I Must Become a
Borrower of the Night
The
official documents tell the case in their own way. “The Erle of Essex is charged with high
Treason, namely, That he plotted and practice with the Pope and king of Spaine
for the disposing and settling to himself Aswell the Crowne of England, as of
the kingdome of Ireland.” In one count
of the indictment he was charged with “permitting of the most treasonous booke
of Henry the fourth to be printed and published…also the Erle himself being so
often present at the playing thereof, and with great applause giving
countenance and lyking to the name.” The
treasonous book was John Hayward’s account of the abdication of Richard II. The drama that the Earl of Essex greeted with
great applause was Shakespeare’s play of the same name. It would seem that Shakespeare was somehow
implicated in treason and conspiracy.
Essex had planned an uprising on the streets of London that would be
prelude to the invasion of the court, ostensibly to protect the monarch from
her advisers. But of course, the real
reason for the rebellion, to protect himself, who after his failure in Ireland,
had been placed under house arrest and was fearful of even more serious.
It is well
enough known that Shakespeare was connected with Essex and his “circle”. His past and present associations with Southampton,
with Lord Strange, with the Countess of Pembroke, Samuel Daniel, Sir John Harington
and others is made clear. But the events
of early 1601 may have placed him in real trouble. The Earl of Essex believed he was the victim
of court plots created by Sir Robert Cecil, and decided to be the first to
strike. Together with followers such as
the Earl of Southampton, he decided to take the court itself. He would then free the queen from her
advisors and secure the succession of James I.
He had stupidly believed that the populace of London would rise up and
side with him when he declared his intentions.
One way of alerting people was to stage a play was at the Globe on the
day before the insurrection.
On
Saturday 7 1601, some of the Essex’s supporters dined at an eating house by the
Temple. After dinner they took a wherry
across the Thames and walked into the Globe theatre before the start of the
afternoon’s play. It was an especially
commissioned performance. The intention
of Essex’s supporters was clear enough.
The power of the theatre could be used to justify their removal of
Elizabeth. It could also be used to strengthen
their resolve. Whatever the excuses the
Earl of Essex used later, it was a clear case of “imagining” the sovereign’s
death.
One of the
players, Augustine Phillips, later deposed that he “and hys fellows were determined to have played some other pays,
holdying that play of Kyng Richard to be old & so long out of vse (use) as
that they shold have small or no Company at yt.” This was an excuse, born of fear. At this point it seems that one of Essex’s
allies offered to pay forty shillings for this uniquely commissioned the
production. The players accepted the
offer. In hindsight it wasn’t the best
decision, since they could have been implicated in the charge of treason. They may have had no advance notice of Essex’s
plans and could have claimed they innocently took part in the play but it is
much more likely that they were bullied into it by these grandees.
In any
event, Essex’s uprising failed disastrously.
The people did not rise to his banner and the ear and his allies were
besieged in his house along the Strand.
He surrendered and was tried and executed along with some of his
followers. Such was the fate of
Elizabeth’s enemies and false friends.
Of course
the performance of the play had not gone unnoticed by the authorities. Augustine Philips, the equivalent of the
business manager of the company, was ordered to appear before an examining committee
of three chief justices. He explained
the circumstances and the payment of forty shillings. It should be remember that the actors and
writers of The Isle of Dogs had been
summarily imprisoned and maybe even tortured for performing a “seditious”
play. On this hypothetically more
dangerous occasion, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men was relived of any fine or
penalty.
Many
theatrical historians have puzzled over this lenity. The Lord Chamberlain’s Men had indeed been threatened
and cajoled by the plotters, the members of the committee may have well decided
to exercise clemency. The players also
had a realizable patron in the Lord Chamberlain, a loyal and trusted servant of
the queen to whom he was also closely related.
If they had been charged with treachery would the shadow of suspicion,
however unjustified, have fallen on his as well? Others have suggested that the good report of
Francis Bacon, a friend of the players, saved the company. It is also evident that Elizabeth regarded
the Lord Chamberlain’s Men with particular favour, perhaps primarily, because
of their Shakespearian repertoire. So,
by the grace of God and her Majesty, Shakespeare and his fellows avoided the
prison or even the gallows.
No comments:
Post a Comment