Produced by Ted Garvin, Lynn Bornath, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net





[Transcriber's note: All footnotes have been gathered at
the end of the text.]


SIR WALTER SCOTT

AS A CRITIC OF LITERATURE


BY

MARGARET BALL, PH.D.



New York
THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
1907




Copyright, 1907
BY THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Printed from type November, 1907


PRESS OF
THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY
LANCASTER, PA.




PREFACE


The lack of any adequate discussion of Scott's critical work is a
sufficient reason for the undertaking of this study, the subject of
which was suggested to me more than three years ago by Professor Trent
of Columbia University. We still use critical essays and monumental
editions prepared by the author of the Waverley novels, but the
criticism has been so overshadowed by the romances that its importance
is scarcely recognized. It is valuable in itself, as well as in the
opportunity it offers of considering the relation of the critical to the
creative mood, an especially interesting problem when it is presented
concretely in the work of a great writer.

No complete bibliography of Scott's writings has been published, and
perhaps none is possible in the case of an author who wrote so much
anonymously. The present attempt includes some at least of the books and
articles commonly left unnoticed, which are chiefly of a critical or
scholarly character.

I am glad to record my gratitude to Professor William Allan Neilson, now
of Harvard University, and to Professors A.H. Thorndike, W.W. Lawrence,
G.P. Krapp, and J.E. Spingarn, of Columbia, for suggestions in
connection with various parts of the work. From the beginning Professor
Trent has helped me constantly by his advice as well as by the
inspiration of his scholarship, and my debt to him is one which can be
understood only by the many students who have known his kindness.

MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE,
June, 1907.




CONTENTS


CHAPTER I.

Introduction: An Outline of Scott's Literary Career                  1


CHAPTER II.

Scott's Qualifications as Critic                                     9


CHAPTER III.

Scott's Work as Student and Editor in the Field of Literary History

   1. The Mediaeval Period
       (a) Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border                        17
       (b) Studies in the Romances                                  32
       (c) Other Studies in Mediaeval Literature                    40

   2. The Drama                                                     46

   3. The Seventeenth Century: Dryden                               59

   4. The Eighteenth Century
       (a) Swift                                                    65
       (b) The Somers Tracts                                        70
       (c) The Lives of the Novelists, and Comments on other
           Eighteenth Century Writers                               72


CHAPTER IV.

Scott's Criticism of His Contemporaries                             81


CHAPTER V.

Scott as a Critic of His Own Work                                  108


CHAPTER VI.

Scott's Position as Critic                                         134


APPENDICES

I. Bibliography of Scott, Annotated                                147
II. List of Books Quoted                                           174
Index                                                              179




A DATED LIST OF SCOTT'S BOOKS, ASIDE FROM THE POEMS AND NOVELS, AND OF
THE PRINCIPAL WORKS WHICH HE EDITED (PERIODICAL CRITICISM NOT INCLUDED).


1802-3  Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border (edited).

1804    Sir Tristrem (edited).

1806    Original Memoirs written during the Great Civil War; the Life of
        Sir H. Slingsby, and Memoirs of Capt. Hodgson (edited).

1808    Memoirs of Capt. Carleton (edited).

1808    The Works of John Dryden (edited).

1808    Memoirs of Robert Carey, Earl of Monmouth, and Fragmenta Regalia
        (edited).

1808    Queenhoo Hall, a Romance; and Ancient Times, a Drama (edited).

1809    The State Papers and Letters of Sir Ralph Sadler (edited).

1809-15 The Somers Tracts (edited).

1811    Memoirs of the Court of Charles II, by Count Grammont (edited).

1811    Secret History of the Court of James the First (edited).

1813    Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles I, by Sir Philip Warwick
        (edited).

1814    The Works of Jonathan Swift (edited).

1814-17 The Border Antiquities of England and Scotland.

1816    Paul's Letters.

1818    Essay on Chivalry.

1819    Essay on the Drama.

1819-26 Provincial Antiquities and Picturesque Scenery of Scotland.

1820    Trivial Poems and Triolets by Patrick Carey (edited).

1821    Northern Memoirs, calculated for the Meridian of Scotland; and
        the Contemplative and Practical Angler (edited).

1821-24 The Novelists' Library (edited).

1822    Chronological Notes of Scottish Affairs from 1680 till 1701
        (edited).

1822    Military Memoirs of the Great Civil War (edited).

1824    Essay on Romance.

1826    Letters of Malachi Malagrowther on the Currency.

1827    The Life of Napoleon Buonaparte.

1828    Tales of a Grandfather, first series.

1828    Religious Discourses, by a Layman.

1828    Proceedings in the Court-martial held upon John, Master of
        Sinclair, etc. (edited).

1829    Memorials of George Bannatyne (edited).

1829    Tales of a Grandfather, second series.

1829-32 The "Opus Magnum" (Novels, Tales, and Romances, with
        Introductions and Notes by the Author).

1830    Tales of a Grandfather, third series.

1830    Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft.

1830    History of Scotland.

1831    Tales of a Grandfather, fourth series.

1831    Trial of Duncan Terig, etc. (edited).

       *       *       *       *       *

1890    The Journal of Sir Walter Scott.

1894    Familiar Letters of Sir Walter Scott.




CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

    Importance of a study of Scott's critical and scholarly
    work--Connection between his creative work and his
    criticism--Chronological view of his literary career.


Scott's critical work has become inconspicuous because of his
predominant fame as an imaginative writer; but what it loses on this
account it perhaps gains in the special interest attaching to criticism
formulated by a great creative artist. One phase of his work is
emphasized and explained by the other, and we cannot afford to ignore
his criticism if we attempt fairly to comprehend his genius as a poet
and novelist. The fact that he is the subject of one of the noblest
biographies in our language only increases our obligation to become
acquainted with his own presentation of his artistic principles.

But though criticism by so great and voluminous a writer is valuable
mainly because of the important relation it bears to his other work, and
because of the authority it derives from this relation, Scott's
scholarly and critical writings are individual enough in quality and
large enough in extent to demand consideration on their own merits. Yet
this part of his achievement has received very little attention from
biographers and critics. Lockhart's book is indeed full of materials,
and contains also some suggestive comment on the facts presented; but as
the passing of time has made an estimation of Scott's power more safe,
students have lost interest in his work as a critic, and recent writers
have devoted little attention to this aspect of the great man of
letters.[1]

The present study is an attempt to show the scope and quality of Scott's
critical writings, and of such works, not exclusively or mainly
critical, as exhibit the range of his scholarship. For it is impossible
to treat his criticism without discussing his scholarship; since,
lightly as he carried it, this was of consequence in itself and in its
influence on all that he did. The materials for analysis are abundant;
and by rearrangement and special study they may be made to contribute
both to the history of criticism and to our comprehension of the power
of a great writer. In considering him from this point of view we are
bound to remember the connection between the different parts of his
vocation. In him, more than in most men of letters, the critic resembled
the creative writer, and though the critical temperament seems to show
itself but rarely in his romances, we find that the characteristic
absence of precise and conscious art is itself in harmony with his
critical creed.

The relation between the different parts of Scott's literary work is
exemplified by the subjects he treated, for as a critic he touched many
portions of the field, which in his capacity of poet and novelist he
occupied in a different way. He was a historical critic no less than a
historical romancer. A larger proportion of his criticism concerns
itself with the eighteenth century, perhaps, than of his fiction,[2] and
he often wrote reviews of contemporary literature, but on the whole the
literature with which he dealt critically was representative of those
periods of time which he chose to portray in novel and poem. This
evidently implies great breadth of scope. Yet Scott's vivid sense of the
past had its bounds, as Professor Masson pointed out.[3] It was the
"Gothic" past that he venerated. The field of his studies,
chronologically considered, included the period between his own time and
the crusades; and geographically, was in general confined to England and
Scotland, with comparatively rare excursions abroad. When, in his
novels, he carried his Scottish or English heroes out of Britain into
foreign countries, he was apt to bestow upon them not only a special
endowment of British feeling, but also a portion of that interest in
their native literature which marked the taste of their creator. We find
that the personages in his books are often distinguished by that love of
stirring poetry, particularly of popular and national poetry, which was
a dominant trait in Scott's whole literary career.

With Scotland and with popular poetry any discussion of Sir Walter
properly begins. The love of Scottish minstrelsy first awakened his
literary sense, and the stimulus supplied by ballads and romances never
lost its force. We may say that the little volumes of ballad chap-books
which he collected and bound up before he was a dozen years old
suggested the future editor, as the long poem on the Conquest of
Grenada, which he is said to have written and burned when he was
fifteen, foreshadowed the poet and romancer.

Yet Scott's career as an author began rather late. He published a few
translations when he was twenty-five years old, but his first notable
work, the _Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border_, did not appear until
1802-3, when he was over thirty. This book, the outgrowth of his early
interest in ballads and his own attempts at versifying, exhibited both
his editorial and his creative powers. It led up to the publication of
two important volumes which contained material originally intended to
form part of the _Minstrelsy_, but which outgrew that work. These were
the edition of the old metrical romance _Sir Tristrem_, which showed
Scott as a scholar, and the _Lay of the Last Minstrel_, the first of
Scott's own metrical romances. So far his literary achievement was all
of one kind, or of two or three kinds closely related. In this first
period of his literary life, perhaps even more than later, his editorial
impulse, his scholarly activity, was closely connected with the
inspiration for original writing. The _Lay of the Last Minstrel_ was the
climax of this series of enterprises.

With the publication of the _Minstrelsy_, Scott of course became known
as a literary antiquary. He was naturally called upon for help when the
_Edinburgh Review_ was started a few weeks afterwards, especially as
Jeffrey, who soon became the editor, had long been his friend. The
articles that he wrote during 1803 and 1804 were of a sort that most
evidently connected itself with the work he had been doing: reviews, for
example, of Southey's _Amadis de Gaul_, and of Ellis's _Early English
Poetry_. During 1805-6 the range of his reviewing became wider and he
included some modern books, especially two or three which offered
opportunity for good fun-making. About 1806, however, his aversion to
the political principles which dominated the _Edinburgh Review_ became
so strong that he refused to continue as a contributor, and only once,
years later, did he again write an article for that periodical.

In the same year, 1806, Scott supplied with editorial apparatus and
issued anonymously _Original Memoirs Written during the Great Civil
War_, the first of what proved to be a long list of publications having
historical interest, sometimes reprints, sometimes original editions
from old manuscripts, to which he contributed a greater or less amount
of material in the shape of introductions and notes. These were
undertaken in a few cases for money, in others simply because they
struck him as interesting and useful labors. It is easy to trace the
relation of this to his other work, particularly to the novels. He once
wrote to a friend, "The editing a new edition of _Somers's Tracts_ some
years ago made me wonderfully well acquainted with the little traits
which marked parties and characters in the seventeenth century, and the
embodying them is really an amusing task."[4] Among the works which he
edited in this way the number of historical memoirs is noticeable. After
the volume that has been mentioned as the first, he prepared another
book of _Memoirs of the Great Civil War_; and we find in the list a
_Secret History of the Court of James I._, _Memoirs of the Reign of King
Charles I._, Count Grammont's _Memoirs of the Court of Charles II._, _A
History of Queen Elizabeth's Favourites_, etc. Such books as these,
besides furnishing material for his novels, led Scott to acquire a mass
of information that enabled him to perform with great facility and with
admirable results whatever editorial work he might choose to undertake.

These labors Scott always considered as trifles to be dispatched in the
odd moments of his time, but the great edition of _Dryden's Complete
Works_, which he began to prepare soon after the _Minstrelsy_ appeared,
was more important. This, next to the _Minstrelsy_, was probably the
most notable of all Scott's editorial enterprises. It was published in
eighteen volumes in 1808, the year in which _Marmion_ also appeared.
When the poet was reproached by one of his friends for not working more
steadily at his vocation, he replied, "The public, with many other
properties of spoiled children, has all their eagerness after novelty,
and were I to dedicate my time entirely to poetry they would soon tire
of me. I must therefore, I fear, continue to edit a little."[5] His
interest in scholarly pursuits appears even in his first attempt at
writing prose fiction, since Joseph Strutt's unfinished romance,
_Queenhoo Hall_, for which Scott wrote a conclusion, is of consequence
only on account of the antiquarian learning which it exhibits.

Having become seriously alarmed over the political influence of the
_Edinburgh Review_, Scott was active in forwarding plans for starting a
strong rival periodical in London, and 1809 saw the establishment of the
_Quarterly Review_. By that time he had done a considerable amount of
work in practically every kind except the novel, and he was recognized
as a most efficient assistant and adviser in any such enterprise as the
promoters of the _Quarterly_ were undertaking. Moreover, his own
writings were prominent among the books which supplied material for the
reviewer. He worked hard for the first volume. But after that year he
wrote little for the _Quarterly_ until 1818, and again little until
after Lockhart became editor in 1825. From that time until 1831 he was
an occasional contributor.

1814 was the year of _Waverley_. Before that the poems had been
appearing in rapid succession, and Scott had been busy with the _Works
of Swift_, which came out also in 1814. The thirteen volumes of the
edition of _Somers' Tracts_, already mentioned, and several smaller
books, bore further witness to his editorial energy. The last of the
long poems was published in 1815, about the same time with _Guy
Mannering_, the second novel, and after that the novels continued to
appear with that rapidity which constitutes one of the chief facts of
Scott's literary career. For a few years after this period he did
comparatively little in the way of editorial work, but his odd moments
were occupied in writing about history, travels, and antiquities.[6]

In 1820 Scott wrote the _Lives of the Novelists_, which appeared the
next year in Ballantyne's _Novelists' Library_. By this time he had
begun, with _Ivanhoe_, to strike out from the Scottish field in which
all his first novels had been placed. The martial pomp prominent in this
novel reflects the eager interest with which he was at that time
following his son's opening career in the army; just as _Marmion_,
written by the young quartermaster of the Edinburgh Light Horse, also
expresses the military ardor which was so natural to Scott, and which
reminds us of his remark that in those days a regiment of dragoons was
tramping through his head day and night. Probably we might trace many a
reason for his literary preoccupations at special times besides those
that he has himself commented upon. In the case of the critical work,
however, the matter was usually determined for him by circumstances of a
much less intimate sort, such as the appeal of an editor or the
appearance of a book which excited his special interest.

When Scott was obliged to make as much money as possible he wrote novels
and histories rather than criticism. His _Life of Napoleon Buonaparte_,
which appeared in nine volumes in 1827, enabled him to make the first
large payment on the debts that had fallen upon him in the financial
crash of the preceding year, and the _Tales of a Grandfather_ were among
the most successful of his later books. His critical biographies and
many of his other essays were brought together for the first time in
1827, and issued under the title of _Miscellaneous Prose Works_. The
world of books was making his life weary with its importunate demands in
those years when he was writing to pay his debts, and it is pleasant to
see that some of his later reviews discussed matters that were not less
dear to his heart because they were not literary. The articles on
fishing, on ornamental gardening, on planting waste lands, remind us of
the observation he once made, that his oaks would outlast his laurels.

By this time the "Author of Waverley" was no longer the "unknown." His
business complications compelled him to give his name to the novels, and
with the loss of a certain kind of privacy he gained the freedom of
which later he made such fortunate use in annotating his own works. From
the beginning of 1828 until the end of his life in 1832, Scott was
engaged, in the intervals of other occupations, in writing these
introductions and notes for his novels, for an edition which he always
called the _Opus Magnum_. This was a pleasant task, charmingly done.
Indeed we may call it the last of those great editorial labors by which
Scott's fame might live unsupported by anything else. First came the
_Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border_, then the editions of Dryden and
Swift. Next we may count the _Lives of the Novelists_, even in the
fragmentary state in which the failure of the _Novelists' Library_ left
them; and finally the _Opus Magnum_. When, in addition, we remember the
mass of his critical work written for periodicals, and the number of
minor volumes he edited, it becomes evident that a study of Scott which
disregards this part of his work can present only a one-sided view of
his achievement. And the qualities of his abundant criticism, especially
its large fresh sanity, seem to make it worthy of closer analysis than
it usually receives, not only because it helps to reveal Scott's genius,
but also on account of the historical and ethical importance which
always attaches to the ideals, literary and other, of a noble man and a
great writer.




CHAPTER II

SCOTT'S QUALIFICATIONS AS CRITIC

    Wide reading Scott's first qualification--Scott the
    antiquary--Character of his interest in history--His
    imagination--His knowledge of practical affairs--Common-sense in
    criticism--Cheerfulness, good-humor, and optimism--General aspect of
    Scott's critical work.


Wide and appreciative reading was Scott's first qualification for
critical work. A memory that retained an incredible amount of what he
read was the second. One of the severest censures he ever expressed was
in regard to Godwin, who, he thought, undertook to do scholarly work
without adequate equipment. "We would advise him," Scott said in his
review of Godwin's _Life of Chaucer_, "in future to read before he
writes, and not merely while he is writing." Scott himself had
accumulated a store of literary materials, and he used them according to
the dictates of a temperament which had vivid interests on many sides.

We may distinguish three points of view which were habitual to Scott,
and which determined the direction of his creative work, as well as the
tone of his criticism. These were--as all the world knows--the
historical, the romantic, the practical.

He was, as he often chose to call himself, an antiquary; he felt the
appeal of all that was old and curious. But he was much more than that.
The typical antiquary has his mind so thoroughly devoted to the past
that the present seems remote to him. The sheer intellectual capacity of
such a man as Scott might be enough to save him from such a limitation,
for he could give to the past as much attention as an ordinary man could
muster, and still have interest for contemporary affairs; but his
capacity was not all that saved Scott. He viewed the past always as
filled with living men, whose chief occupation was to think and feel
rather than to provide towers and armor for the delectation of future
antiquaries.[7] A sympathetic student of his work has said, "There is
... throughout the poetry of this author, even when he leads us to the
remotest wildernesses and the most desolate monuments of antiquity, a
constant reference to the feelings of man in his social condition."[8]
The past, to the author of _Kenilworth_, was only the far end of the
present, and he believed that the most useful result of the study of
history is a comprehension of the real quality of one's own period and a
wisdom in the conduct of present day affairs.[9]

The favorite pursuits of Scott's youth indicate that his characteristic
taste showed itself early; indeed it is said that he retained his boyish
traits more completely than most people do. We can trace much of his
love of the past to the family traditions which made the adventurous
life of his ancestors vividly real to him. The annals of the Scotts were
his earliest study, and he developed such an affection for his
freebooting grandsires that in his manhood he confessed to an
unconquerable liking for the robbers and captains of banditti of his
romances, characters who could not be prevented from usurping the place
of the heroes. "I was always a willing listener to tales of broil and
battle and hubbub of every kind," he wrote in later life, "and now I
look back upon it, I think what a godsend I must have been while a boy
to the old Trojans of 1745, nay 1715, who used to frequent my father's
house, and who knew as little as I did for what market I was laying up
the raw materials of their oft-told tales."[10] What attracted him in
his boyhood, and what continued to attract him, was the picturesque
incident, the color of the past, the mere look of its varied activity.
The philosophy of history was gradually revealed to him, however, and
his generalizing faculty found congenial employment in tracing out the
relation of men to movements, of national impulses to world history. But
however much he might exercise his analytical powers, history was never
abstract to him, nor did it require an effort for him to conjure up
scenes of the past. An acquaintance with the stores of early literature
served to give him the spirit of remote times as well as to feed his
literary tastes. On this side he had an ample equipment for critical
work, conditioned, of course, by the other qualities of his mind, which
determined how the equipment should be used.

That Scott was not a dull digger in heaps of ancient lore was owing to
his imaginative power,--the second of the qualities which we have
distinguished as dominating his literary temperament. "I can see as many
castles in the clouds as any man," he testified.[11] A recent writer has
said that Scott had more than any other man that ever lived a sense of
the romantic, and adds that his was that true romance which "lies not
upon the outside of life, but absolutely in the centre of it."[12] The
situations and the very objects that he described have the power of
stirring the romantic spirit in his readers because he was alive to the
glamour surrounding anything which has for generations been connected
with human thoughts and emotions. The subjectivity which was so
prominent an element in the romanticism of Shelley, Keats, and Byron,
does not appear in Scott's work. Nor was his sense of the mystery of
things so subtle as that of Coleridge. But Scott, rather than Coleridge,
was the interpreter to his age of the romantic spirit, for the ordinary
person likes his wonders so tangible that he may know definitely the
point at which they impinge upon his consciousness. In Scott's work the
point of contact is made clear: the author brings his atmosphere not
from another world but from the past, and with all its strangeness it
has no unearthly quality. In general the romance of his nature is rather
taken for granted than insisted on, for there are the poems and the
novels to bear witness to that side of his temperament; and the
surprising thing is that such an author was a business man, a large
landowner, an industrious lawyer.[13]

Scott's imaginative sense, which clothed in fine fancies any incident or
scene presented, however nakedly, to his view, accounts in part for his
notorious tendency to overrate the work of other writers, especially
those who wrote stories in any form. This explanation was hinted at by
Sir Walter himself, and formulated by Lockhart; it seems a fairly
reasonable way of accounting for a trait that at first appears to
indicate only a foolish excess of good-nature. This rich and active
imagination, which Scott brought to bear on everything he read, perhaps
explains also his habit of paying little attention to carefully worked
out details, and of laying almost exclusive emphasis upon main outlines.
When he was writing his _Life of Napoleon_, he said in his _Journal_:
"Better a superficial book which brings well and strikingly together the
known and acknowledged facts, than a dull boring narrative, pausing to
see further into a mill-stone at every moment than the nature of the
mill-stone admits."[14] Probably his high gift of imagination made him a
little impatient with the remoter reaches of the analytic faculties. Any
sustained exercise of the pure reason was outside his province,
reasonable as he was in everyday affairs. He preferred to consider
facts, and to theorize only so far as was necessary to establish
comfortable relations between the facts,--never to the extent of trying
to look into the center of a mill-stone. It was not unusual for him to
make very acute observations in the spheres of ethics, economics, and
psychology, and to use them in explaining any situation which might seem
to require their assistance; but these remarks were brief and
incidental, and bore a very definite relation to the concrete ideas they
were meant to illustrate.

Scott was a business man as well as an antiquary and a poet. Mr.
Palgrave thought Lockhart went too far in creating the impression that
Scott could detach his mind from the world of imagination and apply its
full force to practical affairs.[15] Yet the oversight of lands and
accounts and of all ordinary matters was so congenial to him, and his
practical activities were on the whole conducted with so much spirit and
capability, that after emphasizing his preoccupation with the poetic
aspects of the life of his ancestors, we must turn immediately about and
lay stress upon his keen judgment in everyday affairs. To a school-boy
poet he once wrote: "I would ... caution you against an enthusiasm
which, while it argues an excellent disposition and a feeling heart,
requires to be watched and restrained, though not repressed. It is apt,
if too much indulged, to engender a fastidious contempt for the ordinary
business of the world, and gradually to render us unfit for the exercise
of the useful and domestic virtues which depend greatly upon our not
exalting our feelings above the temper of well-ordered and well-educated
society."[16] He phrased the same matter differently when he said: "'I'd
rather be a kitten and cry, Mew!' than write the best poetry in the
world on condition of laying aside common-sense in the ordinary
transactions and business of the world."[17] "He thought," said
Lockhart, "that to spend some fair portion of every day in any
matter-of-fact occupation is good for the higher faculties themselves in
the upshot."[18] Whether or not we consider this the ideal theory of
life for a poet, we find it reasonable to suppose that a critic will be
the better critic if he preserve some balance between matter-of-fact
occupation and the exercise of his higher faculties. Sir Walter's maxim
applies well to himself at least, and an analysis of his powers as a
critic derives some light from it.

The thing that is waiting to be said is of course that his criticism is
distinguished by common-sense. Whether common-sense should really
predominate in criticism might perhaps be debated; the quality
indicates, indeed, not only the excellence but also the limitations of
his method. For example, Scott was rather too much given to accepting
popular favor as the test of merit in literary work, and though the
clamorously eager reception of his own books was never able to raise his
self-esteem to a very high pitch, it seems to have been the only thing
that induced him to respect his powers in anything like an appreciative
way.[19] His instinct and his judgment agreed in urging him to avoid
being a man of "mere theory,"[20] and he sought always to test opinions
by practical standards.

