<紀要論文>
饗宴局長と後期英国ルネサンス演劇の検閲・認可

作成者
本文言語
出版者
発行日
収録物名
開始ページ
終了ページ
出版タイプ
アクセス権
JaLC DOI
概要 In his Mastering the Revels (1991), Richard Dutton questions the generally accepted view that George Buc deputized for Edmund Tilney (the Master of the Revels and the censor of the drama, 1579-l610), ...licensing plays for performance and for publication in Tilney's finai years. He argues that the functions of licensing for the stage and for the press remained divided between Tilney and Buc until 1610, the year of Tiiney's death, and that Tilney issued licenses for performance and Buc for publication. According to Dutton, "lucrative powers" such as those involved in licensing for the stage and for the press were not "casually shared" but "jealously guarded." This paper calls Dutton's theory into question and maintains that Buc served as Tilney's deputy in censoring plays both for the stage and for the press before succeeding Tilney as Master in 1610. It also argues against the assumption (accepted by Dutton and many other critics) that the licensing of plays for the press, like that for the stage, was "lucrative." A letter George Chapman wrote to an unnamed censor ever his refusal to endorse his two-part Byron play (first performed in 1608) for publication indicate that Chapman brought the copy to the same licenser that had censored the play for the stage. Chapman's Byron was eventually allowed by Buc and published, though in a heavily cut version, in 1608. From April 1607 to the end of Tilney's mastership in 1610, almost all plays entered in the London Stationers' Registers were allowed to be printed by Buc or his deputy. It is very likely that Buc or his deputy had licensed these plays for the stage before censoring them for print because, as the above-mentioned Chapman’s letter suggests, about the time of Byron's first performance and publication the same person usually licensed plays for performance and for print, although licenses were issued separately. N. W. Bawcutt's The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama (l996)contains the dramatic records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels to James I, and to the two succeeding kings. Of these records, his office-book is the most important, providing us with a good deal of information as to the licensing of plays by the Master. Close examination of the office-book suggests that licensing plays for publication did not yield much financial gain. It is indisputable that Herbert charged a fee for allowing plays for performance. His rate for licensing plays for performance was either 1 or 2 pounds. He licensed at least eight non-dramatic texts for the press, and in these cases too, the records show that their licenses were charged (10 shillings or 1 pound for each). However, almost no surviving records of the licenses of plays for print mention the fee. This suggests that Herbert may have licensed plays for publication without collecting charges. It should be remembered that Herbert allowed some plays to be acted without a fee because they had already been endorsed by Buc and were free from addition or reformation. Most of the plays submitted to Herbert for press censorship had been allowed for the stage by him or his predecessor. The likeliest inference is that he may have allowed these plays for publication gratis because no serious alterations were made to the play-texts. Buc allowed 18 plays to be printed in 1607, the year when the number of his printing licenses was one of the greatest. If he had charged ten shillings for each license, he would have earned 9 pounds. 9 pounds would have hardly been a handsome income for the Master of the Revels or his deputy. Besides, it is doubtful that all these 18 licenses were charged 10 shillings. At Ieast some, if not all, of them were probably allowed gratis. (There is no evidence that Buc issued printing licenses in a very different way from Herbert and always collected charges for licensing plays for print.) Buc's actual income from licensing plays for the press in 1607 would have been smaller than 9 pounds. All of this makes it rational to conclude that the licensing of plays for publication was not "lucrative."続きを見る

本文情報を非表示

slc009p051 pdf 1.87 MB 175  

詳細

レコードID
査読有無
関連情報
地域
主題
ISSN
NCID
タイプ
時代・年代
登録日 2009.04.22
更新日 2017.02.08

この資料を見た人はこんな資料も見ています