LOYALTY AS AN ELIZABETHAN PRACTICE

James I arrived to the throne of England without the stability issues that complicated the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth before him. This stability was gained by the Stuarts and the Tudors. They governed England using there image to persuade people, in order to create a portrait of royal power which commanded their respect and fidelity. Elizabeth would manage the ideal of loyalty to build her power and leave to James a stable government (p1, par1).

Loyalty was an integral part for Medieval structure and culture in Western Europe. Oaths of fealty were sworn by nobles and servants. These oaths were not only considered as a tradition, but also codified as law in acts by both Mary and Elizabeth. Due to its proximity to power, loyalty began to be part of the themes treated by playwrights of that time. As an exampl, there are Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice and Marlowe's The Jew of Malta. This work examines legal documents that show the importance of loyalty in the foundations of the power of the crown and how the concept was translated by Marlowe and Shakespeare (p2, par1).

Upon the moment of her ascension as Queen, Mary, in 1554, defined her position in an Act that had as main purpose the establishment of her legitimacy to the throne not only by blood but also as the heir to the devotion as a whole felt for her brother, father and grandfather (p2, par2; 4). It was the "Act Concerning the Regal Power".

She had four reasons to take that stance: 1. The question of her legitimacy (first raised by her father). 2. The issue of gender (England had not had a Queen since Matildas contested reign in 1135) 3. The problem of her being a catholic. 4. The matter of Edwards last will and testament. In response to her being a catholic, Edward gave his crown to Northumberland's new daughter in law, Lady Jane Grey, who was the granddaughter of Henrys sister. When Mary came to power after Edwards death, Lady Jane attempted to claim the throne on the strength of Edwards last will and testament. The effort failed because Mary appealed directly to the English people, invoking her blood ties to Edward Henry and appealing to their sense of loyalty to the Tudor dynasty (p2, par5).

This support from her subjects gave form to the base with which Mary established and secure her rule (p3, par1).

The use of the phrase "queens majesty" in the Act, is to connect her with Henry VIII, her father, who established that phrase as the correct form of address for the King, which indicates that she knew what was her source of power. The use of the phrase "Act Concerning the Regal Power" it was also a way of connecting herself with the Tudor heritage and that she was going to build upon this foundation, lashing her subject's loyalties to the mainmast of the ship of state and carrying them whether they would or no (p3, par2).

Elizabeth was not also the choice of her predecessor to the throne, forcing her to take similar steps to the ones that Mary took. That is why she severed the ties with Rome established by Mary in 1559 "Act of Supremacy" (p3, par3).

That Act attempted to create a legal framework for loyalty. Elizabeth also had to deal with questions as regards her legitimacy, like having being declared as a bastard by Parliament (p3, par4).

For that reason she had to base her authority in the loyalty of her subjects. The Act in which she established her authority over the clergy of the Church on England also contained a plea asking for the loyalty of any person "having your highnesss fee or wages". After this, came the Act of Uniformity (1559), that established the standards for prayer, liturgy and sacrament within the Church of England; the "Treasons Act" (1571) which defined a traitor to be anyone who ".shall, within the realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend the death or destruction.of our sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth" (Stephenson 351); and the Act Against Sectaries (1593), which provided punishment for anyone who did not regularly attend Anglican services (p4, par1).

This Act was thought to retain the queens subjects in obedience. This proves that loyalty is now a matter of legislation and anyone who protests religious affiliation with the States church will do so with a prison sentence hanging over his head (p4, par2).

The Act can be considered an attempt to prevent Catholic plots and rebellions, as well as an answer to to the papal bull in 1571 that absolved all Englands subjects from their allegiance to Elizabeth; and to further Elizabeths strengthen her control over her

people. The fact that the Act reached the everyday life of English people, it affected the theatre (p4, par4).

The results can be seen in two plays by Marlowe and Shakespeare, The Jew of Malta (1590) and The Merchant of Venice (1594). These plays are concerned with loyalty and religious affiliation. The main characters in these plays are Jews, struggling against the existing order, seditious sectaries, disloyal, and therefore, according to the Act, enemies of the Queen (p5, par1, 2).

Marlowes character is cunning, manipulative, an outsider, pariah who hates the Christians and their laws, and want to destroy his enemies by force, and he finds his power to do this in money (p5, par3).

Barabas is not interested in becoming himself a king, in fact, he is not interested on who rules as long as he can continue with his business (p5, par5).

