The best history is but like the art of Rembrandt it casts a vivid light on certain selected causes, on those which were best and greatest it leaves all the rest in shadow and unseen.

Bagehot likens historical writing to Rembrandt’s chiaroscuro: a strong beam of illumination falls on a few chosen figures while much of the scene recedes into darkness. The comparison suggests that even the “best” history is necessarily selective, shaped by an author’s judgment about which causes matter most and by the limits of evidence and narrative. The vividness and coherence of a historical account often come from this act of emphasis—highlighting decisive forces, personalities, or turning points—yet that same emphasis implies omission. The quote is thus both a defense of interpretive history (history as artful explanation) and a warning against mistaking a well-lit narrative for the whole of the past.