The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-29 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC jOITRNALS

THE " SPECTATOR'S " ESTIMATE OE CHARLES
DICKENS.—M the dinner of the Newspaper Press
Fund on Saturday last Mr. Dickens gave a very
amusing reminiscence of his life as a reporter for
the Morning Chronicle during the six or seven years—
the years, we conclude, from 1829 to 1836, or there-
abouts—previous to the success of his " Sketches
by Boz ' and the consequent recognition of his
original genius by the English public. The brief
autobiographic sketch had more;we think, than the ad
captandum interest of recommending to the generosity
of the public a profession which had been distinguished
by once numbering a man of genius in its ranks ;
it throws some light on the merits and defects of his
own great powers as an author. If, as is most
likely, it were Mr. Dickens's original genius for ob-
servation which made him so good a reporter, it
seems pretty certain that his habit of reporting re-
acted on his genius fOr observation and moulded it
in a particular direction ; for the greatest character-
istic in all his works after their humour (which of
course reporting could neither give nor strengthen)
is deeply marked by the influence of this profession
in that more exciting and eager form which in those
days of few conveniences it assumed. There is pro-
bably no other novelist in English literature who
can catalogue all the minutia 3 of every scene he
wishes to describe with anything like the accuracy
and effect of Mr. Dickens. It has been said that if
he goes down a street he will note involuntarily
every piece of orange-peel or loose paper which he
passes in that street, but he uses this power with
nothing of the tediousness of literal observation,
and also with nothing of that kind of not infrequent,)

[ art which uses outward associations as the mere
paints with which to externalize an inward mood.
What Mr. Dicken does in painting is, to let the im-
pression of a scene fill his mental retina, and then
selecting any distinguishing feature, whether fog,
or clink, or rapid motion, squalor, or cold, or what
you will—which gives a character and unity of effect
to the whole—to throw all the emphasis of his de-
scription on that, and make all the subsidiary touches
centre in that and return into that. He is in this
only an ideal reporter, whose business it is to keep
strictly to what he sees, and yet introduce if he can
sufficient perspective into his picture to prevent his
sketch from falling into an auctioneer's catalogue. In
general Mr. Dickens is wonderfully effective in this
sort of work. No one who has ever read the de-
scription of a London Christmas Eve in his " Christ-
mas Carol" will be likely to forget his picture of the
gaslit streets and their plethora of preparation for
high feeding; and still better is the picture of the
utter dismalness of Snow-hill and the neighbourhood
of the Saracen's Head on a wet Sunday. In fact the ex-
amples of admirable realistic reporting of this kind in
his works are almost innumerable. But there are
not a few cases in which the reporter's instinct for
getting a point of sight, a centre for his picture,
has not been corrected by any artistic instinct, and
the consequence is a vulgar sort of emphasis on
some one external string, caught at in a hurry, as
it were, and twanged at with a triumphant sort of
pertinacity till, as he makes Mrs. Gamp say,
" fiddle-strings is weakness to expredge my nerves
this night." For example, there is the famous drive
in " Martin Chuzzlevvit, ' when Tom Pinch goes up
to town outside the coach, and Mr. Dickens con-
sidering that fast motion and high spirits were the
true leading features to dominate the variety of that
changing picture, insisted upon putting ' Yoho !'
before every sentence for a matter of three close
pages of description, after this fashion :—" Yoho
past hedges, gates, and trees, past cottages and
barns, and people going home from work. Yoho
past donkey-chaises drawn into the ditch, and empty
carts with rampant horses whipped up at a bound
upon the little watercourses and held by struggling
carters close to the five-barred gate until the coach
had passed the narrow turning in the road. Yoho
by churches dropped down by themselves in quiet
nooks," and so on, and so on, yoho ad infinitum.
Now, if any one will try to read this passage aloud
he will feel so heartily abashed and humiliated at
about the third or fourth yoho that he will, we
venture to say, break down long before he gets
through the thirty or forty to which the author
condemns him for the sake of this artificial effect.
