FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30  
31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   >>   >|  
ter 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 _pere 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? If the champions of "Unity" were wise, they would take _Esmond_ as a battle-horse, for it is certain that, great as are its parts, the whole is greater than almost any one of them--which is certainly not the case with _Pendennis_. And it is further certain that, of these parts, the personages of the hero and the heroine stand out commandingly, which is certainly not the case with _Pendennis_, again. The unity, however, is of a peculiar kind: and differs from the ordinary non-classical "Unity of Interest" which Thackeray almost invariably exhibits. It is rather a Unity of _Temper_, which is also present (as
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30  
31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Rachel

 
Thackeray
 

nature

 
worked
 

Beatrix

 

ingeniously

 
Esmond
 

wonderful

 

husband

 

Pendennis


regard

 
people
 

differs

 

conduct

 

incriminating

 

documents

 

consisting

 
triumph
 

unfortunate

 

peculiar


present

 

trouble

 

commandingly

 

fortunate

 

personages

 
heroine
 
battle
 

admire

 
question
 

exhibits


greater
 

character

 

speech

 

champions

 
description
 

incident

 

invariably

 

classical

 
ordinary
 

temporary


Interest

 
management
 

touches

 

Temper

 

beauty

 
creator
 

written

 
confess
 

shocking

 

excessively