THE BISHOP OF MELBOURNE ON THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES.

Samoa Times and South Sea Gazette, Volume 2, Issue 79, 5 April 1879, Page 2

THE BISHOP OF MELBOURNE ON THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES.

The Bishop of Melbourne has written the following letter to the Daily Telegraph : In many of the letters which are sent to you upon the above subject, I see that it is first assumed that all theatrical' amusements belong to " the world;" and then, on the ground of this assumption, Christian people are'told to "come out from them, and be separate." I deny the truth of the assumption, and, therefore, of the inference from it. "The world," as used" by St. John, clearly means, as Elyard says, " the extra Christian world, yet internally untouched by Christ." That world was actuated by lust, and passions which, as being selfish and impure, were not " of the Father," and, therefore, unfit to be entertained or followed by Christian men. Of the heathen world of the Apostolio days (speaking generally), these selfish and impure lusts were the governing impulse. Hence St Paul's adjuration to the Corinthians to come out and be separate. It was true that (unless they altogether went out of the world) Christians must have dealings with Christ-hating idolaters; but how could there be any friendship between them ? Those who are acquainted with the horrible immorality of the heathenism of that age will be at no loss to understand the pertinence of that question. But now we are living in a professional Christian country, and no question is raised of joining in friendship with the Chinese or other idolaters in our midst. The question simply is, whether a certain class of amusements are so necessarily worldly in tone and influence that they ought not to be indulged in by Christian men. It is not the question whether these amusements have been made the vehicle of worldly influences in certain times, or at certain places. If it were I fear there would be few professedly Christian employments which wc would not be called upon to abjure. When a well-known and celebrated Christian minister could say of a certain theological assembly that its debates made liim feel like a demon, is it not plain that these debates had been to him the vehicle of worldly influences ? But who would thence argue that all such assemblies were in their own nature worldly, and to be avoided ? The unchristianlike world is to be found everywhere in a Christian country—in the Parliament, in business, and even in the Church—and wherever it u found it is to be renounced by us. To endeavour to confine it to certain departments of life, and to suppose that we escape it by avoiding them is the merest illusion. Dress, for instance, is a fruitful source of temptation, to young women, and devotion to dress has been the ruin of thousands. Seeing this, the early Methodists adopted a form of dress not unlike that, worn by the Quakers. They thought that by avoiding the ordiuery form of dress they would escape the temptation to core for it. Their descendants seem think, and as I think rightly, that they were mistaken. A man is likely to think less of dress when he dresses like ether people than when he|adopts a peculiar style of his own. And so of amusements in general. I believe that unless they be in themselves sinful, a man will care the less for excessive indulgence in them, in proportion as he follows the custom of those of his countrymeu who lead a sober and righteous life. The question then arises—Are theatrical representations sinful in themselves ? or m»y we say with Milton P—- " Sometime let gorgeous tragedy With sceptred pall come sweeping by, Presenting Thebes' and Felop's line* And the tale of Troy divine; And what, though rare, of later age, Ennobled hath the buskin'd stage/' If we may look upon tragedy thus—and surely none will deny it—then certainly tragedy is not an evil iu itself; in other words, is on amusement in which when it is unaccompanied by objectionable accessories, a Christian man may lawfully indulge. And let it be observed that the very nature of theatrical representations forms the best answer to many of the usual objections to them. It is sometimes asked, for instance, whether St. Paul would have shown himself at a theatre. Not, certainly, at heathen theatres, where the performances were usually conducted with heathen worship. But if the question be whether he would have attended a well-oonduoted theatre in •, Christian land, to witness » high-toned performance, then it might as well be asked whether St. Paul would have attended a cricket match, • ohess tournament, or • spelling bee. In his circumstances, it ia very unlikely that he would; bus it is equally certain that he would have called none of them unlawful. Amusement is necessary for young oeople, and it would be equally unreasonable to forbid our boys to play at cricket I and to require grave divines either to join i their sport or condemn it. There is only, in reality, one question i amusenffit be made morally improving, i and, if so, by what mean* ? |:

