Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters

A.E. MacRobert's book represents the most recent instalment in the notoriously long-running debate about the Casket Letters and Sonnets, allegedly written by a murderous Mary Queen of Scots to her adulterous lover James Hepburn, the Earl of Bothwell. Past historians like Walter Goodall (1754), William Tytler (1790), T.F. Henderson (1888, 1905), Andrew Lang (1901),

H.F. Diggle (1960), and M.H. Armstrong Davison (1965) have subjected this set of dubious documents to close scrutiny in an effort to settle the question of Mary's guilt. In recent years, the debate has been treated briefly by Jenny Wormald (1988) and in more depth by Antonia Fraser (1969) and John Guy (2004), as part of their larger studies of Mary Queen of Scots. In one way or another, these three acknowledge the political uses to which the Casket Letters were put and the difficulty--even impossibility--of resolving the debate in the absence of the original documents. MacRobert nevertheless attempts a 'drastic re-evaluation' of the textual mystery by returning to the 'limited' though 'essential' contemporary sources. While MacRobert's assiduous attention to textual and practical details may be admirable, his book fails to offer any substantially new information and reaches the disappointing and unsurprising conclusion that the 'Casket Letters can no longer be considered as sound evidence' against the Queen.

He gives three reasons for writing a book on the Casket Letters. Spurred on by the question of their authenticity, he wants to reprint the full set of Letters. Second, he wishes that the Letters, as 'the core of the evidence against Mary', might not 'just be pushed to one side and ignored'--a concern hardly warranted given the endless speculation about their authenticity. Finally, in the absence of an 'agreed version or interpretation', MacRobert aims to present 'a balanced account' of the historical episode to which the Letters pertain. The first part of the book, 'The Crisis of 1567-68', attempts this by describing and speculating about the events surrounding Darnley's murder. Regrettably, MacRobert's historical account lacks clarity: his reluctance to endorse particular theories with any consistency makes the presentation of evidence difficult to follow. Although organised under specific headings such as 'The Use of Gunpowder' and 'Mary's Return to the Palace', the historical discussion seems unfocused, with multiple conclusions--sometimes within one para-graph--adding to the confusion. For example, MacRobert concludes his review of the circumstances of Darnley's death with the following statements:

Unless Darnley was strangled just as he left the house and his corpse was then taken into the garden, it should be realised that he might have escaped in the darkness. If the house was in fact surrounded by 30 to 50 men...his chance of escape to safety was slight. It is, however, possible that the number of conspirators was much smaller and that Darnley was unlucky to encounter any of them. On the other hand, perhaps his assassins knew exactly where he would go (p. 40).

Although here, as elsewhere, MacRobert successfully accounts for all possible scenarios, the result is a series of disjointed explanations, which neither concentrates on the essential questions nor fully pursues any one thread of argument.

The second part of the book, 'The Casket Letters', reviews the circumstances of their discovery and then analyses each document. The interpretation of the Letters seems sound, if derivative. Many of MacRobert's observations can be traced to the work of other historians and enthusiasts, not only those writing in earlier centuries but also those who revisited this debate in the 1960s. For example, MacRobert identifies 'the man' of Letter I as a possible reference to the infant James, a suggestion made by Armstrong Davison, who cites R.H. Mahon (1924). Similarly, in his analysis of Letter IV, he suggests that a 'tur-tle-dove' missing its mate recalls a poem written from Darnley to Mary, a possibility previously noted by Diggle. These specific instances may be observations worth repeating, of course, but his reading of the Letters does not generally advance our understanding of these documents. This section of the book also includes brief discussions of the two marriage contracts and the Casket Sonnets. In the latter, he rightly notes a similarity in tone with Letters III, IV, V, and VI, but otherwise his abbreviated treatment of the poems consists wholly in pointing out lines that Mary could not possibly have written--because they do not fit her circumstances--and those that would be incriminating if authentic.

MacRobert provides a set of illustrations, some of which readers might have encountered before: portraits of the major figures, the sketch of the murder scene at Kirk o'Field, and, somewhat more curiously, photographs of Provand's Lordship in Glasgow, where Mary may have lodged in January 1567. Appendices helpfully reproduce the variant texts of the Casket Letters, Sonnets, and marriage contracts between Mary and Bothwell. The author includes a handwritten translation in English of Letter V, which recently came to light in the Public Record Office, though he does not comment on its discovery (SP 53/2/64). He does not seem to know, however, about a transcript in Scots of Letter III at the British Library (Add. MS 48027, fol. 276^r-v), nor of a copy of the Casket Sonnets preserved among the Lennox papers at Cambridge University Library (Oo.7.47, fols. 46^r-49^r), both of which might have led to fuller commentary on these items. One technical matter is worrying: MacRobert does not follow conventions of quotation. Although he usually signals his source, inverted commas are used inconsistently if at all, making it difficult for the reader to judge where quoted material begins and ends, or even what material is paraphrased and what quoted directly.

MacRobert finally determines that 'It is too simplistic to hold that the Casket Letters were either completely authentic or entirely forged. There is, however, sufficient evidence to endorse the view that there was extensive manipulation and forgery'. With this in mind, he suggests 'new lines of enquiry' by calling for more investigation into Darnley's possible plots against Mary and further consideration of Bothwell's motives in keeping such a collection of documents in the first place. Here, the author raises legitimate concerns, and especially in the latter case he identifies a logical crux in the entire Casket Letter fiasco. MacRobert brings to his project a genuine spirit of curiosity, a desire for historical accuracy and an ability to imagine numerous conflicting scenarios. The greatest obstacle to his success is that he has entered a debate whose urgency has passed. Perhaps it is time to replace the traditional form and purpose of the Casket debate--can exegesis of these documents settle the question of Mary's character?--with larger explorations into the politics of rhetorical and textual strategy in the sixteenth century.