More or less connected with his good sense are other qualities which
also had their effect upon his critical work,--his cheerfulness, his
sweet temper and human sympathy, his modesty, his humor, his
independence of spirit, and his enthusiastic delight in literature. That
his cheerfulness was a matter of temperament we cannot doubt, but it was
also founded on principle. He had remarkable power of self-control.[21]
His opinion that it is a man's duty to live a happy life appears rather
quaintly in the sermonizing with which he felt called upon to temper the
admiration expressed in his articles on _Childe Harold_, and it is
implicit in many of his biographical studies. His own amiability of
course influenced all his work. Satire he considered objectionable, "a
woman's fault,"[22] as he once called it; though he did not feel himself
"altogether disqualified for it by nature."[23] "I have refrained, as
much as human frailty will permit, from all satirical composition,"[24]
he said. For satire he seems to have substituted that kind of "serious
banter, a style hovering between affected gravity and satirical
slyness," which has been pointed out as characteristic of him.[25]
Washington Irving noticed a similar tone in all his familiar
conversations about local traditions and superstitions.[26]

He was really optimistic, except on some political questions. In his
_Lives of the Novelists_ he shows that he thought manners and morals had
improved in the previous hundred years; and none of his reviews exhibits
the feeling so common among men of letters in all ages, that their own
times are intellectually degenerate. It is true that he looked back to
the days of Blair, Hume, Adam Smith, Robertson, and Ferguson, as the
"golden days of Edinburgh,"[27] but those golden days were no farther
away than his own boyhood, and he had felt the exhilaration of the
stimulating society which he praised. One of his contemporaries spoke of
Scott's own works as throwing "a literary splendour over his native
city";[28] and George Ticknor said of him, "He is indeed the lord of the
ascendant now in Edinburgh, and well deserves to be, for I look upon him
to be quite as remarkable in intercourse and conversation, as he is in
any of his writings, even in his novels."[29] But he could hardly be
expected to perceive the luster surrounding his own personality, and
this one instance of regret for former days counts little against the
abundant evidence that he thought the world was improving. Yet of all
his contemporaries he was probably the one who looked back at the past
with the greatest interest. The impression made by the author of
_Waverley_ upon the mind of a young enthusiast of his own time is too
delightful to pass over without quotation. "He has no eccentric
sympathies or antipathies"; wrote J.L. Adolphus, "no maudlin
philanthropy or impertinent cynicism; no nondescript hobby-horse; and
with all his matchless energy and originality of mind, he is content to
admire popular books, and enjoy popular pleasures; to cherish those
opinions which experience has sanctioned; to reverence those
institutions which antiquity has hallowed; and to enjoy, admire,
cherish, and reverence all these with the same plainness, simplicity,
and sincerity as our ancestors did of old."[30]

By temperament, then, Scott was enthusiastic over the past and cheerful
in regard to his own day; he was imaginative, practical, genial; and
these traits must be taken into account in judging his critical
writings. These and other qualities may be deduced from the most
superficial study of his creative work. The mere bulk of that work bears
witness to two things: first that Scott was primarily a creative writer;
again, that he was of those who write much rather than minutely. It is
obvious that to attack details would be easy. And since he was only
secondarily a critic, it is natural that his critical opinions should
not have been erected into any system. But while they are essentially
desultory, they are the ideas of a man whose information and enthusiasm
extended through a wide range of studies; and they are rendered
impressive by the abundance, variety, and energy, which mark them as
characteristic of Scott.




CHAPTER III

SCOTT'S WORK AS STUDENT AND EDITOR IN THE FIELD OF LITERARY HISTORY


THE MEDIAEVAL PERIOD

_Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border_

    Scott's early interest in ballads--Casual origin of the
    _Minstrelsy_--Importance of the book in Scott's career--Plan of the
    book--Mediaeval scholarship of Scott's time--His theory as to the
    origin of ballads and their deterioration--His attitude toward the
    work of previous editors--His method of forming texts--Kinds of
    changes he made--His qualifications for emending old poetry--Modern
    imitations of the ballad included in the _Minstrelsy_--Remarks on
    the ballad style--Impossibility of a scientific treatment of
    folk-poetry in Scott's time--Real importance of the _Minstrelsy_.


We think of the _Border Minstrelsy_ as the first work which resulted
from the preparation of Scott's whole youth, between the days when he
insisted on shouting the lines of _Hardyknute_ into the ears of the
irate clergyman making a parish call, and the time when he and his
equally ardent friends gathered their ballads from the lips of old women
among the hills. But we have seen that the inspiration for his first
attempts at writing poetry came only indirectly from the ballads of his
own country. We learn from the introduction to the third part of the
_Minstrelsy_ that some of the young men of Scott's circle in Edinburgh
were stimulated by what the novelist, Henry Mackenzie, told them of the
beauties of German literature, to form a class for the study of that
language. This was when Scott was twenty-one, but it was still four
years before he found himself writing those translations which mark the
sufficiently modest beginning of his literary career. His enthusiasm for
German literature was not at first tempered by any critical
discrimination, if we may judge from the opinions of one or two of his
friends who labored to point out to him the extravagance and false
sentiment which he was too ready to admire along with the real genius of
some of his models.[31] Apparently their efforts were useful, for in a
review written in 1806 we find Scott, in a remark on Bürger, referring
to "the taste for outrageous sensibility, which disgraces most German
poetry."[32] His special interest in the Germans was an early mood which
seems not to have returned. After the process of translation had
discovered to him his verse-making faculty, he naturally passed on to
the writing of original poems, and circumstances of a half accidental
sort determined that the Scottish ballads which he had always loved
should absorb his attention for the next two or three years.

The publication of a book of ballads was first suggested by Scott as an
opportunity for his friend Ballantyne to exhibit his skill as a printer
and so increase his business. "I have been for years collecting old
Border ballads," Scott remarked, "and I think I could with little
trouble put together such a selection from them as might make a neat
little volume to sell for four or five shillings."[33] From this casual
proposition resulted _The Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border_, published
in three volumes in 1802-3 and often revised and reissued during the
editor's lifetime.

This book and the prefaces to his own novels are likely to be thought of
first when Scott is spoken of as a critic. The connection between the
_Minstrelsy_ and the novels has often been pointed out, ever since the
day of the contemporary who, on reading the ballads with their
introductions, exclaimed that in that book were the elements of a
hundred historical romances.[34] The interest of the earlier work is
undoubtedly multiplied by the associations in the light of which we read
it--associations connected with the editor's whole experience as an
author, from the _Lay of the Last Minstrel_ to _Castle Dangerous_.

Important as the _Minstrelsy_ is from the point of view of literary
criticism, the material of its introductions is chiefly historical. The
introduction in the original edition gives an account of life on the
Border in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, with the outlines of
many of the events that stimulated ballad-making, and an analysis of the
temper of the Marchmen among whom this kind of poetry flourished; then
by special introductions and notes to the poems an attempt is made to
explain both the incidents on which they seem to have been founded, and
parallel cases that appear in tradition or record. Some enthusiastic
comment is included, of the kind that was so natural to Scott, on the
effect of ballad poetry upon a spirited and warlike people. The writer
continues: "But it is not the Editor's present intention to enter upon a
history of Border poetry; a subject of great difficulty, and which the
extent of his information does not as yet permit him to engage in." It
was, in fact, nearly thirty years later[35] that Scott wrote the
_Remarks on Popular Poetry_ which since that date have formed an
introduction to the book, as well as the essay, _On Imitations of the
Ancient Ballad_, which at present precedes the third part. The more
purely literary side of the editor's duty--leaving out of account the
modern poems written by Scott and others--was exhibited chiefly in the
construction of texts, a matter of which I shall speak later, after
considering his views of the origin and character of folk-poetry in
general.

But first we may recall the fact that Scott was following a fairly well
established vogue in giving scholarly attention to ancient popular
poetry. A revival of interest in the study of mediaeval literature had
been stimulated in England by the publication of Percy's _Reliques_ in
1765 and Warton's _History of English Poetry_ in 1774. In 1800 there
were enough well-known antiquaries to keep Scott from being in any sense
lonely. Among them Joseph Ritson[36] was the most learned, but he was
crotchety in the extreme; and while his notions as to research were in
advance of his time, his controversial style resembled that of the
seventeenth century. George Ellis,[37] on the other hand, was
distinguished by an eighteenth-century urbanity, and his combination of
learning and good taste fitted him to influence a broader public than
that of specialists. At the same time he was a delightful and
stimulating friend to other scholars. Southey was becoming known as an
authority on the history and literature of the Spanish peninsula. A
review in the _Quarterly_ a dozen years later mentions these
three,--Ellis, Scott, and Southey,--as "good men and true" to serve as
guides in the remote realms of literature.[38] Ellis's friend, John
Hookham Frere, had great abilities but was an incurable dillettante.
Scott particularly admired a Middle-English version of _The Battle of
Brunanburgh_ which Frere wrote in his school-boy days, and considered
him an authoritative critic of mediaeval English poetry. Robert
Surtees[39] and Francis Douce[40] were antiquaries of some importance,
and both, like all the others named, were friends of Scott. Mr. Herford
calls this period a day of "Specimens" and extracts: "Mediaeval romance
was studied in Ellis's _Specimens_," he says, "the Elizabethan drama in
Lamb's, literary history at large in D'Israeli's gently garrulous
compilations of its 'quarrels,' 'amenities,' 'calamities,' and
'curiosities.'"[41] But the scholarship of the time on the whole is
worthy of respect. In the case of ballads and romances notable work had
been done before Scott entered the field,[42] and he and his
contemporaries were carrying out the promise of the half century before
them--continuing the work that Percy and Warton had begun.

Among the problems connected with ballad study, that which arises first
is naturally the question of origins. Scott made no attempt to formulate
a theory different in any main element from that which was held by his
predecessors. He agreed with Percy that ballads were composed and sung
by minstrels, and based his discussion on the materials brought forward
by Percy and Ritson for use in their great controversy.[43] Ritson
himself never doubted that ballads were composed and sung by individual
authors, though he might refuse to call them minstrels. The idea of
communal authorship, which Jacob Grimm was to suggest only half a dozen
years after the first edition of the _Minstrelsy_, would doubtless have
been rejected by Scott, even if he had considered it. But we have no
evidence that he did so. Probably he did not, as he never felt the need
of a new theory.[44]

Scott's opinion in regard to the transmission of ballads followed
naturally from his theory of their origin. His aristocratic instincts
perhaps helped to determine his belief that ballads were composed by
gifted minstrels, and that they had deteriorated in the process of being
handed down by recitation. He called tradition "a sort of perverted
alchymy which converts gold into lead." "All that is abstractedly
poetical," he said, "all that is above the comprehension of the merest
peasant, is apt to escape in frequent repetition; and the _lacunae_ thus
created are filled up either by lines from other ditties or from the
mother wit of the reciter or singer. The injury, in either case, is
obvious and irreparable."[45] From this point of view Scott considered
that the ballads were only getting their rights when a skilful hand gave
them such a retouching as should enable them to appear in something of
what he called their original vigor.[46]

We may learn what qualities he considered necessary for an editor in
this field, from the latter part of his _Remarks on Popular Poetry_, in
which he discusses previous attempts to collect English and Scottish
ballads. Of Percy he speaks in the highest terms, here and elsewhere. We
have seen that he felt a strong sympathy with Percy's desire to dress up
the ballads and make them as attractive to the public as their intrinsic
charms render them to their friends. He did not of course realize the
extent to which the Bishop reworked his materials, as the publication of
the folio manuscript has since revealed it, and Ritson's captious
remarks on the subject were naturally discounted on the score of their
ill-temper. But it is not to be doubted that Ritson had an appreciable
effect on Scott's attitude, by stirring him up to some comprehension of
the things that might be said in favor even of dull accuracy. Ritson's
collections are cited in their place, with a tribute to the extreme
fidelity of their editor. It is a pity that this accurate scholar could
not have had a sufficient amount of literary taste, to say nothing of
good manners, to inspire others with a fuller trust in his method. Scott
expresses impatience with him for seeming to prefer the less effective
text in many instances, "as if a poem was not more likely to be
deteriorated than improved by passing through the mouths of many
reciters."[47] He admitted, however, that it was not in his own period
necessary to rework the ballads as much as Bishop Percy had done, since
the _Reliques_ had already created an audience for popular poetry. His
purpose evidently was to steer a middle course between such graceful but
sophisticated versions as were given in the _Reliques_, and the exact
transcript of everything to be gathered from tradition, whether
interesting or not, that was attempted by Ritson. In his later revisions
he gave way more than at first to his natural impulse in favor of the
added graces which he could supply.[48]

It is easy to see how his own contributions of word and phrase might
slip in, since his avowed method was to collate the different texts
secured from manuscripts or recitation or both, and so to give what to
his mind was the worthiest version. Believing that the ballads had been
composed by men not unlike himself, he assumed, in the manner well known
to classical text-critics, that his familiarity with the conditions of
the ancient social order gave him some license for changing here and
there a word or a line. In determining which stanzas or lines to choose,
when choice was possible, he was guided by his antiquarian knowledge and
by the general principle of selecting the most poetic rendering among
those at his command. This was his way of showing his respect for the
minstrel bards of whom he was fond of considering himself a successor.

So far it is perfectly easy to take his point of view. But it is more
difficult to reconcile his practice with his professions. We find this
declaration in the forefront of the book: "No liberties have been taken
either with the recited or written copies of these ballads, farther than
that, where they disagreed, which is by no means unusual, the editor, in
justice to the author, has uniformly preserved what seemed to him the
best or most poetical rendering of the passage.... Some arrangement was
also occasionally necessary to recover the rhyme, which was often, by
the ignorance of the reciters, transposed or thrown into the middle of
the line. With these freedoms, which were essentially necessary to
remove obvious corruptions and fit the ballads for the press, the editor
presents them to the public, under the complete assurance that they
carry with them the most indisputable marks of their authenticity."[49]
In the face of this fair announcement we are surprised, to say the
least, at the number of lines and stanzas which scholars have discovered
to be of Scott's own composition.[50]

Occasionally his notes give some slight indication of his method of
treatment, as for instance this, on _The Dowie Dens of Yarrow_: "The
editor found it easy to collect a variety of copies; but very difficult
indeed to select from them such a collated edition as might in any
degree suit the taste of 'these more light and giddy-paced times.'"
Notes on some others of the ballads say that "a few conjectural
emendations have been found necessary," but no one of these remarks
would seem really ingenuous in a modern scholar when we consider how far
the "conjectural emendations" extended. Moreover, changes were often
made without the slightest clue in introduction or note.[51]

The case was complicated for Scott by the poetical tastes of his
assistants. Leyden[52] was apparently quite capable of taking down a
ballad from recitation in such a way as to produce a more finished poem
than one would expect a traditional ballad to be. And Hogg,[53] who
supplied several ballads from the recitations of his mother and other
old people, was probably still less strict. "Sure no man," he is quoted
as having said, "will think an old song the worse of being somewhat
harmonious."[54] Yet it is easy to see that Scott's friends might have
acted differently if his own practice had favored absolute fidelity to
the texts.

A remark in Scott's review of Evans's _Old Ballads_ seems a pretty
definite arraignment of his own procedure. "It may be asked by the
severer antiquary of the present day, why an editor, thinking it
necessary to introduce such alterations in order to bring forth a new,
beautiful, and interesting sense from a meagre or corrupted original,
did not in good faith to his readers acquaint them with the liberties he
had taken and make them judge whether in so doing he transgressed his
limits. We answer that unquestionably such would be the express duty of
a modern editor, but such were not the rules of the service when Dr.
Percy first opened the campaign."[55]

One wonders whether the "rules of the service" did not in Scott's
opinion occasionally permit a little wilful mystification. The case of
_Kinmont Willie_ tempts one to such an explanation. Besides the capital
instance of his anonymity as regards the novels, Scott several times
seemed to amuse himself in perplexing the public. There was the case of
the _Bridal of Triermain_, which he tried by means of various careful
devices to pass off as the work of a friend. But perhaps the best
example appears in connection with _The Fortunes of Nigel_. He first
designed the material of that book for a series of "private letters"
purporting to have been written in the reign of James I., but when he
had finally complied with the advice of his friends and used it for a
novel, he said to Lockhart, "You were all quite right: if the letters
had passed for genuine, they would have found favour only with a few
musty antiquaries."[56] This suggests comparison with the conduct of his
friend Robert Surtees, who palmed off upon him three whole ballads of
his own and got them inserted in the _Minstrelsy_ as ancient, with a
plausible tale concerning the circumstances of their recovery. Surtees,
one is interested to observe, never dared tell Scott the truth, and
Scott always accepted the ballads as genuine--a lack of discernment
rather compromising in an editor, though one may perhaps excuse him on
the ground of his confidence in his brother antiquary.[57]

In one direction Scott seems to have been more conscientious than we
might be inclined to suppose after seeing the discrepancy between the
standard of exactness that his own statements lead us to expect and the
results that actually appear. I believe that he intended to preserve the
manuscript texts just as he received them, and that he would have wished
to have them given to the public when the public was prepared to want
them. To support this theory we have first the fact that most of his own
emendations have been traced by means of the manuscripts which he
used.[58] It is significant that in speaking of a poet who had altered a
manuscript to suit a revised reading he grew indignant over that fault
far more than over the mere change in the published version. _The Raid
of the Reidswire_, he said, "first appeared in Allan Ramsay's
_Evergreen_, but some liberties have been taken by him in transcribing
it; and, what is altogether unpardonable, the manuscript, which is
itself rather inaccurate, has been interpolated to favour his readings;
of which there remain obvious marks."[59] Scott said also that the time
had come for the publication of Percy's folio manuscript; though we must
believe that he would not have wished to see the manuscript published
until the ballads had become familiar to the world in what he considered
a beautified form.

The changes Scott made were usually in style rather than in substance.
Often he merely substituted an archaic word for a modern one; but often
whole lines and longer passages offered temptations which the poet in
him could not resist, and he "improved" lavishly. For example, we have
his note on _Earl Richard_--"The best verses are here selected from both
copies, and some trivial alterations have been adopted from
tradition,"--with the comment by Mr. Henderson--"The emendations of
Scott are so many, and the majority relate so entirely to style, that no
mere tradition could have supplied them."[60] His versions are in
general characterized by a smoothness and precision of meter which to
the student of ballads is very suspicious. But he seems occasionally to
have altered or supplied incidents as well as phrases. The historical
event which furnished the purpose for the expedition of Sir Patrick
Spens seems to have been introduced into the ballad by Scott, and Mr.
Henderson thinks that "when the deeds of his ancestors were concerned it
was impossible for him to resist the temptation to employ some of his
own minstrel art on their behalf."[61]

Certainly Scott's qualifications for evolving true poetry out of the
crude fragments that sometimes served as a basis formed a very unusual
combination when they were united with his knowledge of early history
and literature. He had such confidence in his own powers in this
direction that he at one time intended to write a series of imitations
of Scottish poets of different periods, from Thomas the Rhymer down, and
thus to exhibit changes in language as well as variations in literary
style.[62] He evidently thought that the ballads as they appeared in the
_Minstrelsy_ were truer to their originals than were the copies he was
able to procure from recitation. Lockhart gives him precisely the kind
of praise he would have desired, in saying, "From among a hundred
corruptions he seized with instinctive tact the primitive diction and
imagery."[63]

It is evident that Scott's public did not wish him to be more careful
than he was in discriminating between new and old matter. One of his
moments of strict veracity seems even to have occasioned some annoyance
to the writer of the _Edinburgh_ article, who apparently preferred to
believe in the antiquity of _The Flowers of the Forest_ rather than to
learn that "the most positive evidence" proved its modern origin. The
editor's introduction to the poem seems perfectly clear; he names his
authority and quotes two verses which are ancient;[64] but the reviewer
says with a perverse irritability: "Mr. Scott would have done well to
tell us how much he deems ancient, and to give us the 'positive
evidence' that convinced him _the whole_ was not so."[65] This review
was, however, for the most part favorable.

The fact that Scott included modern imitations of the ballad in his book
is another indication that his attitude was like that of his
predecessors.[66] Doubtless these helped the _Minstrelsy_ to sell, but a
more modern taste would choose to put them in a place by themselves, not
in a collection of old ballads. An essay on _Imitations of the Ancient
Ballad_ was written, as were the _Remarks on Popular Poetry_, for the
1833 edition. It is chiefly interesting for its autobiographical matter,
though it also contains criticisms of Burns and other writers of ballad
poetry--"a species of literary labour which the author has himself
pursued with some success."[67] Scott's statement that the ballad style
was very popular at the time he began to write, and that he followed the
prevailing fashion, was one of many examples of his modesty, taken in
connection with the remark in another part of the essay to the effect
that this style "had much to recommend it, especially as it presented
considerable facilities to those who wished at as little exertion or
trouble as possible to attain for themselves a certain degree of
literary reputation." To complete the comparison, however, we need an
observation found in one of Scott's reviews, on the spurious ballad
poetry, full of false sentiment, sometimes written in the eighteenth
century. "It is the very last refuge of those who can do nothing better
in the shape of verse; and a man of genius should disdain to invade the
province of these dawdling rhymers."[68]

Scott's criticism of ballad style probably suffered from his interest in
modern imitations of ballads. Perhaps also the real quality of ancient
popular poetry was a little obscured for him by his belief that it was
written by professional or semi-professional poets. If he wrote _Kinmont
Willie_, he succeeded in catching the right tone better than anyone
since him has been able to do, but even in this poem there are turns of
phrase that remind one of the _Lay of the Last Minstrel_ rather than of
the true folk-song.[69] After his first attempts at versifying he
received from William Taylor, of Norwich, who had made an earlier
translation of Bürger's _Lenore_, a letter of hearty praise intermingled
with very sensible remarks about the tendency in some parts of Scott's
_Chase_ toward too great elaboration.[70] Scott's answer was as follows:
"I do not ... think quite so severely of the Darwinian style, as to deem
it utterly inconsistent with the ballad, which, at least to judge from
the examples left us by antiquity, admits in some cases of a
considerable degree of decoration. Still, however, I do most sincerely
agree with you, that this may be very easily overdone, and I am far from
asserting that this may not be in some degree my own case; but there is
scarcely so nice a line to distinguish, as that which divides true
simplicity from flatness and _Sternholdianism_ (if I may be allowed to
coin the word), and therefore it is not surprising, that in endeavouring
to avoid the latter, so young and inexperienced a rhymer as myself
should sometimes have deviated also from the former."[71] This was
Scott's earliest stage as a man of letters, and he evidently learned
more about ballads later. But there appears in much of his criticism on
the subject a limitation which may be assigned partly to his time, and
partly, no doubt, to the fact that he was a poet and could not forget
all the sophistications of his art.

The true nature of ballad poetry could hardly be understood until
scholars had investigated the structure of primitive society in a way
that Scott's contemporaries were not at all prepared to do. Even Scott,
with all his intelligent interest in bygone institutions and modes of
expression, could hardly have foreseen the anthropological researches
which the problem of literary origins has since demanded. We do not
find, then, that Scott's work on ballads was marked by any special
originality in point of view or method. _The Minstrelsy of the Scottish
Border_ was a notable book because it did better what other men had
tried to do, and especially because of the charm and effectiveness of
its historical comment. It was more trustworthy than Percy's collection
and more graceful than Ritson's; it was richer than other books of the
kind in what people cared to have when they wanted ballads, and yet was
not, for its time, over-sophisticated. Scott's conclusions cannot now be
accepted without question, but the illustrations with which he sets them
forth and the wide reading and sincere love of folk-poetry which
evidently lie behind them produce a pleasant effect of ripe and
reasonable judgment. The admirable qualities of the book were at once
recognized by competent critics, and it will always be studied with
enthusiasm by scholars as well as by the uncritical lover of ballads.


_Studies in the Romances_

    Scott's theory as to the connection between ballads and
    romances--His early fondness for romances--His acquaintance with
    Romance languages--His work on the _Sir Tristrem_--Value of his
    edition--Special quality of Scott's interest in the Middle
    Ages--General theories expressed in the body of his work on
    romances--His type of scholarship.

Ballads and romances are so closely related that Scott's early and
lasting interest in the one form naturally grew out of his interest in
the other. He held the theory that "the romantic ballads of later times
are for the most part abridgments of the ancient metrical romances,
narrated in a smoother stanza and more modern language."[72] It is not
surprising, then, that a considerable body of his critical work has to
do with the subject of mediaeval romance.

