© COPYRIGHT

by

Danielle Therese Grega

2017

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

For my family, especially Marion Grega.

MYTHOLOGIZING MARY: WILLIAM ALLAN’S THE MURDER OF DAVID RICCIO AND

SCOTTISH NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE 1820S

BY

Danielle Therese Grega

ABSTRACT

This thesis analyzes Sir William Allan’s history painting The Murder of David Riccio

(1833) in relation to the formation of Scottish identity at a pivotal moment in the nation’s history. The painting represents the death in 1566 of Mary Stuart’s trusted secretary at the hands of her husband Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, while the pregnant queen watches the grisly killing unfold. I argue that Allan uses the historical figure of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, as an allegory of Scotland. At the time Allan painted this work, artists across Europe were grappling with the problem of how pictorially to define “the nation”; often, they used female figures as allegorical representations of that abstract concept. Placing Allan’s painting in its historical and political context, I relate it to the artist’s Unionist political beliefs. In my interpretation, the painting attempts to forge a distinctly Scottish identity by celebrating one of the nation’s foremost leaders, while also legitimizing its union with Great Britain. I show that gender ideology plays a key role in this complex balancing act. By representing Mary as a passive and compliant figure,

Allan makes Scotland the feminized partner to its more “masculine,” powerful partner, Britain.

Allan thus mobilizes Mary as a symbolic figure who reconciles the nation’s particular character and autonomous past with its identity as a part of the United Kingdom.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the guidance, support, and patience of my advisor, Dr. Juliet Bellow. I found support and encouragement in the larger faculty of

American University, specifically from Drs. Joanne Allen, Kim Butler-Wingfield, Helen Langa,

Andrea Pearson, Ying-Chen Peng, Anne Richter, and Samuel Sadow. I am also indebted to Leah

Haines and Ginny Lefler, both of whom offered revisions, encouragement, and optimism that were truly invaluable. Thank you to the Mellon Foundation as well as Dr. Romeo A. Segnan for funding a research trip to Scotland so that this project could contain the most accurate formal analysis and historical research possible. I would also like to thank Jeff and Janine Grega, who have constantly and infallibly believed in the worthiness of my pursuits. Lastly, I would like to thank the family and friends without whose support this project would not have been realized:

Kaitlyn Cava, Felicia Grega, Emily Grega, Taylor Kendra, Noelani Kirschner, Bryan McGinnis,

Jacob Miller, and Rachel Salmon.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii!

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv!

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... vi!

INTRODUCTION ...... 1!

CHAPTER 1 THE EVOLUTION OF MARY STUART’S IMAGE ...... 10!

CHAPTER 2 AN ALLEGORY OF THE UNION: PARTNERSHIP AND POLITICS ...... 23!

CHAPTER 3 THE MURDER OF DAVID RICCIO AND THE SPECTATOR’S EXPERIENCE ...... 31!

CONCLUSION ...... 43!

ILLUSTRATIONS ...... 44!

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 45!

!

v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustration

Figure 1: Hans Eworth, Elizabeth I and the Three Goddesses, oil on panel, 1569...... 44!

Figure 2: Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun, Marie Antoinette and her Children, oil on canvas, 1787 ..... 44!

Figure 3: Andreas Möller, Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria in 1729, 1729...... 44!

Figure 4: Adam Blackwood, The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, woodcut opposite page 12 in Adam Blackwood, Histoire et martyre de la Royne d’Escosse…Avec un petit livret de sa mort, 1589...... 44!

Figure 5: Unknown artist, The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, watercolor, 1613 ...... 44!

Figure 6: Gavin Hamilton, Mary, Queen of Scots Resigning her Crown, 1765...... 44!

Figure 7: Antonio Zecchin after John Francis Rigaud, The Sheriff Entering the Chapel of Mary, Queen of Scots the Morning of her Execution, stripple engraving, 1791...... 44!

Figure 8: Eugène Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People, 1830...... 44!

Figure 9: Sir William Allan, John Knox admonishing Mary, Queen of Scots on the Day her Intention to Marry Darnley was Made Public, 1823...... 44!

Figure 10: Sir William Allan, Lord Patrick Lindesay of the Byres and Lord William Ruthven Compelling Mary, Queen of Scots to Sign her Abdication in the Castle of Lochleven, 1824...... 44!

Figure 11: Sir William Allan, The Murder of David Riccio, oil on canvas, 1833...... 44!

Figure 12: Attributed to Arnold Bronckorst, James Douglas, 4th Earl of Morton, Regent of Scotland, 1580, oil on panel, National Galleries of Scotland...... 44!

vi

INTRODUCTION

This thesis analyzes Sir William Allan’s history painting The Murder of David Riccio

(1833) in relation to the formation of Scottish identity at a pivotal moment in the nation’s history. The painting represents the death in 1566 of Mary Stuart’s trusted secretary at the hands of her husband Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, while the pregnant queen watches the grisly killing unfold. I argue that Allan uses the historical figure of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, as an allegory of Scotland. At the time Allan painted this work, artists across Europe were grappling with the problem of how pictorially to define “the nation”; often, they used female figures as allegorical representations of that abstract concept. Placing Allan’s painting in its historical and political context, I relate it to the artist’s Unionist political beliefs. In my interpretation, the painting attempts to forge a distinctly Scottish identity by celebrating one of the nation’s foremost leaders, while also legitimizing its union with Great Britain. I show that gender ideology plays a key role in this complex balancing act. By representing Mary as a passive and compliant figure,

Allan makes Scotland the feminized partner to its more “masculine,” powerful partner, Britain.

Allan thus mobilizes Mary as a symbolic figure who reconciles the nation’s particular character and autonomous past with its identity as a part of the United Kingdom.

One aim of this project is to restore the importance of William Allan’s career as a painter of ambitious paintings that depict Scottish history. Allan has been all but forgotten by historians of European art. A modern critical assessment of his work was not undertaken until 2001, when

Jeremy Howard and Bertha Walker organized the exhibition William Allan: Artist Adventurer, for the Edinburgh City Art Centre. As the works in that show attest, Allan’s importance as an art- historical figure stems from his role as one of the first painters of Scottish history. In 1814, when

Allan returned to Scotland from his travels abroad in eastern Europe and Russia, Scotland had no

1

resident history painters at all.1 His obituary in The Scotsman noted that for most of his life he was one of “the only practicing history painter[s] in the country.”2

Allan’s artistic career was thoroughly intertwined with politics and affairs of state. After showing an aptitude for art at an early age, Allan was apprenticed to a coach-painter before studying under John Graham at the Trustee’s Academy, along with David Wilkie, John Burnet and Alexander George Fraser.3 Allan then studied in London at the Royal Academy from 1803 to

1805, furthering his training in history painting. However, the lack of major patrons for large- scale history painting made it impossible for Allan to sustain a career as an artist in London. He departed for St. Petersburg in 1804, receiving a global education by traveling through the southern parts of the Russian empire, including extended stays in the Ukraine, Crimea, Kuban, and Caucasus regions for several years.4 During this period, he experienced firsthand Napoleon

Bonaparte’s attempt to invade Russia, presumably also witnessing Russian pride at its army’s ultimate victory over the French. Nationalism and its representation would occupy the better part of Allan’s life from then on.

Allan’s career coincided with a period of political turmoil and realignment, in which many European countries came to define, or to redefine, national identity. The French

Revolution of 1789 that overthrew the Bourbon monarchy was the most abrupt and spectacular of these shifts, which paved the way for a modern conception of the nation-state, largely overshadowing a process that occurred throughout Europe to varying degrees. In places such as

Germany and Italy, for example, this period was foundational for the reconceptualization of

1 Jeremy Howard, William Allan: Artist Adventurer (Edinburgh: City of Edinburgh Museums, 2001) 13.

2 Howard, Artist Adventurer, 13.

3 Howard, Artist Adventurer, 47.

4 Howard, Artist Adventurer, 47.

2

distinct regions under a common cultural heritage and identity, a process that later in the century would result in the formation of these nations.

In Scotland, this emergence of a national consciousness intersected with growing agitation for political reform. Scotland was underrepresented in the United Kingdom’s

Parliament—one Englishman in thirty could vote, while only one Scot in six hundred had the same opportunity—and there were still restraints on the practice of Catholicism. Increasing dissatisfaction with these political circumstances called the legitimacy of the Union of 1707— which united Scotland and England into Great Britain—into question. Whether or not Scotland belonged in this Union became an urgent question to address. Additionally, rapid urbanization and industrialization across the United Kingdom in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries instilled a sense among many middle-class Scots that Scotland’s traditional identity was vanishing.5 As a direct result, there was a broad effort in the arts to revive and depict key figures and events in Scottish history.

I argue that Allan used the figure of Mary, Queen of Scots to address the controversial question of Scotland’s identity and its relationship to its more powerful partner in the Union,

Britain. Mary Stuart ruled as Queen of Scotland from 1542 to 1567, when she was forced to abdicate her throne. After a period of imprisonment, in 1587 Mary was found guilty of conspiring against her cousin, Elizabeth I, for having claimed to be the rightful heir to the

English throne, and was beheaded. Allan chose Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots to personify the

Union because she represented the future of both the English and Scottish lines of royal succession. She evokes the very beginning of partnership—the first link—between the two nations. Many considered Mary to be the rightful ruler of both England and Scotland during her

5 Howard, Artist Adventurer, 14.

3

lifetime. However, in part because of her Catholic faith, she was stripped of her right to rule

Scotland in favor of her infant son who would be raised as a Protestant. At the same time, as the mother of King James I of England and VI of Scotland, Mary’s Scottish bloodline is inherently the foundation of the line of royal succession of every Stuart king and queen of Scotland and

England.

