LIVE DEAD: Mayhem 1990

Please check out the new and (hopefully) improved version of this article here! (with sincere thanks to the anonymous person who helped with their comments on this version :)

Onomatology: band names are silly.

First: pretty much ALL band names (even the ones I like) are stupid, with the possible exception of 'The Band' (which is a crappy name for a band), but even leaving aside the obviously awful Hoobastank type ones, it is fun to note the actual dictionary definitions of band names. Nearly all are, um, uncannily appropriate. A few:

• Dire Straits: a very bad situation that is difficult to fix

• The Eagles: large, strong birds with curved beaks that eat meat and have good sight

The Eagles; note the curved beaks

• Cream: the thick, yellowish-white liquid that forms on the top of milk

• Anthrax: a disease of cattle and sheep that can also cause humans to become ill or die

• The Smiths: people who make things out of metal, especially by heating it and hitting it with a hammer

• Cameo: a small but noticeable part in a film or play, performed by a famous actor

• The Cult:  the religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people

• Rush: To do something very quickly

• Black Widow: a very poisonous spider that lives in warm areas

• Rod Stewart: an inexcusably terrible old man

And today, the best album ever recorded is...

Cheap Trick - In Color. (Epic, 1977)

What: second album by smart-arse power-pop rockers from Rockford, Illinois.

Why:

• Perfect pop tunes played by a sort of semi hard rock band 
• Tom Werman's production, the band thought too clean but were wrong; witness the leaked songs from the aborted Steve Albini re-recording if proof be needed
• Anthemic rock which is never stupid, except on purpose
• Rick Neilsen's guitar playing, so good he doesn't even bother to show off
• Excellent 2 heartthrobs/2 dorks image & cover art
• Trad rock album not immediately made irrelevant by punk
• Chirpy love song ('I Want You to Want Me') that is equal parts cute/sweet/pervy
• 'Southern Girls'
• All the promise of their (pretty great) debut with none of their 80s blandness
• One of those albums so right that bonus tracks seem like an unwelcome intrusion

"Not Eternall" - The Vendetta Picture in 16th Century Scotland (Epilogue)

The End of the Feuding Society

Corrupt or not, the peaceful resolution following the Bargany case was to become the norm during the latter part of James VI's reign, and was a fulfilment of his own personal philosophy.

After nearly half a century of violence and lawlessness which had on many occasions during his minority, centred around the helpless figure of the young King himself, James could say with pride, relief and perhaps some surprise that "The matter of feudis is not eternall, bot may be removed and not transmitted to posteritie."

With the passing of the feauding society of the 16th century the end of the Vendetta picture naturally came to a close, but as previously mentioned, its various elements lingered for a while in subtly altered forms.

Mary Queen of Scots; the Blairs College Portrait c.1605

Superficially this posthumous portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots shares many features with the Vendetta pictures already discussed. The picture was commissioned in Antwerp by Elizabeth Curle, one of Mary's ladies in waiting, in around 1605. Curle, along with Mary's other servant, Jane Kennedy, had been present at Mary's execution at Fotherighay Castle in February 1587 (almost 20 years to the day since the murder of Darnley), both ladies helping the Queen with her preparations for the event itself. At some point early in the 17th Century (an inscription in the painting refers to James as 'King of Great Britain' dating the picture to some time after 1603) Curle, then resident in Antwerp, commissioned this memorial of the event from a local artist.

Like the Darnley Memorial, the painting tells the story of Mary's execution in the manner of a history painting, with inscriptions and inset scenes arranged around a large central image, in this case a full-length painting of Mary clutching a bible and crucifix. At the top left are the Royal arms of Scotland, establishing Mary's status as Monarch. At the top right, an extensive, if slightly misleading inscription tells of how Mary looked to her cousin, Elizabeth I for aid, but was instead imprisoned due to her Catholic faith.

