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

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 "Ben Hur" ought to satisfy two different types of readers. And this is the place, doubtless, to say that in my lists will be found books of widely differing merit and aim. School teachers, and others in like capacity, will easily discriminate between authors suitable for juvenile or untrained tastes, and authors whose appeal is specially to those of maturer thought and experience. Differing as much in method and style as in choice of period and character type, Thackeray's "Vanity Fair" and George Eliot's "Romola" have at least this in common--they require a very high degree of intelligence for their