The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1914-04-04

- E1NI0 NN i"T0n AM rAnt
IN REMOVING PREJUDICE
KINDLY ATTITUDE OF DRAMAT.
lists AND MANAGERS TOWARDS
CATHOLIC FAITH-PLAYS THAT
PRESENT THE PRIEST IN A
PROPER LIGHT ARE SUCCESS.
FUL-PLAYs THAT MlsREPRE.
SENT HIM ARE FAILURES.
No doubt it will surprise many peo-
pie to learn that actors and dramat-
lists are very fond of the Catholic
priest, monk, bishop and cardinal, as
characters in their plays. The rea-
son is quite simple and patent: the
effective costumes of these characters,
writes John Talbot Smith in the Go
lumbiad," the moral strength which
they represent, and the emphasis
which their presence lends to a climax,
appeal to the dramatist and the actor
keenly. This is true of the universal
stage, with a difference in favor of the
English drama. On the continent the
Catholic cleric of the drama may be
villain or hero, giant or weakling,
good or bad; in the English drama
he is invariably the sympathetic char
acter of the drama, treated with re-
spect always, often with the highest
esteem and affection. It is certainly
curious to see Catholic France ridicule
the Catholic cleric in it's drama, while
Protestant England and America make
it rule to treat him well and to
avoid offense in his regard.
1t would be extremely difficult to
explain the origin of this good will
In part it is due to a fact which
am never tired of repeating, for the
benefit of that class which is forever
denouncing the drama on wretched
grounds: namely, that the drama is
the only literary form in the English
tongue which has resisted the on
slaughts of modern error. The novel
the poem, the essay, the newspaper
have gone over body and soul to the
service of materialism. The drama
alone refuses to surrender it's conven
tiOns, and declines to preach heresy
For some weird reason it is more
abused and whipped for it's fidelity to
it's traditions than the other forms OF
literature for their crimes, by the
Puritanical. Lovers of Shakespeare
recall his delightful clerics, from the
lordly Wolsey to the kindly Fria1
Lawrence. 1t is an argument for his
Catholic faith, this kindly and gener
Gus treatment of the priests, bishops
and cardinals who figure in his plays
England was bitterly anti-Catholic in
the great dramatist's day. The old
hierarchy had disappeared utterly un
der Queen Elizabeth and a married
clergy and episcopate had usurped
their place; yet a fervent Catholic
of our day could portray priests and
bishops no more nobly than did Will
liam Shakespeare.
Success of RicheIieu.
In this matter he left no tradition
behind him, and by degrees the Cath.
Ole cleric vanished from the English
drama, reappearing at intervals in the
Guy Fawkes plays and other wild
melodramas, as villainous character
The year 1889 saw him return to the
English drama under splendid circum
stances. The notable English actor
Macready, at that time held the fore
most place among his contemporaries
and Edward Bulwer-Lytton was the
literary celebrity of the day. In
France there circulated a novel from
the felicitous pen of Alfred de Vigny
entitled Cling Mars, which dealt with
the rise and fall of a favorite of the
King, and presented a fine and accu
rate portrait of the famous Carolina
Richelieu. Bulwer-Lytton dramatizeG
this novel for Macready, and in 1873!
the character of Cardinal Richelieu
made it's appearance on the English
stage Every great actor has since
played the part and every aspiring
actor desires to play it. The exigen
cies of the play, and perhaps also
Lytton's high conception of the char
acter, brought forth very differen
Richelieu from that presented by d.
Vigny, who had no love for the grea
minister of state and great partialit.
for his hero Cling Mars. The latte
was undoubtedly something of fool
which could never be said of Richie
lieu. In the drama Cling Mars, as
Baradas, plays the foiled villain, whilt
Richelieu poses as the most effectiv'
stage hero of modern times. Lyttol
rose above all the prejudices of hi
time and his training, and made tn
Cardinal a universal type of righteou
power matched against stupid tyranny
The play enjoyed tremendous sue
cess in it's day and has held the stag
ever since, in spite of the dislike o
the critics, who cannot see why pla
should survive their condemnation
Greater than it's immediate success
and it's fine vitality however was it
| influence upon the modern dramatis
perhaps l might as we'll say, upon tn
modern English drama. Betwee
1910 and 1850 there were three nota
bilities in London, Douglas Jerrold, tn
noted wit; John Frederic Smith, popr
lar novelist, and Dion Boucicault, tn
inventor of the modern Irish drama
Managers and actors were simply will
to get clerical plays, in the hope c
] duplicating the success of Richeliel