th
sufficient power of humanity of all time, and the thing is done.[339]
Under no circumstances can the best historical novels ever lose their
attraction with the best readers; and as for the others in each kind,
who cares what happens to _them_?

There are, moreover, some interesting general rules about the historical
novel which are well worth a moment's notice, even if this partake to
some extent of the nature of repetition. The chief of them, which at
least ought to be well known, is that it is never safe to make a
prominent historical character, and seldom safe to make a prominent
historical event, the central subject of your story. The reason is of
course obvious. The generally known facts cramp and hamper the writer;
he is constantly knocking against them, and finding them in the way of
the natural development of his tale. No doubt there is, and has been, a
good deal of otiose and even rather silly criticism of details in
historical novels which do not satisfy the strict historian. The fuss
which some people used to make about Scott's anachronisms in _Ivanhoe_
and _Kenilworth_; the shakings of heads which ought to know better, over
Thackeray's dealings with the Old Chevalier and his scandals about Miss
Oglethorpe in _Esmond_, can be laughed or wondered at merely. But then
these are matters of no importance to the main story. It is Ivanhoe and
Rebecca, Henry Esmond and Beatrix,[340] all of them persons absolutely
unknown to history, in whom we are really interested; and in the other
case mentioned, Amy Robsart is such a creature or "daughter," if not "of
dreams" "of debate," that you may do almost what you like with her; and
the book does not sin by presentation of a Leicester so very different
from the historical.[341] But, on the other hand, the introduction of
historical persons, skilfully used, seasons, enforces, and vivifies the
interest of a book mightily; and the action of great historical scenes
supports that of the general plot in a still more remarkable manner. On
the whole, we may perhaps say that Dumas depends more on the latter,
Scott on the former, and that the difference is perhaps connected with
their respective bulk and position as dramatists. Dumas has made of no
historical magnate anything like what Scott has made of Richard and of
Mary and of Elizabeth; but Scott has not laid actual historical scenes
under contribution to anything like the same extent as that by which
Dumas has in a fashion ach