"A Chess Game" by Thomas Middleton and Anglo-Spanish relations during the reign of James I

Kosheleva Polina Yur'evna Postgraduate student, Department of History of the Middle Ages, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119234, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Lomonosovskii Prospekt, 27, korp. 4 biyanova.polina@yandex.ru

At the end of the XVI century. relations between England and Spain were quite tense. The war, which began in 1585, shaped the perception of the Spaniard as an enemy in the minds of the British. After the death of Elizabeth Tudor, James I Stuart became King of England. His foreign policy was markedly different from the anti-Spanish line of his predecessor, since Yakov was a supporter of a peacemaking policy and called himself "Rex Pacificus" ^{[4, p. 91]}. To establish a balance of power in Europe and the Christian world, he decided to use a matrimonial strategy. It was decided to marry James' daughter Elizabeth to the Protestant Prince Frederick of the Palatinate. This alliance was quickly concluded, but it was he who caused further difficulties in implementing the peace project of James in foreign policy and forced England to intervene in the course of the Thirty Years' War. In order to establish good relations with Catholics, King James chose an alliance with Spain. However, negotiations on the marriage of the prince and the Infanta were delayed due to difficulties in obtaining approval from the Pope and working out conditions that satisfy both sides. In the end, Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham decided to go to Madrid incognito ^[7]. This trip was supposed to speed up negotiations and allow the prince himself to bring his future wife, Infanta Maria, to England, in the best courtly traditions of his ancestors. Charles and his companions stayed in Spain for about six months, trying to persuade the Spaniards to more convenient marriage conditions for England. However, this was actively prevented by the Roman Curia in the person of Pope Paul V and his successor Gregory XV, who did not approve of marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic. It was possible only if a number of conditions were met that contributed to strengthening the role of the Pope in England ^{[1, p. 340]}. King James was interested in this marriage, wanting to help his son-in-law Frederick to return the lands of the Palatinate, but as part of the negotiations it became clear that Spain was not seeking to assist England in this matter and was putting forward dangerous conditions for England.

The marriage of Prince Charles and Infanta Maria did not take place, but the King of England's turn to pro-Spanish politics was incomprehensible to many of his contemporaries, unacceptable to a significant part of the political elite and caused heated discussions in parliament, a reaction in pamphlet literature and drama. The creative and intellectual elite, following the traditions of Elizabethan times, expressed anti-Spanish sentiments in their writings, and thus not only reflected the public reaction, but also contributed to the formation of an even more persistent rejection of Spaniards.

In England of the XVI – early XVII centuries, the theater was one of the tools for forming public opinion and promoting certain political ideas. Plays were available to an increasing number of people, due to the emergence of new theaters and the popularity of theatrical art in England. Plays became one of the ways of visual propaganda, as they had a strong impact on the public. One of the most successful playwrights of the early XVII century, who reacted in his work to contemporary events and problems, was Thomas Middleton. It is his play "The Game of Chess" that is the subject of this study. We are interested in the playwright's view of the Anglo-Spanish relations of the 1620s, which Middleton expressed through satirical allegory, presenting them in the form of a game of chess. Moreover, the play "The Game of Chess" is important for analyzing the role of the public theater in shaping public opinion on the political strategy of King James I at the beginning of the XVII century.

Thomas Middleton was born in London in 1580 . He studied at the grammar school, and in 1598 entered King's College, Oxford. University life strengthened his penchant for drama. By 1600 he had settled in London and was writing plays to order. For ten to fifteen years, he has created a large number of successful comedies on subjects related to London and its inhabitants. He sought to show the life of London without embellishment, ridiculing and criticizing the lifestyle and moral character of some of its inhabitants. Twenty-five plays are attributed to Middleton's authorship. Working simultaneously for several troupes, Middleton remained a free playwright, not tied to any one theater and its audience. His plays were played both at court and in public theaters. In addition, from 1620 he became the official chronicler of London.

