But, as usual with Thackeray, you must not look to the hero and heroine too exclusively, even when there is such a heroine as this. For is there not here another heroine—cause of the dubieties of the _Doctor Fidelis_ as above cited? As to that it may perhaps be pointed out to the extreme sentimentalists that, after all, Harry had been in love with the mother, as well as with the daughter, all along. If they consider this an aggravation, it cannot be helped: but, except from the extreme point of view of Miss Marianne Dashwood in her earlier stage, it ought rather to be considered a palliative. And if they say further that the thing is made worse still by the fact that Harry was himself Rachel’s _second_ love, and that she did not exactly wait to be a widow before she fell in love with him—why, there is, again, nothing for it but to confess that it is very shocking—and excessively human. Indeed, the fact is that Rachel is as human as Beatrix, though in a different way. You may not only _love_ her less, but—in a different sense of contrast from that of the Roman poet—_like_ her a little less. But you cannot, if you have any knowledge of human nature, call her unnatural. And really I do not know that the third lady of the family, Isabel Marchioness of Esmond, though there is less written about her, is not as real and almost as wonderful as the other two. She is not so fairly treated, however, poor thing! for we have her Bernstein period without her Beatrix one. As for my Lords Castlewood—Thomas, and Francis _père et fils_—their creator has not taken so much trouble with them; but they are never “out”. The least of a piece, I think, is Rachel’s too fortunate or too unfortunate husband. The people who regard Ibsen’s great triumph in the _Doll’s House_ as consisting in the conduct of the husband as to the incriminating documents, ought to admire Thackeray’s management of the temporary loss of Rachel’s beauty. They are certainly both touches of the baser side of human nature ingeniously worked in. But the question is, What, in this wonderful book, is _not_ ingeniously worked in—character or incident, description or speech?