[New-Poetry] Taking Kooser's measure

[Roger Day]

And before anyone pounces on the fact that Shakespeare's King Lear was
banned from 1788 to 1820, I should point out that this was at a time
of political upheaval. Cant give the proles too many ideas now can we?

<patrioticSpeech music="the national anthem">The monarchy should
remain above reproach, beyond discussion, and even the glimmer of the
possibility of weakness should be extinguished from one's
mind.</patrioticSpeech>

I'm thinking that "free expression" is only a concept recently
fashionable in this small tight island. But of course, one must
*always think of the children, as is the fashionable scaremongering
going on today.

R

On 9/1/06, Roger Day <rog3r.day at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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."
>


-- 
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."