Throughout his boyhood Scott read all the fairy tales, eastern stories,
and romances of knight-errantry that fell in his way. When he was about
thirteen, he and a young friend used to spend hours reading together
such authors as Spenser, Ariosto, and Boiardo.[73] He remembered the
poems so well that weeks or months afterwards he could repeat whole
pages that had particularly impressed him. Somewhat later the two boys
improvised similar stories to recite to each other, Scott being the one
who proposed the plan and the more successful in carrying it out. With
this same friend he studied Italian and began to read the Italian poets
in the original. In his autobiography he says:[74] "I had previously
renewed and extended my knowledge of the French language, from the same
principle of romantic research. Tressan's romances, the Bibliothèque
Bleue, and Bibliothèque de Romans, were already familiar to me, and I
now acquired similar intimacy with the works of Dante, Boiardo, Pulci,
and other eminent Italian authors." Writing some years later he
remarked: "I was once the most enormous devourer of the Italian romantic
poetry, which indeed is the only poetry of their country which I ever
had much patience for; for after all that has been said of Petrarch and
his school, I am always tempted to exclaim like honest Christopher Sly,
'Marvellous good matter, would it were done.' But with Charlemagne and
his paladins I could dwell forever."[75] Scott learned languages easily,
and he read Spanish with about as much facility as Italian. Don Quixote
seems often to be the guide with whom he chooses to traverse the fields
of romance.[76] In Scott's boyhood one of his teachers noticed that he
could follow and enjoy the meaning of what he read in Latin better than
many of his school-fellows who knew more about the language, and it was
the same all through his life--he got what he wanted from foreign
literatures with very little trouble.

Scott constantly refers to the work of Percy, Warton, Tressan,[77]
Ritson, and Ellis, in the study of ancient romances, but in editing _Sir
Tristrem_ he made one part of the field his own, and became the
authority whom he felt obliged to quote in the Essay on Romance.

Thomas the Rhymer of Erceldoune was at first an object of interest to
Scott because of the ballad of _True Thomas_ and the traditions
concerning him that floated about the countryside. The "Rhymer's Glen"
was afterwards a cherished possession of Scott's own on the Abbotsford
estate. In the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh, of which Scott was in
1795 appointed a curator, was an important manuscript that contained
among other metrical romances one professing to be a copy of that
written by Thomas of Erceldoune on Sir Tristrem. From a careful piecing
together of evidence furnished by this poem and by Robert of Brunne,
with the assistance of certain legal documents which supplied dates,
Scott built up about the old poet a theory that he elaborated in his
edition of _Sir Tristrem_, published in 1804, and that continued to
interest him vividly as long as he lived. It reappears in many of his
critical writings[78] and also in the novels. In the _Bride of
Lammermoor_ Ravenswood goes to his death in compliance with the prophecy
of Thomas quoted by the superstitious Caleb Balderstone. And in _Castle
Dangerous_ Bertram, who is unconvincing perhaps because he is endowed
with the literary and antiquarian tastes of a Walter Scott himself, is
actuated by an irrepressible desire to discover works of the Rhymer.

Scott's edition of _Sir Tristrem_ gives--besides the text, introduction,
and notes--a short conclusion written by himself in imitation of the
original poet's style. Much of his theory has fallen. He considered this
_Sir Tristrem_ to be the first of the written versions of that story, a
supposition that was not long tenable. The poem is now known to be based
upon a French original, and many scholars think the name Erceldoune was
arbitrarily inserted by the English translator; though Mr. McNeill, the
latest editor, thinks there is a "reasonable probability" in favor of
Scott's opinion that the author was the historic Thomas, who flourished
in the thirteenth century. It is important, however, that Scott's
scholarship in the matter passed muster at that time with such men as
Ellis, who wrote the review in the _Edinburgh_, in which he said, "Upon
the whole we are much disposed to adopt the general inferences drawn by
Mr. Scott from his authorities, and have great pleasure in bearing
testimony to the very uncommon diligence which he has evinced in
collecting curious materials, and to the taste and sagacity with which
he has employed them.... With regard to the notes, they contain an
almost infinite variety of curious information, which had been hitherto
unknown or unnoticed."[79] John Hookham Frere said, as quoted in a
letter by Ellis, "I consider _Sir Tristrem_ as by far the most
interesting work that has as yet been published on the subject of our
earliest poets."[80] Scott's opinions were in 1824 thought to be of
sufficient importance, either from their own merits or on account of his
later fame, to call forth a dissertation appended to the edition of
Warton's _History of English Poetry_ published in that year.

The first edition of the text swarms with errors, according to
Kölbing,[81] a recent editor of the romance, and later editions are
still very inaccurate.[82] It could hardly be expected that a man with
Scott's habits of mind would edit a text accurately. But no one of that
period was competent to construct a text that would seem satisfactory
now. The study of English philology was not sufficiently developed in
that direction, nor did scholars appreciate either the difficulties or
the requirements of text-criticism. It is not to be wondered at that
Scott failed, in this instance as well as afterwards in the case of the
text of Dryden, to give a version that would stand the minute scrutiny
of later scholarship.

His sympathies were rather with the scholar who opens the store of old
poetry to the public, than with him who uses his erudition simply for
the benefit of erudite people. The diction of the Middle Ages was
interesting to him only as it reflected the customs and emotions of its
period. He used the romances as authorities on ancient manners. The
_Chronicles_ of Froissart, because they give "a knowledge of
mankind,"[83] were almost as much a hobby with him as Thomas the Rhymer,
and in this case also he endows characters in his novels with his own
fondness for the ancient writer.[84] The fruit of Scott's acquaintance
with Froissart appears prominently in his essay on _Chivalry_ and in
various introductions to ballads in the _Minstrelsy_, as well as in the
novels of chivalry. Scott at one time proposed to publish an edition of
Malory, but abandoned the project on learning that Southey had the same
thing in mind.[85]

The first periodical review Scott ever published was on the subject of
the _Amadis de Gaul_, as translated by Southey and by Rose. The article
is long and very carefully constructed, and expresses many ideas on the
subject of the mediaeval romance in general that reappear again and
again, particularly in the essay on _Romance_ written in 1823 for the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_. Among these general ideas that found frequent
expression in his critical writings, one which in the light of his
creative work becomes particularly interesting to us is his judgment on
the distinctions between metrical and prose romances. He always
preferred the poems, though he was so interested in the prose stories
that he talked about them with much enthusiasm, and it sometimes seems
as if he liked best the kind he happened to be analyzing at the moment.

Other matters that necessarily presented themselves when he was treating
the subject of romance were the problem of the sources of narrative
material, especially the perplexed question concerning the development
of the Arthurian cycle, and the problem, already discussed in connection
with ballads, concerning the character of minstrels. The minstrels
reappear throughout Scott's studies in mediaeval literature, and were
perhaps more interesting to him than any other part of the subject.
Though, as we have seen, he formulated a compromise between the opposing
opinions of Percy and Ritson, no one who reads the description of the
Last Minstrel can doubt what was the picture that he preferred to carry
in his mind.

His ideas on the subject of the origin and diffusion of narrative
material were those of the sensible man trying to look at the matter in
a reasonable way. Here again he adopted an attitude of compromise, in
that he admitted the partial truth of various theories which he
considered erroneous only in so far as any one of them was stretched
beyond its proper compass. "Romance," he said, "was like a compound
metal, derived from various mines, and in the different specimens of
which one metal or other was alternately predominant."[86]

On the subject of the Arthurian cycle, the origin of which has never
ceased to be matter for debate, he held essentially the opinions that
the highest French authority has adopted that Celtic traditions were the
foundation, and that the metrical romances preceded those in prose.[87]
The important offices of French poets in giving form to the story he
underestimated. When he said, "It is now completely proved, that the
earliest and best French romances were composed for the meridian of the
English court,"[88] he fell into the error that has not always been
avoided by scholars who have since written on the subject, of feeling
certitude about a proposition in which there is no certainty.

Scott's work on romances, though it does not always rise above
commonplaceness, escapes the perfunctory quality of hack writing by
virtue of his keen interest in the subject. He continued to like this
prosaic kind of literary task even while he was writing novels with the
most wonderful facility. We may judge not only by the fact that he
continued to write reviews at intervals throughout his life, but by an
explicit reference in his _Journal_: "I toiled manfully at the review
till two o'clock, commencing at seven. I fear it will be uninteresting,
but I like the muddling work of antiquities, and besides wish to record
my sentiments with regard to the Gothic question."[89]

It is evident that Scott did not himself find the "muddling work of
antiquities" dull, because he realized, emotionally as well as
intellectually, the life of past times. This led him to form broader
views than the ordinary student constructs out of his knowledge of
special facts. An admirable illustration of this characteristic occurs
in the essay on Romance, at the point where Scott is discussing the
social position of the minstrels, in the light of what Percy and Ritson
had said on the subject. He goes on: "In fact, neither of these
excellent antiquaries has cast a general or philosophic glance on the
necessary condition of a set of men, who were by profession the
instruments of the pleasure of others during a period of society such as
was presented in the Middle Ages." There follows a detailed and very
interesting account of what the writer's own "philosophic glance" leads
him to believe. The method is useful but dangerous; in the same essay
occurs an amusing example of what philosophy may do when it is given
free rein. Within two pages appear these conflicting statements: "The
Metrical Romances, though in some instances sent to the press, were not
very fit to be published in this form. The dull amplifications, which
passed well enough in the course of a half-heard recitation, became
intolerable when subjected to the eye." "The Metrical Romances in some
instances indeed ran to great length, but were much exceeded in that
particular by the folios which were written on the same or similar
topics by their prose successors. Probably the latter judiciously
reflected that a book which addresses itself only to the eyes may be
laid aside when it becomes tiresome to the reader; whereas it may not
always have been so easy to stop the minstrel in the full career of his
metrical declamation." Flaws like this may be picked in the details of
Scott's method, just as we may sometimes find fault with the lapses in
his mediaeval scholarship. We do him no injustice when we say that aside
from certain aspects of his work on the ballads and _Sir Tristrem_, his
achievement was that of a popularizer of learning.

But if he lacked some of the authority of erudition, he escaped also the
induration of pedantry. In writing of remote and dimly known periods,
critics are perhaps most apt to show their defects of temper, and Scott
often commented on the acerbity of spirit which such studies seem to
induce. "Antiquaries," he said, "are apt to be both positive and
polemical upon the very points which are least susceptible of proof, and
which are least valuable if the truth could be ascertained; and which
therefore we would gladly have seen handled with more diffidence and
better temper in proportion to their uncertainty."[90] Of Ritson he says
many times in one form or another that his "severe accuracy was
connected with an unhappy eagerness and irritability of temper." Scott
rode his own hobbies with an expansive cheerfulness that did not at all
hinder them from being essentially serious.


_Other Studies in Mediaeval Literature_

    Scott's attitude on the Ossianic controversy--His slight
    acquaintance with other northern literatures--Anglo-Saxon
    scholarship of the time--Character of his familiarity with
    Middle-English poetry--His opinions in regard to Chaucer--General
    importance of Scott's work on mediaeval literature.

Part of Scott's critical work on mediaeval literature falls outside the
limits of the two divisions we have been considering--those of ballad
and romance. He knew comparatively little about the early poetry of the
northern nations, but at some points his knowledge of Scottish
literature made the transition fairly easy to the literature of other
Teutonic peoples. But he was especially bound to be interested in the
Gaelic, for a Scotsman of his day could hardly avoid forming an opinion
in regard to the Ossianic controversy then raging with what Scott
thought must be its final violence. He did not understand the Gaelic
language,[91] but he had a vivid interest in the Highlanders. The
picturesque quality of their customs made it natural enough for him to
use them in his novels, and by the "sheer force of genius," says Mr.
Palgrave, who considers this Scott's greatest achievement, "he united
the sympathies of two hostile races."[92]

As early as 1792 Scott had written for the Speculative Society an essay
on the authenticity of Ossian's poems, and one of his articles for the
_Edinburgh Review_ in 1805 was on the same subject, occasioned by a
couple of important documents which supported opposite sides, and which,
he said, set the question finally at issue. This article represents
Scott the critic in a typical attitude. The material was almost
altogether furnished in the works which he was surveying.[93] His task
was to distinguish the essential points of the problem, to state them
plainly, and to weigh the evidence on each side. In this he shows
notable clearness of thought, and also, throughout the rather long
treatment of a complicated subject, great lucidity in arrangement and
statement. He was led by this study to change the opinion which he had
held in common with most of his countrymen, and to adopt the belief that
the poems were essentially creations of Macpherson, with only the names
and some parts of the story adopted from the Gaelic.[94] Other
references to Ossian occur in Scott's writings, and it is evident in
this case, as in many others, that an investigation of the matter in his
early career, whether from original or from secondary sources, gave him
material for allusion and comment throughout his life. For, as we have
constant occasion to remark in studying Scott, with a very definite
grasp of concrete fact he combined a vigorous generalizing power, and
all the parts of his knowledge were actively related. He seems to have
made little preparation for some of his most interesting reviews, but to
have utilized in them the store gathered in his mind for other purposes.

Of the northern Teutonic languages Scott had slight knowledge, though he
was always interested in the northern literatures. In a review of the
_Poems of William Herbert_, of which the part most interesting to the
reviewer consisted of translations from the Icelandic, Scott says: "We
do not pretend any great knowledge of Norse; but we have so far traced
the 'Runic rhyme' as to be sensible how much more easy it is to give a
just translation of that poetry into English than into Latin." In the
same review we find him saying, after a slight discussion of the style
of Scaldic poetry, "The other translations are generally less
interesting than those from the Icelandic. There is, however, one poem
from the Danish, which I transcribe as an instance how very clearly the
ancient popular ballad of that country corresponds with our own." So we
see him drawing from all sources fuel for his favorite fire--the study
of ballads. Very characteristically also Scott suggests that the author
should extend his researches to the popular poetry of Scandinavia,
"which we cannot help thinking is the real source of many of the tales
of our minstrels."[95] It seems probable that Scott's acquaintance with
northern literatures came partly through his ill-fated amanuensis, Henry
Weber.[96] His acknowledgement in the introduction to _Sir Tristrem_
would indicate this, taken together with other references by Scott to
Weber's attainments.

Scott could hardly be called a student of Anglo-Saxon, though he was
perhaps able to read the language. His remarks on the subject may,
however, mean simply that he was familiar with early Middle English.[97]
In his essay on Romance he referred to Sharon Turner's account of the
story of Beowulf, but called the poem Caedmon, and made no correction
when he added the later footnote in regard to Conybeare's fuller and
more interesting analysis published in 1826.[98] The researches of these
men indicate the state of Anglo-Saxon scholarship in England. Sharon
Turner's very inaccurate description of _Beowulf_ was published in 1805.
Danish scholars made the first translations of the poem, but no one
could give a really scholarly text or translation until the year after
Scott died, when the first edition by J.M. Kemble appeared. There were
students of the language, however, who were doing good work in feeling
their way toward a comprehension of its special qualities. One of these
was George Ellis. In his _Specimens_ he published examples of
Anglo-Saxon and Middle-English poetry, and his information was helpful
in enlarging Scott's outlook. Scott's own knowledge of Anglo-Saxon
literature did not amount to enough to be of importance by itself, but
it served perhaps to fortify the basis of his generalizations about all
early poetry.

A review of the _Life and Works of Chatterton_ gave Scott an opportunity
to discuss the characteristics of Middle-English poetry, but his general
thesis, that the Rowley poems exhibit graces and refinements which are
in marked contrast to the tenuity of idea and tautology of expression
found in genuine works of the period, is supported by an argument which
seems to be based on a characterization of the romances rather than on a
close acquaintance with other Middle-English poetry. We notice a similar
quality in what Scott says elsewhere concerning Frere's translation into
Chaucerian English of the _Battle of Brunanburgh_: "This appears to us
an exquisite imitation of the antiquated English poetry, not depending
on an accumulation of hard words like the language of Rowley, which in
everything else is refined and harmonious poetry, nor upon an
agglomeration of consonants in the orthography, the resource of later
and more contemptible forgers, but upon the style itself, upon its
alternate strength and weakness, now nervous and concise, now diffuse
and eked out by the feeble aid of expletives."[99] Of Middle-English
poets other than Chaucer and the author or translator of _Sir Tristrem_,
Laurence Minot was the one to whom Scott alluded most frequently,
doubtless because in Ritson's edition of Minot that poet had become more
accessible than most of his contemporaries. Whatever detailed work Scott
did on the poetry of this period was chiefly in connection with _Sir
Tristrem_, which has naturally been considered in relation with his
other studies in romances.

Scott's familiarity with Chaucer appears in his numerous quotations from
that poet, but usually the passages are cited to illustrate mediaeval
manners rather than for any specifically literary purpose. Yet there are
Chaucer enthusiasts among the characters of _Woodstock_ and _Peveril of
the Peak_.[100] Chaucer's fame was well enough established so that Scott
seems on the whole to have taken his merit for granted, and not to have
said much about it except in casual references.[101] Among general
readers he must have been comparatively little known, however,
notwithstanding the respect paid him by scholars. In 1805 we find Scott
writing to Ellis that his scheme for editing a collection of the British
Poets had fallen through, for, he said, "My plan was greatly too liberal
to stand the least chance of being adopted by the trade at large, as I
wished them to begin with Chaucer. The fact is, I never expected they
would agree to it."[102]

Scott's review of Godwin's _Life of Chaucer_, one of the best known of
his periodical essays, is altogether concerned with the manner in which
Godwin did his work, and so exhibits Scott's ideas on the subject of
biography and his methods of reviewing rather than his attitude towards
Chaucer's poetry. His most definite remarks concerning Chaucer are to be
found in his comments upon Dryden's _Fables_, as for example: "The
Knight's Tale, whether we consider Chaucer's original poem, or the
spirited and animated version of Dryden, is one of the best pieces of
composition in our language";[103] "Of all Chaucer's multifarious
powers, none is more wonderful than the humour with which he touched
upon natural frailty, and the truth with which he describes the inward
feelings of the human heart."[104] Yet he once called _Troilus and
Criseyde_ "a somewhat dull poem."[105] _The Cock and the Fox_, on the
other hand, he speaks of as "a poem which, in grave ironical narrative,
liveliness of illustration, and happiness of humorous description,
yields to none that ever was written."[106]

In estimating the importance of Scott's studies on any one period we
have to think of them as part of a greater whole. The wide range of his
investigations would evidently make it impossible to expect a complete
treatment of all the subjects he might choose to discuss, and we have
found, in fact, that his criticism of mediaeval literature led to
systematic results in no other lines than those of the ballad and the
romance. But these were large and important matters. Moreover, to all
that he wrote in connection with the Middle Ages there attaches a
special interest; for with that work he made his real start in
literature; and it reflected the peculiarly delightful vein in his own
nature which was constant from youth to age, and which gave to his poems
and novels some of their most brilliant qualities.[107]


THE DRAMA

    Scott's fondness for the drama and his acquaintance with actors--His
    ideas about plot structure--His own dramatic experiments--His
    opinion of the theaters of his day--His knowledge of English
    dramatic literature--Familiarity with Elizabethan plays shown in his
    novels--His Essay on the Drama--Ancient drama--French
    drama--Dramatic unities--German drama--Elizabethan
    drama--Shakspere--Ben Jonson--Dryden and other Restoration
    dramatists--Morality of theater-going--Character of Scott's interest
    in the drama.

Like most of his characteristics, Scott's taste for the theater was
exhibited in his childhood. We find him reverting, in a review written
in 1826,[108] to his rapturous emotions on the occasion of seeing his
first play; and in the private theatricals which he and his brothers and
sister performed in the family dining-room he was always the manager. In
1810 he was active in helping to bring out in Edinburgh the _Family
Legend_ of his friend Joanna Baillie.[109] One of the actors on that
occasion was Daniel Terry,[110] who became an intimate friend of
Scott's. For Terry Scott wrote _The Doom of Devorgoil_, but the piece
was not found suitable for presentation. Several of the novels were more
successfully dramatized by the same friend, so that we find the "Author"
humorously complaining in the "Introductory Epistle" to _The Fortunes of
Nigel_, "I believe my muse would be _Terry_fied into treading the stage
even if I should write a sermon." Among Scott's friends were several
other actors, particularly Mrs. Siddons and her brother John Kemble, and
the comedian Charles Mathews. In Scott's review of _Kelly's
Reminiscences and the Life of Kemble_ we find recorded many of the
discriminations he was fond of making in regard to the talents of
particular actors.

In his childhood Scott felt well qualified to take the part of Richard
III., for he considered that his limp "would do well enough to represent
the hump."[111] After a similar fashion we find him commenting on the
improbabilities of the tragedy of _Douglas_: "But the spectator should,
and indeed must, make considerable allowances if he expects to receive
pleasure from the drama. He must get his mind, according to Tony
Lumpkin's phrase, into 'a concatenation accordingly,'[112] since he
cannot reasonably expect that scenes of deep and complicated interest
shall be placed before him, in close succession, without some force
being put upon ordinary probability; and the question is not, how far
you have sacrificed your judgment in order to accommodate the fiction,
but rather, what is the degree of delight you have received in
return."[113]

Scott disclaimed any special knowledge of stage-craft. "I know as little
about the division of a drama as the spinster about the division of a
battle, to use Iago's simile,"[114] he once wrote to a friend. Yet as a
critic he had of course some general ideas about the making of plays,
without having worked out any subtle theories on the subject. In
criticising a play by Allan Cunningham, who had asked for his judgment
on it, he remarked first that the plot was ill-combined. "If the mind
can be kept upon one unbroken course of interest, the effect even in
perusal is more gratifying. I have always considered this as the great
secret in dramatic poetry, and conceive it one of the most difficult
exercises of the invention possible, to conduct a story through five
acts, developing it gradually in every scene, so as to keep up the
attention, yet never till the very conclusion permitting the nature of
the catastrophe to become visible,--and all the while to accompany this
by the necessary delineation of character and beauty of language."[115]
And again he said to the same person, "I hope you will make another
dramatic attempt; and in that case I would strongly recommend that you
should previously make a model or skeleton of your incidents, dividing
them regularly into scenes and acts, so as to insure the dependence of
one circumstance upon another, and the simplicity and union of your
whole story."[116] Here we find Scott giving advice which by his own
admission he was not himself able to follow in the composition of
fiction. "I never could lay down a plan, or having laid it down I never
could adhere to it," he wrote in his journal[117]. And the "Author" in
the introductory epistle to _Nigel_ remarks, "It may pass for one good
reason for not writing a play, that I cannot form a plot."

The few experiments that he made he did not seem to regard seriously at
any time, though he was rather favorably impressed on rereading the
_Doom of Devorgoil_ after it had lain unused for several years.[118] Of
_Halidon Hill_ he said, "It is designed to illustrate military
antiquities and the manners of chivalry. The drama (if it can be called
one) is in no particular either designed or calculated for the
stage."[119] He seems to have been "often urged" to write plays, if one
may trust Captain Clutterbuck's authority, and the effectiveness of the
many poetical mottoes improvised by the Author of Waverley for the
chapters of his novels, and subscribed "Old Play,"[120] was naturally
used as an argument.[121] Scott's own judgment in the matter was
expressed thus: "Nothing so easy when you are full of an author, as to
write a few lines in his taste and style; the difficulty is to keep it
up. Besides, the greatest success would be but a spiritless imitation,
or, at best, what the Italians call a _centone_ [_sic_] from
Shakspeare."[122] When Elliston became manager of Drury Lane in 1819 he
applied to Scott for plays, but without effect.[123] Scott seems never
to have felt any concern over the fact that the dramatized versions of
his novels were often very poor, but Hazlitt wished that he would "not
leave it to others to mar what he has sketched so admirably as a
ground-work," for he saw no good reason why the author of Waverley could
not write "a first-rate tragedy as well, as so many first-rate
novels."[124]

Scott felt that to write for the stage in his day was a thankless and
almost degrading occupation. "Avowedly I will never write for the stage;
if I do, 'call me horse.'" he said in a letter to Terry.[125] Again in
a letter to Southey: "I do not think the character of the audience in
London is such that one could have the least pleasure in pleasing
them.... On the whole, I would far rather write verses for mine honest
friend Punch and his audience";[126] and to a would-be tragedian he
said: "In the present day there is only one reason which seems to me
adequate for the encountering the plague of trying to please a set of
conceited performers and a very motley audience,--I mean the want of
money."[127] This degraded condition of the London stage Scott thought
to be a consequence of limiting the number of theaters. We can hardly
suppose, however, that he was pessimistic in regard to the written drama
of his day, when he could say of Byron, "There is one who, to judge from
the dramatic sketch he has given us in Manfred, must be considered as a
match for Aeschylus, even in his sublimest moods of horror";[128] or
when he could place Joanna Baillie in the same class with
Shakspere[129].

