Miscellaneous Prose | Page 2

racy vernacular; and such is the veri-similitude and the
dialogue that they might seem to be heard from the mouths of living

speakers. When in this way the characters of Vanity Fair had come to
growth, their author was rightly appreciated as one of the creators in
our literature, he took at once the place he will retain. With this great
book and with Esmond and The Newcomes, he gave a name eminent,
singular, and beloved to English fiction.
Charges of cynicism are common against all satirists, Thackeray had to
bear with them. The social world he looked at did not show him heroes,
only here and there a plain good soul to whom he was affectionate in
the unhysterical way of an English father patting a son on the head. He
described his world as an accurate observer saw it, he could not be
dishonest. Not a page of his books reveals malevolence or a sneer at
humanity. He was driven to the satirical task by the scenes about him.
There must be the moralist in the satirist if satire is to strike. The stroke
is weakened and art violated when he comes to the front. But he will
always be pressing forward, and Thackeray restrained him as much as
could be done, in the manner of a good-humoured constable. Thackeray
may have appeared cynical to the devout by keeping him from a station
in the pulpit among congregations of the many convicted sinners. That
the moralist would have occupied it and thundered had he presented us
with the Fourth of the Georges we see when we read of his rejecting the
solicitations of so seductive a personage for the satiric rod.
Himself one of the manliest, the kindliest of human creatures, it was the
love of his art that exposed him to misinterpretation. He did stout
service in his day. If the bad manners he scourged are now lessened to
some degree we pay a debt in remembering that we owe much to him,
and if what appears incurable remains with us, a continued reading of
his works will at least help to combat it.

A PAUSE IN THE STRIFE--1886
Our 'Eriniad,' or ballad epic of the enfranchisement of the sister island
is closing its first fytte for the singer, and with such result as those
Englishmen who have some knowledge of their fellows foresaw. There
are sufficient reasons why the Tories should always be able to keep
together, but let them have the credit of cohesiveness and subordination
to control. Though working for their own ends, they won the esteem of
their allies, which will count for them in the struggles to follow. Their
leaders appear to have seen what has not been distinctly perceptible to

the opposite party--that the break up of the Liberals means the
defection of the old Whigs in permanence, heralding the establishment
of a powerful force against Radicalism, with a capital cry to the country.
They have tactical astuteness. If they seem rather too proud of their
victory, it is merely because, as becomes them, they do not look ahead.
To rejoice in the gaining of a day, without having clear views of the
morrow, is puerile enough. Any Tory victory, it may be said, is little
more than a pause in the strife, unless when the Radical game is played
'to dish the Whigs,' and the Tories are now fast bound down by their
incorporation of the latter to abstain from the violent springs and
right-about-facings of the Derby-Disraeli period. They are so heavily
weighted by the new combination that their Jack-in-the-box, Lord
Randolph, will have to stand like an ordinary sentinel on duty, and take
the measurement of his natural size. They must, on the supposition of
their entry into office, even to satisfy their own constituents, produce a
scheme. Their majority in the House will command it.
To this extent, then, Mr. Gladstone has not been defeated. The question
set on fire by him will never be extinguished until the combustible
matter has gone to ashes. But personally he meets a sharp rebuff. The
Tories may well raise hurrahs over that. Radicals have to admit it, and
point to the grounds of it. Between a man's enemies and his friends
there comes out a rough painting of his character, not without a
resemblance to the final summary, albeit wanting in the justly delicate
historical touch to particular features. On the one side he is abused as
'the one-man power'; lauded on the other for his marvellous intuition of
the popular will. One can believe that he scarcely wishes to march
dictatorially, and full surely his Egyptian policy was from step to step a
misreading of the will of the English people. He went forth on this
campaign, with the finger