Elizabeth Queen and Earl of Essex

Author: (British) Strachey
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2002-01-01
Features: This is a true history interwoven with the love between men and women and the struggle for power between monarchs and ministers. The renowned British writer Lytton Strachey employs a novelistic approach in the book to vividly describe and incisively analyze the thoughts, personalities, talents, styles, and the development of the extraordinary relationship between Queen Elizabeth I and her minister, the Earl of Essex. This brings these historical figures to life in the readers' eyes and provokes deep reflection. Strachey pioneered a new path in modern biography literature with this work, establishing it as a masterpiece in the genre. Lytton Strachey (1880–1932) wrote biographies of two famous British queens. One was "Queen Victoria," and the other was about Elizabeth I, describing her tragic history of loving and then killing the Earl of Essex, which is this book. Elizabeth never married and was known in Britain as the "Virgin Queen." However, she had many romantic affairs. When she was less than fifteen, Lord Burghley, the Lord High Admiral, took notice of her, leaving behind a memorable anecdote. At the age of twenty-five, after ascending the throne, her favorite was the Earl of Leycester. Leycester married the widow of the Earl of Essex, making him the latter's stepfather. In 1585, Leycester led troops to fight in the Netherlands, taking his stepson with him. Two years later, he was recalled, and a year after that, he died. Upon his recall, he brought his stepson to the queen's side, marking the beginning of Essex's court life. Essex won the queen's favor with his handsome appearance, charming demeanor, and versatile talents. The queen fell in love with him, and at one point, they danced, played cards, and spent the night together, almost inseparable. She was fifty-three, and he was nineteen. The queen's favor quickly made Essex a shining star in the court. His career soared, and in no time, he became the Commander of the Fleet, a Privy Councilor, the Groom of the Stool, and the Governor of Ireland. He led the fleet on two expeditions to Spain, one of which ended in a great victory, which earned him a heroic image and widespread acclaim among the people. Later, he led troops to suppress rebellions in Ireland. This exposed his serious weaknesses—brave but lacking in strategy. Yet, setbacks did not curb his ambition, leading him rapidly down the path to ruin. However, what ultimately determined his fate was his relationship with the queen. They had contrasting personalities: one was open, the other reserved; one was impulsive, the other cautious. Their statuses were also vastly different: one was a subject bound by etiquette, the other an absolute monarch with absolute power. Only because the monarch was deeply in love with him did the young earl become arrogant and reckless, often clashing with the queen and causing major conflicts. On one occasion, in a fit of rage, the queen slapped him publicly. He immediately drew his sword, ready to fight. However, their relationship was also underpinned by love, so for twelve years, they alternated between reconciliation and conflict. As long as Essex showed remorse and expressed sincere apologies, the queen would eventually forgive him. Yet, there was a fundamental difference in their starting points in their love affair. According to Strachey's account in the book, Elizabeth's love for Essex was genuine. Her sharp eyes often became blurred when she saw this young man. Whatever Essex asked for, he generally received it, and even when he offended or made mistakes, he was eventually forgiven. However, Essex was a last knight of the old order, having learned the old knights' attitude toward noblewomen but also adopting the new aristocratic pursuit of wealth and status. He exploited the queen's affection but did not reciprocate it with the same devotion. Elizabeth discovered that this young man was a fickle lover, a shallow person. This fundamental difference led to the tragic end of the young earl. In 1599, Essex led an expedition to Ireland. During this campaign, he acted erratically and made poor decisions, lacking strategy and even defying imperial orders. As a result, when he left the army and returned to London, the queen ordered him imprisoned. However, he was released after a year. His punishment seemed to have ended. Yet, after his release, Essex was filled with resentment and even privately cursed the queen as a "twisted corpse." This remark reached the queen's ears, causing her great sorrow. Meanwhile, Essex secretly conspired with Scotland, hoping to use external forces to pressure the queen and eliminate his rivals. His plot failed, but it led to widespread rumors. Lacking firm resolve, and constantly influenced by relatives