Bernard Shaw

Mrs. Warren's Profession
Go to page: 1234
MRS WARREN'S PROFESSION


by George Bernard Shaw


1894


With The Author's Apology (1902)




THE AUTHOR'S APOLOGY


Mrs Warren's Profession has been performed at last, after a delay of
only eight years; and I have once more shared with Ibsen the triumphant
amusement of startling all but the strongest-headed of the London
theatre critics clean out of the practice of their profession. No
author who has ever known the exultation of sending the Press into an
hysterical tumult of protest, of moral panic, of involuntary and frantic
confession of sin, of a horror of conscience in which the power of
distinguishing between the work of art on the stage and the real life
of the spectator is confused and overwhelmed, will ever care for the
stereotyped compliments which every successful farce or melodrama
elicits from the newspapers. Give me that critic who rushed from my play
to declare furiously that Sir George Crofts ought to be kicked. What a
triumph for the actor, thus to reduce a jaded London journalist to
the condition of the simple sailor in the Wapping gallery, who shouts
execrations at Iago and warnings to Othello not to believe him! But
dearer still than such simplicity is that sense of the sudden earthquake
shock to the foundations of morality which sends a pallid crowd of
critics into the street shrieking that the pillars of society are
cracking and the ruin of the State is at hand. Even the Ibsen champions
of ten years ago remonstrate with me just as the veterans of those brave
days remonstrated with them. Mr Grein, the hardy iconoclast who first
launched my plays on the stage alongside Ghosts and The Wild Duck,
exclaimed that I have shattered his ideals. Actually his ideals! What
would Dr Relling say? And Mr William Archer himself disowns me because I
"cannot touch pitch without wallowing in it". Truly my play must be more
needed than I knew; and yet I thought I knew how little the others know.

Do not suppose, however, that the consternation of the Press reflects
any consternation among the general public. Anybody can upset the
theatre critics, in a turn of the wrist, by substituting for the
romantic commonplaces of the stage the moral commonplaces of the pulpit,
platform, or the library. Play Mrs Warren's Profession to an audience
of clerical members of the Christian Social Union and of women well
experienced in Rescue, Temperance, and Girls' Club work, and no moral
panic will arise; every man and woman present will know that as long
as poverty makes virtue hideous and the spare pocket-money of rich
bachelordom makes vice dazzling, their daily hand-to-hand fight against
prostitution with prayer and persuasion, shelters and scanty alms,
will be a losing one. There was a time when they were able to urge that
though "the white-lead factory where Anne Jane was poisoned" may be a
far more terrible place than Mrs Warren's house, yet hell is still more
dreadful. Nowadays they no longer believe in hell; and the girls among
whom they are working know that they do not believe in it, and would
laugh at them if they did. So well have the rescuers learnt that Mrs
Warren's defence of herself and indictment of society is the thing that
most needs saying, that those who know me personally reproach me, not
for writing this play, but for wasting my energies on "pleasant
plays" for the amusement of frivolous people, when I can build up such
excellent stage sermons on their own work. Mrs Warren's Profession is
the one play of mine which I could submit to a censorship without doubt
of the result; only, it must not be the censorship of the minor theatre
critic, nor of an innocent court official like the Lord Chamberlain's
Examiner, much less of people who consciously profit by Mrs Warren's
profession, or who personally make use of it, or who hold the widely
whispered view that it is an indispensable safety-valve for the
protection of domestic virtue, or, above all, who are smitten with a
sentimental affection for our fallen sister, and would "take her up
tenderly, lift her with care, fashioned so slenderly, young, and SO
fair." Nor am I prepared to accept the verdict of the medical gentlemen
who would compulsorily sanitate and register Mrs Warren, whilst leaving
Mrs Warren's patrons, especially her military patrons, free to destroy
her health and anybody else's without fear of reprisals. But I should be
quite content to have my play judged by, say, a joint committee of
the Central Vigilance Society and the Salvation Army. And the sterner
moralists the members of the committee were, the better.

Some of the journalists I have shocked reason so unripely that they will
gather nothing from this but a confused notion that I am accusing the
National Vigilance Association and the Salvation Army of complicity in
my own scandalous immorality. It will seem to them that people who would
stand this play would stand anything. They are quite mistaken. Such
an audience as I have described would be revolted by many of our
fashionable plays. They would leave the theatre convinced that the
Plymouth Brother who still regards the playhouse as one of the gates of
hell is perhaps the safest adviser on the subject of which he knows so
little. If I do not draw the same conclusion, it is not because I am one
of those who claim that art is exempt from moral obligations, and deny
that the writing or performance of a play is a moral act, to be treated
on exactly the same footing as theft or murder if it produces equally
mischievous consequences. I am convinced that fine art is the subtlest,
the most seductive, the most effective instrument of moral propaganda in
the world, excepting only the example of personal conduct; and I waive
even this exception in favor of the art of the stage, because it works
by exhibiting examples of personal conduct made intelligible and moving
to crowds of unobservant, unreflecting people to whom real life means
nothing. I have pointed out again and again that the influence of the
theatre in England is growing so great that whilst private conduct,
religion, law, science, politics, and morals are becoming more and
more theatrical, the theatre itself remains impervious to common
sense, religion, science, politics, and morals. That is why I fight the
theatre, not with pamphlets and sermons and treatises, but with plays;
and so effective do I find the dramatic method that I have no doubt I
shall at last persuade even London to take its conscience and its brains
with it when it goes to the theatre, instead of leaving them at home
with its prayer-book as it does at present. Consequently, I am the
last man in the world to deny that if the net effect of performing Mrs
Warren's Profession were an increase in the number of persons entering
that profession, its performance should be dealt with accordingly.

