Dickens's Characteristics.

383

sums he received for his public readings, begun in 1858 in. this country and in America, to which he paid an extremely lucrative and successful visit in 1867-68.

Dickens's character was not a very complex or puzzling one. A man of great "push" and energy, casting aside any obstacle which came across his path with a sort of fiery vehemence, always sure of his ground, and equally sure that he was putting his best foot foremost, he would have made his mark in any calling. Much of his confidence in himself, his thorough conviction that he could fight through any struggle, must be attributed to the extraordinary rapidity with which he attained fame and fortune. His remarkable self-complacency, however natural, was not a pleasing trait in his character; his letters frequently weary us by their persistent egotism; their constant ringing of the changes on the same theme," the inimitable Boz." It never seems to have occurred to him that anything he did could be faulty; everything that proceeded from his pen was in his eyes perfect of its kind. A natural result of his intense conviction of the greatness of his own genius was that he sometimes thought that he had a right to be a law unto himself, and to disregard those rules which are binding on lesser men. His separation from his wife in 1858, brought about, so far as appears, by no other cause than an alleged incompatibility of temper, and the circumstances attending that unfortunate occurrence, were not at all to his credit. Yet he was a man of very affectionate nature, singularly fond of his children, and so charitable that he met many of the countless applications to him for aid with a generosity that could hardly be surpassed. His love of the poor was not of that specious sort which evaporates in sentimental writing and gushing afterdinner oratory. In contrast to many of his literary brethren, Dickens, like Scott, was of remarkably methodical business. habits, always carrying out his favourite maxim that whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well. Among his other characteristics, we should not omit to mention his remarkable liking and talent for acting, which he displayed whenever a good opportunity offered, his favourite character being Bobadil

in Ben Jonson's "Every Man in his Humour." The enormous success of his readings from his own works was partly owing to his remarkable elocutionary powers, and to the same cause was partly due his many triumphs as an after-dinner speaker.

To the question, what is the quality in Dickens's writings which stands out most prominent, and which will in all probability secure for them a permanent place in English literature? most readers will return the same answer. Undoubtedly it is their humour. The man is not be envied who can read the "Pickwick Papers "-which, despite its faulty construction, will stand as long and as sure as anything that Dickens has written without frequent and hearty bursts of unrestrainable laughter; and in all his novels the humorous portions are as a rule infinitely the most attractive. There are few cultured readers of "Martin Chuzzlewit," for example, who, on a second or third perusal, do not sagaciously skip the chapters devoted to Tom Pinch and his sister, while lingering fondly over the exquisite portions which deal with Mr. Pecksniff and with Martin's adventures in America. All critics and the vast majority of readers are now agreed in regarding Dickens's pathos as immeasurably inferior to his humour, looking upon the former as coarse and unrefined, and ridiculously sentimental. Yet at one time not only did thousands of ordinary readers cry over his pages, but such men as Jeffrey and Macready followed suit. It is difficult to account for this change of popu lar taste; unless we admit it to be the case that the fashion of pathos changes much more quickly than that of humour, so that what was considered pathos in one generation is often pronounced bathos by the succeeding one. In Dickens's latter books, the humorous element grew more and more scanty and thin. After "David Copperfield," he wrote no story containing in it a large portion of the fresh hearty laughter that we find in every page of “Pickwick.” Yet there was no falling off in his popularity; the public stood by him to the last. "Little Dorrit," for example, which has always seemed to us to resemble a story written by a man of genius in a nightmare,

William Makepeace Thackeray.

385

sold as largely as any of its predecessors, in spite of the denunciations of the critics. It is not at all unlikely that one of Dickens's defects helped in securing his extraordinary popu larity, viz., his ignorance. Perhaps no modern author of equal eminence ever cared so little for literature: indeed, there is not much exaggeration in saying that his works might have. been written equally well though he had never read a book. Thus he appealed to two publics, while other novelists of wider culture have appealed to only one. His genius was such that people of refinement could not but read him, even though they found in him much that was repellent to them; while his ignorance prevented him from flying over the heads of the multitude by learned allusions, and kept him close to a style of narrative which, whatever may be its artistic faults, is always such as to command popular sympathy.