Middleton's work is indicative of that era: he worked in all popular genres – urban comedy, tragicomedy, romantic comedy and tragedy. In his plays, Middleton did not strive for moralizing, but there is a noticeable irony in them, caused by a pessimistic view of a world that cannot be corrected, and where evil is never finally defeated. It is not surprising that Middleton realized his talent in political satire. Examples of such works are "Women, beware of women" ("Women, beware of women", 1621), "The Werewolf" ("Changeling", 1622) and, more interesting to us, "The Game of Chess" ("A Game at Chess", 1624), which, becoming an impressive stage success for the playwright, nevertheless marked the end of his career. This play caused a political furore in society, being an expression of a negative opinion about the rapprochement with Spain, which was already forming in the minds of contemporaries of events thanks to the legacy of Elizabethan times and anti-Spanish pamphlets.

In order to represent the two opposite sides – England and Spain, Middleton uses the allegory of chess. The white side is English, the black side is Spanish. All the characters of the play correspond to chess pieces and in the characteristics of some of them one can see references to real historical characters. It is obvious that the figure of the white king means James I, and the figure of the black king means Philip IV. The role of the white horse is played by Prince Charles, the role of the black horse is played by the Spanish ambassador Gondomar.  The reference to the Duke of Buckingham in the figure of a white rook and to Mark Anthony de Dominis in the form of a “fat elephant” is also clear. Determining the prototypes of other characters is a more controversial issue, which was previously addressed by such researchers as T. Howard – Hill, J. Sargent, N. Bokat and R. Bold ^{[2, 6]}. Taking into account the interpretations of historians and forming our own opinion about the prototypes of the characters of the play, we came to the conclusion that the role of the pawn of the white queen is a collective image of a pious English lady, behind the figure of the pawn of the black queen is a Jesuit (she identifies herself in the text of the play), and as a pawn of the black bishop is represented by an agent of the Jesuits In England, Henry Floyd. The white Queen represents the image of the Anglican Church, and the black Queen represents the Catholic Church. The black rook is Count Olivares, the white elephant is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the black elephant is the Jesuit General Muzio Vitelleschi. These are the main pieces of the chessboard in Thomas Middleton's "game".

The plot of the play "The Game of Chess" consistently presents on the theatrical stage the course of Anglo-Spanish relations during the reign of James I. In the prologue, two characters appear who exist outside the main action of the play: This is the founder and first general of the Jesuit Order Ignatius Loyola and the allegory of Sin. Ignatius Loyola, in a dialogue with Sin, complains about his successors, accusing them of the fact that they have not yet been able to establish the dominance of the Jesuits and the Catholic faith in the world: "I thought that by this time they would spread our ideas, cover the whole earth and make it dark" ^{[12, p. 9]}. The spirit of Loyola claims that the Spanish monarchy is still not perfect just because they failed to spread Catholicism to the proper extent. Already in the introduction, Middleton demonstrates the universalist aspirations of Spain and the Catholic Church. Moreover, the playwright puts the Catholic Loyola on a par with Sin, since they are together on the side of the sinful Spanish black house. It is here that the essence of the game is announced: the struggle between the black and white sides, between Spain and England, between Catholicism and Anglicanism, vice and virtue, love of power and justice. Middleton makes it clear in the prologue with which side he associates sin, and with which purity. And in the subsequent actions of the play, he proves his idea and illustrates by examples the manifestations of the sinfulness of the black side and the purity of the white. Loyola's words reveal the future plot: the black side will begin active actions to strengthen the monarchy and realize its own interests by destroying rivals by any means and planting Catholicism in the world.

The White House – England is distinguished by calmness and trustfulness in the desire to achieve peaceful coexistence with the Black side. At the beginning of the play, the White side is almost not shown, since Middleton primarily refers to the image of the insidious black side and its intentions through a subplot that creates the framework of the entire play. In this side line, the pawns are the main participants: the pawn of the white queen (the virtuous English lady), the pawn of the black bishop (Henry Floyd, the Jesuit) and the pawn of the black queen (the Jesuit). In the first act, the white queen's pawn is in a difficult situation: proximity to the black pawns makes her think about switching to their side, that is, the pretended friendship of the black side persuades a pure English lady to switch to their Catholic camp. The white pawn is persuaded of the need to change sides, get rid of the false service to the white queen – the Anglican Church. The pawn does not allow herself to be easily persuaded, she understands that "neither the truth nor the world, which the Black House convinces, cannot be trusted..." ^{[12, p. 24]}. Nevertheless, in order to free herself from this trap, she decides to meet the pawn of the black bishop. His speeches are full of the same ideas as the speeches of the black queen's pawn: the white side is full of sins, staying on it will ruin the soul. By the end of the first act, the white pawn is still adamant, but the black bishop's pawn does not retreat from the goal of seizing it. The Jesuit managed to involve a pious Englishwoman in the game, and he intends to convert her to Catholicism. The black pawn showers the white one with compliments and flattery, emphasizes her virtue and purity, and claims that she does not deserve to die in sin together with the white house. That is, here we are talking about the transition from Anglicanism to Catholicism desired by the Spaniards of ordinary Englishmen and the ruling house, especially Prince Charles.

