Newspaper Page Text
4
w IPai it
WBsfw®*? Io
I IBs
dJffil Iffißs
I
Bl JW
k W '3
i]l|
tjilSSsaM
A Trinity of Social Evils.
OME years ago a ship returning from
South America had on board a number
of species of serpents. Among them
were three of the most dreaded forms,
a boa constrictor, a python and a little
rattler. By some unknown means the
cages holding these serpents were shak
en open and they w T ere discovered crawl
ing about in the ship. In spite of ev-
r~
ery effort on. the part of the officers of the ship
to keep the news from the passengers, it spread,
and great consternation was caused.
Now, I believe as truly as I believe in my ex
istence that in the theatre, the dance, and the card
table, we have a trinity of social evils that are
as hurtful to society and as destructive to religion
as the boa constrictor, the python and the little
rattler are hurtful to life and happiness.
I am aware that this charge is regarded as a
11 chestnut with many people, and hence what I
say about it will be gathered from such sources
as will prove Satan to be the instigator of these
three forms of popular amusement.
A prominent judge, having fifteen years’ expe
rience says, ‘ 1 There are three forms of social dissipa
tion in our city that account for much of the moral
wreckage among young men and w T omen, the dance,
the card table and the theatre.” This statement I
believe to be true.
First, they had their beginning with bad peo
ple.
Second, they appeal to the basest form of pas
sion.
Third, they result in the greatest ruin and dis
aster.
This charge is not made against any one of these
evils; it is made against them all.
The Theatre.
First, let us take the theatre. What is the his
tory of the theatre? I do not ask you to take my
own words, I will give you the words of Dr. Her
rick Johnson, in his History of Amusements:
“Dramatic representation had its origin among
the Greeks with a troupe of bacchanalians in rude
and boisterous songs, interspersed with dances, con
ducted with a high degree of licentiousness both in
language and action. Then came Thespis, intro
ducing tragedy. The stage is said to have been a
cart, the chorus a troupe of itinerant singers, and
the actor a sort of mimic. Subsequently Aeschylus
appeared, who carried the Greek drama at once near
ly to its highest perfection. He was followed by
Sophocles, who introduced a third, and even a
fourth, actor into his plays. Then came decline un
der Euripides, exhibiting degenerate taste and loose
morality. The transition to comedy was easy, orig
inating in the licentious sports of the villagers,
and popular in proportion as it was personal, abus
ive and low. The comedies of Aristophanes are an
illustration at once of the depravity of the poet and
the liberalism of the spectators. His wit was coarse
and vile, a mixture of buffoonery and positive filth.
“Theatrical exhibitions became popular amuse
ments among the Romans just as they lost their
stern love of virtue, yielded to luxury, and grew
weak and effeminate.
ffißS jfc
“The European stage is no exception. This grew
out of the ‘Mysteries of the Middle Ages’—a sort
of sacred drama performed by monks, in which the
devil also played a conspicuous part. This was the
foundation of the modern British and American
stage, which has risen only to degenerate, until now
many of its exhibitions outrival in licentiousness
and filth the darkest days of the drama, even on the
confession of its friends.
“In China theatrical entertainments are popular,
but neither there nor in Japan are women allowed
to perform. It is a question whether women were
ever present in the ancient theatre. It is undenia
ble that the actors were invariably men, and few
in number; and yet these theatrical entertainments
contributed to the downfall of the Grecian state.
They had their origin in a corrupt state of morals,
and they tended to deterioration.”
Low and Degrading.
You will observe here that Dr. Johnson, in re
cording the history of the theatre, makes a number
of interesting points:
First, that it had its origin in licentiousness.
Second, that among the Romans, it became more
and more popular as they descended to lower and
lower depths of impurity.
Third, that the institution of the theatre among
pagan Chinese and Japanese is regarded as unfit
for women to take a part.
Now, I submit that if this history is true, and no
one, not even the most ardent friend of the theatre,
dares to disprove it, it is time for Christian people
and all others who are in favor of good society to
set themselves against it.
It is not only true that among the Romans the
play houses flourished in proportion to the down
fall of virtue, it is true today. Travel the world
over, and wherever there is a low form of morals
the theatre is at its best. I think it can be said,
without successful contradiction, that Paris is the
most immoral city, claiming to be civilized, in the
world. Certainly, there is less regard for virtue
in Paris than anywhere else among civilized people,
and there the theatre is the most popular institution
to be found. The streets of Paris are literally
jammed with people at night, people of all classes
rushing to the theatre.