Now let us consider how such recruiting can be encouraged by the
theatre. Nothing is easier. Let the King's Reader of Plays, backed by
the Press, make an unwritten but perfectly well understood regulation
that members of Mrs Warren's profession shall be tolerated on the stage
only when they are beautiful, exquisitely dressed, and sumptuously
lodged and fed; also that they shall, at the end of the play, die of
consumption to the sympathetic tears of the whole audience, or step
into the next room to commit suicide, or at least be turned out by their
protectors and passed on to be "redeemed" by old and faithful lovers who
have adored them in spite of their levities. Naturally, the poorer girls
in the gallery will believe in the beauty, in the exquisite dresses, and
the luxurious living, and will see that there is no real necessity for
the consumption, the suicide, or the ejectment: mere pious forms, all
of them, to save the Censor's face. Even if these purely official
catastrophes carried any conviction, the majority of English girls
remain so poor, so dependent, so well aware that the drudgeries of such
honest work as is within their reach are likely enough to lead them
eventually to lung disease, premature death, and domestic desertion or
brutality, that they would still see reason to prefer the primrose path
to the strait path of virtue, since both, vice at worst and virtue at
best, lead to the same end in poverty and overwork. It is true that the
Board School mistress will tell you that only girls of a certain kind
will reason in this way. But alas! that certain kind turns out on
inquiry to be simply the pretty, dainty kind: that is, the only kind
that gets the chance of acting on such reasoning. Read the first report
of the Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes [Bluebook C
4402, 8d., 1889]; read the Report on Home Industries (sacred word,
Home!) issued by the Women's Industrial Council [Home Industries of
Women in London, 1897, 1s., 12 Buckingham Street, W. C.]; and ask
yourself whether, if the lot in life therein described were your lot
in life, you would not prefer the lot of Cleopatra, of Theodora, of the
Lady of the Camellias, of Mrs Tanqueray, of Zaza, of Iris. If you can
go deep enough into things to be able to say no, how many ignorant
half-starved girls will believe you are speaking sincerely? To them the
lot of Iris is heavenly in comparison with their own. Yet our King, like
his predecessors, says to the dramatist, "Thus, and thus only, shall
you present Mrs Warren's profession on the stage, or you shall starve.
Witness Shaw, who told the untempting truth about it, and whom We, by
the Grace of God, accordingly disallow and suppress, and do what in Us
lies to silence." Fortunately, Shaw cannot be silenced. "The harlot's
cry from street to street" is louder than the voices of all the kings.
I am not dependent on the theatre, and cannot be starved into making
my play a standing advertisement of the attractive side of Mrs Warren's
business.

Here I must guard myself against a misunderstanding. It is not the fault
of their authors that the long string of wanton's tragedies, from Antony
and Cleopatra to Iris, are snares to poor girls, and are objected to
on that account by many earnest men and women who consider Mrs Warren's
Profession an excellent sermon. Mr Pinero is in no way bound to suppress
the fact that his Iris is a person to be envied by millions of better
women. If he made his play false to life by inventing fictitious
disadvantages for her, he would be acting as unscrupulously as any tract
writer. If society chooses to provide for its Irises better than for
its working women, it must not expect honest playwrights to manufacture
spurious evidence to save its credit. The mischief lies in the
deliberate suppression of the other side of the case: the refusal to
allow Mrs Warren to expose the drudgery and repulsiveness of plying for
hire among coarse, tedious drunkards; the determination not to let the
Parisian girl in Brieux's Les Avaries come on the stage and drive into
people's minds what her diseases mean for her and for themselves. All
that, says the King's Reader in effect, is horrifying, loathsome.

Precisely: what does he expect it to be? would he have us represent it
as beautiful and gratifying? The answer to this question, I fear, must
be a blunt Yes; for it seems impossible to root out of an Englishman's
mind the notion that vice is delightful, and that abstention from it
is privation. At all events, as long as the tempting side of it is kept
towards the public, and softened by plenty of sentiment and sympathy, it
is welcomed by our Censor, whereas the slightest attempt to place it in
the light of the policeman's lantern or the Salvation Army shelter
is checkmated at once as not merely disgusting, but, if you please,
unnecessary.

Everybody will, I hope, admit that this state of things is intolerable;
that the subject of Mrs Warren's profession must be either tapu
altogether, or else exhibited with the warning side as freely displayed
as the tempting side. But many persons will vote for a complete tapu,
and an impartial sweep from the boards of Mrs Warren and Gretchen and
the rest; in short, for banishing the sexual instincts from the stage
altogether. Those who think this impossible can hardly have considered
the number and importance of the subjects which are actually banished
from the stage. Many plays, among them Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth,
Coriolanus, Julius Caesar, have no sex complications: the thread of
their action can be followed by children who could not understand a
single scene of Mrs Warren's Profession or Iris. None of our plays rouse
the sympathy of the audience by an exhibition of the pains of maternity,
as Chinese plays constantly do. Each nation has its own particular set
of tapus in addition to the common human stock; and though each of
these tapus limits the scope of the dramatist, it does not make drama
impossible. If the Examiner were to refuse to license plays with female
characters in them, he would only be doing to the stage what our tribal
customs already do to the pulpit and the bar. I have myself written a
rather entertaining play with only one woman in it, and she is quite
heartwhole; and I could just as easily write a play without a woman in
it at all. I will even go so far as to promise the Mr Redford my support
if he will introduce this limitation for part of the year, say during
Lent, so as to make a close season for that dullest of stock dramatic
subjects, adultery, and force our managers and authors to find out what
all great dramatists find out spontaneously: to wit, that people who
sacrifice every other consideration to love are as hopelessly unheroic
on the stage as lunatics or dipsomaniacs. Hector is the world's hero;
not Paris nor Antony.

