Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-07-25

preciated the graceful manner inl
which Lord Rosebery thus reconciled
Thackeray's strict injunctions' with
her biographical prefaces.
Certainly the unlovely difficulty
could not have been better negotiated.
"Thaekeray himself no doubt wished,
said the speaker, that the temple of
his home, in which he found his chief
happiness, should have a curtain to
protect its sanctity. But the tender
ness of his children has lifted ii with
delicate discretion. and perhaps all is
know now that need be known" We
hope so. The orator paid a tribute to
Vanity Fair which in the London
Times is thus reported:
1. seemed 10 him that Thackeray
wrote one great. enc immense book, a
| book that could not be repeated. His
previous works imperceptibly led up
to 1t; his later books illustrated it. He
could live by it had he written moth
| ing else. Admirable as was his other
work, he could throw ii all overheard
ard face posterity with VANITY Fair
alone. II a genius wrote for his live
| lihood there must be an inequality OF
product If man produced a book
|
much more than the mere presentation
of a supreme work. He gave the world
new standpoint, new meth
cd, a new style of thought. He set his
mark on his age and what he might
do afterward was only to stamp and
rub it in.
| Vanity Fair" was not free from de-
| fects. Its attraction was all to vice;
virtue in it sat gloomily in a garb of
| Whitley brown. 1t was almost pathetic
| to note the failure of Amelia, and the
elaborate pains Thackery took With
/ her He sweated blood to make her
| interesting and attractive, but failed.
/ 1t was the very earnestness of elabor-
| alton that destroyed Amelia. Thaek-
| cray finding he could not strike the
| right note at once, spent pages IN
| trying To catch it. He wrote TO his
mother saying he hoped Amelia would
be redeemed by love. She was not.
| She was past redemption. The hide
BUSINESS of these blemishes proved the
| greatness of the book. The blemishes
| of Vanity Fair" exalted it: for what
must be the merit of a work which
absolutely eclipsed such defects? And
| when they turned to the other side,
how were they to end in recording its
merits? The admirable figures, the
various play of features in every page,
the dramatic power the sublime 5corn
which governed and inspired the book
all were admirable.
| If Thackeray in Vanity Fair ac-
centuated the criminal and the violent
and pat virtue ut discount, how no.
| bly, he dtoned in The NewcomeS.
There they had tragedy sublime; the
! good man struggling with adversely,
emerging triumphant, borne to the
heavens in an unspeakable Glamor of
J pathos Just as he had depicted in
| ''Nan'ty Fair vice, clever, brilliant,
and on the whole sympathetic, SO in
THE Newcomes" he displayed the he
role. simple. almost apostolic charac-
| ter of chivalrous honor which attract
ed the affections of every reader and
remained supreme through all the
| pains and fluctuations of life In the
great country dance of fiction, when
the characters crossed hands in the
! Elysian fields, let them hope Col. New
| come would have Becky Sharp as a
partner to represent Thackeray's most
| consummate creations. "Esmond" was
great effort. wonderful revival a
| triumphant masquerade, but to him
the plot was simply repulsive, So skill
| full was the master in reproducing a
past age that some had placed it as
high as Vanity Fair" He must ad
NIT that he was dissentient He re-
garded the transition of the mother
to the wife as a blot.
Lord Rosebery recalled that 1t was
once his fortune, As years ago, to hear
Disraeh talk about the various repre-
sensations of Lord Hartford in fiction.
He enumerated Lord Steyne in Van
ity Fair" Lord Guleston in Pelham
and his own Lord Monmouth in Con
ingsby." He obviously, as was nat
ural, preferred the last. Lord Hert-
fords character. he said, was more
subtle and refined than Lord Steynes:
Lord Monmouth was the better por-
trait.-N. Y. Tribune.