DEAR MR. PUNCH,--From a communication to one of the daily papers, it
appears that "a hundred ladies and gentlemen who find the works of
HENDRIK IBSEN (perhaps not all for exactly the same reasons, but who
agree in finding them) among the most interesting productions of the
modern theatre, have guaranteed the estimated expenses of a series
of twelve performances, at which three of IBSEN'S plays will be
presented." This arrangement is carried out by "each guarantor
receiving in seats at the current theatrical prices the full value of
his subscription," as "the State will not subsidize a theatre, and no
millionnaire seems inclined to endow one."
This is clear enough, but it has occurred to me that, as after the
first few performances there may be a goodly number of untenanted
seats, it would be as well to provide auxiliary aid to fill them. It
would scarcely be fair to call upon the guarantors to pay the audience
to be present at the "entertainments" provided for their amusement.
And yet, unless the houses are good, the actors will not do themselves
justice, and the plays of HENDRIK IBSEN will suffer in consequence.
I fear that it would be revolting to humanity to insist upon the
attendance of the less intelligent inmates of the Asylum for Idiots,
and yet here would be an appropriate path out of the difficulty. Under
the circumstances, could not the State (with the aid of a short Act of
Parliament) still render assistance? I see no reason why thieves
and other dishonest characters should not have a portion of their
sentences remitted on condition that they attended the IBSEN
performances. Such an arrangement would save the rate-payers the
expense of the prisoners' keep. The audience I have suggested would
also be free from temptation, for when they were assisting at a
representation of one of IBSEN'S plays, I venture to believe they
would find nothing worth stealing.