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.
Pages:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39