By the early nineteenth century, Mary Queen of Scots had achieved a mythic status. She was the ideal heroine for the Romantic era—her life supplied numerous dramatic stories that supplied the sources for Allan’s paintings—and, as an emblem of Scotland’s complex relationship with England, served as the perfect emblem for the nation in the early nineteenth century.6 Over the course of eleven years, Allan created three major works that feature Mary

Stuart: John Knox admonishing Mary, Queen of Scots on the Day her Intention to Marry Darnley was Made Public (1822); Lord Patrick Lindesay of the Byres and Lord William Ruthven

Compelling Mary, Queen of Scots to Sign her Abdication in the Castle of Lochleven (1824); and

The Murder of David Riccio (1833). By representing Mary Stuart as an allegory of the union between Scotland and England, Allan called attention to this legacy. With his painted allegory,

Allan sought to preserve the legacy of Scotland as the beginning of a royal line that represents the union between the two countries, making the allegory deeply nationalistic while also defining national identity within the notion of the union.

In this thesis, I argue that The Murder of David Riccio, which currently hangs in the

National Galleries of Scotland, embodies the emergence of a specifically Scottish national identity in this period. I analyze the way this painting represents the culmination of Allan’s use of Mary’s image, both to celebrate Scotland’s distinctive history and to affirm its longstanding connection to Britain. As he depicted her, Mary Stuart instilled a sense of national identity and of

6 Roy Strong, And When Did You Last See Your Father? (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978) 129. 4

a more equal relationship between Scotland and Britain, one that involved more equal

Parliamentary representation and religious tolerance within the Union. In this painting, Allan strategically communicates this complex political message by adopting the ‘spectator’s experience,’ an artistic device that encourages viewers’ imaginative participation in the depicted scene. By making the viewer feel as if she were present at the murder of David Riccio, Allan manipulates his viewers into identifying with his political beliefs and nationalistic principles.

While literary scholars have discussed Mary Stuart’s resurgence in plays and poems during the early nineteenth century, few art historians have addressed the revival of her image in paintings at that time. Art-historical scholarship on Scottish art of the period focuses primarily on either landscape paintings or portraits; perhaps surprisingly, there has been little investigation of ambitious efforts in history paintings, including Allan’s. An obstacle to the recovery of this aspect of Scottish history has been the prevalence of inaccurate records concerning Mary Stuart’s life, alliances, and marriages—mythologies that teeter on the edge of conspiracy. Some records have been taken as ‘fact’ and reprinted in older sources without proper citations. Any account of

Mary, Queen of Scots’s image therefore must contend with the romance, mystery, and misrepresentation associated with her life story.

My thesis builds on accounts by cultural historians that foreground the role that gender ideology played in the Romantic-era revival of Mary’s image. In her book, Mary Queen of Scots:

Romance and Nation, Jayne Elizabeth Lewis examines visual, musical and literary works from

Mary Stuart’s reign up through the First World War. She establishes that Mary was foundational for the formation of Scottish national identity; she notes for example, that Mary is almost always referred to as “Mary, Queen of Scots,” and that although Mary Stuart spoke and wrote in French, she was posthumously represented as Scottish- and English-speaking. Her character is, in other

5

words, a fiction or image created for largely nationalistic purposes. Lewis further argues that

Mary Stuart was posthumously conceptualized as a sexualized mother, thus making her a

“complicated object of political and personal desire.”7 Presenting a psychoanalytic reading of the mythology that developed around Mary, Lewis claims that the rejection of parental love “in the quest for autonomous and coherent identity” is the essence of the “family romance” Sigmund

Freud outlined in Totem and Taboo (1913).8 The family romance, as Freud described it, was a complex psychological phenomenon in which children fantasize about having parents from a higher social standing. In Lewis’s interpretation, the death of Mary, Queen of Scots—the nation’s “upper-class mother,” led to a triggering of guilt and expiation that brought about a loss of cultural identity. The nation’s “desire” for Mary, according to Lewis, is reminiscent of an oedipal complex with Mary Stuart as the mother figure and the nation as her child. While my interpretation shifts focus from Mary as mother of the nation to Mary as feminine ideal, and I do not employ psychoanalytic concepts in my analysis, Lewis’s account nevertheless informs my approach to Allan’s paintings.

My analysis also depends upon recent scholarship that bursts the longstanding myths about Mary Stuart, and clarifies the role that her gender played in the assumption of rule. For example, in her book Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy: Mary, Queen of Scots, and the

Politics of Gender and Religion, Kristen Post Walton conducts an extensive study of sixteenth- century ideas about gender, religion, and women in government. Walton argues that Mary’s decision to marry two of her subjects, rather than making alliances with her royal equals, changed perceptions about gender roles in her time. (For example, Lord Darnley, Mary’s second

7 Jayne Elizabeth Lewis, Mary Queen of Scots: Romance and Nation. (London: Routledge, 1998), 3.

8 Lewis, Mary Queen of Scots: Romance and Nation, 7.

6

husband, was not a king, nor a prince, and did not naturally possess the right to rule.) The position of a queen looking for a king differed greatly from a king negotiating for a bride, as

Mary’s husband could have great political influence over the kingdom.9 Walton’s investigation of this issue raised the question: should the queen rule over her husband, as she would other subjects, or does the husband’s power overcome his wife’s? Walton’s analysis is especially useful in piecing together the events of David Rizzio’s murder and Mary Stuart’s stay in

Lochleven Castle, both scenes represented by Allan. Walton offers a number of primary source materials, such as letters between Elizabeth and Mary, and between their respective advisors.

This is crucial in garnering knowledge about how Mary Stuart’s contemporaries viewed her during her reign, and how these views changed, ultimately leading to her execution.

Recent exhibitions also provide valuable information about Allan’s career and about nineteenth-century images of Mary Stuart, though their largely formalist and biographical approach precludes the contextual reading I provide in this thesis. The aforementioned exhibition catalogue William Allan: Artist Adventurer, the first in-depth analysis of Allan’s career, documents the artist’s time abroad in Poland and Russia, as well as his eventual return to

Scotland, and his paintings on subjects from Scottish history. The 1987 exhibition The Queen’s

Image: A Celebration of Mary, Queen of Scots, curated by Helen Smailes and Duncan Thomson, was the first cohesive exhibition focusing on depictions of Mary Stuart.10 The focus of this exhibition, held to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Mary Stuart’s death, traces how history painters in later centuries perceived and represented her life.

9 Kristen Post Walton, Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy: Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Politics of Gender and Religion. (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) 109.

10 Helen Smailes and Duncan Thomson, The Queen’s Image, (Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland, 1987), 61. 7

Analyzing Allan’s Scottish history paintings in relation to the formation of Scottish identity at a pivotal moment in the nation’s history, I argue that Allan uses the historical figure of

Mary Stuart in order to represent Scotland and its place within the Union. The first chapter of my thesis, titled “The Evolution of Mary Stuart,” directly relates to the necessity of a reconceptualization of Scotland’s political identity following the decision to join in a Union with

England. A renewed interest in Mary Stuart’s life was spurred by this surge of nationalism, manifesting in several published historical accounts of her reign. I relate the forceful emergence of Mary Stuart in Scottish art at that time to these historical sources, showing how artists created a wholly new and relevant version of Mary for late eighteenth-century audiences. The second chapter, titled “An Allegory of the Union: Partnership and Politics,” argues that William Allan’s depictions of Mary are directly related to the political circumstances of the Reform Act and display Allan’s own political beliefs, using Mary as an allegory. By highlighting Mary’s marriages and alliances, Allan links Scotland’s union with England as a successful and necessary marriage. The third chapter, titled “The Murder of David Riccio and the Spectator’s Experience,” argues that Allan’s painting incorporates his political beliefs which held that Scotland would play a distinctive role in its union with Great Britain. The image of Mary Stuart in Allan’s art promises to connect the past of Scotland and its position in the Union with Britain.

It should be noted, before beginning the following investigation into Allan’s paintings of

Mary Stuart, that images of Queens in England and Scotland operated somewhat differently than in other European nations. English and Scottish Queens had the ability to rule, but they were still subject to gendered expectations concerning their behavior. Historically, different Queens have reacted to this in varying ways. Elizabeth I did not marry, and remained childless. She chose to present herself in a way that transcended the principles ascribed to a queen—specifically as a

8

vessel for children—in a patriarchal society. She accomplished this by constructing an image of herself as married to the kingdom rather than to a spouse. She emphasized her continual virginity and purity to an extent that made her otherworldly rather than a mortal woman. An example of this can be seen in Elizabeth I and the Three Goddesses (1569) in which Elizabeth is pictured choosing among Juno, Venus, and Minerva, but ultimately outshining them all (fig. 1). This allegorical painting is typical of the way a Queen’s self-presentation had to be carefully constructed, her power mitigated by her adherence to conventions of female behavior and identity.

Even in France, where Queens were prohibited from rule, codes of gendered decorum dictated how a queen could or could not be portrayed. In 1787, to repair her public image after several scandals, Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun painted Marie Antoinette and her Children (fig. 2).11

This painting, showing Marie Antoinette surrounded by her children, emphasizes her role as a vehicle for the continuation of the royal bloodline, minimizing her own power and agency.

Likewise, Archduchess Maria Theresa was painted in 1729 by Andreas Möller as carrying an abundance of blooming flowers (fig. 3). These flowers are representations of her fertility and expectations to bear children in the future.12 Queens were forced to justify their rule, often through their promise to act as a maternal figure, either to the country or by continuing a bloodline. These sentiments are echoed and modified in the time of William Allan in his depictions of Mary Stuart as one of Great Britain’s founding mothers.

11 I describe here the harsh criticism following Vigée Le Brun’s painting of Marie Antoinette en Chemise in 1783. This is a prime example of how a queen depicted in opposition to societal roles could garner animosity. For further reading on this portrait, see Mary Sheriff’s article “The Portrait of the Queen,” Marie-Antoinette: Writings on the Body of a Queen. Goodman, Dena, ed. New York: Routledge, 2003.

