Pathway to Japanese Literature

On December 22, 1890, during budget deliberations in the French Senate, Senator Argan attacked the government’s indication of intent to encourage a small private theater by granting it an annual subsidy of 500 francs.

That theater was none other than the Free Theater, with the attack’s justification being that the scripts performed there were said to repeatedly disrupt public morals.

In response, Director Larroumét of the Arts Bureau vigorously praised the Free Theater’s achievements, striving to explain that even if they had erred in selecting one or two scripts, this would not undermine official trust—especially since the subsidy essentially amounted to reserving seats, a necessary measure to dispatch supervisors and obtain performance reports. Yet Senator Argan remained unmoved, eventually recounting the plot of a recently controversial script that provoked furious indignation among elderly right-wing members.

Marquis Langre de Beaumanoir stirred commotion by shouting remarks like “Police supervision suffices!”

Finally compelled to intervene, the Minister of Education mounted the podium and challenged: “Senator Argan, do you not recognize that young playwrights can only present their talents to society through the Free Theater?”

Applause erupted from left-wing benches.

When someone remarked, “Of course some are flawed,” Senator Argan instantly countered, “All are flawed.”

“Not all,” the Minister objected.

“Moreover, among scripts performed thus far, many merit serious attention...”

At last striking a dramatic stance, he declared, “Should you reject this bill, I must warn it would bring dire consequences for our theatrical arts”—whereupon the original proposal passed uneventfully through voting.

★

Then, on January 24 of the following year, the Free Theater once again stirred up the Lower House chamber—this time.
That is to say, it began with Deputy Millerand’s questioning speech addressed to the Minister of Education.

Deputy Millerand was at the time an up-and-coming young lawyer and—until recently—one of France’s foremost politicians who had occupied the seat of President of the Republic—a fact of which readers are likely already aware.

The then Minister of Education was Mr. Léon Bourgeois—who had also until recently served as President of the Senate.
And it was none other than Director Larroumét of the Arts Bureau—the government’s responsible official—who, as a theater scholar, lecturer at Paris University, and theater critic, had published such notable works as Studies in Theater History and Criticism; The Comedies of Molière; and The Life and Works of Marivaux.

Now, it was most regrettable that we could not ascertain who had presided over the session, but with only excerpts from stenographic records at hand, there remained nothing to be done.

Henceforth, while reading those records, we shall endeavor to capture both the main points of the debates and the atmosphere of the chamber.

★

Deputy Millerand (taking the podium): "Gentlemen, this time the censors have banned the performance of *The Prostitute Eliza*—a play by Mr. Edmond Goncourt that was adapted by Mr. Jean Ajalbert."

Regarding this matter, I do not intend to reiterate here the existing public criticisms denouncing the ban’s illegality... I simply wish to call attention to whether the censors exercised sufficient prudence and appropriate judgment when wielding their authority.

“It is said that the ban on *The Prostitute Eliza* has its origins in the earlier budget bill deliberations conducted in the Senate.”
“The rather vehement question posed by Senator Argan—a member of the Senate’s right-wing faction—to the Director of the Arts Bureau appears, in my view, to have significantly troubled certain high-ranking government officials.”
(Smiling) “…However, if the annual 500-franc subsidy has facilitated oversight of the Free Theater and ultimately led to today’s ban on *The Prostitute Eliza*, then we must concede this modest expenditure was not entirely in vain.”

“Gentlemen, I distance myself from this assumption. And I wish to study by what motives this play came to suffer the misfortune of a performance ban and to ascertain the truth of the matter. In other words, the reasons for the ban are none other than the following two points—the ideology that the author sought to support within the work, and the form enveloping that ideology.”

“First, that it is not due to form is made clear by two reasons.”

"The first reason is that the censors did not request any revisions or deletions from the author... There exists the historical fact that when Mr. Lockroy served as Minister of Public Instruction and Mr. Goncourt's *Germinie Lacerteux* was performed at the Théâtre de l'Odéon, the censors requested certain revisions from the author, who readily agreed to them. This constitutes the censors' most fundamental and primary duty... Why did the censors not point out the objectionable parts in this play and request corrections?"

"That, gentlemen—if I may put it this way—is because when the censors act thus, resolving the issue becomes far too straightforward."

"Prior to the performance, Mr. Goncourt responded to journalists' inquiries by stating that this play had been composed in the most chaste terms…"

Mr. Dion Ordinaire—However, that is not the theme.