The same fault may be remembered in the passage
where " the Temple fountain sparkles " with such
iteration "in the sun" to keep time to Ruth Pinch's
love-making. If Mr. Dickens throws far more than
the art of the reporter into most of his scenery, he
throws far more than his artificial trickery into a
few scenes, where his genuis is merged in the mere
glaring trade-effects of catch-word style of descrip-
tion.

THE " EXAMINER" ON COLONEL DAWKINS'S
CASE.—CoI. Dawkins's professional career is ruined
on the ground that he is an ill-conditioned, quarrel-
some man, unfit for a command. He has had many
disputes, and it is therefore concluded that he must
be contentious, and always in the wrong. Was this
rule applied to Lord Cardigan, commonly called the
hero of a hundred squabbles ? There is a presump-
tion, we admit, against an unpopular man, but there-
are very disagreeable men who are very good officers,
and, on the other hand, popular men who are ex-
tremely bad ones. One man may exact duty in an
unpleasant way, and so make himself disliked ; and
another, with an easy, indulgent disposition, may
win favour at the expense of discipline. The fact,
therefore, of popularity or unpopularity should not
go for much without some knowledge of the circum-
stances which have made the one or the other cha-
racter. Now in this case of Col. Dawkins we are
enabled in two instances to judge whether or not he
captiously made complaint, or whether or not there
was, on the other hand, a disposition to construe
whatever he did amiss. An invitation to a ball given
by her Majesty was sent to Col. Dawkins's residence
in so careless a way that he had not the opportunity
of formally notifying his obedience to the com-
mand ; but as soon as he heard of it he conveyed a
message to the transmitter, the adjutant, that he
should avail himself of the honour, in reply to
which he was cavalierly informed that as he was
not in the way the invitation was transferred
to another officer. Now this, to say the least,
was sharp,practice, such as might nettle a temper
more even than that attributed to Colonel Dawkins,
and he wrote a letter of remonstrance :

May 15, 1860.—Dear Monck,—Thanks for your letter of
explanation about the invitation. You knew I was in town
very lately. I may be mistaken, but it seems unlikely and
unusual that you did not know what officers of each rank
could be invited before the day their names go in ; and if
so, then you make my receiving the invitation depend on
my being accidentally at home between eleven and three
o'clock, or thereabouts, on one day ; and, instead of making
any acknowledgment of having perhaps accidentally or
negligently sent me a notice of which it was not probable
any one could avail themselves, you actually tell me it is
my own fault altogether. I send your first envelope that
you may see that you did not put " Guards' Club" on it, or
" To be forwarded," &c.—Yours truly, W. G. DAWKINS.
Now really we can see nothing in this note but the
displeasure allowable upon a vexatious disappoint-
ment, and any generous, candid mind would have
refused to take umbrage at the strain of complaint
so provoked, though exceeding the occasion. Capt.
Monck might, with a good grace, have expressed his
sorrow for the contre-temps, and there would have
been an end of the matter. But no, he replies :
Guards Club, Mayl7, 1860.—Dear Sir,—l beg to acknow-
ledge the receipt of your private letter of the 15th inst.
The contents being of such a nature as, in my opinion, an
officer in my position ought not to receive from another, I
shall feel it my duty, unless you withdraw tfie whole of it
(which I now wish to give you the opportunity of doing),
to lay the correspondence before the commanding officer.—
Yours faithfully, RICHARD MONCK.
Lieut.-Colonel Dawkins.
And so this grave affair was brought before Lord
Rokeby, who decided that the adjutant was right,
and Colonel Dawkins quite wrong. Colonel Daw-
kins had no right to complain of any inattention.
There had been some coolness between Lord Rokeby
and Colonel Dawkins, and at a luncheon at Alder-
shot his lordship made some advances to reconcilia-
tion, which Colonel Dawkins met with the salute
required by military etiquette. It might have been
that he did not understand Lord Rokeby's overture,
or it might have been that he did not choose to give
his hand—a churlish refusal perhaps, but a matter
of right. But for this Colonel Dawkins was placed
under arrest for 11 days, against the Article of War,
which provides that no officer or soldier shall be
kept in confinement more than eight days, or until
a court-martial can be conveniently assembled.