But though I do not question the possibility of a drama in which love
should be as effectively ignored as cholera is at present, there is not
the slightest chance of that way out of the difficulty being taken by
the Mr Redford. If he attempted it there would be a revolt in which he
would be swept away in spite of my singlehanded efforts to defend him.
A complete tapu is politically impossible. A complete toleration is
equally impossible to Mr Redford, because his occupation would be gone
if there were no tapu to enforce. He is therefore compelled to maintain
the present compromise of a partial tapu, applied, to the best of his
judgement, with a careful respect to persons and to public opinion. And
a very sensible English solution of the difficulty, too, most readers
will say. I should not dispute it if dramatic poets really were what
English public opinion generally assumes them to be during their
lifetime: that is, a licentiously irregular group to be kept in order
in a rough and ready way by a magistrate who will stand no nonsense
from them. But I cannot admit that the class represented by Eschylus,
Sophocles, Aristophanes, Euripides, Shakespear, Goethe, Ibsen, and
Tolstoy, not to mention our own contemporary playwrights, is as much in
place in Mr Redford's office as a pickpocket is in Bow Street. Further,
it is not true that the Censorship, though it certainly suppresses Ibsen
and Tolstoy, and would suppress Shakespear but for the absurd rule that
a play once licensed is always licensed (so that Wycherly is permitted
and Shelley prohibited), also suppresses unscrupulous playwrights. I
challenge Mr Redford to mention any extremity of sexual misconduct which
any manager in his senses would risk presenting on the London stage that
has not been presented under his license and that of his predecessor.
The compromise, in fact, works out in practice in favor of loose plays
as against earnest ones.

To carry conviction on this point, I will take the extreme course of
narrating the plots of two plays witnessed within the last ten years
by myself at London West End theatres, one licensed by the late Queen
Victoria's Reader of Plays, the other by the present Reader to the King.
Both plots conform to the strictest rules of the period when La Dame aux
Camellias was still a forbidden play, and when The Second Mrs Tanqueray
would have been tolerated only on condition that she carefully explained
to the audience that when she met Captain Ardale she sinned "but in
intention."

Play number one. A prince is compelled by his parents to marry the
daughter of a neighboring king, but loves another maiden. The scene
represents a hall in the king's palace at night. The wedding has taken
place that day; and the closed door of the nuptial chamber is in view of
the audience. Inside, the princess awaits her bridegroom. A duenna is in
attendance. The bridegroom enters. His sole desire is to escape from a
marriage which is hateful to him. An idea strikes him. He will assault
the duenna, and get ignominiously expelled from the palace by his
indignant father-in-law. To his horror, when he proceeds to carry out
this stratagem, the duenna, far from raising an alarm, is flattered,
delighted, and compliant. The assaulter becomes the assaulted. He flings
her angrily to the ground, where she remains placidly. He flies. The
father enters; dismisses the duenna; and listens at the keyhole of
his daughter's nuptial chamber, uttering various pleasantries, and
declaring, with a shiver, that a sound of kissing, which he supposes to
proceed from within, makes him feel young again.

In deprecation of the scandalized astonishment with which such a story
as this will be read, I can only say that it was not presented on the
stage until its propriety had been certified by the chief officer of the
Queen of England's household.

Story number two. A German officer finds himself in an inn with a French
lady who has wounded his national vanity. He resolves to humble her by
committing a rape upon her. He announces his purpose. She remonstrates,
implores, flies to the doors and finds them locked, calls for help
and finds none at hand, runs screaming from side to side, and, after
a harrowing scene, is overpowered and faints. Nothing further being
possible on the stage without actual felony, the officer then relents
and leaves her. When she recovers, she believes that he has carried out
his threat; and during the rest of the play she is represented as vainly
vowing vengeance upon him, whilst she is really falling in love with
him under the influence of his imaginary crime against her. Finally she
consents to marry him; and the curtain falls on their happiness.

