the forehead hard and high, the outline of face and neck sharply in line, the chin well-set, the nose long and slightly aquiline, the left nostril in- dicated, the eyes dark-brown with a piercing ex- pression, the mouth small and well-shaped, and the lips pale red. In the 'Sheffield' portrait the features have a slightly older look, the nose is 74 va . Kara cfczutrt in ca p tivi ty at c S/i.-f't'iftrl C,i./'. HjtrtOTl n of the. (jfiitAe of ill ''^cronj hire , Z/LS. aj- ^JiarduncA. ~/LaH. has long borne the name of Mary, Queen of Scots. In this portrait the lady represented is in the gayest of garb. H er dress is pale crimson, slashed with white, a rich gold and turquoise necklace with pendant and two rich gold chains encircle her neck over a white silk partlet, and she wears a doubly folded ruff high up to the ears. Her hair is of a clear pale yellow colour and wavy, not curled or crimped. It is confined in a richly embroidered green caul or crdpine, on which is set a flat red bonnet with a white feather over the right side of the head. Her eyes are pale-yellow or hazel, and her eyebrows a pale-yellow brown. The picture has, however, been so much repainted, that its original appearance can hardly be detected. [See Plate XXVI 1 1.] At first sight it would seem as if this attractive portrait might safely be accepted as a likeness of "La Royne Dauphine." Sir. George Scharfwas willing to accept it as such, and even to refer it to as early a date as 1552, when Mary Stuart was only ten years old, relying on the frequent habit of painters to depict children at an age greater than the truth. The present writer is unable to follow Scharf in his theory as to the age of the person represented, and after prolonged examination has been compelled to reject the por- traitaltogetheras that of Mary Stuart. It is difficult to trace in this elegant beauty and coquette the marked features, which are so uniformly charac- 125 vj teristic in the drawings at Chantilly and in the Bibliotheque Nationale,in the miniature-portrait at Windsor, and that in the Livre d'Heures of Catherine de' Medicis. The eyebrows, nose,lips, and especially the ear, are not of the same char- acter. The chin is somewhat similar, but seems to show a dimple or cleft, which Mary's chin did not possess. This portrait, which measures 13 inches by 11, is thinly painted on panel, and the black outlines can be seen in places through the paint. The back- ground is dark yellow-brown, and bears an in- scription in a later hand only — Maria . Reg . Scotice, not Scotoruni as in the authentic portraits. 1 1 probably represents some other princess or lady of high rank at the Court of Henri II. Another small portrait, painted on canvas, stated to be that of Mary Stuart, is in the possession of the Marquess of Bath at Longleat. In this por- trait the lady wears her hair frizzed under a caul and surmounted by a round black hat with broad brim and white feathers. The black dress, slashed with white and trimmed with pearls, rises high to the neck, and is open in front with a high double collar and ruff in the style of the miniature-portrait at Windsor. The features vary from the accepted portraits, and make it difficult to set the Longleat portrait alongside of those from Chantilly and 126 PL XXIX ^ ■ ( f - - in i * £ft | & '"' * 1 1 * - - • is** BjjoH || *> <*/ j p£Sv • 1 ^ II ¥ 1 P IK- 4 iy 7 "*M?^ ^s Yuftpeod portrait tp. Han/ < Ytuart Paris. Moreover, according to Scharf, who ex- amined this portrait very carefully, the painting of the portrait, especially of the oval frame in which it is set, is weak and tame, and in the manner of the seventeenth century. There are good reasons for identifying this portrait as one of those pur- chased in 1 704 by the then Viscount Weymouth from Cobham Hall, where many pictures and works of art were dispersed after the death of the last Duke of Richmond and Lenox in 1672. In the schedule of the Duke's goods at Cobham, taken after his death, there are mentioned in the dining-room "one picture of Queen Mary," and in the Wardrobe of Pictures "one of Mary, Queen of Scotts." One of these entries certainly points to the version of the ' Sheffield ' portrait already described. The other entry may refer to the portrait now at Longleat. A bust-portrait of Mary Stuart, resembling the Longleat portrait in certain details of costume, and possibly based on an original portrait of Mary Stuart, was formerly in the possession of the late Mr. John Carr of Skipton. Features of a somewhat similar character to those in the Longleat portrait are to be found in a small portrait at full length, which was acquired by H. R. H . Prince Albert before 1 85 7, and was long preserved at Barton Farm near Osborne House 127 in the Isle of Wight. It has now been removed to Buckingham Palace and placed in the private apartments of her Majesty Queen Alexandra. The portrait, which measures about 1 2 inches high by 8 inches in width, is painted in oil on oak panel. The figure is shown at full length, stand- ing, the left hand resting on the arm of a high- backed arm-chair, the right holding a carefully folded pocket-handkerchief. Scharf describes the portrait as follows: " Her long dress, slashed with white, and adorned with golden studs and jewels, is open in front to show a nether gar- ment of white. The skirt reaches the ground and conceals the feet. She wears a small white lace ruff open in front, exposing the neck, and a large collar of jewels below it. Her black cap, or bonnet, is also encircled with a band of jewels, and a plain white ostrich feather at the side curls over her right ear. H er dark brown eyes are fixed on the spectator, and the hair, although little is seen of it, is of a decided chestnut-brown colour. The complexion is very fair with delicate pink on her youthful cheeks. Eyebrows faintly marked. The figure possesses much elegance and dignity, and is extremely well painted. The composition and attitude remind one of portraits by Pourbus on a larger scale. The background here is of a plain, rich, brownish green, deepening in tone down- wards to the level unpatterned brown floor. N o gold is employed upon the picture." [See Plate XXX.] 128 PLxxx cJuppc&ed portrait sO-f^s/larv cJtuxirt 'frxrm the portrait at iSuckintfham, z£ala* r . This little portrait corresponds almost exactly with a drawing in the collection formed by M. de Gaignieres, tutor to the sons of the Grand Dauphin, and given by him to Louis XIV. in 171 1, which is now in the BibliothequeNationale at Paris. Thisdrawingisdescribedas"Tir£ed'un Tableau original de la Gallerie deM.de Gaig- nieres (Enlumin^)." The original painting may be identical with that purchased by the Prince Consort. The principal difference is that in the drawing the white folded handkerchief is replaced byapair of dark gloves,and a black hangingsleeve is seen in the drawing upon the left arm, which rests upon the chair. The drawing in the Gaignieres collection was en- graved, very coarsely, for Montfaucon's " Monu- mens de la Monarchic Fran9aise" (Vol. v. Plate XIV.), published 1 729—1 733, and has conse- quently enjoyed much reputation. It was brought from Osborne by permission of her Majesty, Queen Victoria, for exhibition at the Society of Antiquariesat their meeting in Burlington House ■ on November 19, 1888, when a valuable and learned paper was contributed by Sir George Scharf, since printed in " Archaeologia," Vol. li. In spite of the enthusiastic advocacy of so great an authority as Scharf, the present writer is unable to attach the same importance to the Osborne portrait. 