presumably have a far deeper insight to and concern for the real
ethical tendency of the play. For instance, had it been in
existence during the last quarter of a century, it would have
perceived that those plays of Ibsen's which have been licensed
without question are fundamentally immoral to an altogether
extraordinary degree. Every one of them is a deliberate act of
war on society as at present constituted. Religion, marriage,
ordinary respectability, are subjected to a destructive exposure
and criticism which seems to mere moralists--that is, to persons
of no more than average depth of mind--to be diabolical. It is no
exaggeration to say that Ibsen gained his overwhelming reputation
by undertaking a task of no less magnitude than changing the mind
of Europe with the view of changing its morals. Now you cannot
license work of that sort without making yourself responsible for
it. The Lord Chamberlain accepted the responsibility because
he did not understand it or concern himself about it. But what
really enlightened and conscientious official dare take such a
responsibility? The strength of character and range of vision
which made Ibsen capable of it are not to be expected from any
official, however eminent. It is true that an enlightened censor
might, whilst shrinking even with horror from Ibsen's views,
perceive that any nation which suppressed Ibsen would presently
find itself falling behind the nations which tolerated him
just as Spain fell behind England; but the proper action to take
on such a conviction is the abdication of censorship, not the
practise of it. As long as a censor is a censor, he cannot
endorse by his licence opinions which seem to him dangerously
heretical.

We may, therefore, conclude that the more enlightened a