| + + − | Lit. D. 35: 695. N. 9, ’07. 650w. |
“Deserves and has achieved a place among the leading novels of the year.”
| + | Lit. D. 35: 920. D. 14, ’07. 100w. |
“Ungrateful though it may seem it is not easy to follow this long drama with any keen interest or to feel that the people in it are any more sensitive than the props that sustain old-fashioned cumbersome draperies. It is ungrateful because the purpose of the book is earnest, and Sir Gilbert evidently writes with knowledge and from his own observation.”
| + − | Lond. Times. 6: 309. O. 11, ’07. 450w. |
“Although Sir Gilbert Parker uses a civilized if somewhat heavy English, and puts his book together in practised fashion, his treatment of Egyptian troubles ... on the whole lacks the brilliancy given to the same event by the late Archibald Clavering Gunter. It is hard to believe that ‘The weavers’ comes from the same hand which once gave so thoughtful and sincere a study of character as Charley in ‘The right of way.’”
| + − | Nation. 85: 806. O. 3, ’07. 140w. |
“The idea has obtained very generally of late that the good old three-volume novel of the mid-Victorian age was forever extinct, like the dodo or the drama in blank verse. There were to be no more wronged or missing heirs, no more ‘papers’ turning up in old cabinets, no more ‘heavy’ old men telling their stories in quavering voices with the lights burning low and the violins going soft, no more benevolent low-comedy gents coming in slapdash at the critical moments, no more singularly fatuous villains getting caught in their own toils. It is a mistake; read ‘The weavers’ and be convinced. All, all are here, the old familiar faces. The book is written with the author’s usual facility and command of English.”
| − + | N. Y. Times. 12: 579. S. 28, ’07. 1000w. | |
| N. Y. Times. 12: 655. O. 19, ’07. 40w. |
“Is full of brilliant and striking passages, but the parts of the story do not perfectly cohere, and the tale is a series of dramatic episodes rather than a well-knit narrative of action.”