| shakespeare censored |
I wrote this research paper on the censorship of Shakespeare's works for a homeschool research paper class I took part in. I hope it is both a useful resource and interesting reading. The three main portions almost stand alone as essays; if reading about Elizabethan censorship bores you, go ahead and skip to the section on censorship in the 20th century, or vice versa.
Please do not plagiarize this paper (it's not that good...). You're welcome to cite portions if you give appropriate credit--just email me and ask. Feel free to link to this page as well.
William Shakespeare is arguably the most famous and respected author ever to write in the English language. His plays have been read by millions and watched, both on stage and on screen, by billions of people worldwide. Yet, his works have provoked censorship ever since their writing--even before their first performance on stage. Why? The reasons for censorship are nearly as varied as the works themselves; however, unlike Shakespeare's works, the reasons for their censorship have changed significantly over time.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., defines censorship as "the institution, system, or practice of censoring" (185). The same dictionary defines "censor" as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." In this paper, I will generally use the above definition of censorship. The "works of Shakespeare" I will deal with will be the plays of the First Folio, as well as Pericles, and the Sonnets. This is the standard used in most modern Shakespeare compilations.
Censorship Pre-1660: Politics and Profanity [back to top?]
While modern-day censorship of Shakespeare's works seems shocking, Shakespeare was just another playwright to the Elizabethan government censor. Even though Shakespeare's theater company was "of all companies, in the closest relation to the court through their patrons, and the least likely to run counter to authority, except by inadvertence" (Chambers 1: 237), his plays did not escape censorship, although much more of Shakespeare's work might have never seen the light of day had he been with a lesser company.
The best-known case of political censorship is that of Richard II. The play's first edition had a scene that showed the deposition of Richard II, which "so infuriated Queen Elizabeth that she ordered it eliminated from all copies" (Haight and Grannis 18). Then, in 1601, the Earl of Essex used Richard II, including the excised scene, to arouse resentment against the Queen. The excised scene was restored in 1608, under the reign of King James, who had "an affectionate remembrance of Essex." (Chambers 1: 355)
Possible offense to nobility was a major cause of political censorship. Chambers describes these incidents: A passage in Henry V featuring a comic character named Captain Jamy was possibly censored during King James I's reign (1: 392-93); a reference to a Scottish lord was also removed from The Merchant of Venice (1: 371); and passages referring to Denmark in Hamlet were censored as well, likely for fear of offending Anne of Denmark (1: 414). In Henry IV, the name Oldcastle was changed to Falstaff after the intervention of the Cobham family, Sir John Oldcastle's descendants, who were powerful in the Elizabethan court (Chambers 1: 381-82). The same family was also responsible for the change of the name Brooke, in the Quarto of The Merry Wives of Windsor, to Broome, in the Folio (Chambers 1: 433-34).
Foreign policy also dictated some censorship: a dig at German and Spanish dress was cut from Much Ado About Nothing (Chambers 1: 386). Chambers states that Polonius and Reynaldo's replacement by Corambis and Montano in Hamlet's "first" quarto (which, Chambers states, came after the "second") may be due to a reference to Poland in the previous names (1: 417-18). According to Chambers, there was also censorship of social criticism in King Lear (1: 467), and anti-patriotic themes in Henry IV (1: 380).
As well as censoring plays for political reasons, the censor also excised profanity from plays. The extent of the excision varied greatly and was often based on the censor's personal views. The main law governing profanity spoken on stage (not put into print) was the controversial Act of Abuses, which stated, in part, that no person may "in any Stage play, jestingly or prophanely speake or use the holy Name of God or of Christe Jesus or of the Holy Ghoste or of the Trinitie." According to Chambers, it was limited in scope and applied in an inconsistent fashion; e.g. in Henry IV, 'Christ' remains, but 'christen' in 'christen names' is deleted (1: 238-41).
Censorship for other reasons than political considerations and profanity (e.g. indelicacy) was very rare in the Elizabethan age. The only instances I encountered in my research were possible cutting of some indelicacy from Troilus and Cressida and Henry IV (Chambers 1: 380, 440).