In the opening lines of The Jew of Malta, one of the characters walkes through Barabass home backyard witnessing all the jewels he had available, and stating that with only a single jewel he could buy a king. That kind of statement proves that Barabas did not have the need to become or challenge the power of any king because he felt himself as an equal (p6, par1).

In his speeches, Barabas openly shows his great hostility towards Christian society around him (p6, par2).

The tone used by him in the play is both defiant and full of sarcasm, openly challenging his enemies, insulting them and defying them (p7, par2).

Shakespeares Shylock is physically reminiscent of medieval satanic figures, he combines his remorseless drive to devastaste his enemies with a degree of subtlety which allows him to infiltrate his enemys position, turning this power against itself (7, par3).

Shylock wants to discredit and to subvert the system by either forcing its supporters to commit an atrocity in the name of ustice or to break their own law to avoid this, taking

away all sense of authority. Here we can see the difference between him and Barrabas: while the first tries to batter down the walls from without, Shylock works from within the system, seeking to manipulate it to achieve his own ends or to render it meaningless within its own context; Shylock is no more successful than Barrabas (p8, par3).

Looking at the main characters of both plays as reflections of Elizabethan England, they are both enemies of the crown, serving as paradigms of subversion. Therir fates on the plays are warnings to anyone who may consider stepping out of line (p8, par4).

Jews and Christians appear in both plays as antagonistic groups, and due to the fact that in both plays the main characters are Jews, it is tempting to see the Christians in these plays as good, in spite of excesses they commit. This also happens if it is taken into account the explicit anti-Semitism common during the period, and rampant

throughout the plays(p8, par5).

As an example that Christian are not so good as they appear to be, the character of Friar Barnadine in Marlowes play. This member of the Church appears as a person interested in terrenal issues instead of the lives of the members of his congregation.

At a moment in history when English Protestants were a minority, who had survivied military threat from Spain, any reference to nuns, friars or Catholicism in general may have elicited anger instead of sympathy. For this reason, the chance to see a Jew massacre all the nuns in a convent only to fall a victim of his own machinations later on must have been humorous and ironic, if we ad the fact that the audiences disliked Jews (p9, par2).

The fact that Marlowe had tied connections with te court and that he was aware of the political difficulties surrounding Elizabeths throne are compelling reasons to consider this play as prophetic (p9, par3).

In the case of The Merchant of Venice, Shylock had to options, either to be hanged, or to surrender himself to the Christian majority. Something similar to what happened with Jews, Catholics and Dissenters in England; in spite of scaping hanging, they would have to cope with a State-sanctioned persecution, which made it almost impossible for them to attain wealth or position until they consented to convert and attend "some

church, chapel or usual place of common prayer", in order to become loyal subjects to the queen whether they like it or not (p10, par1).

The refusal of Barabas to accept Christianity, together with the fact that he is a Jew, and his criminal acts make him an enemy to the stablished order, therefore he has to die, in order to stop being a threat to the Elizabethan idea of order. According to the "Act against sectaries", he is a rebel, even if he foments no rebellion. Although this play was written three years before the act, it proved prophetic in its depiction of the conditions faced by those who did not conform to the religious restrictions imposed by Elizabeth. Shylock, on the other hand, coverts and becomes an accepted though dispised member of society. As it can be seen, statutes were written to create loyalty where it may not have existed, and dramatically speaking they ensure loyalty by either destroying or converting the enemy (p10, par2).

In Marys reign, loyalty was solicited. In Elizabeths, it was demanded, the prerequisite required of the subject if he or she wished to live anything approaching a normal life. The penalties for disloyalty were made plain, not only in the legislation of the time, but also in the theatre. If he legislation defined and set its penalties, the plays gave life to the legislation, drawing the character of disloyalty and illustrating his downfall and punishment in lurid detail (p10, par3).

The efforts made both by Mary and Elizabeth to define their own power in terms of the loyalty of their subjects may be characterized as despotic, though their success insured domestic tranquility and made it possible for the first Stuart king to ascend his throne with greater security than any monarch in the history of the realm (p11, par1).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Grubbs, P. Loyalty as an Elizabethan Practice: Establishing the Queens Power. Ohio Shakespeare Conference. Conference Materials, papers and proceedings. Early Modern Literary Studies. 1995 Cleveland Ohio