1 1 is difficult to reconcile the staring eyes, pinched features, and foolish expression of the r 129 face in both the Gaignieres drawing and the Osborne portrait with the strongly marked fea- tures, so full of character, in the authenticated portraits of Mary Stuart. It is possible, that the Gaignieres drawing may be nothing but an amateur's transcript from an original painting, in which the features were more defined, and also that the portrait purchased by Prince Albert is nothing but a mere copy from the Gaignieres drawing, and even from the plate in Montfaucon. Under any circumstances it is difficult to accept this portrait as a true likeness of Mary Stuart. Attention must now be directed to certain por- traits which have long claimed to represent Mary Stuart, but which are decidedly erroneous, so far as the portraiture of Mary Stuart is concerned. With the great mass of bare-faced fabrications and dealers' fakes, which are scattered about the world, it is not the present writer's intention to deal fur- ther, than to warn amateurs and historians gener- ally against the frequent, and, it is to be feared, too often successful, attempts to deceive them, which have been, and are still, practised by those who trade habitually on the credulity of their clients. There are, however, certain portraits which have been so long accepted as likenesses of Mary Stuart, that they have acquired some kind of authority, and must therefore be dealt with in 130 any work aspiring to be looked upon as serious and exhaustive. First among these may be noticed an interesting portrait, which hangs in the apartment known as Lord Darnley's bedroom in Holyrood Palace, and is included among the property of the Duke of Hamilton, Hereditary Keeper of the Palace. The portrait, which is painted on panel, and measures about 35x28 inches, represents a lady in a rich crimson dress, the bodice and large falling sleeves of which are in a fashion similar to that of the dresses worn by Princess Mary and Princess Elizabeth in their youth before the former's acces- sion to the Crown in 1553. This fashion was in vogue a few years later, but had almost entirely ceased to be so when Elizabeth became Queen in 1558. The lady represented in the portrait has hair of a dark and rich amber-brown, and eyes of the same colour in a lighter tint. On the portrait is the inscription a ?iETA. sv. 16., on the strength of which Scharf accepted the portrait as a likeness of Mary Stuart, painted in 1 5 5 8 after her marriage to the dauphin. At the time when Scharf wrote, he was unaware that the lower portion of the picture contained the further inscription he 1 5 6 5 , the mono- gram being that usually ascribed to the painter Lucas D' H eere. I f the portrait were that of Mary Stuart, the date would bring her to the age of 23 in the year of her marriage to Lord Darnley at Holyrood. [See Plate XXIX.] 131 vi It must be conceded, that it is difficult to recon- cile the date 1565 with the costume worn by the lady depicted. Similar difficulties, however, occur with regard to other portraits bearing the same monogram. It is not impossible, therefore, that D' H eere, if he be the painter who used this mono- gram, sometimes painted portraits of bygone cele- brities, either direct copies as in the great portrait of Henry VI 1 1. , after Holbein,at Trinity College, Cambridge, or from the drawings on which the painters of the sixteenth century, Holbein, Clouet and others, were wont to found their paintings. The portrait at Holyrood would appear to repre- sent some princess of the Tudor family, but it is more akin in features and general appearance to the early portraits of Mary Tudor, orthoseof Lady Jane Grey, than to the features of Mary Stuart, either in 1558, the year of the Janet drawing and the Windsor miniature, or in 1 565, the year of the Darnley marriage medal. 1 1 is difficult to agree with Scharf that in this paint- ing "the face of Mary closely accords with her best authenticated portraits." Specially noteworthy in the Holyrood portrait are the jewels, which are similar in design and char- acter to those habitually worn by the Tudor prin- cesses, but which are not characteristic of the cos- tumes affected by Mary Stuart. 132 PI XXXI .Ai/.u- ! '/ortruit of - Kurd i Hittirt . knrirn ,r.< y hi- ( nirlrtpti Zfortraib't in tlir cotleclir-n rfthf S "tikr <•/ J <-r,-ii.r/nr,-..y< .'j..nl ( thitttuvrtli . The next "impostor" to be dealt with is perhaps the most familiar of all, and that which has been responsible for circulating a more extensive mis- conception as to the true likeness of Mary Stuart than any other. This is the so-called 'Carleton' portrait, in the collection of the Duke of Devon- shire, formerly at Chiswick Villa and now at Chatsworth. The lady represented stands at full length, life size, wearing a long rich crimson dress, with tight sleeves puffed at the shoulders, showing a yellow brocade vertugadine or bell-shaped skirt below. She holds a sprayof roses in her left hand and rests her right hand on a low-backed arm-chair, which stands in front of a window, through the diapered panes of which are seen the buildings of a town. She has dark brown eyesand chestnut brown hair, creased in a rich jewelled caul or crdpine. The collar of the dress rises high up the neck, open at the throat, and showing a cambric lining to the collar. A very slight comparison between the authenticated portraits of Mary Stuart and this portrait will show that there is but the merest superficial resemblance, which the most cursory examination can dispel. [See Plate XXXI.] Furthermore, in spite of the celebrity of this por- trait, its history is sufficiently well-known to enable one to judge of its value in that respect. Thepicture first comes on the tapis in 1 7 1 3, when George Vertue, the engraver, notes in his day-book i33 (BritMus. Add. MSS. 23068, f. 77) as follows: "The Picture at whole length I saw at M r Sykes painter of Mary, Queen of Scots, is a fine painted picture & seems to be younger than that at S* James (said to be painted by Frederick Zucchero) (he said to me) it belongs to D — Norfolk (a story) (but he sold it afterwards to Lord Carlton — it is L d Burlingtons now) and was borrowed purposely for to makeaprint after it by M r Smith mezzotint." Sykes was a dealer in Lincoln's Inn Fields, whose collection of pictures was sold after his death in June 1733. He was considered an authority in his day, and was consulted in 1 727 as to the value of Sir James Thornhill's paintings in Greenwich Hospital. The portrait was purchased as Mary, Queen of Scots, by Henry Boyle, Lord Carleton, who built the original ■ Carlton House' in St. James's Park, and died unmarried in 1725. Carl- ton House was bequeathed by him to his nephew, Richard Boyle, third Earl of Burlington, who gave it to his mother, Juliana, Countess of Cork and Burlington, who in her turn sold it to Frederick, Prince of Wales. The picture in question was re- moved by the Earl of Burlington to his new villa at Chiswick, and descended through his daugh- ter and heiress to the Duke of Devonshire. At Chiswick it remained until the middle