At the left centre is an inset scene of Mary's execution, based on an engraving of 1587 from a book by Flemish martyrologist Richard Verstegan (although as with the the Darnley murder, the execution of Queen Mary generated documentary drawings made at the scene). An inscription again stresses Mary;s status and heritage as well as informing the viewer of the details of the execution, including that three blows of the axe were required to sever Mary's head, plus the time, place and a list of those present.

Finally, on the right of the central figure, which is perhaps dressed in mourning costume and can again be seen as a kind of painted effigy, stand the small figures of the servants, Jane Kennedy holding the cloth with which she had covered Mary's face.

 

At the foot of the painting is a dedication to the Scots college in Douai to which the picture was presented, plus a reminder of Mary's assertion before the execution that she "always was, and is, a daughter of the Roman Church".

This painting is, like the Vendetta pictures, clearly an image that includes elements of portraiture, documentary and propaganda, in this case the presentation of Mary as a martyr to the Catholic cause. What makes this a significantly different kind of painting though, is the lack of any kind of call for revenge.

This would have been inappropriate for several reasons: firstly, as the painting states, Mary's son James was now not only King of Scotland, but of Britain, more in fact than Mary herself could ever have hoped for.

Secondly, in the early years of his reign as King of Great Britain, James began to rehabilitate the reputation of both of his parents, culminating in the lavish marble tomb he had built for Mary in Westminster Abbey in 1612. In addition, as heir to both the Stewart and Tudor dynasties, and a Protestant himself, James venerated the memory of his predecessor, Queen Elizabeth, making any calls for vengeance both inappropriate and politically awkward.

 

The idea of revenge was also ultimately irrelevant to the Catholic ideology of martyrdom, which stressed Christlike sacrifice, rather than the secular act of murder. The same is true of the similar images which were produced following the execution of Mary's grandson, Charles I in 1649, although this was a more specifically sectarian cause.

 

The Vendetta picture, like the act of bloody revenge itself, could only flourish for as long as legal redress for grievances was unavailable because of corrupt or weak leadership. As such, the genre is a memorial to a turbulent and unhappy period in Scottish history but it is also valuable in demonstrating the extent to which the visual arts, like the literature of the time, were employed by the ruling class not only as a means of projecting their wealth and status but also as an effective weapon in their struggles to maintain that status.

Despite the humble standing of the artists and craftsmen of Scotland compared to their continental counterparts, this genre, along with their better-known decorative works, demonstrates that their art not only recorded the people and events of the society in which they lived, but also helped to shape it.

The quotes in Scots & so forth come from these books:

Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Vol. V
Anon. A Diurnal of Remarkable Occurents that have Passed within the Country of Scotland since the Death of King James the Fourth Till the Year MDLXXXV (Edinburgh, 1833)
Calendar of State Papers Relating to Scotland Vol. 1 (London, 1858)
Calendar of State Papers (Scottish) Vol 3 (Edinburgh, 1969)
Calendar of State Papers Vol. X (Edinburgh, 1936)
Anon. A Chronicle of the Kings of Scotland from Fergus I to James VI in the Year MDCXI (Edinburgh, 1830)
The Bannatyne Miscellany Vol I (Edinburgh, 1827)
The Basilikon Doron of King James VI (Edinburgh, 1944)
The Minor Prose of King James VI (Edinburgh, 1982)
D. Moysie, Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland - MDCII (Edinburgh, 1830)
R. Pitcairn, Criminal Trials in Scotland Vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1830)
T. Thompson (ed.), Historie and Life of James the Sext (Edinburgh, 1825)
J. Row, Historief the Kirk of Scotland 1560-1637 (Edinburgh, 1842)
R. Watson, Historicall Collections of Ecclesiastick Affairs in Scotland and Politick Related to them, including the Murder of the Cardinal of St Andrews and the beheading of their Queen Mary in England (London, 1657)

"Persewit with Fyre and Swerd" The Vendetta Picture in 16th Century Scotland (Part 7)

The End of the Vendetta Picture; The Forrester and Bargany murders

It's hard to say whether the surviving Vendetta pictures are representative of the genre as a whole both because there are so few of them and because it isn't clear how widespread the Vendetta picture actually was. What can be said for sure though, is that the pictures discussed were not the only Vendetta pictures made during this period. Until further examples or documentary references come to light though, our view of the genre will be fragmentary at best.

