that is not my idea of Mathias'? Do not we all feel that without Mr.
Irving there could be no Mathias?

We best like doing what we do best: and an actor is not to be blamed
for preferring the task of making much of a very little to that of
making little of a great deal.

As for actresses, it surely would be the height of ungenerosity to
blame a woman for following the only regular profession commanding
fame and fortune the kind consideration of man has left open to her.
For two centuries women have been free to follow this profession,
onerous and exacting though it be, and by doing so have won the
rapturous applause of generations of men, who are all ready enough to
believe that where their pleasure is involved, no risks of life or
honour are too great for a woman to run. It is only when the latter,
tired of the shams of life, would pursue the realities, that we become
alive to the fact--hitherto, I suppose, studiously concealed from us--
how frail and feeble a creature she is.

Lastly, it must not be forgotten that we are discussing a question of
casuistry, one which is 'stuff o' the conscience,' and where
consequently words are all important.

Is an actor's calling an eminently worthy one?--that is the question.
It may be lawful, useful, delightful; but is it worthy?

An actor's life is an artist's life. No artist, however eminent, has
more than one life, or does anything worth doing in that life, unless
he is prepared to spend it royally in the service of his art, caring
for nought else. Is an actor's art worth the price? I answer, No!