I am not writing
'A Short View' of this or any other moral subject; but this I must
say--the effect of a sight or sound on a human being's silly little
passions must of necessity be relative. Staid people read 'Don Juan,'
Lewis's 'Monk,' the plays of Congreve, and any or all of the
publications of Holywell Street, without more than disgust at their
obscenity and admiration for their beauties. But could we be pardoned
for putting these works into the hands of 'sweet seventeen,' or making
Christmas presents of them to our boys? Ignorance of evil is, to a
certain extent, virtue: let boys be boys in purity of mind as long as
they can: let the unrefined 'great unwashed' be treated also much in the
same way as young people. I maintain that to a coarse mind all improper
ideas, however beautifully clothed, suggest only sensual thoughts--nay,
the very modesty of the garments makes them the more insidious--the more
dangerous. I would rather give my boy Jonson, Massinger, or Beaumont and
Fletcher, whose very improper things 'are called by their proper names,'
than let him dive in the prurient innuendo of these later writers.
But there is no need to argue the question--the public has decided it
long since, and, except in indelicate ballets, and occasional rather
_French_ passages in farce, our modern stage is free from immorality.
Pages:
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238