Two more examples now lost but, like the painting of Regent Moray, alluded to in the written record are those of two relatively minor figures, David Forrester and the Laird of Bargany. Because the subjects of the paintings were not prominent figures at court, their murders were not causes for national scandal and their political consequences were negligible. That said, these pictures do reflect the unstable situation among the nobility of Scotland throughout the closing years of the 16th century.

King James VI alluded to this volatile situation in his Basilikon Doron (1599). "For any displeasure that they [the nobility] apprehend to bee done unto them by their neighbour, they take up a plain feide [feud] against him and bang it out bravelie, hee and all his kinne against him and all his." After taking personal control of the government of the realm in 1578, one of James' key aims was to end the lawlessness which had been rife since the death of his grandfather James V over thirty years earlier. He largely succeeded in this, not least because his reign established a sense of stability and authority which had been lacking during the preceding series of short Regencies. The Forrester and Bargany murders, in 1595 and 1601 respectively therefore represent the tail end of a way of life which was dying out, and from their descriptions it seems that the visual works they produced still seem to have looked back to the format established by the Darnley pictures in the middle of the century for their inspiration.

The Forester Murder, 1595

The Forrester murder is an example of exactly the kind of feuding that James VI alluded to in his writings. David Forrester was a Baillie of Stirling in 'special service' to John Erskine, the powerful Second Earl of Mar (who had even served as guardian to the King during part of his minority). On 24th June 1595 Forrester was waylaid and slain near Linlithgow by a "party of Bruces and Livingstones" seemingly on the strength of his name only as a state of deadly feud existed between "all the Bruces and their friends and all the Forresters and their friends in those parts". The Bruces were dependents of Lord Livingstone, with whom Mar himself had been at loggerheads for several years.

the 2nd Earl of Mar

The murder of his servant therefore brought the Earl himself into the feud, transforming it from a local skirmish into a feud with possibly disastrous consequences for the country.                                                                  

As the feud escalated, the Earl of Mar "cawsit mak the picture of the defunct on a fayre cammes, payntit with the number of the shots and wounds, to appeare the maire horrible and rewthfull to the behalders." This was presumably the same picture shown at the funeral procession for Forrester; "a canvas picture of the bloody corpse". Mar also announced a 'day of law' where an inquest into the murder would be held. Here, however, James VI, despite his friendship with Mar, acted decisively in a way that he was unwilling to do in the Moray case in which he himself was implicated.

 

In December 1595, James issued a Royal Proclamation that "nane accompany THE ERLL OF MAR and LORD LEVINGSTANE to their day of law" as "it is to be feirit, that upoun the occsasioun of thair meiting, sum grite inconvenient sall fall oute, to the brek of his hienes peax." This was reinforced later in the month with a summons to Holyrood, at which the parties were commanded to remove the feud, on pain of being "persewit with fyre and swerd, as inemies to God, His Majestie and the common wele." Eventually, after pressure from Mar, the King allowed a trial to take place and though the situation remained delicate for some time afterwards, the matter was settled by the King's intervention, demonstrating the relatively strengthened position of the crown since the days of the Darnley murders.

Several facts help to give an idea of the Forrester painting's possible appearance. Firstly, the Earl of Mar was a friends and associate of the Bonny Earl of Moray, and was one of the group of friends who had called for revenge and planned his funeral in Edinburgh, a large public event which in the end, never took place.  This makes it almost certain that he had seen the painting which was probably made for display in the funeral procession.

