New-York tribune., 1911-04-02
THACKERAy
Some Refreshing Truths About
Him.

| So great a writer as Thackeray does
not need to be defended against the en-
yious yaps OF little literary hacks But
once in a while some person Of robust
taste In whose veins runs good red
blood instead Of chalk and water gets SO
very impatient of the aforesaid yaps
that he delivers his mind on this SUBJ
ject and refreshes the reader. who is
after all the court of last resort. Such
a person is II. c. Biron, who discusses
the genius of Thackeray in THE Ma
tional Review" lie has much to say
about the recent persistent campaign
of depreciation among the minor critics.,
who have discovered alas. that Thack-
cray was "a sentimentalist." There are
several smart strokes of the foil in the
two following sentences which the COM
mentator devotes to them:
We all know the unpardonable Sin IN 1T
erature is sentiment. You may ne OBSCENE,
dIll, even historical ana be respected, anu
possibly read but venture sentiment anu
you are damned. unless, indeed, you nap
pen to be Scotchman. III Is as II nos.
were nowadays to oiier ms guests sWsee ,a,oe
| is cast 10 the jackals. II is little nara ior
an author 10 be resented in one age as
cynic only TO be rejected in the next as Il
| senti.nentdnst.
The writer points out that true senti-
ment is the equity of thought and that
Thackeray's sentiment was never raise
that there Is not one of his kindly
touches that. after all the years, does
not ring true:
Only the other day Mr.. Bernard Shaw
| said in his courteous way Thackeray was
fool. Mr. Shaw's position Is, ot course, d
| difficult one: he is a genius. ana genius
! in an age OF stress ana hustle. ~ woull DC
unreasonable TO expect nm 10 rely ioI re-
ogniton on some enterialnlnS' IL ratner IN IN
| human plays. lnsstent genius demands
more immediate attention. ana 10 Insult
one of the greatest ilgures III Engnsn III
erature certainly achieves II. MI Der
nard Shaw, however, would nave Deeh
wiser if he had not given his reasons.
There were tWo-one, that Mr.. Tnackeray
would not have liked Mr.. Bernard SHAW
4, (Which seems hardly conciusiVe); the othei'
that Mr.. Thackeray sympdthlzeu WIN MS
weak characters, whereas Dickens dld not
| One does not quite follow why sympatn!
is not for the weak, but TO cite DICKENS III
such case is merely To talk nonsense: When
one thinks of Tom Pinch, Little Nell ana
her grandfather, poor Smike and the meek.
ness of Oliver, the falseness OF the poiht
! is apparent Then Mr.. George Moore does
were bullied into admiration by the BOOK
of Snobs." When we remember Thack-
eray's famous definition or the type why
the Book of Snobs'' does not appeal TO the
author of my Dead Life" is intellgib.e.
Then he complains about Becky sharp
"Fancy writing the history or Becky sharp
and not discussing whether she had tenn
permanent or not'-whereas the key TO
! Becky's character is that she is cold
| blooded, good-natured woman, swayed by
no feeling except self-interest
hot .har rflin
who by the way would not be nearly so
charming if he had not read Mr. Thack-
| cray, affects to find him "parochial IL
| is almost incredible that an author or Mr..
Streets distinction should so write OF the
creator OF Barry Lyndon and EsmOnd. On<
regrets TO find Mr.. whitley among the de-
tractors. His recent "Oposcule Gas nun
der and small beer" has iD on Mr.. Thack-
cray contains as one would expect. some
| admirable criticism, but is tainted with the
sentimental heresy. Vanity Fair, we are
! told is spoiled because ii has a moral.
'If he had suppressed the sentiment which
ever rose up in his heart. Vanity Fair
might have been as a-moral as The Way
of the World and what masterpiece 1t
would have been" and almost rs unread
able. one may add.
Then he objects TO the author playing the
part Of chorus and especially to his NOR
/ alzing-he is accused Of forgetting the
; impartiality Of the artist and taking sides
/ against his own characters" But why
must an artist be impartial? 1t is a pure
I assumption. Inc DdFtldltN OF INAckefay
IS a concession to the actually OF his peo-
pie. To reader and author alike they are
| so alive IL is impossible TO be Indifferent
TO their actlons-and therefore, in logical
sequence, 10 withhold praise or blame.
There will come n day. as all know.
when Mr. Shaw, Mr.. Moore. Mr.. Street
and Mr.. whitley, Clever as they are.
will he practically forgotten while man
! Lind u,ili etilI he raodinc .J-cmopdr and
VANITY Fair" now with tears and now
with smiles. Turn from Mr.. Shaws
pictures OF scoundres, for example. to
that marvellous study Of bad human
nature. Barry Lyndon"-which is the
thing of talent and which the thing Of
genius? There could hardly be a COM
parison more Illuminating. Our critic
very justly says:
| Talent may produce good work out OF
materials OF knowledge and intellect; mas
ter or It's mediiim,sit keeps itself well in
hand. genius knows no calculation sur
rendering itself entirely to the influence of
unknown powers has as little control over
us works as "a prophet over his inspiration.
This is why all the greatest genuses are
formless-Dickens, BalZac and Thackeray.
I This is why the moderns, academically cor
rect leave us so cold. over attention to
form Is always Il sign Of the second rate in
literature and art
What does Mr.. Thackeray himself say
about ii? He says somewhere: 81 have
no idea where II all comes from. I have
never seen the people ! describe or heard
the conversation | put down I am often
astonished myself TO read it when have
got IT era Sn pnper 1t ,s seems as S L an oceu,
once by young lady to allow Ethel TO
marry Give Newcome. he said: "Charac-
tiers once created lead me. and I follow
fl.Ar.
which await on Ethel and Give" He IL
such creator. he gives Independent life.