Chapter XVI The Actress and Religion
Nothing in my autobiography seems to have aroused so much comment, so much surprise, as my admission that I prayed in moments of great distress or anxiety, even when in the theatre.
One man writes that he never knew before that there was such a thing as a “praying actress.” Poor fellow, one can’t help feeling there’s lots of other things he doesn’t know; and though I wish to break the news as gently as possible, I have to inform him that I am not a rara avis, that many actresses pray; indeed, the woods are full of us, so to speak.
One very old gentleman finds this habit of prayer “commendable and sweet,” but generally there seems to be a feeling of amazement that I should dare, as it were, to bring the profession of acting to the attention of our Lord; and yet we are authorized to pray, “Direct us, O Lord, in all our doings, and further us with thy continual help, that in all our work we may glorify thy holy name.”
It is not the work, but the motive, the spirit that actuates the work; whether embroidering stoles, sawing wood, washing dishes, or acting, if it is done honestly, for the glory of the holy name, why may one not pray for divine help?
One lady, who, poor soul, should have been born two or three hundred years ago, when her narrowness would have been more natural, is shocked, almost indignant; and though she is good enough to say she does not accuse me of “intentional sacrilege,” still, addressing a prayer to God from a theatre is nothing less in her eyes than profanation. “For,” says she, “you know we must only seek God in His sanctuary, the church.”
Goodness, mercy! in that case some thousands of us would become heathen if we never found God save inside of a church.
Does this poor lady not read her Bible, then? Has she not heard the psalmist’s cry: “If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there. If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there also; whither shall I flee from thy presence?”
Surely, there are a great many places besides the church between heaven and hell, and even in a theatre we may not flee from His presence.
But lest the young girl writers should feel abashed over their expressions of surprise at my conduct, I will show them what good company they have had.
A good many years ago a certain famous scholar and preacher of New York City called upon me one day. I was absent, attending rehearsal. The creed of his denomination was particularly objectionable to me, but having wandered into the big stone edifice on Fourth Avenue one Sunday, I was so charmed by his clear reasoning, his eloquence, and, above all, by his evident sincerity, that I continued to go there Sunday after Sunday.
In my absence he held converse with my mother as to his regret at missing me, as to the condition of the weather, as to the age, attainments, and breed of my small dog, who had apparently been seized with a burning desire to get into his lap. We afterward found she only wished to rescue her sweet cracker, which he sat upon.
In his absent-minded way he then fell into a long silence, his handsome, scholarly head drooping forward. Finally he sighed and remarked:—
“She is an actress, your daughter?”
My mother, with lifted brows, made surprised assent.
“Yes, yes,” he went on gently, “an actress, surely, for I see my paper commends her work. I have noted her presence in our congregation, and her intelligence.” (I never sleep in the daytime.) “Our ladies like her, too; m-m, an actress, and yet takes an interest in her soul’s salvation; wonderful! I—I don’t understand! no, I don’t understand!” A speech which did little to endear its maker to the actress’s mother, I’m afraid.
See how narrowing are some creeds. This reverend gentleman was personally gentle, kind, considerate, and naturally just; yet, knowing no actor’s life, never having seen the inside of a playhouse, he, without hesitation, denounced the theatre and declared it the gate of hell.
In the amusing correspondence that followed that call, the great preacher was on the defensive from the first, and in reading over two or three letters that, because of blots or errors, had to be recopied, I am fairly amazed at the temerity of some of my remarks. In one place I charge him with “standing upon his closed Bible to lift himself above sinners, instead of going to them with the open volume and teaching them to read its precious message.”
Perhaps he forgave much to my youth and passionate sincerity; at all events, we were friends. I had the benefit of his advice when needed, and, in spite of our being of different church denominations, he it was who performed the marriage service for my husband and myself.
So, girl writers, who question me, you see there have been other pebbles on my beach, and some big ones, too.
The question, then, that has been put so many times is, “Can there be any compatibility between religion and the stage?”
