A Guide to the Best Historical Novels and Tales
J >>
Jonathan Nield >> A Guide to the Best Historical Novels and Tales
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 This etext was prepared by Donald Lainson, charlie@idirect.com
A Guide to the Best Historical Novels and Tales
by Jonathan Nield
"These historical novels have taught all men this truth, which
looks like a truism, and yet was as good as unknown to writers
of history and others, till so taught: that the bygone ages of
the world were actually filled by living men, not by protocols,
state-papers, controversies, and abstractions of men."
--Carlyle on the Waverley novels.
Contents
Introduction
Pre-Christian Era
First Century
Second Century
Third Century
Fourth Century
Fifth Century
Sixth Century
Seventh Century
Eighth Century
Ninth Century
Tenth Century
Eleventh Century
Twelfth Century
Thirteenth Century
Fourteenth Century
Fifteenth Century
Sixteenth Century
Seventeenth Century
Eighteenth Century
Nineteenth Century
Supplementary List (Semi-Historical)
Suggested Courses of Reading (Juvenile)
Bibliography
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.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6