12 Allison M. Levy, Widowhood and visual culture in early modern Europe (Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2003). 9

CHAPTER 1

THE EVOLUTION OF MARY STUART’S IMAGE

Why did William Allan seize upon Mary Stuart as an emblem of Scotland in the 1820s and 30s? I will argue that several factors contributed to his decision to paint Mary and to the particular way that he chose to portray her. In this chapter, I will discuss major developments in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Scottish politics that influenced his representations of

Mary. I will discuss the Union of 1707, which united England and Scotland into the kingdom of

Great Britain and redefined the two nations’ relation to one another. While the move to join the

Union apparently met with popular approval, it necessitated a reconceptualization of Scotland’s political identity; it also produced a new understanding of Scotland’s history. The Acts of the

Union consisted of two separate Acts of Parliament. The first was the Union with Scotland Act, passed by the Parliament of England in 1706. The second was the Union with England Act, passed by the Scottish Parliament in 1707. By the two Acts, England and Scotland had agreed to unite under one parliament and one kingdom—that of Great Britain.

One direct result of this new political circumstance was a broad effort among historians to preserve and celebrate Scotland’s history as a separate nation. As I will show, the Union sparked political protest against Scotland’s treatment, prompting the birth of Scottish nationalism, a cultural development now known as the “Scottish Enlightenment.” During this period, as a result of both the Union and the Industrial Revolution, “there developed a sense, among many middle-class Scots, that the identity of Scotland was being eroded.”13 John

13 John Morrison, “Sir William Allan and the Painting of Scottish History,” in William Allan: Artist Adventurer (Edinburgh: City of Edinburgh Museums, 2001) 14.

10

Morrison posits that, as a resistance to this perceived dilution of Scottish distinctiveness, there developed an intense interest in the country’s past.14

A renewed interest in Mary Stuart’s life was spurred by this surge of nationalism. This interest in Mary manifested in several published historical accounts of her reign in the late eighteenth century. Painters sifted through these historical sources, as well as sixteenth-century renderings of the Queen of Scots, thereby creating a wholly new and relevant version of Mary

Stuart for late eighteenth-century audiences. These painters changed the visual rhetoric of Mary,

Queen of Scots by focusing on narratives concerning her legitimacy and power into their paintings. In this chapter, I will show that the rise of the myth of Mary Stuart in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was directly linked to the politics of that period, particularly to the rise of a nationalist movement that made Mary a powerful symbolic figure. I will also illustrate the effects of the new image of Scotland on Mary’s image by comparing representations of her produced before and after the Scottish Enlightenment. While pre-

Enlightenment images stress the religious tensions between Scotland and England, post-

Enlightenment images frame her in more secular, political terms—thus prefiguring Allan’s approach.

The Union of 1707 intensified the existing complexity of Scottish politics. The decision to enter into a union with Great Britain stemmed, in part, from King William III of England’s

(William of Orange) fears of leaving Scotland open to a French invasion. England was then locked in war over French dynastic ambitions in Spain, which spurred English ministers to seek a full incorporating union with Scotland.15 Concurrently, the economic position of Scotland

14 Morrison, “Sir William Allan and the Painting of Scottish History,” 14.

15 Christopher Whatley, Scots and the Union, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016), 1.

11

declined rapidly in the 1690s, straining relations between Scotland and the rest of Europe.16

Ultimately, the Union promised Scotland an economically stable future and unrestricted Atlantic trade, while England would keep France out of its northern border.17

While politically and economically necessary, the Union stripped Scotland of much of its autonomy and power. The Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England united to form a single Parliament, based in the Palace of Westminster, London. This relocation of the center of politics was not wholly new to the Scots. They had shared the same monarch with England since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when Mary Stuart’s son became King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England. However, as his two titles imply, the King of Scotland and

England wore two separate crowns, indicating the distinction between the two kingdoms. The dynastic Union of 1603 did not create a new state, and Scotland retained separate legal institutions; before 1707, the Scottish Parliament had resided in Edinburgh.18 With the Union, not only the government but the currency, taxation, and trade policy, and the flag of the once separate nations became one. In addition, the average Scotsman was barred from electing his representation under this new Parliament. Scotland was able to elect forty-five Members of

Parliament (MPs), and England elected four-hundred and eighty-six Members of Parliament.19

Up until 1832, one Englishman in thirty could vote, while only one Scotsman in six hundred had the same privilege. Scarcely three thousand ‘country freeholders’ voted for the thirty county

Members of Parliament, and the fifteen burgh Members of Parliament were elected by groups of

16 Whatley, Scots and the Union, 91.

17 Whatley, Scots and the Union, 91. 18 Tom Gallagher, The Illusion of Freedom, (New York: Columbia Press, 2010), 16.

19 Christopher Harvie, Scotland and Nationalism, (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2004), 17.

12

town councils that were essentially self-selecting oligarchies.20 Out of all the towns in Scotland, only Edinburgh had its own Member of Parliament. This was the result of a system in which only wealthy Britons, mainly from the landed classes, had a vote.

These new political circumstances touched off a vigorous debate about Scotland’s cultural and political identities: Post-Union Scotland was gripped by what historian Christopher

Harvie called a “complex cultural dialectic.”21 On the one hand, the parliament and church were both recognizably Scottish. On the other were distinctly British versions of industry and empire as a result of the Industrial Revolution.22 The outcome was not a ‘British’ identity but an unstable and shifting one; the people of Scotland found themselves torn between two competing national identities. As Harvie posited, “the compromises of Unionism made the ‘Scottish’ context opaque…there was, theoretically, a common citizenship, yet the Scots had privileges in

Scotland denied to the English.”23 For example, criminal law as it applied to Scots was often more severe than it was for their English counterparts.24 This further demonstrates the division between the two nations, despite their shared language and parliament.

The disenfranchisement of the Scottish elite provided an impetus for the development of a nationalistic cultural movement known as the Scottish Enlightenment (1730-90). One manifestation of this movement was an outpouring of accounts retelling Scottish history, many of which gave Mary Stuart a key role. The works of Samuel Jebb, William Robertson, and

20 Harvie, Scotland and Nationalism, 43.

21 Harvie, Scotland and Nationalism, 39.

22 The Industrial Revolution found its foundations in Britain, resulting in most technical innovations being considered distinctly “British.” 23 Harvie, Scotland and Nationalism, 40.

24 For instance, the Forgery Act of 1830, passed by the Parliament of Great Britain, imposed the death penalty for forgery. However, this Act did not affect Scotland as they maintained the right to maintain their own system of criminal law.

13

Gilbert Stuart in particular launched Mary, Queen of Scots as a national symbol.25 These narrative histories are event driven, focusing on the drama and intention of individual

‘characters.’ Markedly nationalistic, these accounts approached Mary Stuart’s story sympathetically and uncritically, weaving the tale as a tragic romance rather than trying to present unbiased facts. These writings would later be adopted by history painters for their dramatic rendering of events.

The initial text in this sequence, Samuel Jebb’s The History of the Life and Reign of Mary

Queen of Scots (1725), exemplifies the post-Union nationalism that reshaped Mary’s image. In the preface to his book, Jebb refers to the Queen of Scots as “an unfortunate princess,” and states that he has “taken a great deal of pains in compiling the story.”26 Jebb’s tale of the Queen of

Scots is filled with supposed quotes and conversations between Mary and her various advisors, creating an imagined narrative history. His narrative cast Mary Stuart’s tale as a tragedy, privileging the innocence and beauty of the queen. Jebb hails Mary Stuart as an ideal woman and stresses her regional identity. For example, Jebb states that Mary “was extremely beautiful…one might discern in her countenance a majesty intermixed with sweetness, and when clad in her

Highland habit, she would look like a Goddess…”27 This kind of narrative, one teeming with drama and emotion, was easily adapted to history painting.28

Later histories were marked by the nationalism of Jebb’s approach. For example,

William Robertson’s History of Scotland during the Reigns of Mary and James VI, published in

25 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 61.

26 Samuel Jebb, The History of the Life and Reign of Mary Queen of Scots, and Dowager of France, (London: James Bettenham, 1725), 10.

27 Jebb, The History of the Life and Reign of Mary Queen of Scots, 22

28 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 62.

14

1759, is similarly inclined towards hagiography.29 As art historian Helen Smailes notes, “for all his professed impartiality, Robertson had been unanimously censured for his bias in favor of the

Queen of Scots.”30 In doing so, he established an emotive precedent for later historians and history painters.31 Robertson’s narrative technique also tended towards the “dramatic telescoping of detail, revealing the Scottish phase of Mary’s career as a sequence of climactic moments.”32

Robertson frequently boasts of Mary’s accomplishments, character and charms. He describes

Elizabeth I as “much inferior to Mary in beauty and gracefulness of person” and that Elizabeth

“envied and hated [Mary] as a rival by whom she was eclipsed.”33 As one can see, the author felt great pride in the achievements of the Scottish queen, particularly in those over England. A later historian, Gilbert Stuart, emulated Robertson’s uncritical approach to Mary in his own History of

Scotland, published in 1783.34

By the end of the eighteenth century, these new histories of Mary’s reign had profoundly reshaped Scotland’s self-image. An article in The British Mercury declared that ‘the Scottish history abounds in the most interesting subjects,” citing the accounts published by Stuart and

29 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 61.

30 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 62.

31 Robertson’s volume was consulted as a source by painters Gavin Hamilton in 1765, David Allan in 1789, and by William Allan in 1833. Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 62.

32 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 62.

33 William Robertson, History of Scotland during the Reigns of Mary and James VI, (London: A. Millar in the Strand: 1759) 244.

34 Gilbert Stuart, Observations Concerning the Public Law, and the Constitutional History of Scotland. (Edinburgh: W. Creech, 1779.). Gilbert Stuart, writer and historian, (1742-1786), not to be confused with the famous American painter Gilbert Stuart (1755-1828).

15

Robertson.35 David Erskine, 11th Earl of Buchan, founder of the Society of Antiquaries of

Scotland, made a speech in 1780 claiming that

We have no good materials yet collected for giving a very full and just account of the ancient assemblies, or parliaments of Scotland, similar to those which have lately appeared with respect to our sister kingdom; and a work of this nature…and by the pen of Dr. Gilbert Stuart, would be a most interesting performance to every true Scotsman…36

Erskine implies that Stuart’s interpretation of Scottish history—a history of Scotland written by a

Scot—would be fascinating for everyone who considers themselves “Scottish.” Evident in the writings of Jebb, Robertson and Stuart, is the impulse to place Scotland’s virtues—and by extension, its royals—above those of England and France. These narrative presentations of national history were unfailingly patriotic and distinctly Scottish.

