Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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