Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

precipice. Lord Randolph refolves to go directly to the battle, determined ne

ver to return.

Some account and extracts of a pamphlet lately published, intitled, A ferious inquiry into the nature and effects of the stage, &c.

TH

HE author of this tract against the ftage hath candidly prefixed his name; and it were to be wifhed that future authors on the fame or a like fubject of controversy would follow his example. It would be a pledge to the public for fome decency in the manner of treating it; a hint which it is hoped we are warranted to give, by that im menfe quantity of profane drollery and perfonal abuse which has been published for and against the stage in this city for fome months paft. [77]

This piece is wholly ferious; and though the author hints that he is fenfible it will have fewer readers in this age on that account, he chufes that way of writing, because ridicule is not a proper mean of conviction, whatever it may be of correction. In this he seems to be of the fame opinion with a late writer, who says that the use of ridicule is "not to investigate unknown truth, but to difgrace known falsehood."

In entering on the fabject, he takes notice of a difficulty in treating it with propriety and fuccefs; "That who ever undertakes to write against plays, though the provocation is given by what they are, is yet always called upon to attack them, not as they are, but as they might be. A writer on this fubject is actually reduced to the neceffity of fighting with a fhadow, of maintaining a combat with an ideal or imaginary fort of drama, which never yet exifted, but which the defenders of the caufe form by way of fuppofition, and which fhall appear in fact in that happy future age, which shall fee, what these gentlemen are pleased to ftyle, a well-regula ted stage. However little fupport may seem to be given by this to a vitious and corrupted stage, there is no attender of plays, but, when he hears this chimera * [Mr John Witherspoon, Minister of Beith.]

defended, imagines it is his own cause that is efpoufed, and, with great compofure and self fatisfaction, continues his practice: A conduct not lefs abfurd, than if one who was expressly affured a certain difh of meat before him was poifoned, fhould answer thus, All meat is not poisoned, and therefore I may eat this with fafety.

"It is very plain, that were men but seriously difpofed, and without prejudice defiring the knowledge of their duty, it would not be necessary, in order to fhew the unlawfulness of the stage as it now is, to combat it in its imaginary reformed ftate. Such a reformation, were not men, by the prevalence of vitious and corrupt affections, in love with it, even in its prefent condition, would have been long ago given up as a hopelefs and vifionary project, and the whole trade or employment deteited, on account of the abuses that had always adhered to it. But fince all advocates for the stage have, and do still defend it in this manner, by forming an idea of it feparate from its evil qualities; fince they defend it fo far with fuccefs, that many who would otherwise abftain, do, upon this very account, allow themselves in attending the theatre fometimes, to their own hurt and that of others; and as I am convinced, upon the most mature deliberation, that the reason why there never was a well-regulated ftage in fact, is because it cannot be, the nature of the thing not admitting of it; I will endeavour to fhew, that public theatrical reprefentations, either tragedy or comedy, are, in their general nature, or in their beft poffible ftate, unlawful, and contrary to the purity of our religion; and that writing, acting, or attending them, is inconfiftent with the character of a Chriftian. If this be done with fuccefs, it will give great weight to the reflections which fhall be added upon the aggravation of the crime, confidering the circumftances that at prefent attend the practice."

How he states the argument may be feen from what follows. "In order to make this inquiry as exact and accu"ate as poffible, and that the strength or

X 2

weakness

weakness of the arguments on either What hinders them from talking piously and profitably, as well as wickedly or hurtfully? But, rejecting this method of reafoning, as unjuft and inconclufive, let it be obferved, that those who plead for the lawfulness of the ftage, in any country, however well regulated, plead for what implies, not by accident, but effentially and of neceffity, the following things. 1. Such a number of plays as will furnish a habitual course of reprefentations, with fuch changes as the love of variety in human nature neceffarily requires. 2. Thefe plays of fuch a kind, as to procure an audience of voluntary spectators, who are able and willing to pay for being fo entertained. 3. A company of hired players, who have this as their only business and occupation, that they may give themselves wholly to it, and be expert in the performance. 4. The reprefentation muft be fo frequent as the profits may defray the expence of the apparatus, and maintain thofe who follow this business. They must also be maintained in that measure of luxury, or elegance, if you pleafe, which their way of life, and the thoughts to which they are accuftomed, must make them defire and require. It is a thing impracticable to maintain a player at the fame expence as you may maintain a peasant.

