INTRODUCTION.
It is not proposed, in these preliminary remarks, to sketch in detail the origin and growth of the Historical Novel; this has already been amply done by Professor Saintsbury and others. I shall be content to approach the subject on its general side, offering, at the same time, some critical suggestions which will, I hope, not be without value to readers of Romance.
But, first of all, I must explain how the List which follows came to be compiled, and the object I have in offering it. For many years I have been an assiduous reader of novels and tales in which the historical element appeared, supplementing my own reading in this direction by a careful study of all that I could find in the way of Criticism on such works and their writers. Only in this way could I venture on a selection involving a survey of several thousand volumes! With the above understanding, I can say that no book has been inserted without some reason, while I have made all possible effort to obtain accuracy of description. And this leads me to remark, that just in this process of selection do I claim originality for my List. Nearly twenty years ago an excellent "Descriptive Catalogue of Historical Novels and Tales" was published; Mr. H. Courthope Bowen was the compiler,* and I would here mention my indebtedness to him. In Mr. Bowen's list, however, one finds good and bad alike—all the works of even such moderately endowed writers as G. P. R. James, Ainsworth, Grant, etc., are there set down. It seemed to me that, not only was there room for a new list of Historical Novels (Stevenson, Marion Crawford, Conan Doyle, Weyman, Mason, and a number of more or less capable romancists having come forward in the last twenty years), but, also, that more than ever was there a need for some sort of clue in the search for such books. In the last year or two there has been an almost alarming influx in this department of Fiction, and teachers in schools, besides readers in general, may be glad to be saved a somewhat tedious investigation.
* "A Descriptive Catalogue of Historical Novels and Tales, for the use of School Libraries and Teachers of History," compiled and described by H. Courthope Bowen, M. A. (Edward Stanford, 1882.)
Having thus attempted to justify the existence of my little "Guide," I pass on to deal with the subject of Historical Fiction itself. Most of us, I suppose, at one time or another have experienced a thrill of interest when some prominent personage, whom we knew well by repute, came before us in the flesh. We watched his manner, and noted all those shades of expression which in another's countenance we should have passed by unheeded. Well, it seems to me that, parallel with this experience, is that which we gain, when, reading some first-rank romance, we encounter in its pages a figure with which History has made us more or less familiar. And I would remark that the great masters do not, as a rule, make that mistake which less skilful writers fall into—the mistake of introducing well-known historical figures too frequently. The Cromwell of "Woodstock" has an element of mystery about him, even while he stands out before 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 "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 due appreciation. Who, among those of us with any knowledge of such works, would dream of recommending them to a youthful reader fresh from the perusal of Miss Yonge's "Little Duke," or Captain Marryatt's "Children of the New Forest"?
Naturally in a list of this kind there is bound to be very great inequality; certain periods have been wholly ignored by writers of the first rank, while in others we have something like an embarras de richesse. Consequently, I have been compelled, here and there, to insert authors of only mediocre merit. In other cases, again, I have not hesitated to omit works by writers of acknowledged position when these have seemed below the author's usual standard, and where no gap had to be filled. I would instance the James II.- William III. period. Here Stanley Weyman and "Edna Lyall" might have been represented, but, there being no dearth of good novels dealing with both the above reigns, I did not deem it advisable to call in these popular writers at the point which has been very generally considered their lowest. I mention this to show that omissions do not necessarily mean ignorance, though, in covering such an immense ground, I cannot doubt that romances worthy of a place in my list have been overlooked.
I think many will be surprised to find how large a proportion of
our best writers (English and American) have entered the domain of
Historical or Semi-Historical Romance. Scott, Thackeray, Dickens,
George Eliot, Charlotte Bronte, George Meredith, R. L. Stevenson,
Hawthorne, Peacock, Charles Kingsley, Henry Kingsley, Charles
Reade, Anthony Trollope, Mrs. Gaskell, Walter Besant, Lytton,
Disraeli, J. H. Newman, J. A. Froude, and Walter Pater—these are a
few of the names which appear in the following pages; while
Tolstoy, Dumas, Balzac, George Sand, Victor Hugo, De Vigny, Prosper
Merimee, Flaubert, Theophile Gautier, Freytag, Scheffel, Hauff,
Auerbach, Manzoni, Perez Galdos, Merejkowski, Topelius,
Sienkiewicz, and Jokai are, perhaps, the chief amongst those
representing Literatures other than our own.