Censorship 1660-1900: Bowdlerization [back to top?]
This era saw the most infamous expurgation of Shakespeare to date: Thomas and Harriet Bowdler's Family Shakespeare, first published in 1818, which omitted "those words and expressions that cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family," so as not to "raise a blush to the cheeks of modesty" (Epstein 124-25). This work inspired the use of the term "bowdlerization" as a synonym for expurgation.
The Family Shakespeare was, however, only one of the many expurgations of Shakespeare. This trend began in 1660, when the theaters reopened after their banning by Oliver Cromwell, with a rather perfunctory expurgation by William D'Avenant of a few Shakespeare plays (Perrin 88).
For the next century or so, bowdlerization lay silent. It then arose again in 1774, when Francis Gentleman made the "first serious attempt to bowdlerize Shakespeare" (Perrin 95). It then continued at a furious pace until the early 1900s. Another significant expurgation, apart from Bowdler's, was John Hows' (the first American expurgation) which removed the last two acts of Othello and cut Falstaff completely from Henry IV (Perrin 101-104). Fowell and Palmer even mention a performance of Hamlet given in 1793 with the parts of the King and Queen omitted as "too immoral for any stage" (329).
Expurgations of Shakespeare during this era were innumerable, but they all shared one common idea: the complete elimination of indelicacy or profanity from Shakespeare's plays, often to protect the "delicate" reader. Perrin states that when a play was bowdlerized, the bowdlerization was often not even mentioned, ostensibly to "protect" the reader (111-13). Societal standards of delicacy also changed during this time, and the extent of the different expurgations reflects this; in 1774 Gentleman could leave "So come, sweet Audrey/We must be married, or we must live in bawdry" in As You Like It with merely a disapproving footnote, whereas by 1863, even a reference to sore feet in Romeo and Juliet was considered indelicate (Perrin 93, 108).
Other forms of Shakespeare censorship were almost absent. The only incident of political censorship was King Lear's banning from the English stage until 1820 because of King George III's insanity (Haight and Grannis 18).
However, we also see an instance more akin, perhaps, to modern censorship than to simple bowdlerization; a cleaned-up version of The Merchant of Venice, presented in England in 1701. Moreover, it was cleaned-up not due to anti-Semitism, but to further the causes of sexual and national purity: Antonio's attachment to Bassanio is downplayed as "foreign" sexual deviancy and replaced by the presentation of Shylock's attachment to money as a sexual perversion, and the Gobbos are completely cut, as they resemble characters in French drama (Dobson 138-39).
Post-1900 Censorship: The Ideas [back to top?]
As bowdlerization died out, a new kind of censorship replaced it--the censorship of ideas. This was somewhat like the political censorship of the 1600s, but it was due to the controversial ideas behind the plays: anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice, cross-dressing in Twelfth Night. This reflects society's increasing racial and ethnic divisions and the increase of censorship in schools, as well as the policies of repressive regimes.
The first real case of ethnic censorship of Shakespeare occurred in 1931. According to Haight and Grannis, the New York towns of Buffalo and Manchester removed The Merchant of Venice from high school curricula, due to protests from Jewish groups that it encouraged bigotry (18). In 1953, the suppression of the play was again sought (Haight and Grannis 19); and in 1980, Ockerbloom states, it was banned in Midland, Michigan schools due to Shylock's depiction. In fact, according to Norrie Epstein, it is the most banned Shakespeare play in post-World War II classrooms; interestingly, though, it is the most popular play in Israel (100).
Another case of ethnic censorship: according to Epstein, when the first production of Othello with a black Othello came to the United States in the 1930s, they discovered that "American audiences weren't ready to see a middle-aged black man touching a young white woman," which led to the cancellation of the tour (389).
