Mexico weekly ledger., 1880-02-26
"JANAUSCHEK."
The Daily's Johnny Cake"

The Daily's "Johnny Cake"
We did say that Janauschek was
II among the greatest living actress
es, and we repeat it with all empha-
sis, notwithstanding Il press in our
city seems to differ with us.
We also say that the audience did
leave before the play was out, and,
perhaps, if the critic had ever seer
Macbeth played in larger cities, or
read it in Shakspeare's volume No. /,
he would not have spoken thus.
We will simply state that before a
man sets himself up as a critic he
must he able TO appreciate and COM
prehend things enthusiastically
Herald.
Then follows q half column of ex-
tracts from papers that, for pay, said
that once Janauschek was one Of the
greatest living actresses in the world.
W. are well aware that our readers
ale sick and tired of Janauschek and
Trimmings, therefore we shall make
our statements concerning the matter
very brief.
In the first place, the Herald
brands its reputation with Il falsehood
when it writes as above. In its tor-
mcr editorial it did not say that
'.~Janauschek'' was one of the great
est, but stated without reserve. that
she was no'r tie greatest living &C
trcss.
There is no doubt but what once
upon a time ~Janauschek was one,
among forty or fifty, of the greatest
living actresses. II that WAS ever
trne it was long ago. She is now
only ordinary, as every n knows,
that heard her. She is good in mos,
every part but great in none; she
lines very we'll and her facial expires.
sion is very good, and this is all that
can he said of her.
All that is necessary for US to say
in confirmation Of our former crit
cism is that she is travelling through
the country playing to small audi.
cuces. the net proceeds of which viii
probably amount to $40 or $50 pei
night, and very often she loses money
for weeks.
Who ever heard of the ''grcatest
living actress" travelling through the
country playing to small audiences
one night in a place and paying fol
cheap talk in small country papers
1t is positively absurd. There ar,
to-day a thousand better actresses il
: the world.
Again, slow us to say, that tn,
audience did not leave before tn,
conclusion of the play as produced
by that troupe.
When we write W. profess to know
what we are writing about, and dom
have to fill one paper with excuses
for blunders and mistakes VIC had II
t the proceeding issue as II worth,
+ contemporary does.
!, Harry Meredith, who impersonat
ed Macbeth, on this occasion, tol,
, us himself, before he left Mexico
| that the play was over when the Cur
t tain fell and the assembly dispersed
and he told others in Mexico tn
same thing, though we do not jus
now think of but one. We remem
!. Der of hearing him tell our friend II
II w. Gill. We are sorry to see th
Herald so bigoted. Does the edito
g Of that paper think Mexico peopl
c are fools? Does he think he is th
g only man in Mexico that ever rea
Shakespeare? He says we never rea
d Vol. /. 1t makes no difference VIII:
Aolume we read, we were correct j
g what we said on that point, but di
make an error in our criticism, an
II as our friend did not notice it, "
:. will not at this writing. If he hs
&c read Shakespeare so much he woul
Ye surely have seen it. AS far as til
'e matter of criticising is concerned til
d Herald may not be the best judge
is Our criticism In this instance ws
e absolutely correct. When we fe'
n inadequate we never say anything
it all, and when we write a criticisl
our readers will find US correct as f;
as we go. What we do shall be don
o well, and we do not profess to d
1t more than the best we possibly cal
which we always do. The time Wi
never come when the Daily can find
flaw in our work.
= Speaking of reading, we expect IL
sr editor of the LEDGER reads mo-
1t Shakespeare and other standard work
e in 4 day than the ''Kornfield kanary
editor of the Herald has in all h
As life. Asses should keep their mouth
IS shut. Lonnie, when you wrote tt
re quotation above you showed your j,
IF norance.