Jump to content

User:Dlbell208/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further information: English Renaissance Theatre

Censorship in English Renaissance Theater

[edit]

Overview

[edit]

The rules regarding censorship of plays and the officials involved usually differed during the English Renaissance depending upon whether the play in question was being submitted for performance or publication. Issues regarding performance are the focus here. The Master of the Revels was the primary figure in charge of licensing and censoring theater performances during this time, although at times the Mayor of London, Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop of London or the Privy Council would also intervene.[1] Social and/or political conditions usually determined how strictly or laxly standards were enforced at any given time. Rules were fluid with few, if any, hard and fast norms.[2] This uncertainty affected various playwrights differently. Some would take chances to see what they could get away with. Others would lean toward self-censorship in an attempt to avoid problems.[3]

Endeavors were occasionally made to control the content of plays through the passing of statutes. For example, in 1606 Parliament passed "An Act to Restrain Abuses of Players." This act forbade actors to use the name of any member of the Trinity in a blasphemous manner.[4] At some point, there was a regulation passed that prevented the representation of "anie moderne Christian kings in those Stage-playes."[5] It is not known exactly when this law was passed, but it was in effect by the time that the controversy surrounding the play A Game at Chess arose in 1624.[5] Although it was realized that audience members would likely connect characters in the staged play with real life political figures, it was important to make sure that the connection was masked enough so as not to cause any serious offense.[6] This could be accomplished, for example, by setting the play in a different country or in a different historical era.

Reasons for Censorship

[edit]

The main reasons that a play may have been censored were due to the inclusion of material deemed to be offensive because of politically or religiously inappropriate content or content that was deemed obscene. These categories were not necessarily mutually exclusive as the monarch was the head of the church or material may have been considered obscene because of religious values.

As stated previously, there were no hard and fast rules. The examples discussed below show some of the ways these standards were interpreted and handled. The plays are listed in alphabetical order. The chronological order of the Masters of the Revels mentioned below are:

The greater representation of Henry Herbert as compared to the other mentioned Masters of the Revels is due in large part to the fact that a significant amount more of his office-book has survived than that of earlier Masters.[7] We, therefore, know more about the actions that he took while in office.

Notable Instances

[edit]

The Ball

[edit]
Philip Massinger

After having previously licensed James Shirley's The Ball, Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert ended up censoring it after its having been performed because he felt that the actors impersonated the characters in a matter that too closely resembled known personages.[8] What is particularly interesting about this example is that it illustrates the possibility of a level of corruption in the censoring of plays. Despite having read the play, licensed it based on this reading and only censoring it after seeing the performance of it, the cause of the problem was placed on Shirley, likely by the manager of the theater where the play was performed.[8] Herbert may very well have been influenced to accepted the theater manager's word on the matter as Herbert and his wife were the recipients of gifts and gratuities from the manager.[9]

Believe As You List

[edit]
A Game at Chess

Philip Massinger's Believe as You List was initially banned due to its portrayal of recent political events regarding the kings of Spain and Portugal.[10]The original play depicted the deposition of Sebastian I of Portugal by Philip II of Spain. As Spain and England were currently enjoying a period of friendly relations when the play crossed the desk of then Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert in 1631, he felt compelled to ban it so as not to disrupt the peace between the two countries.[11] When the essentially same play was brought to him again a few months later, only this time recast in Ancient Roman times, Herbert was willing to license it for performance.[10][11]

A Game at Chess

[edit]

A Game at Chess by Thomas Middleton has a somewhat unusual history. It was licensed for performance by Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert and was performed for nine days. The play, which satirized both the Jesuits and the previous Spanish ambassador[12], was then ordered to cease performances by King James I due to a complaint about it from the current Spanish ambassador.[13] As Spanish and English relations were at a low point in 1624 when this play was licensed and performed, the king did not want to further aggravate the situation.[14]

The Launching of Mary

[edit]

Walter Mountfort's The Launching of Mary, was edited by Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert due to its anti-Catholic sentiment, especially since it could be seen as being directly pointed at Henrietta Maria, the French Catholic wife of King Charles I. This is made explicit by the fact that the Mary mentioned in the title refers to a British East India Company ship that is named for the queen.[15]

George Buc's license of the Second Maiden's Tragedy

Marquis d'Ancre

[edit]

The play Marquis d'Ancre is no longer extant and the authorship is unknown. It seems that it portrayed the life and recent murder of the titled French nobleman. The controversy surrounding this play is interesting from the standpoint that it exemplifies how the Master of the Revels did not necessarily act independently as Sir George Buc was ordered by the Privy Council to see that the play ceased production.[16]

Second Maiden's Tragedy

[edit]
Sir William Davenant

The Second Maiden's Tragedy, purportedly by Thomas Middleton although this is not definitively known[17], gives evidence of having been emended by both the Master of the Revels (in this case Sir George Buc) as well as others, quite possibly by the theater company either in anticipation of censorship by Buc or at his instigation.[18][17] The main sources of objections in this case appear to be profanities[17], the portrayal of the murder of a tyrant[19][20], and depictions of what could be understood as the sexual exploits of members of the court[21].