"The Last Days of Pompeii," "The Gladiators," "Hypatia," "Harold,"
"Ivanhoe," "The Talisman," "Maid Marian," "The Last of the Barons,"
"Quentin Durward," "Romola," "The Cloister and the Hearth," "The
Palace of the King," "Westward Ho!", "Kenilworth," "The Chaplet of
Pearls," "A Gentleman of France," "John Inglesant," "The Three
Musketeers," "Twenty Years After," "Woodstock," "Peveril of the
Peak," "Old Mortality," " The Betrothed Lovers" ("I Promessi
Sposi"), "Lorna Doone," "The Refugees," "In the Golden Days," "The
Courtship of Morice Buckler," "Dorothy Forster," "The Men of the
Moss Hags," "Esmond," "The Virginians," "Heart of Midlothian,"
"Waverley," "The Master of Ballantrae," "Kidnapped," "Catriona,"
"The Chaplain of the Fleet," "The Seats of the Mighty," "Barnaby
Rudge," "A Tale of Two Cities," "War and Peace"—what visions do
these mere titles arouse within many of us! And, though most of
the books given in my list cannot be described in the same glowing
terms as the masterpieces just named, yet many "nests of pleasant
thoughts" may be formed through their companionship.
Hitherto allusion has been mainly in the direction of modern authors, and I would now say a word or two in regard to those of an earlier period who are also represented. Defoe, Fielding, Richardson, Goldsmith, Smollett, Frances Burney, Samuel Lover, John Galt, Maria Edgeworth, Susan Ferrier, William Godwin, Mary Shelley, Fennimore Cooper, J. G. Lockhart, Leigh Hunt, Thos. Moore, Harriet Martineau, J. L. Motley, Horace Smith, Charles Lever, Meadows Taylor, and Wm. Carleton,—these (in greater or less degree) notable names were bound to have a place; and, coming to less distinguished writers, I may mention the brothers Banim, Gerald Griffin, Mrs. S. C. Hall, Lady Morgan, the sisters Porter, W. G. Simms, George Croly, Albert Smith, G. R. Gleig, W. H. Maxwell, Sir Arthur Helps, Eliot Warburton, Lewis Wingfield, Thomas Miller, C. Macfarlane, Grace Aguilar, Anne Manning, and Emma Robinson (author of "Whitefriars"). To G. P. R. James, Harrison Ainsworth, and James Grant I have previously alluded. It has been my endeavour to choose the best examples of all the above-named novelists—a task rendered specially difficult in some cases by the fact of immense literary output. Doubtless not a few of the works so chosen are open to criticism, but they will at least serve to illustrate certain stages in the growth of Historical Romance. With the exclusion of Mrs. Radcliffe, Mrs. Marsh, Mrs. Gore, Lady Blessington, Lady Fullerton, Mrs. Bray, and Mrs. Child, few will, I imagine, find fault; but writers like Miss Tucker (A. L. O. E.) and Miss Emily Holt still find so many readers in juvenile quarters, that it has required a certain amount of courage to place them also on my Index Expurgatorius! Turning once again to writers of the sterner sex, I have ruled out C. R. Maturin, G. W. M. Reynolds, and Pierce Egan, Junr.; and (quitting the "sensational" for the "mildly entertaining") out of the Rev. J. M. Neale's many historical tales I have selected only one—"Theodora Phranza," which, besides being well written, has the merit of dealing with a somewhat neglected period. Stories possessing a background of History are to be found in "Tales from Blackwood," as also in "Wilson's Tales of the Borders," but their extremely slight character seemed scarcely to justify insertion; while not even the high literary position attained by him on other grounds reconciled me to either of Allan Cunningham's novels—"Sir Michael Scott" and "Paul Jones."
Of the Foreign novelists appearing in my list, several have been already named, but Marchese D'Azeglio, F. D. Guerrazzi, Cesare Cantu, "W. Alexis" (G. Haring), H. Laube, Louise Mulbach (Klara M. Mundt), Nicolas Josika, Viktor Rydberg, Hendrik Conscience, Xavier B. Saintine, Amedee Achard, and "Erckmann-Chatrian" here call for notice as not coming under strictly Contemporary classification. I would forestall the criticism that two writers have been passed over whose fame is greater than any of those just mentioned, viz.: "Stendhal" (Henri Beyle) and Alphonse Daudet. Beyle's "La Chartreuse de Parme," though containing the oft-praised account of Waterloo, is far more Psychological than Historical; and Daudet's "Robert Helmont," while it depicts (under Diary form) certain aspects of the Franco-German War, has hardly any plot running through it. As the Waterloo and Franco-German War periods were amply illustrated in numerous other novels of more assured suitability, I had the less hesitation in deciding against the two works just named. In the selections from Foreign Historical Fiction nothing more has been attempted than to include the leading examples; most of these, it will be found, have been translated into English.
