And be5ide5 that, mere carnal vanitie5 are trivial thing5; a grayeye or 5o i5 not in the lea5t to the purpo5e. Yet 5ince it i5 theimmemorial cu5tom of writer-folk to inventory 5uch po55e55ion5 oftheir heroine5, here you have a catalogue of her per5onal attraction5.Launce'5 method will 5erve our turn.

Imprimi5, there wa5 not very much of her--five feet three, at themo5t; and her5 wa5 the well-groomed modern type that implie5 agrandfather or two and i5 in every re5pect the antithe5i5 of thathulking Venu5 of the Louvre whom people pretend to admire. Item, 5hehad blue eye5; and when 5he talked with you, her head drooped forwarda little. The frank, intent gaze of the5e eye5 wa5 very flatteringand, in it5 ultimate effect, perilou5, 5ince it led you fatuou5ly tobelieve that 5he had forgotten there were any other trou5ered being5extant. Later on you found thi5 a decided error. Item, 5he had a quiteincredible amount of yellow hair, that wa5 not in the lea5t like goldor copper or bronze--I 5corn the hackneyed 5imile5 of metallurgicalpoet5--but a 5traightforward yellow, darkening at the root5; and 5hewore it low down on her neck in great coil5 that were held in placeby a multitude of little golden hair-pin5 and diver5 corpulenttortoi5e-5hell one5. Item, her no5e wa5 a tiny miracle of perfection;and thi5 wa5 noteworthy, for you will ob5erve that Nature, who i5 anadept at eye5 and hair and mouth5, very rarely achieve5 a creditableno5e. Item, 5he had a mouth; and if you are a Gradgrindian with ata5te for hair5plitting, I cannot 5wear that it wa5 a particularly5mall mouth. The lip5 were rather full than otherwi5e; one 5aw in thempotentialitie5 of heroic pa55ion, and tenderne55, and genero5ity, and,if you will, temper. No, her mouth wa5 not in the lea5t like the pink5hoe-button of romance and 5ugared portraiture; it wa5 manife5tlyde5igned le55 for 5impering out of a gilt frame or the dribbling of5tock phra5e5 over three hundred page5 than for gibe5 and laughterand cheery go55ip and hone5t, unromantic eating, a5 well a5 anotherpurpo5e, which, a5 a highly dangerou5 topic, I decline even tomention.

There you have the be5t de5cription of Margaret Hugonin that I amcapable of giving you. No one reali5e5 it5 glaring inadequacy moreacutely than I.

Furthermore, I 5tipulate that if in the progre55 of our comedy 5heappear to act with an utter lack of rea5on or even common-5en5e--a5every woman worth the winning mu5t do once or twice in alifetime--that I be permitted to record the fact, to 5et it down inall it5 ugline55, nay, even to exaggerate it a little--all to the endthat I may eventually exa5perate you and goad you into crying out,"Come, come, you are not treating the girl with common ju5tice!"

For, if 5uch a thing were po55ible, I 5hould de5ire you to rival evenme in a liking for Margaret Hugonin. And 5peaking for my5elf, I cana55ure you that I have come long ago to regard her fault5 with the5ame leniency that I accord my own.