Censorship

In ancient Greece, it appears that playwrights had a wide berth in their political editorial in drama and theatre. Although source documents are minimally extant, it seems that censorship was virtually non-existent in the field of theatre. Following through history, Roman playwrights were clearly deterred in their overt political satire or editorial as violent forms of death were practiced upon playwrights who even incidentally offended powerful political figures. The christian appropriation of the Roman empire under Constantine effectively villainized theatre practices as blasphemous and pagan going so far as to supplant the image of the beloved Greek satyr with the christian devil. Religious attacks on theatre caused various levels of censorship from complete debarment to politically controlled content. The neo-classical rules proscribed strict guidelines - misappropriated from the writings of Aristotle - as to what was acceptable in terms of form and content with specific bars to violence or lewdness on stage. Moving forward in time, the establishment of a Lord Chamberlain in London gave a specific political office to the role of theatre censorship. Today, the debate over censorship roars on as loudly as ever. Modern theatre practices are arguably the most diverse they have ever been in history with the lines of international uni-cultural art being blurred further and further. This new liberality, however, has spawned a backlash of puritanism supporting various levels of censorship. Genuine artists who wish to explore broader limits of artistry are interrogated by a world fearing the argument against censorship as a license to such advents as child pornography or gratuitous violence.
In the 2007/8 academic year, the University of Victoria theatre department attempted to stage an international play (from Mexico) entitled "Senor Morton". The play included a particularly graphic retelling of the violent rape of a woman in which humour was artistically juxtaposed against the horror of the words. The controversy resulted in political mayhem within the department as students and staff sided variously for or against its staging based on their sensibilities towards content and censorship. Ultimately, the department abandoned its production claiming illness on the part of the foreign director. In the following year (dust having settled), the play was re-introduced by the department under a blatantly anglicized version of the title - one can only assume this international linguistic license included the (quiet) removal of controversially offensive excerpts of the play's text. So much for international sensibilities.
Not since the inception of the art form of theatre in Greece has it been exempt from the forces of censorship and even to this day. Arguments on both sides of the debate are strong and logical, with no hard rules ever being universally acceptable. Of particular interest is the sub-genre to melodrama of Gothic theatre. Taking Matthew Gregory Lewis as a paradigm author of both Gothic plays and prose fiction, there is a huge disparity in the levels of violence and sexuality depicted in his prose fiction, The Monk (for example) and his play The Castle Spectre (for example). These two pieces, however, otherwise carry distinctively similar Gothic characteristics. As earlier theatre (e.g. The Country Wife) tended towards depictions or intimations of sexuality, and later melodramatic and Gothic literature incorporated romance, superstition, supernatural, and horror conventions into a sexualized context, what was motivating their censorship? What social or political forces, or personal sensibilities caused the disparate levels of graphic violence and sexuality in Lewis' work, and how have these affected the debate over censorship, and its manifestation in film, television, and stage today?

See you in hell,
Shakes.