fide may be clearly perceived, it will be proper to ftate diftinctly, what we understand by the ftage, or ftage-plays, when it is affirmed, that in their moft improved and beft regulated ftate they are unlawful to Chriftians. This is the more neceffary, that there is a great indiftinctness and ambiguity in the language ufed by thofe who, in writing or converfation, undertake to defend it. They analyze and divide it into parts, and take fometimes one part, fometimes another, as will beft fuit their purpose. They afk, What there can be unlawful in the stage abstractly confidered? Comedy is expofing the folly of vice, and pointing out the ridiculous part of every character. And is not this commendable? Is not ridicule a noble mean of discountenancing vice? and is not the ufe of it warranted by the fatire and irony that is to be found in the holy fcriptures? Tragedy, they fay, is promoting the fame end in a way more grave and folemn. It is a moral lecture, or a moral picture, in which virtue appears to great advantage. What is hiftory it felf, but representing the characters of men as they actually were? and plays reprefent them as they may be. In their perfection, plays are as like hifto ry and nature, as the poet's art and actors fkill can make them. Is it then the circumftance of their being written in dialogue that renders them criminal? Who will pretend that? Is it that they are publicly repeated or acted over? Will any one pretend, that it is a crime to perfonate a character in any case, even where no deceit is intended? Then farewel parables, figures of fpeech, and the whole oratorial art. Is it a fin to look upon the reprefentation? Then it muft be a fin to look upon the world, which is the original, of which plays are the copy.

"This is the way which thofe who appear in defence of the ftage ordinarily take; and it is little better than if one fhould fay, What is a ftage-play? It is nothing elfe, abstractly confidered, but a company of men and women talking together. Where is the harm in that?

"Now, all these things do, and muft enter into the idea of a well-regulated stage: and if any defend it without fup. pofing this, he hath no adversary that I know of. Without these there may be poets, or there may be plays; but there cannot be a playhouse. It is in vain then to go about to fhow, that there have been an inftance or two, or may be, of treatifes wrote in the form of plays that are unexceptionable. It were eafy to fhew very great faults in fome of thofe moft univerfally applauded; but this is unneceffary. I believe it is very poffible to write a treatife in the form of a dialogue, in which the general rules of the drama are obferved, which shall be as holy and ferious, as any fermon that ever was preached or printed. Neither is there any apparent impoffibility in getting different perfons to affume the

different

different characters, and rehearse it in Chriftian principles, there is not a place fociety. But it may be fafely affirmed, in the world fo large as to afford a daily that if all plays were of that kind, and audience."- And from this he infers, human nature continue in its prefent that a public theatre " is by its conftituftate, the doors of the playhoufe would tion a conftant and powerful invitation fhut of their own accord, because no to fin, and cannot be maintained but by body would demand accefs *; unless the commission of it." there were an act of parliament to force attendance; and even in that cafe, as much pains would probably be taken to evade the law obliging to attend, as are now taken to evade thofe that command us to abstain. The fair and plain ftate of this question then is, Whether it is poffible or practicable, in the prefent ftate of human nature, to have the above fyftem of things under fo good a regulation, as to make the erecting and countenancing the ftage agreeable to the will of God, and confiftent with the purity of the Chriftian profeffion ?" Having thus prepared the way, he offers three general arguments against the ftage. 1. That it is an improper amufement. 2. That it is fo far from being a proper method of inftruction, that it is hurtful and pernicious. 3. That none can attend the ftage, without partaking of the fins of others, and contributing to their pollution.

[ocr errors]

On the first of these he explains the nature and end of amusement or recrea tion; fays, "That it is an intermiffion of duty, and only necessary because of our weakness; it must be fome action in different in its nature, which becomes lawful and useful from its tendency to refresh the mind, and invigorate it for duties of more importance :-That the need of amusement is much less than people commonly apprehend; and where it is not neceffary, it must be finful: -That if no body were to attend the ftage but such as needed recreation on *This furnishes an easy answer to what is remarked by fome in favour of plays, that feveral eminent Chriftians have endeavoured to fupplant bad plays by writing good ones; as Gregory Nazianzen, a father of the church, and a perfon of great piety, and our countryman Buchanan. But did ever these plays come into repute? Were they formerly, or are they now acted upon the ftage? The fate of their works proves that thefe good men judged wrong in attempting to reform the stage, and that the great majority of Chriftians acted more wifely, who were for laying it wholly afide.

