Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-10-29
Says He is Delightfully."- Original, and
Would Have Been Great, Had He
Dealt with His Art as Art.

A@SoAC iAdt Nv PO5cCnrco AZ
marked degree; and, on the other hand,
attributes 10 him power of delineating |
vomanhood which he surely has not. Ii |
denies that he writes "mirthlully," or
is cheerful writer, despite the sound
laughter of "Peg Wellington" the mirth |
that ripples like clear water in Christie /
tombstone, and the subtle if somewhat grim |
humor which characterized every novel |
which he has created. The English sense of |
humor lie, unhappily, very blunt, and needs |
coarse food. Like palate which has been |
hardened by gross cooking, 1t has lost all |
power to discrlmlnate, or to appreciate dell
cate and subtle havors. 1t needs the broad |
farce of "Wardle" or "Weller" before il will |
grin, and indeed is ignorant that the keenest |
humor will not provoke laughter at all, but |
rather delighted sense of something per-
feet in sllusion and suggestion. This high |
humor abounds in all the novels which
Charles Reade has written, and is rather
akin TO Cervantes and Aoliere than to
Charles Dickens.
1t may indeed be said that the mind of
Charles Reade always sees the humorous side
of every incident, and is sometimes even 80
occupied with this side that il disturbs his
tragic powers, although these are also OF
the very stongest, as q thousand passages
which will recur to his readers minds at
once are there TO prove. As for his not be-
ing a cheerful writer, know not whether
LQlB 10 mcdnt as OF a TcpIOdCu
If to be Cheerful" is to be full of loving
kindness to men and animals, TO be hopeful
of humanity-more hopeful than it warrants
and TO inculcate faith, forbearance, mercy
and tolerance, then is Charles Reade "cheer-
full" and to be more cheerful than this
would argue, in grown man, either igno-
rance of the woes of the world or insensi-
oility TO them.
In this article it is further asserted that he
L Ianiafsd in he lnuar i'd
dle-class of English life. 1t has always APP
peared 10 me that his characters invariably
belong to the middle-class. "Dodd," mer-
chaut-skipper, and a score OF others, belong
| to the lower middle class; Hardy" the
banker, and "Vizard,p the squire, to the
| upper middle-class; mechanics, farmers,
cergymep, doctors, lawyers. sailors, the
whole OF the middle-class in fact, constitute
| all his dramatis persona. And here l ap-
proach what has always seemed to me the
| gre atest Lacuno in Charles Reade's works: as
| he never by any chance draws man of the
world, 80 does he never by any chance draw
| a gentewoman. The femme du monde is to
| him sn unknown creature. His most charm
| ing women behave on occasions like kitchen
maids. OF all that is implied in the old
| adsge, noblesse obhge, he seems to have no
| comprehension.
| Take, for instance, "Zoe Wizard" who is
described as of good birth and breeding; she
| speaks and acts like a barmaid, giggles and
| cries "Lai" Julia Dodd" Whose mother,
we are told, is of great culture and refine
| ment) does the same. So does "Grsce Car
DEM" slso "Helen" in Foul Play. "Christie
| Johnstone" and "Peg Wellington" are admira-
BILE, because they are quite true to their re-
| spective stations; but when he draws what he
calls lady (of which odious word be is very
| fond) he fails entirely, and her manners are
those of a third-rate schoolgirl. Even
| sKatherine Gaunt," the best of his female
characters, TOO often offends in this vulgar
fashion, and whsn she goes TO sleep on the
same bed with "Mercy" ("Gaunrs" other
| wife) becomes something more than OF coarse
| fber. His only idea of woman is the mid
dle-class woman, and not the best specimen
of that. The woman of the people he can
draw Though he does not draw even her in
her nobler phases), but the gentleweman he
| cannot, or will not, or at all events does not
| and of the femme du monde he is utterly ig-
| norant.
