The Irish Literary Theatre

Freeman’s Journal, 13 November 1901, page 5-6, 2,759 words

Interview with Mr. George Moore.

He Wants the Censorship of the Church.

The future, if any, of the Irish Literary Theatre has been the subject of much speculation, and of varied prophecy. Whether the experiment of three years holds out sufficient hope to warrant an attempt to establish a permanent theatre; what should be the aims of such a theatre; how to establish it, and how to carry it on are questions discussed with interest by many people. No name has been more prominent in the recent history of the Irish Literary Theatre movement than that of Mr. George Moore. The fact that he is something of a storm-centre for criticism lends additional interest to his views. An interview with Mr. Moore could not fail to be entertaining reading, so we have interviewed Mr. Moore. He is no longer a mere visitor to Dublin, occupying a room in a hotel or a “pied-a-terre.” He has come over to Ireland for good — for what good time will show us — and is a ratepaying resident with a house in Ely place. The interview is, as will be seen, somewhat one-sided, the interviewer confining his attention to eliciting Mr. Moore’s opinions, and giving them as closely as possible in his own words.

Interviewer — In “Samhain” Mr. Yeats said that the Irish Literary Theatre has completed its term of three years. If I remember right he says that he may be writing an epitaph. Is that a likely contingency?

Mr. Moore — I hope not, for the Irish Literary Theatre is the outward sign of the awakening of intellectual life in Ireland. What Mr. Yeats meant was that the three years during which we undertook to carry on the Theatre whether we succeeded or failed have come to an end. Our success with “Grania” has made the future more safe. We hope to be able to carry on the Theatre. We shall try to carry it on until the nation is ripe for a National Theatre.

Interviewer — What are your plans for the immediate future?

Mr. Moore — We decided this year to produce a play by Dr. Douglas Hyde, with Hyde in the principal part, and for next year we are trying to get a play by a priest to produce in our next season. I have written to Father O’Leary for leave to produce his play if possible. He has given me leave, but the play is several scenes, and will have to be reconstructed, I think.

Interviewer — Will Father O’Leary alter his play for you?

Mr. Moore — That I cannot say. I shall have to write to him on the subject.

Interviewer — There is Father Dinneen; I hear that he has completed a new play?

Mr. Moore — So I have heard.

Interviewer — And is your mind set upon a play by a priest?

Mr. Moore — If Ireland is to have a National Theatre it must be frequented by all classes — by all who believe in Irish nationality, and the priests believe in Irish nationality. We want to bring the priests into the Theatre.

Interviewer — But there is a rule forbidding —

Mr. Moore — Yes, and that rule I want rescinded. The theatre needs purification. I want to redeem it from the counting-house and the various immorality that the counting-house brings in its train. The Archbishop has spoken against the detestable musical comedies, but his words lose force, for he is speaking from hearsay.

Interviewer — Am I to understand that you are seeking to establish a censorship?

Mr. Moore — Yes; censorship, and I think I can have no better censor than the Church. I am glad the Irish Literary Theatre has decided to have a play by a priest next year, for I want a censorship. There is no law forbidding a priest to write a play, though he is forbidden to attend the performance of a play.

Interviewer — And the anomaly created by the performance of a priest’s play will, you think, result in the rescinding of the established rule?

Mr. Moore — I hope so. And with the rescinding of the rule the censorship will come.

Interviewer — But I should have supposed that a censorship would be resented by you — that you would think it likely to interfere, shall I say, with what you call “the pursuit of art for art’s sake.”