In the second act, the pawn of the white queen is impressed by the seductive speeches of the pawn of the black bishop. It seems that she is already ready to submit in order to preserve her purity and sinlessness: "In the name of virtue, order me anything, test my obedience in any matter, and if you believe in my submission, you will trust him even more later" ^{[12, p. 32]}. However, after the Jesuit's audacious attempts to seduce her, the English virtuous lady realized the depravity and sinfulness of his intentions. Middleton wants to show the falsehood and hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and the Spaniards themselves. The black pawn convinced the white one of love and good intentions, while she only wanted to take possession of her. In the same way, according to the author of the play, it happened to honest Englishmen, whom they tried to convert to Catholicism by deception and sweet speeches. To a greater extent, it was the noble Englishwomen who were subjected to such a temptation. In the post-reformation period, women played a particularly important role in the life of the confessional community. Under the conditions of persecution of Catholicism, they assumed those roles that were previously peculiar only to men ^{[8, p.189]}. Since the beginning of the XVII century, it was women who converted to Catholicism, went to a monastery, formed schools and preached ^{[9, p.105]}. They were characterized by piety, which led them to doubt the truth of the teachings of the Anglican Church. According to the hagiographic canons of biographies of notable Catholics of the early XVII century, written by men, it was Catholic men who influenced the decision of English ladies to become Catholics ^{[10, p. 60]}. Middleton, following the accepted ideas about the conversion of women to Catholicism, illustrated in the play the scenario of a possible transition of a white pawn to the black side, addressing her inner doubts and the desire to save her soul.

The white pawn saw the danger in the persistence of the black side and tried in every possible way to expose the pawn of the black bishop. However, her plans are hindered by stronger figures who enter the field of play. The black knight and the black bishop manage to create a fake alibi for the black pawn. The black side follows the main motto of its horse: "Qui caute, caste" - "he who is careful is clean" ^{[12, p. 38]}. It is in the second act that the two main negative characters of the play begin to show themselves vividly – the black horse, behind whose figure, apparently, is Count Gondomar and the fat bishop - Archbishop of Split and Salons Marc Antonio de Dominis. Gondomar was the Spanish ambassador to England for a long time, achieved a trusting relationship with James I, inclined him to a pro-Spanish policy and was one of the main supporters of Prince Charles' trip to Madrid. Middleton presents him in "The Game of Chess" as the main villain – a Machiavellian who is ready to resort to any means to achieve the goal. Middleton borrows this idea from the pamphlets of the Protestant polemicist Thomas Scott "Vox populi" ^{[11, 13]}, where the ambassador is shown as the most insidious Spaniard who deceived the English king. However, Middleton portrays him even more vividly: a cynical politician who wanted England to be subordinated to Spain both in the religious and political spheres, due to the fact that a spiritual defeat would surely lead to a political defeat. Even in the first act, the black horse asserts: "The cause of the world monarchy is going well now. The great cauldron should be constantly boiling, supported by the fire of information coming from all Christian kingdoms" ^{[12, p. 25]}. Lust for power and cunning become the main characteristics of Gondomar in the play. As for the personality of Marc Antonio de Dominis, whom all commentators and historians consider to be the prototype of a fat elephant, he was distinguished by ambiguity of beliefs, thirst for power and profit. Marc Antonio de Dominis was a member of the Jesuit Order and served as Archbishop of Split and Salona and Primate of Dalmatia. However, in 1616 he resigned the rank of archbishop, left Croatia and went to England, where he was met with great respect by King James I and the clergy of the Anglican Church. For about five years he lived at the court of the English king. De Dominis wanted reforms for the church, so he began to write works about an ideal "ecclesiastical republic" in which the unity of Western Christianity would be restored.  The play talks about the theological writings of the fat elephant and his desire to seize power first in the black house, and then in the white house, playing on both sides. Such a reference gives the right to identify the figure of a fat elephant with the personality of de Dominis. Middleton shows him as one of the main negative characters, as he considers him a duplicitous insidious agent. The fat bishop asks his pawn: "Has my last book against the black house been published?" ^{[12, p. 44]}, that is, he supposedly stands on the side of white, criticizing black. However, at the same time, the fat elephant says: "How much he [the White King] stings and poisons the blood of the black opponent; now I am ashamed that I was once on his side..." ^{[12, p. 50]}, which exposes his desire to return to the black side. Concluding that it was easier to get what he wanted, being on the winning side, the fat elephant chose the black house, which by that time seemed stronger than his opponent. Thus, according to Middleton, de Dominis renounced his beliefs and returned to the bosom of Catholic Spain for his own good and prosperity.

