theatre, partly from a sort of respect for art in general which
moves them to accord moral privileges to artists, partly from the
very objectionable tradition that the realm of art is Alsatia and
the contemplation of works of art a holiday from the burden of
virtue, partly because French prudery does not attach itself to
the same points of behavior as British prudery, and has a
different code of the mentionable and the unmentionable, and
for many other reasons the French tolerate plays which are never
performed in England until they have been spoiled by a process of
bowdlerization; yet French taste is more fastidious than ours as
to the exhibition and treatment on the stage of the physical
incidents of sex. On the French stage a kiss is as obvious a
convention as the thrust under the arm by which Macduff runs
Macbeth through. It is even a purposely unconvincing convention:
the actors rather insisting that it shall be impossible for any
spectator to mistake a stage kiss for a real one. In England, on
the contrary, realism is carried to the point at which nobody
except the two performers can perceive that the caress is not
genuine. And here the English stage is certainly in the right;
for whatever question there arises as to what incidents are
proper for representation on the stage or not, my experience as a
playgoer leaves me in no doubt that once it is decided to
represent an incident, it will be offensive, no matter whether it
be a prayer or a kiss, unless it is presented with a convincing
appearance of sincerity.


OUR DISILLUSIVE SCENERY.

For example, the main objection to the use of illusive scenery