Daily Telegraph, 3rd September, 1883.

“There was a natural desire to see, nay, rather let us say to welcome Miss Mary Anderson, who made her debut as Parthenia in ‘Ingomar’ on Saturday evening last.  The fame of this actress had already preceded her.  An enthusiastic climber up the rugged mountain paths of the art she had elected to serve ... an earnest volunteer in the almost forlorn cause of the poetical drama:  a believer in the past, not merely because it is past, but because in it was embodied much of the beautiful and the hopeful that has been lost to us, Miss Mary Anderson was assured an honest greeting at a theater of cherished memories....  It has been said that the friends of Miss Anderson were very ill-advised to allow her to appear as Parthenia in the now almost-forgotten play of ‘Ingomar.’  We venture to differ entirely with this opinion.  That the American actress interested, moved, and at times delighted her audience in a play supposed to be unfashionable and out of date, is, in truth, the best feather that can be placed in her cap....  There must clearly be something in an actress who cannot only hold her own as Parthenia, but in addition dissipate the dullness of ’Ingomar.’...  And now comes the question, how far Miss Mary Anderson succeeded in a task that requires both artistic instinct and personal charm to carry it to a successful issue.  The lady has been called classical, Greek, and so on, but is, in truth, a very modern reproduction of a classical type—­a Venus by Mr. Gibson, rather than a Venus by Milo; a classic draped figure of a Wedgwood plaque more than an echo from the Parthenon....  The actress has evidently been well taught, and is both an apt and clever pupil; she speaks clearly, enunciates well, occasionally conceals the art she has so closely studied, and is at times both tender and graceful....  Her one great fault is insincerity, or, in other words, inability thoroughly to grasp the sympathies of the thoughtful part of her audience.  She is destitute of the supreme gift of sensibility that Talma considers essential, and Diderot maintains is detrimental to the highest acting.  Diderot may be right, and Talma may be wrong, but we are convinced that the art Miss Anderson has practiced is, on the whole, barren and unpersuasive.  She does not appear to feel the words she speaks, or to be deeply moved by the situations in which she is placed.  She is forever acting—­thinking of her attitudes, posing very prettily, but still posing for all that....  She weeps, but there are no tears in her eyes; she murmurs her love verses with charming cadence, but there is no throb of heart in them....  These things, however, did not seem to affect her audience.  They cheered her as if their hearts were really touched....  These, however, are but early impressions, and we shall be anxious to see her in still another delineation.”

Standard, 10th December, 1883.

“LYCEUM THEATER.