Millerand: “Gentlemen, if Mr. Goncourt’s words—like a parent speaking of their child—are deemed unworthy of trust,” (smiling) “then I shall gladly become this play’s guarantor.”
“I personally observed the stage during the dress rehearsal and repeatedly reread the problematic first act upon issuance of the performance ban.”
“And if I were a censor, I would have found only four passages requiring revisions from the author.”
“From this moment, I intend to read those passages aloud in this chamber.”
“Of course, there is no need to ban public attendance.”

“Regarding these four passages alone, I believe the censors have the right to request revisions from the author. That is all there is to it. If the Minister of Education has any opinions regarding other passages beyond those, he must point them out in this chamber.”

“There is no need for concern. Should you deem any passages I recite improper, Mr. Chairman, I ask that you kindly intervene.”

Mr. L’Grand—“You mean to say parliamentary censorship itself is unlawful?”
(Laughter erupts)

Deputy Millerand: “A character in the play, Pûrette, says to her fellow woman Eliza:”
“This is strange…”
“Indeed, such language is not used in our Academy.”
“But we are not, after all, members of the Academy.”
(Laughter) “This is strange...
“I never dreamed you’d be like this—going and falling for someone…”
“But has there ever been even one person you could call your own...?”
“Whether it’s a man or a woman, there’s never been even one person who made you say ‘yes’…”
“I thought women like you and me weren’t made that way….”
“But so, you’ve acquired a taste for it now, haven’t you…?”
“This is one point that could be contested.”
(The chamber erupted in uproar.)

“How about that? Am I not being as impartial as you gentlemen?”

“The second passage: these are the same character’s lines.”
“Tch, enough with your stupid excuses… Aren’t we just women after all? We…”
“And it’s not like we’re being a burden on anyone else.”
“We’ve never killed anyone, and we’ve never stolen anything either.”
“Listening to what you’re saying, it’s like we’re criminals….”
“Oh, but working inside the house…” (The chamber erupted in uproar.)

A left-wing legislator—"I move to ban public attendance."

Deputy Millerand—Gentlemen, that is to say, I too believe this part should be deleted.
Yet the censors failed to do so.
“There are plenty in society—how exactly are we different from those women with husbands?... Women who have husbands yet still go around doing all sorts of things out of dissatisfaction, and…”
Then, in the final passage, when Pûrette says: “Just look at this sex maniac…,” Eliza responds: “Oh, that’s not it at all…
But I’ve been cooped up at home for fifteen days straight now…
Just once in a while, I’d like to spend a day outside the cage… It’s nice weather… I want to take a stroll around…”
Then Pûrette says: “Listen—don’t go carelessly falling asleep while getting caught, hear?… The cops won’t have any mercy on Sundays… Make sure you get back in time…” (The chamber erupts in uproar again)

"If these four passages are deleted…"

"A left-wing legislator—'I move that all be stricken.'
'That would be preferable.'"

Mr. Ordinaire—Filthy! Utterly filthy!

Deputy Millerand—In other words, the censors could have permitted the performance after revising these specific passages.
"Moreover, to abruptly ban the performance without providing any prior notice—there has been no precedent for such action to this day."

“…As for the other parts of the play, I do not recognize any grounds whatsoever for imposing a performance ban.”
“As for the location where the events take place…”

“Mr. Noël Parfait—The theme is bad!”

A centrist legislator—"The reasoning isn't sound either."
(Laughter erupts.)

Deputy Millerand—"The theme?"
"I will address that subsequently."

"...Next, regarding the characters."
"Indeed, all the characters are prostitutes."
"However, Minister of Education, do you not consider it far more dangerous—and indeed immoral—that virtuous working women among the spectators might view the wealthy, carefree, and luxurious lives of mistresses with jealousy and envy, rather than simply feeling disgust and shame?"
(Applause arose from the Left.)
(The Centrists and Right attempted to drown this out.)

"Or is it being claimed that the events themselves are problematic?"
"At the end of Act One, Eliza kills her lover—is it being claimed that this constitutes a problem?"
"In that case, allow me to note: currently in the city's major theaters, a certain Academician's work is being performed with great success."
"And in the first act of that work, there exists a so-called love scene where they finally undo their clothes' hooks before the curtain falls."
"The rest was left to the spectators' imagination."