He fays, "It is an unlawful recreation to all without exception, because it confumes too much time: That if recreations are only lawful because neceffary, they muft cease to be lawful when they are no longer necessary. The length and duration of regular comedy and tragedy is already fixed and fettled by rules of long ftanding; and I fuppofe, whatever other circumstance may be confeffed to need reformation, all men of tafte will agree, that these fhall continue as they are. Now, I leave to all who know how much time the preparation for fuch a public appear. ance, and the neceffary attendance, must take up, to judge, whether it is not too much to be given to mere res creation. This holds particularly in the cafe of recreation of mind, between which and bodily exercife there is a very great difference. For bodily exercife, in fome cafes, for example, when the health requires it, may be continued for a long time, only for this reafon, that it may have effects lafting in proportion to the time spent in it. But giving the mind to pleasure by way of recreation must be fhort, or it is certainly hurt ful; it gives men a habit of idleness and trifling, and makes them averfe from returning to any thing that requires fe rious application.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Further, "That the ftage is improper as a recreation, because it agitates the paffions too violently, and interests too deeply, fo as, in fome cafes, to bring people into a real, while they behold an imaginary diftrefs.- The excellence of recreations confists in their being not only a pleasant, but an easy exercise of the intellectual powers. Whatever is difficult, and either requires or caufes a ftrong application of mind, is contrary to their intention. Now, it is plain, that dramatic representations fix the at tention fo very deeply, and intereft the

[ocr errors]

affections

affections so very strongly, that in a little time they fatigue the mind themfelves; and however eagerly they are defired and followed, there are many ferious and useful occupations, in which men will continue longer without exhaufting the fpirits, than in attending the theatre."

"This tendency of plays to intereft the affections," he says, fhows their impropriety as a recreation on another account. It shows that they must be exceeding liable to abufe by excefs, even fuppofing them in a certain dégree to be innocent. It is certain, there is no life more unworthy of a man, hardly any more criminal in a Chriftian, than a life of perpetual amufement, where no valuable purpose is purfued, but the intellectual faculties wholly employed in purchafing and indulging fenfual gratifications. It is alfo certain, that all of us are by nature too much inclined thus to live to our. felves, and not to God. Therefore, where recreations are neceffary, a watchful Chriftian will particularly beware of those that are infnaring, and by being too grateful and delicious, ready to lead

to excefs."

He adds, "That when the ftage is chofen as a recreation, it is always in oppofition to other methods of recreation which are perfectly fit for the purpose, and not liable to any of these objections: That when there are different kinds, to prefer those which are lefs, to those which are more fit, muft needs be finful."

He clofes the reflections on this part of the fubject with obferving, that there are two general characters of the difciples of Chrift, which feem altogether inconfiftent with theatrical amufements. "The firft is felf-denial and mortification. The gospel is the religion of finners who are faved from wrath by the rich mercy and free grace of God. The life of fuch, then, must be a life of penitence, humility, and mortification.In their baptifmal covenant they renounce the world; by which is not meant fuch grofs crimes as are a violation of natural light, as well as a tranfgreffion of the law of God, but that exceffive attachment to prefent indulgence, which

is more properly expreffed by the pomp and vanity of the world." And by feve ral citations from the fathers he proves. that they applied this renunciation at baptifm to the public fhows." The other branch of the Chriftian temper, between which and theatrical amufements there appears a very great oppofition, is fpirituality, and heavenliness of mind. All real Christians are, and account themselves pilgrims and ftrangers on the earth, fet their affections on things above, and have their conversation in heaven. Whatever tends to weaken these difpofitions, they will carefully avoid, as contrary to their duty and their intereft. Is not this the cafe with theatrical amufements? Are they not very delicious to a fenfual and carnal mind? Do they not excite, gratify, and ftrengthen thofe affections which it is most the bufinefs of a Christian to reftrain ?"