We can measure the impact of the new image of Mary produced by Scottish

Enlightenment historians if we compare pre-and post-Enlightenment representations of the

Queen. Pre-enlightenment images of Mary Stuart stress the issue of religious conflict between

Mary’s Catholic regime and Elizabeth’s Protestant one. The Scottish Protestant Reformation, which attempted to sever Scotland’s relationship with the Papacy in the sixteenth-century, incited disputes between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The image of Mary, a Catholic

Queen, therefore became a complicated subject for artists to represent. The origins of the visual canon for Mary, Queen of Scots comes from the sixteenth-century ‘battle of the books,’ visual propaganda that began to circulate in the year of Mary’s death in the form of broadsides issued from the principal European centers of Catholic publishing and in illustrated anthologies of the

35 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 62.

36 Roger L. Emerison, “The Scottish Enlightenment and the End of the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh,” The British Journal for the History of Science, 21 No. 1 (March 1988), 39.

16

lives of Catholic martyrs.37 The battle of the books ensured that Mary Stuart was transformed into a heroine within her lifetime.38 These images consisted of stylized reconstructions of her execution at Fotheringhay. They were designed to “complement impassioned Catholic propaganda which sought to establish that, in accordance with her own claims, Mary had died as a martyr for her faith and not for the political reasons advanced by the government of Elizabeth

I.”39 Engraved images of this type were overtly religious in intention and invited comparison with traditional representations of the Stations of the Cross.40 Pre-enlightenment images such as this were used as propaganda in order to demonstrate English cruelty to Catholics.

An example of this kind of artistic propaganda was made by Adam Blackwood in 1589 in an illustrated edition of his account Histoire et martyre de la Royne d’Escosse…Avec un petit livret de sa mor (History and martyrdom of the Queen of Scots…With a Small Account of Her

Death). That source recounted Mary Stuart’s execution in a series of scenes, including a section of the reading of the death warrant, and another representing the queen being led to her execution. As is indicated by his labeling of the Queen as a “martyr,” Blackwood’s imagery parallels Mary’s execution with the iconography of Christ’s crucifixion (Fig 4). As Mary kneels demurely and calmly at the executioner’s block, a crowd of men, women, and soldiers look upon her. A first failed attempt to sever the queen’s head from her body is visible in the mark on

Mary’s neck. The soldiers raise their weapons in solidarity with the executioner as his axe swings back behind his soldier, as he attempts for the second time to sever Mary’s head from her body. The maid-servant, whose pose echoes representations of the Virgin Mary in many

37 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 58.

38 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 57.

39 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 57.

40 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 58.

17

representations of the Crucifixion, clasps her hands together in prayer and casts her eyes downward. This typology exaggerated the implications of killing Mary by transforming her into a quasi-saint.

Images of Mary created at the behest of Elizabeth I during this same period created an alternative, if equally potent, representation of the Queen as the “incarnation of political and sexual seduction.”41 This sort of counter-propaganda was intended to validate Elizabeth’s continued detention of Mary in the 1570s and to support the rationale for her execution. The emphasis on sexual promiscuity in these images seeks to strengthen Elizabeth’s campaign against Mary Stuart, justifying the execution of a morally ambiguous woman. A watercolor from an unknown artist, titled The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (c.1613), is an apt example of this type of anti-Mary counter-propaganda (fig 5). This watercolor drawing contains an inscription that reads “On 8 February was beheaded Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots; She died a

Roman Catholic, having endeavored to provoke rebellion and to make herself master of

England.”42 It was part of a larger album of historical prints meant to display a history of the

Netherlands together with that of France and England. The crucifix Mary clutches now indicates not her saintliness, but the rebellion she incited against Protestant England. At the far left of this composition, Englishmen burn the body and clothing of the Queen so that her bones cannot be made into sacred relics. The discarded pile of the Queens outer-clothes on the execution platform serves to humiliate and sexualize the queen. Her clothes are scattered in in a pile to the side of the queen, as if they were taken off clumsily or eagerly. Mary Stuarts treachery was the grounds

41 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 58.

42 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 51.

18

for Elizabeth’s warrant of execution. Rather than saint-like Marian propaganda, this drawing casts Mary, Queen of Scots as a pretender to the English throne.

By contrast to this sixteenth-century imagery, we see a very different incarnation of Mary developing during the eighteenth century, influenced by the new accounts of her life that Scottish

Enlightenment historians had begun to publish. Unlike the earlier representations of Mary, which tended to stress the issue of religious conflict, presenting her alternately as “saint” or “sinner,” eighteenth-century artists made religion secondary to the themes of politics and power. The first manifestation of this new cult of Mary, Queen of Scots was initiated by James Boswell, a

Scottish biographer, when he commissioned the neoclassical history painter Gavin Hamilton to paint Mary, Queen of Scots Resigning her Crown in 1765 (fig 6).43 When Boswell commissioned this abdication scene in 1765, both Boswell and Hamilton were well steeped in Scottish

Enlightenment texts. In 1762, Boswell wrote to John Johnston, the Laird of Grange, commenting on the fact that the History of Scotland “carried [him] back in imagination to the ancient days of

Scottish Grandeur…and made [him] feel a pleasing sympathy for the beautifull accomplished

Mary.”44 Boswell commissioned this painting to commemorate his patriotism and ancestral pride, as his distant relative, Laird David Boswell, supposedly died for Mary Stuart at the Battle of Langside.45 Boswell was extremely active in this commission regarding the details of the composition. In particular, he insisted that Mary’s appearance should conform to existing representations. Andrew Lumisden, secretary to the exiled Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, promised to lend a miniature for the artist’s reference.46 In 1768 Hamilton was corresponding

43 Also titled The Abdication of Mary, Queen of Scots.

44 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 106.

45 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 107.

46 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 107. 19

with Boswell about the so-called Carleton portrait of Mary so that he might use it as a direct reference.47 This reliance on “primary” sources of images of the queen is typical of Hamilton’s neoclassical education and training. While Hamilton approved of Boswell’s adamance that he include historical detail in terms of Mary’s depiction, he did however note that “beauty in distress is what I mean to represent and Mary’s features I hope will not interfere with the representation.”48 Boswell’s nationalistic desire to represent his Scottish ancestral pride intermingled with his desire to have Gavin represent Mary as beautiful as she was described in the emerging historical narratives.

Interestingly, while Hamilton represented an event that may seem to be purely political—

Mary’s abdication—he nevertheless subtly evoked the iconography of a compositional formula reminiscent of images of Christ before Pilate. As his above-quoted comment on Mary suggests, he also represented Mary according to contemporary ideals of womanly behavior and decorum— thus rendering her relatively passive. The painting depicts Mary, standing on the right side of the canvas, as she placed her crown on a table at the center of the composition in front of armed soldiers who grab at her sleeves. Even though Mary, as a queen, is politically more important than the soldiers, Hamilton represented the soldiers as more physically active and powerful.

Mary’s body language is compliant and open with her chin and eyes cast downward to gaze absently at the floor. By contrast, the men in the picture are all in motion: one scribbles away furiously to the left of the composition, and armed soldiers lean in to grab at the queen or reproach her. Mary’s religion is not highlighted as much as her political power, or absence thereof. The presence of soldiers observing the scene and the heavy, studded door in the

47 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 107.

48 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 107.

20

background, hinting at the queen’s confinement and entrapment, lend an implicit violence and desperation to the narrative. This marriage of dramatic narrative and leftover sixteenth-century propaganda indicate that this painting is one of the first examples of the new Scottish iconography that Allan would eventually extend.49

Another example of images that synthesize the sixteenth-century emphasis on religion with the eighteenth-century stress on Mary’s political role is John Francis Rigaud’s series of engravings depicting Mary on the morning of her execution. Rigaud referred to Catholic broadsides as examples for his own series of seven illustrations on the death of Mary, Queen of

Scots, which were commissioned by the 4th Earl of Abingdon in 1789. In these engravings,

Rigaud shows anecdotes of the Queen’s exemplary Catholic conduct on the eve of her execution.50 Mary’s supposed self-castigation and reading of the Passion narratives had been used by sixteenth-century Catholic apologists to demonstrate her self-appointed role of martyr for the Faith.51 The original drawing was exhibited at the Royal Academy under the title The

Sheriff Entering the Chapel of Mary, Queen of Scots the Morning of her Execution.52 Rigaud’s original illustrations have been lost, but a stipple engraving by Antonio Zecchin after Rigaud exists (fig 7). In this copy, Mary kneels before an altar in front of a crucifix, with a prayer-book in hand. Her head is turned towards the door to view Thomas Andrews, the Sheriff of

Northampton, who has just entered the chapel.53 Mary’s ladies-in-waiting are in various poses of

49 However, the classical tenor of this piece, probably due to Hamilton’s continued work in Rome, would eventually fade from the pictorial tradition of the Queen of Scots.

50 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 61.

51 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 58.

52 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 138.

53 Smailes and Thomson, Queen’s Image, 138.

21

exaggerated grief as they receive the information that the time of the execution has arrived.

Mary, by contrast, is poised and resolute. This pious behavior in the face of death was the type of agenda circulated by the Catholic church after the execution of the Queen of Scots. However, the dramatic hand motions of the ladies-in-waiting, and the theatrical silent proclamation from the

Sheriff, are atypical of the previously religiously motivated images of the queen. These additions to the representation of Mary Stuart stem from the dramatic historical accounts of the life of the

Queen of Scots. By representing the queen as neither a Catholic martyr nor an immoral pretender to the throne, artists were creating a wholly new interpretation of Mary that stresses her political role.

These borrowed themes from contemporary historical narrative would later be utilized in the work of Sir William Allan. The emphasis on Mary Stuart’s piety and modesty, coupled with the drama of the narrative, shows how later images adapted sixteenth-century images to suit the new image of the Queen. Opposing propaganda imagery of the Queen had to be mitigated and resolved in painting through the combination of dramatic, historical narrative. This narrative approach to a familiar subject made the Queen of Scots relevant again in a period that was interested in preserving the past of Scotland during a transition to more successful Union within

Great Britain. This new tradition of depicting Mary directly influenced the choices William

Allan made in his representations of her several decades later.

