| Citation |
NYJ-N.768.009
14 Jan 1768:223 (1306)
Nothing is more pernicious to morals, than loitering away
our time at plays or shows: Where vice insensibly and
pleasingly steals upon us. [This is the author's translation
of a quote of Seneca's preceding this.]. . . [50 lines of
discussion of morals, dissipation, etc.]
And will amusements so disorder the moral frame, as to
open a door for the introduction of any of these evils?--Is
it possible that there should be entertainments that
transfuse into the mind this deadly poison, and become the
prelude of such fatal consequences? . . . [8 more lines]
susceptible of dangerous impressions from some sorts of
amusement. Against one of these it is that I am contending,
and the reader will not be surprised when he is told that I
mean the capital entertainment of the theatre:. . . [6 more
lines]
The erecting a play-house in this city, has been and still
is matter of uneasiness, to a very great part of the
inhabitants; and those who are thus affected towards it, I
hope will not fail to shew their disapprobation of such a
project, by making a point of it never to be seen there.
Others again are more indifferent and think there is no harm
in going to a play, nay who look upon it as an entertainment
that ought to be encouraged. By the countenance of the one,
or the discountenance of the other of these two grand
parties, the play-house must either stand or fall. . . [9
more lines]
If players were of any use to society, how comes it that
they are not countenanced by the wisdom of the law, and
cherished as worthy and useful members of the state?
Instead of which I am told, that the law considers than as
vagrants; and tho' I am no lawyer, yet these players seem to
me to be such a useless incumbrance to society themselves,
and have such a share in promoting idleness among others,
that I can easily see a propriety in this harsh and severe
law-appellation. If the theatre is so very useful, and
tends to promote knowledge and virtue, as some insist, is it
not strange that those characters that are so necessary to
support and maintain it, should be thus stigmatized?--One
might almost venture to infer that there cannot be any great
good arising to a community, from what the law itself points
out as a nusance ; for if players are considered as
vagrants, then it follows that the theatre by which they
live, must be a nusance. With regard to the effect plays
have upon morals, it cannot be discovered any where better
than among actors themselves.
What dissipation, extravagance, and debauchery in general
charecterize these people!--Strange that the instructors in
this school of virtue, should have so little of it among
themselves!__That all the moral lessons and just sentiments
in plays, should be lost upon those whose business it is to
become masters of, and inculcate them upon others! We must
either suppose some uncommon depravity of manners peculiar
to those who become players, or that their becoming so,
occasions this depravity; either of which suppositions does
little honour to the stage. As I intend not a personal
application of this remark to the actors now here, nor
design to make the press a vehicle for slander; I will do
them the justice to say, that I do not mean to describe any
one or more of them by reference to, or knowledge of their
particular characters: But I intend the observation as a
general one respecting most players, and for the truth of
this I appeal to fact. How far it may be verified in any of
those that are now here, I leave to be determined by their
own conduct, and the judgment of others. As to the man who
claims the religious character, what an inconsistent part
must he act should he attend the diversions of the stage!
Does he not thereby contribute to the support of a school
where immorality and vice are cherished, where like rank
weeds, they are of spontaneous growth; . . [1 line]
If the stage is such a snare even to the actors
themselves, a religious man for that single reason would
forbear to encourage it. . . [3 more lines]
I might in the next place ask, what there are in the
entertainments of the stage, that can upon the whole, answer
the Christian's views or expectations? . . . [6 more lines]
May not these horrid oaths and blasphemies with which plays
are pregnant, tend to lessen his reverence for the supreme
Being? . . . [24 more lines]
But further should the Christian furnish an example in
favour of the play-house by frequenting it, would it not be
matter of triumph to the advocates for the stage? . . . [5
more lines] Others, who are now set against the play-house,
will be tempted to give up, if the example among the
religious and better sort of people is prevalent in its
favour.-- These are truths so plain and obvious, that I hope
we shall not see this strange paradox, that those who
pretend to be Christians, act so much out of character as to
become frequenters of the play-house.
[Signed] Philander. New-York, January 8, 1761.
|