All the characters appear in the last scene of the second act to sort out the conflict between the pawns of the white queen and the black bishop. The White pawn complains to the White King that her honor was violated and they tried to seize power. The black bishop denies the guilt of his pawn and assures that she was doing something else and could not be near the white queen's pawn at all. The black knight also defended the black pawn. His speech begins with an expression of respect to the white side, especially the white horse and the white rook: he convinces them of their loyalty and assures them that this incident should not become an obstacle to good relations. Here Middleton recalls the diplomatic talent of Gondomar, who actively convinced Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham of the friendly intentions of the Spanish side. Already in the second act of the play we see illustrations to the story of Prince Charles' trip to Madrid. Gondomar was one of the initiators of this project. So in the play, the black horse convinces the representatives of the White House of good intentions.  Then, in his speech, the knight returns to the pawn conflict. According to his conviction, the pawn of the black bishop was absent from the field for about ten days, as evidenced by her letters. The white king, impressed by the vivid speech of the black knight, trusts his evidence and gives the pawn of the white queen for punishment for slander to the black side. However, the valiant white knight and the white rook do not believe in the guilt of the white pawn and promise to achieve the truth. In this scene, one can notice the credulity and some naivety of the figure of the king, that is, James I. He trusted the black knight – Gondomar more than the white pawn – the virtuous English lady (perhaps more globally representing the entire English people). Nevertheless, there were pieces on the white side of the board that did not want to lose their pieces so easily, a white knight and a white rook, that is, Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham, who tried to resist and achieve the truth by cunning.

         In the third act, Middleton again draws attention to the intentions of the black horse (Gondomar). Recalling his merits, he says: "Did I not get precious protection from the White King to secure our shores" ^{[12, p. 64]}. Indeed, Gondomar persuaded James I in 1620 to assist the Spaniards against the Turks in defending their borders. He also mentions the success of the negotiations on the Spanish marriage of Prince Charles and his merits in the release of many imprisoned priests and Jesuits by James I as part of the policy of tolerance towards Catholics in England under one of the conditions of the contract of marriage of the prince and the Infanta. About the goals in the game, the black knight says the following: "If we captured her [the white queen's pawn], the game would quickly become ours," since she is a bait for larger pieces: "My goal is to trap the white knight, and the rook will follow him" ^{[12, p. 73]}. This is how Middleton tries to expose Count Gondomar's plans to subjugate her politically and religiously, which are disastrous for England. In the play, the plans of the black knight were disrupted: thanks to the white knight and the white rook, it became known that the letters of the pawn of the black bishop were fake. All white pieces appear on the field demanding the return of an innocent white pawn. The white king loses confidence in the black horse, since "he will be able to teach the devil himself to lie" ^{[12, p. 70]}. Inspired by the success, the white horse and the white rook decided to expose the falsity of the entire black side (like Prince Charles and Duke Buckingham who visited Madrid in 1623 and left it).

