ed on the London boards
within the memory of a generation. According to some she was an
accomplished actress, but she lacked that divine spark which stamps the
true artist. Others attributed her success to nothing but her personal
grace and beauty; while one critic, bolder than his fellows, even went so
far as to declare that whether she wore the attire of a Grecian maid, of a
fine French lady of a century ago, or of the fabled Galatea, only pretty
Miss Anderson, of Louisville, Kentucky, peeped out through every disguise.
Several causes, perhaps, combined to this uncertain sound which went forth
from the trumpet of the dramatic critic. Mary Anderson was an American
artist, who came here, it is true, with a great American reputation; but
so had come others before her, some of whom had wholly failed to stand the
fierce test of the London footlights. Then to "damn her with faint
praise," would not only be a safe course at the outset, but the steps to a
becoming _locus peniteniae_ would be easy and gradual if the vane should,
in spite of the critics, veer round to the point of popular favor. One of
the most distinguished of English journalists lately observed in the House
of Commons that certain writers in back parlors were in the habit of
palming off their effusions as the voice of the great English public, till
that voice made itself heard. When the voice of the English theater-going
public upon Mary Anderson came to make itself heard in the crowded and
enthusiastic audiences of the Lyceum, in the friendship of all that was
most cultivated and best worth knowing in London society, it failed
altogether to echo the trumpet, we will not say of the back parlor critics
only, but of some critics distinguished in their profession, who can
little have anticipated how quickly the popular verdict would modify, if
not reverse their own.

It may be interesting to quote here some observations very much to the
point, on the dramatic criticism of the day, in an admirable paper read
recently by Mrs. Kendal before the Social Science Congress. It will hardly
be denied that there are few artists competent to speak with more
authority on matters theatrical, or better able to form a judgment on the
true inwardness of that Press criticism to which herself and her fellow
artists are so constantly subject:

"Existing critics generally rush into extremes, and either over-praise or
too cruelly condemn. The public, as a matter of course, turn to th