voice is not wanting in melody of a certain kind, though its tones lack variety.  Her accent is slight, and seldom unpleasant.  Of her elocution it is scarcely fair to judge until she has caught more accurately the pitch required for the theater.  For the accomplishment of any great things Miss Anderson had not on Saturday night any opportunity, nor did her treatment of such mild pathos and passion as the character permitted impress us with the idea that her command of deep feeling is as yet matured.  So far as it goes, however, her method is extremely winning, and her further efforts, especially in the direction of comedy and romantic drama, will be watched with interest, and may be anticipated with pleasure.”

Morning Post, 3rd September, 1883.

“LYCEUM THEATER.

“This theater was reopened under the management of Mr. Henry Abbey on Saturday evening, when was revived Mrs. Lovell’s play called ‘Ingomar,’ a picturesque but somewhat ponderous work of German origin, first produced some thirty years ago at Drury Lane with Mr. James Anderson and Miss Vandenhoff as the principal personages.  The interest centers not so much in the barbarian Ingomar as in his enchantress, Parthenia, of whom Miss Mary Anderson, an American artist of fine renown, proves a comely and efficient representative.  In summing up the qualifications of an actress the Transatlantic critics never fail to take into account her personal charms—­a fascinating factor.  Borne on the wings of an enthusiastic press, the fame of Miss Anderson’s loveliness had reached our shores long before her own arrival.  The Britishers were prepared to see a very handsome lady, and they have not been disappointed.  Miss Anderson’s beauty is of Grecian type, with a head of classic contour, finely chiseled features, and a tall statuesque figure, whose Hellenic expression a graceful costume of antique design sets off to the best advantage.  You fancy that you have seen her before, and so perhaps you have upon the canvas of Angelica Kauffman.  For the rest, Miss Anderson is very clever and highly accomplished.  Her talents are brilliant and abundant, and they have been carefully cultivated to every perfection of art save one—­the concealment of it.  She has grace, but it is studied, not negligent grace; her action is always picturesque and obviously premeditated; everything she says and does is impressive, but it speaks a foregone conclusion.  Her acting is polished and in correct taste.  What it wants is freshness, spontaneity, abandon.  Among English artists of a bygone age her style might probably find a parallel in the stately elegance and artificial grandeur of the Kembles.  It has nothing in common with the electric verve and romantic ardor of Edmund Kean.  Of the feu sacre which irradiated Rachel and gives to Bernhardt splendor ineffable, Miss Anderson has not a spark.  She is not inspired.  Hers is a pure, bright, steady light; but it lacks mystic effulgence.  It is not empyreal.  It is not ’the light that never was on sea or land—­the consecration and the poet’s dream.’  It is not genius.  It is talent.  In a word, Miss Anderson is beautiful, winsome, gifted, and accomplished.  To say this is to say much, and it fills to the brim the measure of legitimate praise.  She is an eminently good, but not a great artist.”