"He to die!" resumed the bishop. "He a mortal like to us!Death was not for him intended, thoughcommunis omnibus.Keeper, you are irreligious, for to talk and cavil thus!"
"He to die!" resumed the bishop. "He a mortal like to us!Death was not for him intended, thoughcommunis omnibus.Keeper, you are irreligious, for to talk and cavil thus!"
So much I have said of the manner in which Thackeray did his work, endeavouring to represent human nature as he saw it, so that his readers should learn to love what is good, and to hate what is evil. As to the merits of his style, it will be necessary to insist on them the less, because it has been generally admitted to be easy, lucid, and grammatical. I call that style easy by which the writer has succeeded in conveying to the reader that which the reader is intended to receive with the least possible amount of trouble to him. I call that style lucid which conveys to the reader most accurately all that the writer wishes to convey on any subject. The two virtues will, I think, be seen to be very different. An author may wish to give an idea that a certain flavour is bitter. He shall leave a conviction that it is simply disagreeable. Then he is not lucid. But he shall convey so much as that, in such a manner as to give the reader no trouble in arriving at the conclusion. Therefore he is easy. The subject here suggested is as little complicated as possible; but in the intercourse which is going on continually between writers and readers, affairs of all degrees of complication are continually being discussed, of a nature so complicated that the inexperienced writer is puzzled at every turn to express himself, and the altogether inartistic writer fails to do so. Who among writers has not to acknowledge that he is often unable to tell all that he has to tell? Words refuse to do it for him. He struggles and stumbles and alters andadds, but finds at last that he has gone either too far or not quite far enough. Then there comes upon him the necessity of choosing between two evils. He must either give up the fulness of his thought, and content himself with presenting some fragment of it in that lucid arrangement of words which he affects; or he must bring out his thought with ambages; he must mass his sentences inconsequentially; he must struggle up hill almost hopelessly with his phrases,—so that at the end the reader will have to labour as he himself has laboured, or else to leave behind much of the fruit which it has been intended that he should garner. It is the ill-fortune of some to be neither easy or lucid; and there is nothing more wonderful in the history of letters than the patience of readers when called upon to suffer under the double calamity. It is as though a man were reading a dialogue of Plato, understanding neither the subject nor the language. But it is often the case that one has to be sacrificed to the other. The pregnant writer will sometimes solace himself by declaring that it is not his business to supply intelligence to the reader; and then, in throwing out the entirety of his thought, will not stop to remember that he cannot hope to scatter his ideas far and wide unless he can make them easily intelligible. Then the writer who is determined that his book shall not be put down because it is troublesome, is too apt to avoid the knotty bits and shirk the rocky turns, because he cannot with ease to himself make them easy to others. If this be acknowledged, I shall be held to be right in saying not only that ease and lucidity in style are different virtues, but that they are often opposed to each other. They may, however, be combined, and then the writer will have really learned the art of writing. Omne tulit punctum quimiscuit utile dulci. It is to be done, I believe, in all languages. A man by art and practice shall at least obtain such a masterhood over words as to express all that he thinks, in phrases that shall be easily understood.
In such a small space as can here be allowed, I cannot give instances to prove that this has been achieved by Thackeray. Nor would instances prove the existence of the virtue, though instances might the absence. The proof lies in the work of the man's life, and can only become plain to those who have read his writings. I must refer readers to their own experiences, and ask them whether they have found themselves compelled to study passages in Thackeray in order that they might find a recondite meaning, or whether they have not been sure that they and the author have together understood all that there was to understand in the matter. Have they run backward over the passages, and then gone on, not quite sure what the author has meant? If not, then he has been easy and lucid. We have not had it so easy with all modern writers, nor with all that are old. I may best perhaps explain my meaning by taking something written long ago; something very valuable, in order that I may not damage my argument by comparing the easiness of Thackeray with the harshness of some author who has in other respects failed of obtaining approbation. If you take the play ofCymbelineyou will, I think, find it to be anything but easy reading. Nor is Shakespeare always lucid. For purposes of his own he will sometimes force his readers to doubt his meaning, even after prolonged study. It has ever been so withHamlet. My readers will not, I think, be so crossgrained with me as to suppose that I am putting Thackeray as a master of style above Shakespeare. I am only endeavouring to explain byreference to the great master the condition of literary production which he attained. Whatever Thackeray says, the reader cannot fail to understand; and whatever Thackeray attempts to communicate, he succeeds in conveying.
