The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-03-16

LII CT1llCS ullu0TIdJ6 ana QcCTY DICK
ems, but the very best critics in Eng
lish are not guilty Of this. Remember
that Scott. Thackeray, Bulwer, George
Eliot, Charlotte Bronte and Fenimore
Cooper and Byron have been taken
down also from their pedestals by
some Of the American and Ene,ish
writer's of criticisms. Read this, from
a master of English style himself
not surpassed by any living writer of
English. except, perhaps, John Ruskin
who is the sanest and soundest and
wisest of critics in his literary judy
merit. We name Frederic Harrison.
Less than five years ago he wrote this
Of Dickens:
His style is full of the faults of a
man imperfectly educated. Errors of
taste bound in it, and much of his
! sentiment is mawkish. Or constrained,
or false; and yet, in spite Of this, not
only do his writings embody the
shrewdest, the truest, the widest and
the most various observations Of the
life around him, but they show him to
be, in a certain sense, one Of l. great
est of English poets"
Professor George Saintsbury, Of the
University Of Edinburgh, and a dis
tinguished author and critic, who is
said to be the best and widest informed
Of all English men of letters, in his
excellent and enjoyable History Of
Nineteenth Century Literature" pub
lished last year, writes of Dickens at
some length. We Gull a few sentences.
Writing Of his productions, he says:
fTLo br;l1ior o-I <h- "a, -
the product Of this can never be de-
MED. = He had no regular edu-
cation. Occasionally the work
is marred by too many and too glazing
tricks of mannerism His
knowledge was very limited; his logi-
cal faculties were not strong.
and, over and above this, he possessed
an Imagination, now humorous, now
terrible, now simply grotesque, of a
range and volume rarely equalled, and
Of q quality which stands entirely by
ITSELF" He refers also to his pathos
and humor. which were superabound-
ing. In one of his several volumes of
essays, Professor Salisbury discusses
Dickens in an entire paper. He says:
II will add that I should not think very
much of anyone who materially altered
his opinion Of 'Pickwick,' however
many times he may have read it af-
forwards" We him anyone who real
ly loves literature can enjoy a reading
Of "Pickwick' once a year for four
decades, seeing clearly, too, "the ex-
tremely artificial character of the Pick
Wickian world The earned professor
cOnfesses he reads it every year or
every year or two at farthest.
Andrew Lang, in his unique, ingen-
ious and delightful Letters to Dead
Authors writes one to Dickens. In it
he says Dickens is 'the greatest comic
genius of modern times" Rightly es-
timated, but he cannot survive the
ages, quoth Mr.. Thompson. This is a
dull age, and humOr is not the best or
the most popular. Lang wrote this:
and says: TT naturally follows that,
in period almost destitute of humOr,
many respectable persons cannot read
Dickens, and are not ashamed to glory
in their shame" They cannot relish
the Pickwickians, including Pick
wick, Sam Weller and the Senior, and
Mark Tapley, and all the delightful,
most amusing brotherhood in the i'm
mortal books. All. how Lang prlcks
this set of critics without relish for
the best humOr.
w. C. Henley is, beyond question, a
brilliant, virile, original man of let
ters. His critical papers are always
readable and full of point. In his rs
says in Appreciation" he has elght
pages on Dickens-the first in the vol
ume. He says of the rare genius: He
was the inspiration Of my boyhood, SO
he is a delight in my middle age. 1
love to think he will be remembered as
one that loved his fellow men, and lie
more to make them happy than any
other writer of his time" Again, ne
says-"Yes, he had many and grave
faults. But so had Sir Walter, and the
good Dumas; so, to be candid, had
Shakespeare Observation-Disclosures, the
king of poets" In another editorial
we will discuss some of his character
iSticS.