Scott probably did much reading in the drama in his early life. We know
that by 1804 he had "long since" annotated his copy of Beaumont and
Fletcher sufficiently so that he wished to offer it to Gifford, who,
Scott erroneously understood, was about to edit their dramas.[130] The
edition of Dryden, published in 1808, shows familiarity with Elizabethan
as well as Restoration dramatists. He seems to have had first-hand
knowledge of such men as Ford, Webster, Marston, Brome, Shirley,
Chapman, and Dekker, whom he mentions as being "little known to the
general readers of the present day, even by name."[131] But 1808 was
the very year in which appeared Lamb's _Specimens of English Dramatic
Poets_ and Coleridge's first course of lectures on Shakspere. The old
dramatists were beginning to come to their own, through the sympathetic
appreciation of the Romantic critics. Scott never refers, however, to
the work of Lamb, Coleridge, or Hazlitt[132] in this field and we
conclude that his researches in dramatic literature were the recreation
of a man who realized that his business lay in another direction. But in
preparing the _Dryden_, he doubtless read more widely in Restoration
drama than he would otherwise have done. Throughout his life he
continued to read plays at intervals, as we know from occasional
references in the _Journal_; but after the _Dryden_ appeared we can
point to no time in his career when such reading was his especial
occupation. His familiarity with Elizabethan drama he showed even more
emphatically than by serious critical writings on the subject, in his
fragments from mythical "Old Plays,"[133] in his frequent references to
single plays, and in the substance of some of the novels, particularly
_The Fortunes of Nigel_ and _Woodstock_, which make use of settings,
situations, and characterizations suggested by the drama.[134] Mr. Lang
says of _The Fortunes of Nigel_, "The scenes in Alsatia are a distinct
gain to literature, a pearl rescued from the unread mass of
Shadwell."[135]

His serious critical writings on the subject comprise little else than
his _Essay on the Drama_, which appeared in the supplement to the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, published in 1819, and the discussions given
in connection with Dryden's plays.[136] Although the Essay was written
ten years later than the _Dryden_, we have no reason to think that Scott
changed his views or added greatly to his knowledge in the interval, and
using these two sources we may discuss his account of the drama in
general without regard to the particular date at which his opinions were
expressed.

His exposition in the _Essay on the Drama_ rested on the basis furnished
by a historical study of the stage. He did not, of course, pretend to
have formed his own conclusions on all points, and we find him quoting
from various authorities, sometimes naming them and sometimes only
indicating, perhaps, that he was "abridging from the best antiquaries."
This, however, was chiefly in connection with the ancient drama. As I
have already remarked, we do not find him referring to recent studies on
the English drama. And though Scott had forgotten all his Greek we
observe that he is bold enough to disagree with "the ingenious Schlegel"
in regard to the comparative value of the Greek New Comedy. In his
treatment of the ancient drama the main point for note is the success
with which he gives a broad and connected view of the subject. His
account of the drama in France needs correction in certain
respects,[137] but it seems to indicate some first-hand knowledge and
very definite opinions. He quotes Molière frequently throughout his
writings, and always speaks of him with admiration; but with no other
French dramatist does he seem to have been familiar to such a degree.
Judging French tragic poets too much from the Shaksperian point of view,
he was not prepared to do them justice.[138] On the dramatic unities, of
which he remarked, "Aristotle says so little and his commentators and
followers talk so much," Scott wrote, here and elsewhere, with decision
and vivacity. The unities of time and place he calls "fopperies," though
time and place, he admits, are not to be lightly changed.[139] He
connects the whole discussion with the study of theatrical conditions,
and never bows down to authority as such. He says, "Surely it is of less
consequence merely to ascertain what was the practice of the ancients,
than to consider how far such practice is founded upon truth, good
taste, and general effect"; and again, "Aristotle would probably have
formulated different rules if he had written in our time." And though he
adopted and applied to the drama the Horatian dictum that the end of
poetry is to instruct and delight, it was not because Horace and a long
line of critics had said it, but because he thought it was true.
Doubtless his phrase would have been different if he had not taken what
was lying nearest, but his habit was never carefully to avoid the common
phrase. His general opinion of French drama was decidedly unfavorable,
and he thought it was doubtful whether their plays would ever be any
nearer to nature. "That nation," he observes calmly, "is so unfortunate
as to have no poetical language."

His remarks on German drama are general in character, though we know
that in his early days he was much interested in translating
contemporary German plays. His version of Goethe's _Goetz von
Berlichingen_ was the most important of these translations. A letter of
Scott's contains the following reference to this play:[140] "The
publication of Goetz was a great era ... in German literature, and
served completely to free them from the French follies of unities and
decencies of the scene, and gave an impulse to their dramas which was
unique of its kind. Since that, they have been often stark mad but
never, I think, stupid. They either divert you by taking the most
brilliant leaps through the hoop, or else by tumbling into the custard,
as the newspapers averred the Champion did at the Lord Mayor's dinner."

When he is on English ground we can best trace Scott's individual
opinions, yet even here he reflects some of the limitations of the less
enlightened scholarship of his time, especially in connection with early
Elizabethan writers. He passes from _Ferrex and Porrex_[141] and _Gammer
Gurton's Needle_ directly to Shakspere, and quite omits Marlowe and the
other immediate predecessors. He was not ignorant of their existence,
for against a statement of Dryden's that Shakspere was the first to use
blank verse we find in Scott's edition the note,--"This is a mistake.
Marlowe and several other dramatic authors used blank verse before the
days of Shakespeare";[142] and one of his youthful notebooks contains
this comment on _Faustus_: "A very remarkable thing. Grand subject--end
grand."[143] In 1831 Scott intended to write an article for the
_Quarterly Review_ on Peele, Greene, and Webster, and in asking
Alexander Dyce to have Webster's works sent to him he said, "Marlowe and
others I have,--and some acquaintance with the subject, though not
much."[144] Webster he considered "one of the best of our ancient
dramatists." The proposed article was never written, because of Scott's
final illness.

In spite of his statement that "the English stage might be considered
equally without rule and without model when Shakspeare arose," Scott did
not seem inclined to leave the great man altogether unaccounted for, as
some critics have preferred to do, for he says, "The effect of the
genius of an individual upon the taste of a nation is mighty; but that
genius in its turn is formed according to the opinions prevalent at the
period when it comes into existence." These opinions, however, Scott
assigns very vaguely to the influence of "a nameless crowd of obscure
writers," and thinks it fortunate that Shakspere was unacquainted with
classical rules. The critic had evidently made no attempt to define the
influence of particular writers upon Shakspere. His criticism is at some
points purely conventional, as for instance when he calls the poet "that
powerful magician, whose art could fascinate us even by means of
deformity itself "; but on the whole Scott seems to write about
Shakspere in a very reasonable and discriminating way.

He has a good deal to say of Ben Jonson, in other places as well as in
this Essay on the Drama.[145] He was evidently well acquainted with that
poet, and admired him without liking him. Somewhere he calls him "the
dry and dogged Jonson,"[146] and again he speaks of his genius in very
high terms. The contrast between Shakspere and Jonson moved him even to
epigram:[147] "In reading Shakespeare we often meet passages so
congenial to our nature and feelings that, beautiful as they are, we can
hardly help wondering they did not occur to ourselves; in studying
Jonson, we have often to marvel how his conceptions could have occurred
to any human being." It was characteristic of Scott to note the fact
that Shakspere wrote rapidly, Jonson slowly, for he was fond of getting
support for his theory that rapid writing is the better.

As early as 1804 Scott referred to _The Changeling_ as "an old play
which contains some passages horribly striking,"[148] and in so doing
voiced, as Mr. Swinburne says, "the first word of modern tribute to the
tragic genius of Thomas Middleton."[149] Scott also praised Massinger
highly, especially for his strength in characterization, and once called
him "the most gentleman-like of all the old English dramatists."[150] He
discussed Beaumont and Fletcher sympathetically, for he knew them well
and frequently quoted from them. He named Shirley, Ford, Webster, and
Dekker in a group, and spoke of the singular profusion of talents
devoted in this period to the writing of plays, an observation which is
made more explicitly later in the _Journal_, when he has just been
reading an old play which, he says, "worthless in the extreme, is, like
many of the plays in the beginning of the seventeenth century, written
to a good tune. The dramatic poets of that time seem to have possessed
as joint-stock a highly poetical and abstract tone of language, so that
the worst of them often remind you of the very best."[151] This
circumstance he accounts for by a reference to the audiences, and this
in turn he seems to ascribe partly to the great number of theaters then
open in London. He dwells so much on the evils of limiting the number of
play-houses to two or three, that we may fairly consider it one of his
hobbies, and it is possible that he had some slight influence toward
increasing that public opposition to the theatrical monopoly which
finally, in 1843, resulted in the nullification of the patents.

Scott's discussion of Restoration drama is admirably vigorous and clear.
He probably simplified the matter too much at some points, indeed, as
for example in over-estimating the influence exerted upon the stage by
Charles II. and his French tastes, and in tracing the origin of the
French drama to romances. But in general his facts are right and his
deductions fair. Mr. Saintsbury has accused him of depreciating Dryden's
plays, especially the comedies, out of disgust at their indecency; yet
in judging the period as a whole he seems to discriminate sufficiently
between indelicacy and dulness. "The talents of Otway," he says, "in his
scenes of passionate affection rival, at least, and sometimes excel
those of Shakspeare." Again: "The comedies of Congreve contain probably
more wit than was ever before embodied upon the stage; each word was a
jest, and yet so characteristic that the repartee of the servant is
distinguished from that of the master; the jest of the cox-comb from
that of the humorist or fine gentleman of the piece." Lesser writers of
the time are also sympathetically characterized,--Shadwell, for
instance, whom he thought to be commonly underestimated.[152] The heroic
play Scott discussed vivaciously in more than one connection, for, as we
should expect, his sense of humor found its absurdities tempting.[153]
On the rant in the _Conquest of Granada_ he remarked, "Dryden's apology
for these extravagances seems to be that Almanzor is in a passion. But
although talking nonsense is a common effect of passion, it seems hardly
one of those consequences adapted to show forth the character of a hero
in theatrical representation."[154] Scott's opinion of the form of these
plays appears in the following comment: "We doubt if, with his utmost
efforts, [Molière] could have been absolutely dull, without the
assistance of a pastoral subject and heroic measure."[155] Concerning
the indecency of the literature of the period Scott wrote emphatically.
He was much troubled by the problem of whether to publish Dryden's works
without any cutting, and came near taking Ellis's advice to omit some
portions, but he finally adhered to his original determination: "In
making an edition of a man of genius's works for libraries and
collections ... I must give my author as I find him, and will not tear
out the page, even to get rid of the blot, little as I like it."[156]

The question of the morality of theater-going was one Scott felt obliged
to discuss when he was writing upon the drama. He found its vindication,
characteristically, in a universal human trait,--the impulse toward
mimicry and impersonation,--and in the good results that may be supposed
to attend it. In naming these he lays what seems like undue stress on
the teaching of history by the drama, in language that might quite as
well be applied to historical novels. His argument on the literary side
also is stated in a somewhat too sweeping way:--"Had there been no
drama, Shakespeare would, in all likelihood, have been but the author of
_Venus and Adonis_ and of a few sonnets forgotten among the numerous
works of the Elizabethan age, and Otway had been only the compiler of
fantastic odes."[157] A final plea, in favor of the stage as a
democratic agency--though this of course is not Scott's phrasing--seems
slightly unusual for him, although not essentially out of character.
"The entertainment," he says, "which is the subject of general
enjoyment, is of a nature which tends to soften, if not to level, the
distinction of ranks."[158] In another mood he admitted the greater
likelihood that immoral plays would injure the public character than
that moral plays would elevate it.[159]

It is sufficiently apparent to any student of Scott's work that he was
personally very fond of the drama. Many of the literary references and
allusions which appear in great abundance throughout his writings are
from plays, and show, as we have seen, a wide acquaintance with English
dramatic writers, from Shakspere to such comparatively little-known
playwrights as Suckling and Cowley. In the _Letters of Malachi
Malagrowther on the Currency_, for example, Scott's unusual range of
reading reveals itself even in connection with a subject remote from his
ordinary field, and here as elsewhere he shows himself prone to quote
from the drama.[160] But Scott was interested in plays for what he found
in them of characters and manners, of witty and sententious speech, of
situations and incidents, and only secondarily in the technical aspects
of the drama. Reading his novels we could guess that he would care more
for the concrete elements of a play than for the orderly march of events
through the various stages of a formally proper construction. In this
respect he differs from Coleridge; but indeed the two men may be
contrasted at almost every point. In summing up this part of Scott's
criticism we must remember also that it was chiefly incidental. Perhaps
whatever qualities it exhibits are on this account particularly
characteristic: at any rate his opinions on the drama were the reaction
of an unusually capable mind upon a department of literature in which
his reading was all the more fruitful because it followed the lines of a
natural inclination.


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

_Dryden_

    Scott's preparations for his edition of Dryden--Wide Scope of the
    work--Scott's estimation of Dryden--Grounds for putting Dryden above
    Chaucer and Spenser--Admirable style of the biography--Comments by
    Scott on other seventeenth century writers.

The edition of _Dryden's Complete Works_ deserves further notice,
especially since only eight of the eighteen volumes are occupied with
the plays, and these have less commentary than other parts of the works.
In 1805 Scott wrote to his friend George Ellis, "My critical notes will
not be very numerous but I hope to illustrate the political poems, as
_Absalom and Achitophel_, the _Hind and Panther_, etc., with some
curious annotations. I have already made a complete search among some
hundred pamphlets of that pamphlet-writing age, and with considerable
success, as I have found several which throw light on my author."[161]
He added that another edition of Dryden was proposed, and Ellis wrote in
answer, "With regard to your competitors, I feel perfectly at my ease,
because I am convinced that though you should generously furnish them
with all the materials, they would not know how to use them; _non cuivis
hominum contingit_ to write critical notes that anyone will read."[162]

When Scott's Dryden was reëdited and reissued in 1882-93 by Professor
Saintsbury, the new editor said: "It certainly deserves the credit of
being one of the best-edited books on a great scale in English, save in
one particular,--the revision of the text."[163] The elaborate
historical notes are left untouched, as being "in general thoroughly
trustworthy,"[164] though the editor considers them somewhat excessive,
especially as sometimes containing illustrative material from perfectly
worthless contemporaries. On the other hand, the "explanation of word
and phrase is a little defective."[165]

The most notable quality of the _Life of Dryden_ which composes the
first of the eighteen volumes is its breadth of scope. Scott's aim may
best be given in his own words in the Advertisement: "The general
critical view of Dryden's works being sketched by Johnson with
unequalled felicity, and the incidents of his life accurately discussed
and ascertained by Malone, something seemed to remain for him who should
consider these literary productions in their succession, as actuated by,
and operating upon, the taste of an age where they had so predominant
influence; and who might, at the same time, connect the life of Dryden
with the history of his publications, without losing sight of the fate
and character of the individual."[166]

Errors of judgment appear in places; sometimes they are due to the
imperfect scholarship of the time; sometimes they arise from prejudices
of Scott's own. In the very first chapter we find him condemning Lyly
and all writers of "conceited" language--particularly of course the
Metaphysicals--with a thoroughness that a truly catholic critic ought
probably to avoid. Scott had a constitutional dislike for a labored
style, and at the same time a fondness for the direct and
straightforward way of looking at things. So, though he was open to the
emotional appeal of a poem like _Christabel_, he took no pleasure in the
devious processes by which the cold intellect has sometimes tried to
give fresh interest to familiar words and ideas. They quite prevented
him from seeing the passion in the work of Donne, for example, and he
considered all metaphysical poets, in so far as they showed the traits
of their class, to be without poetical feeling.

Scott placed Dryden after Shakspere and Milton as third in the list of
English writers. I think he would even have been willing to say that
Dryden was the third as a poet. For greatly as he admired Chaucer, Scott
did not feel Chaucer's full power, and indeed it was only beginning to
be possible to read Chaucer with any appreciation of his metrical
excellence. Spenser, of whom he once wrote: "No author, perhaps, ever
possessed and combined in so brilliant a degree the requisite qualities
of a poet,"[167] was more of a favorite with Scott than Chaucer. But at
another time he spoke of Drayton as possessing perhaps equal powers of
poetry,[168] and he seems to have felt that Spenser becomes tedious
through the continued use of his difficult stanza and even more because
of the "languor of a continued allegory."[169] In comparing his
judgments on Spenser and Dryden we may conclude that the critic found
more in the later poet of that solid intellectual basis which he
emphasizes in characterizing him. "This power of ratiocination," says
Scott, "of investigating, discovering, and appreciating that which is
really excellent, if accompanied with the necessary command of fanciful
illustration and elegant expression, is the most interesting quality
which can be possessed by a poet."[170] Again he lays emphasis on
Dryden's versatility,--greater, he says, than that of Shakspere and
Milton. In _Old Mortality_ Dryden is referred to as "the great
High-priest of all the Nine." Scott would have called this another point
of his superiority over Spenser, if he had made the comparison.

Yet he saw Dryden's deficiencies. "It was a consequence of his mental
acuteness that his dramatic personages often philosophized and reasoned
when they ought only to have felt,"[171] Scott remarks and he frequently
deplores Dryden's failure "in expressing the milder and more tender
passions."[172] Of Dryden's great gift of style, Scott speaks in the
highest terms. "With this power," he says, "Dryden's poetry was gifted
in a degree surpassing in modulated harmony that of all who had preceded
him and inferior to none that has since written English verse [_sic_].
He first showed"--and here we see Scott's eighteenth-century
affinities--"that the English language was capable of uniting smoothness
and strength."[173]

Such criticism as Scott gives on specific parts of Dryden's work is
clear-cut, fair for the most part, and has the sanity and reasonableness
which are the most noticeable qualities of his criticism in general. It
would be easier to find illustrations of shrewdness than of subtlety
among his notes, but his discriminations are often effective and
satisfying. His discussion, for example, of prologues and epilogues
considered in relation to the theatrical conditions which determined
their character is admirable.[174] A note on "the cant of supposing that
the _Iliad_ contained an obvious and intentional moral"[175] is also
full of sense and vigor, but these qualities are so thoroughly diffused
through the work that there is no need of particularizing. His praise of
_Alexander's Feast_ may be referred to, however, as showing his
characteristic delight in objective poetry.[176] As a lyric poet, he
says, Dryden "must be allowed to have no equal."[177]

The peculiarly congenial qualities of the subject may have had something
to do with the fact that the style in which the _Life of Dryden_ is
written is noticeably better than that of Scott's ordinary work. It is
marked with a care and accuracy that were not, unfortunately, habitual
to him. Perhaps it was an advantage that when he wrote the book he had
not yet become altogether familiar with his own facility; certainly the
substance and the manner of treatment unite in making this the most
important of his critical biographies.

Various references indicate that Scott was acquainted in at least a
general way with English writers throughout the whole of Dryden's
century. He speaks of the poems of Phineas Fletcher as containing "many
passages fully equal to Spenser"[178]; he says that Cowley "is now ...
undeservedly forgotten"[179]; he calls _Hudibras_ "the most witty poem
that ever was written,"[180] but says, "the perpetual scintillation of
Butler's wit is too dazzling to be delightful"[181]; he talks of Waller
and quotes from him[182]; he refers to the charming quality of Isaac
Walton's work;[183] and he adopts Samuel Pepys as a familiar
acquaintance.[184] These references occur mostly in the _Dryden_ or in
the novels, and we may conclude that the work for the _Dryden_ gathered
up and strengthened all Scott's acquaintance with the literature of the
seventeenth century, from Shakspere and Milton down to writers of
altogether minor importance; and gave him material for many of the
allusions that appear in his later work. It is probably true that there
are more quotations from Dryden in Scott's books than from any other one
author,[185] though lines from Shakspere occurred more often in his
conversation and familiar letters.


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

_Swift_

    The preparation of _Swift's Complete Works_--Comparison of the
    _Dryden_ and the _Swift_--The bibliographical problem presented by
    Swift's works--Inaccuracies in the biography--Scott's success in
    portraying a perplexing temperament--Judicious quality of his
    literary criticism.

As soon as the _Dryden_ was completed Scott was offered twice as much
money as he had received for that work, for a similar edition of
Swift.[186] He readily undertook the task, and in the midst of many
other editorial engagements set to work upon it. The preparation of the
book extended over the six years during which Scott ran the greater part
of his poetical career. On its appearance one of his friends expressed
the feeling which every student of Scott must have had in regard to the
large editorial labors that he undertook, in saying, "I am delighted and
surprised; for how a person of your turn could wade through, and so
accurately analyze what you have done (namely, all the dull things
calculated to illustrate your author), seems almost impossible, and a
prodigy in the history of the human mind."[187] The work was first
published in 1814. Ten years later it was revised and reissued; and
Scott's _Swift_ has, like his _Dryden_, been the standard edition of
that author ever since.

In each case Scott had to deal with an important and varied body of
literature in the two fields of poetry and prose, though the proportions
were different; and in each case he had occasion for illustrative
historical annotations of the kind that he wrote with unrivalled
facility. He was master of the political intrigues of Queen Anne's reign
no less completely than of the circumstances which gave rise to _Absalom
and Achitophel_, and the fact that his notes are less voluminous in the
_Swift_ is probably to be accounted for by the comparative absence of
quaintness in the literary and social fashions of the eighteenth
century.

The peculiar conditions under which Swift's writings had appeared, and
his remarkable indifference to literary fame, gave the editor
opportunity to look for material which had not before been included in
his works. The diligent search of Scott and his various correspondents
enabled him to add about thirty poems, between sixty and seventy letters
from Swift, and about sixteen other small pieces. The most noteworthy
item among these additions was the correspondence between Swift and Miss
Vanhomrigh, of which only a very small part had previously been made
public.[188]

Scott's notes seem to indicate that most of the necessary searching
through newspapers and obscure pamphlets for forgotten work of Swift was
performed by "obliging correspondents," and that the editor himself had
only to pass judgment on what was brought to his attention. This
impression may arise largely from his cordiality in expressing
indebtedness to his helpers, but it is certain that his position as a
popular poet gave Scott the assistance of many people who would not have
been enlisted in the work by an ordinary editor. But Scott had the
difficult task of deciding whether the unauthenticated pieces were to be
assigned to Swift. The bibliography of Swift is still so uncertain that
it is impossible to say how many of the small pamphlets in verse and
prose added in this edition are really his work.[189] Scott had good
reason for his additions in most cases, though sometimes, as he was
aware, the Dean had merely revised the work of other people. The editor
was occasionally over-credulous in attributing pieces to Swift, but he
was perhaps oftener too generous in giving room to things which he knew
had very little claim to be considered Swift's work. When he was in
doubt he chose to err on the safe side, according to the principles set
forth in the following note on the _Letter from Dr. Tripe to Nestor
Ironside_: "The piece contains a satirical description of Steele's
person, and should the editor be mistaken in conjecturing that Swift
contributed to compose it, may nevertheless, at this distance of time,
merit preservation as a literary curiosity."[190] The ample space
afforded by the nineteen volumes of the book gives room to Arbuthnot's
_History of John Bull_--because it was "usually published in Swift's
works,"--to the verses addressed to the Dean and those written in memory
of him, as well as to the prose and verse miscellanies of Pope and
Swift, and the miscellanies and _jeux d'esprit_ of Swift and Sheridan.
Swift's correspondence fills the last four and a half volumes.

The biography, which occupies the first volume, is admirable in tone,
but the facts Scott gives are less to be relied upon than the inferences
and conclusions he derives from them. He corresponded with persons who
were in a position to know about Swift from his friends and
acquaintances, and probably he trusted too much to these "original
sources." We find, as perhaps the most noteworthy instance, that the
marriage to Stella is stated as an ascertained fact, on authority that
is not now considered convincing. Later biographers of Swift,--Sir Henry
Craik, Leslie Stephen, Mr. Churton Collins,--have borne witness to the
human interest of Scott's biography, and its preeminence, in spite of
inaccuracies, among all the Lives of Swift that have been written. But
Mr. Churton Collins thinks Scott did not present a really clear view of
Swift's mysterious character, and Craik says he took only the
conventional attitude towards Swift's politics, misanthropy, and
religion. The charge indicates Scott's weakness, and perhaps also much
of his strength, as a biographer and critic, for he had no prejudice
against the conventional as such, and was never anxious to exhibit
special "insight" of any kind. Yet I think his portrayal of Swift has
seemed to most readers a clear presentation of a real and comprehensible
character.[191]

Scott's remark when he undertook the work, that Swift was of his early
favorites,[192] seems surprising when one remembers how his genial
nature recoiled from misanthropy and cynicism; but his treatment of the
Dean was so sympathetic that Jeffrey thought him decidedly too lenient,
and was moved to express righteous indignation in the pages of the
_Edinburgh Review_.[193] The rebuke was unnecessary, for Scott did not
omit to record Swift's failings and to express wholesomely vigorous
opinions concerning them, though he felt that they ought to be looked
upon as evidences of disease rather than of guilt. He felt also, with
perhaps some excess of charity but surely not such as could be in the
least harmful, that "if the Dean's principles were misanthropical, his
practice was benevolent. Few have written so much with so little view
either to fame or to profit, or to aught but benefit to the
public."[194] Jeffrey's condemnation of Scott's point of view was
mingled with just praise. He said of the biography: "It is quite fair
and moderate in politics; and perhaps rather too indulgent and tender
towards individuals of all descriptions,--more full, at least, of
kindness and veneration for genius and social virtue, than of
indignation at baseness and profligacy. Altogether it is not much like
the production of a mere man of letters, or a fastidious speculator in
sentiment and morality; but exhibits throughout, and in a very pleasing
form, the good sense and large toleration of a man of the world."