That he is grammatical I must leave to my readers' judgment, with a simple assertion in his favour. There are some who say that grammar,—by which I mean accuracy of composition, in accordance with certain acknowledged rules,—is only a means to an end; and that, if a writer can absolutely achieve the end by some other mode of his own, he need not regard the prescribed means. If a man can so write as to be easily understood, and to convey lucidly that which he has to convey without accuracy of grammar, why should he subject himself to unnecessary trammels? Why not make a path for himself, if the path so made will certainly lead him whither he wishes to go? The answer is, that no other path will lead others whither he wishes to carry them but that which is common to him and to those others. It is necessary that there should be a ground equally familiar to the writer and to his readers. If there be no such common ground, they will certainly not come into full accord. There have been recusants who, by a certain acuteness of their own, have partly done so,—wilful recusants; but they have been recusants, not to the extent of discarding grammar,—which no writer could do and not be altogether in the dark,—but so far as to have created for themselves a phraseology which has been picturesque by reason of its illicit vagaries; as a woman will sometimes please ill-instructed eyes and ears by little departures from feminine propriety. They have probably laboured in their vocation as sedulously as though they had striven to be correct, and have achieved at the best but ashort-lived success;—as is the case also with the unconventional female. The charm of the disorderly soon loses itself in the ugliness of disorder. And there are others rebellious from grammar, who are, however, hardly to be called rebels, because the laws which they break have never been altogether known to them. Among those very dear to me in English literature, one or two might be named of either sort, whose works, though they have that in them which will insure to them a long life, will become from year to year less valuable and less venerable, because their authors have either scorned or have not known that common ground of language on which the author and his readers should stand together. My purport here is only with Thackeray, and I say that he stands always on that common ground. He quarrels with none of the laws. As the lady who is most attentive to conventional propriety may still have her own fashion of dress and her own mode of speech, so had Thackeray very manifestly his own style; but it is one the correctness of which has never been impugned.
I hold that gentleman to be the best dressed whose dress no one observes. I am not sure but that the same may be said of an author's written language. Only, where shall we find an example of such perfection? Always easy, always lucid, always correct, we may find them; but who is the writer, easy, lucid, and correct, who has not impregnated his writing with something of that personal flavour which we call mannerism? To speak of authors well known to all readers—Does notThe Ramblertaste of Johnson;The Decline and Fall, of Gibbon;The Middle Ages, of Hallam;The History of England, of Macaulay; andThe Invasion of the Crimea, of Kinglake? Do we not know the elephantine tread ofThe Saturday, and theprecise toe ofThe Spectator? I have sometimes thought that Swift has been nearest to the mark of any,—writing English and not writing Swift. But I doubt whether an accurate observer would not trace even here the "mark of the beast." Thackeray, too, has a strong flavour of Thackeray. I am inclined to think that his most besetting sin in style,—the little earmark by which he is most conspicuous,—is a certain affected familiarity. He indulges too frequently in little confidences with individual readers, in which pretended allusions to himself are frequent. "What would you do? what would you say now, if you were in such a position?" he asks. He describes this practice of his in the preface toPendennis. "It is a sort of confidential talk between writer and reader.... In the course of his volubility the perpetual speaker must of necessity lay bare his own weaknesses, vanities, peculiarities." In the short contributions to periodicals on which he tried his 'prentice hand, such addresses and conversations were natural and efficacious; but in a larger work of fiction they cause an absence of that dignity to which even a novel may aspire. You feel that each morsel as you read it is a detached bit, and that it has all been written in detachments. The book is robbed of its integrity by a certain good-humoured geniality of language, which causes the reader to be almost too much at home with his author. There is a saying that familiarity breeds contempt, and I have been sometimes inclined to think that our author has sometimes failed to stand up for himself with sufficiency of "personal deportment."
In other respects Thackeray's style is excellent. As I have said before, the reader always understands his words without an effort, and receives all that the author has to give.