Now if these two cases are specimens of the quarrel-
some disposition making Colonel Dawkins unfit to
command they certainly do not sustain the charge,
but prove it rather against his enemies. Captain
Monck captiously took offence at a remonstrance
not unnaturally provoked by his own omissions.
Lord Rokeby might justly feel displeased at
Colonel Dawkins's withholding his hand, but did
he show his temper by making a private grudge
a matter of public punishment, and did he
show his sense of duty by a violation of a
most important Article of War, the soldier's
habeas corpus? On the whole, so far as we see the
case, Colonel Dawkins is more sinned against than
sinning. But at the same time we must say that
there has seldom been a case so incomplete in parti-
culars brought under Parliamentary notice, and the
attempt to eke out information by Col. Dawkins's
solicitors has not been very adroitly performed.
There is nothing charged against the character and
conduct of Colonel Dawkins beyond incompatibility
of temper, and the upshot of the inquiry so strangely
instituted and mysteriously conducted is, that he
has been at variance with so many officers as to be
unfit to command. These officers were five, four
of them men of high position and influence. But
when this officer is shelved, notwithstanding years
of meritorious service, because he could not get on
harmoniously with his brother officers, we are most
unpleasantly reminded of the very different treat-
ment of Colonel Crawley. He, too, was at variance
with several officers of his regiment, but he was not
made to give way to them. They were made to give
way to him, and were removed from the regiment
that he might return to it. But Colonel Dawkins
had none of Col. Crawley's peculiar claims to favour.
He is chargeable with no tyranny, and with no
breach of military law, and, above all, has not to
reproach himself with severities which embittered,
if they did not hasten, a good soldier's end.

THE " READER'S " ESTIMATE OF CHARLES
FECHTER.-It is not a very long time since play-
goers were surprised and amused by the news that
the Princess Theatre, then in some distress,was about
to seek the assistance of a " brilliant Frenchman."
The idea of bringing a jeune premier of the Vaude-
ville and Porte St. Martin to Oxford-street, there
to make him act to us in our own language, was
novel, but seemed to have nothing to recommend it
except its novelty. Frenchmen are proverbially
audacious, but a Frenchman who can speak Eng-
lish at all is a phenomenon, and a plan for making
a Parisian actor perform in English plays before
stolid British tradesmen seemed to combine every
element of failure, and accordingly those frequenters
of our theatres who had any knowledge of the
French stage, prophesied for the bold adventurer a
singularly prominent fiasco. But nothing daunted,
Mr. Fechter came, and saw, or rather was seen, and
conquered. His first character, as most people may
remember, was Ruy Bias ; not a very well chosen
part to start:with in England, since the whole plot
turns on the intense passion of a rather unscru-
pulous lover, and English audiences are apt to get
bored if there is much lovemaking, and like the hero
to be above all delicately moral and particular.
But, nevertheless, Ruy Blas was a success.

People complained of Mr. Fechter's foreign,
accent, and could not quite make out whether
the Queen of Spain was married or not at the time
when she allowed herself to listen to the eloquent
speeches of the lackey Minister, but the force, and.
the grace, and the finished style of the new actor
had their effect, and though the play had not a long
run, Mr. Fechter took at once a leading position on
the London stage. Then he acted in "The Corsican
Brothers," which play he spoiled by some injudicious
changes ; then in " Don Caesar," in which he was
justly much admired ; and then, with happy auda-
city, he attempted Shakspere, and his attempt at
Shakspere was all but unanimously pronounced 3
great success. All but unanimously, for the public,
and particularly the educated portion of the public,
and particularly Mr. Fechter's great merit, and felt
especially grateful to the actor whose performance
of Hamlet gave evidence of thoughtful labour. But
in his own profession it was otherwise. Some of our
charming actors, and some of our refined and gen-
tlemanly burlesque writers, took pleasure in gibing,
in their own graceful manner at " the Frenchman
who acted Shakspere, and on several occasions a
very malicious feeling has been shown towards Mr.
