The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-02-10

uhl DtbulihIiblbh hultn DAChtnh NJ 81
tesquely caricatures; but an attempt
to identify the author of the criti..
cisms on Coleridge, Wordsworth, and
Lamb-criticisms whose depth and deli
cacy Dickens, with all his genius,
was hardly competent to appreciate-to iden-
tify the author of "Ion"-to identify the ac-
complished advocate and judge-with the
Traddles of "David Copperfeld," seems to us
the very insanity of research There is really
nothing but carelessness about the arrange
ment of the hair, and a simplicity in self
sacrifice which was, we trust, characteristic
of Tslfourd, which can by any possibility
connect the two.
And this brings us to the heart of the
question, How far the hints derived from ex-
ternal observation and reading really serve
the great dramatist or novelist in his vital
Characterization We have shown that
Dickens could not have dreamed of c0pyjng
Landor, Hunt, and Talfourd in Boythorn,
Skimpole, and Traddles. He simply used
single popularity of their minds, or single
popularity of their personal appearance, to
build up characters entirely distinct from
them in every other Characteristic.
Indeed, if novelists and dramatists were
accustomed to use their friends and acquaint-
ances as subjects TO be introduced into their
novels and plays, they would be Stunned by
all decent people as a pestilence is shunned.
Nobody but the satirist or the caricaturist
pretends to draw from actual models, and
even the satirist selects his enemies and not
his friends for his caustic reproductions of
actual men and women; whilst the carica-
turist confines himself, in his worst eXaggera-
tions, to persons whose publicity is so noto-
rious that 10 inquiry is made as to his per-
sonal knowledge of his victims.
The most complete information we possess
regarding the sources from which a master of
Characterization drew his materials is found
in Scott's prefaces to his own novels. In
these prefaces the author of Waverley de-
scribes the original of almost every promi-
nent character in his works; but the moment
we turn from the description to the repre-
sentation-from Helen Walker to Jeanie
Deans, from Andrew Gemmells to Edie
Ocbiltree we discover that we have
learned nothing of those processes of genius
bv which these originals have been trans
formed into vivid characters, more attractive
and more alive than the ma ority of actual
persons whom we every day meet. Helen
Walker is the original of Jeanie Deans in
some such sense as a block of marble is the
original of Story's Sybil The thing really to
be considered is the transformation effected
by genius not the source from which the orr
ginal suggestion was derived, and of this
secret Scott tells us nothing.
OF all novelists of genius Jane Austen IS
perhaps the closest to actual life and charac-
ter; but she is still creator, and not copy
ist or photographer. Her characters have
souls, though some of them may have very
small ones; and to put a soul into an imagined
character is the most difficult of all the tasks
of genius. She is famous for her clergymen,
and these are generally so commonplace as
just to escape being characterless. Her art,
indeed, is in delineating character without
availing herself of its obtrusive peculiarities.
In one case she has departed from her ordi-
nary method, and produced humorous mas
| terpiece. We refer, of course, to the Rev.
Mr.. Collins, in 'Pride and Prejudice. "
Doubtless some actual clerical sycophant sug-
| gested this delicious fool; but if she had
merely attempted to reproduce him literally
we should have had only a satirioal
result But the hint derived from the proto-
| type tickled her sense of humor so keenly
| that she indulged for once in the very in
! toxication of mirtb, and revelled in her vivid
and joy-inspiring conception of clerical folly
as Ben Jonson revelled in the conception of
Captain Bobadil, and as Dickens revelled in
the conception of Tony Weller. The prim
perfection of her ordinary clergyman dis
appears in this masterpiece. OF all her
male characters it approaches the nearest
to broad caricature; of all her male
characters it impresses us the most with a
| sense of the possibilities of her humorous
| genius. That it is not copy, but crea-
ton, is proved by the thorough geniality of
the delineation. The original of Mr.. Collins
was undoubtedly a despised bore; the ideal
Mr.. Collins is too laughable to be dull, and
gives us too much pleasure to be an object OF
scorn. AS the clerical toad necessitates the
aristocratic tyrant, the naughty stupidity OF
Lady Catherine de Bourgh is an artistic result
of the sycophantic stupidity of MIR. Collins,
and we accordingly have, in "Pride and Pre-
| judice, two characters overcharged with
humorous vitality instead of one.
1t would be easy to show that every novelist
and dramatist who has succeeded in arrestine
the attention of the world has succeeded by
his or her genius, and not by the materials
on which the genius was exercised. The
attempt to state the "originals" of romantic
characters has the fatal defect of overlooking
the essential fact to be considered-the origi
nality of the creators.