There now remains to be discussed the matter of our author's work. The manner and the style are but the natural wrappings in which the goods have been prepared for the market. Of these goods it is no doubt true that unless the wrappings be in some degree meritorious the article will not be accepted at all; but it is the kernel which we seek, which, if it be not of itself sweet and digestible, cannot be made serviceable by any shell however pretty or easy to be cracked. I have said previously that it is the business of a novel to instruct in morals and to amuse. I will go further, and will add, having been for many years a most prolific writer of novels myself, that I regard him who can put himself into close communication with young people year after year without making some attempt to do them good, as a very sorry fellow indeed. However poor your matter may be, however near you may come to that "foolishest of existing mortals," as Carlyle presumes some unfortunate novelist to be, still, if there be those who read your works, they will undoubtedly be more or less influenced by what they find there. And it is because the novelist amuses that he is thus influential. The sermon too often has no such effect, because it is applied with the declared intention of having it. The palpable and overt dose the child rejects; but that which is cunningly insinuated by the aid of jam or honey is accepted unconsciously, and goes on upon its curative mission. So it is with the novel. It is taken because of its jam and honey. But, unlike the honest simple jam and honey of the household cupboard, it is never unmixed with physic. There will be the dose within it, either curative or poisonous. The girl will be taught modesty or immodesty, truth or falsehood; the lad will be taught honour or dishonour, simplicity oraffectation. Without the lesson the amusement will not be there. There are novels which certainly can teach nothing; but then neither can they amuse any one.
I should be said to insist absurdly on the power of my own confraternity if I were to declare that the bulk of the young people in the upper and middle classes receive their moral teaching chiefly from the novels they read. Mothers would no doubt think of their own sweet teaching; fathers of the examples which they set; and schoolmasters of the excellence of their instructions. Happy is the country that has such mothers, fathers, and schoolmasters! But the novelist creeps in closer than the schoolmaster, closer than the father, closer almost than the mother. He is the chosen guide, the tutor whom the young pupil chooses for herself. She retires with him, suspecting no lesson, safe against rebuke, throwing herself head and heart into the narration as she can hardly do into her task-work; and there she is taught,—how she shall learn to love; how she shall receive the lover when he comes; how far she should advance to meet the joy; why she should be reticent, and not throw herself at once into this new delight. It is the same with the young man, though he would be more prone even than she to reject the suspicion of such tutorship. But he too will there learn either to speak the truth, or to lie; and will receive from his novel lessons either of real manliness, or of that affected apishness and tailor-begotten demeanour which too many professors of the craft give out as their dearest precepts.
At any rate the close intercourse is admitted. Where is the house now from which novels are tabooed? Is it not common to allow them almost indiscriminately, so that young and old each chooses his own novel?Shall he, then, to whom this close fellowship is allowed,—this inner confidence,—shall he not be careful what words he uses, and what thoughts he expresses, when he sits in council with his young friend? This, which it will certainly be his duty to consider with so much care, will be the matter of his work. We know what was thought of such matter, when Lydia in the play was driven to the necessity of flinging "Peregrine Pickleunder the toilet," and thrusting "Lord Aimwellunder the sofa." We have got beyond that now, and are tolerably sure that our girls do not hide their novels. The more freely they are allowed, the more necessary is it that he who supplies shall take care that they are worthy of the trust that is given to them.
