"Censorship and Self-Censorship in English Book Illustration", by Richard L. Williams

CITATION: Williams, Richard L. "Censorship and Self-censorship in Late Sixteenth-century English Book Illustration." Printed Images in Early Modern Britain. Ed. Michael Hunter. Burlington: Ashgate Press, 2010. 43-63. Print.
Understanding

• Question: Were print illustrations subject to the same censorship as print books?
• Answer: There is no evidence that print illustrations were submitted to a censor, thus self-censorship appears to have been the primary motive for the adaptation of print illustrations.
• Method: First, Williams reviews the consensus opinion regarding the censorship of early modern English books. Second, Williams reviews several print illustrations of Christ to discern the limits of English iconophobia. Third, Williams points to controversies surrounding printed image, and fourth, he points to Day's Christian prayers and meditations as a demonstration of self-censorship.
• Assumptions: First, Williams does not concern himself with the censorship of plays, which would make the Master of the Revels the primary censor over visual representation in early modern England. Second, Williams only touches on a handful of altered illustrations, casting doubt on the universality of self-censorship.
• Sententiae: "The implication from this episode is that, although there does not appear to have been a standard practice across the trade, it was often the case that the author fo a book had no prior knowledge of the pictorial embellishments that the printer might intend to use, even at the proof stage of pre-publication. Presumably, in such circumstances, a censor would be similarly left in the dark. Therefore it would appear that the opportunity for censorship of such illustrations in books would come post-publication." (52)
  "Careful observation of the scene of the Creation of Eve which appears at the top of the right border at sig. i iiiii^r [of Day's 1569 Christian prayers and meditations] reveals that the upper part of the anthropomorphic representation of God the Father creating Eve from ADam's side has been cut away from the block and replaced with the tetragammaton in a cloud. The cut follows a semi-diagonal angle that intersects with Eve's forehead. The lower part of God's body, however, remains unscathed with the leg bent at the knee visible to the left of Adam's shoulder." (54)

Overstanding

• Assessment: One issue that Williams dodges is the priority granted to title-pages. Yes, he acknowledges that title-pages are useful because they are representative of much larger editions and editions that didn't survive. However, the title-page itself has a privileged position in the determination of an edition, because bibliographers treat the title-page as a unique indicator of intent. That said, it's unclear how the consensus of bibliographers treats illustrations as indicators of intent or edition.
  As a side-note, I should add the possibility, raised in tandem by Aston and Williams, that . As a thought experiment, a publisher might intend to print a book that is exactly the same as Fifty Shades of Grey with the letter "S" replaced with the number 6. But if spell-check or some other accident of the printing press were to intervene, then you would have two exactly identical books still treated as different editions because of the priority of intention. I realize that such a thing will never happen outside of a Borges short story, but it's an interesting thought experiement to test out the premises of a bibliographic system.
• Synthesis: Williams draws heavily on Aston's arguments regarding the tetragammaton, as well as her treatment of Foxe's role in researching illustrations. Williams writes contemporaneously with Evenden & Freeman, and thus can't comment on their research second-guessing Aston's story about Foxe's visual research.
• Application: First, Williams seems to grant a huge boon to anyone studying print illustration. That is, we have the un (externally) censored texts!  But second, there's the lurking possibility that the Master of the Revels exercised some indirect control over the visual imagination of early modern England. Third, Ingram & Luborsky should provide a launching point for an expanded inquiry on Williams' suggestion--that is, we can use the Guide to try to spot cases of revision between editions, and to help determine whether such revisions are self-censorship.