OCR Text |
Show AN IMMORAL PLAY. On the boards of one of our leading theatres was staged last week a lecherous drama, the production pro-duction of a French libertine, which is a degradation degrada-tion of cleanliness and decency. The play of "Ca-mille" "Ca-mille" repels even when Modjeska is seen in the role, that is to say, it repels clean minds whose vision vi-sion is not clouded by sophistry and whose judgment judg-ment is not submerged by sentimentality. That it presents two dramatic scenes of extraordinary extra-ordinary strength pictorial, pathetic and replete with movement may not be gainsaid. As a play its merit is signal and potential for it arouses interest, in-terest, holds the audience in a state of mental suspense sus-pense and affords much scope for the art of acting. act-ing. But its subject is unclean, its feeling is not healthy and its moral drift is pernicious. The only method whereby it can be commended to toleration, if not to acceptance, on the part of those who think as well as feel, was the method adopted by Mme. Modjeska in her treatment of it. "Camille," as embodied by the refined and great actress, is no longer a courtesan. She becomes a noble-minded woman, who having erred through weakness or misfortune, rather than fault, has repented re-pented and cast away her sin, and is now vainly endeavoring, under the guidance of a pure love, to readjust herself to the conditions of a virtuous existence. She takes her stand upon the vantage ground of human pity for human frailty, and she makes her appeal to that infinite charity which is a part of the faith of the Christians. This method was adroit and potent, but it was deceptive. Xo matter what you do with this drama you cannot have it placed before the tribunal of thought upon exclusively dramatic grounds. It insists on its moral. You may cry over it as you like, but whenever you wipe your weeping eyes and look at what it means, you will observe that it means mischief ; that it literally vociverates an immoral im-moral significance; that, by a specious presentation of an exceptional and fictitious case of feminine experience, ex-perience, it directly tends to pervert moral perception per-ception and to diffuse loose and pernicious views of the chastity of woman. The drift-of the play is towards the condonation of impurity, provided the woman is pleasant and attractive. In "Camille's" fall the remembrance of the respect that is due to virtuous women is forgotten. for-gotten. The principles of domestic purity and personal per-sonal honor, upon which, and only upon which a fabric of civilized society can securely' rest, are submerged in compassion. Sense expires in sympathy; sym-pathy; and everything is conceded to a wild, unreasoning un-reasoning emotion. It is a legitimate, inference that this result was the end designed in the recast of the play in its English or American form. In French, and a3 it was written by the younger Dumas, it resorts to no subterfuge, and no result could well be more harmful. "Let us," said Dr. Johnson, "free our minds J from cant" the cant of vice equally with the cant of virtue. Xo doubt the ease of "Camille is a hard case; but the laws which govern the moral state of the human race and which declare themselves them-selves in their continuous operation and consequences, conse-quences, are above human theories and are inexorable. inexor-able. It is not "society" that regulates the retribution which overtakes sin; it is a mysterious, a terrible judgment, far back of all conventions. Every wound leaves a scar. This scar may not always be visible, but it is there, it exists. The spirit, like the flesh, can be wounded, and when wounded, although it may heal, yet, like the flesh, it must carry the mark of the injury it has suffered. The awful fact about wrongdoing is the fact that when violence has once been done to the soul, all the repentance and all the atonement possible in this world can never again make things precisely as they were before. The introduction of a fallen wife a courtesan as a subject for pity, or as a proper object of sympathy, is both foolish and vicious. The questions projected in "Camille" are questions for private judgment. The subject has no right to intrude itself into the theatre. It concerns con-cerns the medical profession and the clergy it belongs not to art. And, above all, it should not be thrust upon the young of both sexes, who, for the most part, compose our theatrical audiences. |