The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1911-09-19

wished" said the speaker. thar ~,
temple of his home. in who. ,
oun his chief happiness Sras 4
have a curtain 10 protect It's Sanr,.-z
But the tenderness of his chi'lrc,
lifted il With delicate discretion
perhaps all is known now that No..
be known We hope SO. The o-st,-
paid Il tribute to "Nanity FAIR. D....
in the london Times IS thus repa-t.s
1t seemed TO him that T~ha.k.-..
wrote one great, one immensr b,.t
d book that could not be repa,rai
His precious works imperceptibl. ..4
up to it: his later books iuuStrat.r AZ.
He could live by it had he wr,.-.-
nothing else. Admirable a. was d..
other work, he could throw il All over
board and face posterity with "Na-t-
Fair alone. II q genius wrote for r.
livelihood, there must be an i~neqnefFt.
Of product. If "A man produced a ba..
like Vanity Fair" he accompl~--f
much more than the mere present.
ton of a supreme work. He gave .e,
world a new standpoint. a new meth
cd. a new style of thought. He ser his
mark on his n what ne IN ett
do afterward was only 10 STAMP and
rub it in.
Vanity Fair" was not free from
defects It's attraction was all Ia zi.e.
virtue in it sat SloOmily in a garp a,
Whitey-bTown. 1t was almost path
ic to note the failure of Amelia ami
the elaborate pains Thackeray tool,
her interesting and attractive. but
failed. 1t was the very earnestnrs~
of elaboration that destroyed Amelfa.
Thackeray. finding he could not strik"
the right note at once. spent PAGES
in trying to catch il. He wrote "a
his mother saying he hoped Amelia
would be redeemed by love She was
not. She was past redemption. Tha
hideousnesS of these biemisheS proved
the greatness of the book. The hlem
ishes of Vanity Fair" exalted il. for
what must be the merit of a work
which absolutely eclipsed such dc
fects? And when they turned To th.
other side. how were they to end IA
recording its merits? The admirable
figures, the various play OF creatures
in evry page, the dramatic power.
the sublime scorn which governed and
inspired the book-all We're admira-
Bile.
If T~hackeray in Vanity Fair &C
centuated the criminal and the yIo-
lent and put virtue at "a discount.
how nobly he tones in The New
comes" There they had tragedy
sublime; the good man struggling with
adversely, emerging triumphant.
borne to the heavens in an %unspeak-
able glamour of pathos. Just as he
had depicted in Vanity FAIR Vice.
clever, brilliant, and. on the whole.
sympathetic, SO in The NeWcomeS"
he displayed the heroic, simple. al
most apostolic character Of c~hivaIrous
honor which attracted the affections
of every reader and remained SUI
preme through all the pains and trib-
ulations Of life. In the great country
dance of fiction. when the characters
crossed hands in the Elysian fields.
let them hope Colonel Newcome
would have Becky Sharp as d part
ner to represent Thackeray's most
cOnsummate creations. "ESmond'
was a great effort. a wonderful reyi-
val, a Triumphant masquerade. but 70
him the plot was simply repuisiVe- 50
skillful was the master in ~reproduc-
ing a past age that some had placed
it as high as VANITY Fair" He must
admit that he was ~dissentient.. He
regarded the transition of the mother
to the wife as a blot.
Lord ROseberry recalled that it VA
once his fortune, 45 years ago. to hear
Disraell talk about the various repre-
sentatlves of Lord Hartford in fiction.
He enumerated Lord Steyne in "Nani-
ty Fair" Lord Guleston in Pelham"
and his own Lord Monmouth in Co
ningsby.' He obviously. as was nat
ural, preferred the last. Lord Hert-
ford's character, he said, was moro
subtle and refined than Lord Steyne's.
Lord Monmouth was the better por-
trait.