of the nineteenth century, when it was removed to Chatsworth by the Duke of Devonshire. Vertue himself has left a record of Sykes as a 134 dealer, for Horace Walpole, writing in 1762 to Dr. Ducarelon the subject of the sai-disant paint- ing of "The Marriage of Henry VII," which was purchased from Sykes, finds fault with Ver- tue for having said that it was made up by Sykes. Vertue said, according to Walpole, ' ' Sykes, know- ing how to give names to pictures to make them sell, called this the Marriage of Henry VI I., and afterwards he said, Sykes had the figures inserted in an old picture of a Church." Vertue had the reputation for strict honesty with regard to his en- gravings, and it would appear that he had doubts of the authenticity of the 'Carleton' portrait, according to a statement made by Horace Wal- pole to Sir Joseph Banks. But Vertue isresponsible for the vogue and popu- larity of the portrait. The mezzotint-engraving by John Smith was never completed, probably owing to the advanced age of the engraver, but a line-engraving from the portrait was made by Vertue himself, and published as frontispiece to a folio volume "DeVita et Rebus gestis Mariae Scotorum Reginae," edited by Samuel J ebb, and published by Jacob Woodman and David Lyon in London in 1725. An English version of the same work by Dr. J ebb in octavo was published the same year with the same portrait. The en- graving is at half-length only, and bears the title, " Maria Scotorum Regina ex Pictura Frederici Zuchari in CEdibus Nobilissimi et i35 Vi Honoratissimi D m D ni Baronis deCarlton. Geor- giusVertue Londini Sculpsit 1 725." In this en- graving, which is far from being an accurate ren- dering, Vertue has added, probably under instruc- tions from the Earl of Burlington, on the square back of the chair, on which the lady's hand rests, a thistle head with two leaves, surmounted by a crown, as seen on the coins of Scotland. This badge does not exist, and never has existed, in the original picture, and from this deliberate falsifica- tion the 'Carleton' portrait has derived its fame and authority. Even the absurd ascription of the portrait to Federigo Zuccaro, who did not reach England till 1 574, when Mary Stuart was in cap- tivity at Sheffield, has kept its ground. The new portrait of Mary Stuart quickly became popular, and a demand for portraits of this type ensued. Copies from the engraving, great and small, were poured forth by enterprising dealers, and the supply is not yet exhausted, judging from the specimens contributed by enthusiastic ama- teurs to recent historical exhibitions. But no ver- sion of this portrait exists, which is older in date than Vertue's engraving. The idea that this portrait, so interesting in itself, represents Mary, Queen of Scots, is generally abandoned. Attempts have been made to fit it with a name, and various French princesses of royal blood have been suggested, but without definite success. 136 The next soi-disant portrait of Mary Stuart to be exposed is one which has been almost as widely circulated as the 'Carleton' portrait, and conse- quently has produced a correspondingly exten- sive crop of erroneous ideas as to Mary Stuart's appearance. This portrait is in a black satin dress, trimmed with white fur, with a plain black head-dress, a fashion borrowed from Spain, and familiar from portraits of Mary Tudor, Lady Jane Grey, and other ladies in the middle of the sixteenth century. In this type of portrait the sup- posed Mary Stuart has a round fat face, thick lips, doublechin, a strongly retrousse nose, largestaring eyes, well-marked eyebrows, and flat smooth hair, all of which features are totally at variance with the authenticated portraits of Mary Stuart. Fortunately the history of this type can be traced like that of the 'Carleton' portrait, with which its first appearance seems to be contemporary. It is again through George Vertue, the engraver, that the information is due. I none of his diaries (Brit: Mus. Add. MSS. 23073, f. 25), Vertue notes as follows: "The Dutchess of Hamilton that livd at the manorhouse at East Acton had great col- lectionsof Indian workandchinaandmany curious limnings portraits some of them excellent andrare — in number about fifty or sixty ... so many as was exposed to sale 1745. No. 28 Mary Qu. Scots, this is the original limning which the Duke of Hamilton had recoverd and valud most s 137 vi extremely — showd it at Court and everywhere for the true genuine picture of the Queen everywhere from thence itwascoppyd inwater coloursenamel many and many times for all personspiningafter it thousands of ill immitated coppyes — spread every- where — this the picture itself — tho amended by or repaird by L. Crosse who was ordered to make it as beautifull as he coud — by the Duke. Still is a ro^mdish face not agreeable to those most certain pictures of her — but his attestation of its being genuine, latter part of Qu. Anns time it took and prest upon the publick in such a extraordinary manner." The copies alluded to by Vertue appear to have been derived from two sources. The original minia- ture itselfmayhavehadsomeclaimsto be regarded asalikenessofMary,Queen of Scots,butas Vertue testifies to the fact that the actual miniature itself was refreshed and beautified by Lawrence Crosse, himselfaminiature-painter of great excellence, and by special order of its owner, the Duke of Hamil - ton, it is no longer possible to discover what it pre- sented at the outset. Vertue's accountwould lead one to suppose that the miniature was sold at the dispersal of the effects belonging to the Duchessof Hamilton, who was probably Anne Spencer, widow of James, fifth Duke of Hamilton. A miniature, however, of this description was sold at the great Hamilton Palace Sale at Christie's in July 1882, and purchased by Mr. Grindlay for 138 Plate VI FALSE PORTRAIT OF MARY STUART, THE "ORKNEY" TYPE From the mezzotint-engraving by J. P. Simon £\ 10 5s. During the first years of the eighteenth century a number of copies of this miniature were executed by Bernard Lens, the younger, a minia- ture-painter of some note himself. These copies by Lens are to be found in many celebrated collec- tions of miniatures, such as the Royal Library at Windsor, the Duke of Buccleuch's at Montagu House, the Duke of Marlborough's at Blenheim, and others. At the time also of the "recovery" of this minia- ture a mezzotint-engraving, enlarged from the original, was made by John Simon, the eminent engraver. [See Plate XXXII.] This engraving appears to have been the foundation for numerous copies in oil-colours, which are frequently met with in private collections. One enlarged version, known as the 'Orkney' portrait, is in the collection of the Duke of Sutherland at Dunrobin Castle. Similar portraits are not uncommon, one being in the possession of Mr. George Rabnett at Rose- mount, Tudor Hill, Sutton Coldfield. The popu- larity of this portrait extended to its being adopted for fancy dress. Bernard Lens, theyounger, is said to have painted miniature-portraits of fine ladiesin this costume. In spite of this vogue it remains doubtful if the original miniature was ever a true likeness of Mary Stuart, and it is certain that all existing versions of it, whether paintings, minia- tures, or engravings, do not represent the Scottish queen, except in an entirely fictitious manner. i39 