{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030303030303030304, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005968778696051423, 'mean_word_length': 5.408823529411765, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mary Queen of Scots (review)

holds a book in her hands rather than a dagger. Her finger is inserted into the volume, which represents intellectual accomplishments normally not associated with femaleness that she, as queen, proudly displayed when demonstrating her excellent language skills. During religious controversies over idols, concerns were raised about whether her subjects were worshiping her. When Archbishop Edmund Grindal ordered the crosses upon churches’ rood beams be replaced with the royal arms, Catholics protested he was substituting Elizabeth for God. Catholic symbolism, in fact, was adapted to honor the queen, who was increasing endowed with a sacred aura, particularly during the accession day celebrations, which Catholics criticized for replacing the feast of the Virgin Mary’s nativity. Montrose denies that serious Protestants literally worshiped Elizabeth, for her cult was politically calculated, representing a discourse “both shared and contested by the monarch and her courtiers” through which they “negotiated their complex interrelationships” (113). An ongoing question was whether she would marry. Lord Burghley argued that she needed a husband and children “to avoid contempte in her later years” (211). In the 1590s, to forestall or neutralize that contempt — which was linked to the succession issue — attempts were made to conceal her aging. The allegorical portraits of her — which were carefully monitored, however — could be given, according to Montrose, the Neoplatonic interpretation that they were meant to represent visually her inward virtues. During audiences, she was attired in jewels and elaborate costumes, which dominated the reports of her overawed observers. Impatient with a woman’s rule, many of her subjects welcomed James VI’s accession. Noting the failure of James’s initiate to “absorb” her “charisma,” Montrose’s ends his text with the comment, “the measure of its failure is our endearing attraction to the subject of Elizabeth” (252). This important interdisciplinary work offers invaluable insights into her culture and will be of interest to all Elizabethan scholars. RETHA M. WARNICKE Arizona State University