         In the first scenes of the fourth act, attention is again drawn to the white pawn. The black pawn convinces her of the need to find a patron and shows the future chosen one of the white pawn through a magic mirror. When the white pawn later meets this piece, she agrees to become his wife, thinking that this union is predetermined by fate. However, the same piece turns out to be the disguised pawn of the black bishop. In this case, marriage is a symbol of the transition from Anglicanism to the Catholic faith, which the Jesuits wanted for the English. The white side is again deceived by the black side, moreover, its purity and virtue were in danger. Here the black horse begins his speech, analyzing his actions, he admits that he betrayed the White House, violated the peace, renounced loyalty. Visiting the white side – England, the black horse – Gondomar penetrated not only into political life, but also succeeded in accumulating strategically important information. He admits that he closely followed the white side: "What is the strength of the White Kingdom? There are no fortifications, no harbor, no bay, no berth to the shore" ^{[12, p. 97]}. Thomas Middleton borrows this whole passage from the second part of the pamphlet "Vox populi" by Thomas Scott ^{[13, p. 15]}. This once again shows that the playwright relied in his play on the anti-Spanish works already popular in society. Moreover, like Scott Middleton, he notes that Gondomar knew English society very well: who was a Puritan and who was a Catholic, who among Catholics was on the Spanish side, who was against, and who is indifferent. The black horse himself in the play says: "I lured the White King into a trap and with feigned charm lured him to the Black House" ^{[12, p. 99]}. The author openly shows the intentions of Gondomar: he is ready to use any means to achieve and preserve power and power. However, after such a confession, the black knight does not abandon his insidious plans, but on the contrary achieves the appearance of a white knight and a white rook on a black field: "The game is ours. I have written to the White Knight and his brave Duke, we are waiting for the arrival of both of them" ^{[12, p. 102]}.

         From the fourth scene of the fourth act, a white horse and a white rook appear on the field of blacks, which is an allusion to the trip of Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham to Madrid in 1623 incognito. They are met by a black horse – Gondomar and convinces Karl that he is his friend and that his only goal is "to win his love in this whole game" ^{[12, p. 106]}. However, as we remember, after the incident with the white pawn, the white knight and the white rook sought to expose the black side and win. This is how Middleton justifies their appearance on the black field, this is how he explains to the people the purpose of Prince Karl's arrival in Madrid.

         In the last, fifth act, Middleton explains the motives of the prince, shows the goals of the Spaniards, determines the positions of England and Spain and gives one of the sides victory. In the first scene after the black horse, the white figures are met by the black king and queen with friendly remarks convincing of love and respect for the white house. The second scene of the fifth act is dedicated to the finale of the pawn subplot.  The deception of the black bishop's pawn was revealed again: the white pawn recognizes its abuser in the black one and refuses to ally with him. The pawn of the black bishop is powerless, the treacherous Jesuit is defeated by the virtue of the English lady. Meanwhile, the third scene continues the main plot – the struggle of two houses: black and white, Spanish and English. The action takes place on the black side, where everything seemed to be arranged for their white guests. The black horse continues to convince the white horse to switch to the black side. The white knight and the white rook ostensibly agreed to join the black house and began to behave in a way that is not customary on the black side. They specifically attributed to themselves vices that they did not have, testing the patience of the black side. For example, the white horse claims that it is impossible to please him in food: "You are unlikely to find such food that will give me pleasure" ^{[12, p. 126]}. In addition to fastidiousness in food , the white horse calls greed as a vice: "I am greedy like a barren womb, a grave, or something that is even more greedy" ^{[12, p. 127]}. And finally, he attributes hypocrisy to himself: "This vice carries the most hidden poison, the most seductive poison; I am an arch-hypocrite, sir" ^{[12, p. 130]}. However, the black horse, who has wanted this union for so long, convinces the white horse that these are exactly the very qualities that are necessary for joining the black side. That is, thereby the black horse recognizes that such vices as discrimination, greed and hypocrisy are inherent in the black side. Thus, Middleton's allegory explains the trip of the prince and the duke by saying that they wanted to show the true intentions of the Spaniards to King James, who, wanting to achieve peace between Christians, was too trusting. Moreover, the prince and the Duke wanted help from the King of Spain in returning the lands of James I's son-in-law, Frederick of the Palatinate, and did not yield to Catholic influence. In turn, Gondomar and Philip IV demanded the conversion of Prince Charles to Catholicism. Spain was driven by the ideas of a universal monarchy, in which the domination of Spain is possible with the subordination of England and the weakening of Anglicanism. So, at the last moment during the "game", the white knight and the white rook manage to reveal the real motives of the black house's hospitality: he wanted to get the white pieces by deception, transfer them to the black side and achieve this for the whole white side. However, the black side was checkmated. The white knight, addressing the black one, says: "So you are lying, the game belongs to us, we make checkmate the king, the most noble figure" ^{[12, p. 131]}. That is, Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham, according to Middleton, manage to convince King James of a vicious deception on the part of the Spaniards. When the terms of the marriage contract were already negotiated and approved, the English side, which seemed to have wanted this marriage for so long, refused the union. Spain remained an enemy for England.