Now had it been a question of church and stage, I should have been forced to admit that the exclusive spirit of the first, and the unending occupation of the second, kept them uncomfortably far apart. But the question has invariably been as to a compatibility between religion and the stage. Now I take it that religion means a belief in God, and the desire and effort to do His will; therefore I see nothing incompatible between religion and acting. I am a church-woman now; but for many years circumstances prevented my entering the great army of Christians who have made public confession of their faith, and received baptism as an outward and visible sign of a spiritual change. Yet during those long years without a church I was not without religion. I knew naught of “justification,” of “predestination,” of “transubstantiation.” I only knew I must obey the will of God. Here was the Bible; it was the word of God. There was Christ, beautiful, tender, adorable, and he said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment; and the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Add to these the old Mosaic “Ten,” and you have my religious creed complete. And though it is simple enough for a child to comprehend, it is difficult for the wisest to give perfect obedience, because it is not always easy to love that tormenting neighbour, even a little bit, let alone as well as oneself. How I wish there was some other word to take the place of “religion.” It has been so abused, so misconstrued. Thousands of people shrink from the very sound of it, believing that to be religious means the solemn, sour-faced setting of one foot before the other in a hard and narrow way—the shutting out of all beauty, the cutting off of all enjoyment. Oh, the pity! the pity! Can’t they read?
“Let all those that seek thee be joyful and glad in thee, and let such as love thee and thy salvation say always, The Lord be praised.” Again, “The Lord loveth a cheerful giver.” But it is not always in giving alone that He loves cheerfulness. Real love and trust in God—which is religion, mind you—makes the heart feather light, opens the eye to beauty, the heart to sympathy, the ear to harmony, and all the merriment and joy of life is but the sweeter for the reverent gratitude one returns to the Divine Giver.
One evening, in a greenroom chatter, the word “religious” had in some way been applied to me, and a certain actress of “small parts,” whose life had been of the bitterness of gall, suddenly broke out with: “What—what’s that? religious—you? Well, I guess not! Why, you’ve more spirits in a minute than the rest of us have in a week, and you are as full of capers as a puppy. I guess I know religion when I see it. It makes children loathe the Bible by forcing them to learn a hundred of its verses for punishment. It pulls down the shades on Sundays, eats cold meat and pickles, locks up bookcase and piano, and discharges the girl for walking with her beau. Oh, no! my dear, you’re not religious.”
Poor abused word; no wonder it terrifies people.
How many thousand women, I wonder, are kept from church by their inability to dress up to the standard of extravagance raised by those who are more wealthy than thoughtful. Even if the poor woman plucks up her courage and enters the church, the magnificence of her fortunate sisters distracts her attention from the service, and fills her with longing, too often with envy, and surely with humiliation.
Some years ago a party of ultra-high churchwomen decided to wear only black during Lent. One of these ladies condescended to know me, and in speaking of the matter, she said: “Oh, I think this black garb is more than a fad, it really operates for good. It is so appropriate, you know, and—and a constant reminder of that first great fast—the origin of Lent; and as I walk about in trailing black, I know I look devout, and that makes me feel devout, and so I pray often, and you’re always the better for praying, even if your dress is at the bottom of it—and, oh, well, I feel that I am in the picture, when I wear black during Lent.”
But the important thing is that before the Lenten season was half over, female New York was walking the streets in gentle, black-robed dignity, and evidently enjoying the keeping of Lent because, to use a theatrical expression, “it knew it looked the part.”
So much influence do these petted, beloved daughters of the rich exercise over the many, that I have often wished that, for the sake of the poorer women, the wealthy ones would set a fashion of extreme simplicity of costume for church-going. Every female thing has an inalienable right to make herself as lovely as possible; and these graceful, clever women of fashion would know as well how to make simplicity charming as does the grande dame of France, who is never more grande dame than when, in plain little bonnet, simple gown, and a bit of a fichu, she attends her church.
These bright butterflies have all the long week to flutter their magnificence in. Their lunches, dinners, teas, dances, games, yachts, links, race-courses—everyone gives occasion for glorious display. Will they not, then, be sweetly demure on Sunday for the sake of the “picture,” spare their sisters the agony of craving for like beautiful apparel? for God has made them so, and they can’t help wanting to be lovely, too.
Perhaps some day a woman of fashion, simply clad, will turn up her pretty nose contemptuously at splendour of dress at church service, and whisper, “What bad form!”
Then, indeed, as the tide sets her way, she will realize her power, and the church will have many more attendants. The very poor woman will not be so cruelly humiliated, and the wage-earning girl, who puts so much of her money into finery, will have a more artistic and more suitable model to follow.
And you are beginning to think that free silver is not the only mad idea that has been put forward by a seemingly sane person. Ah, well, it’s sixteen to one, you know, that this is both first and last of the church dress-reform.
To those two little maids who so anxiously inquire “if I believe prayer is of any real service, and why, since my own could not always have been answered,” I can only say, they being in a minority, I have no authority to answer their question here. Perhaps, though, they may recall the fact that their loving mothers tenderly refused some of their most passionate demands in babyhood. And we are yet but children, who often pray improperly to our Father.