This story was certified by the present King's Reader, acting for the
Lord Chamberlain, as void in its general tendency of "anything immoral
or otherwise improper for the stage." But let nobody conclude therefore
that Mr Redford is a monster, whose policy it is to deprave the theatre.
As a matter of fact, both the above stories are strictly in order from
the official point of view. The incidents of sex which they contain,
though carried in both to the extreme point at which another step would
be dealt with, not by the King's Reader, but by the police, do not
involve adultery, nor any allusion to Mrs Warren's profession, nor to
the fact that the children of any polyandrous group will, when they grow
up, inevitably be confronted, as those of Mrs Warren's group are in my
play, with the insoluble problem of their own possible consanguinity.
In short, by depending wholly on the coarse humors and the physical
fascination of sex, they comply with all the formulable requirements of
the Censorship, whereas plays in which these humors and fascinations are
discarded, and the social problems created by sex seriously faced and
dealt with, inevitably ignore the official formula and are suppressed.
If the old rule against the exhibition of illicit sex relations on stage
were revived, and the subject absolutely barred, the only result would
be that Antony and Cleopatra, Othello (because of the Bianca episode),
Troilus and Cressida, Henry IV, Measure for Measure, Timon of Athens,
La Dame aux Camellias, The Profligate, The Second Mrs Tanqueray, The
Notorious Mrs Ebbsmith, The Gay Lord Quex, Mrs Dane's Defence, and
Iris would be swept from the stage, and placed under the same ban as
Tolstoy's Dominion of Darkness and Mrs Warren's Profession, whilst such
plays as the two described above would have a monopoly of the theatre as
far as sexual interest is concerned.

What is more, the repulsiveness of the worst of the certified plays
would protect the Censorship against effective exposure and criticism.
Not long ago an American Review of high standing asked me for an article
on the Censorship of the English stage. I replied that such an article
would involve passages too disagreeable for publication in a magazine
for general family reading. The editor persisted nevertheless; but
not until he had declared his readiness to face this, and had pledged
himself to insert the article unaltered (the particularity of the pledge
extending even to a specification of the exact number of words in the
article) did I consent to the proposal. What was the result?

The editor, confronted with the two stories given above, threw his
pledge to the winds, and, instead of returning the article, printed
it with the illustrative examples omitted, and nothing left but the
argument from political principles against the Censorship. In doing this
he fired my broadside after withdrawing the cannon balls; for neither
the Censor nor any other Englishman, except perhaps Mr Leslie Stephen
and a few other veterans of the dwindling old guard of Benthamism, cares
a dump about political principle. The ordinary Briton thinks that if
every other Briton is not kept under some form of tutelage, the more
childish the better, he will abuse his freedom viciously. As far as its
principle is concerned, the Censorship is the most popular institution
in England; and the playwright who criticizes it is slighted as a
blackguard agitating for impunity. Consequently nothing can really shake
the confidence of the public in the Lord Chamberlain's department except
a remorseless and unbowdlerized narration of the licentious fictions
which slip through its net, and are hallmarked by it with the approval
of the Throne. But since these narrations cannot be made public without
great difficulty, owing to the obligation an editor is under not to
deal unexpectedly with matters that are not _virginibus puerisque_, the
chances are heavily in favor of the Censor escaping all remonstrance.
With the exception of such comments as I was able to make in my own
critical articles in The World and The Saturday Review when the pieces
I have described were first produced, and a few ignorant protests by
churchmen against much better plays which they confessed they had not
seen nor read, nothing has been said in the press that could seriously
disturb the easygoing notion that the stage would be much worse than it
admittedly is but for the vigilance of the King's Reader. The truth is,
that no manager would dare produce on his own responsibility the pieces
he can now get royal certificates for at two guineas per piece.

I hasten to add that I believe these evils to be inherent in the
nature of all censorship, and not merely a consequence of the form the
institution takes in London. No doubt there is a staggering absurdity
in appointing an ordinary clerk to see that the leaders of European
literature do not corrupt the morals of the nation, and to restrain Sir
Henry Irving, as a rogue and a vagabond, from presuming to impersonate
Samson or David on the stage, though any other sort of artist may daub
these scriptural figures on a signboard or carve them on a tombstone
without hindrance. If the General Medical Council, the Royal College of
Physicians, the Royal Academy of Arts, the Incorporated Law Society, and
Convocation were abolished, and their functions handed over to the Mr
Redford, the Concert of Europe would presumably declare England mad, and
treat her accordingly. Yet, though neither medicine nor painting nor
law nor the Church moulds the character of the nation as potently as the
theatre does, nothing can come on the stage unless its dimensions admit
of its passing through Mr Redford's mind! Pray do not think that I
question Mr Redford's honesty. I am quite sure that he sincerely thinks
me a blackguard, and my play a grossly improper one, because, like
Tolstoy's Dominion of Darkness, it produces, as they are both meant to
produce, a very strong and very painful impression of evil. I do not
doubt for a moment that the rapine play which I have described, and
which he licensed, was quite incapable in manuscript of producing
any particular effect on his mind at all, and that when he was once
satisfied that the ill-conducted hero was a German and not an English
officer, he passed the play without studying its moral tendencies. Even
if he had undertaken that study, there is no more reason to suppose
that he is a competent moralist than there is to suppose that I am a
competent mathematician. But truly it does not matter whether he is a
moralist or not. Let nobody dream for a moment that what is wrong with
the Censorship is the shortcoming of the gentleman who happens at any
moment to be acting as Censor. Replace him to-morrow by an Academy of
Letters and an Academy of Dramatic Poetry, and the new and enlarged
filter will still exclude original and epoch-making work, whilst passing
conventional, old-fashioned, and vulgar work without question. The
conclave which compiles the index of the Roman Catholic Church is the
most august, ancient, learned, famous, and authoritative censorship in
Europe. Is it more enlightened, more liberal, more tolerant that the
comparatively infinitesimal office of the Lord Chamberlain? On the
contrary, it has reduced itself to a degree of absurdity which makes a
Catholic university a contradiction in terms. All censorships exist
to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing
institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current concepts,
and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the
first condition of progress is the removal of censorships. There is the
whole case against censorships in a nutshell.