Mr. Moore — I do not contemplate writing anything the Church will condemn. I am sure Mr. Yeats and Mr. Martyn do not. I do not know what the Committee of the Literary Theatre think about it, but I am convinced that a censorship is necessary. The admirable Middle Ages prove that. I am willing, so far as I am concerned, to submit the National Theatre, should it be established, to the censorship of the Church. I plead that in the interests of art the Church may undertake this task. The intelligent censorship of the Church will free the stage from the unintelligent and ignorant censorship of the public, the censorship of those without personal convictions, and of those whose ideas are the conventions and the gossip of the little coterie they frequent. It is from that censorship that I wish to rid the stage, nor is this a new idea of mine. So long as ten years ago I wrote an article defending the London censorship against Mr. Archer, who attacked it. The London censorship is a lay censorship, and a lay censorship is almost futility; but the ecclesiastical censorship would be an ideal state of things. It would confer upon art the limitations which art enjoyed in the Middle Ages. I do not approve of the publication of letters in the papers from mammas and papas regarding the morality of the stage. I do not believe in these pretences of opinion, for they are not opinions — they are the prejudices of the moment, the gossip of the neighbours. Not one man in a thousand is capable of forming an independent opinion regarding the morality of a work of art. The ordinary man has no time to think on such subjects, and his spasmodic letter of protest does no good. It only attracts people’s attention to the consideration of subjects which it would be much better for them not to consider at all. I have noticed that when these letters appear the writers generally protest against plain speech. So long as the lady is called an actress the public and the lay censor do not object, but if she were called “a light of love” in the list of characters both would object. I do not think that morality gains by the substitution of the word actress for the phrase “light of love.” Hypocrisy never commends itself to me. Nor does the public object to the presentation of a life of betting and drinking and the rest as an ideal standard up to which it is wise and fashionable to live. So long as the conventions and the gossip of Brixton and Rathmines are respected the stage indulges in the most shockingly degrading spectacles. But the moment the dramatist ventures to break the conventions and to disregard the idiom of respectable circles of morality of the play is called into question. It matters not how noble and how faithful the treatment may be. The dramatic critics are not any better than the public. Do they now all think that Mr. Pinero has been influenced by Ibsen? As well might you talk of the influence that Michel Angelo exercises upon the pavement artist. Now, ecclesiastical censorship would redeem us from all this. Ecclesiastical censorship would put limitation upon art, and art has never suffered from limitations. Art suffers from indefinite license. Above all ecclesiastical censorship would free us from the intolerable censorship of public opinion regarding morals.

Interviewer — You do not apparently anticipate any quarrel between you and the priest about what is right and wrong in art?

Mr. Moore — One quarrels with a fool about art, one never quarrels with an intelligent man about it, whether he is a priest or a lay man. If any difference of opinion should arise regarding a phrase I should never consider it a hardship to make a sacrifice for someone’s convictions. I prefer to make a sacrifice for the sake of someone’s convictions than to make a sacrifice for the sake of someone’s prejudices or someone’s pocket.

Interviewer — Nobody doubts that the cleansing of the stage and the raising of public taste are necessary to the establishment of a National Theatre.

