it is very easy, of course, to smile at such schoolboy fiction as the novels of mr. henty, in which the same very english and modern young gentleman from rugby or harrow turns up again and again as a young greek, a young carthaginian, a young scandinavian, a young gaul, a young visigoth, a young ancient briton, and almost everything short of a young negro. but mr. henty had the merits of his industry and fecundity; and one of them was that he did take a boy’s imagination into many and varied parts of human history, however conventional the figure he followed through them might be. the english boy will not find out as much about the soul of carthage from the young carthaginian as a lover of letters may from salammb?; but at least he will know that carthage was conquered—and that is (for various reasons) a good thing for english people to know. and since the henty period our historical novels have fallen with terrible sameness into two or three grooves. we might almost say that a man is not allowed to write an historical novel except about four different historical periods, about six different historical characters; and even about them he is not allowed to take any view except that taken by the other romances on the same subject. now, considering the countless millions of marvellous, amusing, unique, and picturesque things that have thronged on top of each other through all our wonderful three thousand years of european history, this state of affairs is as byzantine and benighted as if no landscape painter ever painted anything but a larch tree, or as if none of our sculptors could model anything except the left leg.

you may write a novel about the time of henry of navarre—in fact, it might almost be said that you must write a novel about the time of henry of navarre. if you go in for writing historical novels at all, somebody—the publisher or the office-boy—makes you do this. in this novel, huguenots must be gallant gentlemen, with a touch of bluffness; catholics must also be gallant gentlemen, with a touch of slyness. all important political questions must be settled by duels fought with long rapiers at wayside inns. you must stick to one side of the quarrel; but even in that you must not bring any of the charges that a person of the period might really have brought. for instance, the court must be perpetually engaged in plotting to stab the bluff huguenot: but you must not insist that the huguenot was a puritan, and his objection to the court would largely be that it was a renaissance court. you must not, however delicately, bring in that presence of florid pagan sensuality and princely indecorum which we feel in brantome or the tales of the queen of navarre. the latins must stick to assassination. there must be no people to speak of in paris, though it was the people of paris who, for good or evil, changed the whole course of the history. men like sully may be introduced; but their talents must be entirely occupied in serving the prince in his personal love-affairs and in his duels in inns. above all, slap in the very middle of the wars of religion, nobody must seem to have any clear idea of what his own religion is about. you may also write a novel about the time of richelieu. but it must be governed by the same principles. richelieu must be a sinister yet magnanimous enemy of the hero. he must try to kill the hero, and unaccountably fail. at this stage of the writing of historical novels, it is important to be an imitator of dumas. there are critics who maintain that dumas was largely written by imitators of dumas. this is an exaggeration; but, at the worst, they were good imitators. there are chapters in the triple tale of the musketeers of which i can only say that, if anyone but he wrote them, he could hire hearts and heads as well as hands. but my warning to the young writer of entirely useless historical novels is this: he must not go outside france, or treat that country otherwise than as an insulated elfland. he must not carry off general monk in a box. think what a frightful mistake would have been made—from the english puritan point of view—if d’artagnan had carried off general cromwell by mistake! all this happened in the time of mazarin and not richelieu, but the principle will be found reliable. the principle is that neither richelieu nor anybody else should show the faintest interest in the future of france.

you may write a novel about the french revolution. you may do it on your head, as the jolly habitual criminals say. the essential principles of this sort of novel are: (1) that the populace of paris from 1790 to 1794 never had any meals, nor even sat down in a café. they stood about in the street all night and all day, sufficiently sustained by the sight of blood, especially blue blood. (2) all power during the terror was in the hands of the public executioner and of robespierre; and these persons were subject to abrupt changes of mind, and frequently redeemed their habit of killing people for no apparent reason by letting them off at the last moment, for no apparent reason either. (3) aristocrats are of two kinds—the very wicked and the entirely blameless; and both are invariably good-looking. both also appear rather to prefer being guillotined. (4) such things as the invasion of france, the idea of a republic, the influence of rousseau, the nearness of national bankruptcy, the work of carnot with the armies, the policy of pitt, the policy of austria, the ineradicable habit of protecting one’s property against foreigners, and the presence of persons carrying guns at the battle of valmy—all these things had nothing to do with the french revolution, and should be omitted.

now, considering the number of picturesque struggles there have been in the world, it seems to me that these subjects might be given a rest. there has been next to nothing written, for instance, about the other wars of religion, those that accompanied the construction of catholic europe, rather than its breaking up. there was the iconoclast invasion of italy, which ends with the entrance of charlemagne. there has been next to nothing written about riots other than the parisian; the many riots of edinburgh, especially of those few days when it was almost as dangerous to be a doctor as to be a mad dog. another advantage would be that, coming fresh to his historical problem, the writer might even read a little history.