play me in what forms they list upon the stage.'[1] And when the last mad step of rebellion was taken in February 1601 it was a play, none other than Shakespeare's Richard II, to which the plotters looked to stir the temper of London in their favour.[2] The curious thing is that in this case, although Essex and more than one of his followers lost life or liberty, no very serious results seem to have followed to the company involved. The incident has been thought to have inspired the references to an 'innovation' and the consequent travelling of the players in Hamlet. But in fact the Chamberlain's men cannot be traced in the provinces during 1601, and they were admitted to give their full share of Court performances during the following Christmas.[3]
For some years after the coming of James, the freedom of speech adopted by the stage, in a London much inclined to be critical of the alien King and his retinue of hungry Scots, was far beyond anything which could have been tolerated by Elizabeth. The uncouth speech of the Sovereign, his intemperance, his gusts of passion, his inordinate devotion to the chase, were caricatured with what appears incredible audacity, before audiences of his new subjects. 'Consider for pity's sake,' writes Beaumont, the French ambassador, on 14 June 1604, 'what must be the state and condition of a prince, whom the preachers publicly from the pulpit assail, whom the comedians of the metropolis bring upon the stage, whose wife attends these representations in order to enjoy the laugh against her husband.'[4] Beaumont's evidence is confirmed by a letter of 28 March 1605 from Samuel Calvert to Ralph Winwood, in which he writes that 'the play[er]s do not forbear to represent upon their stage the whole course of this present time, not sparing either King, state, or religion, in so great absurdity, and with such liberty, that any would be afraid to hear them'.[5] That in spite of all the companies continued to enjoy a substantial measure of royal favour, while speaking well for the good sense of the government,
- ↑ S. P. D. Eliz. cclxxiv. 138.
- ↑ Cf. ch. xiii (Chamberlain's).
- ↑ It is probably unnecessary to take literally Arabella Stuart's letter of 16 Feb. 1603 to Edward Talbot (Bradley, Arabella Stuart, i. 128; ii. 119), 'I am as unjustly accused of contriving a comedy, as you (on my conscience) a tragedy'.
- ↑ Von Raumer, ii. 206.
- ↑ Winwood, ii. 54. Furnivall, Stubbes, 79^*, tried in vain to identify a manuscript tract on the abusive attacks of players stated by Haslewood in Gentleman's Magazine (1816), lxxxvi. 1. 205, to be in the British Museum. Possibly it was Sloane MS. 3543, ff. 19^v, 49, a Treatise Apologeticall for Huntinge, which refers to the 'taxation' of James on the stage for his love of sport; cf. R. Simpson in N. S. S. Trans. (1874), 375, and E. J. L. Scott in Athenaeum (1896), i. 756.
