The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-09-28

~0
have let fail in these pages from time
to time. He writes:
For we live IN an g Of 'booms,' and
il is easy for people with little read
ing, and a strong love of posing, to
fiutter themselves over cheap French,
or Russian, or Morse, or Lithuanian no.
torieties. The exiguity OF e~ontempora-
~ education must produce such effects
in persons who have never read
Shakespeare, Milton, Homer. and
Sophocles, but who have seen a great
deal about Verlain, Ibsen, Maeterlinck,
and the decadents in the newspapers
and the reviews which are up to
date"
He has a good opinion Of Macaulay,
Carlyle and Froude as writer's and we
rather pity the ma who pretends to
letters who does not. He writes with
intelligence hat they were "al1 men
of imagination who exercised that fac
ulty freely on the real events Of the
past. For those who have a peevish
desire to know What the real events
were, the age can produce Mr.. Gardi-
ner." The latter-day historians are
without the great qualities Of the great
historians-Gibbon and the others. The
want of Imagination, of splendid writ
ing, of pictorial effect, of great de-
scriptive scenes, are woefully apparent.
Mr.. Lang is no doubt correct in say
ing that Eat present the study Of his
tory is overspecialized, or, at least,
specialists are many. Writers who can
--I --I L0lI ~-I n %hn -1~
son of ordinary intelligence are con-
~spicuously absent. But laudable in
dustry is collecting, criticizing, and
making accessible the materials for the
imaginative historian. when he ar
rives." It is rather curious that so
few critics in this country appear to
be able to discover my decline in con-
temporary writers-poets, nOvelists,
historians, biagraphers and essayists-
as compared with the famous writer's
in the past They praise certain con-
temporary writer's with as much en-
thusiasm and strength Of language as
they could possibly bestow upon the
%'sceptred sovereigns." Mr.. Lang says
II 10 the uOVel uOW lldI Is hloWu dS
literature" to the public and review
ers. The great literature Of the past
Is neglected, and it is all about con-
temporary writings hat you hear and
read. Mr.. Lang says there is really
no such thing as Contemporary drama
Of literary excellence" It is all novel
writing now. ut is the age of novels,
not or dramas" In novel writing
since Victoria came in there have been
some splendid successes. Let us quote:
with Pickwick began her majesty's
reign, n how nobly that reign has
prospered in the art of fiction every
body knows. We have always had
either great masters, Dickens, Thack-
cray, George Eliot, Charlotte Bronte,
or writer's of a high though secondary
rank, Charles Reade, Anthony Troll
lope; or a great body of entertaining
and ingenious novelists, who it is too
early to call great masters, as at this
moment. The defects Of Dickens, like
the defects Of Scott, were perfectly Wis
ible to the critics Of their own genera
ton"
We like to meet a man who truly
AAACA oIdAOo VIZ oppI CCAdICo III oUo
the great Thackeray. We feel like
taking him by the hand at once for he
commands our respect for his taste,
culture, intelligence. Writing of him
and his we'll known limitations, and all
other qualities or defects to be
discounted, Mr. Lang a y that che
reached a perfection only rivalIed by
of Fielding" Let us make a con-
fession. We have not read a page of
Fielding since u young manhood.
His c~oarseness is not pleasant, but he
is robust, healthful, full of life. All
really able critics and bellies lettres
men agree as to his greatness. We
have not taken time to go over him in
maturer OF later years because of our
early impression. But that ought not
to deter or govern us, for we remem-
Der that when we first read T~hackeray
we were disappointed. We tried to
read "Pendennis," the imitable, and
were not able to CON- !ete it. Within
~repressed delight, and although a very
long novel we were sincerely sorrowful
when we reached the end. We would
have been glad if it had ben twice as
long. And it is not one Of his greatest
novels. Mr.. Lang is correct in naming
h three greatest of Thackeray's rich
products. He says:
VANITY Fair 'Esmond,' Barry
Lyndon will, to all appearances. hold
their own with the masterpieces of the
eighteenth century," The "Newcomes"
by most readers will be named in place
of Barry Lyndon" but it is not sound
judgment. AS a work Of real art and
wv it is doubtful if it is surpassed
Those Dreadful Sores