The Indianapolis journal., 1902-07-20
NEWS OF THE THEATERS
MAETERLINCK'S "MONNA WANNA"
AND ENGLAND'S PLAY CENSOR.
Foremost Authors and Critics Conn
bine i'm Protesting Against Mr..
RedfOrd's Foolish Action.
Chicago Evening Post.

Chicago Evening Post.
The interesting case of ''Monna Wanna VS..
The Fools" is attracting much attention.
Maeterlincks beautiful play, thanks to the
official and unofficial Dogberrys, will ac-
quire wider popularity than it could have
acquired without the welcome aid of the
brainless philistines, whether censors or
(save the markD critics After all, the
ignoramuses and bigots are not wholly su-
perfluous on this sublunar stage. They add
to our gayety. and they unwittingly. by
stupid resistance, promote the cause of
progress.
1t is futile to answer the fools according
to their folly. Those who, either from per
sonal knowledge" or on the authority of
persons even more witless than themselves,
declare "Monna Wanna" to be "a putrid
mess containing no atom of good, healthy
gray matter" base and disgusting" as
sault upon art and morality, etc, not
fit for intelligent controversy. No one above
the kindergarten stage of artistic and liter
ary development cares to know what their
opinions are. Let the dead bury the dead
critical Dogberrys.
But the act of the British censor, a mere
clerk who has no reputation as a man of
I
1t may lead to the abolition of that relic Of
barbarfsm. the stage censorship. and even
Americans are interested in knowing some
thing about this curious affair. The facts
alone will be given here.
The licensers veto upon the performance
dn French of 'Monna Wanna provoked
the following protest from the leading
writers and artists of England:
''The play has been published by the Ii
brairie Charpentier, and is now on sale IN
London. The name of Maurice Maeterlinck
and the singular nobility of his attitude to-
ward moral questions and questions OF con-
duct too well known to need more than
/ mention. We. the undersigned, are or opln-
ion that some protest should be made
against a decision Of the censorship by
which the representation, I'm French, of a
! play by a distinguished French writer, OF
the highest moral reputation, has been
forbidden in England. We are, sir, your
obedient servants.
! civilian ARCHER
PEARL MARY TERESA CRAIGIE
"(John Oliver Hobbesl,
RICHARD GARNETT,
THOMAS HARDY,
FREDERIC HARRISON,
MARY ST. LEDGER HARRISON
'Gucas Malet),
MAURICE HEWLETT.
| HENRY ARTHUR JONES,
GEORGE MEREDITH.
| "ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE,
"'ARTHUR SYMONS,
LAURENCE ALMA-TADENA,
''W. b. YEATS"
You cannot expect the Dogberry school
/ of criticism TO appreciate nobility of atti-
| tude toward moral questions. but even the
! IMAM on the street. Knows that on ques-
/ tions of morality in art Meredith, Harrison,
! Richard Garnett and Hardy are better au-
/ thorities than the aforesaid brainless phil
! istines.
The protest, naturally enough, said moth
ing about the play itself 1t properly
sumed that the idealist, philosopher, hu-
manitarian and artist Maeterlnck, could
not have written a drama of corrupting
and immoral tendencies.
! The play was produced. The London
critics of culture and capacity, without an
| exception, reviewed il eulogistically, while
| pointing out not moral but artistic flaws
IN it. The Morning Post told the censor
| that he had prohibited the most beautiful
play of his time" The Athenaeum,
| pillar of conservatism and sobriety. said:
THE caprice of our censor brings contempt
upon U.S. and makes or should make us the
| laughing stock of Europe" Arthur Sy-
mons, in the Academy, writes with admira-
! BILE insight
us Mr. Redford capable of discriminating
| between what is artistically fine and what
| II aTtistically ignoble? If not. he is GER
| tainly incapable of discriminating between
| what is morally fine and what is morally
he is not concerned with art but with
morals. They cannot be discovered be-
cause ii Is really the art which makes the
| morality. In other words morality does
not consist in the facts OF a situation or in
the words of speech but in the spirit which
| informs the whole work. Whatever may
be the facts Of Monna Wanna (and I con-
| tend that they are entirely above re-
| proach, even facts) no one capable Of
| discerning the spirit Of a work could pos
siby fall to realize that the whole ten
! Oency OF the paly is noble and invigorating
Ali this. all that Is essential, evidently
capes Mr.. RedfOrd."
Lawrence Alma-Tadema, in the Fort
! nightly Review. calls the NAV a master
piece, perhaps the finest drama written in
our day. and he concludes as follows with
| reference TO the moral significance OF its
story and message:
"A wind has blown into our faces. bring
ing air from other regions than those IN
habited by the loftiest OF human desires
the most excusable OF human failings. We
find ourselves thinking OF selhshness OF
fruitful sacrifice. of simple duties leading
10 miraculous rewards; Of that part OF love
which is more potent than life. as inevitable
as death And above all we think OF Truth
luminous Truth. who still must creep about
this world Of men disguised. with lie upon
her lips"
Frank Harris. editor OF The Candid
Friend. Is reminded by the censors action
! OF Voltaire's remark that the less virtuous
a people the more prudiSh it becomes in
speech, and says that Maeterlinck who
and humanity can afford 70 smile at the
stupid and vulgar insult"
From William Archer's article IN the
World one Is tempted TO quote at length;
II is so reasonable. so telling so conclusive
Space, however. is available for scarcely
half OF his appeal to common sense:
''I DO not myself rate 'Monna Wanna so
very highly as work OF art; but Of the