22

CHAPTER 2

AN ALLEGORY OF THE UNION: PARTNERSHIP AND POLITICS

William Allan’s images of Mary, Queen of Scots were produced during a decade that witnessed major changes in Scotland’s position in the Union. The Reform Act of 1832 increased the Scottish representation in Parliament from forty-five MPs to fifty-three. This widened the voter spectrum to about 64,000.54 To William Ewart Gladstone, speaking in the 1880s, the

Reform Act of 1832 was the “political birth of Scotland,” and “the beginning of a duty and power, neither of which had attached to the Scottish nation in the preceding period.”55 Henry

Cockburn, a historian of early nineteenth-century Scotland, has said that “the Reform

Bill…[gave] us a political constitution for the first time.”56 This reformation to the political system of the Union would bring a continuous extension of rights in Scotland. Arguably, these developments in the political sphere were spurred by the cultural nationalism of the Scottish

Enlightenment, discussed at length in chapter 1. By 1820, the ending of the Scottish

Enlightenment and the start of Allan’s career as a Scottish history painter, these changes had markedly changed society.57

Between 1823 and 1833, William Allan created three major paintings representing scenes from the life of Mary, Queen of Scots. The moments he chose to depict, which revolve around the themes of her marriage, political alliances, and the contest over her power, illustrate the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment image of Mary on his conception of her. Like the

54 Christopher Harvie and Peter Jones, The Road to Home Rule, (Edinburgh: Polygon, 2000) 16.

55 Harvie, Scotland and Nationalism, 18.

56 Harvie, Scotland and Nationalism, 54.

57 Morrison, Artist Adventurer, 14.

23

eighteenth-century precedents discussed above, his paintings represent her as both an ideal woman and as an embodiment of Scottish national identity. However, in this chapter, I will argue that Mary takes on a new meaning in these paintings, one directly related to the particular political circumstances of this period in Scottish history, and one rooted in Allan’s own political beliefs. Allan’s paintings use Mary to represent the union between Scotland and England: he highlights the necessity of this partnership by depicting her as dependent and powerless relative to the male actors in the scenes he depicts.

Clearly, Mary’s gender plays an important role in Allan’s imagery. I argue that he casts

Scotland in a feminized role in the Union—a political “marriage”—with Great Britain. Because

England was the more powerful and wealthy country, Scotland was relegated the “weaker,” feminine role. Rather than showing Mary as a powerful, autonomous ruler, Allan depicts her as a passive Queen who makes concessions to those more powerful. By presenting Mary as an object of tragic circumstance and manipulation, and stressing her innocence, Allan conforms Mary

Stuart to nineteenth-century ideals of womanhood. More specifically, Allan chooses to depict moments in Mary’s life that revolve around the themes of marriage and power. Allan thereby sought to preserve the distinctive identity of Scotland while also defining that identity within a partnership; he stresses Mary’s role in initiating the royal line that united the two countries, without making her appear too powerful or autonomous. In these paintings, Allan creates a new image of Mary Stuart to suit what he hoped would be a renegotiated Union between Scotland and

England.

Allan’s decision to use a female figure to allegorically represent the nation drew upon existing precedents. If we look across Europe, we can see that many of Allan’s contemporaries also employed female allegories to represent the new conceptions of national identity that were

24

emerging in this period. For example, in 1830, Eugène Delacroix painted Liberty Leading the

People (fig. 8). In this image, Liberty, a bare-chested and bare-footed woman, leads the charge during the July Revolution in 1830 France. In Marcia Pointon’s analysis of the painting’s gender implications, she concludes that when artists use allegory in a “real” historical context, the allegory serves to embody the visual manifestation of the artist’s ideas and beliefs.58 Pointon’s analysis relies on the work of historian Maurice Agulhon, who documents the appearance and evolution of female allegories of the French nation—including “Liberty” and “Marianne”—from the 1789 revolution onward. Agulhon notes that such images of Liberty appropriate the role of the Virgin Mary, stating that “from [1830] onward it is a truism to say that regained liberty is represented as a woman.”59 This implies that allegorical freedom, usually in the form of a savior or leader, was almost always depicted as a woman. Yet while there are basic similarities between

Delacroix’s and Allan’s images, there are also key differences. In Liberty Leading the People,

Liberty is a strong—even quasi-masculine figure, whereas Allan consistently represents Mary as a passive onlooker. Likewise, Delacroix uses an anonymous figure to represent the nation, while

Allan seizes upon a specific historical figure and manipulates her story to make her fit the politics of his moment.

I propose that Mary’s femininity is essential to the way Allan wanted to allegorize

Scotland. To begin with, we must ask why William Allan chose Mary Stuart rather than Robert the Bruce, William Wallace, or even Mary’s son, James IV and I, as the symbol of the Union between England and Scotland. By casting Scotland in a feminized role in the Union, and thereby delegating the masculine role to England, Allan interprets the Union as a legitimate

58 Marcia Pointon, Naked Authority: The Body in Western Painting 1830-1908 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 65.

59 Maurice Agulhon, Marianne into Battle, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 38.

25

marriage. Allan is attempting to show Scotland as a partner in the Union of Great Britain that can contribute a remarkable historic tradition.

Allan, moreover, transforms Mary into a Georgian model of early nineteenth-century femininity, making her conform to contemporary standard of womanly behavior and conduct. As art historian Roy Strong has argued, painters of this period “essentially utilized women to stimulate the viewer’s sentiments rather than his senses. Sensuality was suppressed in favor of story-telling scenes extolling woman’s virtues as a wife, home-maker, and mother, and it was into this mold of the ‘perfect lady’ that Mary Queen of Scots was surprisingly poured.”60 Rather than depicting her as a powerful ruler, Allan has chosen to stress her innocence by presenting her as an object of tragic circumstance and manipulation. Mary, Queen of Scots served as a perfect example of this passive feminine ideal because of her tragic history of subjection to political agendas, violence, and imprisonment. This history offered Allan ways to construct her character in nineteenth-century terms. Building on this notion, I will argue that, in making her conform to nineteenth-century standards of femininity, Allan was able to make Mary represent Scotland without making her seem too powerful relative to Britain.

Mary’s marital arrangements are a key focus of Allan’s three paintings drawn from her life. His first such painting is John Knox admonishing Mary, Queen of Scots on the Day her

Intention to Marry Darnley was Made Public (1822), now in the Collection of James Holloway,

Esq. (fig. 9). In this painting, Mary Stuart is seated at a table and dressed in luxurious white as she listens to the remonstrations of John Knox. Knox stands before the queen with his arms wide in gesture, passionately conveying his objections to her intended husband. A painting of James

IV of Scotland hangs on the wall directly behind Mary. A common ancestor of both Mary Stuart

60 Strong, And When Did You Last See Your Father, 133.

26

and Lord Darnley, Mary’s betrothed, James IV had married the eldest daughter of the English king Henry VII.61 His portrait serves to remind viewers of Mary and Darnley’s joint dynastic claim to the English throne. Upon the table is a letter bearing the signature of Lord Darnley. The presence of Darnley’s name directly underneath the portrait of his royal ancestor further communicates the strength of his bloodline. John Erskin of Dun, a Scottish religious reformer and acting mediator, stands beside the queen as he attempts to sooth her with calming gestures and words. This painting highlights Knox’s concern about whom Mary will marry, and how her partnership will influence Scotland, bringing ideas of alliances and a queen’s divine right to rule to the forefront of the viewer’s mind.

The way this work was exhibited at the London Royal Academy in 1823 is indicative of

Allan’s intention to make it serve as a political allegory. Allan selected the following excerpt from John Knox’s History of the Reformation, in which Knox interrogates the Queen, to be inscribed on an exhibition label, so that viewers could read this story in relation to his painting:

“Madam, I am not master of myself, but must obey Him who commands me to speak plain, and to flatter no flesh upon the face of the earth.’ ‘But what have you to do with my marriage?’ ‘If it please Your Majesty patiently to hear me, I shall show the truth in plain words. I grant Your Grace offered unto me more than ever I required; but my answer was then, as it is now, that God hath not sent me to wait upon the courts of Princes, nor upon the chambers of Ladies; but I am sent to preach the Evangel of Jesus Christ, to such as please to hear it. It hath two parts—Repentance and Faith. Now, Madam, in preaching Repentance, of necessity it is that the sins of men be so noted, that they may know wherein they offend. But the most part of your Nobility are so addicted to your affections, that neither God’s Word, nor yet their Commonwealth, are rightly regarded. Therefore, it becometh me so to speak, that they may know their duty.’ ‘What have you to do with my marriage? Or what are you within this Commonwealth?’ ‘A subject born within the same, Madam. And albeit I be neither Earl, Lord, nor Baron within it, yet hath God made me— how abject so ever I be in your eyes— a profitable member within the same. Yea, Madam, to me it appertains no less to forewarn of such things as may hurt it, if I foresee them, than it doth to any of the

61 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 86. 27

Nobility; for both my vocation and my conscience crave plainness of me. Therefore, Madam, to yourself I say that which I spake in public place:— Whensoever the Nobility of this Realm shall consent that ye be subject to an unfaithful husband, they do as much as in them lieth to renounce Christ, to banish His truth from them, to betray the freedom of this Realm, and perchance they shall in the end do small comfort to yourself.’ At these words, howling was heard, and tears might have been seen in greater abundance than the matter required. John Erskine of Dun, a man of meek and gentle spirit, stood beside, and entreated what he could to mitigate her anger. He gave unto her many pleasing words of her beauty, of her excellence, and how all the Princes of Europe would be glad to seek her favor.”62

This excerpt highlights Knox’s intervention into Mary’s intended union. Knox was a commoner, and thus his concern over Mary’s—and by extension, Scotland’s—union is a politically charged move. In this passage, Mary herself equates her marriage to the well-being of the nation, saying

“What have you to do with my marriage? Or what are you within this Commonwealth?”63 This blatant acknowledgement that unions and partnerships of the nation are of concern to all citizens would be associated with contemporary debates and disagreements over the fairness of the Union between Scotland and England. The competing notions of power between Knox and Mary is representative of the larger confusion and anxiety Scotland was experiencing.