Secondly, although there is no record of the artist employed to paint Forrester's corpse, the nature of the commission - a banner-like painting for a funeral procession - would naturally fall within the duties of a heraldic/decorative painting such as James Workman, possibly responsible for the Moray painting, who the Earl of Mar certainly employed himself in later years. If, as seems likely, Mar had seen the Moray painting, it is probable that he had this in mind when he planned the Forrester picture and therefore there is a strong likelihood that the two pictures were very much alike, perhaps even the work of the same artist.

The Bargany Murder, 1601

Towards the end of the century, James VI's policy of organising arbitration in private feuds, or as in the Moray/Huntly feud, arranging inter-dynastic marriages, began to have a real impact. These steps though, were less successful when faced with feuding within a family group. This was the case with the murder of the Laird of Bargany on the 11th of December 1601 at Carrick in Ayrshire, by his own Lord, the earl of Cassilis. Both men belonged to the Kennedy family and the murder was the culmination of several years of tension over land rights and the harvesting of crops. During the attack, the Laird and "sindrie utheris wer slayne, and diverse gentilmen hurt." In the Laird's funeral procession, a "Banner of Rewendge" was carried, which bore "his portratour with all his woundis, with his sone sittand at his kneyis, and this deattone written betuix his handis, 'JUDGE AND REWENDGE MY CAUS, O LORD'." This description, especially the position of the Laird's son, shows that more than thirty years on, the Darnley banner was still a potent source for this type of picture. In this case, the murder was avenged when "Thomas Kennedy, brother to the Laird of Bargany, slew Sir Thomas Kennedy of Colzeane, Knycht, quha had beine Tutor of Cassilis." Ultimately though, the bloodshed was ended by legal, though not honest, means when Cassilis had the Laird's murder declared legitimate by the Privy Council, bribing them to announce that he had acted under a commission to capture the Laird, who was claimed to have been 'at the horn' and therefore acting outside of the law, at the time.

The Bargany painting seems to be the last recorded Vendetta picture and its reliance on the Darnley prototype demonstrates the limited scope (or need) for artistic development within the genre. Tied to specific contemporary events, the task of the artist was to create a vivid record of them, intended to survive only for as long as the cause required such a reminder. It is highly unlikely therefore that the injured party would seek out an artist of any standing for the commission, which was probably entrusted to an artist in the employ of the household or local burgh. Several artists whose names are not recorded were active in Ayrshire at this time, fulfilling the usual wide-ranging functions. One named artist, William Cauldwell, is a typical example of the painter/craftsman of the period, and he is recorded in Ayr a few years later, "dressing and colouring the loftis of the kirk" among other tasks. There is no evidence to link him to the Bargany painting, but he is representative of the class to which the Bargany artist belonged and as such in the right area at the right time.

Given the circumstances of their making, it's hard to mourn the passing of the Vendetta picture, but elements of the genre were to live on, albeit in subtly (but importantly) altered form.

 

 

"To Look Upon His Corpse" The Vendetta Picture in 16th Century Scotland (Part 6)

The Bonny Earl of Moray

 

Background: The Murder

  

Like the murder of his father-in-law, that of James Stewart, the second Earl of Moray is extremely well documented. The murder seems to have captured the popular imagination far more than the first Earl's though, the sense of public outrage has far more in common with Darnley's murder than the Regent's. This is perhaps due to the fact that, like Darnley, the second Earl was young and handsome, a fashionable and popular figure in court, although not a favourite of the King himself. His nickname, 'the Bonny Earl' may have been posthumous, but there is no doubt that he was renowned for his looks, his height and his athleticism, as is recorded in the contemporary memoirs of David Moysie, a public notary from Edinburgh, who characterises the Earl as "the lustiest youthe". A report on The Present State of the Nobility of Scotland, sent by an envoy to the court of Queen Elizabeth in 1583 confirms this picture, with Moray described as being "Of  a very tall stature, but lyttle proofe" This last remark shows that, as had been the case with Darnley, the Earl (who was a poor landlord and often in debt from gambling) was by no means the heroic figure he was sometimes portrayed as after his murder. Whatever his virtues while alive though, the Earl of Moray's death on the 7th of February. 1592 at the hands of his great rival in the north, George Gordon, the 6th Earl of Huntly - one of the King's favourites - resulted in fervent calls for revenge and justice in painting and verse, as well as in protracted legal proceedings.

