One consequence was that Mr Daly could not have kept his financial engagements or maintained his hold on the public had he not accepted engagements to appear for a season in the vaudeville theatres [the American equivalent of our music halls],where he played How He Lied to Her Husband comparatively unhampered by the press censorship of the theatre,or by that sophistication of the audience through press suggestion from which I suffer more,perhaps,than any other author.Vaudeville authors are fortunately unknown:the audiences see what the play contains and what the actor can do,not what the papers have told them to expect.Success under such circumstances had a value both for Mr Daly and myself which did something to console us for the very unsavory mobbing which the New York press organized for us,and which was not the less disgusting because we suffered in a good cause and in the very best company.
Mr Daly,having weathered the storm,can perhaps shake his soul free of it as he heads for fresh successes with younger authors.
But I have certain sensitive places in my soul:I do not like that word "ordure."Apply it to my work,and I can afford to smile,since the world,on the whole,will smile with me.But to apply it to the woman in the street,whose spirit is of one substance with our own and her body no less holy:to look your women folk in the face afterwards and not go out and hang yourself:that is not on the list of pardonable sins.
POSTSCRIPT.Since the above was written news has arrived from America that a leading New York newspaper,which was among the most abusively clamorous for the suppression of Mrs Warren's Profession,has just been fined heavily for deriving part of its revenue from advertisements of Mrs Warren's houses.
Many people have been puzzled by the fact that whilst stage entertainments which are frankly meant to act on the spectators as aphrodisiacs,are everywhere tolerated,plays which have an almost horrifyingly contrary effect are fiercely attacked by persons and papers notoriously indifferent to public morals on all other occasions.The explanation is very simple.The profits of Mrs Warren's profession are shared not only by Mrs Warren and Sir George Crofts,but by the landlords of their houses,the newspapers which advertize them,the restaurants which cater for them,and,in short,all the trades to which they are good customers,not to mention the public officials and representatives whom they silence by complicity,corruption,or blackmail.Add to these the employers who profit by cheap female labor,and the shareholders whose dividends depend on it [you find such people everywhere,even on the judicial bench and in the highest places in Church and State],and you get a large and powerful class with a strong pecuniary incentive to protect Mrs Warren's profession,and a correspondingly strong incentive to conceal,from their own consciences no less than from the world,the real sources of their gain.These are the people who declare that it is feminine vice and not poverty that drives women to the streets,as if vicious women with independent incomes ever went there.These are the people who,indulgent or indifferent to aphrodisiac plays,raise the moral hue and cry against performances of Mrs Warren's Profession,and drag actresses to the police court to be insulted,bullied,and threatened for fulfilling their engagements.For please observe that the judicial decision in New York State in favor of the play does not end the matter.In Kansas City,for instance,the municipality,finding itself restrained by the courts from preventing the performance,fell back on a local bye-law against indecency to evade the Constitution of the United States.They summoned the actress who impersonated Mrs Warren to the police court,and offered her and her colleagues the alternative of leaving the city or being prosecuted under this bye-law.
Now nothing is more possible than that the city councillors who suddenly displayed such concern for the morals of the theatre were either Mrs Warren's landlords,or employers of women at starvation wages,or restaurant keepers,or newspaper proprietors,or in some other more or less direct way sharers of the profits of her trade.No doubt it is equally possible that they were simply stupid men who thought that indecency consists,not in evil,but in mentioning it.I have,however,been myself a member of a municipal council,and have not found municipal councillors quite so simple and inexperienced as this.At all events I do not propose to give the Kansas councillors the benefit of the doubt.I therefore advise the public at large,which will finally decide the matter,to keep a vigilant eye on gentlemen who will stand anything at the theatre except a performance of Mrs Warren's Profession,and who assert in the same breath that [a]the play is too loathsome to be bearable by civilized people,and [b]that unless its performance is prohibited the whole town will throng to see it.They may be merely excited and foolish;but I am bound to warn the public that it is equally likely that they may be collected and knavish.
At all events,to prohibit the play is to protect the evil which the play exposes;and in view of that fact,I see no reason for assuming that the prohibitionists are disinterested moralists,and that the author,the managers,and the performers,who depend for their livelihood on their personal reputations and not on rents,advertisements,or dividends,are grossly inferior to them in moral sense and public responsibility.
It is true that in Mrs Warren's Profession,Society,and not any individual,is the villain of the piece;but it does not follow that the people who take offence at it are all champions of society.Their credentials cannot be too carefully examined.