The very practical motives that inspired most of Swift's pamphlets would
naturally attract Scott. Probably it was the remembrance of the
_Drapier's Letters_ that suggested to him a similar form of protest
against proposed changes in the Scottish currency; certainly the
_Letters of Malachi Malagrowther_ had an effect comparable to that of
Swift's more consummately ingenious appeal. Another quality in Swift's
work that would naturally arouse Scott's admiration was the remarkable
directness and lucidity of the style. Scott appreciated the originality
force of Swift, even when it was used in the service of satire.
Sometimes, he says, "the intensity of his satire gives to his poetry a
character of emphatic violence which borders upon grandeur."[195] The
editor's discussion of _Gulliver's Travels_ an acute and illuminating
little essay, contains one comment that gives an amusing revelation of
his point of view. He says in regard to the fourth part of the story:
"It is some consolation to remark that the fiction on which this libel
on human nature rests is in every respect gross and improbable, and, far
from being entitled to the praise due to the management of the first two
parts, is inferior in plan even to the third."[196] This is a sound
verdict, even if it does contain an extra-literary element. Scott
surpassed most of his contemporaries, except the younger Romantic
writers, in his ability to eliminate irrelevant considerations in
estimating any literary work; and if occasionally his strong moral
feeling appears in his criticism, it serves to remind us how much less
often this happens than a knowledge of his temperament would lead us to
expect. In spite of the qualities in his subject that might naturally
bias Scott's judgment, his criticism throughout this edition of Swift
seems on the whole very judicious. It defines the literary importance
and brings out plainly the power of a man whose work presents unusual
perplexities to the critic.


_The Somers Tracts_

    Character of the collection and of Scott's work on it--Occasional
    carelessness--Purpose of the notes--Scott's attitude towards these
    studies.

While Scott was working on his _Dryden_ and before he began the _Swift_
he undertook to edit the great collection which had been published fifty
years before as _Somers' Tracts_. His task was to arrange, revise, and
annotate pamphlets which represented every reign from Elizabeth to
George I. He grouped them chronologically by reigns, and separated them
further into sections under the headings,--Ecclesiastical, Historical,
Civil, Military, Miscellaneous; he also added eighty-one pamphlets, all
written before the time of James II. The largest number of additions in
any one section was historical and had reference to Stafford. Among the
miscellaneous tracts that he incorporated were Derrick's _Image of
Ireland_ from a copy in the Advocates' Library, and Gosson's _School of
Abuse_. Scott's statement in the Advertisement as to why he did not omit
any of the original collection shows his unpedantic attitude toward the
kind of studies which he was encouraging by the republication of this
series. He says: "When the variety of literary pursuits, and the
fluctuation of fashionable study is considered, it may seem rash to pass
a hasty sentence of exclusion, even upon the dullest and most despised
of the essays which this ample collection offers to the public. There
may be among the learned, even now, individuals to whom the rabbinical
lore of Hugh Broughton presents more charms than the verses of Homer;
and a future day may arise when tracts on chronology will bear as high a
value among antiquaries as 'Greene's Groats' Worth of Wit,' or 'George
Peele's Jests,' the present respectable objects of research and
reverence."

In editing this collection Scott made little attempt to decide disputed
problems of authorship when the explanation did not lie upon the
surface. Indeed the following note regarding the tract called _A New
Test of the Church of England's Loyalty_ shows that he sometimes
neglected very obvious sources of information, for the piece is given in
one of Defoe's own collections of his works: "This defence of whiggish
loyalty," says Scott, "seems to have been written by the celebrated
Daniel De Foe, a conjecture which is strengthened by the frequent
reference to his poem of the True-born Englishman."[197] He was not
often so careless, but the rapidity and range of his work during these
years undoubtedly gave occasion for more than one lapse of accuracy,
while at the same time it perhaps increased the effectiveness of his
comment.

His notes and introductions vary in length according to the requirements
of the case, for he aimed to provide such material as would prevent the
necessity of reference to other works. Matters that were obscure he
explained, and he wrote little comment on those that were generally
understood. When he left himself so free a hand he could indulge his
personal tastes somewhat also, and we are not surprised to find an
especial abundance of notes on an account of the Gowrie Conspiracy which
presented a perplexing problem in Scottish history.

The connection of _Somers' Tracts_ with other things that Scott did has
already been remarked upon.[198] That he found some sort of stimulation
in all his scholarly employments is sufficiently evident to anyone who
studies his work as a whole, and this fact might well serve as a motive
for such study. Yet it is only fair to remember that Scott was not a
novelist during these years when he was performing his most laborious
editorial tasks. We are accustomed to think of the brilliant use he was
afterwards to make of the knowledge he was gaining, but the motives
which influenced him were those of the man whose interest in literature
and history makes scholarly work seem the most natural way of earning
money. "These are studies, indeed, proverbially dull," he once wrote,
speaking of Horace Walpole's antiquarian researches, "but it is only
when they are pursued by those whose fancies nothing can enliven."[199]


_The Lives of the Novelists, and Comments on Other Eighteenth Century
Writers_

    The _Novelists' Library_--Writers discussed--Value of the
    _Lives_--General tone of competence in these essays--Scott's
    catholic taste--Points of special interest in the
    discussion--Relations of the novel and the drama--Supernatural
    machinery in novels--Mistakes in the criticism of
    Defoe--Realism--Motive in the novel--Aim of the prefaces--Scott's
    familiarity with eighteenth century literature.

It has already been said that a large part of Scott's critical work
concerned itself with the eighteenth century. Of his greater editorial
labors two may be considered as belonging to that period, for
Ballantyne's _Novelists' Library_, though an enterprise which was
commercially a failure and which consequently remained incomplete, may
from the point of view of Scott's contributions fitly be compared with
the _Dryden_ and the _Swift_. Such parts as were published appeared in
1821. The bulk of the volumes and the small type in which they were
printed were considered to be the cause of their failure, and it was not
until the critical biographies were extracted and published separately,
by Galignani the Parisian bookseller, in 1825, that they seem to have
attracted notice.

Scott wrote these _Lives of the Novelists_ at a time when his hands were
full of literary projects, altogether for John Ballantyne's benefit. The
author afterwards spoke of them as "rather flimsily written,"[200] but
we may surmise that to the fact that they were not the result of special
study is due something of their ripeness of reflection and breadth of
generalization. "They contain a large assemblage of manly and sagacious
remarks on human life and manners,"[201] wrote the _Quarterly_ reviewer.

The writers considered were all British, with the exception of LeSage.
The choice, or at least the arrangement, seems more or less haphazard.
Richardson, Fielding, and Smollett naturally began the group, and Sterne
followed after an interval. Johnson and Goldsmith were treated briefly,
for the prefaces were to be proportioned to the amount of work by each
author included in the text. Horace Walpole, Clara Reeve, and Mrs.
Radcliffe represented the Gothic romance. Charles Johnstone, Robert
Bage, and Richard Cumberland were among the inferior writers included.
Henry Mackenzie, who was still living and was a personal friend of
Scott, completes the list so far as it went before the series was
terminated by the publisher's death. When Scott's _Miscellaneous Prose
Works_ were collected he added the lives of Charlotte Smith and Defoe,
but in each of these cases the biographical portion was by another hand,
the criticism being his own.[202]

The study of the novel as a _genre_ was naturally undeveloped at that
time. Dunlop's _History of Prose Fiction_ had appeared in 1814,
evidently a much more ambitious attempt than Scott's; but Scott could
treat the British novelists with comparative freedom from the trammels
of any established precedent. Of course his position as one who had
struck out a wonderful new path in the writing of novels gave to his
reflections on other novelists a very special interest. The _Lives of
the Novelists_ are not to be neglected even now, and this is the more to
be insisted on because the criticism of novels has been practiced with
increasing zeal since Scott himself has become a classic and since his
successors have made this field of literature more varied and popular,
if not greater, than the first masters made it. A recent writer on
eighteenth century literature says: "By far the best criticism of the
eighteenth century novelists will be found in the prefatory notices
contributed by Scott to Ballantyne's _Novelists' Library_."[203] But the
same writer adds: "Sir Walter Scott, indeed, considered _Fathom_
superior to _Jonathan Wild_, an opinion which must always remain one of
the mysteries of criticism."[204]

This comment indicates that there was no lack of assuredness in Scott's
treatment, and we do indeed find a very pleasant tone of competence
which, though liable to error as in the exaggerated praise bestowed upon
Smollett, gives much of their effectiveness to the criticisms. The
quality appears elsewhere in Scott's critical work, but it is perhaps
especially noticeable here. For example, we find this dictum: "There is
no book in existence, in which so much of the human character, under all
its various shades and phases, is described in so few words, as in the
_Diable Boiteux_."[205] The illustration is perhaps a trifle extreme,
for Scott is not often really dogmatic. From this point of view as from
others we naturally make the comparison with Johnson's _Lives of the
Poets_, and we find that without being so sententious, so admirably
compact in style, Scott is also not so dictatorial.

We cannot accuse Scott of liking any one kind of novel to the exclusion
of others. He ranks _Clarissa Harlowe_ very high;[206] he says _Tom
Jones_ is "truth and human nature itself."[207] _The Vicar of Wakefield_
he calls "one of the most delicious morsels of fictitious composition on
which the human mind was ever employed." "We return to it again and
again," he says, "and bless the memory of an author who contrives so
well to reconcile us to human nature."[208] He praises _Tristram
Shandy_, calling Uncle Toby and his faithful Squire, "the most
delightful characters in the work, or perhaps in any other."[209] The
quiet fictions of Maria Edgeworth and Jane Austen, the exciting tales of
Mrs. Radcliffe, the sentiment of Sterne, even the satires of Bage,--all
pleased him in one way or another. Scott's autobiography contains the
following comment on his boyish tastes in the matter of novels: "The
whole Jemmy and Jenny Jessamy tribe I abhorred, and it required the art
of Burney, or the feeling of Mackenzie, to fix my attention upon a
domestic tale. But all that was adventurous and romantic I devoured
without much discrimination."[210] In later life he learned to exercise
his judgment in regard to stories of adventure not less than those of
the "domestic" sort, and perhaps the liking for quiet tales grew upon
him; at any rate his taste seems remarkably catholic.

The most interesting portions of the _Lives of the Novelists_ are those
which show us, by the frequent recurrence of the same subjects, what
parts of the theory of novel-writing had particularly engaged Scott's
attention. For example we find him discussing, most fully in the _Life
of Fielding_, the reasons why a successful novelist is likely not to be
a successful playwright. The way in which he looks at the matter
suggests that he was thinking quite as much of the probability of
failure in his own case should he begin to write plays, as of the
subject of the memoir; for Fielding wrote his plays before his novels,
but the argument assumes a man who writes good novels first and bad
plays afterwards. One of his statements seems rather curious and hard to
explain,--"Though a good acting play may be made by selecting a plot and
characters from a novel, yet scarce any effort of genius could render a
play into a narrative romance." Perhaps he expected the "Terryfied"
versions of _Guy Mannering_ and _Rob Roy_ to hold the stage longer than
fate has permitted them to do. From another point of view also he was
interested in the connection of the novel and the drama. He felt that
the direction of the drama in the modern period had been largely
determined by the influence of successful novels; and he probably
overestimated the effect of the "romances of Calprenède and Scudéri" on
heroic tragedy.[211]

A subject which recurs even oftener than that of the distinction between
drama and novel is the question of supernatural machinery in novels.
Horace Walpole is commended for giving us ghosts without furnishing
explanations. Indeed the _Castle of Otranto_ is highly praised;[212] but
so also is Mrs. Radcliffe's work, except on the one point of the attempt
to rationalize mysteries. The kind of romance which she
"introduced"[213] is compared with the melodrama, and its particular
mode of appeal is analyzed in very interesting fashion. In the _Life of
Clara Reeve_ the proper treatment of ghosts is discussed at length, for
that author had contended that ghosts should be very mild and of "sober
demeanour." Scott justifies her practice, but not her theory, on the
following grounds: "What are the limits to be placed to the reader's
credulity, when those of common-sense and ordinary nature are at once
exceeded? The question admits only one answer, namely, that the author
himself, being in fact the magician, shall evoke no spirits whom he is
not capable of endowing with manners and language corresponding to their
supernatural character."

Scott writes with much enthusiasm about Defoe's famous little
ghost-story, _The Apparition of Mrs. Veal_, praising Defoe's wonderful
skill in making the unreal seem credible. In connection with this tale
Scott developed a very interesting anecdote to explain the fact that
Drelincourt's _Defence against the Fear of Death_ is recommended by the
apparition. "Drelincourt's book," he says, "being neglected, lay a dead
stock on the hands of the publisher. In this emergency he applied to De
Foe to assist him (by dint of such means as were then, as well as now,
pretty well understood in the literary world) in rescuing the
unfortunate book from the literary death to which general neglect seemed
about to consign it." Scott goes on to assert that the story was simply
a consummately clever advertising device. He may have found the germ of
his hypothesis in a bookseller's tradition, but he states it as an
assured fact, and doubtless believed it firmly because it seemed so
beautifully reasonable. His explanation became the basis of later
statements on the subject, and now obliges everyone who discusses Defoe
to supply a contradiction; for the truth is that Drelincourt's book was
so highly popular as to have gone through several editions before the
ghost of Mrs. Veal mentioned it. Moreover, if Scott's little tale was
fictitious, Defoe's, on the other hand, was really a reporter's version
of an experience actually related by the person to whom he assigns it,
and his skill in achieving verisimilitude was perhaps in this case less
wonderful than his critics have generally supposed.[214]

On the subject of realism, Scott was not in general very rigid. In his
_Life of Richardson_ he says: "It is unfair to tax an author too
severely upon improbabilities, without conceding which his story could
have no existence; and we have the less title to do so, because, in the
history of real life, that which is actually true bears often very
little resemblance to that which is probable."[215] But this is perhaps
only a plea for one kind of realism. He also refers to the question of
historical "keening," and concludes that it is possible to have so much
accuracy that the public will refuse to be interested, as _Lear_ would
hardly be popular on the stage if the hero were represented in the
bearskin and paint which a Briton of his time doubtless wore.[216]

The motive of the novel is a subject which naturally engages the
attention of the novelist-critic. Romantic fiction, he thinks may have
sufficient justification if it acts as an opiate for tired spirits. A
significant antithesis between his point of view in this matter and the
more common attitude taken by critics in his time is illustrated by two
reviews of Mrs. Shelley's _Frankenstein_, to which we may refer, though
the book was later than those included in the _Novelists' Library_.
Scott wrote in _Blackwood's_: "We ... congratulate our readers upon a
novel which excites new reflections and untried sources of
emotion."[217] The _Quarterly_ reviewer took the opposite and more
conservative attitude and expressed himself thus: "Our taste and our
judgment alike revolt at this kind of writing, and the greater the
ability with which it may be executed the worse it is--it inculcates no
lesson of conduct, manners, or morality; it cannot mend, and will not
even amuse its readers, unless their taste has been deplorably
vitiated--it fatigues the feelings without interesting the
understanding; it gratuitously harasses the heart, and wantonly adds to
the store, already too great, of painful sensations."[218] In general
Scott minimizes the effect of any moral that may be expressed in the
novel, but occasionally he seems inconsistent, when he is talking of
sentiments that are peculiarly distasteful to him.[219] But his thesis
is that "the direct and obvious moral to be deduced from a fictitious
narrative is of much less consequence to the public than the mode in
which the story is treated in the course of its details."[220] In the
_Life of Fielding_ he says of novels: "The best which can be hoped is
that they may sometimes instruct the youthful mind by real pictures of
life, and sometimes awaken their better feelings and sympathies by
strains of generous sentiment, and tales of fictitious woe. Beyond this
point they are a mere elegance, a luxury contrived for the amusement of
polished life."

He conceived that his prefaces might be useful to warn readers against
any ill effects that might otherwise result from the reading of the
accompanying texts; and our comments on the _Lives of the Novelists_ may
fitly close with a quotation which shows the writer's attitude toward
the novels and his own criticisms upon them. The passage is taken from
the _Life of Bage_. "We did not think it proper to reject the works of
so eminent an author from this collection, merely on account of
speculative errors.[221] We have done our best to place a mark on these;
and as we are far from being of opinion that the youngest and most
thoughtless derive their serious opinions from productions of this
nature, we leave them for our reader's amusement, trusting that he will
remember that a good jest is no argument; that the novelist, like the
master of a puppet-show, has his drama under his absolute authority, and
shapes the events to favour his own opinions; and that whether the Devil
flies away with Punch, or Punch strangles the Devil, forms no real
argument as to the comparative power of either one or other, but only
indicates the special pleasure of the master of the motion."

Scott was deeply in sympathy with the literature of the century within
which he was born. To the evidence of his _Swift_ and of the _Lives of
the Novelists_ it may be added that he contemplated making a complete
edition of Pope, and that he professed to like _London_ and _The Vanity
of Human Wishes_ the best of all poems. James Ballantyne said, rather
ambiguously, "I think I never saw his countenance more indicative of
high admiration than while reciting aloud from those productions."[222]
In one of his letters Scott spoke of the "beautiful and feeling verses
by Dr. Johnson to the memory of his humble friend Levett, ... which with
me, though a tolerably ardent Scotchman, atone for a thousand of his
prejudices."[223] Not only did he admire the great biography, but he
called Boswell "such a biographer as no man but [Johnson] ever had, or
ever deserved to have."[224] But he once said that many of the
_Ramblers_ were "little better than a sort of pageant, where trite and
obvious maxims are made to swagger in lofty and mystic language, and get
some credit only because they are not understood."[225]

Among other eighteenth century writers, Addison is distinguished by high
praise in a few casual references,[226] but Scott once admitted that he
did not like Addison so much as he felt to be proper.[227] A collection
of Prior's poems Scott calls "an English classic of the first
order."[228] He speaks of Parnell as "an admirable man and elegant
poet,"[229] and mentions "the ponderous, persevering, and laborious
dullness of Sir Richard Blackmore."[230] But these observations are of
little importance except as they indicate that Scott had read the
authors of the eighteenth century and acquiesced in the conventional
judgments upon them. It is seldom in his brief and casual comments that
Scott is particularly interesting as a critic, except when he is
speaking of living writers, for he lacked the gift of conciseness. When
he has a large canvas he is at his best, and this he has in the
principal works described in this chapter:--_The Minstrelsy of the
Scottish Border_, the _Works of Dryden_, the _Works of Swift_, and the
_Lives of the Novelists_.




CHAPTER IV

SCOTT'S CRITICISM OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES

    Scott's freedom from literary jealousy--His disapproval of the
    typical reviewer's attitude--Jeffrey, Gifford, and Lockhart--His own
    practice in regard to reviewing--His informal critical
    remarks--Opportunity for favorable judgments afforded by the number
    of important writers in his period.

    Poets--Burns--Coleridge--Relation of _Christabel_ to
    Scott's work--Scott's dislike for extreme
    Romanticism--Wordsworth--Southey--Scott's review of
    _Kehama_--Byron--Scott's opinion of Byron's
    character--Campbell--Moore--Allan Cunningham--Hogg--Crabbe--Joanna
    Baillie--Matthew Lewis--Scott's judgment on his early taste for
    poetry--Absence of comment on the work of Lamb, Landor, Hunt,
    Hazlitt, and DeQuincey.

    Novelists--Jane Austen--Maria Edgeworth--Cooper--Personal relations
    between Scott and Cooper--Scott's verdict on Americans in
    general--Washington Irving--Goethe--Fouqué--Scott's interest in men
    of action.


To study Scott's relations with contemporary writers is a very pleasant
task because nothing shows better the greatness of his heart. His
admirable freedom from literary jealousy was an innate virtue which he
deliberately increased by cultivation, taking care, also, never to
subject himself to the conditions which he thought accounted for the
faults of Pope, who had "neither the business nor the idleness of life
to divide his mind from his Parnassian pursuits."[231] "Those who have
not his genius may be so far compensated by avoiding his foibles," Scott
said; and some years later he wrote,--"When I first saw that a literary
profession was to be my fate, I endeavoured by all efforts of stoicism
to divest myself of that irritable degree of sensibility--or, to speak
plainly, of vanity--which makes the poetical race miserable and
ridiculous."[232] The record of his life clearly shows that his kindness
towards other men of letters was not limited to words. One who received
his good offices has written,--"The sternest words I ever heard him
utter were concerning a certain poet: 'That man,' he said, 'has had much
in his power, but he never befriended rising genius yet.'"[233] We may
safely say that Scott enjoyed liking the work of other men. "I am most
delighted with praise from those who convince me of their good taste by
admiring the genius of my contemporaries,"[234] he once wrote to
Southey.

It is commonly supposed that Scott's amiability led him into absurd
excesses of praise for the works of his fellow-craftsmen, and indeed he
did say some very surprising things. But when all his references to any
one man are brought together, they will be found, with a few exceptions,
pretty fairly to characterize the writer. His _obiter dicta_ must be
read in the light of one another, and in the light, also, of his known
principles. Temperamentally modest about his own work, he was also
habitually optimistic, and the combination gave him an utterly different
quality from that of the typical _Edinburgh_ or _Quarterly_ critics.

His disapproval of their point of view he expressed more than once.[235]
It seemed to him futile and ungentlemanly for the anonymous reviewer to
seek primarily for faults, or "to wound any person's feelings ... unless
where conceit or false doctrine strongly calls for reprobation."[236]
"Where praise can be conscientiously mingled in a larger proportion than
blame," he said, "there is always some amusement in throwing together
our ideas upon the works of our fellow-labourers." He thought, indeed,
that vituperative and satiric criticism was defeating its own end, in
the case of the _Edinburgh Review_ since it was overworked to the point
of monotony. Such criticism he considered futile as well on this account
as because he thought it likely to have an injurious effect on the work
of really gifted writers.

An admirer of both Jeffrey and Scott, who once heard a conversation
between the two men, has recorded a distinction which is exactly what we
should expect.[237] He says: "Jeffrey, for the most part, entertained
us, when books were under discussion, with the detection of faults,
blunders, absurdities, or plagiarisms: Scott took up the matter where he
left it, recalled some compensating beauty or excellence for which no
credit had been allowed, and by the recitation, perhaps, of one fine
stanza, set the poor victim on his legs again."

