The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-10-15
THE DEATH OF DU MAURIER.


It is a rather singular coincidence that
Du Maurier, in the very zenith OF his
fame as a novelist, died in the same way
and Of the same disease that he so graph
ically pictures the death of Svengali, the
hero of 'T'rilby"-Of heart disease. lie
had been lowering between life and
death for several days, but at 2:3O o'clock
Thursday morning he passed away. His
death was painless and his friends whom
he most loved were with him in that try
ing hour. He seemed to be fully con-
scious that his hour had come. Some of
his friends, spoke to him in the last
few days of his life about the fame he
had acquired as novelist, and especial
ly the success of "Trilby," he replied:
Eyes, it has been successful, but the pop
ularity has killed me at last"
The public hardly appreciate the fact
that their approval of writer is often
the cause that hurries him to his grave.
A writer, however humble, who believes
his work is appreciated, has very little
regard for his health of the outstanding
of his physical resources His ambi-
ton spurs him beyond his endurance.
Napoleon said the applause of the French
people was as sweet to him as the voice
of Josephine Public approval can only
be compared to Il woman's love in the
joy it carries to the heart of its recipient.
He who is inspired by the divine afllatus
&c g., ,,-illinpIy Law
down his life to gain it. We suppose
that Du Maurier referred to the inspira-
ton that public approval had given him
and that he had worked harder than he
could endure.
There is nothing left of him here but
his fame. Du Mauricr did not select
as novelist in his most noted work such
q line of thought as to gain general APP
proval. He sought the sensational to
crafty limited taste, and in doing so
he prostituted his genius to an ignoble
theme. He had power enough 10 scorn
ihe base1 models that he presented to the
public and chsel beauty "clothcd on
with chastity" that would have given
him a wider and more enduring fame.
He taught in it no lesson that would re-
fine and elevate. He presented no model
that would excite pure love, and in the
place of eXalting he debased the noblest
and purest passions. His model bad the
beauty of form, but she had the false
assumption of an innocence that sympa
thy alone could furnish bed for her
deformities.
Had Du Maurier scorned ephcmeral
popularity and carved out the model of
Il chaste and virtuous woman,
and given her the few better quail
ties of "Trilby," his book would have
ennobled rather than debased man
kind. He was highly capable of
building much better than he
did, and if he had applied his
higher standard of female loneliness he
would have touched every heart and en-
kindled therein the sweetest and purest
of all human emotions, but he degraded
that talent to the pruriency of passion
rather than the purity of love, and in
stead OF elevatlng woman upon PEDESTAL
of holiness he smirched the beauty of her
character, debased and degraded her per-
son and left her rs n model-a play
thing, carnal and unclean.
We allude to the only work of Du Maui
rier's that we have read "Trilby." His
earlier environments had good deal to
do in the framework of this novel, yet
there is nothing he could have done that
would compensate for the harm that Tril-
by did; we are informed, however, that
his late and last work, "De Martians,"
is not subject to the same criticism which
is applicable to "Trilby," but that it is
Il very pure work. If so he deserves the
proper credit for it, but can this con-
done his sin in degrading the purity of
woman as he did in "Trilby?'