The sun., 1904-05-15

bubbling; in a word. just talk. Unques-
tionably, his purpose was attained. As
Mr.. whitley points out, Thackerays style
is so easy that 1t may be followed by the
idlsst reader who willingly applies to htera-
ture the test Of conversation. We are
reminded. on the other hand, that such
style must needs be Inaccurate and un-
distinguished. The soleclsms, indeed, or
which ThAokeray Ia guilty-they are not
few-may readily be forgiven 1t b moro
difficult TO pardon the frequent lack Of dis
tinction; especially as in 'Esmond Thack-
cray proved that he could write with per-
feet artistry. But the method OF his more
familiar books seems the result hess OF
artifice than of temperament. He seldom
gives you the impression that he has studied
to produce certain effect. An effect there
IL. facle and various, but seemingly beyond
his conscious mana cement. He Ia 30 little
conscious Of his craft that he rarely arrives
at the right phrase. thus presenting an
obvious contrast to Disraeli, who, often
careless in composition. yet sowed his
pages with pearls Of speech which time
cannot dim. But how little do we take
away from the most Of Thackeray beyond
the general impression OF gentlemanly
easel" Our author goes on to say that
with Thackeray's conception Of style, 1t
was inevitable that he should exhibit no
economy of speech. He never used one
word, in his judgment, II page and half
could moro adequately express the mean
ing and at all save his high moments, you
miss a controlling hand a settled purpose.
It must not be inferred that Mr. whitley
can see no beauty in Thackeray's diction.
despite its occasional inaccuracies, despite
its loose texture, it has many shining quail
ties. 1t is graphic. various. and at times
eloquent. 1t ia easy to recall a hundred
passages which would entitle Thackeray
to high place among the writer's OF Eng
lish. The Waterloo chapters OF Vanity
Fair much Of 'Esmond. Harry Warning
tons first visit to England; Denis Duvals
journey to London. These. to name but
few are touched by the hand OF master
who need fear comparison with none. Even
where Thackerays prose is least under
CONTROL it inspires no more than his own
regret that ho did not write a completely
good book for 1t Is always the prose OF q
man OF letters" Here a earedt is put In,
however. 1t is intimated that Thackerays
style il q bit too literary. The fact Is recalled
that neither Dickens-nor for that matter
Bulwer save in his last novels-gives you
a sense OF literary allusion. On the other
hand, Thackeray. even in his most care
less mood. suggests the classics. or hints
at the eighteenth century. As he wrote
rather a. an essayist than as q novelist. as
his style was q sincere, untrammelled
expression OF his mind. be reveals his liter
ary preferences by q thousand light touches.
His reading, il not wide. was Deep He
was perfectly familiar with the two Au-
GUSTAV ages. that OF Rome and that OF
England Horace he knew best Of all and
quoted most frequently. Nothing pleases
him better than to allude in phrase to his
favorite poet. 'Nuper-in former days-I
too, have initiated thus he writes In The
Roundabout Papers the years slip away
fugacious;' and, again. Tomorrow the
diffugient SHOWS will give place to spring.
Above all. he loved the Aug,istan doctrine
of an easy life. The contemner Of Swift
naturally found Juvenal 'truoulent brute.
but he felt . nat ural sympathy for the
satirist Of venusia, who timidly avoided
unpleasant themes, and who, had Ae lived
in the nineteenth century. would have been
q tnan-about-tovn, and have haunted the
very clubs to which Thackeray himself
belonged