Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

The Cruxade Ad British Clergymen Warn Against Indecent Dances and Plays Which Bernard Shaw Del ends titular license unless the dance were modified. Protests against other theatres fol lowed, and immediately London became divided into rival camps, one claiming the f ullest liberty for the stage, the other clamoring for a fuller censorship and re- triction. Great folk and little folk alike have taken part in the discussion. Among the former is George Bernard Shaw, the dis tinguished playwright and essayist, who has unlimbered his needle guns of satire and logic against the Bishops. His inter esting explanation of his attitude is printed upon this page. A VIGOROUS campaign to suppress what they consider indecent dis plays in the theatres and music halls is now being led by the Bishop of London, aided bj the Bishop of Kensing ton and other prominent English clergy men. The movement began with a protest to the Lord Chamberlain by the Bishop of Kensington against a dance at one of the larger London theatres. The Lord Cham berlain, who has control of all theatre licenses, threatened to withdraw this par- A Pose of the Famous English Dancers Oy-ra and Phyllis Monkman in “Keep Smiling,” Objected to as Offensive in Its Intimacy. And Below— The “Hello, Honey” Scene from the Same Entertainment, Which Was Declared “Inde cent” by the Bishop of London. rounds e “Hod, itch AM. 1 Another Suggestive London Music Hall Dance That Met Objection. Saturda; Bernard Shaw’s Curious Plea for Tolerance tor a m« efense Ds •dgopodge ties the aj tried by e and Jury ieya will I before th] ay at 9 o . e made J tension of j ly Is giv< to the it j likely th i asked in tty Bernard Shaw A S a working playwright, I wish to ask the Bishop of Kensington a few questions concerning the criticism he has published of the music hall perform ance. So far he has begged the question ' e is dealing with—that is, he has as sumed that there can be no possible dif ference among good citizens concerning them. He has used ^ the word “sugges- MH|. five” without any A apparent sense of *" the fact that the common thoughtless use of.it by vulgar people has made it intol erably offensive. And he uses the word “ob jectionable” as if it were a general agree ment as to what is objectionable and what is not. In spite of the fact that the very entertainments to which he himself ob jected had proved highly attractive to large numbers of people whose taste is entitled to the same consideration as his own. On the face of it, the Bishop of Kensing ton is demanding that the plays that he like shall be tolerated and The “X-’Ray Ballet” at the London Alhambra, the Largest London Music Hall. This Parody of a Freakish Fashion Has Been Denounced by the Campaigners, Who Assert That the Display Is Most Indecent. finicality.” sf erring to demon*: ral >wd wer> intlmld rank’s 1, w vers lay. er* a on wi tching at e nted lt*clf. ransel to i eetators bd the trial, srl now being 4 re antic ipaJ i little inco and t*chnil lowered, lplatn, becl affirmative! rd show '8 lat they ca t for the | me action.' hey show j ourt some \ rer had any) >n he gave th the rcqii Palace Theatre with his episcopal bene diction, and implore the lady to whose performances he now objects to return to the stage even at the sacrifice of the last rag of her clothing. I venture to suggest that when the Bishop heard that there was an objection able (to him) entertainment at the Palace Theatre the simple and natural course for him was not to have gone there. That is how sensible people act. And the result is that if a manager offers a widely ob jectionable entertainment to the public he very soon finds out his mistake and with draws it. it is my own custom as a playwright fo make my plays “suggestive” of relig ious emotion. This makes them extremely objectionable to irreligious people. But they have the remedy in their own hands. They stay away. The Bishop will be glad to hear that there are not many of them, but it is a significant fact that they, fre quently express a wish that the censor would suppress religious plays that that he occasionally complies. In short, the Bishop and his friends are not alone in proposing their own tastes and convictions at the measure of what is per missible in the theatre. But if such indi vidual and sectarian standards were toler ated we should have no plays at all, for there never yet was a play that did not offend somebody’s taste. 