New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-02-13

with one who prefers so unhesitatlngly MS
Gown judgment, backed by the approval OIL
factors and prOprietOrs OF music-halls'" 10
that of his ecclesiastical superiOrs. Perhaps IL
may seem that the Bishop himself, in using
these expressions, is not SO judiciOus as blsh-
obs we're anciently commanded to be. The
approval of actors is not necessarily to be
condemned; the dramatic profession does not
deserve the sighting not to say superclllous
treatment which the right reverend prelate
employs in this letter of rebuke; ana
when Mr.. Headlam urges, In reply, that
the religious world has done grievous wrong
in refusing to recognize the calling OF pub
lie amuser as virtuOus and honorable one In
itself, he certainly has the common sense OF
mankind on his side The question OF the IN;
trinsic morality and usefulness OF theatrical
representations is no longer open 10 DEBATE;
it is a res adjudicata the stage has become one
of the important institutions of all civilized
communities the highest and purest genius
has surrounded it with imperlshable glory;
amiabe lives and hOmely virtues have adorned
it; and the Church has blessed 1t with her
solemn sanction. 1t is not merely blgOtry, IL
is arrant nonsense to hur indiscriminate NAL
edctons against the playhouse as the portai
of "vice and misery"
But. on the other hand, there is something
i'm the condition of the contemporary stage
which neither the curate nor the bishop seems
to understand. If it shakes our faith In tne
infallibhty of the pulpit to hear such beauu-
full and innocent poems as "Sch00l ana nip
evan Wrinkle" Ito mention only two OF the
PLAYS which have diffused sunshine In New
York this season. denounced in one great,
general, comprehensive curse as the preludes
to shame and damnation. it is equally shock
to our moral sense when a preacher who seems
to be pretty constant and liberal in his attention
to all the shows of the day, remains insenslble
of the lascivious pOsturngs of the undressed
beauties of the fancy ballet, and the mephitlc
odors of the modern French adulterous drama.
Without undertaking to discuss the compare
tive cleanliness of old and new plays, 1t may
be safely asserted that while our grandparents
listened with cOmpOsure to coarse language
which would not now be tolerated even at the
- Theatre. we have acquired on our part
a relish for disguised nastiness of thought and
undisguised display of limbs and backs which
would have made the audiences of the last
century stare with horror. Every defence
of the honest drama and of the merry enter
tainment of harmless folly, which overlooks
the fact that the stage of our day has not
merely been dcfiled by occasional abuses but
degraded by vile fashions and dangerous ten
denotes, is sure to do mischief to the very
cause which it seeks to benefit. The duty OF
discriminating between what is wholesome III
theatrical art and literature and what Is dis
eased, is left by the clergy to the critics OF
the secular press, and how adequately or IN
adequately these gentlemen discharge their
delicate task it is not for us to say. But If the
Church would really do its part TO cor
rect the vices of the stage, it surely
might help in the work which is now under
taken only by the critic. Mr.. Headlam pro-
poses to correct the depravity of legs and the
vulgarty Of comic songs by sending all the
Sunday-scbools to the Black Crook" and the
musical Free and Easy. The Bishop of London
would attain the same object by damnng the
entire dramatic profession. The one is as far
wrong rs the other. But the stage must be
recognized as one of the institutions of mod
ern society most stable in its foundation most
powerful in its influence. The clergy cannot
destroy it, What will they do with it