and attendants who were short-sighted but ambitious, he impulsively decided to organize an armed uprising to seize court power. On one day in February 1601, he led hundreds of his servants and followers into the city, shouting and demanding rebellion. He hoped to incite the entire city to join him in attacking the royal palace. However, the people of London, though admiring the brave and chivalrous earl, were unwilling to follow him in attacking the palace. As a result, his small rebellion was quickly crushed. After his capture, he was soon tried and executed for treason. He died at the age of thirty-four. In the power center of the court, Essex was favored but also envied, and his own arrogance made him many enemies. These enemies were largely of his own making, except for one important exception: Francis Bacon, whom he had long regarded with sincere and passionate friendship and had helped in many ways. Essex highly esteemed and even revered Bacon. Bacon, in turn, initially relied on and flattered Essex. During his days of success, Bacon also genuinely advised him to guard against slander and suspicion. However, later, when the queen, increasingly suspicious of Essex after his failed expedition, personally summoned Bacon to inquire, Bacon sensed the changing winds and began to slander Essex in the queen's presence. When Essex was imprisoned and tried, Bacon openly broke ties with him, representing the court in accusing him of treason. After Essex's execution, Bacon compiled a detailed account of his crimes, using subtle exaggeration to convince the nation of his guilt. In gratitude, the queen rewarded Bacon with ￡1,200. In the book, Strachey provides a literary and historical description of the thoughts, personalities, talents, styles, and the development of the extraordinary relationship between Elizabeth I and the Earl of Essex. He also appropriately narrates and analyzes Bacon's relationship with them and his involvement in the trial of Essex's rebellion. These historical figures are presented in vivid, lifelike detail, provoking deep reflection. The "Encyclopedia Britannica" states that in the history of biography literature, Strachey played a role similar to that of James Boswell in the 18th century, revolutionizing the genre and "opening up a new era." Ifor Evans, in his "A Short History of English Literature" (translated by Cao Wenshan), also notes that "autobiography and biography literature established a new tradition in the 20th century," with Strachey being the founder of this new tradition in biography. Through works such as "The Four Great Men of the Victorian Age," "Queen Victoria," and "Elizabeth and Essex," Strachey introduced a new face to biography writing. Cao Juren, in his memoir "My World," mentions that in his youth, he admired the three great contemporary biographers: the British Strachey, the German Emil Ludwig, and the French André Maurois. This reflects the tendency in the Chinese literary world in the early 1930s. Among the three biographers, the latter two were perhaps more renowned. However, the publication of the translation of Strachey's "Queen Victoria" (translated by Bian Zhilin) also attracted significant attention. Edward M. Forster, in his essay "Two Cheers for Democracy," pointed out that Strachey revolutionized biography writing. He also wrote, "Strachey deliberately exposed false facades: he abhorred exaggeration, hypocrisy, and moral ambiguity, distrusted inflated reputations, and skillfully exposed such pretense." "But his work went beyond merely exposing false facades. He adopted a writing style that no previous biographer had taken: he made a strenuous effort to delve into the inner lives of his subjects. Earlier biographers, such as Thomas Macaulay and Thomas Carlyle, created exquisite and believable portraits of their subjects. Strachey, however, made his characters come alive; they were vibrant, much like the characters in novels. He shaped them from the inside out—or rather, he reconstructed them. This was his greatest contribution." In summary, Strachey's innovations had two main characteristics: first, he demanded that biography become an art rather than a mere record of a person's activities and events. He aimed to paint a picture or write a novel, using figurative language and even psychological analysis to create a strong impact on the reader. Regarding the choice of subject, he mentioned in "The Four Great Men of the Victorian Age" that he was motivated by the artistic potential of the material, not by the desire to establish a system or prove a theory. Second, his non-idolatry. As Maurois said, he was a "hero-destroyer," someone who toppled idols. Strachey believed, "The biographer's duty is not to flatter but to write down the facts as he knows them." Therefore, when writing about great men, heroes, or ordinary people, he avoided exaggeration or