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