Censorship and Art | Page 5

should exist a paternal authority (some, no doubt,
will call it grand-maternal--but sneers must not be confounded with
argument) to suppress these books before appearance, and safeguard us
from the danger of buying and possibly reading undesirable or painful
literature!
A specious reason, however, is advanced for exempting Literature from
the Censorship accorded to Plays. He--it is said--who attends the
performance of a play, attends it in public, where his feelings may be
harrowed and his taste offended, cheek by jowl with boys, or women of
all ages; it may even chance that he has taken to this entertainment his
wife, or the young persons of his household. He-- on the other
hand--who reads a book, reads it in privacy. True; but the wielder of
this argument has clasped his fingers round a two- edged blade. The
very fact that the book has no mixed audience removes from Literature
an element which is ever the greatest check on licentiousness in Drama.
No manager of a theatre,--a man of the world engaged in the
acquisition of his livelihood, unless guaranteed by the license of the
Censor, dare risk the presentment before a mixed audience of that
which might cause an 'emeute' among his clients. It has, indeed, always
been observed that the theatrical manager, almost without exception,
thoughtfully recoils from the responsibility that would be thrust on him
by the abolition of the Censorship. The fear of the mixed audience is
ever suspended above his head. No such fear threatens the publisher,
who displays his wares to one man at a time. And for this very reason
of the mixed audience; perpetually and perversely cited to the contrary
by such as have no firm grasp of this matter, there is a greater necessity
for a Censorship on Literature than for one on Plays.

Further, if there were but a Censorship of Literature, no matter how
dubious the books that were allowed to pass, the conscience of no
reader need ever be troubled. For, that the perfect rest of the public
conscience is the first result of Censorship, is proved to certainty by the
protected Drama, since many dubious plays are yearly put before the
play-going Public without tending in any way to disturb a complacency
engendered by the security from harm guaranteed by this beneficent, if
despotic, Institution. Pundits who, to the discomfort of the populace,
foster this exemption of Literature from discipline, cling to the
old-fashioned notion that ulcers should be encouraged to discharge
themselves upon the surface, instead of being quietly and decently
driven into the system and allowed to fester there.
The remaining plea for exempting Literature from Censorship, put
forward by unreflecting persons: That it would require too many
Censors--besides being unworthy, is, on the face of it, erroneous.
Special tests have never been thought necessary in appointing
Examiners of Plays. They would, indeed, not only be unnecessary, but
positively dangerous, seeing that the essential function of Censorship is
protection of the ordinary prejudices and forms of thought. There
would, then, be no difficulty in securing tomorrow as many Censors of
Literature as might be necessary (say twenty or thirty); since all that
would be required of each one of them would be that he should secretly
exercise, in his uncontrolled discretion, his individual taste. In a word,
this Free Literature of ours protects advancing thought and speculation;
and those who believe in civic freedom subject only to Common Law,
and espouse the cause of free literature, are championing a system
which is essentially undemocratic, essentially inimical to the will of the
majority, who have certainly no desire for any such things as advancing
thought and speculation. Such persons, indeed, merely hold the faith
that the People, as a whole, unprotected by the despotic judgments of
single persons, have enough strength and wisdom to know what is and
what is not harmful to themselves. They put their trust in a Public Press
and a Common Law, which deriving from the Conscience of the
Country, is openly administered and within the reach of all. How
absurd, how inadequate this all is we see from the existence of the
Censorship on Drama.
Having observed that there is no reason whatever for the exemption of

Literature, let us now turn to the case of Art. Every picture hung in a
gallery, every statue placed on a pedestal, is exposed to the public stare
of a mixed company. Why, then, have we no Censorship to protect us
from the possibility of encountering works that bring blushes to the
cheek of the young person? The reason cannot be that the proprietors of
Galleries are more worthy of trust than the managers of Theatres; this
would be to make an odious distinction which those very Managers
who uphold the Censorship of Plays would be the