American essays -- 19th century; Literature -- History and criticism
One of the latest types, however, to seize and hold the hearts of the
big, sentimental, child-loving public is Mrs. Burnett’s Lord Fauntleroy,
who maybe best described as the good little boy with the clothes. It
is quite impossible to separate him in our minds from his wardrobe,
to divest him of his velvet suits and sashes, his “rich Vandyke lace
collar,” his leggings and neat little Oxford ties. He is always and in
all places “a small copy of the fairy prince,” picturesquely grouped
with a dog, or a cat, or a pony, as circumstances direct. We cannot be
coarse enough to imagine him with cropped hair, and muddy boots, and a
torn jacket, and a hole in his stocking, like so many, many real little
boys who daily break their mothers’ hearts by their profound neglect of
appearances. He is so ready in conversation, too, and pays such charming
compliments to pretty young ladies, instead of hustling into corners and
staring owlishly, after the fashion of those awkward little boys I know.
And he is so very, very good! Not consciously and morbidly virtuous like
that baby prig, Little Saint Elizabeth, who comes from the same hands,
but artlessly and inevitably correct. He gives all his money to pay poor
Michael’s rent, and we rejoice rightly in his generosity, with only one
wistful recollection of that vastly different specimen of boyhood, for
whose misdeeds Mr. Aldrich is responsible, and who spends his funds
gloriously in indigestible treats to his friends. It is very charming
in Lord Fauntleroy to offer his eager plea in behalf of the farmer
Higgins, and probably just what any warm-hearted child would have done
in his place; but we cannot but contrast his wonderful unconsciousness
afterward, “not realizing his own importance in the least,” with the
familiar figure of little Paul Dombey strutting up and down the room
at Brighton, full of the new-blown dignity of being a financier, and
lending young Gay the money for his uncle. It would take the sternest
of moralists to object to Paul’s infantile strut; it would take the most
trusting of sentimentalists to believe that Cedric is quite as innocently
unconscious as he seems.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account