and of criminal trials, to say nothing of the filthy, lying details of a class of advertisements which fills columns of newspapers reputed respectable, and as such received into families professedly Christian, hallowed even by morning and evening prayer; and then say how it would fare with the press, if the same policy were pursued respecting it as obtains with respect to the theatre. We risk nothing in the assertion that in newspapers lieing upon the home-table of the very clergymen who the last Sunday may have put forth his most earnest plea for the destruction of the theatre, shall be found sentences which his daughters have read unrebuked, which no actor would have the courage to repeat upon the stage, and to which even a Bowery audience would not listen without a hiss of shame. And what shall we say of that mass of what was once called "yellow-covered " literature, which no person could habitually read without being demented both in understanding and soul; or, worse yet, of those secret publications which are sold only in the haunts of the vile, or by agents infesting the landing of steamboats and the vicinities of railroad depots of large cities. All this is the work of the press; shall the press therefore be destroyed? Who pretends to draw so sweeping an inference? In point of fact, the theatre, in its worst days, has never exerted a tithe of the influence for evil that is attributable to the press. Yet the theatre is condemned as the very temple of Satan, while orators and preachers glory in the press as among the noblest institutions of any age or people!

But perhaps it may be said that the cases are not parallel, in this particular, that while the press can offset its incidental evil with a large amount of positive good that while it is made the instrument of much that is criminal, it is on all hands acknowledged to be one of the greatest agents in the cause of Christian civilization and reform, no benefit at all proportionate can be claimed for the theatre, as offsetting its evil, such as it has been, and for some length of time will in all probability continue to be. The good of the press is moral and religious in an eminent degree; the chief good of the theatre is claimed to be only that of an amusement the intellectual and æsthetic culture which it diffuses being at best but incidental, and not the leading aim or attraction. If we abolish the press, along with the mischief we thereby

we

avert, we are taking from civilization its chief propare putting out one of the great lights in human progress. If we abolish the theatre, we avert its incidental mischief, and at the same time do no serious harm we present no substantial benefit that may not be attained by other

means.

-

However plausible and seemingly reasonable this disposition of the matter really is, a little scrutiny develops a serious fallacy in the reasoning which leads to it. The standing argument against the drama is, that it is an occasion of sinthat its tendency is to demoralize; and therefore, a Christian people are called upon to make their most strenuous effort for its removal; they are constrained to this course not simply from motives of expediency, but of duty, Christian duty. We must of course admit this argument to be valid on the supposition that the evil of the drama is essential to it. This, as we have shown, is not the case; and we have also shown, by brief reference to its history, that the incidental evil is not inevitable; we have shown that the causes of the mischief attending it are extrinsic, and so removable. Viewing the matter in the light of these considerations, we say that if Christian duty calls for a destruction of the theatre because of its incidental mischief, so does it call for the destruction of the press for precisely the same reason the same reason in kind, only ten-fold greater in degree. And as for the proposition to save the press because of the great good with which it offsets the bad, it is enough to say that Christian principles do not tolerate some sin for the sake of more virtue.

If, however, the plea is dropped to considerations of expediency-if, giving up the claim as predicated of Christian duty, we are directed to prudential considerations; if the question is allowed to take simply this shape: Considering the fact that while the mischief would be averted, no moral good would be sacrificed, is it not best to remove the theatre? If the question is narrowed down to this, we answer that there is but one serious objection to the course recommended the thing proposed cannot be done! We have shown that the essential drama has its roots in human nature that, so far as history shows, it is as old and as widespread as the race. When foolish skeptics rail against the priesthood, the church, and the Bible, assuming that if these

institutions were overthrown religion itself must become extinct, it is sufficient to reply by bringing forward the favorite and irrefragible argument of Christian divines, that these institutions are not the causes but the effects of religion, and that if all priesthoods and temples and sacred books were annihilated, the originating cause remains untouched, and other institutions corresponding to those that were, would spring into life, and operate with unresisting power and efficiency. Religion does not depend upon its institutions, it depends upon human nature, and makes institutions. The same, precisely, in every part, is the argument for the indestructibility of the drama. The theatre does not depend upon Sophocles or Shakspeare, upon Roscius or Garrick, upon Drury Lane or the Boston Academy; its dependence and source is human nature. Take away its present forms of manifestation, and the same essential thing will crop out elsewhere, in kindred forms, and operate to the same essential results. To attempt the destruction of the drama is to repeat the folly of the French infidels, who abolished religion, and substituted an emblem of reason in the place of Deity; and the success will be the same in the one case that

it prove in the other. Such an attempt is a war upon

nature.

