Pay to Play:
How King James’ money influenced Shakespeare’s works
By Christy Denny |
Royal advisor Cecil (Jonathan Haugen, right) makes demands of Shakespeare
(Anthony Heald) in Equivocation. Photo by Jenny Graham. |
It’s nice to think playwrights write for the sheer love of the art. But most writers
can’t help but consider, “Can I get paid for this?” and “Will people pay to see this?”
This isn’t a modern notion (though the current economic slump certainly hasn’t helped
the playwriting business). For hundreds of years, playwrights have tried to reconcile their
artistic interests with the necessity of a paycheck.
In Equivocation, William Shakespeare is 40 and near the end of his career, but he’s
far from leading a life of luxury. He and his troupe of actors are still very much dependent
on their financial supporter, who happens to be the king. And the country’s leader signing
your checks means there’s more at stake than just money.
King James wasn’t Shakespeare’s first patron, though. Historians estimate that Shakespeare
wrote his first plays around 1590, but he didn’t start to gain notoriety until Lord Chamberlain
assumed financial sponsorship of Shakespeare’s acting troupe about four years later. This led
to Queen Elizabeth taking interest in the company. The queen’s preferences held some sway over
Shakespeare’s artistic choices—it is said that he wrote his comedic The Merry Wives of Windsor
after the queen requested another appearance by the humorous character Falstaff.
But King James I’s ascension to the throne in 1603 also brought an ascension of sorts to
Shakespeare’s company. James took them under royal patronage, naming them the King’s Men. And
the result was a series of works that were heavily influenced by their new backer. While
Shakespeare’s previous works were primarily comedies like Windsor or fictional love tragedies
such as Romeo & Juliet, his plays post-1603 consist of many tragedies that parallel British
events.
It is important to note that, as Shakespeare tells Sir Robert Cecil in Equivocation, he
never explicitly wrote current events into his works. To do so was actually illegal, no matter
the writer’s point of view. But one observes that people and events of the 17th century seeped
into Shakespeare’s plots in a way that Queen Elizabeth and the 16th century did not. It is
natural that this shift occurred, as the King’s Men sought to keep their financial backer
entertained and happy—and what makes a king more tickled than seeing his reflection in a positive
light?
Here are three topics, featured in Shakespeare’s later works, that were influenced by the
king.
Politics
Hamlet (which first premiered in 1603), for example, appealed to James and his queen, Anne,
both in ways subtle (Denmark held a special place in the couple’s hearts, as they had honeymooned
there) and not so subtle. Having just endured a tense waiting period before he was named Elizabeth’s
successor, James would have identified with the plight of the rightful king against those who want
to keep him from his crown. One assumes that James rooted for Hamlet, the heir to the throne,
against the corrupt Claudius.
Marriage and Religion
During this period of English history, citizens debated the court’s banning of all religions
aside from Anglicism. Non-Anglicans hoped that James would reverse this, as his mother was Catholic,
and the beginning of his reign gave them hope that he would hear their pleas. Citizens were sometimes
even allowed to debate the Anglican stance on various issues, with marriage serving as a popular
topic. Appropriately, Shakespeare featured marriage in Measure for Measure, a new play that premiered
Christmas 1604. In examining sex before marriage, the punishment for adultery, and Isabella’s dilemma
of maintaining chastity versus saving her brother, Shakespeare reflected the issues that legal and
religious minds contemplated.
Corruption in the Court
Additionally in Measure for Measure, the character Duke Vincentio and King James possessed similar
characteristics. Both the duke and the king struggled with issues of how to rule fairly and
efficiently—James often said he was too soft with criminals, and the duke also worries that too much
corruption exists in his land. James’s naysayers criticized the rampant sex, money, and opulence that
characterized his court. Some historians believe Shakespeare defended James by writing Antony &
Cleopatra in 1607. As Alvin Kernan writes in Shakespeare, the King’s Playwright: Theatre in the Stuart
Court, 1603-1613, “James and his courtiers looked cheap and vulgar only so long as they were confined
to the realistic settings of Whitehall and Windsor. Relocate them to some epic scene and their English
vices become Egyptian virtues.”
By romanticizing James’s shortfalls, Shakespeare attempted to repay James’s investment—not in money,
but in something arguably more beneficial for a king: good PR.
