[New-Poetry] Taking Kooser's measure

[Roger Day]

Our conversation presumes that the theatre in the period we are
discussing is a complete free-market i.e. the theatres were free to
put on what they wanted, and the audience free to watch [1]. The
latter's choices has always been pre-selected for them through the
Lord Chamberlain's Office. How much the various censorship laws
encouraged pre-censorship ("chilling effects" in the modern jargon) is
up for debate.  However Shakespeare's permafrost position on the
boards could be a result of his plays being safe, from the Lord
Chamberlain's office POV. S's plays have been legally sanctioned for
the 400 years we're talking about.

Interestingly, the Lord Chamberlain's office gave up control in the
60's just in time for the Academy and the National theatre to, uh,
take over the baton as it were. As well as the voluntary watchdogs.
FFS, we can't even trust ourselves. When artists point to the
political inefficacy of their art, I'm always reminded of the Lord
Chamberlain's office. And Mary Whitehouse, of course. Somebody
somewhere has thought and still thinks that art is dangerous. And of
course, we can always censor ourselves. See the various "debates" on
politics and art. It's always OK to stuff your poetry full of religion
though. Unless it's the *wrong sort of religion (see Yeats? see islam
etc etc) or heresy (see Shelley).

Note, too, that printing in the UK has been proscribed for a large
part of it's history - I think at one time only 3 presses (London,
Oxford and Cambridge) had the writ. Yet more control.

Of course, for *real cultural conservatism see France in the 17th
century. Interesting to note that the various set of Royal
Societies/Academies were set up in France were mimic'd in the UK,
probably for much the same reasons - control from the centre.

Also note that the UK never had a National Theatre until the 60's. I
think that the UK never needed one because the Lord Chamberlain's
office gave us a de facto National theatre.

Roger

[1] I was surprised as to how much control the Lord Chamberlain's was
supposed to have. How much this played out in practice, I don't as yet
know.

http://www.caslon.com.au/censorshipguide16.htm

<quote>
In the United Kingdom, for example, licensing of commercial venues and
vetting of scripts was in place by the time of Elizabeth I. Stage
works were subject to pre-production censorship by the Lord
Chamberlain (an officer of the Royal Household) under the Stage
Licensing Act 1737, an enactment that with amendments remained in
force until 1968 and resulted in curiosities such as a ban on
performance of Shakespeare's King Lear from 1788 to 1820. The
legislation is discussed in Vincent Liesenfeld's The Licensing Act of
1737 (Madison: Uni of Wisconsin Press 1984).

The 1843 Act required -

    the submission of any new stage play or addition to an old play,
intended to the produced or acted for hire in Great Britain seven days
before it is due to be first acted or presented, and it is an offence
to present anything which has been disallowed, or not been given a
licence.

Similar legislation was in place in Australia from soon after the
first Anglo settlement (eg the Places of Public Entertainment Act 1828
in NSW colony) but was wound back earlier than in the UK.
</quote>

On 8/31/06, Robin <robin.hamilton2 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> From: "Roger Day" <rog3r.day at gmail.com>
>
> >> > Are poets immune to fashion? To the
> >> > culture they live in?
> >>
> >> It would seem, counterintuitively, to be the case.
> > So tastes in this small little island do change occassional. You can't
> > have it both ways.
>
> No, my point is the opposite -- it takes a hell of a lot, and more than just
> the establishment willing it, to change taste.
-- 
http://www.badstep.net/
http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
"From the waist downwards, Bloodnok was tattooed with a pair of false
legs... facing the wrong way."