"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