A Guide to the Best Historical Novels and Tales | Page 4

our mental vision in bold
relief. Had Scott brought him more prominently into the plot, and thus
emphasized the fictional aspect of his figure, our interest in the story, as
such, might have been sustained, but we should have lost that
atmosphere of vraisemblance which, under a more careful reserve, the
hand of the master has wrought for us.
But it is not only this introduction of personalities which constitutes a
novel "historical"; the mere allusion to real events, or the introduction
of dates, may give us sufficient ground for identifying the period with
which a novel deals. Of course the question as to whether a particular
person or event is truly historical, is not always an easy one to answer.
By the adaptation in it of some purely mythical character or event, a
novel is no more constituted "historical" than is a Fairy-tale by the

adaptation of folklore. King Arthur and Robin Hood are unhistorical,
and, if I have ventured to insert in my list certain tales which deal with
the latter, it is not on that account, but because other figures truly
historical (e.g., Richard I.) appear. As there has been some dispute on
this question of the Historical Novel proper, I offer the following
definition:--A Novel is rendered Historical by the introduction of dates,
personages, or events, to which identification can be readily given. I am
quite aware that certain well-known novels which give the general
atmosphere of a period--such, for example, as Hawthorne's "Scarlet
Letter" and Mr. Hewlett's "Forest Lovers"--do not come within the
scope of my definition; but this is just why I have added a
"Supplementary List" of semi-historical tales. And, while I am alluding
to this "Supplementary List," I should like to give my reason for
omitting from it one remarkable book which has every claim to be
considered representative of the mid-nineteenth century. Readers of
"John Inglesant" may be reminded that in his interesting preface Mr.
Shorthouse alludes to William Smith's philosophical
novel--"Thorndale." As a picture of Thought developments in the early
Victorian period, the latter work has special historical interest for the
philosophical and theological student; in this respect it may be likened
to Pater's "Marius the Epicurean," which vividly reproduces the
Intellectual ferment of an earlier age. "Thorndale," however, is
primarily didactic, and the philosophical dialogues (interesting as these
are to the metaphysician) hardly atone to the general reader for an
almost entire absence of plot. The above is, doubtless, an altogether
extreme instance, but the exclusion of several other works from the
category of Romance seems to follow on something like the same
grounds. Becker's "Charicles" and "Gallus" are little more than school
textbooks, while, turning to a less scholarly quarter, Ainsworth's
"Preston Fight," and even his better-known "Guy Fawkes," may be
cited as illustrating what Mr. Shorthouse means when he speaks of
novels "in which a small amount of fiction has been introduced simply
for the purpose of relating History." In all such cases the average
novel-reader feels that he has been allured on false pretences. I am well
aware that not a few of the books included in my List might be
considered to fall under the same ban, but I think it will be found that in
most of them there is at least a fair attempt to arouse narrative interest.

Coming to the List itself, it will be noticed that I have been somewhat
sparing in the books given under the "Pre-Christian" heading. Novels
dealing with these very far-off times are apt to be unsatisfactory; the
mist in which events and personages are enveloped, takes away from
that appearance of reality which is the great charm of the historical
novel. We are hardly concerned, in reading "Sarchedon" and similar
books, to get away from the purely imaginary pictures which spring
from the Novelist's own brain, and the danger is that the very elements
which add to our interest in the tale as such, will go far to mislead us in
our conception of the period dealt with. There is none of that sense of
familiarity which we enjoy when reading a sixteenth or seventeenth
century romance; in the latter case, the historical background, being
easily perceptible, merges for us with the creations of the author's own
imagination. Where the writer of an "ancient" romance happens to be a
scholar like Ebers, we feel that--so far at least as historical presentment
goes--we cannot be far wrong, but the combination of great scholarship
and narrative capacity is, alas, too rare!
I have likewise refrained from giving many tales dealing with
Early-Christian times. We are here, it must be admitted, on
controversial ground, and under the First Century heading I have
endeavoured to insert romances of the highest quality only. For
instance, I think that Dr. Abbott's "Philochristus" and Wallace's