The sun., 1890-12-06
Tho Question Of Tights.

Tho Question Of Tights.
Ono Of the Boston ladies who gave per-
formance OF Q drama OF BRowNINo's at the
Berkeley Lyceum on Thursday afternoon
appeared In the part Of q man of the fifteenth
century, wearing. Of course. tho costume Of
the period. or doublet and hose. For that
reason men were rigidly excluded from tho
theatre. even the very ushers being girls.
Only women were allowed to be spectators
Of the play.
As 1t was an amateur performance by
BROWNING enthusiasts. and for Q charitable
purpose. no man has any right to complain
that he was debarred from its enjoyment.
The ladies who interpreted the drama had
perfect right to stlpulate as to the character
Of the audience before which they were to
play. They were unwilling to make the ex-
hibition In the sight Of anybody except
women, and it was so understood In advance
OF the entertainment.
Yet the question arises whether 1t Is
proper for a woman so arrayed to appear In
a public hall before women II 1t is improper
for her to thus display herself before an
audience In which there are men also. Does
not the improperly, II improperly there bs,
consist In a woman's public assumption Of
the part Of a man Of the fifteenth con-
tury, with legs encased in tights, no
matter who are tho witnesses? Docs
not the very exclusion Of men indt-
cato that she has passed the bounds Of
what she regards as the modesty regulate
to Q woman2 Moreover. the exhibition was
made without any excuse Of necessity. Tho
lady was under no obligation to wear tho
tights. for she was under no obligation to
play tho part. It is a mans part, and .
man could have taken 1t. Nobody would
have questioned the propriety Of his wear
ing tho tights before both men and women.
If. however. this lady's enthusiasm for art
led her to assume the part because Of her con-
viction that she could better portray 1t than
any obtainable man on the amateur STAGE
why should not the same artistic enthusi-
asm have induced her to meet all
Its requirements, whoever looked on ?
That is the feeling Of the true his
trionio artist. The personal identity Of the
actor Is lost In the character portrayed.
Otherwise the performance cannot be looked
upon as work of art. It is not worth un-
dertaking and not worth seeing. It violates
the principles Of art If the performer has
any other thought than the interpreta-
tion Of the drama; and that is an even more
serious offence than an offence against con-
ventional propriety.
Besides there Is nothing immodest In tho
costume OF BROwNINa's Norbert. II there
were. 1t would be immodest for man to
wear It, True enough, 1t is not the ordinary
costume Of the present day, but its varia-
tion from the prevailing attire Of men OF the
present time s about as great as its unlike
ness to the usual dress Of women. It does
not reveal SO much of the figure as
the current full dress which fashion pre-
scribes for women, and 1t is worn on the
stage by women Of unQuestionable elevation
of character and modesty Of department,
without provoking unfavorable comment or
suggesting evil. It Is entirely matter Of
convention. Morality and modesty have
nothing to do with 1t.
II there Is any question Of taste involved.
it concerns only the propriety Of the lady's
dressing up as man at all for such pur-
pose. An amateur actor can choose her own
characters for dramatic representations. She
is not under the obligations Of q professional
actor. She is not obliged to wear any stage
costume In which she is unwilling to be seen
by anybody. OF course, there is no intrinsic
immodesty In the masculine dress. whether
worn by men or women, or whether It be the
costume Of the fifteenth century or tho nine
teenth century; but it is immodest for any
woman who ID ashamed to appear In 1t be-
fore men. even when she appeals to them as
dramatic artist, merely obeying the re-
Quirements Of her part. Shutting men out.
30 far from attesting modesty. publishes
her consciousness OF improperly.
Still. women are not always logical, and
this Boston lady will probably have the gen.
eral commendation Of her sisters for her
delicacy. She is an amateur actress merely,
not conscientious dramatic artist wholly
absorbed In her art and ready to sacrifice
her little conventional soruples to 1t. But,
| feeling as she does, she should not have
taken the part OF man. That was tho ain,
| II any sin there were.