A similar chain of misconception can be traced from a miniature-painting, which was formerly in the collection of the well-known Dr. Mead, and is now in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle. Inthisminiature the supposed Mary Stuart wears a black dress with a high-crowned black hat over a white cap, with a white lawn chemisette ending in a wide open ruff and a rich jewelled necklace over the lawn. The features have very little in common with those of Mary Stuart. Unfortu- nately the reputation enjoyed by this miniature, while it was in Dr. Mead's collection, caused it to be selected in 1 7 3 8 to be engraved by H oubraken for Birch's ' ' H eads of I llustrious Persons of Great Britain," to replace one engraved by Nicolas Dauphin, which was not considered satisfactory. The great popularity of Dr. Birch's work, and the wide circulation of the engraved portraits therein published, have caused this portrait to be copied over and over again as a true portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots, to whom it has so little real re- semblance. Another portrait, which has enjoyed great reputa- tion in its day, must be abandoned, though not without regret. This is the once famous * Fraser- Tytler' portrait, now in the National Portrait Gallery. This portrait, which is well-known from its place of exhibition, and has been frequently 140 Jbxlstp&rtrai/af^ 4(aty vHiiarf- fthe ^/rtuse^-J^tlcr portrait ) ^rtnrv the painting in the ^.AfaHcnai -SirrtntUt fjallrrij. reproduced, was for long considered to be a portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots. It first appears, as such, in the possession of a Scottish portrait-painter, named Stewart, and then in that of a London dealer, named Gwennap, who sold it to Mr. Patrick Fraser-Tytler, the well-known histo- rian of Scotland, who believed firmly in the por- trait, and published a monograph on the subject, in which he sought toprove that itwasthe portrait painted in 1 560, which was sent by Mary Stuart, through Lord Seton, to Queen Elizabeth. The portrait was transferred frompanel tocanvaswhile in Mr. Fraser-Tytler's possession. In February i860 it was purchased by the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery. [See PlateXXXI 1 1.] This portrait is particularly notable as an example of elaborate French costume at the close of the sixteenth century. The jewels, which are profuse and of the richest execution, contain devices, which, if genuine, would connect the portrait with theValois family, such as the salamander of Fran- cis I. and the crowned pillar of Francis II. It needs, however, but a cursory glance to show that the lady with long pale face, the pale yellow hair, pale red lips, and large blue eyes, cannot be identical with the strong-featured, brown-eyed, auburn Mary Stuart. Relying, however, on the presumed connection with Mary Stuart, and on a shield of arms suspended to a tree in the back- ground, Scharf sought to prove, by an elaborate 141 chain of argument, that the portrait was that of Mary of Lorraine, Mary Stuart's mother, painted while the queen-regent was besieged in Leith. It is difficult to reconcile this portrait with the undoubted portrait of Mary of Lorraine with her husband, James V., at Hardwick Hall, a portrait which in every way bears out all that which one could expect to find in the mother of Mary Stuart. The costume, moreover, of the lady represented belongs to a date at least fifty years later than that at which Scharf supposed the por- trait to have been painted. It is, however, the duty of the present writer, un- pleasing though it may be, to record his opinion, after a careful scrutiny of this portrait, that the portrait is neither that of Mary, Queen of Scots, nor of her mother, and that the shield of arms, on which Mr. Fraser-Tytler and Sir George Scharf laid so much stress, is nothing but a " fake" which can be easily detected.* As a representation of costume the portrait will always have a value, but as a portrait it must be dethroned from its high position. It has already been noted that a portrait of a lady with round staringeyes,and afeather fan, engraved by Peter Myricenys, and published by Hierony- mus Cock as Mary Stuart, has considerable * In this opinion the writer is supported by Mr. J. L. Caw, Curator of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, and M. L. Dimier of Valenciennes. 142 resemblance to the 'Fraser-Tytler' portrait, and consequently has sometimes been accepted as the portrait of Mary of Lorraine. Another portrait, which must be mentioned, as it has been a fertile source of error, is the portrait of a lady and her son, in the Draper's Hall in London, which has for long been supposed to re- present the Queen of Scotland and her son, J ames VI. It is manifest that such a combination is im- possible, as Mary Stuart never saw her son since he was in his cradle. Moreover, in spiteof a simi- larity in the costume, which in itself is only the fashion of the period, the features of the lady in question have but the slightest resemblance to those of Mary Stuart. U nfortunately, however, the rather pleasingaspect of the headand head-dress has led to many copies being made of the upper part of the lady's figure and circulated as the por- trait of Mary Stuart. Another portrait, worth noticing for a similar rea- son, is the small and interesting portrait of ayoung lady in a wired black mantle or heuk, a Flemish costume, in the collection of the Marquess of Salisbury, at Hatfield, which for a long time has been reputed as a likeness of Mary Stuart* A # This portrait was unscrupulously engraved as a frontispiece to Miss Benger's " Memoirs of Mary, Queen of Scots," published in 1828 ; the words, "aged 17," being added without any authority. 143 copy of this portrait in enamel, by Bone, is in the Wallace collection. This portrait shows little or no resemblance, except as regards the costume, to the Queen of Scots, and the Flemish heuk does not appear to have been worn at the Court of France. I n 1 645 the well-known engraver, Wenzel H ollar, engraved at Antwerp a small rectangular portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots. This engraving, in which the likeness is highly flattered and embel- lished, seems to be an " improved" adaptation from the engraved medallion in Bishop Lesley's " History of Scotland." From Hollar's engraving it would appear thata smallcircularmedallion por- trait, painted in oils on copper, was made in the eighteenth century. This portrait was presented to the Trustees of the British Museum in May 1 792 by Elizabeth Douglas Hamilton, Countess of Brooke and Warwick. This small portrait is absolutely fictitious, but has in its turn gained un- due repute through an engraving having been made of it by Joseph Brown, from a drawing by T. Wageman, and published in Miss Costello's "Eminent Englishwomen." It would be a waste of time and space to attempt to describe or even enumerate the numberless 144 portraits which exist, and have from time to time been dignified with the name of Mary Stuart. Some are palpable forgeries, such as the full- length portrait in a red dress at Holyrood, or the once famous portrait in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Some have absolutely no resemblance at all, such as the portrait at Workington Hall, Cumberland, where Mary