Before leaving the subject of older writers, it may be mentioned that not a few of the works chosen to represent them are, at the moment, out of print. To anyone objecting that something ought to have been done to indicate this in each separate case, I would urge that the "out of print" line can never be drawn with precision in view of constant reprints as well as of further extinctions.
Perhaps this introduction may be most fitly concluded by something in the nature of apology for Historical Romance itself. Not only has fault been found with the deficiencies of unskilled authors in that department, but the question has been asked by one or two critics of standing—What right has the Historical Novel to exist at all? More often than not, it is pointed out, the Romancist gives us a mass of inaccuracies, which, while they mislead the ignorant (i.e., the majority?), are an unpardonable offence to the historically-minded reader. Moreover, the writer of such Fiction, though he be a Thackeray or a Scott, cannot surmount barriers which are not merely hard to scale, but absolutely impassable. The spirit of a period is like the selfhood of a human being—something that cannot be handed on; try as we may, it is impossible for us to breathe the atmosphere of a bygone time, since all those thousand- and-one details which went to the building up of both individual and general experience, can never be reproduced. We consider (say) the Eighteenth Century from the purely Historical standpoint, and, while we do so, are under no delusion as to our limitations; we know that a few of the leading personages and events have been brought before us in a more or less disjointed fashion, and are perfectly aware that there is room for much discrepancy between the pictures so presented to us (be it with immense skill) and the actual facts as they took place in such and such a year. But, goes on the objector, in the case of a Historical Romance we allow ourselves to be hoodwinked, for, under the influence of a pseudo- historic security, we seem to watch the real sequence of events in so far as these affect the characters in whom we are interested. How we seem to live in those early years of the Eighteenth Century, as we follow Henry Esmond from point to point, and yet, in truth, we are breathing not the atmosphere of Addison and Steele, but the atmosphere created by the brilliant Nineteenth Century Novelist, partly out of his erudite conception of a former period, and partly out of the emotions and thoughts engendered by that very environment which was his own, and from which he could not escape!
Well, to all such criticisms it seems to me there are ample rejoinders. In the first place it must be remembered that History itself possesses interest for us more as the unfolding of certain moral and mental developments than as the mere enumeration of facts. Of course, I am aware that the ideal of the Historian is Truth utterly regardless of prejudice and inclination, but, as with all other human ideals, this one is never fully realised, and there is ever that discrepancy between Fact and its Narration to which I just now alluded. This being so, I would ask—Is not the writer of Fiction justified in emphasising those elements of History which have a bearing on life and character in general? There is, doubtless, a wise and an unwise method of procedure. One novelist, in the very effort to be accurate, produces a work which—being neither History nor Fiction—is simply dull; while another, who has gauged the true relation between fact and imagination, knows better than to bring into prominence that which should remain only as a background. After all, there are certain root motives and principles which, though they vary indefinitely in their application, underlie Human Conduct, and are common to all ages alike. Given a fairly accurate knowledge as regards the general history of any period, combined with some investigation into its special manners and customs, there is no reason why a truly imaginative novelist should not produce a work at once satisfying to romantic and historical instincts.
Again, if it be true that the novelist cannot reproduce the far past in any strict sense, it is also true that neither can he so reproduce the life and events of yesterday. That power of imaginative memory, which all exercise in daily experience, may be held in very different degrees, but its enjoyment is not dependent on accuracy of representation—for, were this so, none of us would possess it. In an analogous manner the writer of Romance may be more or less adequately equipped on the side of History pure and simple, but he need not wait for that which will never come—the power of reproducing in toto a past age. If, in reading what purports to be no more than a Novel, the struggle between Christianity and Paganism (for example), or the unbounded egotism of Napoleon, be brought more vividly before our minds—and this may be done by suggestion as well as by exact relation, then, I would maintain, we are to some extent educated historically, using the word in a large though perfectly legitimate sense.
I recently read a work which here presents itself as admirably illustrating my meaning. In her too little known "Adventures of a Goldsmith" Miss M. H. Bourchier has contrived to bring forcibly before us the period when Napoleon, fast approaching the zenith of his power, was known in France as the "First Consul." The "man of destiny" himself—appearing on the scene for little more than a brief moment—can in no sense be described as one of the book's characters, and yet the whole plot is so skilfully contrived as to hinge on his personality. We are made to feel the dominating influence of that powerful will upon the fears and hopes of a time brimming over with revolutionary movement. Whether the Chouan revolt is in this particular story accurately depicted for us in all its phases, or whether the motives which impelled certain public characters are therein interpreted aright—both in regard to these and other points there may be room for doubt, but at least the general forces of the period are placed before us in such a way as to drive home the conviction that, be the historical inaccuracies of detail what they may in the eyes of this or that specialist, the picture as a whole is one which, while it rivets our attention as lovers of romance, does no injury to the strictest Historic sense.
