The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-12-25
AUTOBIOGRAPHY
FOR FICTION.
Many Of the People in Novels
Drawn From Models.
Those That Served for Dickens Characters
Charlotte Bronts's Model Of Jane Eyre.
The Original Of Adam B.ds.

F}VERYBODY knows that autobiog-
falE4 raphy has entered largely into fiction.
~ For the matter of that, we believe it
is the case that the story teller relates his
own experiences in his earlier efforts But
more than that it is certainly true that
many Of the characters most familiar to US
in English novels have had originals in
actual life. 1t is no doubt true that little
more is taken from life by genuine artist
than those delicate nuances of character
which make the portraits more delicately
finished. A single study may, indeed, COM
bne experiences of fifty people, and it is
thus always possible for a novelist to deny
the soft impeachment that he has been
guilty Of portraiture. But it has not seldom
happened that denial has been in vain.
Every body knows the story OF Miss
Voucher, and there are probably few people
who envy Dickens feelings when he dis
covered the pain he had given to the eccen-
trio little person who served as his uncon-
scious model for that creation. 1t mattered
little that he was unable to explain that
Miss Moucher's "Ain't / volatile?" was a
favorte utterance of another person alto
gether, and that other traits were not hers
at all. The photograph was too exact for
its Identification to be disputed, and it is
not a little characteristic of the great novel;
lists kindness Of heart that, by way OF atone
ment he should have altered his original
conception of the character altogether.
Harold Skimpole, too, is another of Dick
ems characters which underwent consider
able modification for much the same reason.
1t was Immediately recognized AS portrait
of Leigh Hunt, or rather as a graphic Garlic
ature Of some of his leading TRAITS. Forster
declares that Dickens had no unkind inten-
ton, and erred only from thoughllessness.
But it was undoubtedly true that Hunt, who
was made acquainted by good-natured
friends with the fact that he had been
taken OFF, by
DICKENS,
Was deeply panied Dickens did his best to
repair the wrong, and pointed out many traits
in Skmpole's character with which Hunt
had nothing In common. The diary writing.
FOR instance, he declared he had taken from
Hayden. Although the time for wholesale
redress had gone by, he revised the whole
story and softened down words here and
there in the vain attempt to make the por-
trait as unlike the original as possible, but
he cannot be said to have succeeded in do
ing much more than marrlng the symmetry
of ma sterly conception. Pleasant Leigh
Hunt" with all his faults and foibles,
might well object to the odious qualities
with which his portrait was filled up, but
the world is loser from this restriction of
the noveist's license.
Every story teller Is liable to be con-
stantly checked because lie reproduces
traits that are traceable to some one of his
acquaintance, and the difficulty of the
study OF character is thus greatly increased.
A distinguished living novelist has put" a
distinguished living scriticl into one of his
stories, with the result that, absurd as it
may seem, the relations between them are
considerably strained. But few people, per-
| haps, would be pleased to see themselves as
others see them.
Nearly every story-teller must, Of course,
put something Of his own environment into
| his books. Smollett, 1t is said, recorded his
own adventures, but if this be so he was
curiously candid writer. Fielding, again,
put something OF his wits into all his
heroines, and in Amelia he drew her even
down to the accident (which disfgured her
beauty. his Parson Adams. too, was drawn
from his friend Young, and Truliber was
copy OF living model. Then Scott drew
something from almost every one of his ac-
qualntdnces TO give mlnuter reality to the
people of his fancy.
Even in autobiography few authors have
been exact. Dickens put much OF himself
into David Copperield; but although there
were produced many OF
THE HARD EXPERIENCES
OF his boyhood in that inimitable story
experiences which. indeed, appear, in part
at least, in many of his stories-it is difficult
to identify Dickens at all closely with his
| hero There was certainly no intention of
| self-portraiture, and all that was accom-
| plished in this direction was accomplished
| unconsciously. Every boy. led. has
| something OF a Copperfeld in him and it is
| in this that the strength of the part lies.
! Dickens was too great master clumsly
| to confuse fact with fiction.
In the same way, again, how far did
George Eliot reproduce herself in Maggie
Tulliyer? Sterne parodied himself as
| Yorick, and Charlotte Bronte put much Of
| her own sad story into Jane Eyre; but more
| Of these characteriZations can be said to be
reproductions of real people in fiction.
| Parents, however, seem to have come off
less fortunate No man. it is said,
knows another man better than his own
| son" and it was this very knowledge that
tempted Dickens TO reproduce his father in
| Mr.. Micawber and his mother in Mrs.
! Nieklehy and perhaps he took liberties
with his parent in some of his Micawber
| flights. The tlourishes of speech which
| have immOrtaliZed the character were char
| acteristic OF John Dickens. But it is easy
| underlying the surface TO see that Micawber,
with all his lOllies, was sketched with a kind
| lyhand. Less pleasing, perhaps, is the repre-
| sentation of Mrs Nickleby, but the portrait
| is very faint.
If, again, George Eliot took her father as
| her model for both Adam Bede and Caleb
Garth, her stepmother as the prototype for
| Mrs. Tulliver, aud Elizabeth Evans as the
| original of Dinah Morris, can any of these
| be declared to be simple portraits? AS she
herself tells us: Adam Is not my father any
| more than Dinah is my aunt" Indeed,
| there is hardly single true portrait in all
| George EiiotS stories, although traits in
| Vulnerable can be recognized in many OF
| her characters similar to those of people in
real life. A MIR. Jones, for instance, recog-
| niZed
DECEASED BROTHER
| In Mr.. TryaD, but the author when accused
| OF the portraiture, in denying Ii, replied that
If Mr.. Jones' deceased brother was like
MIR. Tryan, so much the better, for he was
made OF human natures finer clay"
Goldsmith certainly found in his father,
| Charles. the original of his Vicar of Wake
have been much that Was true in the pOr-
| trait-the kindly and simple hearted figure
is drawn with such loving and gentle
| touch-and there is SO much that was in
of the Rev. Charles Goldsmith, the Protest
| ant clergyman of the little Irish village of
| Pallas. His stipend. too, averaged "e40 a
| year" But 1t was reserved for this humble
| village preacher to have his virtues and his
foibles reproduced as legacy of pleasure
| for many generations Of men. For Gold
! smith took him as his mod not only for DR.,
| Primrose, but for the Man in Black of the
| Citizen of the World" and the Preacher of
the Deserted Village" Itwould be easy to
Lawrence Boythorn was the character in
! which LandOr figured; Mr.. Fang in Oliver
| Twist, was deliberately copied from Mr.
| Laing, the notorious Magistrate of Hatton
Garden; Mrs. Camp was caricatured from
nurse Of a most distinguished friend of
| Dickens. Mr.. D0mbey was, it is said,
copied in part from Mr.. Chapman, the
Chairman Of Lloyd's, but the identification
| Is libel Mrs. Pipchin, however, had
| veritable prototype in Mrs. Roylance, the
lady in Little Cottage street with whom the
Dickens family went to lodge when they left
the Marshalsea. Only the name of Fagin
was taken from real life, but the Mar
chioness was photographed from little