Page:Ainsworth's Magazine - Volume 2.pdf/19

Its pictures of the times and persons it treats of are "finished sketches," the effect of which, by a truly artist-like skill, is heightened instead of diminished by the small fine touches that denote a thorough familiarity with every incidental particular of the subject. Thus, not only are the king's jester and the king's cook as vividly set before us as Henri himself, but Henri's lineaments are not more accurately painted than is the quaint figure on a piece of embroidery, the fashion of a jewel, or the cut of a garment. In spite of a most hurried and effect-marring termination, this romance has in it the seeds of life, and contains some of its author's soundest and most brilliant writing. Here, again, we see a lyrical genius in full flow; some of the songs are of a most dainty fashion, and charm equally by their structure and their fancy.

The "Admirable Crichton" was yet winning admiration, when his untired historian commenced another romance, which he originally intended to call Thames Darrell, and under that name it was announced by its publisher. After considerable delays, the opening chapters of the work made their appearance in "Bentley's Miscellany," under the title of Jack Sheppard. This was in January, 1839. Two months afterwards, on the retirement of Mr. Dickens, the author of the new romance was installed as editor of the Miscellany─the terms agreed upon being 51l. per month.

As the story month by month developed itself, the circle of its success widened; not an audible objection to its hero or to its author─to his plot, scenery, or persons─their life, character, or behaviour─was raised, as far as we are aware, in the most fastidious coterie; but, on the contrary, many established critics of high character, fully cognizant of the significant fact that the hero of the tale was the veritable housebreaker, welcomed him with winged pens as he broke limb by limb out of the Magazine, and shook him heartily by the hand as a legitimate historical acquaintance. When he stood before them, whole, in the autumn of the same year, he met with astonishing success, and became the "rage " for months. The three volumes were produced in a dramatic form simultaneously at eight different theatres; and George Cruikshank's inimitable designs became set scenes east and west. At last, however, the prison-breaker's popularity became all at once an offence in people's eyes greater than any of which he was ever convicted. He was denounced as something worse than the monster in Frankenstein. Critics, who had always a passion for heroes in fetters before, now found out that housebreakers are disreputable characters. They were in raptures with the old established brigand still, and the freebooter of foreign extraction; they could hug Robin Hood as fondly as ever, and dwell with unhurt morals on the little peccadilloes of Rob Roy; nay, they had no objection to ride behind Turpin to York any day, and would never feel ashamed of their company; but they shook their heads at Sheppard, because low people began to run after him at the theatres. He was a housebreaker!

We are here recording facts, and have small space for opinions. It may be observed, however, that the outcry, to have served any moral end, should have been raised much sooner. Why did it not break out when the housebreaker first broke out in January amidst public plaudits? Why was it silent for a whole twelvemonth? But this is not the only question. Why was not that moral outcry raised long before this culprit ever made a literary appearance at all? He had some remarkably suspicious precursors─heroes selected only for their ruffianism─yet the storm falls on this offender, probably because he