There exists, I am suggesting, between the conscientious author of historical novels and the conscientious historian the same difference that exists between a composer on the one hand and a researcher into the problems of acoustics. Asking the author of historical novels to teach you about history is like expecting the composer of a melody to provide answers about radio transmission. Indeed, I have often altered evidence which I knew to be documented if it appeared to interfere with my intended effect. Contrary to the scientist, the author of historical novels has the right to choose a lie that enhances illusion over a reality that distracts from it. It is not difficult to demonstrate that Homer, the authors of the Bible, Shakespeare, and countless other writers of historical works down to the present day have been surprisingly bold and cavalier in their handling of documented reality.
Success proves their case.
That contemporary of the Maccabees who made up the story of Queen Esther has had a greater influence in the long run than the historians who chronicled the facts of the rebuilding of the Jewish national state. For most people even today , the imaginary figure of Haman is a much more vital and viable enemy of this same national state than the real King Antiochus who provided the historical model. Perhaps 500 persons apart from myself know that the prototype of Landvogt Gessler was a certain feudal official by the name of Peter von Hagenbach, a discovery that has not yielded anyone any benefits besides the ten pounds Sterling I received for writing the article in which I revealed this discovery of mine. Everyone, however, knows the imaginary figure of William Tell, whose familiarity has had all sorts of tangible consequences. In most cases, a good legend or a good historical novel is more believable, gives a truer picture, is livelier and more suggestive than a precise rendering of historical facts.