It is also true that the theatre in large cities
is surrounded by the low and the vulgar. A gen
tleman in London, who has a right to speak, said
to me that it had been observed that wherever a
theatre was located in London, the section imme
diately around became inhabited by publicans and
bad women.
The atmosphere of the theatre in any community
is saturated with impurity.
Witnesses Testify.
But if you say we have no right to argue against
the theatre from the criticism of the Greeks and
Romans, let us take some authorities from our own
people.
Macaulay, the great English Historian, writes:
“From the time that the theatres were opened they
became the seminaries of vice.”
Sir Walter Scott, in speaking of the theatre in
his time, says: “It was abandoned to the vicious.
The best portions of the house were set apart for
the abandoned characters.”
The early fathers of our American Republic look
ed upon the theatre as a damnable institution. The
Congress of the United States shortly after the Dec
laration of Independence passed this resolution:
“Resolved, that it be and is hereby recommended
to the several states to take the most effectual meas
ures for the discouragement and suppression of
theatrical entertainments, horse racing, gaming and
such other diversions as are productive of idleness,
The Golden Age for September 6, 1906.
Len G, Broughton
dissipation, and a general depravity of principles
and manners.”
What of this testimony? Does it argue nothing?
Were these wise men all fools and cranks? We call
them wise men in other things, why should they
not be trusted here as well?
Great actors themselves will not defend the mor
als of the theatre. Macready declares: “None of my
children shall ever win my consent, on any pretense,
to enter the theatre or have any visiting connection
with actors or actresses.”
Dumas, the great play writer, wrote to a friend:
“You do not take your daughter to see my play.
You are right. Let me say once for all, you must
not take your daughter to the theatre. It is not
mainly the work that is immoral; it is the place.”
John Gilbert wrote the North American Review:
“I believe the present condition of the drama, both
from a moral and artistic point of view, to be a
subject of regret. Many of the plays have been
adopted from the French, and are open to the se
verest criticism on the ground of immorality.”
Dr. Theodore Cuyler says that a friend of his was
once passing a theatre with a prominent actor, and
the actor said to him: “Behind those doors lies
Sodom.”
Mr. Palmer, the great theatre-manager, in an ar
ticle, says: “The chief themes of the theatre are
now, as they have ever been, the passions of men—
ambition and jealousy—leading to murder; lust,
leading to adultery and to death; anger, leading to
madness.”
On this point an English writer has recently de
clared that in the acting of Sir Henry Irving he had
committed, at least, fifteen thousand murders on
the stage; that Barry Sullivan had added at least
two thousand more stage murders than this to his
list; that Charles Wyndham had been divorced from
twenty-eight hundred wives on the stage; that Mrs.
Bancroft had irv the same public place been foully
betrayed or abducted thirty-two hundred times; and
that Miss Ada Cavendish had been betrayed, de
serted or abducted fifty-six hundred times.
“Oh,” but somebody says, “these were only
acted murders and acted betrayals!” But they
were made so real as to carry the audience through
the actual feelings and passions of all that was
acted. Tell me that a man can sit still and see a
trained actor or actress portray murder and blood
shed and not have his blood get hot ? Tell me that
a man can sit still and see a woman act her betrayal
to the point of the sacrifice of her virtue and not
feel the fires of passion? You might as well talk
to me of a volcano in heaven.
But is this all the testimony against the theatre?
Not yet. I must mention one or two more.
Edwin Booth, the great American actor, said:
I never permit my wife and daughter to witness
a play without previously ascertaining its charac
ter.” He knew the danger. He knew what acting
meant, and how it affected a crowd.
Sir Henry Irving, perhaps one of the cleanest
actors the world ever knew, declared: “The play
house is a dangerous and exceedingly treacherous
place for men and women of weak powers.”
There is no need to quote more. The theatre as
an institution of Satan, is the enemy of all that is
high and noble. Efforts after efforts have been
made to have a moral theatre. Booth tried it; Hen
ry Irving tried it. They both failed. It can not
exist. There is not a moral theatre in the world,
and under existing circumstances there can not be.
A Christian man or woman has no more business
patronizing the theatre than he has playing with
Satan himself. I had rather see my daughter or
sister dead and in her grave than to know that
she was acting in the greatest theatre of the world.
Have I got a reason for this? I think so. I will