On sentiment, Cavalier or Puritan, reason is thrown
away.
I have been surprised to find how completely a study
of Knox’s own works corroborates the views of
Dr. Robertson and Lord Hailes. That Knox ran
so very far ahead of the Genevan pontiffs of his age
in violence; and that in his “History”
he needs such careful watching, was, to me, an unexpected
discovery. He may have been “an old Hebrew
prophet,” as Mr. Carlyle says, but he had also
been a young Scottish notary! A Hebrew prophet
is, at best, a dangerous anachronism in a delicate
crisis of the Church Christian; and the notarial element
is too conspicuous in some passages of Knox’s
“History.”
That Knox was a great man; a disinterested man; in
his regard for the poor a truly Christian man; as
a shepherd of Calvinistic souls a man fervent and
considerate; of pure life; in friendship loyal; by
jealousy untainted; in private character genial and
amiable, I am entirely convinced. In public
and political life he was much less admirable; and
his “History,” vivacious as it is, must
be studied as the work of an old-fashioned advocate
rather than as the summing up of a judge. His
favourite adjectives are “bloody,” “beastly,”
“rotten,” and “stinking.”
Any inaccuracies of my own which may have escaped
my correction will be dwelt on, by enthusiasts for
the Prophet, as if they are the main elements of this
book, and disqualify me as a critic of Knox’s
“History.” At least any such errors
on my part are involuntary and unconscious. In
Knox’s defence we must remember that he never
saw his “History” in print. But he
kept it by him for many years, obviously re-reading,
for he certainly retouched it, as late as 1571.
In quoting Knox and his contemporaries, I have used
modern spelling: the letter from the State Papers
printed on pp. 146, 147, shows what the orthography
of the period was really like. Consultation of
the original MSS. on doubtful points, proves that
the printed Calendars, though excellent guides, cannot
be relied on as authorities.
The portrait of Knox, from Beza’s book of portraits
of Reformers, is posthumous, but is probably a good
likeness drawn from memory, after a description by
Peter Young, who knew him, and a design, presumably
by “Adrianc Vaensoun,” a Fleming, resident
in Edinburgh. {0b}
There is an interesting portrait, possibly of Knox,
in the National Gallery of Portraits, but the work
has no known authentic history.
The portrait of Queen Mary, at the age of thirty-six,
and a prisoner, is from the Earl of Morton’s
original; it is greatly superior to the “Sheffield”
type of likenesses, of about 1578; and, with Janet’s
and other drawings (1558-1561), the Bridal medal of
1558, and (in my opinion) the Earl of Leven and Melville’s
portrait, of about 1560-1565, is the best extant representation
of the Queen.
The Leven and Melville portrait of Mary, young and
charming, and wearing jewels which are found recorded
in her Inventories, has hitherto been overlooked.
An admirable photogravure is given in Mr. J. J. Foster’s
“True Portraiture of Mary, Queen of Scots”
(1905), and I understand that a photograph was done
in 1866 for the South Kensington Museum.
