It places him well above Dickens, and, in the opinion of the present writer, it places him above even Balzac.
But there are points wherein, according to that same opinion, he approaches much nearer to Balzac and Dickens than to the other and greater artistic creators: while in one of these points he stands aloof even from these two, and occupies a position--not altogether to his advantage--altogether by himself in his class of artistic creation.

All the six from Thackeray to Shakespeare--one might even go farther back and, taking a more paradoxical example, add Rabelais--are, even in extravaganza, in parody, in what you please, at once pre-eminently and _prima facie_ natural and human.

To every competent human judgment, as soon as it is out of its nonage, and barring individual disqualifications of property or accident, this human nature attests itself.

You may dislike some of its manifestations; you may decline or fail to understand others; but there it is, and there it is _first_.

In Balzac and Dickens and Mr.Meredith it is not first.