Now let the reader ask himself what are the lessons which Thackeray has taught. Let him send his memory running back over all those characters of whom we have just been speaking, and ask himself whether any girl has been taught to be immodest, or any man unmanly, by what Thackeray has written. A novelist has two modes of teaching,—by good example or bad. It is not to be supposed that because the person treated of be evil, therefore the precept will be evil. If so, some personages with whom we have been made well acquainted from our youth upwards, would have been omitted in our early lessons. It may be a question whether the teaching is not more efficacious which comes from the evil example. What story was ever more powerful in showing the beauty of feminine reticence, and the horrors of feminine evil-doing, than the fate of Effie Deans? The Templar would have betrayed a woman to his lust, but has not encouraged others by the freedom of his life. Varney was utterly bad,—but though a gay courtier, he has enticed no othersto go the way that he went. So it has been with Thackeray. His examples have been generally of that kind,—but they have all been efficacious in their teaching on the side of modesty and manliness, truth and simplicity. When some girl shall have traced from first to last the character of Beatrix, what, let us ask, will be the result on her mind? Beatrix was born noble, clever, beautiful, with certain material advantages, which it was within her compass to improve by her nobility, wit, and beauty. She was quite alive to that fact, and thought of those material advantages, to the utter exclusion, in our mind, of any idea of moral goodness. She realised it all, and told herself that that was the game she would play. "Twenty-five!" says she; "and in eight years no man has ever touched my heart!" That is her boast when she is about to be married,—her only boast of herself. "A most detestable young woman!" some will say. "An awful example!" others will add. Not a doubt of it. She proves the misery of her own career so fully that no one will follow it. The example is so awful that it will surely deter. The girl will declare to herself that not in that way will she look for the happiness which she hopes to enjoy; and the young man will say as he reads it, that no Beatrix shall touch his heart.
You may go through all his characters with the same effect. Pendennis will be scorned because he is light; Warrington loved because he is strong and merciful; Dobbin will be honoured because he is unselfish; and the old colonel, though he be foolish, vain, and weak, almost worshipped because he is so true a gentleman. It is in the handling of questions such as these that we have to look for the matter of the novelist,—those moral lessons which he mixes up with his jam and his honey. I saythat with Thackeray the physic is always curative and never poisonous. He may he admitted safely into that close fellowship, and be allowed to accompany the dear ones to their retreats. The girl will never become bold under his preaching, or taught to throw herself at men's heads. Nor will the lad receive a false flashy idea of what becomes a youth, when he is first about to take his place among men.
As to that other question, whether Thackeray be amusing as well as salutary, I must leave it to public opinion. There is now being brought out of his works a more splendid edition than has ever been produced in any age or any country of the writings of such an author. A certain fixed number of copies only is being issued, and each copy will cost £33 12s. when completed. It is understood that a very large proportion of the edition has been already bought or ordered. Cost, it will be said, is a bad test of excellence. It will not prove the merit of a book any more than it will of a horse. But it is proof of the popularity of the book. Print and illustrate and bind up some novels how you will, no one will buy them. Previous to these costly volumes, there have been two entire editions of his works since the author's death, one comparatively cheap and the other dear. Before his death his stories had been scattered in all imaginable forms. I may therefore assert that their charm has been proved by their popularity.
There remains for us only this question,—whether the nature of Thackeray's works entitle him to be called a cynic. The word is one which is always used in a bad sense. "Of a dog; currish," is the definition which we get from Johnson,—quite correctly, and in accordance with its etymology. And he gives us examples. "How vilelydoes this cynic rhyme," he takes from Shakespeare; and Addison speaks of a man degenerating into a cynic. That Thackeray's nature was soft and kindly,—gentle almost to a fault,—has been shown elsewhere. But they who have called him a cynic have spoken of him merely as a writer,—and as writer he has certainly taken upon himself the special task of barking at the vices and follies of the world around him. Any satirist might in the same way be called a cynic in so far as his satire goes. Swift was a cynic certainly. Pope was cynical when he was a satirist. Juvenal was all cynical, because he was all satirist. If that be what is meant, Thackeray was certainly a cynic. But that is not all that the word implies. It intends to go back beyond the work of the man, and to describe his heart. It says of any satirist so described that he has given himself up to satire, not because things have been evil, but because he himself has been evil. Hamlet is a satirist, whereas Thersites is a cynic. If Thackeray be judged after this fashion, the word is as inappropriate to the writer as to the man.
But it has to be confessed that Thackeray did allow his intellect to be too thoroughly saturated with the aspect of the ill side of things. We can trace the operation of his mind from his earliest days, when he commenced his parodies at school; when he brought outThe Snobat Cambridge, when he sentYellowplushout upon the world as a satirist on the doings of gentlemen generally; when he wrote hisCatherine, to show the vileness of the taste for what he would have called Newgate literature; andThe Hoggarty Diamond, to attack bubble companies; andBarry Lyndon, to expose the pride which a rascal may take in his rascality. Becky Sharp, Major Pendennis, Beatrix, both as ayoung and as an old woman, were written with the same purpose. There is a touch of satire in every drawing that he made. A jeer is needed for something that is ridiculous, scorn has to be thrown on something that is vile. The same feeling is to be found in every line of every ballad.