On Jeffrey Scott's verdict was, "There is something in his mode of
reasoning that leads me greatly to doubt whether, notwithstanding the
vivacity of his imagination, he really has any _feeling_ of poetical
genius, or whether he has worn it all off by perpetually sharpening his
wit on the grindstone of criticism."[238] His comment on Gifford's
reviews was to the effect that people were more moved to dislike the
critic for his savagery than the guilty victim whom he flagellated.[239]
In the early days of _Blackwood's Magazine_ Scott often tried to repress
Lockhart's "wicked wit,"[240] and when Lockhart became editor of the
_Quarterly_ his father-in-law did not always approve of his work. "Don't
like his article on Sheridan's life,"[241] says the _Journal_. "There is
no breadth in it, no general views, the whole flung away in smart but
party criticism. Now, no man can take more general and liberal views of
literature than J.G.L."[242]

With these opinions, Scott was not likely often to undertake the
reviewing of books that did not, in one way or another interest him or
move his admiration; and he would lay as much stress as possible on
their good points. Gifford told him that "fun and feeling" were his
forte.[243] In his early days he was probably somewhat influenced by
Jeffrey's method, and his articles on Todd's _Spenser_ and Godwin's
_Life of Chaucer_ indicate that he could occasionally adopt something of
the tone of the _Edinburgh Review_. Years afterwards he refused to write
an article that Lockhart wanted for the _Quarterly_, saying, "I cannot
write anything about the author unless I know it can hurt no one
alive"[244] but for the first volume of the _Quarterly_ he reviewed Sir
John Carr's _Caledonian Sketches_ in a way that Sharon Turner seriously
objected to, because it made Sir John seem ridiculous.[245] Some of
Scott's critics would perhaps apply one of the strictures to himself:
"Although Sir John quotes Horace, he has yet to learn that a wise man
should not admire too easily; for he frequently falls into a state of
wonderment at what appears to us neither very new nor very
extraordinary."[246] But if admiration seems to characterize too great a
proportion of Scott's critical work, it is because he usually preferred
to ignore such books as demanded the sarcastic treatment which he
reprehended, but which he felt perfectly capable of applying when he
wished. Speaking of a fulsome biography he once said, "I can no more
sympathize with a mere eulogist than I can with a ranting hero upon the
stage; and it unfortunately happens that some of our disrespect is apt,
rather unjustly, to be transferred to the subject of the panegyric in
the one case, and to poor Cato in the other."[247]

Besides Scott's formal reviews, we find cited as evidence of his extreme
amiability his letters, his journal, and the remarks he made to friends
in moments of enthusiasm. These do indeed contain some sweeping
statements, but in almost every case one can see some reason, other than
the desire to be obliging, why he made them. He was not double-faced.
One of the nearest approaches to it seems to have been in the case of
Miss Seward's poetry, for which he wrote such an introduction as hardly
prepares the reader for the remark he made to Miss Baillie, that most of
it was "absolutely execrable." His comment in the edition of the
poems--the publication of which Miss Seward really forced upon him as a
dying request--is sedulously kind, and in _Waverley_ he quotes from her
a couple of lines which he calls "beautiful." But the essay is most
carefully guarded, and throughout it the editor implies that the woman
was more admirable than the poetry. Personally, indeed, he seems to have
liked and admired her.[248]

The catalogue of Scott's contemporaries is so full of important names
that his genius for the enjoyment of other men's work had a wide
opportunity to display itself without becoming absurd. An argument early
used to prove that Scott was the author of _Waverley_ was the frequency
of quotation in the novels from all living poets except Scott himself,
and he felt constrained to throw in a reference or two to his own poetry
in order to weaken the force of the evidence.[249] The reader is
irresistibly reminded of the following description, given by Lockhart in
a letter to his wife, of a morning walk taken by Wordsworth and Scott in
company: "The Unknown was continually quoting Wordsworth's Poetry and
Wordsworth ditto, but the great Laker never uttered one syllable by
which it might have been intimated to a stranger that your Papa had ever
written a line either of verse or prose since he was born."[250]

Scott's opinions in regard to his fellow craftsmen may best be given
largely in his own words--words which cannot fail to be interesting,
however little evidence they show of any attempt to make them quotable.

In considering Scott's estimation of his contemporaries it is
chronologically proper to mention Burns first. As a boy of fifteen Scott
met Burns, an event which filled him with the suitable amount of awe. He
was most favorably impressed with the poet's appearance and with
everything in his manner. The boy thought, however, that "Burns'
acquaintance with English poetry was rather limited, and also, that
having twenty times the abilities of Allan Ramsay and of Ferguson, he
talked of them with too much humility as his models."[251] Scott's
admiration of Burns was always expressed in the highest and, if one may
say so, the most affectionate terms. He refused to let himself be named
"in the same day" with Burns.[252] "Long life to thy fame and peace to
thy soul, Rob Burns!" he exclaimed, in his _Journal_; "when I want to
express a sentiment which I feel strongly, I find the phrase in
Shakespeare--or thee."[253] On another day he compared Burns with
Shakspere as excelling all other poets in "the power of exciting the
most varied and discordant emotions with such rapid transitions."[254]
Again, "The Jolly Beggars, for humorous description and nice
discrimination of character, is inferior to no poem of the same length
in the whole range of English poetry."[255] Scott wished that Burns
might have carried out his plan of dramatic composition, and regretted,
from that point of view, the excessive labor at songs which in the
nature of things could not all be masterpieces.[256]

Of writers who were more precisely contemporaries of Scott, the Lake
Poets and Byron are the most important. The precedence ought to be given
to Coleridge because of the suggestion Scott caught from a chance
recitation of _Christabel_ for the meter he made so popular in the
_Lay_.[257] Fragments from _Christabel_ are quoted or alluded to so
often in the novels[258] and throughout Scott's work that we should
conclude it had made a greater impression upon him than any other single
poem written in his own time, if Lockhart had not spoken of Wordsworth's
sonnet on Neidpath Castle as one which Scott was perhaps fondest of
quoting.[259] _Christabel_ is not the only one of Coleridge's poems
which Scott used for allusion or reference, but it was the favorite. "He
is naturally a grand poet," Scott once wrote to a friend. "His verses on
Love, I think, are among the most beautiful in the English language. Let
me know if you have seen them, as I have a copy of them as they stood in
their original form, which was afterwards altered for the worse."[260]
The _Ancient Mariner_ also made a decided impression on him, if we judge
from the fact that he quoted from it several times.[261] Scott evidently
felt that Coleridge was a most tantalizing poet, and once intimated that
future generations would in regard to him feel something like Milton's
desire "to call up him who left half told the story of Cambuscan
bold."[262] "No man has all the resources of poetry in such profusion,
but he cannot manage them so as to bring out anything of his own on a
large scale at all worthy of his genius.... His fancy and diction would
have long ago placed him above all his contemporaries, had they been
under the direction of a sound judgment and a steady will."[263] Such,
in effect, was the opinion that Scott always expressed concerning
Coleridge, and it is practically that of posterity. In _The Monastery_
Coleridge is called "the most imaginative of our modern bards." In
another connection, after speaking of the "exquisite powers of poetry he
has suffered to remain uncultivated," Scott adds, "Let us be thankful
for what we have received, however. The unfashioned ore, drawn from so
rich a mine, is worth all to which art can add its highest decorations,
when drawn from less abundant sources."[264] These remarks are worth
quoting, not only because of their wisdom, but also because Scott had
small personal acquaintance with Coleridge and was rather repelled than
attracted by what he knew of the character of the author of
_Christabel_. His praises cannot in this case be called the tribute of
friendship, and his own remarkable power of self-control might have made
him a stern judge of Coleridge's shortcomings.

One of his most interesting comments on Coleridge is contained in a
discussion of Byron's _Darkness_, a poem which to his mind recalled "the
wild, unbridled, and fiery imagination of Coleridge."[265] _Darkness_ is
characterized as a mass of images and ideas, unarranged, and the critic
goes on to warn the author against indulging in this sort of poetry. He
says: "The feeling of reverence which we entertain for that which is
difficult of comprehension, gives way to weariness whenever we begin to
suspect that it cannot be distinctly comprehended by anyone.... The
strength of poetical conception and beauty of diction bestowed upon such
prolusions [_sic_], is as much thrown away as the colors of a painter,
could he take a cloud of mist or a wreath of smoke for his canvas." It
is disappointing that we have no comment from Scott upon Shelley's
poetry, but we can imagine what is would have been.[266] Scott's
position as the great popularizer of the Romantic movement in poetry
makes particularly interesting his very evident though not often
expressed repugnance to the more extreme development of that movement.

Wordsworth's peculiar theory of poetry seemed to Scott superfluous and
unnecessary, though he was never, so far as we can judge, especially
irritated by it.[267] Of Wordsworth and Southey he wrote to Miss Seward:
"Were it not for the unfortunate idea of forming a new school of poetry,
these men are calculated to give it a new impulse; but I think they
sometimes lose their energy in trying to find not a better but a
different path from what has been travelled by their predecessors."[268]
Scott paid tribute in the introduction to _The Antiquary_ to as much of
Wordsworth's poetical creed as he could acquiesce in when he said, "The
lower orders are less restrained by the habit of suppressing their
feelings, and ... I agree with my friend Wordsworth that they seldom
fail to express them in the strongest and most powerful language." In a
letter to Southey Scott calls Wordsworth "a great master of the
passions,"[269] and in his _Journal_ he said: His imagination "is
naturally exquisite, and highly cultivated by constant exercise."[270]
At another time he compared Wordsworth and Southey as scholars and
commented on the "freshness, vivacity, and spring" of Wordsworth's
mind.[271]

The personal relations between Scott and Wordsworth were, as Wordsworth's
tribute in _Yarrow Revisited_ would indicate, those of affectionate
intimacy. And if Scott took exception to Wordsworth's choice of subjects
and manner, Wordsworth used the same freedom in disagreeing with Scott's
poetical ideals. "Thank you," he wrote in 1808, "for _Marmion_, which I
have read with lively pleasure. I think your end has been attained. That
it is not in every respect the end which I should wish you to purpose to
yourself, you will be well aware, from what you know of my notions of
composition, both as to matter and manner."[272] When, in 1821, Chantrey
was about to exhibit together his busts of the two poets, Scott wrote:
"I am happy my effigy is to go with that of Wordsworth, for (differing
from him in very many points of taste) I do not know a man more to be
venerated for uprightness of heart and loftiness of genius. Why he will
sometimes choose to crawl upon all fours, when God has given him so
noble a countenance to lift to heaven, I am as little able to account
for as for his quarrelling (as you tell me) with the wrinkles which time
and meditation have stamped his brow withal."[273]

These remarks upon Wordsworth and Coleridge touch merely the fringe of
the subject, and indeed we do not find that Scott exercised any such
sublimated ingenuity in appreciating these men as has often been
considered essential. We can see that he admired certain parts of their
work intensely, but we look in vain for any real analysis of their
quality. But as he never had occasion to write essays upon their poetry,
it is perhaps hardly fair to expect anything more than the general
remarks that we actually do find, and as far as they go they are
satisfactory.

Like most of his distinguished contemporaries, Scott held the work of
Southey in surprisingly high estimation.[274] Southey, more than anyone
else except Wordsworth, and more than Wordsworth in some ways, was the
"real poet" of the period, devoting his whole heart to literature and
his whole time to literary pursuits. Scott commented on the fact,
saying, "Southey's ideas are all poetical," and, "In this respect, as
well as in many others, he is a most striking and interesting
character."[275] Nevertheless Scott found it easy to criticise Southey's
poems adversely, as we may see from his correspondence. Writing to Miss
Seward he pointed out flaws in the story and the characterization of
_Madoc_,[276] yet after repeated readings he saw enough to convince him
that _Madoc_ would in the future "assume his real place at the feet of
Milton."[277] _Thalaba_ was one of the poems he liked to have read aloud
on Sunday evenings.[278] A review of _The Curse of Kehama_, in which he
seemed to express the opinion that this surpassed the poet's previous
work, illustrates his professed creed as to criticism. He wrote to Ellis
concerning his article: "What I could I did, which was to throw as much
weight as possible upon the beautiful passages, of which there are many,
and to slur over the absurdities, of which there are not a few.... This
said _Kehama_ affords cruel openings for the quizzers, and I suppose
will get it roundly in the _Edinburgh Review_. I could have made a very
different hand of it, indeed, had the order of the day been _pour
déchirer_."[279] If Scott had to make an effort in writing the review,
he made it with abundant energy. Some absurdities are indeed mentioned,
but various particular passages are characterized in the most
enthusiastic way, with such phrases as "horribly sublime," "impressive
and affecting," "reminds us of the Satan of Milton, yet stands the
comparison," "all the gloomy power of Dante." It may be noted that Scott
used Milton's name rather freely in comparisons, and that for Dante his
admiration was altogether unimpassioned,[280] but the review, after all,
is on the whole very laudatory.[281] In it Scott awards to Southey the
palm for a surpassing share of imagination, which he elsewhere gave to
Coleridge. Possibly Scott was the less inclined to be severe over the
absurdities of _Kehama_ because Southey agreed with his own theory as to
the evil of fastidious corrections.[282] At any rate he seems to have
been quite sincere in saying to Southey, in connection with the
poet-laureateship which, according to Scott's suggestion, was offered to
him in 1813, "I am not such an ass as not to know that you are my better
in poetry, though I have had, probably but for a time, the tide of
popularity in my favour."[283]

Much as Scott admired Southey, Wordsworth, and Coleridge, he considered
Byron the great poetical genius of the period. He once spoke of Byron as
the only poet of transcendent talents that England had had since
Dryden.[284] At another time his comment was: "He wrote from impulse,
never from effort; and therefore I have always reckoned Burns and Byron
the most genuine poetical geniuses of my time, and half a century before
me. We have ... many men of high poetical talent, but none, I think, of
that ever-gushing and perennial fountain of natural water."[285] The
likenesses between Byron's poetical manner and Scott's own must have
made it easy for the elder poet to recognize the power of the younger,
since Scott was innocent of all repining or envy over the fact which he
so freely acknowledged in later years, that Byron "beat" him out of the
field.[286] From the time of the appearance of the first two cantos of
_Childe Harold_ he acknowledged the author's "extraordinary power,"[287]
and even before that he had tried to soften Jeffrey's harsh treatment of
_Hours of Idleness_.[288] In 1814 he was ready to say, "Byron hits the
mark where I don't even pretend to fledge my arrow."[289]

It was Byron, rather than Scott, who realized the debt of the new
popular favorite to the old; and their personal relations were of the
pleasantest, though they were never intimate as Scott was with Southey
and Wordsworth. As poets, Scott and Byron seem to have understood each
other thoroughly.[290] None of the other great poets of the period did
justice to Scott, nor did he succeed so well in defining the power of
any of the others. His first review of _Childe Harold_ is the most
important of all his articles on the poetry of his time; and his remarks
written at the death of Lord Byron, though brief, are not less full of
good judgment. Originality, spontaneity, and the ability and inclination
to write rapidly were traits Scott admired most in Byron, and in the
vigor and beauty of the poems he found the fine flower of all these
qualities. "We cannot but repeat our conviction," he says, "that poetry,
being, in its higher classes, an art which has for its elements
sublimity and unaffected beauty, is more liable than any other to suffer
from the labour of polishing.... It must be remembered that we speak of
the higher tones of composition; there are others of a subordinate
character where extreme art and labour are not bestowed in vain. But we
cannot consider over-anxious correction as likely to be employed with
advantage upon poems like those of Lord Byron, which have for their
object to rouse the imagination and awaken the passions."[291]

Byron's temperament was far from being of a sort that Scott could
admire, though he was very susceptible to his personal charm: "Byron's
countenance is a thing to dream of," he once said;[292] but he felt that
popular estimation did Byron injustice. His articles on this poet
contain some of his most characteristic moral reflections. Something of
Byron's gloominess Scott attributes to the sensitive poetic organization
which he felt that Byron had in an extreme degree; but more to the
perverted habit of looking within rather than around upon the realities
of life, in which Providence intended men to find their happiness. The
philosophy is not novel or brilliant; it is only very sincere and very
just; and it supplies to Scott's criticism of Byron that element of
moral reflection which we feel was necessary to the occasion.[293]

But though Scott never failed to express disapproval of Byron's attitude
toward life, he kept his criticism on this point essentially distinct
from his judgment on the poetry. In a way it was impossible to separate
the two subjects, and the public demanded some discussion of the man
when his poetry was reviewed. But Scott's verdict on the importance of
the poems as such was unaffected by his disapproval of the author's
point of view. He praised _Don Juan_ no less heartily than _Childe
Harold_.

His criticism of _Don Juan_ is, however, to be gathered only from short
and incidental remarks, as he never reviewed the poem. A satire written
by R.P. Gillies is commemorated thus in Scott's _Journal_: "This poem
goes to the tune of _Don Juan_, but it is the champagne after it has
stood two days with the cork drawn."[294] He called Byron "as various in
composition as Shakspeare himself"; and added, "this will be admitted by
all who are acquainted with his _Don Juan_.... Neither _Childe Harold_,
nor any of the most beautiful of Byron's earlier tales, contain more
exquisite morsels of poetry than are to be found scattered through the
cantos of _Don Juan_."[295] The defence of _Cain_ which Scott wrote in
accepting the dedication of that poem to himself is well known.[296] He
calls it a "very grand and tremendous drama," and continues, "Byron has
certainly matched Milton on his own ground. Some part of the language is
bold, and may shock one class of readers, whose tone will be adopted by
others out of affectation or envy. But then they must condemn the
_Paradise Lost_, if they have a mind to be consistent."

Scott's comments on Byron are closely paralleled by those of Goethe, who
considered that Byron had the greatest talent of any man of his
century.[297] The opinions of continental critics in general were
similar. Among English critics Matthew Arnold aroused many protests when
he ranked Byron as one of the two greatest English poets of the
nineteenth century, but his views seem perfectly rational now; and
though he remarked upon the extravagance of Scott's phrases his own
verdict was not very unlike that we have been considering.

Scott's enthusiasm about the literature of his own time seems natural
enough when we consider that the list of his notable contemporaries is
far from exhausted after Burns, the Lake Poets, and Byron have been
named. Campbell was a poet of whose powers he thought very highly, but
who, he believed had given only a sample of the great things he might do
if he would cease to "fear the shadow of his own reputation." Before he
wrote about Byron Scott had given in his review of _Gertrude of Wyoming_
an exposition of his opinion as to the dangers of extreme care in
revision. "The truth is," he says, "that an author cannot work upon a
beautiful poem beyond a certain point without doing it real and
irreparable injury in more respects than one."[298] He felt that
Campbell had worked, in many cases, beyond the "certain point." For the
"impetuous lyric sally," like the _Mariners of England_ and the _Battle
of the Baltic_, Scott rightly thought that Campbell excelled all his
contemporaries. Moore was another lyrist whose poetry Scott greatly
admired. In Moore's case, as in Southey's, the contemporary estimate was
higher than can now be maintained, but Moore is to-day underrated. From
what Scott says about him we conclude that the man's personality and his
way of singing added much to the exquisiteness of his songs. "He seems
almost to think in music," Scott said, "the notes and words are so
happily suited to each other";[299] and, "it would be a delightful
addition to life if T.M. had a cottage within two miles of one."[300]
Allan Cunningham was a young protege of Scott whose songs, "Its hame and
it's hame," and "A wet sheet and a flowing sea," seemed to him "among
the best going."[301] Another poet who received Scott's good offices was
Hogg, whose relations with the greater man are described so vividly and
at some points so amusingly by Lockhart. Scott called him a "wonderful
creature for his opportunities."[302]

For the poet Crabbe, Scott, like Byron and Wordsworth,[303] had a steady
and high admiration. In the Sunday evening readings that Lockhart
describes as being so pleasant a feature of the life of the family in
Edinburgh, Crabbe was perhaps the chief standing resource after
Shakspere.[304] His work was particularly recommended to the young
people of the family,[305] and when the venerable poet visited the
Scotts in 1822, he was received as a man whom they always looked upon as
nobly gifted. Scott once wrote of him: "I think if he had cultivated the
sublime and the pathetic instead of the satirical cast of poetry, he
must have stood very high (as indeed he does at any rate) on the list of
British poets. His _Sir Eustace Grey_ and _The Hall of Justice_ indicate
prodigious talent."[306] Scott did not like Crabbe's choice of
subjects,[307] but he appreciated the "force and vigour" of a poet whom
students of our own day are once more beginning to admire, after a
period during which he was practically ignored.

Scott's very high estimation of Joanna Baillie has already been
mentioned.[308] In this case as in many others he was proud and happy in
the personal friendship of the writer whose works he admired. He once
wrote to Miss Edgeworth: "I have always felt the value of having access
to persons of talent and genius to be the best part of a literary man's
prerogative."[309] Almost the earliest of the writers for whose
friendship Scott felt grateful was Matthew Lewis, famed as the author of
_The Monk_. Lewis was also something of a poet, and was really helpful
to Scott in giving him advice on literary subjects. Though Scott
perceived that Lewis's talents "would not stand much creaming"[310] he
continued to regard him as one who had had high imagination and a "finer
ear for rhythm than Byron's."

Scott felt that his own taste in respect to poetry became more rigorous
as he grew older. In 1823 in a letter to Miss Baillie he commented on
Mrs. Hemans as "somewhat too poetical for my taste--too many flowers, I
mean, and too little fruit--but that may be the cynical criticism of an
elderly gentleman; for it is certain that when I was young I read verses
of every kind with infinitely more indulgence, because with more
pleasure than I can now do--the more shame for me now to refuse the
complaisance which I have had so often to solicit."[311] Similarly he
speaks in the preface to _Kenilworth_ of having once been delighted with
the poems of Mickle and Langhorne: "There is a period in youth when the
mere power of numbers has a more strong effect on ear and imagination
than in after-life." With these comments we may put Lockhart's sagacious
remark: "His propensity to think too well of other men's works sprung,
of course, mainly from his modesty and good nature; but the brilliancy
of his imagination greatly sustained the delusion. It unconsciously gave
precision to the trembling outline, and life and warmth to the vapid
colours before him."[312] This and his kindness would account for the
latter half of the observation made by his publisher: "I like well
Scott's ain bairns--but heaven preserve me from those of his
fathering."[313]

I have found no reference to Landor, a poet whom Southey and Wordsworth
read with eagerness, but Mr. Forster makes this statement in his
_Biography of Landor_: "Among Landor's papers I found a list, prepared
by himself, of resemblances to passages of his own writing to be found
in Scott's _Tales of the Crusaders_. There were several from _Gebir_....
The poem had made a great impression on Scott, who read it at Southey's
suggestion."[314] Forster also notes the fact that Southey, in a letter
to Scott written in 1812, spoke very highly of Landor's _Count
Julian_.[315] I am similarly unable to cite any comment by Scott on the
writings of Lamb. Was it because Scott's genius clung to Scotland and
Lamb's to London, that the two seemed so little to notice each other? It
does seem odd that Scott never refers to the delightful _Specimens of
English Dramatic Poets_. At one time Lamb wrote to Sir Walter asking a
contribution toward a fund that was being raised to help William Godwin
out of pecuniary troubles, and Scott replied, through the artist Haydon,
with a cheque for ten pounds and a pleasant message to Mr. Lamb, "whom I
should be happy to see in Scotland, though I have not forgotten his
metropolitan preference of houses to rocks, and citizens to wild rustics
and highland men."[316] Hazlitt and Hunt were two other writers whose
literary work Scott ignored.[317] This, as well as his neglect of Lamb's
and DeQuincey's essays, may be due largely to the fact that he seldom
read newspapers and magazines, and these writers were journalists and
contributors to periodicals. Voracious reader as Scott was, he had to
economize time somewhere, and the hours saved from papers could be given
to books. We do find one or two references to these men as political
writers. Scott hoped Lockhart would learn, as editor of the _Quarterly_,
to despise petty adversaries, for "to take notice of such men as Hazlitt
and Hunt in the _Quarterly_ would be to introduce them into a world
which is scarce conscious of their existence."[318]

Among novelists, those of Scott's contemporaries to whom he gave the
highest praise were women. This is, however to be expected, and it is
natural to find Jane Austen receiving the highest praise of all; since
Scott was emphatically not of the tribe of critics who are able to
appreciate only one kind of novel or poem. Her novels seemed to grow
upon him and he read them often. It was in connection with her
"exquisite touch" that he was moved to reflect, in the words so often
quoted from his _Journal_, "The Big Bow-wow strain I can do myself like
any now going."[319] Among the expressions of admiration which occur in
his review of _Emma_,[320] Scott records a characteristic bit of protest
in regard to the tendency of Miss Austen and other novelists to make
prudence the guiding motive of all their favorite young women
characters, especially in matters of the heart. He did not like this
pushing out of Cupid to make way for so moderate a virtue as prudence;
he thought that it is often good for young people to fall in love
without regard to worldly considerations. Scott rated Miss Edgeworth
nearly as high as Miss Austen, and hers is the added honor of having
inspired the author of _Waverley_ with a desire to emulate her
power.[321] With these two novelists he associated Miss Ferrier, as well
as the somewhat earlier writer, Fanny Burney.[322]

Aside from these women and Henry Mackenzie, perhaps the highest praise
that Scott bestowed on any contemporary novelist was given to Cooper.
Here, as in the case of Byron, Scott seemed to ignore the other writer's
indebtedness to himself. He speaks, in the general preface to the
Waverley Novels, of "that striking field in which Mr. Cooper has
achieved so many triumphs"; and at another time calls him "the justly
celebrated American novelist." In his _Journal_ he comments on _The Red
Rover_[323] and _The Prairie_;[324] _The Pilot_ he recommends warmly in
a letter to Miss Edgeworth.[325]

The personal relations between "the Scotch and American lions," as Scott
called himself and Cooper, when they met in Parisian society in
1826,[326] had some interesting consequences. Cooper suggested to Scott
that he try to secure for himself part of the profits arising from the
publication of his works in America, by entering them as the property of
some citizen.[327] They finally concluded to substitute for this plan
one suggested by Scott, which involved the writing by the Author of
Waverley, of a letter addressed to Cooper, to be transmitted by him to
some American publisher who would undertake the publication of an
authorized edition of which half the profits should go to the author.
Future works were to be sent over to this publisher in advance of their
appearance in England. The letter was really an appeal to the justice of
the American people, and contained an allusion to the publication of
Irving's works in England according to a plan very similar to that
proposed by Scott. But the scheme failed here in America, and apparently
the letter was not made public until Cooper, irritated by the appearance
in Lockhart's _Life of Scott_ of Sir Walter's comments on his personal
manner,[328] explained the affair (except the reason for dropping the
plan), and published the correspondence in the _Knickerbocker Magazine_
for April, 1838.[329] Later in the same year Cooper wrote a severe
review of the biography of Scott, attacking his character in a way that
seems absurdly exaggerated.[330] Yet Charles Sumner seems to have
thought that Cooper made his points, and Mr. Lounsbury is inclined to
agree with him.[331]

One of the milder strictures in Cooper's review was as follows "As he
was ambitious of, so was he careful to preserve, his personal
popularity, of which we have a striking proof in the studied kindnesses
that for years were laid before this country in deeds and words, as
compared with his real acts and sentiments toward America and Americans
which are now revealed in his letters." A passage which doubtless roused
Cooper's ire may be quoted. Of the Americans Scott said, in a letter to
Miss Edgeworth, "They are a people possessed of very considerable
energy, quickened and brought into eager action by an honourable love of
their country and pride in their institutions; but they are as yet rude
in their ideas of social intercourse, and totally ignorant, speaking
generally, of all the art of good breeding, which consists chiefly in a
postponement of one's own petty wishes or comforts to those of others.
By rude questions and observations, an absolute disrespect to other
people's feelings, and a ready indulgence of their own, they make one
feverish in their company, though perhaps you may be ashamed to confess
the reason. But this will wear off and is already wearing away. Men,
when they have once got benches, will soon fall into the use of
cushions. They are advancing in the lists of our literature, and they
will not be long deficient in the _petite morale_, especially as they
have, like ourselves, the rage for travelling."[332]

Scott liked George Ticknor,[333] and he called Washington Irving "one of
the best and pleasantest acquaintances I have made this many a
day."[334] In later life he congratulated himself on having from the
first foreseen Irving's success.[335] When we remember also that Scott
quotes from Poor Richard,[336] refers to Cotton Mather's
_Magnalia_,[337] and speaks of "the American Brown" as one whose novels
might be reprinted in England,[338] we ought probably to conclude that
his acquaintance with our literature was as comprehensive as could have
been expected.