 

The murder was the culmination of a feud between the houses of Moray and Huntly which had been going on since 1562, when Mary's elevation of her half-brother to the Earldom of Moray had robbed the Huntly's of some of their authority in the north-east of Scotland. Although the 'Bonny Earl' was an outsider in the region (having gained his title through his marriage to the Regent's daughter), his rivalry with Huntly for attention at Court as well as for dominance in the north, did little to heal the divisions between the families. The fact that Huntly was a favourite of the King also made Moray's position more precarious than he may have realised, especially if, as is possible, rumours had begun to circulate concerning James wife, Queen Anne's affection towards the young Earl.

 

 





 

All of the available sources (official documents, as well as letters, diary entries and ballads) agree on the basic details of the murder. On the morning of February 7th, the Earl's house at Donibristle on the Fife coast was surrounded by the Earl of Huntly and a group of armed followers. As Moray and his servants made preparations for a siege, Huntly's men "sett the said house in fyre."  Moray and his followers (notably the Sherriff of Moray, who was shot while attempting to save his lord by creating a diversion) briefly escaped. Moray was then discovered hiding among the rocks along the coastline, perhaps given away by a spark from the fire which had set light to his hat or the plume of his helmet as mentioned in some accounts. There he was slain with guns and swords.

 

Prior to the murder, the feud had mainly been characterised by acts of property destruction such as the ruining of fishing nets in the Spey by Huntly's men, as well as by non-fatal attacks of servants on both sides. Unlike the Earl of Moray though, Huntly not only a favourite of the King but also a man of great political importance, holding the office of 'Lieutenant of the North' and so he had the opportunity to take more extreme action than was available to Moray. Indeed, Huntly's seemingly limitless power within the region seems to have been a cause of constant friction between the two families. At the same time, Huntly, as an open and unrepentant Catholic (by now a rarity among the nobility) was viewed with a degree of suspicion, not least by the church.  This last point helps to explain the popular appeal of the young Earl of Moray, as well as the widespread outcry following the murder, which spread far beyond the circle of Moray's friends and relations.

 

 

The scandalous nature of Moray's murder rested on two main points - the fact that it took place at his private residence, which was also destroyed, and the possibly approving attitude of the King to the events. The first point was undeniable: the second debatable but the unfortunate truth was that the Earl and a handful of his retainers were in Donibristle because the King had summoned him to Fife to take part in peaceful negotiations with Huntly and was therefore caught off-guard.

Despite the seemingly anarchic violence prevalent in 16th century Scotland, bloodfeuds were actually governed by  a set of widely recognised customs and in killing the Earl at home and destroying the house itself (an act referred to as hamesucken) Huntly stepped beyond the acceptable boundaries of behaviour, even against one's enemies.

Whatever King James' thoughts about the murder itself, he was guilty, at the very least, of issuing Huntly with a warrant for the arrest of the Earl of Moray, in the full knowledge that a deadly state of feud existing between the two men. As had been the case with James' mother Mary in the Darnley murder, the King's inactivity did little to dispel the rumour that he was implicated in the murder in some way.

 

The Portrait

 

 

The Vendetta portrait of the Earl of Moray was, as in the Darnley case, partly the result of the disruption of normal burial rites. As Moysie reports, "the deid bodies of the erle of Murray and scheref of Murray wer brocht over the water to Leithe be the lady Doun his mother... to present thame to the King; quhairof his Majestie... commandit the bailyeis of Leithe to arreast the dead bodyeis in thair ludging... and suffer thame not to be transported." Following this failure, Lady Doune commissioned the painting for a similar purpose - Moray's mother "caused draw her sonne's picture, as he was demained, and presented it to the King in a fine lane cloath, with lamentations, and earnest sute for justice", later "to be shewn at the Cross in Edinburgh, but the King liked not to look upon his corpse." Though the picture was presumably displayed publicly, Lady Moray was less successful than the Earl and Countess of Lennox and their supporters in presenting the picture to its intended audience, King James.