         In the epilogue, on behalf of the pawn of the white Queen, it is said that justice has triumphed again thanks to the associates of the white queen. The firm commitment of the white side to its queen – England and the Anglican Church did not allow the black side – the Spaniards to win. They failed to achieve dominance in the game and convert Protestants to Catholics. Middleton presents the world in the play as a game, the victory in which leads to the predominance in the political arena and the preservation of the religious values of the winner. In the "Game of Chess", he gives a complete victory to England, which remained unbroken by the prince's stay in Spain, negotiations on a Spanish marriage and the upcoming concessions for Catholics.

However, a quite relevant and obvious question arises: why did Thomas Middleton decide to create a play of such content? Was it someone's political order? Who was Middleton's patron, and who was interested in such anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic work? The play was written and performed in 1624 after the return of Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham to England from Spain. Such a work could not have been written and even more so played on stage without political support and patronage. However, accurate information about Middleton cartridges has not been preserved, so we will list a few assumptions and turn to the opinion of researchers of this problem. The first person who considered the "Game of Chess" a cautious political propaganda in favor of intervention in the Palatinate and assistance to Elizabeth and Frederick was B. Wright in 1928 ^{[6, p. 279]}. Such a play could only cause the displeasure of James I, so it is obvious that she needed the patronage of an influential person, who, according to Wright, could be the Duke of Buckingham himself. Indeed, one of the reasons for Prince Karl's trip to Madrid is his desire to help his sister Elizabeth and her husband to return the Palatinate. Buckingham at that time spoke in support of Friedrich. Being an intimate of the king and the prince, he could contribute to the influence on the king and society through drama. However, in the play itself it is difficult to notice obvious references to the situation with Frederick of the Palatinate, moreover, the play rather convinces that the Spaniards are capable of betrayal and in their universalist claims do not seek peace between Christian states. Although Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham are shown in the play as real knights, they expose the Spanish court and its sinfulness, thereby in no way seeking to establish peace and contribute to the return of the Palatinate. The Prince and the Duke could hardly be the patrons of Middleton due to their long stay in Spain.

T. Cogswell considers the "Game of Chess" to be official propaganda: Prince Charles and Duke Buckingham returned from Spain in October 1623 without a bride, and therefore proved to be very popular among the people ^{[3, p. 281]}.  This play was created to explain the very trip of Prince Charles to Madrid: the prince wanted to open the eyes of James I to the real intentions of the Spaniards. Cogswell believes that the play was written in accordance with the opinion of society and with the desire to strengthen hostility to Spain. However, on the part of the official authorities, such a move was too dangerous, especially since nine days later the king personally banned the performance of the play due to its offensive content for the Spanish side. Even more unexpected seems the opinion of T. Howard-Hill that the play was written in order to generate income from the public and there is no connection with political events and there is no political propaganda involving sponsorship ^{[6, p. 285]}. The opposite opinion was previously expressed by M. Heineman, who sees in this play a vivid example of propaganda through the theater. She considers William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, to be the main patron of the playwright, due to the fact that he petitioned the king for the actors of this play after its screening was discontinued ^{[5, p. 264]}. He was a Lord chamberlain, as part of his duties he performed censorship functions and issued licenses for public theatrical productions. Thus, he directly influenced the repertoire of theaters and the ideas that are broadcast in plays. In addition, the Pembrokes were hereditary patrons of the theater and zealots of Puritan piety. They helped Puritan writers and supported anti-Catholic plots. It is believed that the third Earl of Pembroke was the patron of the theatrical troupe "Servants of the King". According to M. Heineman, he belonged to the puritan opposition in parliament, which was formed due to dissatisfaction with the absolutist aspirations of the king and his desire for peace with the historical enemy - Spain. This part of the parliament wanted to convince the nobility and the people that peace with the Spaniards is dangerous and the king is mistaken in making such a choice. The "revisionists" led by K. Russell deny such an explanation, since in principle they do not allow the existence of opposition in parliament during the reign of James I ^{[2, p. 927]}. Perhaps it is really not worth calling this group of people the puritan parliamentary opposition, as M. Heinman does, because the framework of the concept of "puritan opposition" is too rigid. Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny the fact that not everyone in parliament agreed with Jacob's pro-Spanish policy, many were interested in fighting Spain. So, the hypothesis seems more likely that Middleton's patrons were representatives of the anti-Spanish foreign policy line, but it is impossible to say for sure who exactly could have ordered this kind of play.