Among continental writers belonging to his period, Goethe was very
properly the one for whom Scott had the strongest admiration. But we
find comparatively few references to his reading the great German after
the early period of translation. Throughout Lockhart's _Life of Scott_
it is evident that the biographer had a more thorough acquaintance with
Goethe than had Scott, and it seems probable that the younger man
influenced the elder in his judgment on _Faust_ and on Goethe's
character. In the Introduction to _Quentin Durward_ we find an
interesting comment on Goethe's success in creating a really wicked
Mephistopheles, who escapes the noble dignity that Milton and Byron gave
to their pictures of Satan. Goethe and Scott exchanged letters once in
1827,[339] and it was a personal grief to Sir Walter that the German
poet's death prevented a visit Scott proposed to make him in 1832. In
_Anne of Geierstein_ Goethe is called "an author born to arouse the
slumbering fame of his country";[340] and in the _Journal_ Scott
characterizes him as "the Ariosto at once and almost the Voltaire of
Germany."[341] The suggestion for the character of Fenella in _Peveril
of the Peak_ was taken from Goethe, as we learn by Scott's
acknowledgment in the Introduction. Another German from whom Scott
borrowed a suggestion--this time for the unlucky "White Lady of
Avenel"--was the Baron de la Motte Fouqué. Scott was evidently
interested in his work, though he thought Fouqué sometimes used such a
profusion of historical and antiquarian lore that readers would find it
difficult to follow the narrative.[342] Sir Walter asked his son to tell
the Baroness de la Motte Fouqué that he had been much interested in her
writings and those of the Baron, and added, "It will be civil, for folks
like to know that they are known and respected beyond the limits of
their own country."[343]

In the literary circles of Paris Scott more than once experienced the
pleasure of finding himself "known and respected" by foreigners,[344]
and he had intimate relations with men of letters in London. On one of
his visits there he saw Byron almost every morning for some time, at the
house of Murray the publisher. In Edinburgh society Scott was naturally
a prominent figure, being noted for his fund of anecdote and his
superior gifts in presiding at dinners. But however much his kindly
personal feeling is reflected in his comments on the literary work of
his friends, he was too well-balanced to assume anything of the
patronizing tone that such success as his might have made natural to
another sort of man. His fellow-poets thought him a delightful person
whom they liked so much that they could almost forgive the preposterous
success of his facile and unimportant poetry.

His full-blooded enjoyment of life and literature tempered without
obscuring his critical instinct, and though he was "willing to be
pleased by those who were desirous to give pleasure",[345] he noted the
weak points of men to whose power he gladly paid tribute. Wordsworth,
Coleridge, Southey, and Byron, whom he classed as the great English
poets of his time, may, with the exception of Southey, be given the
places he assigned to them. In regard to Byron, Scott expressed a
critical estimate that the public is only now getting ready to accept
after a long period of depreciating Byron's genius. The men whose work
Scott judged fairly and sympathetically represent widely different
types. With some of them he was connected by the new impulse that they
were imparting to English poetry, but he was so close to the transition
period that he could look backward to his predecessors with no sense of
strangeness. He was never inclined to quarrel with the "erroneous
system" of a poem which he really liked. His comments on Byron's
_Darkness_ suggest that if he had read more than he did of Shelley and
others among his younger contemporaries he might have found much to
reprehend, but he held that "we must not limit poetical merit to the
class of composition which exactly suits one's own particular
taste."[346] Among novelists even less than among poets can we trace a
"school" to which he paid special allegiance. He read and enjoyed all
sorts of good stories, growing in this respect more catholic in his
tastes, though perhaps more severe in his standards, as he grew older.

In speaking of Scott's relations with his contemporaries, we must
especially remember his ardent interest in those realities of life which
he considered greater than the greatest books. In one of his reviews he
laid stress on the merit of writing on contemporary events,[347] and he
seemed to think there was too little of such celebration. There are many
evidences of his great admiration for those of his contemporaries who
were men of action, but it is sufficient to remember that the only man
in whose presence Scott felt abashed was the Duke of Wellington, for he
counted that famous commander the greatest man of his time.




CHAPTER V

SCOTT AS A CRITIC OF HIS OWN WORK

    Lack of dogmatism about his own work--Harmony between his talents
    and his tastes--His conviction of the value of spontaneity and
    abundance--Merits of a rapid meter--Greater care necessary in verse
    writing a reason why he turned to prose--His attitude in regard to
    revision--Modesty about his own work--His opinion of the popular
    judgment--Importance of novelty--Rivalry with Byron--Scott's
    attempts to keep ahead of his imitators--Devices to secure
    novelty--His resolution to write history--Historical motives of his
    novels--His comments on the use of historical material--His verdict
    in regard to his descriptive abilities and methods--Lack of emphasis
    on the ethical aspect of his work--His judgment on the position of
    the novel in literature.


"Scott is invariably his own best critic," says Mr. Andrew Lang.[348] Of
this Scott was not himself in the least convinced, and when we recall
how, to please his printer, James Ballantyne, he tacked on a last scene
to _Rokeby_, resuscitated the dead Athelstane in _Ivanhoe_, and
eliminated the main motive of _St. Ronan's Well_, we wish he had been
more uniformly inclined to trust his own critical judgment.

He never scheduled the qualities of his own genius. A man who could
sincerely say what he did about literary immortality would not be apt to
develop any dogma in regard to his artistic achievement. "Let me please
my own generation," he said, "and let those that come after us judge of
their taste and my performances as they please; the anticipation of
their neglect or censure will affect me very little."[349] His opinions
about his own work are to be deduced largely from casual remarks
scattered through his letters and journals. His introductions to his
novels, in the _Opus Magnum_, are valuable sources, however, and the
"Epistle" preceding _The Fortunes of Nigel_ is a mine of material,
though, unlike the later introductions, it was written "according to the
trick," when he was still preserving his anonymity. We have an article
which he wrote for the _Quarterly_ on two of his own books, the review
of _Tales of My Landlord_.[350] His criticism of the work of other
people is also very helpful in this connection, since from it we may
learn what qualities he wished to find in poetry and in the novel, as
well as in history, biography, and criticism, the fields in which he did
much, though less famous work.

The student of his criticism is struck at once by the fact that the
qualities which Scott particularly admired in literature were those for
which he was himself preëminent. Yet he cannot be accused, as Poe may
be, of constructing a theory that those types of art were greatest which
he found himself most skilful in exemplifying. Scott's nature was of
that most efficient kind that enables a man to do such things as he
likes to see done. We cannot argue that he was incapable of attending to
minute niceties and on this account chose to emphasize the large
qualities of literature. For notwithstanding that lack of delicacy which
characterized his physical senses and which we might therefore conclude
would affect his literary discernment, we have among his small poems
some that show his power, occasionally at least, to satisfy the most
fastidious critic of detail. Evidently he could write in more than one
style, and though the style he used most is undoubtedly that which was
most natural to him, it was also that which he thought, on other grounds
than the character of his own talents, best worth while. Yet he had so
little vanity in regard to his own work that he could hardly understand
his success, though it depended on those very qualities which, in other
authors, excited his utmost admiration.

One of his fundamental opinions about literary work was that to write
much and with abundant spontaneity is better than to polish minutely.
Over and over again we find this idea expressed, most noticeably in
connection with the poet Campbell, whom Scott could scarcely forgive for
making so little use of his poetical gifts. He applauded the
much-criticised fertility of Byron, whose genius was in that respect
akin to his own. "I never knew name or fame burn brighter by over-chary
keeping of it,"[351] Scott said. The greatest writers he observed, have
been the most voluminous. His position was one that could be fortified
by inductive reasoning, contrasting in this respect with theories which
seem plausible only until they are tested by actual facts, as, for
example, Poe's idea that long poems lose effectiveness by their length.
But perhaps Scott did not sufficiently take into account the circular
nature of his argument; for since the world has refused to consider the
men very great who "never spoke out," the truth is not so much that a
great man ought to write copiously as that if a man does not write
copiously he will not be counted great. Scott seemed to think it was
mere wilfulness that prevented a man of such gifts as Campbell's from
writing abundantly.

The corresponding disadvantages of rapid composition were of course
evident to him. From the first appearance of the _Lay_ to the end of his
career he lamented his inability to plan a story in an orderly manner
and follow out the scheme; he admitted also that "the misfortune of
writing fast is that one cannot at the same time write concisely."[352]
Of _Marmion_ he told Southey, "I had not time to write the poem
shorter."[353]

His grief on these points seems qualified, however, by a conviction that
he could not write with deliberation and method and still produce the
effect of vivacious spontaneity. He thought Fielding was almost the only
novelist who had thoroughly succeeded in combining these various
admirable qualities,[354] and he said in this connection, "To demand
equal correctness and felicity in those who may follow in the track of
that illustrious novelist, would be to fetter too much the power of
giving pleasure, by surrounding it with penal rules; since of this sort
of light literature it may be especially said--_tout genre est permis,
hors le genre ennuyeux_."[355] "To confess to you the truth," says the
"Author" in the Introductory Epistle to _Nigel_, "the works and passages
in which I have succeeded, have uniformly been written with the greatest
rapidity; and when I have seen some of these placed in opposition with
others, and commended as more highly finished, I could appeal to pen and
standish, that the parts in which I have come feebly off were by much
the more laboured." He attempted to write _Rokeby_ with great care, but
threw the first version into the fire because he concluded that he had
"corrected the spirit out of it, as a lively pupil is sometimes flogged
into a dunce by a severe schoolmaster."[356] He was better satisfied
with the result when he resumed his pen in his "old Cossack
manner."[357] Similarly he writes of John Home's tragedy, _Douglas_,
that the finest scene was, "we learn with pleasure but without
surprise," unchanged from the first draft;[358] and elsewhere he speaks
of the greater chance for popularity of the "bold, decisive, but
light-touched strain of poetry or narrative in literary composition,"
over the "more highly-wrought performance."[359]

A good exposition of Scott's real opinion in regard to his own style is
to be found in his review of _Tales of My Landlord_. Some parts of the
article were probably inserted by his friend William Erskine, but the
section I quote bears unmistakable evidence that it was written by the
author himself, for it expresses that combined reprobation and approval
of his style which is amusingly characteristic of him. He says: "Our
author has told us that it was his object to present a series of scenes
and characters connected with Scotland in its past and present state,
and we must own that his stories are so slightly constructed as to
remind us of the showman's thread with which he draws up his pictures
and presents them successively to the eye of the spectator.... Against
this slovenly indifference we have already remonstrated, and we again
enter our protest.... We are the more earnest in this matter, because it
seems that the author errs chiefly from carelessness. There may be
something of system in it, however, for we have remarked, that with an
attention which amounts even to affectation, he has avoided the common
language of narrative and thrown his story, as much as possible, into a
dramatic shape. In many cases this has added greatly to the effect, by
keeping both the actors and action continually before the reader and
placing him, in some measure, in the situation of an audience at a
theater, who are compelled to gather the meaning of the scene from what
the dramatis personae say to each other, and not from any explanation
addressed immediately to themselves. But though the author gain this
advantage, and thereby compel the reader to think of the personages of
the novel and not of the writer, yet the practice, especially pushed to
the extent we have noticed, is a principal cause of the flimsiness and
incoherent texture of which his greatest admirers are compelled to
complain."[360]

Lockhart points out that the fruit of Scott's study of Dryden may have
been to fortify his opinion as to what the greatness of literature
really consists in, and applies to Scott himself some of the phrases
used in the characterization of the earlier poet. "'Rapidity of
conception, a readiness of expressing every idea, without losing
anything by the way'; 'perpetual animation and elasticity of thought';
and language 'never laboured, never loitering, never (in Dryden's own
phrase) cursedly confined,'" are set over against "pointed and nicely
turned lines, sedulous study, and long and repeated correction and
revision," and are pronounced the superior virtues.[361] The concluding
paragraph of Scott's review of a poem on the Battle of Talavera
exemplifies his use of this doctrine. "We have shunned, in the present
instance," he says, "the unpleasant task of pointing out and dwelling
upon individual inaccuracies. There are several hasty expressions, flat
lines, and deficient rhymes, which prove to us little more than that the
composition was a hurried one. These, in a poem of a different
description, we should have thought it our duty to point out to the
notice of the author. But after all it is the spirit of a poet that we
consider as demanding our chief attention; and upon its ardour or
rapidity must finally hinge our applause or condemnation."[362]

Scott's opinions about meters reflect the same taste. He persuaded
himself, when he was writing _The Lady of the Lake_, that the
eight-syllable line is "more congenial to the English language--more
favourable to narrative poetry at least--than that which has been
commonly termed heroic verse,"[363] and he proceeded to show that the
first half-dozen lines of Pope's _Iliad_ were each "bolstered out" with
a superfluous adjective. "The case is different in descriptive poetry,"
he added, "because there epithets, if they are happily selected, are
rather to be sought after than avoided.... But if in narrative you are
frequently compelled to tag your substantives with adjectives, it must
frequently happen that you are forced upon those that are merely
commonplaces." He mentions other beauties of his favorite verse,--the
opportunities for variation by double rhyme and by occasionally dropping
a syllable, and the correspondence between the length of line and our
natural intervals between punctuation,--but gives as his final excuse
for using it his "better knack at this 'false gallop' of verse." The
argument is ingenious enough, but his analysis of heroic verse has only
a limited application, and his last reason probably was, as he was
candid enough to admit, the most weighty. George Ellis replied to his
defence thus: "I don't think, after all the eloquence with which you
plead for your favourite metre, that you really like it from any other
motive than that _sainte paresse_--that delightful indolence--which
induces one to delight in those things which we can do with the least
fatigue."[364] This seems hardly a fair return for the poet's appeal to
Ellis in one of the epistles of _Marmion_:[365]

   "Come listen! bold in thy applause,
    The bard shall scorn pedantic laws."

Another introduction in the same poem is given up to a justification of
the author's "unconfined" style, on the score of his love for the wild
songs of his own country and the freedom of his early training.[366]

Scott practically never rewrote his prose, and the result gave Hazlitt
opportunity to say:[367] "We should think the writer could not possibly
read the manuscript after he has once written it, or overlook the
press."[368] His habit of carrying two trains of thought on together was
also responsible for slips in diction and syntax. An amanuensis working
for him noticed this peculiarity, and Scott said in his _Journal_:
"There must be two currents of ideas going on in my mind at the same
time.... I always laugh when I hear people say, Do one thing at once. I
have done a dozen things at once all my life."[369]

But the making of poetry required more attention. "Verse I write twice,
and sometimes three times over,"[370] he said, and one is moved to
wonder whether the distaste for writing poetry, that he professed about
1822, arose largely from a growing aversion to what he probably
considered extreme care in composition.[371] A series of three comments
on his own poetry may be given to illustrate his widely varying moods in
regard to it. They are all taken from letters written not far from the
time when _Marmion_ was published. "As for poetry, it is very little
labour to me; indeed 'twere pity of my life should I spend much time on
the light and loose sort of poetry which alone I can pretend to
write."[372] "I believe no man now alive writes more rapidly than I do
(no great recommendation), but I never think of making verses till I
have a sufficient stock of poetical ideas to supply them."[373] "If I
ever write another poem, I am determined to make every single couplet of
it as perfect as my uttermost care and attention can possibly
effect."[374] In spite of this momentary resolution to take more pains
with his next poem, he was unable to do so when the time came; or if, as
in the case of _Rokeby_ he did make the attempt, the results seemed to
him unsatisfactory. Yet verse required much more careful finishing than
prose, even when it was written by Scott, and this fact has been too
little emphasized in discussions of his transition from verse to prose
romances.

Scott's temperamental aversion to revising what he had once written was
evidently sanctioned by his literary creed. Near the end of his life he
recalled how he had submitted one of his earliest poems to the criticism
of several acquaintances, with the consequence that after he had adopted
their suggestions, hardly a line remained unaltered, and yet the changes
failed to satisfy the critics.[375] He said: "This unexpected result,
after about a fortnight's anxiety, led me to adopt a rule from which I
have seldom departed during more than thirty years of literary life.
When a friend whose judgment I respect has decided and upon good
advisement told me that a manuscript was worth nothing, or at least
possessed no redeeming qualities sufficient to atone for its defects, I
have generally cast it aside; but I am little in the custom of paying
attention to minute criticisms or of offering such to any friend who may
do me the honour to consult me. I am convinced that, in general, in
removing even errors of a trivial or venial kind, the character of
originality is lost, which, upon the whole, may be that which is most
valuable in the production." This position appears doubly significant
when we remember that it was assumed by a man who had only the slightest
possible amount of paternal jealousy in regard to his writings.[376]

Scott did not always adhere to this resolution, for he did accept
criticism and make alterations, more in compliance with the wishes of
James Ballantyne, his friend and printer, than to meet the desires of
anyone else. He considered that Ballantyne represented the ordinary
popular taste, and he was ready to make some sacrifice of his own
judgment in order to satisfy his public. He sent the conclusion of
_Rokeby_ to Ballantyne with this note: "Dear James,--I send you this out
of deference to opinions so strongly expressed, but still retaining my
own, that it spoils one effect without producing another."

When one of his books was adversely criticised by the public he received
the judgment with open mind, and often analyzed it with much acuteness.
The introduction to _The Monastery_ is a good example of frank, though
not servile, submission to the decree of public opinion. That he was
deeply impressed with his blunder in managing the White Lady of Avenel
may be surmised from the fact that in several later discussions of the
effect of supernatural apparitions in novels, he emphasized the
necessity of keeping them sufficiently infrequent to preserve an
atmosphere of mystery. Of _The Monastery_ he said: "I agree with the
public in thinking the work not very interesting; but it was written
with as much care as the others--that is, with no care at all."[377] But
sometimes he felt inclined to rebel against a popular verdict, as when
Norna, in _The Pirate_, was said to be a mere copy of Meg
Merrilies.[378]

In his later days he grew more and more unsure of himself, as he felt
compelled to work at his topmost speed. His _Journal_ for 1829 has the
following record in regard to a review he was writing: "I began to warm
in my gear, and am about to awake the whole controversy of Goth and
Celt. I wish I may not make some careless blunders."[379] The criticisms
of "J.B." became more frequent and more irritating to him as he felt a
growing inability to achieve precision in details.[380] When Lockhart
pointed out some lapses in his style, he wrote in his _Journal_, "Well!
I will try to remember all this, but after all I write grammar as I
speak, to make my meaning known, and a solecism in point of composition,
like a Scotch word in speaking, is indifferent to me."[381] Until he
felt his powers failing, he was for the most part at once good-natured
and independent in his manner of receiving criticism. Whether or not he
agreed with the opinion expressed, he usually thought that what he had
once written might best stand, though he might be influenced in later
work by the advice that had been given.[382]

"I am sensible that if there be anything good about my poetry or prose
either," Scott wrote, in a passage that has often been quoted, "it is a
hurried frankness of composition which pleases soldiers, sailors and
young people of bold and active disposition."[383] I have tried to show
that this quality was one which he not only enjoyed, in his own work and
in that of other writers, but that as a critic he very seriously
approved of it.

Yet in spite of his belief that the greatest literature is not the
result of slow and painful labor, it was probably the ease with which he
wrote which led him to undervalue his own work. However we may account
for it, he found difficulty in regarding himself as a great author.[384]
When this modesty of his came into conflict with the other opinion that
he had always been inclined to hold--that the popularity of books is a
test of their merit--the result is amusing. He was impelled at times to
utter contemptuous words about the foolishness of the public, and of
course he could not help being moved also in the other direction--to
believe there was more in his writings than he had realized. In one mood
he said, "I thank God I can write ill enough for the present
taste";[385] and "I have very little respect for that dear _publicum_
whom I am doomed to amuse, like Goody Trash in _Bartholomew Fair_, with
rattles and gingerbread; and I should deal very uncandidly with those
who may read my confessions were I to say I knew a public worth caring
for, or capable of distinguishing the nicer beauties of composition.
They weigh good and evil qualities by the pound. Get a good name and you
may write trash. Get a bad one and you may write like Homer, without
pleasing a single reader."[386] Looking back from the end of his career
to the time when _The Lady of the Lake_ was in the height of its
success, he wrote: "It must not be supposed that I was either so
ungrateful or so superabundantly candid as to despise or scorn the value
of those whose voice had elevated me so much higher than my own opinion
told me I deserved. I felt, on the contrary, the more grateful to the
public as receiving that from partiality which I could not have claimed
from merit; and I endeavoured to deserve the partiality by continuing
such exertions as I was capable of for their amusement."[387] The
perfect respectability of these remarks tempts the reader to set over
against them this earlier observation by the same writer in the guise of
Chrystal Croftangry, "One thing I have learned in life--never to speak
sense when nonsense will answer the purpose as well."[388]

Whatever Scott might think of the worth of public admiration, he frankly
attempted to write what would be popular. He had none of the feeling
which has characterized many very interesting men of letters, that the
desire for self-expression is the one motive of the author; his personal
literary impulse, on the contrary, was always guided by the thought of
the audience whom he was addressing. "No one shall find me rowing
against the stream," says the "Author" in the Introductory Epistle to
_Nigel_. "I care not who knows it--I write for general amusement; and
though I will never aim at popularity by what I think unworthy means, I
will not, on the other hand, be pertinacious in the defence of my own
errors against the voice of the public." Of his last "apoplectic books,"
he wrote, "I am ashamed, for the first time in my life, of the two
novels, but since the pensive public have taken them, there is no more
to be said but to eat my pudding and to hold my tongue."[389] Early in
his career he seems to have felt that he could make a good deal of money
by writing, if he should wish.[390] Towards the end he said, "I know
that no literary speculation ever succeeded with me but where my own
works were concerned; and that, on the other hand, these have rarely
failed."[391]

The popularity of his own books was so great that they required a
special category. He seemed to be incapable of ascribing their success
to extraordinary excellence, and he settled down to the opinion that it
was simply their novelty that the public cared for. The enthusiastic
welcome given him by the Irish when he visited Dublin caused him to say
in one of his letters, "Were it not from the chilling recollection that
novelty is easily substituted for merit, I should think, like the booby
in Steele's play,[392] that I had been kept back, and that there was
something more about me than I had ever been led to suspect."[393]

He assumed that he had studied popular taste enough to have some
knowledge of its shiftings, so that he might "set every sail towards the
breeze."[394] "I may be mistaken," he once wrote, "but I do think the
tale of Elspat M'Tavish in my bettermost manner, but J.B. roars for
chivalry. He does not quite understand that everything may be overdone
in this world, or sufficiently estimate the necessity of novelty. The
Highlanders have been off the field now for some time."[395] His comment
on _Ivanhoe_ was still more emphatic. "Novelty is what this giddy-paced
time demands imperiously, and I certainly studies as much as I could to
get out of the old beaten track, leaving those who like to keep the
road, which I have rutted pretty well."[396]

Believing from the beginning of his career that novelty was the chief
merit of his work, he was prepared to live up to his principles. So it
was that when he was "beaten" by Byron in metrical romances, he dropped
with hardly a regret, so far as we can judge, the kind of writing in
which he had attained such remarkable popularity, and turned to another
kind. "Since one line has failed, we must just stick to something else,"
he remarked, calmly.[397] This was when the small sales of _The Lord of
the Isles_ as compared with the earlier poems warned Scott and his
publisher in a very tangible way that the field had been captured by
Byron. At this time _Waverley_ was in the market and _Guy Mannering_ was
in process of composition. Though it was to his poetry that he chose to
give his name, Scott had little reason to feel forlorn, as the sale of
the novels from the very beginning was a pretty effective consolation
for any possible hurt to his vanity. He could have owned them as his at
any moment, had he chosen to do so. He did not read criticisms of his
books, but was satisfied, as one of his friends observed, "to accept the
intense avidity with which his novels are read, the enormous and
continued sale of his works, as a sufficient commendation of them."[398]
In the case of Byron, as always when the public approved the works of
one of his brother authors, he considered the popular judgment right.

