THACKERAY AND "VANITY FAIR."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1222, 2 September 1911, Page 9

THACKERAY AND "VANITY FAIR."

AN UNPUBLISHED LETTER. Mr. .T. Parker Smith has sent to "Tho Times" a copy of a Thackeray letter in his possession, which, be says, "I believe has never been published, and in which Thackeray states" his theory 'of /Vanity Fair' in particular and of novels in sciicral with moro ■ cxplicitno?s than in any other of his writings with which I am acquainted. The date of the year is not given, but is* easily supplied. His correspondent was pbviously his- friend Robert Bell, tho writer and journalist/' The letter, adhering to tho spelling and punctuation, is as follows: Sunday Septr. 3rd (ISIS) My dear Bell Altlipugh I have made a rule to myself never to thauk critics yet I like to break it continually, and especially in the present instance for what J hope is the excellent articlein Fraser. It seems to me very just in most points as regards the author: somo he questions as usual—lf I had put in more fresh air as you call it my object would have been defeated—lt is to indicate, in cheerful terms, that we aro for th-a most part an abominably foolish aud selfish people "desperately wicked" and all eager after vanities. Everybody is you see ill that book.—for instandc if I had made Amelia a higher order of woman thcro would have bren no vanity in Dobbins falling in love with her, whereas the impression at present is that ho is a foot for his pains that ho has married a silly little thing and in fact has found out his error rather a sweet and tender one however, "quia multum amavit", I want to leave everybody dissatisfied and unhappy at tho end of the story—ws ought all to be= with our own and all other stories. Good ■ God don't I see (in that may-be crackcd and warped looking glass in which I am always looking) my own weaknesses wickednesses, lusts, follies, m company lot lis hop? with better qualities about which wa will pretermit discourse. We must lift up our voices about these and howl to a congregation of fcols: £0 much at least lias been my endeavour. Ton havo all of you taken my misauthropv to task—l wish I could myself: but talio the world by a certain standard t (vou know what I moan) and who dares talk of having any virtue at all? For instance Forster says After a scene with BHIil, tho air is cleared by a laugh of Tom Jones-Why Tom Jones in my holding is as a as Bliiil. Before God ho is—l mean tho man is selfish according to his nature as Bliiil is to his. In fact I'vo a strang impression we are most of u.=> not fit for never mind. Pathos I hold should be very occasional indeed in humorous works and indicated rather than expressed or expressed very rarely. In tho passage where Amelia is represented as tryin? to separate herself from' the boy—She goes upstairs and leaves him with his aunt 'as that poor Lady Jano Grey tried the axe that was to separate licr slender life' I say that it is a fine image whoever wrote it (and I came on it quite by surprize ill a review the other dnv) -that—is—greatlypathetic I think: it leaves you to make your own sad pictures—Wo shouldn tdo much more than that I think in comic ixwks—ln a story written in tho pathetic key it would be different and then the comedv perhaps should be occasional. Some 'day—but a truce to egotistical twaddle. It seems to me such a tunc ago that V F was written that one may .talk of it as of some body cists performance. Jty dear Bell I am very thankful for your friendliness and pleased to have your gocd opinion. Faithfully yours W. U. THACKERAY.