Sir Thomas More

[edit]

Master of the Revels Edmund Tilney's emendation to the play Sir Thomas More appears to have been an attempt to quell rebellion. He could certainly have banned the play outright for religious reasons but only seemed to be concerned with a scene at the beginning of the play which depicted anti-immigrant riots in London as similar riots had been occurring at that time in the city. Tilney crossed out the entire scene stating that it should be removed.[22][23]

Tragedy of Sir John van Olden Barnavelt

[edit]

John Fletcher and Philip Massinger's Tragedy of Sir John van Olden Barnavelt shows more markings by Master of the Revels Sir George Buc than any other play of the time.[24] The play dealt with contemporary Dutch politics including the execution of the title persona which occurred just a couple of months prior to the performance of the play.[25] This scenario is theorized by Richard Dutton to also allude to the execution of Sir Walter Raleigh, which had occurred less than a year before.[26] Along with the problem of dealing with contemporary political events, Buc also sought to reduce the amount of bawdiness in the play.[27] The Bishop of London also intervened with religious concerns as the play dealt with the Arminian vs. Calvinist debate that was ongoing at the time.[28] (For more information on the religious debate see also: History of the Calvinist-Arminian debate and Arminianism in the Church of England.)

The Wits

[edit]
John Fletcher

In the case of The Wits by Sir William Davenant, Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert was concerned with words that he viewed as expletives and sought to change them. Davenant, however, was not pleased with the changes and sought the assistance of his friend Endymion Porter, who was a friend of the king. Porter took Davenant's complaint to the king who then met with Herbert regarding the situation. The king let stand some of Herbert's corrections, but allowed some of the words that Herbert had edited to be restored.[29][30] It is interesting to note from this occasion that there were not fixed standards as to what was and was not considered to be an obscenity.

The Woman's Prize (Tamer Tamed)

[edit]

The commentary regarding the censorship of John Fletcher's The Woman's Prize surrounds not its original licensing in 1611, but its revival in 1633. Generally, when a play had been previously licensed, it was not required to be re-licensed if a company was going to put on a revival of the play without changing the already licensed copy.[31] Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert, however, had heard a complaint about objectionable material in the play.[32] The primary concerns seem to have been profanities and anti-Catholic sentiment, the latter being problematic due to the fact that the queen, Henrietta Maria, was Catholic, all the more so as the main female character's name is Maria.[33]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Streitberger, W.R. (2016). The Masters of the Revels and Elizabeth I's Court Theatre. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 236. ISBN 9780198719670.
  2. ^ Clare, Janet (1999). 'Art made tongue-tied by authority': Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 232. ISBN 0719056950.
  3. ^ Clare, Janet (1999). 'Art made tongue-tied by authority': Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 234. ISBN 0719056950.
  4. ^ Dutton, Richard (1991). Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. p. 162. ISBN 0877453357.
  5. ^ a b Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. p. 11. ISBN 0312236247.
  6. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. p. 7. ISBN 0312236247.
  7. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. p. 41. ISBN 0312236247.
  8. ^ a b Dutton, Richard (1991). Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. pp. 92–93. ISBN 0877453357.
  9. ^ Burt, Richard (1993). Licensed by Authority: Ben Jonson and the Discourses of Censorship. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. p. 110. ISBN 0801427827.
  10. ^ a b Birch, Dinah, ed. (2016). "Believe as You List". The Oxford Companion to English Literature (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press. ISBN 9780191735066. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  11. ^ a b Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. p. 6. ISBN 0312236247.
  12. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. p. 12. ISBN 0312236247.
  13. ^ Burt, Richard (1993). Licensed by Authority: Ben Jonson and the Discourses of Censorship. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. p. 111. ISBN 0801427827.
  14. ^ Clare, Janet (1999). 'Art made tongue-tied by authority': Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 217. ISBN 0719056950.
  15. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. p. 56. ISBN 0312236247.
  16. ^ Clare, Janet (1999). 'Art made tongue-tied by authority': Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 194–195. ISBN 0719056950.
  17. ^ a b c Dutton, Richard (1991). Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. p. 194. ISBN 0877453357.
  18. ^ Clare, Janet (1999). 'Art made tongue-tied by authority': Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 179–180. ISBN 0719056950.
  19. ^ Dutton, Richard (1991). Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. p. 195. ISBN 0877453357.
  20. ^ Clare, Janet (1999). 'Art made tongue-tied by authority': Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 182–185. ISBN 0719056950.
  21. ^ Dutton, Richard (1991). Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. pp. 198–199. ISBN 0877453357.
  22. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. pp. 7–8, 81–82. ISBN 0312236247.
  23. ^ Clare, Janet (1999). 'Art made tongue-tied by authority': Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 51–58. ISBN 0719056950.
  24. ^ Howard-Hill, T.H. (1988). "Buc and the Censorship of Sir John Olden Barnavelt in 1619". The Review of English Studies. 39 (153): 42.
  25. ^ Dutton, Richard (1991). Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. p. 206. ISBN 0877453357.
  26. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. pp. xvi–xvii. ISBN 0312236247.
  27. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. p. 54. ISBN 0312236247.
  28. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. pp. 54–55. ISBN 0312236247.
  29. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. pp. 10–11, 58–59. ISBN 0312236247.
  30. ^ Dutton, Richard (1991). Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. pp. 162–163. ISBN 0877453357.
  31. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. p. 13. ISBN 0312236247.
  32. ^ Fletcher, John (2010). Munro, Lucy (ed.). The Tamer Tamed. London: Methuen Drama. pp. xvii. ISBN 9780713688757.
  33. ^ Dutton, Richard (2000). Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England: Buggeswords. New York: Palgrave. pp. 55–57. ISBN 0312236247.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dlbell208/sandbox&oldid=756251791"