It is also significant that Allan rendered Mary Stuart to appear passive in this painting, rather than depicting her as an active, powerful figure. Knox is admonishing her, standing over her while she remains submissively seated. Slouching in her chair and resting her head in her hand, it seems Mary has little control over her own self, not to mention her nation. Rather than an autonomous figure, Allan has presented us with a Queen whose very existence relies on compromise. In the fifteenth century, that compromise was a marriage that would enhance

62 John Knox and C.J. Guthrie ed. History of the Reformation of Religion, Within the Realm of Scotland, (Rapidan: Hartland Publications, 1997).

63 John Knox and C.J. Guthrie ed. History of the Reformation, 24.

28

Mary’s claim to England and provide her with an heir. To contemporary audiences in the nineteenth century, that compromise was a continued union between England and somewhat dependent Scotland.

We see the same emphasis on Mary’s dependent position in Allan’s next painting drawn from her life, Lord Patrick Lindesay of the Byres and Lord William Ruthven Compelling Mary,

Queen of Scots to Sign her Abdication in the Castle of Lochleven (1824), now in St Leonards

School, St Andrews (fig. 10). This painting depicts a scene from Sir Walter Scott’s The Abbot, in which Mary is coerced into signing a document stating that her abdication is voluntary. Mary, furious at the continued threats against her life from the lords, refuses to concede that her abdication is voluntary. Ultimately, however, the Queen is not in control of her own destiny.64

Lord Lindsay, standing and dressed in armor, is pictured at the center of the composition. He reaches forward, grasping Mary’s wrist in his gauntleted hand, forcing a quill into her hand. The powerful Lords arranged around Mary all participate in the action in different ways. At the far right of the painting, Sir Robert Melville holds his hands up in an attempt to intercede between the Lords and Mary Stuart. Lord Ruthven, standing behind Lord Lindsay, is shown shocked by

Lindsay’s anger and forcefulness. His arm reflexively raises as if he is afraid that Lord Lindsay will turn against him next. His mouth is parted as if he has just let out an audible gasp and he leans away from the violent scene.

In this painting, Allan emphasizes Mary Stuart’s divine right to rule and her legacy as part of the Stuart bloodline. As the founder of the bloodline that would eventually rule over both

England and Scotland, Mary is depicted as the mother of the Union. First, there is the cross around her neck, which reminds viewers of Mary’s Catholic faith, and directly connects with the

64 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 114.

29

belief in the divine right of rulers. Secondly, Allan has chosen to depict a scene from The Abbot, a text that stresses the hostility surrounding Mary’s abdication. Her forced abdication inherently goes against the Catholic belief in her divine right to rule both Scotland and England. The notion that her abdication was forced by conspirators, rather than the will of the general population or a competitor with a more legitimate claim, reasserts the injustice of the situation. By highlighting this injustice, Allan asserts that Mary was the legitimate queen of the nation. This advocacy for

Mary’s rule inherently relates to her heirs, and references her continued bloodline. As the rightful queen, her heirs should—and would—continue to sit on the throne. When her bloodline is considered in this way, it is easy to see how she can be understood as the mother of the Union between Scotland and England.

Mary Stuart is presented as a politically charged allegory of the Union between

Scotland and England in the paintings of Sir William Allan. Her gender casts Scotland in a feminized role in the literal Union between Scotland and England, appointing the masculine role to England. Because England was the more powerful and economically stable country, Scotland had suffered concessions within the Union. In these paintings,

Mary is not depicted as a powerful, autonomous ruler, but rather a Queen in need of making concessions to those more powerful. To Allan’s contemporaries, this would have been representative of nineteenth century Scotland and its continued negotiations within the Union. The culmination of these negotiations in 1832, as we will see in the next chapter, caused Allan to produce his most politically charged painting of the Queen, The

Murder of David Riccio.

30

CHAPTER 3

THE MURDER OF DAVID RICCIO AND THE SPECTATOR’S EXPERIENCE

William Allan created his final image of Mary Stuart, The Murder of David Riccio, at a key moment in Scottish history: in 1833, just one year after the Reform Act of 1832 made extensive changes to the electoral system of Parliament granting greater representation to the people of Scotland. As I described in Chapter 2, Allan’s previous paintings of Mary Stuart hinted at the limits of Mary’s power, and by extension, the limits of Scotland’s power. In The Murder of

David Riccio makes this theme far more overt in order to demonstrate his support of the Reform

Act of 1832, as well as his belief that Scotland should remain within the Union with England

(fig. 11). He accomplishes this by including explicit symbols of Catholicism, and by portraying

Mary as in desperate need of intercession. I will argue that Allan attempts to convince his viewers of his political stance by employing the spectator’s experience, which demands imaginative participation on the part of the viewer. Allan’s portrayal of Mary and purposeful interaction with his viewers allows for his political ideologies to persuade his audience.

Allan’s Scottish history paintings are the earliest visual example of what Sir Walter Scott termed “Unionist-Nationalism.”65 Allan differentiates Scottish from British history, but also stresses its validity as a contribution “to British nationhood.”66 Thus The Murder of David Riccio is treated as the grandest of historical epics. Its “High Baroque design and coloring, its overt borrowing of lighting and central poses from Rembrandt’s Blinding of Samson (1636) make a claim for Scottish history as tragic, noble, and worthy of association with the most renowned of

65 Morrison, “Sir William Allan and the Painting of Scottish History,” 16.

66 Morrison, “Sir William Allan and the Painting of Scottish History,” 18.

31

national annals.”67 This celebration of Scotland’s individual history is not only inherently nationalistic, but as I will show, transmits a complex message about Scotland’s political identity within the Union.

The Murder of David Riccio is a complicated composition detailing the death of Mary

Stuart’s trusted secretary. On the left of the composition is a dining table with overturned wine glasses, evoking the sensation that Mary Stuart and David Riccio have just leapt up from the table. A rosary hangs over the side of the table, stark against the white tablecloth, reminding us of Mary’s Catholic faith and hinting at the unholy act that is about to occur. Henry, Lord Darnley

(Mary Stuart’s husband) restrains Mary in his arms as she fights and pushes against him in order to reach Riccio. Her eyes are wide in fear and horror, whereas Darnley looks on the scene with righteous determination. Nine figures—the conspirators—surround Riccio in the moment before the first dagger strikes, making it unclear where the first blow will come from. In the front of the painting, in dark clothing, stands Andrew Kerr of Fawdownside, the Protestant son-in-law of

John Knox. On Kerr’s right is Patrick Murray of Tibbermuir, another conspirator and supporter of Lord Darnley, who drags Riccio by the cloak from the apartment towards the door. Lord

Morton, the Lord Chancellor of Scotland, points toward the door with his sword, while Lord

Lindsay, a relative to Darnley, draws back the green curtain.68 Behind the torch-bearers is the master of Ruthven, and near him Lord Ruthven in complete armor.69 Ruthven raises his dagger above his head, but Allen has chosen to align the daggers point with Mary’s head. George

Douglas clasps the prostrate Riccio by the arm. The figure to the left of Ruthven swings his arm

67 Morrison, “Sir William Allan and the Painting of Scottish History,” 18.

68 Howard, Artist Adventurer, 82.

69 Howard, Artist Adventurer, 82.

32

backward, his coat flying in the movement, and holds Riccio by the shoulder. The figure cloaked in black, facing away from the viewer, pushes against Riccio’s chest, forcing the Italian down on knees. Behind Mary and Darnley, the Countess of Argyll and Mary Seaton cower in fright.

Behind the women, a soldier marks the secret passage by which the conspirators entered the apartment.70 At the lower left side of the painting lays Riccio’s guitar and sheet music, abandoned as he fights for, and ultimately loses, his life.

The scene Allan depicts is quite complicated, necessitating a great deal of background knowledge from the viewer. The circumstances he depicts stem from a contest over Lord

Darnley’s power: Darnley blamed David Riccio and his influence on Mary for his failure to receive the crown matrimonial, which would have allowed him to continue ruling Scotland on his own if Mary had died childless. In essence, a grant of crown matrimonial allowed for the possible change of a dynasty: if Mary died childless and Darnley remarried, children from his second marriage would inherit the throne.71 Mary sought support from an ever-shifting ensemble of foreign advisors, the most notorious of which was David Riccio. Riccio’s Italian blood and

Catholic faith, not to mention “his musicality and aptitude for the elegant court poetry that pleased the queen, were bound to ignite suspicion, animosity, and envy” in her Protestant nobles.72 Riccio was one of the early supporters of Lord Darnley in his quest for Mary’s hand in marriage. Mary, anxious to reinforce the ties to England that she hoped would support her in a country torn apart by religious antagonism, wed him.73 However, after his marriage to Mary,

70 Howard, Artist Adventurer, 82.

71 Walton, Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy, 132.

72 Lewis, Romance and Nation, 24.

73 Lewis, Romance and Nation, 24.

33

Darnley grew to dislike the Italian secretary. Mary had placed Riccio in charge of the king’s seal for signing documents, likely because Darnley was not paying attention to affairs of government.74 As previously stated, Darnley was not a king, nor a prince, and did not naturally possess the right to rule. He was a subject, first of Elizabeth I and then of Mary Stuart, and his non-royal status “created a new situation in which the role of a queen in a patriarchal society had to be readdressed.”75 By 1566, the only people who desired the promotion of Darnley to the crown matrimonial were his own kin, the Lennoxes, and their allies.76 The title of King was a symbol while the grant of crown matrimonial held real power. Without this, the only real power

Darnley held was the requirement of his signature on government documents. The loss of that power when Mary gave Riccio his seal was probably a frustrating experience for the new king.77

Called “as power-hungry as he was petulant” by historians, Darnley demanded to be considered the queen’s consort and equal.78 Mary’s refusal to recognize him as such, in addition to her obvious favor towards Riccio, provoked Darnley to action.

