英国ルネサンス演劇と宮廷祝典局長 : 祝典局長と検閲  [in Japanese] The Master of the Revels and Dramatic Censorship in Renaissance England  [in Japanese]

In Renaissance England there was no such thing as the freedom of speech enjoyed in modern democratic countries.No open criticism of the monarch or the Anglican establishment, for example,could be voiced with impunity, and any dramatic as well as literary work taken by the authorities to undermine the existing social and political order was suppressed. This is not, however, to say thatwriters and playwrights had no freedom ever the content of their works. They actually had a considerabledegree of liberty in their choice of subject matters and manner of representation.Playwrights, in particular, were able to deal with a range of social and political topics that is surprising given the absolutist political milieu of the day. A variety of explanations for this can be offered, but one important factor which gave the playwrights (and the actors who performed the plays) the`freedom' of expression was the licensing system for the stage. Under the system, all plays to be performed in England had to be submitted for approval to the Master of the Revels, the censor of the drama. Although no plays without his approval could be staged, the players usually obtained the Master’s authorization without much difficulty and enjoyed the ‘freedom’ to give any play that had been licensed. This licence also protected the players from enemies of the stage such as the City of London and other corporations.Theatre historians have tended to assume that the Master's censorship was severe and harsh, butactually it was much less repressive than has thitherto been claimed. Indeed, the Master occasionally objected to submitted playbooks and ordered the playing companies to revise the texts, but it is important to note that almost all the play presented for his perusal, including those he had initially objected to, were allowed to be staged. The Master even licensed plays full of political and even religious implications that could cause controversy.This is not surprising at all, because he was alwaysready to approve the playbooks the actors submitted, regardless of the content, as long as they didnot break important taboos such as attacking the Anglican establishment or influential personages.As Richard Dutton points out, the Master of the Revels and the players were in a `symbiotic relationship'.They `needed each other to maintain their respective standing and income'. Just as theplaying companies could hardly survive without the Master's ,licence for performance, so he dependedheavily on the licence fees paid by the actors for his income. This symbiotic relationship led the Master to conduct censorship in a manner conducive to promoting rather than restraining the players’ operations.