 
The King's refusal to look at the body even in the form of a picture could however be seen as an admission of guilt in its own right, given the King's own beliefs as stated in his book, Daemonologie: "In a secret Murther, iff the dead carcase be at any time thereafter handled by the Murtherer, it wil gush out of bloud; as if the bloud were crying to heaven for the revenge of the Murtherer." In any case, it did little to establish his innocence and nor did his refusal to take significant action against Huntly, who remained in favour. In fact, the sense of outrage grew rapidly and the King found himself on the receiving end of embarrassingly public criticism. This came both from noblemen such as Lord Ochiltree, who had himself unwittingly summoned Moray to Donibristle and was outraged at the murder (committing himself to Lady Doune's call for revenge) and leading churchmen such as Reverend Patrick Symson, who, during a sermon at which the King was present, drew a parallel between Cain and Abel and the Moray murder, saying to the King, "Sir, I assure you in God's name, the Lord will aske at you, 'Where is the Erle of Murray, your brother?"

 

Whether or not the King was involved in the murder, most contemporary sources, including the anonymous ballads' composers agreed that his failure to act when called on to punish the crime (Huntly's sole punishment was to make a public display of grief, though not repentance in 1597) was little better than an admission of guilt.

 

The painting itself is a stark and simple image of the Earl's dead and mutilated body painted presumably with the actual corpse present in the days following the murder. The large (73.7 x 221 cm) canvas depicts the Earl's body lying on a dark, indistinct background perhaps the 'green' on which he was lain in the famous ballad. Aside from a reference to God in the painting's forceful inscription the painting, unlike the Darnley Memorial has no spiritual dimension, and is completely devoid of religious references or symbolism. This is not uncommon in the art (or indeed the funeral rites) of the Reformation, when the souls of the dead were considered by the Protestant reformers to be beyond the reach of any influence from the living, leaving only the empty shell of the corpse behind. As such, the call directly to God for revenge (as in many of the Revenge Tragedies of the period) reflects not only piety but also the perceived inadequacy of the legal system.

 

 

The artist of the Moray painting is unknown, but it is almost certain to be one of the decorative heraldic painters employed by the court for works such as banners, decorations, heraldic devices and books such as the famous Seton Armorial. The Edinburgh artist John Workman (fl 1589- d 1604) has been put forward as the most likely candidate for the production of the painting as he was responsible for the 'ceremonies and furnitour' for the Earl's funeral. However, this attribution is explicitly denied by the same document in the Scottish Records Office which states as a condition of his work for the funeral that Workman "be nocht subject to furneis not deliver the said noble lordis pictour." Workman's appointment in 1592 by the King as "paynter or the armes of all knichtis, lordis, erles and dukes at...funerallis and all uther tymis and occasionis" was prestigious enough that he did not want to risk his position by taking part in an action which could be seen at best as provocative and at worst treasonable. However, the style of the picture certainly suggests that of a local heraldic painter and it is possible that, with the document explicitly freeing him from responsibility he felt able to undertake the commission, which was to remain anonymous in any case.

The portrait is unusual in several respects - unlike the Darnley Memorial (but conforming to the descriptions of the Darnley and Moray banners) it is a stark, simple image, unconcerned with the usual aims of Renaissance portraiture - the depiction of personality and status. Like the Darley banner, it is concerned only with commemoration in a very narrow way; the commemoration not of the life (as with Sir Henry Unton) but only of the murder itself, and the injustice of the act. Paradoxically, this lack of concern with the humanistic values of portrait painting lends the picture a greater sense of naturalism than was typical in the Scottish portraiture of the period. Partly this reflects the influence of the Flemish and Dutch art preferred by noble patrons, but mainly the painting looks as it does because it was a replacement for the Earl's actual body. In this sense it is, like the Darnley Memorial, a kind of painted effigy and as it was being placed before the king in the place of the body itself it was important for the painting to be accurate. The details of the wounds suffered by the Earl were well known, so to convince viewers of its veracity the painting had to depict both the bullet holes and sword wounds that had been reported so extensively.

