New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-07-16

left daughter and son-in-law Of rare
| literary endowment and their fllal en-
thusiasm has to some extent skirted the
veto, and has revealed much OF Thack-
eray's inner life" Lady Ritchie was
present. and doubtless appreciated the
graceful manner in which Lord Rosebery
thus reconciled Thackeray's strict In
functions" with her biographical pref
aces.
Certainly, the unlovely difficulty could
not have been better negotiated. "IhacK-
cray himself no doubt wished" said the
sneaker, that the temple Of his home,
IN which he found his chief happiness,
should have a curtain to protect It's
sanctity. But the tenderness OF his chill
dren has lifted II with delicate discretion
and perhaps all is known now that need
be known" We hope so. The orator
paid a tribute to VANITY Fair wnlch
in THE London Times is thus reported:
II seemed to him that Thackeray wrote
one great. one immense book, a book that
could not be repeated Ills previous Wol rs
imperceptibly led up to IT; his later b9ok KS
IL.
written nothing else. Admirable as was
his other work, he could throw II all over
board and face posterity with vanity
Fair alone. II genius wrote for hiS
| livelihood there must be an inequality or
product If a man produced book like
VANITY Fair" he accomplished much more
than the mere presentation OF supreme
work. He gave the world a new stand.
| point, new method. new style or
thought. He set his mark on his age
and what lie might do afterwards was
! only to stamp and rub II in
Vanity Fair" was not free from de-
! fects Its attraction was all TO vice; virtue
| I'm it sat gloomily in a garb OF Whitley
brown. 1t was almost pathetic TO note
| the failure of Amelia and the elaborate
| mains Thackeray took with her. lie
| sweated blood to make her interesting ana
| attractive but failed. 1t was the very
| earnestness OF elaboration that destroyed
| Amelia. Thackeray, finding he could not
| strike the right note at once, spent pages
! i'm trying to catch il. He wrote to his
mother saying he hoped Amelia would be
redeemed by love She was not She was
| mast redemption. The hideousness Of these
| blemishes proved the greatness of the book.
| Tic blemishes OF VANITY Fair exalted IT,,
which absolutely eclipsed such defects?
! And when they turned TO the other side.
| how were they 10 end In recording its
! merits? The admirable figures, the various
| play OF features in every page, the drama
J Tic power, the sublime scorn which gov
| erned and inspired the book-all were adj
mirabe If Thackeray in Vanity Fair"
| accumulated the criminal and the violent
and put virtue at discount, how nobly
| he atoned I'm The Newcomes." There they
| had tragedy sublime; the good man struG
| Cling with adversely. emerging triumphant,
| borne To the heavens In an unspeakable
glamour of pathos. Just as he had depicted
| in Vanity Fair vice. clever, brilliant and
on the whole sympathetic so I'm The New
| comes" lie displayed the heroic, simple, al
/ most apostolic character of Chiyalrous
/ honor which attracted the affections OF
| every reader and remained supreme
| through all the pains and trbulations of
! life. In the great country dance of fiction
| when the characters crossed hands in the
| Elysian fields lei .hem hone Colonel New
| come would have Becky Sharp as a part
ner TO represent Thackeray's most consum-
mate creations "Esmond" was a great
| effort wonderful revival, a triumphant
masquerade, but to him the plot was
| simply repulsive. So skilfuI was the mas
| ter i'm reproducing past age that some
had placed II as high as VANITY Fair" lie
must admit that he was dissentient lie
regarded the transition OF the mother TO
| the wife a blot.
| Lord Rosebery recalled that il was
once his fortune. forty-five years ago.
to hear Disraeli talk about the various
representations of Lord Hartford I'm flc-
ton He enumerated Lord Steyne in
Vanity Fair" Lord Guleston in pol
ham and his own Lord Monmouth I'm
| "Coningsby" He obviously as was nat
ural, preferred the last. Lord Hertford,s
character. he said was more subtle and
refined than Lord Steyne's; Lord Nom
! mouth was the better portrait