Stuart first dwelt on English soil, or that at Longford Castle in Wilt- shire ; some are due to mere guesswork, owing to accessories, such as the portrait of a lady in a black veil with a crucifix in one hand and a crowned globe in the other, at Windsor Castle, so highly extolled by Miss Strickland, a copy of which was formerly at Murthly Castle; some are probably genuine portraits of some other French princess, as already stated. With those portraits, which are frankly modern creations, these pages have no concern. It is only necessary to assert once more, that even a slight acquaintance with the distinctive features of Mary Stuart, as shown in her undis- puted portraits, should be sufficient to deter any- body from accepting as genuine any reputed por- trait of Mary Stuart which presents features wholly or in chief part differing from those des- cribed in the early part of this work. It seems to be still sufficient for any portrait to be dubbed * Mary, Queen of Scots' for it to obtain, at all events, some credulous adherents. Miss Strickland goes so far as to accept both as genuine T H5 and contemporary the painting of Mary Stuart's head on a charger, of which one version is at Abbotsford, dated 1587, and signed by a mythical artist,called Amyas Cawood, whose name is pro- bably concocted from those of Sir Amias Paulet, Mary Stuart's gaoler, and Sebastian Carwood, one of her servants. In spite of this painting hav- ing belonged to no less a person than Sir Walter Scott, it cannot be assigned to a period earlier than the middle of the eighteenth century. Prolonged research not only by the late Sir George Scharf, who made it his special study, and by the present writer, but also by the most com- petent authorities in England and in France, has failed to discover any new portrait of Mary Stuart, other than those already described, which has the slightest claim to authority. 146 '. INDEX Abbeville, 12 Abbotsford, spurious portrait of Mary Stuart at, 146 Achesoun, James, 29 n Achesoun, John, the coiner of the Mary Stuart testoons, 29-31, 39, 60,61 Achesoun, Thomas, 29 n Agate-cameos, portraits on, 40 Albert, H.R.H. Prince, his portrait of Mary Stuart, 127 Albizzi, Marchese Luca Casimiro degl', 109 Alexandra, Queen, 128 Alvin, L., 114 n, 115 Ambras, Schloss, collection of minia- ture paintings at, 24, 69 Anderson, Sir Edmund, Chief Justice, 92 Andrews, Thomas, sheriff of North- amptonshire, 93, 101 Antiquaries, Society of, 4, 39, 129 Antwerp, broadside engraving of Mary Stuart's execution published at, 113 Antwerp, church of St. Andrew's, monument in, 103, in Antwerp, engravers at, 113 Arragon, Catherine of, her divorce, 40 Arras, portraits in the Library at, 24 Aumale, Due d', 124 ; bequeaths the collection of crayon drawings to the French nation, 25 Babington's conspiracy, 92, 102 Banks, Sir Joseph, 135 Bannister, 123 Barbet de Jouy, Musee des Souve- rains, 37 n Bartholomew, St., massacre of, 67 Barton Farm, 127 Basse, Marten, his engraving of Mary Stuart, 112 Bath, Marquess of, portraits of Mary Stuart in collection of, no, 126 Battersea, Lord, portrait of Mary Stuart in collection of, 124 Beale, Robert, his account of the trial of Mary Stuart, 92, 115 Beaton, Cardinal, 11 Beaton, James, Archbishop of Glas- gow, commission from Mary Stuart, 68 Beauvais, 12 Benger, Miss, " Memoirs of Mary, Queen of Scots," 143 n Berri, Duchesse de, 37 Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, 21 n ; crayon drawings in the, 23, 32, 51 ; medal of Mary Stuart, 45 ; engraved portraits in, 117, 129 Birch, Dr., " Heads of Illustrious Persons of Great Britain," 140 Blair's College, Aberdeen, memorial portrait of Mary Stuart at, 9, 104- 108 Blessington, Countess of, copy of the " Labanoff " portrait belonging to, Bligh, Sir John Duncan, 45 Blois, 11 H7 Bodleian Library, ioo, 145— see Ox- ford Bohemia, Elizabeth of, 86 Bolton Castle, 14, 65 Bone, Henry, portrait in enamel of Mary Stuart, 144 Bordone, Paris, 16 Botfield, Mr. Beriah, portrait of Mary Stuart in collection of, 124 Bothwell, James Hepburn, Earl of, his divorce, 13 ; marriage with Mary Stuart, 14, 63 ; return to Scotland, 59 ; death, 78 Bouchot, M. Henri, keeper of the Cabinet d'Estampes, Paris, 23, 116 ; Les Femmes de Brantome, 50 n Bourbon, Antoinette de, 10, 20 — see Guise Bourdeille, Pierre de, see Brantome Brahan Castle, copy of Mytens's por- trait of Mary Stuart at, 91 Brantome, Pierre de Bourdeille, Abbe de, on the colour of Mary Stuart's hair, 17 ; his state- ments on the character of the French Court, 47 ; on the appear- ance of Mary Stuart, 48 ; on Charles IX. 's affection for her, 54 Brest, 20 British Museum, portraits of Mary Stuart in the, 39, 44, 62, 63, 82, 112, 144 ; account of her trial and exe- cution, 94-99 Bromley, Sir Thomas, Lord Chan- cellor, 92 Brooke and Warwick, Elizabeth Douglas Hamilton, Countess of, 144 Brown, Joseph, 144 Buccleuch, Duke of, his collection of miniatures, 40, 139 Buckingham Palace, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 128 Burghley, Lord, 58, 66 ; intercepts portrait of Mary Stuart, 81 ; at her trial, 92 Burlington House, meeting of the Society of Antiquaries at, 129 148 Burlington, Richard Boyle, Earl of, 134 Burns, Edward, "The Coinage of Scotland," 21, 29 n Butterworth, Mr. Joshua, his copy of the " Labanoff " portrait, 89 Buxton, 15 ; baths at, 66 ; hall at, 65 Calais, 12, 56 Calthorpe, Lord, 92, 115 Capello, Giovanni, the Venetian Am- bassador, 46 Carberry Hill, battle at, 14, 64 Carleton, Henry Boyle, Lord, 134 " Carleton " portrait, 133-136 Carlisle, 14, 64 Carlisle, Frederick Howard, Earl of ,25 Carlisle, George Howard, Earl of, 26 Carlos, Don, 12 Carlton House, 134 Caron, Antoine, 23, 116 Carr, Mr. John, 127 Carrand Collection, Florence, minia- ture portrait of Mary Stuart in the, 112 Carwood, Sebastian, 146 Castle Howard, 25 Cathcart, Earl, portrait of Mary Stuart belonging to, 111 Catherine de' Medicis, see Medicis Cavendish, Elizabeth, her marriage, 9.70 Cavendish, Sir William, 70 Caw, James L., Curator of the Scot- tish National Portrait Gallery, 59, 142, n ; extract from " Scottish Portraits," 59 n Cawood, Amyas, 146 Cecil, Sir William, 63 Chalmers, " Life of Mar}', Queen of Scots, 86 n Chantilly, crayon drawings at, 25 ; portrait of Mary Stuart at, 25 Charles I., portraits of, 7 ; his col- lection of pictures, 33, 51, 53, 76 81, 89, 108 Charles IX., King of France, 12 ; suc- ceeds to the throne of France, 12, 46, 56 ; coronation, 12, 56 ; affec- tion for Mary Stuart, 54 Chartley Castle, 15, 91 Chastelard, Pierre de Boscorel de, 48 ; his execution, 58 Chatsworth, 8, 15, 65 ; " Carleton " portrait at, 133 Chesham, Lord, 82 Chesterfield, 14, 65 Chichester, Elizabeth, Countess of, ivory tankard in possession of, 45 Chiswick villa, 133 Christie, Messrs., no Clouet, Francois, 23, 44, 132 ; por- trait attributed to, 35, 53 Clouet, ' Janet,' 23 ; portrait attri- buted to, 33, 35, 51, 54 Cobham Hall, 8 ; repetition of the "Sheffield" portrait at, 78, 80; memorial portrait of Mary Stuart at, no Cobham, Lord, his attainder, 80 Cock, Hieronymus, engravings pub- lished by, 42-44, 142 Coin, gold or ryal, portrait of Mary Stuart on, 31 " Coinage of Scotland," 21, 29 n Coins, silver or testoons, portraits of Mary Stuart on, 29-31, 39, 60 Coins, value of portraits on, 21 Colnaghi & Co., Messrs. P. and D., 28 Combrouse, M., 45 Cooper, R., engraving