1 must remind the Bishop that if the taste for voluptuous entertainment is some times morbid, the taste for religious edi fication is open to precisely the same ob jection. If I had a rneurotic daughter I would much rather risk taking.her to the Palaec Theatre than to a revival meeting. Nobody has yet counted the homes and characters wrecked by intemperance in re ligious emotion. When we begin to keep such statistics the chapel may find ita attitude of moral superiority to the the atre, and even to the public house, nard to maintain, and may learn a little need ed charity. We all need to be reminded of the need for temperance and toleration in religious emotion and in political emotion, as well as in sexual emotion. But the Bishop must not conclude that I want to close up all places of worship; on the contrary, I preach in them. I do not even clamor for the sup pression of political party meetings, though nothing more foolish and demoralizing ex ists in England to-day. I live and let live. As long as I am not compelled to attc’/l revival meetings or party meetings, or the atres at which the sexual emotions iir ■ i - uored or reviled, I am prepared to tob them on reciprocal terms; for, though •' :■ ■ unable to conceive any good coming to a::? human being as a set-off to their by .-; their rancoroffs bigotry, and their dullm . and falsehood, I know that those who like the mare equally unable to conceive a.\y good coming of the sort of assemblies I frequent; so I mind my own business an J obey the old precept: “He that is unright eous let him do unrighteousness still; and he that is filthy, let him be made lilthy ;tiil; and he that is righteous, let him do right eousness still; and he that is uoly let him be made holy still.” For none of us can feel quite sure im which category the final judgment may place us; and, in the meantime, the music hall is as much entitled to the benefit of the doubt as the Bishop of Kensing ton. happens to those which he happens not to like shall be banned. He is assuming that what he approves of is right, and what he disap proves of wrong. Now, I have not seen the particular play which he so much dis likes; but suppose I go to see it to-night and write a letter to you to-morrow to say that 1 approve of it, what will the Bishop have to say? He will have either to admit that his epithet of objectionable means simply dis liked by the Bishop of Kensington, or he will have to declare boldly that he and 1 stand in the relation ot' God and the Devil. And, however his courtesy and his mod esty may recoil from this extremity, when it is stated in plain English, I think ae has got there without noticing it. At al! events, he is clearly proceeding on the assumption that his conscience is more enlightened than that of the people who go to the Palace Theatre and enjoy what they see there. If the Bishop may shut up the Palace Theatre on this assumption, then the Noncoinformist patrons of the Palace Theatre (and it lias many of them) may shut up the Church of England by turning the assumption inside out. The sword of persecution always has two edges. By “suggestive” the Bishop means sug gestive of sexual emotion. Now, a Bishop who goes into a theatre and declares that the performances there must not suggest sexual emotion is in the position of a play wright going into a church and declaring that the services there musi not suggest religious emotion. The suggestion, gratification and education of sexual emo tion is one of the main uses and glones of the theatre. It shares that function with all the fine arts. The sculpture courts ot the Victoria and Albert Museum m tne Bishop's diocese are crowded with naked „r small extraordinary beauty, re- The “Corsetiere Parade”—These Girls, Attired as Shown Here, Marched Through the Audi ence of One of the English Theatres at Each Performance. The Feature Was Strong ly Objected to by the “Purity Campaigners” and Has Now Been Withdrawn. sion which exalted them was in its abuse capable also of degrading sinners. Now let us turn to the results of cut ting off young people—not to mention old ones—from voluptuous art. We have fam ilies who bring up their children in the belief that an undraped statue is an abom ination; that a girl or a youth who looks at a picture by Paul Veronese is corrupted forever; that the theatre in which “Tris