(Voices from the Left called out, “Hear, hear!”)
(The chamber erupted in uproar.)

“If such things were permitted... Of course, I would have no grounds to lodge complaints.”
(Laughter erupted.)

Up until then, general critics had maintained a rather severe attitude toward the Free Theater’s staged scripts.
Yet on this occasion—with the exception of a single critic—they had unanimously highlighted this work’s outstanding qualities and declared there was absolutely no need to impose a performance ban.

Mr. Ordinaire—"That's mutual backscratching among cronies!"

“Mr. Millerand—No, this is not mutual back-scratching among colleagues. For your old friend Mr. François Sarcey—who in his theater critiques has persistently condemned and assailed the Free Theater’s repertoire—has on this singular occasion affirmed that *The Prostitute Eliza* contains not the slightest impediment to public performance.”
“He has merely opined that this work ‘does not constitute proper theater.’”
“Moreover, have not our era’s preeminent critics—Jules Lemaître, Henri Bauer, Séard…and their peers—all unanimously proclaimed this prohibition to be utterly baseless?”
“Furthermore, Minister of Education—Mr. Émile Faguet, a university professor under your authority who simultaneously stands as our most eminent critic, has in *The Sun*’s pages acknowledged this work’s merit. He particularly extols scenes like the second act’s courtroom sequence as being rendered with startling verisimilitude, hailing them as veritable gems.”

………………………………………………

"In this manner, the critical establishment's consensus regards this work as chaste and imbued with truth. In reality, it is rare for works of profound sorrow to be immoral. *The Prostitute Eliza* is by no means a work that corrupts social mores."

“This eliminates the formal grounds for deeming it unsuitable for performance. This time, as I stated earlier, let us examine the ideas supported by the author.”

“The Prostitute Eliza is indeed a cry of compassion and justice unleashed for the oppressed. As one of the characters states, they are burdened with the triple fate of ignorance, disease, and poverty. In other words, I can state that *The Prostitute Eliza* constitutes a scene of condemnation against society.”

“Furthermore, to declare police officers monitoring brothels as a form of procurer was by no means an innovation of this author.”

(The chamber erupted in uproar.)

“Mr. Brousse—You are not children.”

“Deputy Millerand—I do not consider my language to be of an unbearable nature.”
“But…”
(A voice cried out, “Pray continue!”)

“The first person to call police officers by such a designation—and I trust this disclosure inconveniences none—is none other than Mr. Guyot, the honorable colleague of the Minister of Education.”
“I would advise perusing his treatise concerning women of disreputable occupation.”
(Laughter erupted.) “Mr. Guyot has rendered the most judicious critique of *The Prostitute Eliza* in said work.”

Mr. Guyot (Labor Minister)—I have not changed that opinion today.

Mr. Millerand—Your opinion remains unchanged. Very well—I too believe so.
"The Prostitute Eliza turned her gaze away from crowds of women who can afford camellias to focus on impoverished girls—this has stirred public controversy," which stands as a most perceptive assessment.

The crux lies in whether staging works addressing such social issues in theaters poses inherent dangers.
(The Minister of Education shook his head.)

“If the Minister deems it not dangerous, then the performance ban cannot pertain to the work’s ideas. If one claims *The Prostitute Eliza* corrupts public morality, I must ask: have government censors truly been flawless guardians of that morality until now? Those who know, know.” (Voices from the Left: “Hear, hear!”) “What then of the myriad theaters and variety halls that nightly parade troupes of half-nude women onstage, belting out lyrics of utmost vulgarity? To let these flourish unregulated while banning *The Prostitute Eliza*—a solemn moral work bearing the names of Mr. Goncourt, who stands among modern fiction’s greatest luminaries, and rising star Mr. Ajurbeer, whose talent critics unanimously praise—this defies all reason!” (Applause.)

………………………………………………

“I hope to receive clear guidance regarding censorship standards from the Minister of Education—for whose character I ordinarily maintain profound respect…”
“I may have spoken at too great a length.”
(Some shouted, “That is not the case!”) “However, as this matter concerns an extremely grave issue regarding our French literary arts, I must trouble my fellow legislators with their consideration.”
(Applause erupted in unison from the left-wing seats.)