It will be asked whether theatrical managers are to be allowed to
produce what they like, without regard to the public interest. But that
is not the alternative. The managers of our London music-halls are not
subject to any censorship. They produce their entertainments on their
own responsibility, and have no two-guinea certificates to plead if
their houses are conducted viciously. They know that if they lose their
character, the County Council will simply refuse to renew their license
at the end of the year; and nothing in the history of popular art
is more amazing than the improvement in music-halls that this simple
arrangement has produced within a few years. Place the theatres on the
same footing, and we shall promptly have a similar revolution: a whole
class of frankly blackguardly plays, in which unscrupulous low comedians
attract crowds to gaze at bevies of girls who have nothing to exhibit
but their prettiness, will vanish like the obscene songs which were
supposed to enliven the squalid dulness, incredible to the younger
generation, of the music-halls fifteen years ago. On the other hand,
plays which treat sex questions as problems for thought instead of as
aphrodisiacs will be freely performed. Gentlemen of Mr Redford's way of
thinking will have plenty of opportunity of protesting against them
in Council; but the result will be that the Mr Redford will find his
natural level; Ibsen and Tolstoy theirs; so no harm will be done.

This question of the Censorship reminds me that I have to apologize
to those who went to the recent performance of Mrs Warren's Profession
expecting to find it what I have just called an aphrodisiac. That was
not my fault; it was Mr Redford's. After the specimens I have given of
the tolerance of his department, it was natural enough for thoughtless
people to infer that a play which overstepped his indulgence must be a
very exciting play indeed. Accordingly, I find one critic so explicit as
to the nature of his disappointment as to say candidly that "such airy
talk as there is upon the matter is utterly unworthy of acceptance as
being a representation of what people with blood in them think or do on
such occasions." Thus am I crushed between the upper millstone of the Mr
Redford, who thinks me a libertine, and the nether popular critic, who
thinks me a prude. Critics of all grades and ages, middle-aged fathers
of families no less than ardent young enthusiasts, are equally indignant
with me. They revile me as lacking in passion, in feeling, in manhood.
Some of them even sum the matter up by denying me any dramatic power: a
melancholy betrayal of what dramatic power has come to mean on our stage
under the Censorship! Can I be expected to refrain from laughing at
the spectacle of a number of respectable gentlemen lamenting because a
playwright lures them to the theatre by a promise to excite their senses
in a very special and sensational manner, and then, having successfully
trapped them in exceptional numbers, proceeds to ignore their senses and
ruthlessly improve their minds? But I protest again that the lure was
not mine. The play had been in print for four years; and I have spared
no pains to make known that my plays are built to induce, not voluptuous
reverie but intellectual interest, not romantic rhapsody but humane
concern. Accordingly, I do not find those critics who are gifted with
intellectual appetite and political conscience complaining of want of
dramatic power. Rather do they protest, not altogether unjustly, against
a few relapses into staginess and caricature which betray the young
playwright and the old playgoer in this early work of mine.

As to the voluptuaries, I can assure them that the playwright, whether
he be myself or another, will always disappoint them. The drama can do
little to delight the senses: all the apparent instances to the contrary
are instances of the personal fascination of the performers. The drama
of pure feeling is no longer in the hands of the playwright: it has been
conquered by the musician, after whose enchantments all the verbal arts
seem cold and tame. Romeo and Juliet with the loveliest Juliet is dry,
tedious, and rhetorical in comparison with Wagner's Tristan, even though
Isolde be both fourteen stone and forty, as she often is in Germany.
Indeed, it needed no Wagner to convince the public of this. The
voluptuous sentimentality of Gounod's Faust and Bizet's Carmen has
captured the common playgoer; and there is, flatly, no future now for
any drama without music except the drama of thought. The attempt to
produce a genus of opera without music (and this absurdity is what
our fashionable theatres have been driving at for a long time without
knowing it) is far less hopeful than my own determination to accept
problem as the normal materiel of the drama.

