MA&Y
764
MARY
date of the saint is somewhat uncertain. The Bol-
landists place her death on 1 April, 421, while manv
other authorities put it a century later. The Greek
Church celebrates her feast on 1 April, the Latin on 9
April, while the Roman Martyrology assigns it to 2
April, and the Roman Calendar to 3 April. The Greek
date is more likely to be correct; the others may be due
to the fact that on those days portions of her relics
reached the West. Relics of the saint are venerated at
Rome, Naples, Cremona, Antwerp, and some other
olaces
Acta' SS., IX, 67-90: Mione, P. L., LXXIII, 671-90; AssEMANi,, Kalendaria Ecclema Univeraa, VI, 218-20; But- ler, Lives of the SainU, April 9.
J. MacRory.
Mary Queen of Scots (Mary Stuart), b. at Lin- lithgow, 7 Dec, 1542; d. at Fotheringay, 8 Feb., 1587. She was the onlv legitimate child of James V of Scotland. His death (14 December) followed imme- diately^ after her birth, and she became queen when only six davs old.
The Tuciors endeavoured by war to force on a match with Edward VI of England. Mary, how- ever, was sent to France, 7 August, 1648, where she was excellently educated, as is now aamitted by both friend and foe. On 24 April, 1558, she married the Dauphin Francis and, on the death of Henri II, 10 July, 1559, became Queen Consort of France. This apparent good fortune was saddened by the loss of Scotland. Inunediately after the ac- cession of Elizabeth, her coimcil made plans to help the divisions " of Scotland bv aiding those ** inclined to true religion ". The revolution broke out in May, and with Elizabeth's aid soon gained the upper hand. There were dynastic, as well as rehgious^ reasons for this policy. Elizabeth's birth being iUegitimate, Biarv, though excluded by the will of Henry VIII, might claim the English Throne as the legitimate heir. As the state of war still prevailed between the two coun- tries, there was no chance of her being accepted, but her heralds did , later on, emblazon England in ner arms, which deeply offended the English Queen. Mary's troubles were still further increased by the Huguenot rising in France, called le tumvlU orAn^xnae (6-17 March, 1560), making it impossible for the French to succour Mary's side in Scotland. At last the starving French garrison of Leith was obliged to yield to a large English force, and Mary's representatives signed the Treaty of Edinburgh (6 July, 1560). One clause of this treaty might have excluded from the English throne all Mary's descendants, amongst them the present reigning house, which claims through her. Mary would never confirm this treaty. Francis II died, 5 December, and Mary, prostrate for a time with pief , awoke to find all power gone and rivals installed in her place. Though the Scottish reformers had at first openly plotted her deposition, a change was making itselt felt, and her return was agreed to. Elizabeth refused a passport, and ordered her fleet to watch for Mary's vessel. She sailed in apprehension of the worst, but reached Leith in safety, 19 Aug., 1561.
The political revolution, the vast appropria- tions of church proiK?rty, and the frenzied hatred of Knox's followers for Catholicism made any resto- ration of the old order impossible. Mary contented herself with the new and, by her moderation and management, left time for a gradual return of loy- alty. But though she ruled, she did not yet govern. She issued J and frequently repeated, a proclama- tion acceptmg religion as she had found it — the first edict of toleration in Great Britain. A slow but steady amelioration of the lot of Catholics ^ook place. At the end of her reign there were no fewer than 12,606 Easter communions at Edinburgh. (See Pollen, " Papal Negociations", 520.) In 1562 Father Nicholas de (ioudu visited her from Pope Pius IV, not
without danger to his life. He reported himself sadly
disappointed in the Scottish bishops, but ivas almost
enthusiastic for the "devout young queen," who
" numbers scarce twenty summers " and " is without
a single protector or good councillor". Though she
still " counteracts the machinations of the heretics to
the best of her power . . . there is no mistaking the
inuninent danger of her position". That was true.
Mary was a woman who leant on her advisers with
full and wife-Uke confidence. But, living as she did
amongst false friends, she be<»me an utterly bad judge
of male advisers. All her misfortunes may be trao^
to her mistaking flashy attractions for solid worth.
Other sovereigns have indeed made favourites of
objectionable persons, but few or none have risked or
sacrificed everything for them, as Mary did, again and
again.
Henry Stuart, Lord Damley, a great-grandson of Henry VII of England, with clauns to both English and Scottish crowns, had always been a possible candidate for Mary's hand, and. as more poweitul suitors fell out, his chances improvea. He was, moreover, a Catholic, though of an accommodating sort, for he had been brought up at E^abeth's court, and she in February, 1565, let him ^o to Scotland. Mary, at first cool, soon fell violently in love. The Protestant lords rose in arms, and Elizabeth backed up their rebellion, but Mary drove them victoriously from the country and married Damley before the dispensation required to remove the imp^iment arising from their being first cousins had arrived from Rome. But she did leave enough time for a dispensation to be granted, and it was eventually conceded in a form that would suffice, if that were necessary, for a sanatio in radice ( Scottish Historical Review", April. 1907). As soon as the victory had been won, Damley was found to be change- able, quarrelsome, and, presumably, also vicious. He became violently jealous of David Rizzio, who, so far as we can see, was perfectly innocent and inoffensive, a merry fellow who nelped the queen in her foreign cor- respondence and sometimes amused her with music. Damley now entered into a band with the same lords who had lately risen in rebeUion against him: they were to seise Rizzio in the queen's presence, put him to death, and obtain the crown matrimonial for Damley, who would secure a pardon for them, and reward them. The plot succeeded: Rizzio, torn from Mary's table, was poignarded outside her door (9 Marcn, 1566). Mary, though kept a prisoner, managed to escape, and again triumphed over her foes; but respect lor her husband was no longer possible. Her favourite was now James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, who had served her with courage and fidelity, in the late crisis. Then a band for Damley 's murder was si^ed at Ains- ley by most of the nobles who had been implicated in the previous plots. Damley, who had been ill at Glasgow, was Drought back to Edinburgh by his wife, and lay that ni|;ht in her lodgings at Kirk o' Field . At two next mormng (10 Febmary, 1567) the house wus blown up by powder, and the boy (he had only just come of age) was killed. Inciuiry mto the murder was most perfunctory. Bothwell, who was charged with it, was found not guilty by his peers (12 April), and on the 24th he carried Mary off by force to Dunbar, where she consented to marry him. Bothwell thereupon, with scandalous violence, carried a divorce from his wife through both Protestant and CathoUc courts, and married Mary (15 May). Exactly a month later the same lords as Ix^fore raised forces against their whilom confederate and the queen, whom they met at Carberry HiU. Bothwell was allowed to escape, but Mary, who surrendered on the understanding tnat she should be treated as a queen, was handled with rough violence, and immured in Lochleven Castle.
The original documents on which a verdict as to her guilt Hhould be fomicd have perisho<l, and a prolonged cent rovers V ha.s arisen overtlu' ovidcucc still acces^