On the fecond general argument, against thofe who plead for the usefulness of the ftage in promoting the interests of virtue or religion, he fays, "When a public theatre is defended as a mean of inftruction, I cannot help thinking it is of importance to obferve, that it is a method altogether uncommanded and unauthorised in the word of God.Let it be remembered, that it is now pled for in a higher light, and on a more important account, than merely as an amusement, viz. as proper to fupport the intereft of religion; it fhould therefore have a pofitive warrant before it be employed in this caufe, left it should meet with the fame reception that all other human devices fhall meet with, Who hath required these things at your bands?- The truth is, the stage can never be defended on a more untenible footing, than when it is represented as having a moral or virtuous, that is to fay, a pious and religious tendency. What Chriftian can hear fuch a plea with patience? Is the law of the Lord perfect, converting the foul? Is it able to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work? What then are its defects that must be supplied by the theatre? Have the faints of God,

for

[ocr errors]

to the commanding principle of all their actions; that therefore they must have oppofite interefts and views: That as Chrift himself was defpifed and rejected of men, fo his difciples are not of the world, and the world hateth them. He then afks,

for fo many ages, been carried fafely through all the dark and difficult fteps of their earthly pilgrimage, with his law as a light to their feet and a lamp to their path, and yet is it now neceffary that they fhould have additional illumination from a well-regulated stage?" Whether those who have a strong and Have there been for fo long a time pastors employed bearing a divine commiffion? ordinances adminiftered according to divine inftitution? have thefe been hitherto effectual for perfecting the faints, for the work of the miniftry, and for edifying the body of Chrift; and fhall we not count them among the fcoffers that were to come in the last days, who pretend to open up a new commiffion for the players to affift?"

But the argument on which he seems to lay the greateft ftrefs, in fhewing the bad influence of a public theatre upon the morals of men, is, That all or the far greatest number of pieces there reprefented, will always have, upon the whole, a pernicious tendency, because they must be to the taste and relish of the bulk of those who attend it. "The difficulty," he fays, "of getting good authors for the theatre, I fhall not infifton; but whatever the authors are able, or willing to do, it is certain, that their productions, in fact, can rife no higher, in point of purity, than the audience fhall be willing to receive. Their attendance is not constrained, but voluntary; nay, they pay dearly for their entertainment; and therefore they muft, and will have it to their taste. This is a part of the subject that merits the particular attention of all who are inclined to judge impartially; and it proves, in the ftrongest manner, the abfurdity of forming chimerical fuppofitions, of a ftage fo regulated, as, instead of being hurtful, to promote the interefts of piety and virtue."

This argument he illuftrates at great length, and obviates fome objections against it. The reafoning feems to be built on the following principles, which he founds both on fcripture and experience. That there is not only a real diftinction of character, but a perfect oppofition, between good men and bad, as

rooted averfion at true holiness, which is the character of the fincere Christian, will voluntarily croud to the theatre, to hear and fee fuch performances as breathe nothing but what is agreeable to the pure, uncorrupted word of God? Will thofe who revile, injure, and perfecute the faints themfelves, delight in the ftage, if honour is there put upon true religion, and be pleased with that character in the reprefentation which they hate in the original ?"

He obferves, that though it were poffible that, in a fingle inftance or two, nothing fhould be reprefented but what is agreeable to true religion, and this dreffed to the higheft advantage by the poet's genius and actors fkill, yet little would be gained. For thefe human arts only would be the object of their admiration; and they would always prefer, and speedily procure a display of the fame arts on a fubject more agreeable to their taste.

To give this argument its proper force, he obferves, that there must always be a very great majority of perfons under the dominion of vice and wickedness among those who attend the theatre. For as the far greatest number of the world in general are ungodly, so none can attend the ftage, but thofe in more affluent circumftances than the bulk of mankind, and there is ftill a greater proportion of them (by reason of their being expofed to much greater and stronger temptations) who are enemies to pure and defiled religion.

un.

He obviates an objection, That there feems to be fome ground, even from fcripture, to fuppofe that true goodness is the object of general approbation,-by faying, that the form of religion, or the matter of many good actions, efpecially the duties of focial life, hath the approbation of the world in general; but the fpirit and temper from which e

« ZurückWeiter »