by, 86 n Cork and Burlington, Juliana, Countess of, 134 Costello, Mi?s, " Eminent English- women," 144 Court, Jean de, 23 Couvay, engraving by, 117 Coventry, 15, 65 Cracow, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 124 Craigmillar, 13 Crawford, Earl of, copy of Mytens's portrait of Mary Stuart belonging to, 91 Crayon drawings, French, 23, 32, 51 ; at Chantilly, 25 Cromwell, Oliver, portrait of, 7 Crosse, Lawrence, 138 Cure, Cornelius, commences the monument of Mary Stuart, 119 Cure, William, completes the monu- ment of Mary Stuart, 119 Curie, Barbara, 103 Curie, Elizabeth, lady-in-waiting to Mary Stuart, 102 ; at Antwerp, 103 ; her death, 103 ; her will, 103 ; monument in the church of St. Andrew, Antwerp, 103, in Curie, Gilbert, secretary to Mary Stuart, 102 Curie, Hippolytus, erects a monu- ment in the church of St. Andrew, Antwerp, 103, in Curie, James, 103 Currie, Lord, 45 Czartoryski, Prince, 124 Dalmahoy, the ' Morton ' portrait at, 9, 83 Darnley, Henry Stuart, Lord, at Edinburgh, 13 ; marriage, 13, 59, 61 ; murder, 13 ; portraits of, 59, 121 ; medals on his marriage, 62 Darnley, John Bligh, Earl of, no Dauphin, Nicolas, 140 Delaherche, M., 54 Derby, Earl of, his collection of por- traits, 86 n Dethick, William, 118 Deuil blanc, portraits of Mary Stuart in, 51-54; copies, 54 Devonshire, Duke of, 8 ; collection of portraits, 133 D'Heere, Lucas, portrait of Mary Stuart by, 131 Dimier, M. L., 23, 37 n, 142 n ; on the portrait of Mary Stuart in the National Portrait Gallery, 76 ; at Hardwick, 77 149 Doort, Van der, his catalogue of Charles I.'s collection, 33, 52, 76, 89 Douai, Scottish College, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 103 Douglas, George, 83 Douglas, W., presents portrait of Mary Stuart to the Scottish Cor- poration, 82 Draper's Hall, portrait of Mary Stuart in the, 143 Drury, Sir Drue, 93, 101 Ducarel, Dr., 135 " Ducat, the King and Queen's," 38 Dudley, Robert, 58 Dunbar, 13 Dunrobin Castle, ' Orkney ' por- trait at, 139 Eaton Hall, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 28 Edinburgh, Archaeological Institute, exhibition of portraits and relics of Mary Stuart, 3 Edinburgh, Holyrood Palace, 13 Edward VI., 10 ; succeeds to the throne, 11 ; death, 11 Elizabeth, Queen of England, 10 ; succeeds to the throne, 12, 40 ; death, 16 ; her portraits, 25, 40 ; present of a portrait from Mary Stuart, 32 ; interview with Mel- ville, 36 ; affection for Mary, 36 ; enmity towards her, 57 ; Mary Stuart takes refuge with, 64 ; signs her death-warrant, 93 ; medallion, 121 Elstracke, Renold, portraits of Mary Stuart and Lord Darnley engraved by, 120, 121 Engraving, an oblong, of Mary Stuart, 112 Engravings of Mary Stuart, 41-44 et seq. Esneval, M. D', French Ambassador in Edinburgh, 60 Euston Hall, copy of Mytens's por- trait of Mary Stuart at, 90 150 Exhibitions of portraits and relics of Mary Stuart, 3-5 Farquharson, Rev. John, 103 Fesch, Cardinal, his collection of por- traits, 124 Fischbach, Schloss, 54 Fletcher, Dr. Richard, Dean of Peter- borough, 101 Florence, Carrand Collection, minia- ture portrait of Mary Stuart, 112 Florence, Uffizii Gallery, miniature portraits in the, 39 Forzoni, Dr. Pier Andrea, 109 Fotheringhay Castle, Mary Stuart re- moved to, 16, 92 ; her trial and execution at, 16, 92-101 France, portraits of Mary Stuart in, 9, 25, 55, 123 France, portraiture of the sixteenth century, 23 ; crayon drawings, 23 ; portraits of princesses, 124 Francois I., King of France, his death, 11, 22 Francois II., his marriage, 11, 31, 40 ; receives the title of King of Scot- land, 11, 31 ; assumes the title of King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 12, 41 ; King of France, 12, 41 ; his death, 12, 46, 56 ; his portrait on the medallion, 37 ; " the King and Queen's Ducat," 38 ; miniature portrait, 39 ; en- gravings, 42 Franks, Sir Augustus Wollaston, on the second coin struck by Ache- soun, 31 Fraser-Tytler, Mr. Patrick, his mono- graph on the portrait of Mary Stuart, 141 ' Fraser-Tytler ' portrait, 4, 140 Gaigni^res Collection, drawing of Mary Stuart in, 129 Gaultier, Leonard, 116 ; his engrav- ing of Mary Stuart, 117 Genevieve, St., Bibliotheque de, crayon drawings in, 32 Gennett, see ' Janet ' Gentleman's Magazine, no Godolphin, Lord, portrait of Mary Stuart in possession of, no Gourdelle, Pierre, 116 ; his portrait of Mary Stuart, 117 Grafton, Duke of, 90 Graimberg, Count, 118 Granger, Dr., "Biographical History of England," 7 Grey, Lady Jane, 132 Greystoke, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 124 Grindlay, Mr., miniature of Mary Stuart purchased by, 138 Guise, Antoinette de Bourbon, Du- chesse de, 10, 47 ; on the appear- ance of Mary Stuart, 20 Guise, Charles de, Cardinal de Lor- raine, 10, 11, 67 Guise, Claude de Lorraine, Due de, 10 Guise, FrancoisdeLorraine.Ducde, 10 Guise, Henri, Due de, 10 ; his assas- sination, 11, 58 Guise, Louis, Cardinal de, 10, 68 Guise, Marie de, 10 ; Regent of Scot- land, 12 ; her death, 12, 46 ; at Hard- wick Hall,6o, 124, 142 — s^Lorraine Gustavus Adolphus, 45 Gwennap, 141 Hamilton, Anne Spencer, Duchess of, 138 Hamilton, Duke of, 131 ; miniature of Mary Stuart in the possession of, 137 Hamilton Palace, 14 Hampton Court, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 51 ' Hardwick, Bess of,' 8, 65 Hardwick Hall, ' Sheffield ' portrait at, 70-74, 77 ; bust portrait of Mary Stuart at, 124 ; portraits of James V. and Mary of Guise at, : 60 ; portraits of the Earl and Coun- tess of Lenox at, 70 Hatfield House, repetition of the ' Sheffield ' portrait at, 78, 80 ; portrait of Mary Stuart in a black hood, 143 Hawkins and Grueber, " Medallic Illustrations of English History," 122 n Hearne, Thomas, on the trial and execution of Mary Stuart, 99 Heidelberg, 118 Henri II., King of France, 11, 20 ; his death, 12, 41 ; miniature por- trait of, 39 ; monument, 56 Henri III., King of France, 78 ; miniature portrait of, 37 ; elected King of Poland, 37 Henrietta Maria, portraits of, 7 " Henry VII., the Marriage of," painting of, 135 Henry VIII. , King of England, 10 ; his death, 11, 22 ; portrait, 132 Hilton, W., copy of the 'Morton' portrait by, 86 n Hogenberg, Johann, engraving of Mary Stuart by, 117 Holbein, 132 Holland, Queen of, miniature por- trait of Mary Stuart in collec- tion of, 123 Holland, H., " Baziliwlogia," 120 Hollar, Wenzel, engraving of Mary Stuart by, 144 Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, 13, 56 ; portraits of Mary Stuart in, 131, 145 Honthorst, Gerard, 86 Houbraken, 140 Howard of Corby, Mr., portrait of Mary Stuart belonging to, 124 Huberti, Adrian, 114 Huntly, Earl of, 58 Huret, engraving by, 117 Huys, Frans, engraving by, 44 ^1 Innsbruck, 69 Inverness, 13 !5! James I. — see James VI. James IV., King of Scotland, 10 James V., King of Scotland, 10, n, 58 ; portraits at Hardwick Hall, 60, 124, 142 James VI., his birth, 13, 63 ; corona- tion, 14, 64 ; medallion portrait in Lesley's " History of Scotland," 69 ; accession to the throne of England, 119 James's, St., Palace, portrait of Mary Stuart by Mytens in, 90 ' Janet,' portraits of Mary Stuart attributed to, 33, 35, 51, 54, 108— see Clouet J ebb, Samuel, " De Vita et Rebus gestis Mariae Scotorum Reginse," 135 Jedburgh, 13, 63 Jeton or silver counter, engraving of Mary Stuart on a, 112 Joinville, 12 Jones Collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum, portrait