Mr. Léon Bourgeois (Minister of Education) takes the podium—"Regarding Mr. Millerand's questions, I wish to provide as satisfactory a response as possible..."
"Having conducted thorough research and deliberation on the play *The Prostitute Eliza* from the most cautious and impartial position, we have come to believe that, from the perspective of public morality, it is necessary to prohibit its performance."

“To begin with, there exists a system of censorship that the Minister of Education is charged with implementing—though there may be those who consider the measures taken by the Minister of Education to be inappropriate at times. Moreover, there may be occasions when the Minister of Education himself comes to regret those very measures. In truth, there exists no role as delicate as that of censorship. By prohibiting works, we risk incurring universal resentment; by permitting them, we cannot claim immunity from public scorn.” He paused before adding with sardonic emphasis: “Excepting authors, that is.”
(Laughter.)

"In any case, censorship exists; this is something we can do nothing about. Though newspapers decry its illegality whenever occasion arises, this system will never be abolished. Indeed, censorship has even been said to exist for the benefit of playwrights themselves. As for who made this claim—it was none other than Alexandre Dumas fils: the boldest dramatist most deeply entangled with this issue, which is to say, the one who most frequently and severely clashed with regulatory ordinances... According to his words: 'Censorship is like a mother-in-law. When you live together, you gradually learn the knack. But it requires considerable patience and a modicum of resourcefulness.' That is indeed the case." (Laughter.)

"Therefore, I would like to examine whether this instance of censorship truly constituted a miserly, meddlesome, insufferable mother-in-law."

“Before proceeding—while Deputy Millerand raised concerns about lyrics performed in variety halls—this precisely illustrates why censors find themselves vexed: there are frequent instances where once-banned lyrics get performed without authorization.”
“I need not elaborate further on this matter.”

“I shall immediately proceed to the matter of *The Prostitute Eliza*.”

First, Mr. Millerand was questioned about the reason for the performance ban.

Regarding this matter, I would like to reference the words Mr. Goncourt himself provided in response to newspaper reporters.
"Regarding this performance ban, did you not harbor some concern?" to which he replied, "Well, I did not think it would pass without objection."
"When I heard it had been banned, I wasn't particularly surprised," he said, adding, "While it's true that this work addresses social issues, attacks government institutions, and depicts the lives of such women with unflinching realism—those may be the ostensible reasons for the ban—but more than that, there's a personal grudge between the authorities and the playwright Ajurbeer."

“Gentlemen, I wish you to believe this particular point constitutes a misunderstanding on Mr. Goncourt’s part.”

“Mr. Millerand—I did not address that point.”

“The Minister did not address it,”
“I mention this merely as preface.”

“Furthermore, I explicitly declare that *The Prostitute Eliza* was by no means banned for addressing social or political issues—despite Mr. Goncourt’s principal assertions and Mr. Millerand’s repeated insinuations.”

"My esteemed Mr. Goncourt appears unaware of under what sentiments the members of the French Republican Government discharge their duties. Directing constant attention and fervent sympathy toward studying such issues remains both an honor and obligation for our authorities. However, it is precisely the manner of research and form of presentation that become subjects for consideration."

"The Minister finds himself in an exceedingly difficult position. While prohibiting performances of *The Prostitute Eliza* in theaters, we now attempt to disclose its contents within this very parliamentary chamber."

Mr. Rivet—"This is not a theater."

Minister of Education: "...Therefore, as Mr. Millerand requested earlier, I too hope that should I inadvertently utter something improper, the Chair will kindly take it upon himself to intervene."
(Some whisper among themselves.)

"First and foremost, I shall briefly present a synopsis of *The Prostitute Eliza*."
(The chamber erupts in uproar.)

Chair—Do you intend not to listen to the Minister of Education’s speech?
(Laughter.)

Minister of Education—I shall briefly explain the plot: Eliza leaves the house with three female colleagues.
It is Sunday.

“In a corner of Boulogne Forest lies a cemetery no one visits.”
They set out to stroll there.
Among them, Eliza—specifically—found herself particularly drawn to one young soldier among her clients.
Her fellow women teased her about this romance.
At that moment, the soldier arrived.
Eliza found herself alone with him.
At first nothing transpired, but gradually their passions intensified.
(Murmurs rippled through the chamber)

"Gentlemen, there is no need for concern."
"I have no intention of employing any inflammatory language."