We have had, in our day, ample proofs of the truth of our assertion, that if arbitrarily crushed in its present form, the theatre will break out in other, yet essentially the same, manifestations. Does any one ask for example? Look at the dramatic exhibitions of Sunday schools, rehearsed under the supervision of really pious teachers and superintendents, opened with prayers by the pastors, witnessed and applauded, too, by devoted communicants and really saintly people! Look at the crowds which throng to the Sunday evening oratorios, who rush with eager delight to hear Grisi and Mario in Stabat Mater, under the sanctifying sanction of the Handal and Hayden! See also who they are, that patronize "Dramatic Readings," who else, for most part, but those whose scruples will not permit them to witness the more genuine and effective theatrical exhibition, and who gladly content themselves with these wretched substitutes; for, with very rare exceptions, wretched performances they are such as the educated taste of the play-goer could hardly endure! In all of these and similar cases, the

great majority of delighted spectators are persons who, under the traditional and still operative influence of the Church, are debarred from the enjoyment of established dramatical entertainments; and their example simply shows that if the instincts of nature are suppressed, they are not destroyed; if under a ban at one point, they break out at other points.

The sagacity of managers does not fail to perceive the advantage which the course of such non-theatre goers as we have described gives them. They see that the love of the drama is strong enough in such persons, and that more or less of finesse will, in some measure, secure their patronage. One method-and this exceedingly creditable to both parties-is to elevate the character of the stage both it its artists and its language; another is to drop offensive names, substituting those against which no prejudice prevails: hence, in place of theatres, (just now there is not one in operation in Boston) we have "Museums," "Athenæums,' and "Academies." This plan has so far succeeded, that one establishment in Boston is humorously characterized as the "Christian," sometimes as the "Ministers' Theatre"! We must not omit to make reference here to a notable instance in which an immense crowd of clergymen and their wives were trapped, or trapped themselves, into a confession, and this a most palpable one, of their real love of dramatic amusement. A celebrated prima donna2 appeared in Boston and announced a series of concerts. Kindly remembering the pastors of the city and vicinity, she sent them circulars inviting them to the rehearsals. The selections announced on the programme were from popular operas; the artists were all professional operatic singers; and the whole performance was operatic with the exception of stage-dress and machinery. Still it was called a "concert.' The ministers were at the concert-room door in time. We were among them, and a more eager company of pleasure-seekers we never saw. The hurry, the rush, the impatience, the nervous anxiety to secure the most eligible seat were so far characteristic. It was only the more respectable attire, personal appearance, and unexceptionable language that distinguished the company from a Bowery crowd intent on the best sight of Taglioni. But this was

2 Madame Sontag.

not all. The pleasure was too great to be allowed to pass by without grateful acknowlegements; and a venerable divine of the Baptist communion3 was deputed to express the thanks of his clerical brethren. And this the really good man did with a hearty earnestness, for the performances had almost renewed his youth; and with his hand clasped in that of the fair prima donna, he poured out the joyful gratitude which all felt, in eloquent, affecting speech. It was further unanimously voted to present the lady with a Bible containing the names of the clergymen who had been honored by her courtesy. Soon, however, an opera was announced. It was to be substantially the same music, the same language, the same artist; there were no material additions to the concert other than stage-dress and machinery, and the name" opera." Then the clergy felt indignant ; they had been deceived into a false position, and their censures were as emphatic as their approval had been warm. But, in fact, they were not deceived; they had simply undeceived themselves-had discovered that a love of the very thing they had traditionally rebuked was strong in their own souls; and they found themselves robbed of the power to say another effective word to the prejudice of anything essential to the drama !4

3 The late Rev. Dr. Sharp.

It happened strangely enough that at the very time of writing the above, the question of a distinction between operatic concerts and dramatic exhibitions was before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. Mr. Drayton had engaged the use of the new Melodeon for a series of "Operatic Concerts." It was in the condition of the sale, at the transfer of the building to its present proprietor, that no dramatic exhibitions shall be given within its precincts. An injunction was served upon Mr. Drayton on the ground that the operatic concert is essentially dramatic. The court, in the person of Chief Justice Bigelow, was called upon to settle the question. We give the result in the words of the newspaper reporter: "The Court briefly reviewed the case as presented, and remarked that in its opinion the performances partook more of the nature of a theatrical entertainment than a concert, and thereby were contrary to the terms specified in the deed. Therefore, the Court refused to grant the motion to dissolve the injunction, and the further performance of the Draytons at the Melodeon is accordingly prohibited." The presumption must strike all reflecting persons as reasonable, that if the highest judicial skill in the Commonwealth cannot see even a legal distinction between an operatic concert and and a dramatic entertainment, that the ministers referred to above will be hardly able to detect any real distinction. It is quite certain that the general public will be blind to any difference.