VANITAS VANITATUM.Methinks the text is never stale,And life is every day renewingFresh comments on the old old tale,Of Folly, Fortune, Glory, Ruin.Hark to the preacher, preaching still!He lifts his voice and cries his sermon,Here at St. Peter's of Cornhill,As yonder on the Mount of Hermon—For you and me to heart to take(O dear beloved brother readers),To-day,—as when the good king spakeBeneath the solemn Syrian cedars.
VANITAS VANITATUM.
Methinks the text is never stale,And life is every day renewingFresh comments on the old old tale,Of Folly, Fortune, Glory, Ruin.
Hark to the preacher, preaching still!He lifts his voice and cries his sermon,Here at St. Peter's of Cornhill,As yonder on the Mount of Hermon—
For you and me to heart to take(O dear beloved brother readers),To-day,—as when the good king spakeBeneath the solemn Syrian cedars.
It was just so with him always. He was "crying his sermon," hoping, if it might be so, to do something towards lessening the evils he saw around him. We all preach our sermon, but not always with the same earnestness. He had become so urgent in the cause, so loud in his denunciations, that he did not stop often to speak of the good things around him. Now and again he paused and blessed amid the torrent of his anathemas. There are Dobbin, and Esmond, and Colonel Newcome. But his anathemas are the loudest. It has been so I think nearly always with the eloquent preachers.
I will insert here,—especially here at the end of thischapter, in which I have spoken of Thackeray's matter and manner of writing, because of the justice of the criticism conveyed,—the lines which Lord Houghton wrote on his death, and which are to be found in the February number ofThe Cornhillof 1864. It was the first number printed after his death. I would add that, though no Dean applied for permission to bury Thackeray in Westminster Abbey, his bust was placed there without delay. What is needed by the nation in such a case is simply a lasting memorial there, where such memorials are most often seen and most highly honoured. But we can all of us sympathise with the feeling of the poet, writing immediately on the loss of such a friend:
When one, whose nervous English versePublic and party hates defied,Who bore and bandied many a curseOf angry times,—when Dryden died,Our royal abbey's Bishop-DeanWaited for no suggestive prayer,But, ere one day closed o'er the scene,Craved, as a boon, to lay him there.The wayward faith, the faulty life,Vanished before a nation's pain.Panther and Hind forgot their strife,And rival statesmen thronged the fane.O gentle censor of our age!Prime master of our ampler tongue!Whose word of wit and generous pageWere never wrath, except with wrong,—Fielding—without the manner's dross,Scott—with a spirit's larger room,What Prelate deems thy grave his loss?What Halifax erects thy tomb?But, may be, he,—who so could drawThe hidden great,—the humble wise,Yielding with them to God's good law,Makes the Pantheon where he lies.
When one, whose nervous English versePublic and party hates defied,Who bore and bandied many a curseOf angry times,—when Dryden died,
Our royal abbey's Bishop-DeanWaited for no suggestive prayer,But, ere one day closed o'er the scene,Craved, as a boon, to lay him there.
The wayward faith, the faulty life,Vanished before a nation's pain.Panther and Hind forgot their strife,And rival statesmen thronged the fane.
O gentle censor of our age!Prime master of our ampler tongue!Whose word of wit and generous pageWere never wrath, except with wrong,—
Fielding—without the manner's dross,Scott—with a spirit's larger room,What Prelate deems thy grave his loss?What Halifax erects thy tomb?
But, may be, he,—who so could drawThe hidden great,—the humble wise,Yielding with them to God's good law,Makes the Pantheon where he lies.
THE END.
CHARLES DICKENS AND EVANS, CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS.
These Short Books are addressed to the general public with a view both to stirring and satisfying an interest in literature and its great topics in the minds of those who have to run as they read. An immense class is growing up, and must every year increase, whose education will have made them alive to the importance of the masters of our literature, and capable of intelligent curiosity as to their performances. The Series is intended to give the means of nourishing this curiosity, to an extent that shall be copious enough to be profitable for knowledge and life, and yet be brief enough to serve those whose leisure is scanty.