Thomas Middleton was a very influential playwright of the early XVII century . He could afford to write a play of similar content and perhaps he did not need someone's order for this. T. Middleton moved not only in literary circles and was a co-author of D. Webster and T. Dekker, but also communicated with persons close to the court and had power in the city. There were also some members of parliament in his entourage: Hugh, Robert and Thomas Middleton (Thomas was also Lord Mayor of London), Robert Lumleis (a future member of the long Parliament), etc. Being the official chronicler of London, Middleton was on good terms with the Lord mayors of the city, among whom, in addition to Thomas Middleton, one can name William Cockayney (Lord Mayor 1619 - 1620), Evard Barkham (Lord Mayor 1621), Peter Proby (1622), Cuthbert Hackett (1626) ^{[5, p. 259]}. Many of them, formerly merchants, have become influential people in London. They opposed the king's policy of rapprochement with Spain and Catholicism. They were rather pious Puritans, who, however, did not deny the art of theater, but themselves repeatedly used Middleton's services in creating edifying performances. Thus, we can conclude that there were a large number of influential people in Middleton's entourage who were close to his ideas reflected in the "Game of Chess". The Lord mayors of London commissioned plays from him, and the Earl of Pembroke, as Lord Chamberlain, allowed them to be staged. Nevertheless, Middleton and the actors who played the play "The Game of Chess" on stage were convicted, so it is not surprising that the names of the patrons tried to keep secret. The play causes controversy not only in its interpretation, but also in its purpose and the persons interested in it. However, according to N. Bokat, Middleton opposed the Spaniards and the Jesuits and through the play expressed the patriotic sentiments of every good Englishman ^{[2, p. 939]}.

Thus, T. Middleton's play "The Game of Chess" was extremely relevant for the British at the beginning of the XVII century. The ideas in it completely coincided with the opinion of the majority of society regarding the pro–Spanish policy of James I: the Spaniards were represented as evil, Gondomar was the main villain, and the Catholic Church was an instrument of atrocities. Written in the form of an allegory, the play gave people the opportunity to think in images and draw parallels with events whose contemporaries they were. In the form of chess pieces, both real historical characters and abstract concepts were presented: sin, religion – Catholicism and Anglicanism, virtue and vice. Such a technique makes it possible for the playwright to highlight several topics of concern to him at the same time in front of the audience and connect them all on the field of one chessboard. In addition to allegory, Middleton uses the rhetoric of Providence as a device. God's intervention in the play is aimed at helping the white side, which, due to its sincerity and virtuous faith, finds itself in dangerous situations set up by the insidious black side. Nevertheless, the white side comes out victorious, since such an outcome is predetermined and shown earlier in numerous victories over evil fate. Examples include the victory over the Armada, the disclosure of the Gunpowder Plot, etc. Despite the fact that the play was banned after nine days of the show, it was a great success with the people and managed to warm up hostility towards Spain. The contradictory actions of James I were incomprehensible not only to society, but also to some members of parliament. With the help of a public display of such a play, Prince Charles's trip to Madrid was justified, and the king was presented as the main peacemaker, whom the Spaniards, eager for domination in the political and Christian world, tried to cruelly deceive. The play "The Game of Chess", although it formed the opinion of a part of society, but to a greater extent it broadcast it, since it was a continuation of the anti-Spanish tradition in literature since the time of Elizabeth Tudor.