Representation of the Impiety and Immorality of the English Stage (1704); Some Thoughts Concerning the Stage in a Letter to a Lady (1704)
Religion
Representation of the Impiety and Immorality of the English Stage (1704); Some Thoughts Concerning the Stage in a Letter to a Lady (1704)
Theater -- England -- Early works to 1800; Theater -- Moral and ethical aspects -- Early works to 1800
and Ridicul'd; To see this, I say, and withall, to reflect upon the
fatal Effects which these things have already had, and how much worse
are likely to follow, if not timely prevented, cannot but fill the Minds
of all good Men with very dismal Apprehensions.
And are these then the Entertainments for a Christian to be pleas'd
with; for one whose _Salvation_ is to be wrought out with Fear and
Trembling? Will the Strictnesses of Virtue and Religion be ever relished
by a Mind tinctur'd with such Licentious Representations? Must not such
Diversions (to say no worse of 'em) insensibly steal upon the
_Affections_, especially of the _Younger sort_; give their Minds quite a
wrong Biass, and disarm them of that _Severity_ which is their greatest
Guard, and which, when once lost, leaves 'em an easie Prey to every
Temptation? Will not those _Lewd Scenes_ of Love, wherewith almost every
Play is fraught, inflame the Fancy, heighten the Imagination, and render
a Person thus prepar'd, a fit Subject for ill designing People to work
on? But suppose it were possible to be so armed as to be Proof against
all these Dangers; yet let any that have the least Regard to what is
_Serious_, tell me how they can answer it to _God_, or their own
_Consciences_, to be any ways Instrumental towards the _Support_ of so
much Wickedness? Do they think it a Sin to give the least Encouragement
to Vice, and at the same time believe themselves _Innocent_, when by
their _Persons_, and their _Purses_, they contribute to the cherishing
the very _Seed-Plot_ of Irreligion? 'Tis to no purpose for such to say,
That they are cautious what Plays they see, and always go to the best
and that the _Play-Houses_ would thrive whether they frequented them or
no. This may he true, but what then, Will this excuse them? Suppose a
powerful _Rebellion_ is begun in a Nation, and carried on
_successfully_, for some time; and a Man should not only appear
sometimes among the Rebels, but should, now and then, send them a
_Supply_ (tho' never so little) of Money and Arms: Could such a one
pretend that he was no ways _Instrumental_ in this Rebellion, nor
Accessary to the Mischiefs that attended it, and that because it was not
only _begun_, but would have _prosper'd_ too, without him; and altho' he
did sometimes appear among the Authors of it, yet it was with the Party
which did the least Mischief? Do you think, _Madam_, this a just way of
Reasoning? I dare say you do not. Is not this then the very Case I am
speaking of? Is the _Stage_, as 'tis now manag'd, any thing else but a
downright Rebellion against God and his Holy Religion? Are not the
Plays, (if not by Design) yet by a natural and necessary Consequence, an
_undermining_ of his Laws, and an _Attempt_ upon his Government? And
must it not then follow, that _every one_ that frequents them, is a
_Party_ in the _Cause_, and _encourages_ the Undertaking? And tho' he
should be so Happy as never to smile at a _Prophane Jest_, nor join in
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account