Mr. Moore — Yes, the stage must be redeemed from the counting house. Money is the original vice, and it is the placing of the theatre on what is called a commercial basis that has brought about the license and the vulgarity of the musical comedy. Every year the theatre makes an appeal to the desire of amusement, every year the theatre is moved further out of ideas and more into scenery and stockings. If Shakespeare is presented, scenery and dresses and songs and dances make atonement for the ideas. Some time ago, I think about a month ago, you published a long letter on the subject of a National Theatre. Your correspondent at first seemed to me to be better informed than the usual correspondent is, but the value of his letter was discounted by his suggestion that a National Theatre might be run “on commercial lines.” He spoke of five thousand pounds subscribed and instanced a theatre in Berlin, and his letter vexed me much, for it was an example of the almost hopeless obtuseness we have to deal with. If this matter is to be discussed we must begin by agreeing that a National Theatre is quite a different thing from a brewery, and cannot be expected to pay dividends any more than a National Library or a National Gallery, or Trinity College. The moment a theatre is expected to pay dividends there is nothing for the manager to do except to look out for a musical comedy like “The Shop Girl,” or “The Runaway Girl,” or “Kitty Grey,” or for a farcical comedy like “Charley’s Aunt,” and to run it as long as it will run in town, and to send out companies to gather up all the money that can be gathered in the villages. If the question of the National Theatre is to be discussed, let all those who discuss it be agreed regarding one thing, that a National Theatre gives people an interest in the town in which they live, and that it is an educational and ennobling influence, and far more necessary, more far-reaching in its effects than a picture gallery, or even a library. Although the National Theatre will not pay dividends upon the money subscribed, any more than Shamrock U., a National Theatre would be of enormous pecuniary value to Dublin. Some months ago, I raised this question in your columns; I pointed out that we poor Dubliners, overtaxed, exhausted by unjust financial burdens as we are, are not only foolish to buy goods that the foreigners import into this country, but foolish enough to pay, perhaps £150,000 a year to English companies for our amusements. The National Theatre would be supported by the priests, and would gradually bring about the ruin of these travelling companies who take at least — think of it — £150,000 a year out of Ireland; and a National Theatre would not only stop this leakage, but it would give employment to a number of young people with talent for acting, for scene-painting, for writing and for music. I have been criticised lately for accepting the most beautiful music from an English musician. I was told I should have paid an Irishman to write the music for me. When Dublin has decided to stop the fearful leak of £150,000 a year, and to amuse itself, instead of importing amusements, it will have the right to tell me that (if I should be with the management of the National Theatre) I must employ native talent, actors, scene-painters, and musicians. No one will be more willing to comply with this demand than I shall be; no one will recognise it justice more completely. The present moment is opportune for such a Theatre. The National language is being revived. Dr. Hyde’s play was an enormous success; it delighted everyone; and, as I am being very much criticised at this moment, I will take this opportunity of saying that I know how to make sacrifices for the language. I remained in Dublin to rehearse Dr. Hyde’s play, instead of going to Birmingham to rehearse Mr.Yeats’ and my own. I was determined that at all costs Dr. Hyde’s play should be well performed. Everything has to be paid for, and I can say with truth that it was I who paid for the admirable performance of the Irish play. But to return to the matter in hand — the establishment of a National Theatre. The plays performed there would be performed under the direct censorship of the Church. They would consist of selections from the masterpieces of the world, some Russian, some Flemish, some Scandinavian, some French masterpieces, but the central idea of the Theatre would be the restoration of the Irish language. A short Irish play would be given constantly, perhaps every night, I daresay some enthusiasts would wish the whole performance to be in Irish, and would denounce the Theatre because it was not. I am afraid these people would cause me many a sigh, and not a little irritation, but these enthusiasts would be useful, and though they sometimes prove a little trying, we would not be without them.

Interviewer — Now, Mr. Moore, will you tell me how you propose to get money for this National Theatre?

Mr. Moore — It would be an easier thing for me to tell you first about how much it would cost. I think I could manage to do a great deal if the Theatre were given to us rent free, rates, gas, and policing paid for us, and a subscription of a thousand a year. Sir Thomas Lipton spent a quarter of a million of money trying to do something which is already forgotten, building a vessel which no one would live in, a sort of toy boat which is now up for sale. For this sum of money he could have given London an endowed theatre equal to the Comedie Francaise; for much less he could give Dublin a National Theatre, and a National Theatre would secure to a man much more permanent and more vital immortality than a museum or a picture gallery, or I may say anything else in the world.

Interviewer — Then your hope, Mr. Moore, is in the millionaire?

Mr Moore — I cannot say that it is. Money is vice, and he who has got money does not see far; his sight is short. A University would not reach as many as a theatre, whose concern was with ideas, whose ambition was to present life from a high, noble, intellectual point of view. I am afraid it will take some time for the Corporation to see that a theatre of the kind I have indicated would be of great moral, intellectual, and pecuniary benefit to Dublin. But one never knows from what side help may come. I do not think I have got anything more to say on this question.

Interviewer — But you have not told me, Mr. Moore, what are your plans for the next performance to be given by the Irish Literary Theatre.

Mr. Moore — Mr. Martyn has written a new play, “The Enchanted Sea,” I think that this should be performed. I saw him last night on the subject, and I told him that we were all agreed that this play should be performed. I proposed to him the revival of the “Heather Field,” because this play when originally acted in the Antient Concert Room, was a very great success. I think the revival of the play would prove more successful. I think everyone would like to see it again. I should like to see “Heather Field” performed for three nights and the “Enchanted Sea” for three nights, and I should like to see the “Hather Field” preceded or followed by a play in Irish by Father O’Leary, and I should like to see the “Enchanted Sea” preceded or followed by a play by Father Dineen. I am now awaiting Mr. Martyn’s answer.