That this determination will throw me into a long conflict with our
theatre critics, and with the few playgoers who go to the theatre as
often as the critics, I well know; but I am too well equipped for the
strife to be deterred by it, or to bear malice towards the losing side.
In trying to produce the sensuous effects of opera, the fashionable
drama has become so flaccid in its sentimentality, and the intellect
of its frequenters so atrophied by disuse, that the reintroduction
of problem, with its remorseless logic and iron framework of fact,
inevitably produces at first an overwhelming impression of coldness and
inhuman rationalism. But this will soon pass away. When the intellectual
muscle and moral nerve of the critics has been developed in the struggle
with modern problem plays, the pettish luxuriousness of the clever ones,
and the sulky sense of disadvantaged weakness in the sentimental ones,
will clear away; and it will be seen that only in the problem play is
there any real drama, because drama is no mere setting up of the camera
to nature: it is the presentation in parable of the conflict between
Man's will and his environment: in a word, of problem. The vapidness of
such drama as the pseudo-operatic plays contain lies in the fact that
in them animal passion, sentimentally diluted, is shewn in conflict, not
with real circumstances, but with a set of conventions and assumptions
half of which do not exist off the stage, whilst the other half can
either be evaded by a pretence of compliance or defied with complete
impunity by any reasonably strong-minded person. Nobody can feel that
such conventions are really compulsory; and consequently nobody can
believe in the stage pathos that accepts them as an inexorable fate, or
in the genuineness of the people who indulge in such pathos. Sitting
at such plays, we do not believe: we make-believe. And the habit of
make-believe becomes at last so rooted that criticism of the theatre
insensibly ceases to be criticism at all, and becomes more and more a
chronicle of the fashionable enterprises of the only realities left on
the stage: that is, the performers in their own persons. In this
phase the playwright who attempts to revive genuine drama produces the
disagreeable impression of the pedant who attempts to start a serious
discussion at a fashionable at-home. Later on, when he has driven the
tea services out and made the people who had come to use the theatre as
a drawing-room understand that it is they and not the dramatist who are
the intruders, he has to face the accusation that his plays ignore human
feeling, an illusion produced by that very resistance of fact and law to
human feeling which creates drama. It is the _deus ex machina_ who, by
suspending that resistance, makes the fall of the curtain an immediate
necessity, since drama ends exactly where resistance ends. Yet the
introduction of this resistance produces so strong an impression of
heartlessness nowadays that a distinguished critic has summed up the
impression made on him by Mrs Warren's Profession, by declaring that
"the difference between the spirit of Tolstoy and the spirit of Mr
Shaw is the difference between the spirit of Christ and the spirit of
Euclid." But the epigram would be as good if Tolstoy's name were put in
place of mine and D'Annunzio's in place of Tolstoy. At the same time
I accept the enormous compliment to my reasoning powers with sincere
complacency; and I promise my flatterer that when he is sufficiently
accustomed to and therefore undazzled by problem on the stage to be able
to attend to the familiar factor of humanity in it as well as to the
unfamiliar one of a real environment, he will both see and feel that
Mrs Warren's Profession is no mere theorem, but a play of instincts
and temperaments in conflict with each other and with a flinty social
problem that never yields an inch to mere sentiment.

I go further than this. I declare that the real secret of the
cynicism and inhumanity of which shallower critics accuse me is the
unexpectedness with which my characters behave like human beings,
instead of conforming to the romantic logic of the stage. The axioms and
postulates of that dreary mimanthropometry are so well known that it is
almost impossible for its slaves to write tolerable last acts to
their plays, so conventionally do their conclusions follow from their
premises. Because I have thrown this logic ruthlessly overboard, I am
accused of ignoring, not stage logic, but, of all things, human feeling.
People with completely theatrified imaginations tell me that no girl
would treat her mother as Vivie Warren does, meaning that no stage
heroine would in a popular sentimental play. They say this just as they
might say that no two straight lines would enclose a space. They do not
see how completely inverted their vision has become even when I throw
its preposterousness in their faces, as I repeatedly do in this very
play. Praed, the sentimental artist (fool that I was not to make him a
theatre critic instead of an architect!) burlesques them by expecting
all through the piece that the feelings of others will be logically
deducible from their family relationships and from his "conventionally
unconventional" social code. The sarcasm is lost on the critics: they,
saturated with the same logic, only think him the sole sensible person
on the stage. Thus it comes about that the more completely the dramatist
is emancipated from the illusion that men and women are primarily
reasonable beings, and the more powerfully he insists on the ruthless
indifference of their great dramatic antagonist, the external world, to
their whims and emotions, the surer he is to be denounced as blind to
the very distinction on which his whole work is built. Far from ignoring
idiosyncrasy, will, passion, impulse, whim, as factors in human action,
I have placed them so nakedly on the stage that the elderly citizen,
accustomed to see them clothed with the veil of manufactured logic about
duty, and to disguise even his own impulses from himself in this way,
finds the picture as unnatural as Carlyle's suggested painting of
parliament sitting without its clothes.

I now come to those critics who, intellectually baffled by the problem
in Mrs Warren's Profession, have made a virtue of running away from it.
I will illustrate their method by quotation from Dickens, taken from the
fifth chapter of Our Mutual Friend:

"Hem!" began Wegg. "This, Mr Boffin and Lady, is the first chapter of
the first wollume of the Decline and Fall off----" here he looked hard
at the book, and stopped.

"What's the matter, Wegg?"

"Why, it comes into my mind, do you know, sir," said Wegg with an air of
insinuating frankness (having first again looked hard at the book), "that
you made a little mistake this morning, which I had meant to set you
right in; only something put it out of my head. I think you said Rooshan
Empire, sir?"

"It is Rooshan; ain't it, Wegg?"

"No, sir. Roman. Roman."

"What's the difference, Wegg?"

"The difference, sir?" Mr Wegg was faltering and in danger of breaking
down, when a bright thought flashed upon him. "The difference, sir?
There you place me in a difficulty, Mr Boffin. Suffice it to observe,
that the difference is best postponed to some other occasion when Mrs
Boffin does not honor us with her company. In Mrs Boffin's presence,
sir, we had better drop it."

Mr Wegg thus came out of his disadvantage with quite a chivalrous air,
and not only that, but by dint of repeating with a manly delicacy,
"In Mrs Boffin's presence, sir, we had better drop it!" turned the
disadvantage on Boffin, who felt that he had committed himself in a very
painful manner.