"The young soldier demands that Eliza submit to him freely within this cemetery."
"She refuses."
"The soldier tries to force his way through physical coercion."
"She ultimately kills her lover."
"The first act concludes here."
"The second act takes place in a courtroom."
(Addressing the Chair) "I believe I have conveyed the author’s intent with utmost accuracy…"

Chair—Indeed, appropriate deletions have been made...
(Laughter.)

Minister of Education—Act 2 consists almost entirely of the lawyer’s argument from beginning to end.
"This argument is truly masterful."
"That is to say, beginning with the fate of prostitutes as Mr. Millerand previously articulated, it traces back to expose deficiencies in social institutions, ultimately concluding that Eliza’s crime is in truth the crime of ignorance, disease, and poverty."
"However, in the end, Eliza receives the death penalty."

"As for Act 3, since it bears no particular relation to this issue, I shall omit it."

"The plot is generally as outlined above."
"Indeed, based solely on this summary, one might think there is nothing improper."
"The issue being addressed is one of social philosophy, and I believe there is no harm whatsoever in discussing this matter."
“However, in theater, the issue of how events are presented before the public is extremely important.”
“Regarding this point, if I may borrow the most precise words from the article Mr. Fouquier published yesterday, there exists a gap between the author’s intent and the work’s outward appearance.”
“In other words, there are cases where one must recognize that certain forms or details within scenes unfolding before one’s eyes impart impressions of disgust and discomfort to the public.”

Mr. Deluréed—"In that case, this feeling of disgust itself constitutes morality."

Chair—"I cannot wholly endorse that view."

Minister of Education—"I cannot wholly endorse that view either."
"That is precisely correct—the Chair's observation is entirely valid."
"Such matters must be judged solely by the immediate impression one receives upon viewing the staged performance."
"If we were to grant the public voting rights on this matter, what outcome might we expect?"
"I maintain there would naturally emerge a vast disparity in voting results between those who watch this work with laughter and those who promptly depart for home."
"We—if I may speak for our position—belong to those who would promptly depart for home."
(Applause erupts)

Then, what of the details of this play? What of the tonal qualities of each scene?

The women entered.
"They called each other by names such as 'Moonface,' 'Eliza,' 'Poulette,' and 'Butchered Mary.'"

Exchanges unfolded.
And the conversation turned to the matter of the aforementioned soldier.
“Right, I do like him...
“For him, I’d let my body be cut to pieces.”
When Eliza said this, just as Mr. Millerand had previously quoted, this time Poulette said, “Well, this is strange—”.
“I never dreamed you were like that—falling head over heels for someone...”
"But tell me—has there ever been even one of these so-called men of yours until now...?"

(“Enough already!”
“Understood, understood,” “There, there,” and other voices called out.)

Chair—“Please listen to the Minister of Education’s speech until the end…”

Minister of Education—“I will refrain from reading the remainder of this passage.”
“Since Mr. Millerand has already read it…”
“However, Mr. Millerand did not read the subsequent response.”
“It’s not like that… Whether it’s him or any other man, I’ve never…”
“But you see—it’s precisely because I like him so much that I don’t want him coming around to my place…”
“If he comes to a place like mine… I feel like he’d get tainted…”
Then Poulette said, “Tch—give it a rest with your nonsensical logic…”
“Aren’t we just women after all? We…”
“And besides—we’re not being a burden on anyone…”
“We’ve never killed anyone—never stolen anything either…”
“Listening to what you say—it’s as if we’re criminals…”
“What’s wrong with working like that in the house…?”
“How are we any different from all those madams out there in society…?” (The assembly erupted in chaos.)

"With all this commotion, I cannot continue reading the text aloud."

Count Maillet—The Minister of Education must assume responsibility for imposing the performance ban.
"This reading should end here."
(Cries of "Hear! Hear!" erupt from the right-wing benches.)

Chair—Would it not be preferable to hear out the Minister of Education's reading of the script?

Minister of Education—Gentlemen... In fulfillment of my ministerial duties, I deem it essential to elucidate the fundamental nature of this matter.

Mr. Philippe――That is unnecessary.
“I recognize the reason as valid.”

Chair—Do you intend to resolve this matter without ascertaining the truth?
(Murmurs arise) “In that case, wouldn’t that be rather too presumptuous?”
(Applause breaks out from the left-wing benches.)…………

Minister of Education—I will continue reading.
“Butchered Mary”… “Not only that, but time’ll slip away quick…
“We gotta have our meetin’ too.
“Can’t be late for seven o’clock curtain-up!”