While Dickens was at the height of his popularity, his great rival, William Makepeace Thackeray, was slowly climbing up the ladder of fame, attaining each additional step with difficulty. Thackeray was born at Calcutta on July 18, 1811, the son of a gentleman employed in the East India Company's Service. His father died while he was yet a child, and he was brought to England and sent early to the Charterhouse, of which his recollections were by no means pleasant. In 1829 he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, where, however, his residence was. very short. There he gave the first indication of his literary powers by taking part in editing a little paper called the Snob, to which he contributed some burlesque verses in the peculiar vein in which he afterwards distinguished himself. On leaving Cambridge he went to Weimar, and for some years alternated between it and Paris, studying drawing, as he at that time intended to become an artist. Possessed of a very considerable fortune, young Thackeray, with his quick sense. of humour, his enjoyment of life, and his propensity to indolence, which he was at this time easily able to gratify, doubtless led a very jovial existence. But in two or three years his fortune had utterly disappeared. Part of it was lost at cardplaying, part by unlucky speculation, part by two disastrous

newspaper enterprises in which he had been induced to embark. Then, finding that art was not likely to afford him means of subsistence, he was induced to become a writer by profession. Toilsome and trying was his upward path in that most alluring yet often most deceptive profession. His first important engagement was on the staff of Fraser's Magazine. In it he wrote among other things the "Yellowplush Correspondence," of which the first instalment appeared in 1837; the "History of Mr. Samuel Titmarsh and the Great Hoggarty Diamond;" and "Barry Lyndon," a story of the "Jonathan Wild" stamp, and, though unpleasant in subject, in some respects one of the most powerful productions of his pen. About 1840 he began his connection with Punch, to which some of his best work, including the inimitable "Snob Papers," was contributed. In 1840 appeared his "Paris Sketch Book;" in 1843 his "Irish Sketch Book," and in 1844 his "Journey from Cornhill to Grand Cairo," all appearing under the pseudonym of Michael Angelo Titmarsh, though the dedication to the "Irish Sketch Book" was signed with his own name. In addition to the above, he performed a variety of other work during his literary "journey-years," contributing to the Times, the New Monthly Magazine, &c.

Up to 1846 Thackeray's name, though no doubt familiar enough to literary people, was almost unknown to the world. at large. Some clear-sighted critics, such as John Sterling, had indeed recognised the originality and genius of his work; but he had not yet made what is called a “hit,” and had still to make his voice heard above the hundreds of clever writers whose work perishes with their lives. In the above mentioned year, however, began the publication of "Vanity Fair," in the monthly parts which Dickens had made popular. Its progress in popular estimation was slow at first; but gradually it began to be talked about, and on its completion in 1848 it had raised Thackeray to such a position that, in the opinion of all competent to judge, he now divided with Dickens the throne of the realm of fiction. Its success was aided by a friendly and appreciative notice in the Edinburgh Review for January

Thackeray and Dickens.

387

1848, which introduced Thackeray to many to whom he had scarcely been known previously. This notice was written by a friend of his, Mr. Abraham Hayward, whose anecdotal and entertaining pen is still busy, he having written an article in nearly every number of the Quarterly Review for the last twelve years. Following "Vanity Fair," appeared in 1850 "Pendennis;" in 1852, "Esmond," and in 1855, the "Newcomes." Meanwhile Thackeray had begun his very profitable career as a lecturer. The course on the "English Humorists of the Eighteenth Century" was first delivered in London in 1851, afterwards repeated in many provincial towns, and in the winter of 1852-53 delivered with great success in America. In 1853 he prepared an equally successful and equally able course on the "Four Georges." In 1857-59 appeared the "Virginians," a sequel to "Esmond." In January 1860 the Cornhill Magazine was begun with Thackeray as editor. Issued under the auspices of so great a name, its circulation was extraordinary, the sale of its early numbers exceeding one hundred thousand, and it proved a mine of wealth for both. editor and publishers. But Thackeray was ill-fitted to conduct a periodical; his habits of procrastination, the difficulty of selecting suitable contributions, and the vexation which. he felt in returning rejected ones, made the editorial chair to him a bed of thorns, and he was glad to abandon it in April 1862, continuing however to write for the magazine to the last. In it appeared his delightful "Roundabout Papers," "Lovel the Widower," the "Adventures of Philip," besides the fragment of a novel, "Denis Duval," published in 1864, after his death, which occurred on Christmas Eve, 1863.

Thackeray, as compared with Dickens, occupies in some respects the same position among the public as Macaulay does compared with Carlyle. It has been said by certain critics, particularly in the so-called "Society" journals, that Carlyle's chief admirers were found among the less cultured classesintelligent artisans, clerks, shopmen, and the like. This is not true, for some of the greatest and most original minds of this generation have held the Seer of Chelsea in the highest