I am willing to let Mr Wegg drop it on these terms, provided I am
allowed to mention here that Mrs Warren's Profession is a play for
women; that it was written for women; that it has been performed and
produced mainly through the determination of women that it should be
performed and produced; that the enthusiasm of women made its first
performance excitingly successful; and that not one of these women had
any inducement to support it except their belief in the timeliness and
the power of the lesson the play teaches. Those who were "surprised to
see ladies present" were men; and when they proceeded to explain that
the journals they represented could not possibly demoralize the public
by describing such a play, their editors cruelly devoted the space saved
by their delicacy to an elaborate and respectful account of the progress
of a young lord's attempt to break the bank at Monte Carlo. A few days
sooner Mrs Warren would have been crowded out of their papers by an
exceptionally abominable police case. I do not suggest that the police
case should have been suppressed; but neither do I believe that regard
for public morality had anything to do with their failure to grapple
with the performance by the Stage Society. And, after all, there was no
need to fall back on Silas Wegg's subterfuge. Several critics saved the
faces of their papers easily enough by the simple expedient of saying
all they had to say in the tone of a shocked governess lecturing a
naughty child. To them I might plead, in Mrs Warren's words, "Well,
it's only good manners to be ashamed, dearie;" but it surprises me,
recollecting as I do the effect produced by Miss Fanny Brough's delivery
of that line, that gentlemen who shivered like violets in a zephyr as
it swept through them, should so completely miss the full width of its
application as to go home and straightway make a public exhibition of
mock modesty.

My old Independent Theatre manager, Mr Grein, besides that reproach to
me for shattering his ideals, complains that Mrs Warren is not wicked
enough, and names several romancers who would have clothed her black
soul with all the terrors of tragedy. I have no doubt they would; but
if you please, my dear Grein, that is just what I did not want to do.
Nothing would please our sanctimonious British public more than to throw
the whole guilt of Mrs Warren's profession on Mrs Warren herself. Now
the whole aim of my play is to throw that guilt on the British public
itself. You may remember that when you produced my first play, Widowers'
Houses, exactly the same misunderstanding arose. When the virtuous young
gentleman rose up in wrath against the slum landlord, the slum
landlord very effectively shewed him that slums are the product, not
of individual Harpagons, but of the indifference of virtuous young
gentlemen to the condition of the city they live in, provided they
live at the west end of it on money earned by someone else's labor. The
notion that prostitution is created by the wickedness of Mrs Warren
is as silly as the notion--prevalent, nevertheless, to some extent in
Temperance circles--that drunkenness is created by the wickedness of
the publican. Mrs Warren is not a whit a worse woman than the reputable
daughter who cannot endure her. Her indifference to the ultimate social
consequences of her means of making money, and her discovery of that
means by the ordinary method of taking the line of least resistance to
getting it, are too common in English society to call for any special
remark. Her vitality, her thrift, her energy, her outspokenness, her
wise care of her daughter, and the managing capacity which has enabled
her and her sister to climb from the fried fish shop down by the Mint
to the establishments of which she boasts, are all high English social
virtues. Her defence of herself is so overwhelming that it provokes the
St James Gazette to declare that "the tendency of the play is wholly
evil" because "it contains one of the boldest and most specious defences
of an immoral life for poor women that has ever been penned." Happily
the St James Gazette here speaks in its haste. Mrs Warren's defence of
herself is not only bold and specious, but valid and unanswerable.
But it is no defence at all of the vice which she organizes. It is
no defence of an immoral life to say that the alternative offered
by society collectively to poor women is a miserable life, starved,
overworked, fetid, ailing, ugly. Though it is quite natural and RIGHT
for Mrs Warren to choose what is, according to her lights, the least
immoral alternative, it is none the less infamous of society to offer
such alternatives. For the alternatives offered are not morality and
immorality, but two sorts of immorality. The man who cannot see
that starvation, overwork, dirt, and disease are as anti-social as
prostitution--that they are the vices and crimes of a nation, and
not merely its misfortunes--is (to put it as politely as possible) a
hopelessly Private Person.

The notion that Mrs Warren must be a fiend is only an example of the
violence and passion which the slightest reference to sex arouses in
undisciplined minds, and which makes it seem natural for our lawgivers
to punish silly and negligible indecencies with a ferocity unknown in
dealing with, for example, ruinous financial swindling. Had my play been
titled Mr Warren's Profession, and Mr Warren been a bookmaker, nobody
would have expected me to make him a villain as well. Yet gambling is
a vice, and bookmaking an institution, for which there is absolutely
nothing to be said. The moral and economic evil done by trying to get
other people's money without working for it (and this is the essence of
gambling) is not only enormous but uncompensated. There are no two sides
to the question of gambling, no circumstances which force us to tolerate
it lest its suppression lead to worse things, no consensus of opinion
among responsible classes, such as magistrates and military commanders,
that it is a necessity, no Athenian records of gambling made splendid by
the talents of its professors, no contention that instead of violating
morals it only violates a legal institution which is in many respects
oppressive and unnatural, no possible plea that the instinct on which it
is founded is a vital one. Prostitution can confuse the issue with all
these excuses: gambling has none of them. Consequently, if Mrs Warren
must needs be a demon, a bookmaker must be a cacodemon. Well, does
anybody who knows the sporting world really believe that bookmakers are
worse than their neighbors? On the contrary, they have to be a good deal
better; for in that world nearly everybody whose social rank does not
exclude such an occupation would be a bookmaker if he could; but the
strength of character for handling large sums of money and for strict
settlements and unflinching payment of losses is so rare that successful
bookmakers are rare too. It may seem that at least public spirit
cannot be one of a bookmaker's virtues; but I can testify from personal
experience that excellent public work is done with money subscribed
by bookmakers. It is true that there are abysses in bookmaking: for
example, welshing. Mr Grein hints that there are abysses in Mrs Warren's
profession also. So there are in every profession: the error lies in
supposing that every member of them sounds these depths. I sit on a
public body which prosecutes Mrs Warren zealously; and I can assure Mr
Grein that she is often leniently dealt with because she has conducted
her business "respectably" and held herself above its vilest branches.
The degrees in infamy are as numerous and as scrupulously observed as
the degrees in the peerage: the moralist's notion that there are depths
at which the moral atmosphere ceases is as delusive as the rich man's
notion that there are no social jealousies or snobberies among the very
poor. No: had I drawn Mrs Warren as a fiend in human form, the very
people who now rebuke me for flattering her would probably be the
first to deride me for deducing her character logically from occupation
instead of observing it accurately in society.