Poulette.
“Be back by six, ’cause it’s absinthe time…”

Eliza. Bottoms up!
“Then, until a quarter to seven…”

Poulette.
(Glancing back at the other women) Take a look at this mad scene, you.

Eliza.
“Oh, that’s not how it is….”
“But I’ve been cooped up at home for fifteen days straight…”
“I’d like to spend just one day outside the cage… It’s nice weather, isn’t it.”
“I’d like to stroll around.”

頬張月。
Then go take your walk. Well, see you tonight…

Poulette.

“Just so you know, don’t go carelessly falling asleep if you get caught….”
“The cops—on Sundays they’re completely unmanageable, you know…”
“Be back in time… .”

Second Act.
It was a scene with two lovers.
It contained a love scene.
Initially, it presented an exceedingly beautiful tableau.
After recounting childhood memories, the man called out to Eliza: “Oh, Eliza…”
Eliza responded: “Ahh… if only my body didn’t have to work…”
At this juncture, while embracing her, he attempted to lower her backward.

Central Legislator—Minister of Education, that’s quite enough!

“What is it?” demanded the Minister of Education.
“We are debating a grave matter here.”
(Someone shouted, “Continue the reading!”)

Just one more line.
The man pursues through grass on his knees after her.
Eliza: When you first came... Back then I was just some useless woman.
"Every man... Every man who comes says filthy things... Can't count how many times I thought about killing them..."
"And rough... Like beasts..."
"But you... Only you're kind..."
"You never even raised your voice..."
The man grows more excited and keeps closing in.
Finally he wraps arms around her waist.

(The chamber grew turbulent again.
(Someone shouted, “Enough already!”)

The man attempted to pin down the woman.)

“Gentlemen, through these means, the author sought to portray the lives of these women precisely as they lived.”

Mr. Rivet—As if this were a vaudeville hall….

Minister of Education—I daresay that even if one were to depict the interior of a brothel on stage, it would be an exceedingly difficult feat to make their lives appear more vividly complete before the audience's eyes than this. For this reason, this script cannot be permitted for performance.

As Deputy Millerand has noted, pointing out specific passages requiring revision holds no efficacy whatsoever when dealing with an issue spanning the entirety of such depictions—particularly when every single word serves as an indispensable artistic element of a scene. We deliberately refrained from offering our amateur assistance, judging that such meddling would only prove troublesome to the author.
“Regrettably, we shall defer the premiere of this collaborative theatrical production between myself and the Minister of Education to another occasion.”
(Laughter)

“If Deputy Millerand believes that partial revisions made jointly with the author could render this play performable, then this Minister would wish to commence its examination with profound artistic interest and utmost goodwill.”

“Comte d’Haussonville—If it can be read aloud in this chamber, would there truly be any harm in permitting its public performance?”

“Deputy Millerand—The Minister of Education states that the author himself should indicate which parts to revise, but this is utterly unreasonable.”

Minister of Education—“Now that the author has learned the reasons for the prohibition today, as the author, they may take measures to eliminate those reasons; this is entirely at their discretion.”

Deputy Millerand—“I repeat, I find it regrettable that censorship policies differ depending on the case.”
“Now, the Minister of Education has deemed this play unperformable, yet had parts of it read aloud in this very chamber.”
“It is as though the Minister himself has endorsed that certain portions may indeed be publicly performed without issue.”
“The Minister likely cannot have us humming those café-concert ditties prohibited by the censors in this chamber.”
“I persist in condemning how leniently authorities treat these lascivious popular songs, yet harshly judge solemn literary works steeped in anguish.”
(Loud applause)

Chairman—With this, we conclude the debate.

We shall conclude our parliamentary coverage here, but the following day, *Le Figaro* published a lengthy editorial on this debate, closing with: “Thus did the Parliament spend over an hour applauding a scene from this debate that required no vote.”
Our legislators, in truth, seldom have occasion to discuss literature.
Readers of the official parliamentary records will note how frequently inappropriate interjections punctuated the speeches, confirming that the majority of them remained ill-informed about the theater world’s realities and blind to the social standing—nay, authority—of authors and critics.
However, upon reflection, a provincial legislator may not necessarily need to be well-versed in such matters.