The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1880-03-31

ton had failed to recognize the incongruity
of many-one may almost say all-of Dick.
ems characters long before it became known
that he had constructed them of heterogene-
Gus materials and applied his materials to
heterogeneous purposes.
Another remarkable illustration OF DICK
ems manner of writing is to be found in a
picture which is commonly, and In some re-
spects Justly very much admired-the child
hood and death of little Paul Dombey; yet
the ways of the old fashioned child were
borrowed from one child Ia child with whom
Dickens had been exceptionally well &C
quainted himself, while the later scenes
were. ID Is needless to say, taken from diff
ferent experience. And, by the way, does
any one know why the original description
of the death scene was altered by Dickens
in the later editions of "Dombey and Son."
took up, in February, 1874 at the house of
DR.. Chandler, of Bethlehem, a copy of
'Dombey and Son." to read the account Of
Paul Dombeys death, for 1 had been speak
ing blasphemies about "the immutable,"
and knew that reading that scene would
put me in q better frame of mind. then
learned for the first time that remark
made by Miss Tox, after the child's death,
has been exclsed. have since looked for II
in vain in many copies of 'Dombey and
Son." As remember the original descrip-
ton, after the words " = the old, old
fashion desth-ohI thank God for the still
older fashion, Immortality" CT quote as
nearly as l can remember them.) Then fol-
lowed a break, and then these words, or
words like them: go" Miss Tox remarked
to Susan Nipper in confidence and tears that
evening, "Dombey and Son Is q daughter
after ALL" l have been assured these words
were never added to the chapter. and that
my memory altogether played me false; but
| am perfectly sure that they were there.
Moreover. in removing them. probably by
advice of Forster or some other friend. Dick
ems failed to remember another passage
which referred to them, and should have
been altered at the same time, viz, where
Miss Tox, after Florence's return to her
father, says $50 that, as | remarked on
former sad occasion, Dombey and Son is
daughter after all"
And here / feel tempted to remark on a
popularity of Dickens manner treating his
subjects which would OF itself show that he
did not belong to that class of creative
writers which includes all the really great
names in literature. Paul Ricnter used to
| say: "If an author has to stop and ask him.
/ SELF what shall i make such aud such a
character do or say at such and such point
in the narrativeP to the devil with him"
| implying that such writer may possess
] superficial cleverness, but no genius. /
wonder what Richter would have said of an
| author who not only thus hesitated, as we
find that Dickens repeatedly did, but asked
/ and took the advice of his friends about so
critical question as the fate of his principal
characters, or would even after writing the
closing passages of s,story adopt, at alfriend's
suggestion, an entirely different conclusion.
| No one knew better than Dickens the re-
| qirements of true ait. Nay, he often de-
scribes himself as living in his work and
among the characters of his story, as the
| true artist should live; but it is certain that
he deceived himself, for if he had he could
never have been in doubt what their fate
was to be- and still less could he have modi-
| fed, at the suggestion of those who were
comparatively strangers TO his creations, the
I fate which he had decided should be theirs.
am aware that other novelists have on &C.
casion done likewise. Scott, for instance,
consented to restore Athelstane of Conings-
/ by to life after he had killed him, and fine
mess Scott made OF that change; but, even if
we assigned now to Scott the high position
which was assigned him by contemporaries,
it might still be answered that Athelstane
was only a subordinate figure in the story,
and that Scott would never have consented
so 10 arrange matters to suit the popular
tsste-that the insipid ROwena should
have disappeared and the gallant
but shadowy Ivanhoe have married
Rebecca, that most beautiful of all
Scott's creations. Ii need hardly be said
that Thackeray doeI not allow himself such
! license Dickens in the portraiture of
character. Not line can b found in the
pictures OF Costigan, Huxter, Rswdon, Craw-
| ley, Lord Steyne, and the host of varied
characters which appear in Tnsckeray' s
principal works which can be regarded as
incoDgruous, nor can / recall single in
| stance in which characteristics appropriate
TO one character are distributed among sew
eral. Again, Thackeray never. so far as can
be judged, departs from that natural Sc
quence of events which the development OF
his stories has suggested to him. Thack.
cray is content, in fact to hold the mirror
up to nature. do not say that the por
trature is always perfect, still less that
the work belongs always to the
highest class. George Eliot seems
to me to be as far in advance OF
Thackeray in many respects as Browning is
in advance Of Tennyson For this reason
she will always be less popular than Thacke-
ray, even as Thackersy is less popular than
Dickens. But the work Thackeray under
takes is always good work, and it is always
well done. He does not seek to please by
effective situations, by bringing in per fas Ell
nefas humorous or pathetic images, though
his humor is truer his pathos deeper than
many conceive. Nor does he care to make
his stories lend we'll" or even end at all
They are slices from real life, and real life
moves ever onward. His pictures, if not the
finest, are among the best drawn of all tha
English writers nave given us.