The following are arranged for:
[OTHERS WILL BE ANNOUNCED.]
"The new series opens well with Mr. Leslie Stephen's sketch of Dr. Johnson. It could hardly have been done better; and it will convey to the readers for whom it is intended a juster estimate of Johnson than either of the two essays of Lord Macaulay."—Pall Mall Gazette.
"We have come across few writers who have had a clearer insight into Johnson's character, or who have brought to the study of it a better knowledge of the time in which Johnson lived and the men whom he knew."—Saturday Review.
"We could not wish for a more suggestive introduction to Scott and his poems and novels."—Examiner.
"The tone of the volume is excellent throughout."—AthenæumReview of "Scott."
"As a clear, thoughtful, and attractive record of the life and works of the greatest among the world's historians, it deserves the highest praise."—ExaminerReview of "Gibbon."
"The lovers of this great poet (Shelley) are to be congratulated at having at their command so fresh, clear, and intelligent a presentment of the subject, written by a man of adequate and wide culture."—Athenæum.
"It may fairly be said that no one now living could have expounded Hume with more sympathy or with equal perspicuity."—Athenæum.
"The story of Defoe's adventurous life may be followed with keen interest in Mr. Minto's attractive book."—Academy.
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:There are variant spellings of the following name:Jeames YellowplushMr. C. James YellowplushSpellings were left as in the original.The following changes were made to the text:page 5—Thackeray's version was 'Cabbages, bright green cabbages,'{added missing ending quotation mark} and we thought it very witty.page 78—Then there are "Jeames on Time Bargings," "Jeames on the Gauge{original had Guage} Question," "Mr. Jeames again."page 131—"I knew you would come back," she said; "and to-day, Harry{original has Henry}, in the anthem when they sangpage 143—The wife won't{original has wo'n't} come.page 143—On his way he{original has be} shoots a raven marvellouslypage 157—As Thackeray explains clearly what he means by a humorist, I may as well here repeat the passage:{punctuation missing in original} "If humour only meant laughterpage 166—I will then let my reader go to the volume and study the lectures for himself.{no punctuation in original} "The poor fellow was neverpage 212—[Ready.{original is missing period—this occurred in the line referencing DEFOE and the line referencing THACKERAY}
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
There are variant spellings of the following name:
Jeames YellowplushMr. C. James YellowplushSpellings were left as in the original.
The following changes were made to the text:
page 5—Thackeray's version was 'Cabbages, bright green cabbages,'{added missing ending quotation mark} and we thought it very witty.page 78—Then there are "Jeames on Time Bargings," "Jeames on the Gauge{original had Guage} Question," "Mr. Jeames again."page 131—"I knew you would come back," she said; "and to-day, Harry{original has Henry}, in the anthem when they sangpage 143—The wife won't{original has wo'n't} come.page 143—On his way he{original has be} shoots a raven marvellouslypage 157—As Thackeray explains clearly what he means by a humorist, I may as well here repeat the passage:{punctuation missing in original} "If humour only meant laughterpage 166—I will then let my reader go to the volume and study the lectures for himself.{no punctuation in original} "The poor fellow was neverpage 212—[Ready.{original is missing period—this occurred in the line referencing DEFOE and the line referencing THACKERAY}
page 5—Thackeray's version was 'Cabbages, bright green cabbages,'{added missing ending quotation mark} and we thought it very witty.
page 78—Then there are "Jeames on Time Bargings," "Jeames on the Gauge{original had Guage} Question," "Mr. Jeames again."
page 131—"I knew you would come back," she said; "and to-day, Harry{original has Henry}, in the anthem when they sang
page 143—The wife won't{original has wo'n't} come.
page 143—On his way he{original has be} shoots a raven marvellously
page 157—As Thackeray explains clearly what he means by a humorist, I may as well here repeat the passage:{punctuation missing in original} "If humour only meant laughter
page 166—I will then let my reader go to the volume and study the lectures for himself.{no punctuation in original} "The poor fellow was never
page 212—[Ready.{original is missing period—this occurred in the line referencing DEFOE and the line referencing THACKERAY}