of Mary Stuart in, 35 Kennedy, Jane, 102 Kent, Earl of, at Fotheringhay Castle, 93, 10T. Kerrich, Rev. Thomas, 54 Kirk o' Field, tragedy of, 63 Knollys, Sir Francis, on Mary Stuart's hair, 17 ; in charge of her, 64 ' Labanoff ' portrait, 87 ; copy of, 88 Labanoff-Rostoff, Prince Alexander, 87 ; his work entitled " Notice sur la Collection des Portraits de Marie Stuart," 2 Langside, Battle at, 14, 64 Lansac, M. de, 25 Latimer, 9 ; portrait of Mary Stuart at, 82 Leith, 12, 56 ; Trinity House, copy of the Mytens portrait at, 91 152 Lenox, Charles Stuart, Earl of, 9 ; his marriage, 70 ; portrait at Hardwick Hall, 70, 124 ; death, 78 Lenox, Elizabeth, Countess of, por- trait at Hardwick Hall, 124 Lenox, Margaret Douglas, Countess of, 59, 69 ; her death, 78 ; por- trait, 89 Lens, Bernard, copies of a minia- ture of Mary Stuart by, 139 Lesley, John, Bishop of Ross, " History of Scotland," engrav- ing of Mary Stuart in, 68, 144 Leu, Thomas De, engraving of Mary Stuart by, 116-117 Liefrinck, Hans, engraving pub- lished by, 44 Linlithgow Palace, birth of Mary Stuart at, 20 Lislebourg, 60— see Edinburgh Lochleven Castle, 14, 64, 83 Lodge, " Illustrious Portraits," 86 n Longford Castle, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 145 Longleat, portraits of Mary Stuart at, no, 126 Longueville, Charles d' Orleans, Due de, 10 Lorraine, see Guise Lorraine, Marie de, see Guise Louis XIV., 129 Louvre, bronze bust of Mary Stuart in, 9, 55 ; Livre d'Heures, of Cath- erine de' Medicis in the, 37, 39, 78 Lowther, Mr. Richard, deputy governor of Carlisle, 64 Lucas-Desains, M., his collection, 45 Lyon, Corneille de, 23, 28 Lyon, David, 135 Mackenzie, Mrs. Keith Stewart, portrait of Mary Stewart in the possession of, 91 Magniac, Charles, sale of his collec- tion, 28 Magniac, Hollingworth, 28 Maitland, William, 58 Manwood, Sir Roger, 92 Margaret, Queen, portrait of, Marlborough, Duke of, his collection of miniatures, 139 Marquet de Vasselot, M. J. J., 23, 55 Martin, copy of the ' Morton ' por- trait by, 86 n Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, events of her life, 9; Period I., 10-12, 20-56 ; Period II., 13, 56-64 ; Period III., 14-16, 64; her dis- tinctive features, 16 ; colour of her hair, 17 ; appearance, 18, 20, 48, 79 ; birth, 20 ; succeeds to the throne of Scotland, 20 ; at the Court of Henri II., 20, 31, 46 ; her marriage to the Dauphin, 31, 40 ; assumes the title of Queen of England, 41 ; Queen of France, 41 ; death of her mother, 46 ; death of her husband, 46, 56 ; costumes, 50 ; her return to Scotland, 56 ; enmity towards Queen Elizabeth, 57 ; her counsellors, 58 ; pro- posals of marriage, 58 ; her mar- riage with Lord Darnley, 59, 61 ; birth of her son, 63 ; sur- render and marriage to Bothwell, 63 ; prisoner, 64 ; escapes to England, 64 ; at Carlisle, 64 ; at Tutbury, 65, 91 ; her life in captivity, 65-67 ; efforts to obtain her release, 66 ; commission for portraits, 68 ; death of her third husband, 78 ; ill-health, 79 ; trans- ferred to the custody of Sir Amias Paulet, 91 ; at Chartley Castle, 91, 92 ; at Tixall, 92 ; her trial and execution at Fotheringhay Castle, 92-101 ; funeral, 118 ; burial in Peterborough Cathedral, 118 ; removed to Westminster Abbey, 119 ; see also Portraits of Mary Stuart Mary Tudor, Queen of England, 10, 11 ; her death, 12, 40 Mauncy, James, 119 Mead, Dr., miniature painting of Mary Stuart in his collection, 140 Medallion portraits of Mary Stuart, 37, 44, 68, 121 Medals, Darnley marriage, 62 Medicis, Catherine de, 11, 20, 37 ; Regent of France, 12 ; miniature portraits in Livre d'Heures be- longing to, 37, 39, 78 ; supremacy, 46 ; monument, 56 Medicis, Marie de, 40 Melville, James, his interview with Queen Elizabeth, 32, 35 Melvin, Robert, 102 Merica, Petrus a, the engraver, 42 Meyrick, Colonel, 35 Montfaucon, " Monumens de la Monarchic Francaise," 129 Moray, James Stuart, Earl of, 58 ; appointed Regent of Scotland, 14 Morrison, Mrs. Alfred, portraits of Mary Stuart in possession of, 45, 54 Morton, Dowager Countess of, por- trait of Mary Stuart in the posses- sion of, 83 Morton, James Douglas, Earl of, 83 ' Morton ' portrait, at Dalmahoy, 9, 83-87 ; copies of, 86 n Mowbray, Barbara, 103 Mowbray, John, Lord, 103 Murray, Mr. John, 5 Murthly Castle, portrait of Mary- Stuart at, 145 Myricenys, Peter, 142 — see Merica Mytens, Daniel, portrait of Mary Stuart by, 89 ; copies of, 90, 91 Nancy, 12 National Portrait Gallery, portrait of Mary Stuart in the, 74-76 ; the ' Fraser-Tytler ' portrait in the, 140 U 153 Nau, Claude, secretary to Mary Stuart, 67, 102 ; on her portrait, 70,77 Nelli, N., 42 n New Gallery, Stuart Exhibition in the, 4, in n Newcastle, William Cavendish, Duke of, 82 Nole, Jan and Robert Colyns de, 111 Nolhac, M. de, 25 Norfolk, Duke of, 81 ; his com- plicity in the Ridolfi plot, 67 ; miniature portrait of Mary Stuart sent to, 123 O'Brien, Lady Catherine, 80 Orde, Lady, miniature of Mary Stuart in her collection, 77 ' Orkney ' portrait, 139 Orleans, Charles d', 10 — see Longue- ville Osborne House, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 127, 129 Oudry, P., portrait of Mary Stuart by, 71 Oxford, Bodleian Library, 100 ; spurious portrait of Mary Stuart at, 145 Oxford Historical Society's Publica- tions, 99 n Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, 21 n — see Bibliotheque ; Louvre, bronze bust in, 9, 53 ; Livre d'Heures in, 37, 39, 78 ; Musee Carnavalet, 54 ; Trocadero, Na- tional Portraits at the, 54 Passe, Simon Van der, engraving of Mary Stuart on a jeton by, 112 Paterson, Dr., 104 Paulet, Sir Amias, 146 ; appointed gaoler to Mary Stuart, 15, 91 ; at her trial, 92, 101 Pell Records, 119 Penny, bearing the head of the infant queen Mary, issue of, 21 ; re-issues of, 22 Perate, M. Andr£, 25 154 Perreal, Jean, 23 Perrissin and Tortorel, engraving by, 41 Peterborough Cathedral, funeral of Mary Stuart at, 16, 118 Peterborough, exhibition of por- traits and relics of Mary Stuart, 3, 4 Petersburg, St., Imperial Gallery, portrait of Mary Stuart in, 87 Picart, engraving by, 86 n Pilon, Germain, 55 Pimodan, Gabriel de, " La Mere des Guises," 21 n Poland, King of, 37 Pontefract, 14, 65 Portland, Duke of, his collection of portraits, 82, 124 Portraits of Mary Stuart : Achesoun coins, 29-31 Antwerp, St. Andrew's Church, in Antwerp, broadside engraving, 113 Authentic, 21 Basse, Marten, 112 Bibliotheque Nationale, 32, 45, 51, 117, 129 Blair's College, Aberdeen, 39, 104-108 British Museum, 39, 44, 62, 63, 82, 112, 144 Buckingham Palace, 128 Cameo, agate, 40 ' Carleton,' 133-136 Carrand Collection, 112 Cathcart House, 11 1 Chantilly, 25-28 Cobham Hall, 78, 80, no Cock, H., engravings published by, 42-44, 142 Contemporary, 21 Darnley marriage medals, 62 Deuil blanc, 51-54 Douai, Scottish College at, 103 Doubtful, 124 Draper's Hall, 143 Ducat, the King and Queen, 38 Portraits of Mary Stuart — continued Eaton Hall, 28 Elstracke, Renold, 120 Engravings, 41-44, 112-117 Exhibitions of, 3 False, 124-146 Fotheringhay Castle, sketches of the trial and execution, 92, 101 ' Fraser-Tytler,' 4, 140 Gaignieres Collection, 129 Gaultier, Leonard, 117 Godolphin, no Hamilton Palace, 137 Hampton Court, 51 Hardwick Hall, 70-74, 77, 124 Hatfield House, 78, 80, 143 Hogenberg, Johann, 117 Hollar, Wenzel, 144 Holyrood Palace, 131, 145 Huys, Frans, 44 Ivory tankard, 45 Jones Collection, South