Fault has been found with him (and that by such high authority as Mr. Howells) for coming into his own pages so often with personal comment or, “a word to the reader.” It is said that this disturbs the narrative, breaks the illusion, makes the novel less convincing as a work of art. Frankly, it does not strike me that way. On the contrary, it adds to the verisimilitude. These men and women are so real to him that he cannot help talking to us about them as we go along together. Is it not just so in actual life, when you go with a friend to watch the passing show? Do you think that what Thackeray says to you about Colonel Newcome, or Captain Costigan, or Helen Pendennis, or Laura, or Ethel, or George Warrington, makes them fade away? Yes, I know the paragraphs at the beginning and end of _Vanity Fair_ about the showman and the puppets and the box. But don’t you see what the parable means? It is only what Shakespeare said long ago: All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players. Nor would Thackeray have let this metaphor pass without adding to it Pope’s fine line: Act well your part, there all the honour lies. Of course, there is another type of fiction in which running personal comment by the author would be out of place. It is illustrated in Dickens by _A Tale of Two Cities_, and in Thackeray by _Henry Esmond_. The latter seems to me the most perfect example of a historical novel in all literature. More than that,—it is, so far as I know, the best portrayal of the character of a gentleman. The book presents itself as a memoir of Henry Esmond, Esq., a colonel in the service of her Majesty, Queen Anne, written by himself. Here, then, we have an autobiographical novel, the most difficult and perilous of all modes of fiction. If the supposed author puts himself in the foreground, he becomes egotistical and insufferable; if he puts himself in the background, he becomes insignificant, a mere Chinese “property-man” in the drama. This dilemma Thackeray avoids by letting Esmond tell his own story in the third person—that is to say, with a certain detachment of view, such as a sensible person would feel in looking back on his own life. Rarely is this historic method of narration broken. I recall one instance, in the last chapter, where Beatrix, after that tremendous scene in the house of Castlewood with the Prince, reveals her true nature and quits the room in a rage. The supposed author writes: “Her keen words gave no wound to Mr. Esmond; his heart was too hard. As he looked at her, he wondered that he could ever have loved her.... The Prince blushed and bowed low, as she gazed at him and quitted the chamber. _I have never seen her from that day._” Thackeray made this slip on purpose. He wanted us to feel the reality of the man who is trying to tell his own story in the third person.