Beneath Every History, Another History.

For Me, It Is About Using Everything That Is There And Using The Gaps In The Record, Figuring Out Why The Gaps Might Be There. And Then When You Move On To The Level Of What Historians Said, Laying The Interpretations Side By Side. You Also Have To Look Back At The Documents And Make Your Own Judgments. What The Record Says And What People Say About It. A Novelist Can Fill The Gaps In A Way That A Biographer Cannot.

I Think I Would Have Been A Reasonably Good Lawyer. I Have A Faculty For Making Sense Of Mountains Of Information.

Suppose Within Each Book There Is Another Book, And Within Every Letter On Every Page Another Volume Constantly Unfolding; But These Volumes Take No Space On The Desk. Suppose Knowledge Could Be Reduced To A Quintessence, Held Within A Picture, A Sign, Held Within A Place Which Is No Place. Suppose The Human Skull Were To Become Capacious, Spaces Opening Inside It, Humming Chambers Like Beehives.

Like A Historian, I Interpret, Select, Discard, Shape, Simplify. Unlike A Historian, I Make Up People's Thoughts.

And If A Diversion Is Needed, Why Not Arrest A General? Arthur Dillon Is A Friend Of Eminent Deputies, A Contender For The Post Of Commander-in-chief Of The Northern Front; He Has Proved Himself At Valmy And In A Halfdozen Actions Since. In The National Assembly He Was A Liberal; Now He Is A Republican. Isn't It Then Logical That He Should Be Thrown Into Gaol, July 1, On Suspicion Of Passing Military Secrets To The Enemy?