bright pp.148-149). This satire was probably intended to influence public opinion, and censors were particularly cautious of what to allow on stage. Playwrights had to treat contemporary matters with great care in their work. When an Elizabethan dramatist sought to portray the affairs or faults of his sovereign or those of other nations, he was usually known to do it by analogy, by using well-known love affairs of the past or picturing a tyrant kind who was dead (Albright 104). Although Elizabeth I forbade any discussion of affairs of the state entirely, dramatists still worked around it. They set a contemporary incident, situation, or problem in the past and used type characters of the past to portray characters of their own day. The story was made into an allegory or morality that required a fair amount of intelligence to interpret it appropriately (Clark pp.56-59). Various methods were employed in the censorship of drama. The methods in which the Master of the Revels indicated his objections in detail are evident in a number of plays, such as The Second Maidens Tragedy, Barnavelt, Sir Thomas More, and The Seamans Honest Wife (Albright pp.193-196). Though other alterations than those due to censorship appear, enough are clearly distinguishable as a censors changes to make the methods clear. Crossing out of words, lines and long passages, as well as marginal comments on both matter and form were found in most of these plays. Sometimes, as in Sir Thomas More, the censoring would require a complete reorganization of the whole play (Gildersleeve 93). If additional objections were discovered after the rewrite of a play, the authorities had the right to recall licenses for the dramas. It is important to note that the local hits were not usually printed in plays. The most dangerous dramas were revised before submission to the Master of the Revels or other authority for permission to print, and then introduced extemporaneously (Albright 196)....