I know well that numerous novels might be cited which, besides abounding in anachronisms, are harmful in that they present us with a misleading conception of some personality or period; moreover, I acknowledge that this defect is by no means confined to romances of an inferior literary order. That Cromwell has been unreasonably vilified, and Mary Queen of Scots misconceived as a saintly martyr— how often are these charges brought against not a few of our leading exponents of Historical Fiction. Let this be fully granted, it remains to ask—To whom were our novelists originally indebted for these misconceptions? Were not the historians of an earlier generation responsible for these wrong judgments? True, the real Science of History—the sifting of evidence, and the discovery and unravelling of ancient documents—may be described as an essentially modern attainment, so it would be unreasonable to blame our older historians for errors which it was largely, if not wholly, beyond their power to overcome. And it is just here that I would emphasise my defence of the Romancist. If Historians themselves have differed (and still differ)! may it not be pleaded on behalf of the Historical Novelist that he also must be judged according to the possibilities of his time? For, while he may have too readily adopted false conceptions in the past, there is no necessity why, in the future, he also—profiting by the growth of Critical investigation—should not have due regard, in the working out of his Historical background, for all the latest "results." And, I would further add, even though it be true that Scott and others have misled us in certain directions, this does not prevent our acknowledgment that, given their aspect of a particular period, it was only fitting that the scheme of their novels should be in harmony with it. If "Bloody Mary" was a cruel hypocrite, then our reading of her period will be influenced by that real (or supposed) fact; but, if further investigation reverses this severe judgment on the woman herself, then, in Heaven's name, let us mould our general conception afresh. The fountains of Romance show no sign of running dry, and, though we may look in vain at the moment for a genius of the very highest type, the Future has possibilities within it which the greatest literary pessimist among us cannot wholly deny. If, then, fault can be found with the older Romancists for the spreading here and there of false historical notions, let us look to future workers in the same sphere for adjustment. I believe, however, that one notable critic has pronounced the mischief already done to be quite irreparable, seeing that the only "History" at all widely spread is that derived from those very romances in which errors are so interwoven with the sentimental interest of the plot itself that readers inevitably "hug their delusions!" But I think that this danger need not be contemplated seriously. The Historical Novel exists primarily as Fiction, and, even though in our waking moments we may be persuaded of the unreality of that "dream" which a Scott or a Dumas has produced for us, we shall still be able to place ourselves again and again under the spell of their delightful influence. Moreover, while admitting Dumas' carelessness of exact detail, it would hardly be contended by the most sceptical that his works (still less those of Scott) are without any background of Historic suggestiveness. Scott, indeed, shows signs of having possessed something of that "detachment" which is one important qualification in the Historian proper; there is a fairness and prevision in his historical judgments which we look for in vain when reading the works of his contemporaries.
And, having thus touched on what I believe to be the true relation between Romance and History, I may note, as a last word, the use of the Historical Tale to those who have the training of young folk. That "desire to know," which is an essential for all true learning, is sometimes best fostered by methods outside the ordinary School routine. Thus, as regards History, where the text-book fails in arousing interest, the tale may succeed, and, once the spirit of inquiry has been stimulated, half the battle is gained. In saying this I am far from wishing to imply that the reading of romances can ever take the place of genuine historical study. I know well that such a book as Green's "Short History of the English People" may prove to some more fascinating than any novel. There are, however, cases in which recourse may be had to a high-class work of fiction for the attainment of a truer historic sense; while, taken only as supplement to more strictly Academic reading, such a work may prove to have its uses. Considerable discrimination is required—as I have already hinted—in the choice of suitable books, and, as a help in this direction, I have made out (vide "Suggested courses of Reading" at the end of this volume) two special lists for Boys and Girls respectively, which will, I trust, be found useful. If, besides being of help to teachers, my recommendations should lead in any degree to further appreciation of the great masters of Romance, the labour (by no means inconsiderable) expended on this little compilation will be amply rewarded.
J. N.
January, 1902.
NOTE—the order in which the books are placed is, on the whole, according to the periods dealt with; occasionally the grouping decided on has prevented absolute correctness in this respect.