Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-02-08
TwADDLE ABOUT DEVOTION TO ART.


die put before the world in the name of
art. Art, in tact, is made to bear a multi
tude of burdens that it has no part in ere
ating. Here, now, is lot of gush going
about the prints of the country concerning
an actress that is simply insulting to art.
1t is related that the father of an actress
suddenly died, and that his daughter was
greatly afflicted by the loss. At the time
she was playing as the star at a New York
theater. The father died on Saturday and
was buried on Monday. On Tuesday the
woman reappeared upon the stage, and the
following is sample of what the local
press had to say of the action, the morning
following:
Her father was buried yesterday and then she
remembered, as all true artists do, only her
duty TO her art and the public. She has never
played ROsalind with more apparent spirit and
grace than she did Lust evening. Once behind
the footlights, her private grief was swallowed
in her public duty, and until the curtain fell on
the last act no person in the audience not con-
yersent with the facts would have dreamed that
a heavy heart was disguised under her smiling
passed an ordeal of this kind as she has done,
and fewer still who would have attempted it,
and she is deserving OF the highest praise from
public which she has never willillly disap-
pointed. That she belongs wholly to her art
has been demonstrated thoroughly.
So far as her assumption of business was
concerned she occupied precisely the posi-
ton, if she chose to take it, of any one
else who has lost relative by death. She
was playing for money and she returned to
her work on the level with the bereaved
shopkeeper who takes down his shutters
after the funeral day, for the world must
move and men and women must labor,
though death comes. But in her case she
was not compelled to return at once to the
stage for she is woman of means. But
the offense of the excuse offered for the
actress is found in the assumption that her
return to her work was a sacrifice to art
for one thing, and from a high sense of
duty to the public for another. Now
neither of these claims are true. Art
makes no demand of that character; it is
gentle and loving mistress, and harsh
exaction is not congenial to it. We would
be greatly edited if the New York Times,
from which we clip the extract given
above, will point out wherein dramatic art
demanded of the lady that she should sac
rifce her feelings and assume false face,
when she has ample means at her COM
mand to retire for period of mourning if
she so desired.
So far as duty to the public is concerned,
we fail to understand what claim the thea
ter-going public had upon the actress that
she should appear at all. On the con-
trary, if she had not appeared, it would not
have paid her its money, but would have
sought amusement or entertainment else
where. 1t had no contract with the
actress that bound her to wear mask for
moment. Discharge of duty is heroic
when it demands sacrifice of self for the
good, even the pleasure Of others, or to
save OUTFITS lIOA StinCllL5 anu uSdLA' IL
is simply self-service when the good of self
is alone concerned. The actress was,
therefore, serving self only in appearing on
the stage while the funeral weeds were yet
on. Not even her contract with her man
ager would admit of the art plea or
the gush about duty. As between the
actress and the manager, it would be
simply and only question of the measure
of damages, if anything. There is every
now and then a food of rhetorical gush
about faithfulness to the public and devo-
ton to art by dramatic people, when at the
bottom it is simply dollars and cents, and
not sentiment, that accounts for the sup
posed sacrifice of self upon the altar of art
and at the shrine of the public.