July 29. (Contributed.)
AmonG subjects of theoretical importance none more frequently arouse discussion than the position and functions of the Stage. It demands attention in various guises, at times in that of an attack upon the Censor, at others in that of a tirade against Puritans, occasionally in the form of an eloquent appeal for the institution of a National Theatre. This persistency is largely due to the fascio nation of a problem which neither ingenuity nor enthusiasm seems capable of solving, namely, the relation of morality to art. We do not propose to discuss so wide and perilous a question, but only to touch the fringe of it by analyzing the quarrel which exists between Church and Stage. An analysis is necessary in view of the present condition of modern English Drama, for if it can be shown that that condition is the result of extraneous causes, the only remedy necessary is patient and careful readjustment. Let extraneous hin-dronees be removed and the Drama will grow vigorous again. According to men like Mr. Henry Arthur Jones and Mr. St. John Hankin, not the least important of these hindrances is the Church, which had the opportunity of working hand in hand with the Stage an deliberately and stupidly abandoned it. They point out that in the ancient world Drama was the handmaid of Religion and that, in the Middle Ages, theatricals were the vehicle for religious instruction. They assert that Paritanism fostered alienation and that if Puritans would return to the (Pheatréy, Church and Stage might
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.