Censorship of Shakespeare was also prevalent under repressive regimes: Stalin's regime banned Hamlet, claiming that "Hamlet's indecisiveness and depression were incompatible with the new Soviet spirit of optimism, fortitude, and clarity" (Epstein 353). According to Epstein, Hamlet was also banned in 1989 from an Israeli detention camp for Palestinians. The banning had to do with Hamlet's soliloquy about taking up arms versus suffering silently (353). The soliloquy that incited censorship is one of the most quoted speeches in the English language:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them. (3.1.57-60)
This soliloquy shows the difference between modern and Elizabethan political censorship; for it is not a mention of some recent political incident, but the very concept of suffering silently versus rising up against oppression, that provokes censorship. This is what I mean by "censorship of ideas."
Although strict bowdlerization has died down and morals have changed, censorship of sexuality in Shakespeare's works continues, even today. The Bonfire of Liberties states that school versions of Romeo and Juliet are expurgated without indicating the expurgated lines (shades of the 1800s). It also states that schools have banned the Franco Zeffirelli movie version because it "romanticizes teen-age suicide," "has no suitable role models," and "encourages drug use". The same allegations could be applied to the play, although I fail to see how a tragic suicide by poison or a sleeping draught that misleads Romeo into believing Juliet dead "encourages" drug use--it seems as though it would have the opposite effect.
Homosexuality is another sensitive issue in modern society, and homosexual and gender issues (e.g. cross-dressing) in Shakespeare's work have come under attack recently. In 1996, Merrimack, New Hampshire schools banned Twelfth Night when the school board prohibited "alternative lifestyle instruction." (Ockerbloom) Does Twelfth Night even truly depict "alternative lifestyles", much less "instruct" one in them? The Christian Science Monitor also listed Twelfth Night as one of the books challenged in school libraries in 1996-97, presumably for the same incident.
The Sonnets, however, are the most homoerotic of Shakespeare's works, a fact that has often been hidden. According to Epstein,
If Shakespeare were to apply for an NEA grant on the basis of the Sonnets, he would probably be denied one. There is profound resistance to accepting Shakespeare, the icon of Western civilization, as gay. (267)
Epstein also states that teachers often fail to explain that many of the Sonnets were written to a man, while Shakespearean scholars ignore their homoeroticism, explaining it away as male friendship (267). To avoid this issue, George Chalmers even went to the length of believing that Shakespeare wrote the Sonnets to Queen Elizabeth, who was "considered a man" (Epstein 269).
The Bonfire of Liberties also states that Macbeth was challenged in 1986 in Jefferson County, Colorado schools because it focuses on "Death, suicide, ghosts and Satan." Death? Macbeth is a tragedy, and death is a part of almost every classical tragedy. What would literature be like if all works containing death were banned?
In Conclusion [back to top?]
In modern times, people often think of censorship as something only applied to "avant-garde" works, as opposed to the comparatively "staid" Shakespeare. However, Shakespeare is in some ways little different from these "avant-garde" works. In fact, in Epstein's book, David Nields states that "Those who praise Shakespeare and condemn, say, Robert Mapplethorpe, certainly don't know Shakespeare" (117). As well, Epstein states that many who object to obscenity in "modern" music overlook Shakespeare's bawdiness (118). Perhaps Shakespeare is lucky that he lived and wrote in the Elizabethan era, when standards of censorship were different, and not today. According to Fowell and Palmer (328), "What is to convince us that some Censor has not already contemptuously snuffed out a smaller Shakespeare?"
Shakespeare's works are immensely popular: in Epstein's book, Gary Taylor states that they "have become our secular Bible" (8). This has made them an obvious target for censorship. On the other hand, Fowell and Palmer state that Shakespeare's works remain somewhat protected from censorship because the public would not permit their censorship (328). The popularity of Shakespeare's works thus both encourages censorship and protects them against it.
In conclusion, while the reasons for censorship of Shakespeare's works have changed significantly over time, shifting away from politics and bowdlerization towards censorship of Shakespeare's themes and ideas, his works have always remained popular and relevant to contemporary issues. I believe that as long as that is the case, they will continue to be targets of censorship.
| back to Theater or govind's web page? | email / guestbook / copyright info |