Npw, in tammtim Witfc the former of these q««*twm\ f *»*« already pointed to the fact that they www made morally improving in the «£sf days of the Greek dram*. To thi* one of yodr correspondents re' pliaas—"l, That I cannot prove the fact - t -, "8. That, if I codd, it would not follow that what waa good enough to mend a pad form of life. Would be good enough to mend a better." I did imagine, Sir, that no one, knowing anything of tie literature <jf the '. period to which I referred would deny the fact. Since, however, it has been denied, let me give your correspondent the testimony of a competent scholar, ' which, if he choose can easy verify for ! himself. Professor Plumptre says of Sophocles : —" We note it as. characteristic in his way of dealing with the popular religion, that here also there is a kind of instructive reverence and purity. The baser elements of it fall into the background. The impurities which were found elsewhere are to him as though they wero not" And again be says of the work Eschylus and Sophocles, that it was their task," rinding the mythology of Homer in possession of the mind of the people, to turn it (as far as it could bo turned) into an instrument of moral education, and to lead men upwards to the eternal laws of God, and the thought of his righteous order." Let any one read carefully such tragedies as the "Antigone," the "Electra," and " Edipus at Colottos," and then say if in anything Professor Plumptre has exaggerated the fact, or if it be not rather true, as he concludes, " Even he may have become, to those who followed his guidance rightly, a pedagogue unto Christ" It, then, the fact cannot be denied, that with such a stock of religious truth as was furnished by the poems of Homer, tragedy did so muoh elevate the moral life of heathen people, is it logical to conclude that with such a stock of religious truth as is furnished by the .New Testament, Christian dramatists can do nothing to make tho amusements of a Christian people an instrument of moral instruction. Surely the opposite is tho fact. I know at home an eminent Christian author, who by means of little dramas of his own composition converts the amusements of his children and their friends into profound lessons of life and good lines*. And what he does, others may do and arc doing. Men like Tom Taylor are producing better pieces. Shakesperian revivals are becoming more popular, and last, not least, there is a vastly improved moral tone in the dramatic criticism of the Press. What then in these circumstances are Christian men to do ? Are they to encourage _ theatrical managers in every effort at improvement, or are they to do their best to discourage them by harsh denunciations? . r - _ If adopt' the former course—if, like a Christian friend of mine at homo, they will take a pledge from their children that these latter will never go to the theatre but in their company, then they can choose the fitting time and place, and to bring to bear on managers of theatres a healthy publio opinion which must do them good. And then too, if they should be asked the foolish question, would you like to pray or to die in the theatre, they will be ready to answer, I should be far more willing to lift my soul to God, or to obey his last summons, while listening to suoh pieces as I choose to hear, than while engaged in any other amusement eitherofthe body or mind; yea, or in many an occupation which men call lawful. But if, on the other hand, every effort to improve the drama be met on the part of Christian men with coldness and unkindness, what will follow ? Does any man think that he can crush the drama by such a course ? The Puritans tried to do it, as Macaulay tells us, by " closing the theatres, and flogging the players to Coventry, and banning the theatre?. And what will be the result if unhappily, they should induce the Christian world to join them f Dramas will become more licentious, and playhouses more, immoral, while, as my London experience shows me, the prohibition of parents will but drive their children to witness- those degraded performances, with the consciousness that in so doing they are oommiting a sin, Set a man on the slippery plane of conscions transgression, and he will find it hard to resist the tendency to descen { But allow him the coveted smesemenu when it is lawful, and he will be more likely to listen to you when you forbid to him indulgence in it when it is unlawful. No man, Sir, would moTe sternly prohjjbit ill places and ill pieces than I, and it itt because I desire to give effect to such a prohibition, and at the same timo to do something to make the drama what it should be—the handmaid of religion and morality—that I have ventured at such length to trespass on your apace.