One critic is so enslaved by this sort of logic that he calls my
portraiture of the Reverend Samuel Gardner an attack on religion.

According to this view Subaltern Iago is an attack on the army, Sir
John Falstaff an attack on knighthood, and King Claudius an attack on
royalty. Here again the clamor for naturalness and human feeling, raised
by so many critics when they are confronted by the real thing on the
stage, is really a clamor for the most mechanical and superficial sort
of logic. The dramatic reason for making the clergyman what Mrs Warren
calls "an old stick-in-the-mud," whose son, in spite of much capacity
and charm, is a cynically worthless member of society, is to set up a
mordant contrast between him and the woman of infamous profession, with
her well brought-up, straightforward, hardworking daughter. The critics
who have missed the contrast have doubtless observed often enough that
many clergymen are in the Church through no genuine calling, but simply
because, in circles which can command preferment, it is the refuge
of "the fool of the family"; and that clergymen's sons are often
conspicuous reactionists against the restraints imposed on them in
childhood by their father's profession. These critics must know, too,
from history if not from experience, that women as unscrupulous as Mrs
Warren have distinguished themselves as administrators and rulers, both
commercially and politically. But both observation and knowledge are
left behind when journalists go to the theatre. Once in their stalls,
they assume that it is "natural" for clergymen to be saintly, for
soldiers to be heroic, for lawyers to be hard-hearted, for sailors to
be simple and generous, for doctors to perform miracles with little
bottles, and for Mrs Warren to be a beast and a demon. All this is not
only not natural, but not dramatic. A man's profession only enters into
the drama of his life when it comes into conflict with his nature. The
result of this conflict is tragic in Mrs Warren's case, and comic in the
clergyman's case (at least we are savage enough to laugh at it); but
in both cases it is illogical, and in both cases natural. I repeat,
the critics who accuse me of sacrificing nature to logic are so
sophisticated by their profession that to them logic is nature, and
nature absurdity.

Many friendly critics are too little skilled in social questions and
moral discussions to be able to conceive that respectable gentlemen like
themselves, who would instantly call the police to remove Mrs Warren if
she ventured to canvass them personally, could possibly be in any way
responsible for her proceedings. They remonstrate sincerely, asking me
what good such painful exposures can possibly do. They might as well ask
what good Lord Shaftesbury did by devoting his life to the exposure
of evils (by no means yet remedied) compared to which the worst things
brought into view or even into surmise by this play are trifles.
The good of mentioning them is that you make people so extremely
uncomfortable about them that they finally stop blaming "human nature"
for them, and begin to support measures for their reform.

Can anything be more absurd than the copy of The Echo which contains a
notice of the performance of my play? It is edited by a gentleman who,
having devoted his life to work of the Shaftesbury type, exposes social
evils and clamors for their reform in every column except one; and that
one is occupied by the declaration of the paper's kindly theatre critic,
that the performance left him "wondering what useful purpose the play
was intended to serve." The balance has to be redressed by the more
fashionable papers, which usually combine capable art criticism with
West-End solecism on politics and sociology. It is very noteworthy,
however, on comparing the press explosion produced by Mrs Warren's
Profession in 1902 with that produced by Widowers' Houses about ten
years earlier, that whereas in 1892 the facts were frantically denied
and the persons of the drama flouted as monsters of wickedness, in
1902 the facts are admitted and the characters recognized, though it is
suggested that this is exactly why no gentleman should mention them in
public. Only one writer has ventured to imply this time that the poverty
mentioned by Mrs Warren has since been quietly relieved, and need
not have been dragged back to the footlights. I compliment him on his
splendid mendacity, in which he is unsupported, save by a little plea in
a theatrical paper which is innocent enough to think that ten guineas a
year with board and lodging is an impossibly low wage for a barmaid. It
goes on to cite Mr Charles Booth as having testified that there are
many laborers' wives who are happy and contented on eighteen shillings
a week. But I can go further than that myself. I have seen an Oxford
agricultural laborer's wife looking cheerful on eight shillings a week;
but that does not console me for the fact that agriculture in England
is a ruined industry. If poverty does not matter as long as it is
contented, then crime does not matter as long as it is unscrupulous. The
truth is that it is only then that it does matter most desperately.
Many persons are more comfortable when they are dirty than when they are
clean; but that does not recommend dirt as a national policy.
                
Go to page: 1234
 
 
Хостинг от uCoz