OF the woman who is essentially OF our
time, the woman of high culture, of artistic
taste, of profound knowledge OF men and
manners, ofdelicate cynicism, OF unconscious
| extravaganza, who is always dams te INQUIRE
ment always difficult to interest, often little
sad at heart when most surrounded and mos
fattered-of this woman he has never haC
| even the faintest imagination. Nor has hi
had any either of less complete type
which, LEES of any in the world, is yet high
bred. and, being SO, is incapable of the "brid
ling,n the "giggling," the "pslpitating," thu
Cumming" and all the various forms OF effu
sion which he distributes SO literally between
} all his heroiues, and which dis6gure even 81
fine 8 creature as "Jael Dence" in one OF tn
| finest rom ances, Put Yourself in His Place
story SO picturesque and vigorous that
i | merited better title. Indeed, the crackja AZ
} and interminable titles which Charles Read
has eften selected may have had something
3 | to do with his failure in obrainin
8 he universal fame which he undoubtedl.
deserves. They do not remain on to
public ear, and do not do justice to the wor
r they name. Another cause for that lack c
: universal popularity which the article
, | herein comment on regrets, is probably I
= be found in the habit Charles Reade hs
3 grown into OF using both hideous and ludi'
= | rous names for his characters. and unusu'
> and ugly words (such as "poll" and 'sape
TO express the head and the back OF III
: neck). which lamentably disfgure his tex
a | They are terms correct enough, no douo
but they and many similar ones CONSTANT
recur, and are jarring and tiresome, and tc
: often spoil his finest passages. The
Showed napes" is bis expression In
Woman Halter to signify that two Peep
e turned their backs upon each other IN
fit OF temper.
. In the language of passion also he is de-
n Gent No English writer ever seems to kno
J, it excep. Mr.. Swinburne and Mr.. Brownln
J. The language and the feeling OF art also a
IL absent from these works; into that enchsnt'
lr land Charles Reade seems never to hs'
es wandered. Humanity, and not the highe
re humanity, seems alone to have power to &
m tract his interest. 1t may be said that he
the happie.t in animated movement, In
s., recital of perilous and heart-stirring I'M
s. dent. There ia heroic grandeur In |
he treatment Of these themes, and one feels th
in he ought to have been great and adve
ut turous soldier, or singer of war. He Is ali
v, when he chooses, a master of pathos, a
J; has. perhaps, not given way often enough
er his instincts of tenderness. The scene
ey | Neper Too Late 10 Mend, where the ext
listen TO the English lark, is unsurpassed
ca in exquisite beauty, in simple and natuI
Al | feeling beautifully rendered. This union
at grace and force is very rare in any writ
he and it il, TO my thinking, deeply to be
AZ GREETED that these rare powers are Oft
'Iv marred by the use of a Earring or an ignol
~ word. such as have alluded to, sadly bres
no ing the melody Of his mellow and maj
in English. =.
sd In conclusion, / must lament the arti
no that here refer TO goes out OF It's path
attack RomslG. Now, no one can see the del
| of Rornola better than l can and do, beca
J sole defect IL t1ldt IL ID hOt III tuC W
y least Italian. From the Florentine citiz
ie' who is m sde to love mutton Ia meat abb
'..t red BY all Tu.cans) to "Romola" herself, v
IN a purely North rn character, and e'
.e "Tito," who as Greek or Italian lover NO
.' never have troubled his head about les
s, after fortnight of her, the whole book
es purely Northern; it has not breath
q: italian air in it. But, setting this ap
us Romola is fine work by reason OF the IN
s lectual power and harmonious CONES
'eo which were the special attributes OF Geo
Eliot; and the dragging OF Romota into
led ESSAY on Charles Reade is 90 precisely 81
oil linen of the many radical defects OF Eng
nv criticism, that / must be allowed 10 condo
led. il. No French critic would 80 err as to
her into a review OF Alexandra Dumas, a sn
the ing ceusure of 3 work of Octave Fe
and lei. No French critic would say
Ii writing of Victorien Sardou that he did
ata, resemble Emile Gaborian, as this art
OF oddly enough, says that Charles Reade
IN not resemble Anthony Trollope!
'na- should he resemble Trollope? Ii he
the great author, he will resemble no one OF
zeal contemporaries. And this, indeed, II
niy | power and charm of the creator OF Ch'
Johnstone-he 10 entirely delightfully."- o
nal; If he had not waited those hfisen J
airy or more between being called to the bar
ives. allowing himself to write, be might per
iade have been yet more delightful and yet !
] original than he is. Also, there caR