A pledge was drawn up by Darnley and his conspirators that declared their intention to acquire the crown matrimonial, as well as uphold the Protestant religion and bring about the return of Protestant exiles. It was signed by a few Scottish Protestant nobles, which included

George Douglas the Postulate and Patrick Ruthven. Protestant rebel lords who signed included

Ochiltree, Boyd, Glencarin, Argyll and Rothes, as well as Moray, who signed it at Newcastle on

74 Walton, Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy, 132.

75 Walton, Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy, 92.

76 Walton, Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy, 133.

77 Walton, Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy, 132.

78 Lewis, Romance and Nation, 24.

34

March 2nd.79 The lords were careful to “obtain Darnley’s signature, in order that he should be as thoroughly implicated as themselves.”80 However, nowhere in this bond was there a mention of violence against David Riccio—only Item Five hinted at what was to come to pass: “So Shall they not spare life or limb in setting forward all that may bend to the advancement of his

[Darnley’s] honour.”81

The murder occurred on March 9th, 1566, as the queen held a small supper party in her apartments at the Palace of Holyrood. Her advanced state of pregnancy made it difficult for her to go about in Edinburgh, causing her to prefer the company of her intimates at home.82

Attending her supper party that night was Lord Robert Stewart and his wife Jean, Countess of

Argyll, Mary’s equerry Arthur Erskine, her page Anthony Standen, and her secretary and musician, David Riccio.83 As the guests were served their dinner, Darnley appeared up the privy staircase, followed moment later by Patrick Lord Ruthven—who was dressed in a steel cap and armor.84 He launched into a denunciation of Mary’s relations with Riccio, reproaching her for her favor to him.85 Mary argued, asserting that Riccio was there at her own royal wish, and her guests attempted to hold Ruthven back. Lord Ruthven cried “Lay not hands on me, for I will not be handled,” signaling for his co-conspirators to join them by way of the privy staircase. Andrew

Ker of Fawdonside, Patrick Bellenden, George Douglas, Thomas Scott, and Henry Yair, helped

79 Antonia Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots. (New York: Delacorte Press, 1969) 247.

80 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 247.

81 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 247.

82 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 249.

83 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 249.

84 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 252.

85 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 252.

35

dragged Riccio through the Queen’s chambers, out of the supper room, across the bedroom, through the presence-chamber to the head of the stairs.86 The men produced daggers and pistols,

Andrew Ker aiming his own at the pregnant Queen’s belly. Here, Riccio was stabbed to death, the wounds variously estimated between fifty-three and sixty in number.87 The first knife wound was made by George Douglas the Postulate who used Darnley’s own dagger in order to involve him still further in the crime. Riccio’s bleeding body then flung down the winding main staircase.”88

Now that a greater understanding of this historical incident has been provided, it is easier to understand how Allan inflected his depiction with his own political beliefs. Like his friend, Sir

Walter Scott, Allan supported the Union with Great Britain, but his promotion of these ideals developed only after his return to Scotland in 1814.89 Unfortunately, Allan did not mark his political positions down to paper, and so his personal politics must be gleaned from the company he chose to keep. Scott was a Tory, a judge, and a member of the Highland Society, which supported standards of agriculture and stewardship of the Scottish countryside, in addition to being a writer.90 Scott helped found a Tory journal, the Quarterly Review, in 1809, which printed articles that advocated for social reform, moderate law reform, and the gradual abolition of

86 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 252.

87 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 252.

88 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 252-53.

89 Morrison, “Sir William Allan and the Painting of Scottish History,” 15.

90 Scott frequently referred to Allan as a close friend, calling him both “a very agreeable, simple-mannered, and pleasant man” and “my friend Allan, the painter” in his journal. Scott, Walter and David Douglas. The Journal of Sir Walter Scott. Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1891. 45 and 438.

36

slavery.91 In addition, Scott’s novel Ivanhoe, published in 1820, after the English Parliament had passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension acts of 1817 and 1818, contained a political subtext during a moment when human rights were a popular topic of discussion.92 During this period, Scottish defendants in court received harsh sentences in unfair trials, while their English counterparts were often acquitted.93 According to historian Ann Stott, “The difference between the English and Scottish trials reflects the different legal systems…the acquittals made the loyalist case—that

England was a country where a man could have a fair trial.”94 Lastly, Scott’s patriotism is emphasized through his orchestration of King George IV’s visit to Scotland in 1822, for the purpose of accentuating positive aspects of Scotland’s past and putting the fears of a French-style revolution to rest. Another key member of Allan’s circle was John Gibson Lockhart, Scott’s son- in-law and contributor to Blackwood Magazine, which was founded in 1817 as a Tory rival to the

Whig-supported Edinburgh Review.95 Edinburgh was primarily a Whig city, but at least in its early years, the Blackwood Magazine published articles that were combative and aggressive.96

Lockhart, Scott and Allan often crossed paths, as indicated by Scott’s journal. For example, on

August 28th, 1827, the three men talked of taking an excursion to Kelso together.97

91 Boyd Hilton. “Sardonic Grins and Paranoid Politics: Religion Economics, and Public Policy in Quarterly Review” in Conservatism and the Quarterly Review: A Critical Analysis. (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2007) 41.

92 Stuart Kelly. Scott-Land: The Man Who Invented a Nation. (Edinburgh: Birlinn Ltd, 2010) 45.

93 Amy Witherbee. "Habeas Corpus: British Imaginations of Power in Walter Scott's Old Mortality", New Literary History 39 (2008): 355.

94 Witherbee, “Habeas Corpus: British Imaginations of Power,” 355.

95 David Finkelstein. Print Culture and the Blackwood Tradition 1805–1930. (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2006) 120.

96 Finkelstein, Print Culture and the Blackwood Tradition, 120.

97 Scott, Walter and David Douglas. The Journal of Sir Walter Scott. (Edinburgh: David Douglans, 1891) 438.

37

Keeping in mind the political ideologies held by Allan and his circle, the ways in which

The Murder of David Riccio purposefully differs from historical accounts of the murder are notable because they actively reinforce these political beliefs. The events of Riccio’s murder took place at the head of the stairs near the presence chamber, where the above described black velvet and arms of Mary’s French mother were displayed. However, Allan does not choose to depict these details. I believe his choice was dictated by the fact that the representation of French arms would not serve to strengthen the ties between a Scottish and British union. Allan also chose to include the detail of a rosary dangling off of Mary’s supper table. During this time the question of ecclesiastical patronage was a “cornerstone of controversy within the Church of

Scotland.”98 During the 1820s there was growing agitation for political reform on the restraints on the Catholic religion. This tension culminated in the Reform Bill of 1832, and the repeal of the remaining laws affecting Roman Catholics. Indeed, it was this concern over Britain’s role in the church of Scotland that made some Scots regret introduction into the British Union. In

Edinburgh and Glasgow, “vigorous opposition was channeled into public petitions opposing the passing of the Catholic emancipation Bill in 1829, which permitted Roman Catholics the ability to sit in the British Parliament.”99 Given that these events happened concurrent with Allan’s painting The Murder of David Riccio in Edinburgh, and knowing it would be exhibited in 1833, one year after the Reform Bill of 1832, would seem that Allan purposefully included an overt symbol of Catholicism in order to demonstrate his support of the Reform Bill, and by extension his continued support of the Union.

Similar to his previous paintings depicting the Queen of Scots, Allan stresses Mary’s lack

98 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 65.

99 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 65.

38

of power and agency in The Murder of David Riccio. Whereas his previous paintings only hinted at violence and the power of men, Allan’s final painting of the Queen displays it overtly. Darnley forces Mary back and into his grasp, and she appears physically incapable of breaking free.

Darnley’s strength is apparent in his rigid and immovable posture as the Queen attempts to move forward and away from him. While Mary is sinking in Darnley’s grip, the conspirators around

Riccio are animated in motion. Not only is Mary not in control of the situation, calling into question her ability to rule the nation on her own. Allan manipulates this display of powerlessness to reference Scotland’s weaker position against that of England by depicting a moment in which the Queen is unable to simply keep conspirators from her personal chambers and from hurting her secretary. By depicting Mary as a queen with very little control and in need of an intercessor, Allan has made apparent the advantage of having supportive union.

Allan was well aware of the historical “facts” of the incident of Riccio’s murder, but, as previously discussed, he chose when to manipulate them in order to suit his political agenda.100

However, the ways in which Allan adhered to historical accounts is relevant as well. As we will see, Allan uses some historical accuracy in order to enhance the believability of his painting, thus strengthening his political message. In order to accomplish this, Allan studied the written accounts of two individuals among those present at Riccio’s murder in 1566. The first was a letter Mary wrote a letter to James Beaton, archbishop of Glasgow, her ambassador in Paris, giving her version of the event. The second was an account by Lord Ruthven written for public

English consumption.101As the subject of Mary Stuart became popular in the nineteenth-century,

100 I say “facts,” here because the two accounts available to William Allan in the nineteenth century were irreparably biased.

101 Both of these accounts should be considered biased: Mary’s account accuses her conspirators and Ruthven’s excuses them. For the sake of impartiality, the account of Riccio’s murder on which this thesis relies

39

both of these documents would have been available to William Allan and his contemporaries as forms of “popular history.” As historian Antonia Fraser describes,

Mary’s apartments in Holyrood lay in the north-west corner of the palace, on the second floor; the rooms were four in number—a large presence chamber at the head of the main staircase, draped in black velvet, with the arms of Mary of Guise on the ceiling, a bed chamber of considerable size lying directly off it, and off that again two very small rooms in each corner, not more than twelve foot square, one a type of dressing room, the other a supper –room hung in crimson and green. Beneath these apartments, on the first floor of the palace, lay Darnley’s rooms…The two sets of apartments were connected by a narrow privy staircase which came out in the queen’s bedroom, close to the entrance to the supper chamber.102

It is well known that Allan had the occasion to visit Mary’s rooms at Holyroodhouse with David

Wilkie in 1817, because Wilkie described the events in a letter to his sister Helen.103 Indeed, one can easily observe Allan’s fastidious reconstruction of the late seventeenth-century four-poster bed, which was then believed to have been Mary’s own.104 Allan also insisted on establishing the exact identity of all individual conspirators when this painting was exhibited by providing a checklist in the exhibition catalogue.105 Allan’s concern for historical accuracy extended to armor, of which he possessed an extensive collection that he used as props in his paintings.106 In portraying the 4th Earl of Morton, Allan “carefully copied a Bronckorst portrait which was then in possession of the Earl of Morton at Dalmahoy” (fig 12).107 The effect of this overwhelming

upon has been is the one provided by scholar Antonia Fraser, who mitigates the two accounts in her book Mary Queen of Scots. 102 Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 250.

