Theatre Censorship: From Walpole to Wilson by David Thomas, David Carlton, Anne Etienne

Abstract

MLR, 104.2, 2009 553 and upright Criticus, theworth of the poet as the reformer of theCommonwealth becomes apparent. In the final crowning chapter of the section and of the book Lees-Jeffries demonstrates how Jonson adapts his knowledge of the fountains on display atNonsuch palace tomake a plea for thedisgraced Earl of Essex. Nonsuch's Diana fountain and itsGrove ofDiana, the latterelaborated with an intricate series ofmottoes and poems, prompted spectators to interactwith theOvidian myth of Diana and Actaeon and with itskey theme ofvisual transgression. Drawing a parallel between Actaeon's surprising ofDiana inher grove and themud-bespattered Essex's famously rude interruption intoElizabeth's bedchamber on 24 September 1599, the event thatarguably clinched his fall intodisfavour, is,forLees-Jeffries, irresistible. In conjunction with this,not entirely disapprobatory references to Essex are traceable in the allusions to theActaeon myth within Jonson's drama, which not so cryptically appear to petition forElizabeth's royal clemency. Interpreted accordingly, Jonson's play is a curious case of art imitating life imitating art' (p. 270). Lees-Jeffries's ambitious and persuasive studymakes us reconsider the renowned gardens, fountains, and sculptures of Theobalds, Kenilworth, and Nonsuch; italso asks us to reread and reimagine major earlymodern works in active, participatory, and interdisciplinary ways that fruitfullycombine and engage thevisual, the textual, and thematerial. Selwyn College, Cambridge Russell M. Hillier Theatre Censorship: From Walpole toWilson. By David Thomas, David Carlton, and Anne Etienne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007. xvi+28opp. ?50. ISBN 978-0-19-926028-7. As its title suggests, thebulk of thisbook concerns the Licensing Act of 1737, under which the Lord Chamberlain was made responsible for the authorization of theatres and the pre-approval of new plays. The Act represented something of a legislative coup for Robert Walpole, who, confronted by the increasingly biting theatrical treatment of himself and his sponsor George II, used all of his considerable political skill to pass the licensing and censorship provisions as successive amendments to a bill thathad ostensibly been intended to address the problem of public vagrancy. Apparently unaware that therewas an Enlightenment inprogress,Walpole habitually took a fairly robust attitude to censoring oppositional points of view through a variety of means (Paul Starr, The Creation of theMedia: The Political Origins of Modern Communications (New York: Basic Books, 2004), P- 39;Michael Harris, London Newspapers in the Age of Walpole (Cranbury,NJ: Associated University Press, 1978), Chapters 7 and 8), and his craftyuse of statute law to silence his critics in the theatrewas thus, ifsomewhat extreme, hardly uncharacteristic. What demands more explanation is theAct's quite remarkable longevity? while such heavy-handed measures would have been unthinkable ifapplied to newspapers, books, or poetry, itremains a startling fact that,until the law's repeal in 1968, no stage play could be publicly performed inBritain without first having been approved by the censor. The authors' examination of thisparadox takes the formof a detailed examination 554 Reviews of thekey points in theAct's history?its introduction by Walpole, the reformof the licensing provisions in 1843, the successive attempts to repeal censorship in 1832, 1909, and 1949, and its eventual abolition. At each stage the book provides a sum mary of thehistorical and theatrical background, before offering a detailed account of the parliamentary campaigns by both sides, complete with detailed references to a variety of primary sources. This might all sound a littledry, and indeed itwould be, were itnot for the fact that,being largely composed of either playwrights orMPs with an appreciation of the theatre, the constituency of those looking to have the law repealed tended to express its arguments in rathermore felicitous terms than your standard parliamentary interestgroup. Apart from the chapters explicitly dealing with the Act, the book offers brief surveys of British theatre censorship before and after theAct in the firstand final chapters. The prehistory concerns censorship under the Royal Prerogative, and as such, isactually vital to a proper understanding of thevarious attempts to repeal the Act?obfuscation about whether the Lord Chamberlain exercised censorship under the Prerogative was an important tactic in the government's effortstoblock reform. The finalchapter, forwhich the authors conducted a survey of British theatre and company managers, deals with theatre censorship inmodern...