Ken- sington, 35 ' Labanoff,' 87, copy of, 88 Latimer, 82 Lens, Bernard, 139 Lesley's " History of Scotland," 68, 144 Leu, Thomas De, 116 Liefrinck, Hans, engraving pub- lished by, 44 Livre d'Heures of Catherine de Medicis, 37, 39, 78 Longleat, no, 126 Louvre, bronze bust in the, 9»55 Medallions, 37, 44, 68, 121 Memorial, 103-111 ; copies, in Miniatures, 31, 33-35, 37, 39, 77, 78, 112, 123, 137, 139, 140 Miscellaneous, 112 ' Morton,' 83-87 ; copies of, 86 n Mytens, 89 ; copies of, 90, 91 National Portrait Gallery, 74- 76, 140 Portraits of Mary Stuart — continued Orde, Lady, 77 ' Orkney,' 139 Osborne House, 127, 129 Passe, Simon Van der, 112 Penny, 21 Posthumous, 103 Primavera, Jacopo, 121 ' Ryals,' 31, 62 Scottish Corporation, 81 Seal, great, 41 ' Sheffield,' 70-80 ; repetitions, 80 ; copies, 81-83 ; adapta- tions, 83 Simon, John, 139 Skipton, 127 Spurious, 145 Testoons or silver coins, 29-31, 39» 6o Tortorel and Perrissin, engrav- ing by, 41 Uffizii Gallery, 39 Wallace Collection, 144 Welbeck, 82 Westminster Abbey, 119 Wierix engravings, 113-115 Windsor Castle, 31, 33-35, 51, 77, 108, 139, 140, 145 Woodcut engraving, 45 Portraits, historical, interest in, 7 Portraits, method of painting, 24 Portraits representing French prin- cesses, 124 Poynter, Sir Edward, Director of the National Gallery, 77 Primavera, Jacopo, medallions of Mary Stuart and Queen Eliza- beth by, 121 Promptuarium Iconum, 45 Prussia, Prince William of, portrait of Mary Stuart purchased by, 54 Rabel, Jean, engraving by, 78 Rabnett, Mr. George, 139 Randolph, Thomas, 63 Rapin, " History of England," 81 Reims, coronation of Charles IX. at, 12, 56 *5S Riccio, David, 58 ; his murder, 13, Richmond and Lenox, Charles, Duke of, no, 127 Richmond and Lenox, Lodowick, Duke of, 80 Ridolfi plot, 67 Ripon, 14, 65 Rondot, M. Natalis, 23 Ronsard, his verses on Mary Stuart, 48 Ross, Bishop of, 68 — see Lesley Rotherham, 14, 65 Rouillius, woodcut engraving, pub- lished by, 45 Roullet, secretary to Mary Stuart, 67 ; his death, 67 Rufford Abbey, 65 Ryal or gold coin, 31 Ryal or silver coin, portrait of Mary and Darnley, 62 Ryder, Thomas, 28 n Sadler, Sir Ralph, in charge of Mary Stuart, 91 ; at her trial, S. Germain, 92 Salisbury, Marquess of, his collection of portraits, 80, 143 Savoy, Ambassador of, 58 Scharf, Sir George, Director, Keeper, and Secretary of the National Portrait Gallery, 3 ; on the authen- ticated portraits of Mary Stuart, 4 ; at the Peterborough Exhibi- tion, 4 ; his letters to the Times, 5 ; death, 5 ; on the colour of Mary Stuart's eyes, 16 ; on the value of portraits on coins, 21 ; on the portrait at Chantilly, 27 ; the chalk drawing, 32 ; the design on the testoons, 61 ; the ' Shef- field ' portrait, 71 ; the ' Morton ' portrait, 83-86; the Mytens por- trait, 89 ; the memorial portraits, 104, 106 ; the portraits at Hard- wick Hall, 127 ; at Longleat, 127 ; Buckingham Palace, 128, 129 ; Holyrood Palace, 131 ; the 1 Fraser-Tytler ' portrait, 141 Scotland, portraits of Mary Stuart in, 9 Scotland, Privy Council of, Act passed for the issue of a coin, 21 " Scotland, the Coinage of," 21, 29 n Scott, Sir Walter, 146 Scottish Corporation, Crane Court, portrait of Mary Stuart, in the hall of the, 81 Scrope, Lord, Governor of Carlisle, in charge of Mary Stuart, 64-65 Seaforth, 91 Seal, great, struck on the accession of Francois and Mary, 41 Seaton, Mistress Mary, 17 Seine, Comte de S., 28 Serrur, M., 54 Seton, Lord, 32, 35 ' Sheffield ' portrait of Mary Stuart. 70-74, 78-80 ; repetitions, 74-77, 80, 83 ; miniatures, 77 ; adapta- tions, 83 Sheffield Castle, 15, 65 ; Manor House, 15, 65 Shrewsbury, Countess of, 8, 69 Shrewsbury, George Talbot, Earl of, in charge of Mary Stuart, 8, 14, 65 ; charges against, 91 ; at Fotheringhay Castle, 92, 101 Simon, John, mezzotint-engraving of Mary Stuart by, 139 Skelton, Sir W., "Mary Stuart," 35 * Skipton, bust, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 127 Smith, John, mezzotint-engraving by, 135 Solway Firth, 64 Spain, Don Carlos of, 12 Spencer, Earl, portrait of Mary Stuart in possession of, 124 Spurious portraits of Mary Stuart, 145 Stewart, portrait-painter, 141 Stirling, coronation of Mary Stuart at, n ; of James VI., 14 Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John, portrait of Mary Stuart in possession of, 124 Strickland, Miss, 124, 145 ; " Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots," 60 n Stuart, Arabella, 70 ; portrait at Hardwick Hall, 124 Stuart, Charles, 9 — see Lenox Stuart, Esme, 80 — see Lenox Stuart, James, 58 — see Moray Stuart, Lodowick, 80 — see Rich- mond Stuart, Mary, Queen of Scots — see Mary Stuart Exhibition in the New Gal- lery, 4, in n Sutherland, Duke of, ' Orkney ' portrait in his collection, 139 Sykes, Mr., his collection of pictures, 134 Tankard, ivory, portrait of Mary Stuart on, 45 Testoons or silver coins, portraits of Mary Stuart on, 29, 39, 60 " Theatrum Crudelitatum Haereti- corum nostri Temporis," 114 Thornhill, Sir James, 134 Throckmorton, Sir Nicholas, on the miniature portrait of Mary Stuart, 32,35 Times, letters of Sir George Scharf in the, 5 Tirol, Archduke Ferdinand of, his collection of miniature paintings, 24, 69 Tixall, 15, 92 Tortorel and Perrissin, engraving by, 41 Tudor, Margaret, 10 ; her portrait, 89 Tudor, Mary, 132 Turin, Picture Gallery at, 53 Tutbury, 14, 15, 65, 91 Uffizii Gallery, Florence, minia- ture portraits in the, 39 Valois, Isabella of, 124 Valois, Marguerite de, her portrait, 53 ; bronze bust of, 55 Vasselot, M. J. J. Marquet de, 23, 55 — see Marquet I Versailles, Musee Nationale at, 54 Vertue, George, the engraver, 53 ; engravings of Mary Stuart by, 81, 135 ; on the ' Carleton ' portrait, 133 ; on the miniature in the possession of the Duke of Hamil- ton, 137 Victoria, Queen, 129 Victoria and Albert Museum, por- trait of Mary Stuart in, 35 Vienna, Imperial Gallery at, 69 Vignon, engraving by, 117 Visscher, J. C, engraving published by, 116 Wageman, T., 144 Wales, Frederick, Prince of, 134 Wallace Collection, portraits of Mary Stuart in the, 54, 144 Walpole, Horace, 7, 135 Walsingham, Sir Francis, 66, 102 Way, Mr. Albert, Director of the Society of Antiquaries, 3 Welbeck, 9 ; portrait of Mary Stuart at, 82 ; portrait of a French princess at, 124 Wellesley, Rev. Dr. Henry, portrait of Mary Stuart in possession of, 54 Westminster Abbey, Mary Stuart buried in, 16, 119 ; her effigy on the monument in, 119 Westminster, Duke of, 28 Weymouth, Viscount, 127 White, Nicholas, on the colour of Mary Stuart's hair, 18 Wierix, the engravers, 113 ; broad- side engraving, 113 ; execution scene, 114 ; portrait of Mary Stuart, 115 Windsor Castle, portraits of Mary Stuart at, 31, 33-35, 5*, 77> ™8, 139, 140, 145 Wingfield, 14, 15, 65, 91 157 --U Woodburn, Messrs., no Woodcut engraving of Mary Stuart,45 Woodman, Jacob, 135 Workington, 64 Workington Hall, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 145 Worksop, 15, 65 Wright, Mr., portrait of Mary Stuart sold to, 108 Wurzburg, portrait of Mary Stuart at, 117 Wynckfield, Robert, his account of the trial and execution of Mary Stuart, 94-99 Zenoi, D., 42 n Zuccaro, Federigo, 136 Printed by Ballantvne, Hanson &" Co. London £r> Edinburgh i vj. TffiSBO °V^«- EwLASTDATE THIS BOOK S E ;° A R TP FA,LURE TO ««Tll«N W.U L 'NC REAS N E ; o E 5 ° A c T f N °^. THE PENALTY^ OVERDUE. N THE SEVENTH DAY LD 21-ioo w . 8 ,'34 YL 0332 i