Fechter by the small deer who in the present degraded
state of dramatic art are able to put themselves pro-
minently forward at our theatres. After Hamlet
the actor was less fortunate ; he played Othello, and
in this most trying of all'Shaksperian characters he,
failed, and failed utterly. Next he acted lago, and
his lago was as good as his Othello was bad ; so
good indeed that some thought it the best of
all his impersonations, and a nearly perfect repre-
sentation of the character. Unfortunately, the
public were still under the impression produced by
the unlucky attempt at Othello, and a very remark-
able exhibition of dramatic power passed almost un-
noticed. Some time after this, Mr. Fechter left.the
Princess's, and, in due course, came again before
tha world in the position, now so common, of actor
and manager, having assumed the direction of the
prettiest and most ruinous theatre in London. Ilia
management was undoubtedly at first a perfect suc-
cess, so far as the mere filling of the theatre went.
"The Duke's Motto" ran for an enormous number
of nights, but the more discriminating amongst his
admirers felt great regret at finding that he appa
rently colitemplated nothing more than reproducing
here, with elaborate scenery and "startling effects,"
that least satisfactory of all kinds of French literary
works, the " Drame du Boulevard." It was hoped
that the actor who had shown so much intelligence,
not only in his own impersonations, but in teaching,
so far as they could be taught, the rather dull per-
formers who surrounded him; who in almost every-
thing he had done in London had appealed to culti-
vated, not to vulgar taste, would, when he came to
manage a theatre, collect around him competent
actors, and would attempt to produce, in a fitting
manner, plays of sterling merit. Nothing of the
kind happened. Mr. Fechter, as manager, proved
not one whit better than other managers, and in
some respects rather worse. Some known theatri-
cal names were announced in his playbills, but the
owners of these names did not appear on, his stage,
and in these same playbills the manager's name
standing out in tyre three times as large as that
which served for the other performers, showed,
in a sufficiently vulgar way, that the Lyceum re-
lied on the attractiveness of one actor only. For a
time the system prospered ; Mr. Fechter had j nstlY
achieved considerable renown, and people went in
crowds to see him 'in an indifferent translation of
a very poor melodraina ; 'for such small point as
there was in "Le Bossu" was entirely wanting
in " The Duke's Motto." But, clever as he is,
Mr. Fechter could not keep a series of bad plays
living. " Bel Demonio" was even more extravagant
and feeble than its predecessor. Londoners eau
stand a good deal at the theatre, but a hero wh°,
apparently cut his way first through an army, anti
afterwards through a stone wall, was too much col
for Londoners, and the play, without failing, had
but feeble life in the uncongenial climate on the
north side 'of the Thames. Mr. Fechter then altered
his course, and resumed the character in which Ile ••
had won a legitimate triumph, appearing as Haw'
let, and bringing back many whom the noisy melo-
dramas had driven from his theatre. In " the
King's Butterfly" Mr. Fechter once more brought
out an elaborately-mounted absurdity, which NW"'
utterly ; and since then has varied his characters,
his new assumptions having been in " The Road- ,
side Inn" and " The Mountebank." These plan
owed their celebrity to the exceptional genius of
Frederic Lemaitre, and, though Mr. Fechter playa' •
exceedingly well in both, they cannot be said to.
have added anything to his fame. At present his
old admirers prefer to see him as Hamlet, or if he •
takes a lower line, as Huy Blas or Don Caesar de
Bazan. In the last of these characters especially,
the merits of this strangely-transplanted actor are
seen to particular advantage. To use Macklin'S
emphatic phrase, The part hits him, and he hits
the part." Nothing can be better than the first
entry of the drunken, ragged Don Caesar, and his
half defiant, half contemptuous manner towards the
angry mob around him. Very admirable, too, is
his quarrel with the surly lieutenant, and the last
impetuous burst in which he determines to fight his
duel coute qui coute.