In researching this subject, the Jacobean era marked the clear movement towards the way theater funding works in modern day America. There is evidence to support that Shakespeare and his company of players were one of the first groups to step away from patronage and find other ways of funding their work. This departure from royal patronage marks a trend towards the capitalist system that we in the United States operate within today.
Humanism/Renaissance and where it began?
Theater history does not move in a perfect time line. For instance, there is no war or election to mark the date of one period ending and another beginning. Even now there is still a debate over what elements were entirely new to the Renaissance period and which ones were also popping up towards the end of the Medieval era. James Bruce Ross and Mary Martin McLaughlin introduce this controversy in the introduction of their book, The Portable Renaissance Reader, stating that this issue comes down to "Dreamer vs. Questioner".
Dreamers- “ who sees the Renaissance as a glorious world, splendid in purple and gold"
Questioners- "have attacked with special vigor the notion of its novelty, of a break with earlier traditions. Students have found in the medieval centuries the worldliness, individualism, and humanistic interest in antiquity once regarded as characteristic of the Renaissance."
This debate helped to solidify in my mind the fluidity of history, and the overlapping nature of time periods. It is difficult to define the amount of time that it takes for public opinion to sway to the point of transforming into a new status quo. Regardless of when these humanist elements began to surface, by the 1600's they were firmly entrenched as the prevailing mindset, especially in London.
Dreamers- “ who sees the Renaissance as a glorious world, splendid in purple and gold"
Questioners- "have attacked with special vigor the notion of its novelty, of a break with earlier traditions. Students have found in the medieval centuries the worldliness, individualism, and humanistic interest in antiquity once regarded as characteristic of the Renaissance."
This debate helped to solidify in my mind the fluidity of history, and the overlapping nature of time periods. It is difficult to define the amount of time that it takes for public opinion to sway to the point of transforming into a new status quo. Regardless of when these humanist elements began to surface, by the 1600's they were firmly entrenched as the prevailing mindset, especially in London.
Getting a Foot up After the Plague.
The Plague in London deeply effected the rich patron class and the artists of the period. This was when the shift away from patronage began in the sense that the plague was not evenly distributed...it was killing far more people in the poor suburbs than in the city itself. Since most theaters were located in the suburbs they were directly affected by this disease and the fear of large public gatherings the plague induced. Highlighting this situation, the rich at this time would leave the city to escape the dangers of this raging disease and do so without making the proper appropriations for the poorer citizens. Essentially the poor, who needed help from the rich, were left to fend for themselves. Theater’s who relied on the wealthy patronage were also at a detriment by this system during the plagued years.
The daily life of these theaters in London was severely effected and this put a large dent in most of their finances. There is evidence that suggests many of the troupes went abroad, traveling more to generate income, but also to be in the less-infested areas of England.
One of the few cases of outright royal grants to a commercial theater company occurred during James' reign. He granted Shakespeare's Company, The King's Men, several subsidies to keep them together during plague seasons. This is incredibly relevant because it is often thought that patron's paid for performances at this time in England, however this was not always the case, as indicated by the following excerpt and film segment.
Important note: the following film also introduces the idea of subscription-based support in terms of paying for theatrical productions.
"The role of the patron cost little or nothing ... What a company could normally expect from its lord was a document declaring that its members were his servants and should be respected accordingly, occasional intercession on their behalf, if they got into trouble, a payment when they performed before him (such as they would receive in similar circumstances from any other lord), and, occasionally, a 'badge' or livery- an allowance of cloth so that they might wear the colors of his house" (Harbage, 1952).
"Bentley adds that royal companies received payment for livery every other year (1941-1968, I, 53). Typically, for a performance at court or at the home of one of the barons, the company received 10 (pounds), which is very slightly more than what in the earlier period of the Elizabethan theater seems to have been the normal gross from a performance at its own theater some 8 or 9 pounds. The role of the patron was primarily the protection of the actors from harassment as 'Roges, Vacaboundes and Sturdy Beggers', and no benefits other than prestige and suits of clothing for the coronation seem to have accrued to Shakespeare's company when, from 'The Lord Chamberlain's Men', they were transformed into 'The King's Men' after James' accession."
The daily life of these theaters in London was severely effected and this put a large dent in most of their finances. There is evidence that suggests many of the troupes went abroad, traveling more to generate income, but also to be in the less-infested areas of England.
One of the few cases of outright royal grants to a commercial theater company occurred during James' reign. He granted Shakespeare's Company, The King's Men, several subsidies to keep them together during plague seasons. This is incredibly relevant because it is often thought that patron's paid for performances at this time in England, however this was not always the case, as indicated by the following excerpt and film segment.
Important note: the following film also introduces the idea of subscription-based support in terms of paying for theatrical productions.
"The role of the patron cost little or nothing ... What a company could normally expect from its lord was a document declaring that its members were his servants and should be respected accordingly, occasional intercession on their behalf, if they got into trouble, a payment when they performed before him (such as they would receive in similar circumstances from any other lord), and, occasionally, a 'badge' or livery- an allowance of cloth so that they might wear the colors of his house" (Harbage, 1952).
"Bentley adds that royal companies received payment for livery every other year (1941-1968, I, 53). Typically, for a performance at court or at the home of one of the barons, the company received 10 (pounds), which is very slightly more than what in the earlier period of the Elizabethan theater seems to have been the normal gross from a performance at its own theater some 8 or 9 pounds. The role of the patron was primarily the protection of the actors from harassment as 'Roges, Vacaboundes and Sturdy Beggers', and no benefits other than prestige and suits of clothing for the coronation seem to have accrued to Shakespeare's company when, from 'The Lord Chamberlain's Men', they were transformed into 'The King's Men' after James' accession."