GEORGE MEREDITH’S BEST NOVEL

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 4 June 1923, Page 13

GEORGE MEREDITH’S BEST NOVEL

In Conan Doyle’s “Through the Magic Door” he gives the place of honour to ‘Tiichard Feverei.” “What a great hook it is,” he says; “how wise and how witty I I think I .should put it third after ‘Vanity Fair’ arid ‘The Cloister and the Hearth’ if I had to name the three novels which I admire most in the Victorian era.”

experiencing a feeling of surprise at this selection, as my own choice wavered between “The Egoist” and “Diana of the Crossways,” I sot myself the task of endeavouring to ascertain the opinions of the cognoscenti on this question. The result was rather startling. Neil Mutiro, like Dr. Conan Doyle, puts “Richard Feverei” above all others of Meredith’s books, and asserts that: “In it we have the essence of all the author’s gifts as a novelist.” R. L. Stevenson, however, considered “Richard Feverei” a brutal assault upon the feelings, and complained that Meredith had played the reader false in starting a tragedy in the spirit of a comedy. And Arnold Bennett says: “There are fearful faults in “Richard Feverei.” The book is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of Charlotte M. Yonge. The large constructional lines of it are bad. The separation of Lucy and Richard is never explained and cannot be explained. The whole business of Sir Julius is grotesque. And the conclusion is grotesque. It is a weak book, full of episodic power and loaded with wit. . . . In my view “The Egoist” and “Rlioda Fleming’ ? are the best of the novels, and I don’t know that I prefer; one to the other.” Of “Rhoda Fleming” R. L. Stevenson said: “It is the strongest thing in English letters since Shakespeare died.” While George Moore wrote of the same work: “The story is surprisingly commonplace—the people in it are as lacking in subtlety as those of a Drury Lane melodrama.’-’ And William Watson describes it as “an ill- 1 constructed and very unequally written j story.”. Professor Saintsbury says: “Some have been inclined to put ‘Rhoda Fleming’ at the head, but the true Meredithian regards ‘The Egoist’ as the masterpiece.” James Oliphant refers to “The Egoist” as Meredith’s most unique, if not his greatest, novel, and “Diana of the Crossways” as perhaps the most brilliant of the author’s novels ; and W. E. Henley declares that “Diana of the Crossways” is one of the best of all Meredith’s books. Yet Arnold Bennett asserts that “Diana of the Crossways” is even worso than “Richard Feverei,” and says: “I am still awaiting from some ardent Meredithian an explanation of Diana’s marriage that does not insult, my intelligence.” Justin McCarthy writes: “I think for my own part I admire ‘Beauchamp’s Career’ more thoroughly from \ first to last than any other of Mere- j dith’s novels.” George Parsons Lathrop holds that “Evan Harrington” con- j tains more ingenuity of plot and in bet- i ter constructed than most of its j author’s novels; and Arthur Symons j says that without being the greatest of i Meredith’s works, “Evan Harrington” is the most evenly interesting, the most i easy, pleasant, absorbing, and ought to j be one of the most widely popular. | While Allan Monkliouse states: ‘ I must j confess that to me ‘Evan Harrington- ! is the least worthy of Mr Merediths! works.” And Ernest Newman goes • further when he asserts: ‘ Evan Har-i rington’ is truly deplorable. It shows Mr Meredith at his worst m everytlimk j that is worst in him. . - • Hie ■ entire work is a mass of bad articula- j tlo Ail this still leaves us wondering which is the best of Meredl f E \p E £ Timaru.