Again, any attempt to recapture the past is limited and inadequate if it keeps a reader conscious of the fact that he is a modern creature, looking at a distant world and comparing it with his own. It is not enough to recover the facts of the lives that men lived long-ago and to trace out the thread of event; we must recover the adventure of their lives; and the whole fun and adventure of their lives, as of ours, hung on the fact that at any given moment they could not see ahead, and did not know what was coming. To the men of 1807 the year 1808 was a mystery and an unexplored tract; they saw a hundred possibilities in it where the modern reader only sees the one thing that actually happened; they never knew what surprise awaited them at the next turn in the road; and therefore, to study the year 1807 remembering all the time what happened in 1808 and in the succeeding trail of years, is to miss the adventure and the great uncertainties and the element of gamble in their lives. It is not enough to know that Napoleon won a certain battle; if history is to come back to us as a human thing we must see him on the eve of battle eagerly looking to see which way the dice will fall, with fears and hesitations perhaps, with a sense of all the things that may happen in spite of all his calculations, and with an uncertainty before all the range of possible things that may upset his plans. The victory that is achieved on one day must not be regarded as being inevitable the night before; and where we cannot help seeing the certainty of a desired issue, the men of the time were all suspense, and full of wonderings. History does not always give us things like these, for they are irrecoverable personal things; but we know they existed. They are the things that make life an experience. And they are the very touches that are needed to turn history into a story. These things are what are meant, then, when it is affirmed that the history that Romanticism in all of us demands must be at once a picture and story. And it is in this way that the history-book which belongs to the “literature of knowledge” is transformed into the “literature of power.” In the opening chapter of _Ivanhoe_ there is a piece of writing that illustrates the difference between the historian and the historical novelist in the use that they make of the same historical material. In the introductory part of that chapter Scott recapitulates, “for the information of the general reader,” the conditions of the age with which he is dealing, describing them in general terms as a historian would.