103 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 97.

104 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 97.

105 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 97.

106 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 97.

107 Smailes and Thomson, The Queen’s Image, 67.

40

historical accuracy lends Allan’s painting a sense of truth, making it wholly believable to viewers. This believability makes viewers more inclined to also accept Allan’s subtler ideological political messages.

The enhanced believability of the painting allows for an immersive spectatorial experience. The ‘spectator’s experience’ is an aspect of Romantic theory that enhances the effect of a painting by turning it from static to dynamic through the use of imaginative participation.108

This interaction allows for participation and acceptance of the political ideologies present within the painting. Furthermore, by providing the viewer with a certain distance from Riccio, Allan presents the viewer with a choice to act. There is an illusion of suspended time where someone— perhaps the viewer—might intercede, thus imaginatively changing the course of Scottish history.

Mary Stuart, held back by Darnley, is unable to save her secretary. The door to the left of the composition remains empty of a hero, and is seemingly too far away besides. The only option for intercession comes from the angle of the viewer, who has the only possible option to reach

Riccio in time. The viewer then is inspired into dynamic participation by the immediacy of the threat, and the fact that they are the only possibility for intervention. However, Scottish viewers are ultimately passivized because even though they desire to intercede—to save Riccio and protect Mary—the course of history cannot be changed. In the end, Riccio is killed and so too is

Mary. The implication is that Scotland, as a country, can only be improved moving forward, not by looking backward to a seemingly autonomous Scotland.

This participation with the compositional material casts the viewer as inherently on the side of David Riccio and Mary Stuart. The political ideologies represented by these figures—

108 Patrick Noon. “What is Delacroix?” in Delacroix and the Rise of Modern Art. (London: National Gallery Company Limited, 2015) 14.

41

continuity between historical Scotland and its union with Britain, support of the Reform Bill of

1832—are then accepted by the viewer as well. By depicting Mary as a desperate Scotland in need of assistance, as the foundation of the Union, and as the mother of the first king to rule both

Scotland and England, Allan shows her as the embodiment of the necessity of a functioning and improving union between the two countries.

42

CONCLUSION

The objective of this thesis was to examine Sir William Allan’s The Murder of David

Riccio in terms of political ideology and Scottish nationalism while also investigating the role

Mary Stuart played in Allan’s paintings. The Union of 1707, though a popular decision, still caused confusion as to how Scotland would fit meaningfully into the greater whole of what would become the United Kingdom. By creating a wholly new and relevant version of Mary

Stuart for late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century audiences, and adding narrative borrowed from newly compiled historical sources into his paintings, William Allan celebrated the individual history of Scotland and promoted its national identity. By linking nationalism and

Mary’s bloodline, and highlighting her gender and lack of autonomous power, Allan exhibits continuity between the past of Scotland and its future with Britain.

It is imperative to reevaluate the formation of Scottish nationalism and its consequent developments as the country continues to redefine what it is to be “Scottish.” In the wake of the

United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union despite Scotland’s overwhelming verdict to remain within it, Nicola Sturgeon, Scottish First Minister, has vowed to keep pushing for another independence referendum vote. It is my hope that this project can act as a springboard for a further consideration of the national identity of Scotland and how it has—and will continue to—develop.

43

ILLUSTRATIONS

Note: Due to copyright restrictions, the illustrations are not reproduced in the online version of this thesis. They are available in the hard copy version that is on file in the Visual Resources Center, Art Department, Katzen Art Center, American University, Washington, D.C.

Figure 1: Hans Eworth, Elizabeth I and the Three Goddesses, oil on panel, 1569.

Figure 2: Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun, Marie Antoinette and her Children, oil on canvas, 1787

Figure 3: Andreas Möller, Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria in 1729, 1729.

Figure 4: Adam Blackwood, The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, woodcut opposite page 12 in Adam Blackwood, Histoire et martyre de la Royne d’Escosse…Avec un petit livret de sa mort, 1589.

Figure 5: Unknown artist, The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, watercolor, 1613

Figure 6: Gavin Hamilton, Mary, Queen of Scots Resigning her Crown, 1765.

Figure 7: Antonio Zecchin after John Francis Rigaud, The Sheriff Entering the Chapel of Mary, Queen of Scots the Morning of her Execution, stripple engraving, 1791.

Figure 8: Eugène Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People, 1830.

Figure 9: Sir William Allan, John Knox admonishing Mary, Queen of Scots on the Day her Intention to Marry Darnley was Made Public, 1823.

Figure 10: Sir William Allan, Lord Patrick Lindesay of the Byres and Lord William Ruthven Compelling Mary, Queen of Scots to Sign her Abdication in the Castle of Lochleven, 1824

Figure 11: Sir William Allan, The Murder of David Riccio, oil on canvas, 1833.

Figure 12: Attributed to Arnold Bronckorst, James Douglas, 4th Earl of Morton, Regent of Scotland, 1580, oil on panel, National Galleries of Scotland.

44

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agulhon, Maurice. Marianne into Battle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Bann, Stephen. The Clothing of Clio: A Study of the Representation of History in Nineteenth-century Britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Bialostocki, Jan. “Encompassing Themes and Archetypal Images.” In Rococo to Romanticism: Art and Architecture, 1700-1850, 273-83. Vol. 10. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, 1976.

Bingham, Madeline. Scotland under Mary Stuart. London: George Allen &Unwin LTD, 1971.

Chilvers, Ian, Osborne, Harold and Farr, Dennis. “Allan, Sir William.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Clifford, Timothy. National Galleries of Scotland: National Gallery of Scotland, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art. London: Scala Books, 1989.

Cursiter, Stanley. Scottish Art to the Close of the Nineteenth Century. London: G.G. Harrap, 1949.

Emerison, Roger L. “The Scottish Enlightenment and the End of the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh,” The British Journal for the History of Science, 21 (March 1988).

Finkelstein, David. Print Culture and the Blackwood Tradition 1805–1930. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.

Fraser, Antonia. Mary, Queen of Scots. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969.

Gallagher, Tom. The Illusion of Freedom. New York: Columbia Press, 2010.

Harvie, Christopher. Scotland and Nationalism: Scottish Society and Politics, 1707 to the Present. 4th ed. London: Routledge, 2004.

Harvie, Christopher and Jones, Peter. "Union to Sarajevo." In The Road to Home Rule: Images of Scotland's Cause, 6-31. Edinburgh: Polygon, 2000.

Herrmann, Luke. “Further Aspects of Romanticism.” In Nineteenth Century British Painting. 166-83. London: Giles De La Mare, 2000.

Hilton, Boyd. “Sardonic Grins and Paranoid Politics: Religion Economics, and Public Policy in Quarterly Review” in Conservatism and the Quarterly Review: A Critical Analysis. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2007.

45

Jebb, Samuel. The History of the Life and Reign of Mary Queen of Scots, and Dowager of France. London: James Bettenham, 1725.

Knox, John and C.J. Guthrie ed. History of the Reformation of Religion, Within the Realm of Scotland. Rapidan: Hartland Publications, 1997.

Levy, Allison M. Widowhood and visual culture in early modern Europe. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2003.

Lewis, Jayne Elizabeth. Mary Queen of Scots: Romance and Nation. London: Routledge, 1998.

Lewis, Jayne Elizabeth. The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots: A Brief History with Documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1999.

Morrison, John. “Sir William Allan and the Painting of Scottish History,” in William Allan: Artist Adventurer. Edinburgh: City of Edinburgh Museums, 2001.

Noon, Patrick J. “Narrative Painting at a Crossroads: Truth in Art.” in Delacroix and the Rise of Modern Art. 151-203. London: National Gallery Company Limited, 2015.

Pointon, Marcia. Naked Authority: The Body in Western Painting 1830-1908. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Robertson, William. History of Scotland during the Reigns of Mary and James VI. London: A. Millar in the Strand: 1759.

Rosenblum, Robert. "The Dawn of British Romantic Painting, 1760-1780." In Rococo to Romanticism: Art and Architecture, 1700-1850, 135-86. Vol. 10. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, 1976.

Scott, Walter and David Douglas. The Journal of Sir Walter Scott. Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1891.

Smailes, Helen and Duncan Thomson. The Queen’s Image. Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland, 1987.

Smith, Bill, and Selina Skipwith. "A History of Scottish Art." In A History of Scottish Art, 13-20. London: Merrell in Association with the Fleming-Wyfold Art Foundation, 2003.

Smith, Bill, and Selina Skipwith. "The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries." In A History of Scottish Art, 21-89. London: Merrell in Association with the Fleming-Wyfold Art Foundation, 2003.

Strong, Roy. And When Did You Last See Your Father? London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Stuart, Kelly. Scott-Land: The Man Who Invented a Nation. Edinburgh: Birlinn Ltd, 2010.

46

Stuart, Gilbert. Observations Concering the Public Law, and the Constitutional History of Scotland. Edinburgh: W. Creech, 1779.

Vaughan, William. Romanticism and Art. London: Thames and Hudson, 1994.

Walton, Kristen Post. Catholic Queen, Protestant Patriarchy: Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Politics of Gender and Religion. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Whatley, Christopher. Scots and the Union. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016.

Wind, Edgar. “The Revolution of History Painting.” In Rococo to Romanticism: Art and Architecture, 1700-1850, 187-201. Vol. 10. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, 1976.

Witherbee, Amy. "Habeas Corpus: British Imaginations of Power in Walter Scott's Old Mortality," New Literary History 39 (2008).

47