tan and Isolde” or “Romeo and Juliet” is performed is the gate of hell, and that the contemplation of a figure attractively dressed or revealing more of its outline than a Chinaman’s dress does is an act of the most profligate indecency. Of Chi nese sex morality I must note write in the pages of a newspaper. Of the English and Scottish sex moral ity, that Is produced by this starvation and blasphemous vilification of vital emo tions, I will say only this: that it is so morbid and abominable, so hatefully ob sessed by the things that tempt It, so mer ciless in its persecution of all the dine grace which grows in the soil of our sex instincts when they are not deliberately perverted and poisoned, that if it could be imposed, as some people would impose it if they could, on th% whole community, for a single generation, the Bishop, even at the risk of martyrdom, would reopen the finement and expres sion of the higher hu man qualities that our young people, contem plating them, will find •toroc :• objects of de- pulsive. In the National Gallery body and soul are impartially catered for; men have wor shipped Venuses and fallen in love with virgins. There it a voluptuous side to religious ecstasy, and a religious side to voluptuous ecstasy, the notion that one is less sacred than the other is the opportu nity of the psyciatrist who seeks to dis credit the saints by showing that the pas- 3ompfalnt. ther T»si-n aoth*r trial, Judg* Rnsi r Dorsey sire »<1 that F: d these o elr real 1m - t th* fae, the motif n nclustvoly f: t he did net to th* den: laid oa the that th*' rations r«f ; John Armstrong Chaloner’s Queer Sonnets THE SLIT-SKIRT. Tho’ some—if truth be told must be so penned, Altho’ the penning grieve me grievously. Purse-proud conceit, and coldness- hearts of flint, Mean-birth—by fortune’s wheel made sudden rich- Are on their faces stamped by Nature’s mint, Whilst of charity show they less than witch! The daughters of the poor do stand aghast As o’er their doings their pure eyes are cast.” This fashion is a nasty, shameless trick, Tis nothing less—'tis simply scandalous! 'Twouid make a pirate blush to th’ very quick, Or eke a Turk—Turk Pachydermatous! Twouid make the ghost of Nero yelp with fright \ud hie bur to the shades of blackest Hell And once got back, shout out—“I’ve seen a sight That in this company I’m ’shamed to tell!” The vilest days of dark Imperial Rome, the most debauched ei>ochs of the East Kept naked women closely hid at home— In the Slave-Quarter, or, to grace a feast ’Twas left unto the present century To bare female beauty to the passer : by! THE DEVIL’S HORSESHOE. "A fecund sight for a philosopher— Rich as Goleonda's mine in lessons rare— That gem-bedizend ‘horse-shoe’ at th’ Opera, Replete with costly hags and matrons fair! His votaresses doth Mammon there array, His Amazonian Phalanx dread to face! To .Mammon there do they their homage pay. Spaug’ld with jewels, satins, silks and lace, Crones whose old bosoms in their corsets creak; Beldam:; whose slightest glance would fright a horse; Ghouls—when they speak one hears the grave-mole squeak— Their escorts parvenus of feature coarse. A rich array of Luxury and Vice! But in spite of them, the music’s very nice.' Evidene*. brief ar* gr m the adruii s te*tlmor ot Frank 1 m in hie sti rnmitted in In the reel ourta of Ami ich greater 8 this sort tr and extend ot, appreiiat: in order to i A PRUDE-TERMAGANT. As thy smug features, Madam, we do scan— Tip-tilted nose and bony, horse-like jaw— We say, “Nature surely meant her for a man— Here catch we Nature in a fatal flaw.” But then think we: “No. Nature kuoweth deep. Her ways pass finding out in many things. Such hags as these are built for husbands weak For whiffling, piffling, little mannikins.” Your husband’s weak as water in a ditch; Ask his opinion—he will say—“See May!” So Nature made thee, Madam, near-male-witch Who, “Hubby’s” part in politics might play. As spiteful and hard-hearted as you’re rude HisP-ry says “Part termagant. Part prude.” THE FEMALE FACE OF THE N. Y. “400.” Hard’s a “pelter’s” is its physiognomy! And just about as bad as "pelter”—some. At this some critics may cry out, “Oh! my! How can he, ‘The 400,’ so sore sum!” To which I swift reply, “Not all, my friend, Are thus intended to be limned by me, Copyright, 191J, by -he Star Company. Great Britain Rights Reserved ■ 4 1 f / V r 1 ml \J3t 31 * u : Y )t ( if 1 »s*. 5