the torso with its variety of stab and bullet wounds

The accurate depiction of these wounds and the strong sense of physical presence imbued in the work (even down to the slightly swollen appearance of the torso) suggest that the artist painted directly from the corpse itself within days of the murder. The face, disfigured by two deep gouges, is individualised, but is less impressively painted than some of the other details, possibly because of the extensive damage to the face of the corpse itself. The urgency of the commission, as with that of the first Earl of Moray) is probably the main reason that a local artist was employed.

It is possible to trace the artist's training in decorative and heraldic painting in the simple clarity of the composition, with only the white loincloth and pillow standing out from the naturalistic colour scheme. Although the overall construction of the body suggests a lack of anatomical understanding, the individual details such as the wounds and especially the hands are powerfully realised. The background (perhaps darker now than originally painted) fixes the viewer's attention directly on the body of the Earl and his nakedness not only draws attention to his wounds but also draws attention to his youth and the powerful build for which he was known which, in contemporary opinion, added to the horror and injustice of the murder.

Although bearing a superficial resemblance to earlier religious paintings, such as Holbein's Dead Christ in the Tomb (1521) now in Basel, this was probably not intentional and would certainly have been considered blasphemous.

Whether intentional or not though, the painting would surely have reminded contemporary viewers of the kind of graphic depictions of gruesome martyrdom popular in church altarpieces, many of which would have been destroyed within living memory. At the same time, the simple directness of the work relates it to the 'national style' which had emerged during the reigns of James IV and V - appropriately, since this style had its roots in the kind of heraldic painting which was probably representative of the artist's usual day-to-day work.

A small inset scene links the portrait to the history painting tradition; it shows the burning of the house at Donibristle and the Earl's corpse lying on the rocky shore. As with the Darnley pictures, these narrative features transform the painting from a simple memorial to something more complicated and didactic, highlighting the most significant aspects of the story; not only the destruction of property, but also the barbaric and callous nature of the murder, with the corpse abandoned in the wilderness.

Rather than diluting the force of the image, the inset scene raises the viewer's awareness of the shocking nature of the death of the man whose body is laid before them. In turn, the life-size body, looming from the darkness, has the weight and solidity of dead flesh, making the clothed corpse in a pool of blood by the shore feel more real. The landscape corresponds very closely to the real shoreline it depicts, suggesting that the artist may have worked from drawings made, like the Darnley drawing, at the murder scene itself, a very unusual level of realism for Scottish art of this period.

The 'documentary' aspect is heightened by the inscription which gives (as was usual) the 'sitter's' age  (AETA 24) but also the date of his death (1591 FEBR 7). The effect of the painting on a contemporary audience is not recorded, although its existence seems to have been well-known. Its intended audience was of course, King James himself, and this is alluded to in the painting by the most important inscription in the picture, the gold 'speech balloon' familiar from the Darnley paintings, reading GOD REVENGE MY CAUS.

As has been discussed, this phrase was strongly associated with the King himself, usually issuing from his own mouth. As such it represented a powerful call for justice that the King could hardly fail to recognise, and its use here, in the absence of the King's image, can be seen as particularly barbed.

The painting was presumably displayed publicly, whether at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh or in the Earl's funeral procession. Along with the ballads bearing his name, the painting seems to have played a part in keeping the cause of the 'Bonny Earl' alive and, as with the Darnley case earlier in the century the effects of the murder were to linger on for some years. In the event, the King's refusal to even look at the picture at all means that the painting must be regarded as a failure in the narrow sense of directly influencing its intended audience. However, the written records demonstrate the extent to which such a painting was seen as a politically potent weapon.