excessive embellishment. On the one hand, when he wrote about achievements, virtues, beauty, or talents, he also had to include flaws that represented their character traits. In other words, he wrote about real people, not idols. In this way, Strachey broke the "pious" tradition of 19th-century British biography literature and also the heroic idealism that Carlyle had vigorously promoted. However, Strachey also deviated from "writing as he knew it" at times. Evans criticized him for "not pursuing the truth," and Forster also said that "sometimes he was inaccurate in his portrayals." This meant that he sometimes strayed from the truth. But how can biography writing stray from the truth? This is a major question. The reasons for this issue were either unreliable historical sources or the use of the author's imagination in writing methods. In terms of sources, Strachey apparently valued the basis of his material, as seen in the extensive bibliography he included at the end of "Elizabeth and Essex," as well as the frequent citations of sources in the text. However, some of these sources were folk histories, which often recorded only rumors and could not be taken as historical facts. When folk histories were used as sources in biographies, the inaccuracies of the folk histories would also affect the biographies. In writing methods, Strachey was not averse to using imagination to give his work artistic qualities, especially when he adopted the then-fashionable psychological analysis. He did not realize that this analysis could reflect the biographer's own psychology but not necessarily the psychology of the subject. Simply put, the result of imagination could not avoid fiction, and fiction was something that biography writing should avoid; otherwise, biography would blur the lines with historical fiction. Strachey deliberately brought biography out of the realm of history and into the world of literature, influencing a large school of thought, but also leaving the question of how to distinguish biography from historical fiction. Critics also noted that Strachey had a penchant for using a satirical tone when writing about historical figures. For example, in his portrayals of the famous prime ministers of the Victorian era, Melbourne was overly sentimental, Palmerston was awkward and eccentric, Disraeli feigned humility, and Gladstone was obsequious and tiresome, all of which were somewhat comical. When writing about Elizabeth I, he generally maintained a respectful attitude, but he also wrote about her indecisiveness, jealousy, narrow-mindedness, and cruelty. Essex often flirted with noblewomen in the queen's court, leading to scandals that spread throughout the court. Once, when Elizabeth learned that the Countess of Howard was involved with Essex, she had one of her splendid gowns stolen and wore it herself into the great hall of the court, displaying it before the. Her tall figure and the short gown made her look ridiculous, and she said to the Countess of Howard, "If this gown is too short for me, I'm sure it wouldn't fit you either, because it's too beautiful." This was a satirical portrayal of Elizabeth's superficiality and boredom. However, such satirical techniques were also an expression of Strachey's non-idolatry. Perhaps the satire was a bit heavy and exaggerated. But Strachey's intention was primarily to show Elizabeth's genuine love for Essex. Elizabeth was both a queen and a woman. As a woman, she could not tolerate anyone taking away her love under her nose. Therefore, this story, though it somewhat the wise queen, was not entirely incomprehensible. Strachey's and similar biographical writings had also sparked great interest among Chinese readers, but few Chinese writers imitated this style in their own biographies. China had once had a tradition of historical writing pioneered by Sima Qian, which did not measure by the "saints' perspective" but used an objective approach to narrate and portray people. Such works not only held a place in history but were also regarded as part of the literary treasury. However, later, biography writing was made to serve the demands of glorifying achievements and was constrained by rituals such as "not mentioning the faults of the noble," "not mentioning the faults of the close relative," and "not mentioning the faults of the virtuous." As a result, a large number of works emerged that could only be called "longevity screen literature" or "tombstone literature." I once read an article in a newspaper that lamented the fact that even after sixty years, no decent biography had been published about the great figure Sun Yat-sen. To break this monotonous situation and revitalize biography writing in our country, making our biographies more engaging, moving, and educational, it would be meaningful to examine the writing thoughts and practices of biographers like Strachey.