Scott did not altogether stop writing poetry, however, as is sometimes
supposed. _The Field of Waterloo_ and _Harold the Dauntless_ were both
written after this time; and the mottoes and lyrics in the novels
compose a delightful body of verse. The fact seems to be that he lost
zest for writing long poems, partly because of the favor with which
Byron's poems were received, and his own consequent feeling of
inferiority in poetic composition; partly because of his discovery of
the greater ease with which he could write prose, and the greater scope
it gave him. The more ambitious attempts among the poems which he wrote
after 1814 are comparative failures. But the poetry in his nature
prevented him from entirely giving over the composition of verse, and he
found real delight in the occasional writing of short pieces that
required no continued effort. They were usually made to be used in the
novels, for after the publication of _Guy Mannering_ novel-writing
became specifically Scott's occupation.[399]

The price of his success in any direction was that he was unable to keep
his field to himself. Having set a fashion, he was more than once
annoyed by the crowd who wrote in his style and made him feel the
necessity of striking out a new line.[400] It was comparatively easy for
the vigorous man who wrote _Waverley_, but in the end, when through his
losses he was more than ever obliged to hit the popular taste, to feel
that he must find a new style seemed a hard fate. Yet he meant to be
beforehand in the race. This is the record in his _Journal_: "Hard
pressed as I am by these imitators, who must put the thing out of
fashion at last, I consider, like a fox at his last shifts, whether
there be a way to dodge them--some new device to throw them off, and
have a mile or two of free ground while I have legs and wind left to use
it. There is one way to give novelty: to depend for success on the
interest of a well-contrived story. But woe's me! that requires thought,
consideration--the writing out a regular plan or plot--above all, the
adhering to one--which I never can do, for the ideas rise as I write,
and bear such a disproportioned extent to that which each occupied at
the first concoction, that (cocksnowns!) I shall never be able to take
the trouble; and yet to make the world stare, and gain a new march ahead
of them all! Well, something we still will do."[401]

By an easy extension of his principle, he came to believe that novelty
would always succeed for a time. The opinion is expressed often in his
reviews, and in his journal and letters is applied to his own work. So
it was that when any one of his books seemed partially to fail with the
public, his immediate impulse was to look for something new to be
done.[402] One of his schemes was a work on popular superstitions,
projected when _Quentin Durward_ seemed to be falling flat; but the
success of the novel made the immediate execution of the plan
unnecessary.[403]

It was largely his desire to secure variety that encouraged him to
undertake historical writing. He had also a theory about how history
should be written, and so he felt that the novelty would consist in
something more than the fact that the Author of Waverley had taken a new
line. He wished, as Thackeray did later when he proposed to write a
history of the Age of Queen Anne, to use in an avowedly serious book the
material with which he had stored his imagination; and he believed he
could present it with a vivacity that was not characteristic of
professional historians. The success of the first series of _Tales of a
Grandfather_ served to confirm the opinion he had expressed about
them,--"I care not who knows it, I think well of them. Nay, I will hash
history with anybody, be he who he will."[404]

Scott had a very just sense of the value of his great stores of
information. He did say that he would give one half his knowledge if so
he might put the other half upon a well-built foundation,[405] but as
years went on he learned to use with ease the accumulations of knowledge
which in his youth had proved often unwieldy; and more than once he
congratulated himself that he beat his imitators by possessing
historical and antiquarian lore which they could only acquire by
"reading up."[406] Though he testified that in the beginning of his
first novel he described his own education, he could hardly apply to
himself what is there said of Waverley, that, "While he was thus
permitted to read only for the gratification of his amusement, he
foresaw not that he was losing forever the opportunity of acquiring
habits of firm and assiduous application, of gaining the art of
controlling, directing, and concentrating the powers of his mind for
earnest investigation."[407] It was otherwise with Scott himself. The
result of the wide and desultory reading of his youth, acting upon a
remarkably strong memory, was to put him into the position, as he says,
of "an ignorant gamester, who kept a good hand until he knew how to play
it."[408] So it was that he said of those who followed his lead in
writing historical novels, "They may do their fooling with better grace;
but I, like Sir Andrew Aguecheek, do it more natural."[409] His
knowledge of history and antiquities was that part of his intellectual
equipment in which he seemed to take most pride. He had the highest
opinion of the value of historical study for ripening men's judgment of
current affairs,[410] and indeed there were few relations of life in
which an acquaintance with history did not seem to him indispensable.

But he felt that historical writing had not been adapted "to the demands
of the increased circles among which literature does already find its
way."[411] Accordingly he resolved to use in the service of history that
"knack ... for selecting the striking and interesting points out of dull
details," which he felt was his endowment.[412] The original
introduction to the _Tales of the Crusaders_ has the following burlesque
announcement of his intention, in the words of the Eidolon Chairman: "I
intend to write the most wonderful book which the world ever read--a
book in which every incident shall be incredible, yet strictly true--a
work recalling recollections with which the ears of this generation once
tingled, and which shall be read by our children with an admiration
approaching to incredulity. Such shall be the _Life of Napoleon_, by the
_Author of Waverley_." He wished to controvert "the vulgar opinion that
the flattest and dullest mode of detailing events must uniformly be that
which approaches nearest to the truth."[413] There is no doubt that his
histories are readable, yet we feel that Southey was right in his
comment on the _Life of Napoleon_,--"It was not possible that Sir Walter
could keep up as a historian the character which he had obtained as a
novelist; and in the first announcement of this 'Life' he had, not very
wisely, promised something as stimulating as his novels. Alas! he forgot
that there could be no stimulus of curiosity in it."[414] A recent
critic has said, "Scott lost half his power of vitalizing the past when
he sat down formally to record it--when he turned from his marvellous
recreation of James I. to give a laboured but very ordinary portrait of
Napoleon."[415] His partial failure in this instance may have been due
to an unfortunate choice of subject. Only a few years before he wrote
the book Scott had been thinking of Napoleon as a "tyrannical
monster,"[416] a "singular emanation of the Evil Principle,"[417] "the
arch-enemy of mankind,"[418]--phrases which, in spite of their
vividness, hardly seem to promise a life-like portrayal of the man.[419]

In one notable respect, Scott's conception of how history should be
written was very modern: he would depict the life of the people, not
simply the actions of kings and statesmen. His historical novels, said
Carlyle, "taught all men this truth, which looks like a truism, and yet
was as good as unknown to writers of history and others, till so taught:
that the bygone ages of the world were actually filled by living men,
not by protocols, state-papers, controversies, and abstractions of
men."[420] One who has the academic notion that a novel, to be great,
must be written with no ulterior purpose, is almost startled to observe
how definitely Scott considered it the function of his novels to portray
ancient manners. Speaking of old romances as a source which we may use
for studying about our ancestors, he said: "From the romance, we learn
what they were; from the history, what they did: and were we to be
deprived of one of these two kinds of information, it might well be made
a question, which is most useful or interesting."[421] He wished to make
his own romances serve much the same purpose as those written in the
midst of the customs which they unconsciously reflected. Of _Waverley_
he said, "It may really boast to be a tolerably faithful portrait of
Scottish manners."[422] He interrupts the story of _The Pirate_ to
describe the charm of the leaden heart, and offers this excuse: "As this
simple and original remedy is peculiar to the isles of Thule, it were
unpardonable not to preserve it at length, in a narrative connected with
Scottish antiquities."[423] His comment on _Ivanhoe_ was as follows: "I
am convinced that however I myself may fail in the ensuing attempt, yet,
with more labour in collecting, or more skill in using, the materials
within his reach, illustrated as they have been by the labours of Dr.
Henry, of the late Mr. Strutt, and above all, of Mr. Sharon Turner, an
abler hand would have been successful."[424]

Scott's early reading was only the basis for the research that he
undertook afterwards.[425] Much of this later study was accomplished
when he was engaged upon such books as _Somers' Tracts_, _Dryden's_ and
_Swift's Works_, and the other historical publications that make the
bibliography of Scott so surprising to the ordinary reader; but some of
his investigations were undertaken specifically for the novels. The
_Literary Correspondence_ of his publisher, Archibald Constable,
contains many evidences of Scott's efforts, assisted often by Constable,
to get antiquarian and topographical details correct in the novels. In
1821 Constable suggested that Sir Walter write a story of the time of
James I. of England, and was told, "If you can suggest anything about
the period I will be happy to hear from you; you are always happy in
your hints."[426] Some years earlier the author and the publisher had a
correspondence concerning a series of letters on the history of Scotland
which the former was planning to write, and which he wished to publish
anonymously for the following reason: "I have not the least doubt that I
will make a popular book, for I trust it will be both interesting and
useful; but I never intended to engage in any proper historical labour,
for which I have neither time, talent, nor inclination.... In truth it
would take ten years of any man's life to write such a History of
Scotland as he should put his name to."[427] He called his _Napoleon_
"the most severe and laborious undertaking which choice or accident ever
placed on my shoulders."[428]

More than once Scott expresses the opinion that though novels may be
useful to arouse curiosity about history, and to impart some knowledge
to people who will not do any serious thinking, they may, on the other
hand, work harm by satisfying with their superficial information those
who would otherwise read history.[429] It seems as if he designed the
_Life of Napoleon_ and the _History of Scotland_ for a new reading class
that the novels had been creating, and as if he wished to make the step
of transition not too long. We can almost fancy them as a series of
graded books arranged to lead the people of Great Britain up to a
sufficient height of historical information. The _Tales of a
Grandfather_ were intended for the beginners who had never been infected
by the common heresy concerning the dulness of history, and who were
blessed with sufficiently active imagination to make the sugar-coating
of fiction superfluous.[430]

But great as was the interest that Scott took in the historical aspect
of his work, his artistic sense guided his use of materials, and he was
well aware of the danger of over-working the mine. The principles on
which he chose periods and events to represent are illustrated in many
of the introductions. Of _The Fortunes of Nigel_ he said: "The reign of
James I., in which George Heriot flourished, gave unbounded scope to
invention in the fable, while at the same time it afforded greater
variety and discrimination of character than could, with historical
consistency, have been introduced if the scene had been laid a century
earlier."[431]

His first published attempt at fiction-writing was a conclusion to the
novel, _Queenhoo-Hall_,[432] of which his opinion was that it would
never be popular because antiquarian knowledge was displayed in it too
liberally. "The author," he says, "forgot ... that extensive neutral
ground, the large proportion, that is, of manners and sentiments which
are common to us and to our ancestors, having been handed down unaltered
from them to us, or which, arising out of the principles of our common
nature, must have existed in either state of society."[433] Scott's
practice in regard to the language of his historical novels was based on
much the same theory. He intended to admit "no word or turn of
phraseology betraying an origin directly modern,"[434] but to avoid
obsolete words for the most part; and he never attempted to follow with
fidelity the style of the exact age of which he was writing. The
translation of Froissart by Lord Berners seemed to him a sufficiently
good model to serve for the whole mediaeval period.[435] In his review
of _Tales of My Landlord_ he says of the proem to his book: "It is
written in the quaint style of that prefixed by Gay to his _Pastorals_,
being, as Johnson terms it, 'such imitation as he could obtain of
obsolete language, and by consequence, in a style that was never written
or spoken in any age or place.'"

His _Journal_ contains observations on several historical novels which
were of little consequence, as, for example, on one by a Mr. Bell,--"He
goes not the way to write it; he is too general, and not sufficiently
minute";[436] and on _The Spae-Wife_, by Galt,--"He has made his story
difficult to understand, by adopting a region of history little
known."[437] On the other hand he remarked, when someone had suggested a
number of historical subjects to him,--"People will not consider that a
thing may already be so well told in history, that romance ought not in
prudence to meddle with it";[438] and at another time he spoke of "the
usual habit of antiquarians," to "neglect what is useful for things that
are merely curious."[439]

Aside from the familiar knowledge of ancient manners which he thought
enabled him to give his tales the necessary touch of novelty, and from
the "hurried frankness," or spontaneity of style which endowed them with
vitality, Scott believed that his talents included a special knack at
description. He felt, however, that a sense of the picturesque in action
was a different thing from a similar perception in regard to scenery,
and that though the first was natural to him, he was obliged to use
effort to develop the second.[440] Some study of drawing in his youth
helped him to comprehend the demands of perspective, and he endeavored
to carry out the principle of describing a scene in the way in which it
would naturally strike the spectator, neither overloading with confused
detail nor over-emphasizing what should be subordinate.[441] That his
plan was consciously adopted may be seen from his discussion of Byron's
skill in description and from his comments on the descriptive passages
of the mediaeval romances.[442]

At the same time he understood the advantages of the realistic method.
On one occasion he stated as his creed, "that in nature herself no two
scenes were exactly alike, and that whoever copied truly what was before
his eyes would possess the same variety in his descriptions, and exhibit
apparently an imagination as boundless as the range of nature in the
scenes he recorded; whereas, whoever trusted to imagination would soon
find his own mind circumscribed and contracted to a few favourite
images, and the repetition of these would sooner or later produce that
very monotony and barrenness which had always haunted descriptive poetry
in the hands of any but the patient worshippers of truth."[443]
Wordsworth disapproved of Scott's method in description. He is quoted as
having said: "Nature does not permit an inventory to be made of her
charms! He should have left his pencil and note-book at home [and] fixed
his eye as he walked with a reverent attention on all that surrounded
him."[444] Somewhat like a rejoinder sounds another remark of Scott's,
in phrases that Wordsworth would have detested. Scott said cheerfully,
"As to the actual study of nature, if you mean the landscape gardening
of poetry ... I can get on quite as well from recollection, while
sitting in the Parliament house, as if wandering through wood and
wold."[445] At another time he said, "If a man will paint from nature,
he will be likely to amuse those who are daily looking at it."[446]

Though Scott prided himself somewhat on his descriptive powers he
realized that he could not do his best work on minute canvases. We have
already seen how he contrasted himself with Jane Austen. "The exquisite
touch," he said, "which renders ordinary commonplace things and
characters interesting from the truth of the description and the
sentiment, is denied to me."[447]

Of Scott's opinion in regard to the ethical effect of novels, I have
already spoken.[448] The fact that he refused to use the conventional
plea of a desire to improve public morals, and that he understood how
little a reader is really influenced by the exalted sentiments of heroes
of fiction, gave Carlyle a fit of righteous indignation;[449] but it is
futile to say that Scott "had no message to deliver to the world." He
might have retorted, in the words which he once used about
Homer,--"Doubtless an admirable moral may be often extracted from his
poem; because it contains an accurate picture of human nature, which can
never be truly presented without conveying a lesson of instruction. But
it may shrewdly be suspected that the moral was as little intended by
the author as it would have been the object of an historian, whose work
is equally pregnant with morality, though a detail of facts be only
intended."[450] It was a comfort to Scott at the end of his life to
reflect that the tendency of all he had written was morally good,[451]
and we can well believe that he was pleased by the enthusiastic tribute
of his young critic, J.L. Adolphus, who said of his books: "There is not
an unhandsome action or degrading sentiment recorded of any person who
is recommended to the full esteem of the reader."[452]

That Scott considered poetical power very important for a writer of
novels, he made evident in his _Lives of the Novelists_. Mr. Herford has
said, but surely without good reason, that Scott wholly lacked the sense
of mystery, and that in this respect Mrs. Radcliffe was more modern than
he.[453] Yet it was Scott who censured Mrs. Radcliffe for explaining her
mysteries. He had a vein of superstition in his nature, too, about which
he might have said, using the words given to a character in one of his
stories,--"It soothes my imagination, without influencing my reason or
conduct."[454] A liking for the wonderful and terrible, which he felt
from his earliest childhood, was one manifestation of a poetical
temperament which is so apparent that there is no need of reciting the
evidence. The poetical qualities in the Waverley novels gave Adolphus
one of his favorite arguments in the attempt to prove that Scott was the
author.

Yet Scott seemed to feel that his position as a writer of popular
fiction, however much the novel is capable of being the vehicle of
imagination and poetical power, was not a really high one. James
Ballantyne persuaded him to omit from one of his introductions a passage
that seemed to belittle the occupation of his life,[455] but in the
introduction to _The Abbot_ he wrote: "Though it were worse than
affectation to deny that my vanity was satisfied at my success in the
department in which chance had in some measure enlisted me, I was
nevertheless far from thinking that the novelist or romance-writer
stands high in the ranks of literature." The ideal which he set for
himself is indicated in the following passage of his article on _Tales
of My Landlord_: "If ... the features of an age gone by can be recalled
in a spirit of delineation at once faithful and striking ... the
composition is in every point of view dignified and improved; and the
author, leaving the light and frivolous associates with whom a careless
observer would be disposed to ally him, takes his seat on the bench of
the historians of his time and country." He once expressed the opinion
that the historical romance approaches, in some measure, when it is
nobly executed, to the epic in poetry.[456] When a medal of Scott,
engraved from the bust by Chantrey, was struck off, he suggested the
motto which was used:

    "Bardorum citharas patrio qui reddidit Istro,"

and said, "because I am far more vain of having been able to fix some
share of public attention upon the ancient poetry and manners of my
country, than of any original efforts which I have been able to make in
literature."[457] The following commendation, which he wrote for a book
of portraits accompanied by essays, might be made to apply to his
novels: "It is impossible for me to conceive a work which ought to be
more interesting to the present age than that which exhibits before our
eyes our 'fathers as they lived'"[458] He felt strongly the value and
importance of past manners, faiths and ideals for the present, and from
this point of view took satisfaction in the social and ethical teaching
of his novels.

On the whole, Scott's opinions about his own work fitted well with his
general literary principles, except that his modesty inclined him to
discount his own performance while he overestimated that of others. With
this qualification we may remember that he always spoke sensibly about
his work, without affectation, and with abundant geniality. We are
reminded of the comment on Molière quoted by Scott from a French
writer,--"He had the good fortune to escape the most dangerous fault of
an author writing upon his own compositions, and to exhibit wit, where
some people would only have shown vanity and self-conceit."[459]




CHAPTER VI

SCOTT'S POSITION AS CRITIC

    Comparison of Scott with Jeffrey and with the Romantic critics--His
    criticism largely appreciative--Romantic in special cases and
    Augustan in attitude--Comparison with Coleridge--Scott's respect for
    the verdict of the public--His opinion that elucidation is the
    function of criticism--Use of historical illustration--Hesitation
    about analysing poetry--Political criticism--Verdict of his
    contemporaries on his criticism--Influence as a critic--Literary
    prophecies--Character of his critical work as a whole--His attitude
    towards it--Lack of system--Broad fields he covered--His greatness a
    reason for the importance of his criticism.


Important as Scott's poetry was in the English Romantic revival, as a
critic he can hardly be counted among the Romanticists. His attitude,
nevertheless, differed radically from that of the school represented by
Jeffrey and Gifford. We have already seen that he disliked their manner
of reviewing, and that he was conscious of complete disagreement with
Jeffrey in regard to poetic ideals. Of Jeffrey Mr. Gates has said: "[He]
rarely _appreciates_ a piece of literature.... He is always for or
against his author; he is always making points."[460] That Scott was
influenced in his early critical work by the tone of the _Edinburgh
Review_ is undeniable, but temperamentally he was inclined to give any
writer a fair chance to stir his emotions; and he did not adopt the
magisterial mood that dictated the famous remark, "This will never do."
Scott's style lacked the adroitness and pungency which helped Jeffrey
successfully to take the attitude of the censor, and which made his
satire triumphant among his contemporaries. Scott declined, moreover, to
cultivate skill in a method which he considered unfair. Compared with
Jeffrey's his criticism wanted incisiveness, but it wears better.

The period was transitional, and Jeffrey did not go so far as Scott in
breaking away from the dictation of his predecessors. But his attitude
was on the whole more modern than the reader would infer from the
following sentence in one of his earliest reviews: "Poetry has this much
at least in common with religion, that its standards were fixed long ago
by certain inspired writers, whose authority it is no longer lawful to
call in question."[461] He considered himself rather an interpreter of
public opinion than a judge defining ancient legislation, but he used
the opinion of himself and like-minded men as an unimpeachable test of
what the greater public ought to believe in regard to literature. We may
remember that the enthusiasm over the Elizabethan dramatists which seems
a special property of Lamb and Hazlitt, and which Scott shared, was
characteristic also of Jeffrey himself. It was Jeffrey's dogmatism and
his repugnance to certain fundamental ideas which were to become
dominant in the poetry of the nineteenth century that lead us to
consider him one of the last representatives of the eighteenth century
critical tradition. Scott praised the Augustan writers as warmly as
Jeffrey did, but he was more hospitable to the newer literary impulse.
"Perhaps the most damaging accusation that can be made against Jeffrey
as a critic," says Mr. Gates, "is inability to read and interpret the
age in which he lived."[462]

Scott's criticism was largely appreciative, but appreciative on a
somewhat different plane from that of the contemporary critics whom we
are accustomed to place in a more modern school: Hazlitt, Hunt, Lamb,
and Coleridge. His judgments were less delicate and subtle than the
judgments of these men were apt to be, and more "reasonable" in the
eighteenth-century sense; they were marked, however, by a regard for the
imagination that would have seemed most unreasonable to many men of the
eighteenth century.

Scott had not a fixed theory of literature which could dominate his mind
when he approached any work. He was open-minded, and in spite of his
extreme fondness for the poetry of Dr. Johnson he was apt to be on the
Romantic side in any specific critical utterance. We have seen also that
he resembled the Romanticists in his power to disengage his verdicts on
literature from ethical considerations. On the other hand he seems
always to have deferred to the standard authorities of the classical
criticism of his time when his own knowledge was not sufficient to guide
him. In discussing Roscommon's Essay on Translated Verse he wrote: "It
must be remembered that the rules of criticism, now so well known as to
be even trite and hackneyed, were then almost new to the literary
world."[463]

Perhaps the main reason why one would not class Scott's critical work
with that of the Romanticists is that he had no desire to proclaim a new
era in creative literature or in criticism. Like the Romanticists he was
ready to substitute "for the absolute method of judging by reference to
an external standard of 'taste,' a method at once imaginative and
historical";[464] yet he talked less about imagination than about good
sense. The comparison with Boileau suggests itself, for Scott admired
that critic in the conventional fashion, calling him "a supereminent
authority,"[465] and Boileau also had said much about "reason and good
sense." But Scott had an appreciation of the _furor poeticus_ that made
"good sense" quite a different thing to him from what it was to Boileau.
He did not say, moreover, that the poet should be supremely
characterized by good sense, but that the critic, recognizing the facts
about human emotion, should make use of that quality.

The subjective process by which experience is transmuted into literature
engaged Scott's attention very little: in this respect also he stands
apart from the newer school of critics. The metaphysical description of
imagination or fancy interested him less than the piece of literature in
which these qualities were exhibited. His own mental activities were
more easily set in motion than analysed, and the introspective or
philosophical attitude of mind was unnatural to him. Because of his
adoption of the historical method of studying literature, and the
similarity of many of his judgments to those which were in general
characteristic of the Romantic school, we may say that Scott's criticism
looks forward; but it shows the influence of the earlier period in its
acceptance of traditional judgments based on external standards which
disregarded the nature of the creative process.

From Coleridge Scott is separated in the most definite way. Coleridge
began at the foundation, building up a set of principles such as the new
impulse in literature seemed to demand. Scott preferred the concrete,
and was stimulated by the particular book to express opinions that would
never have come to his mind as the result of pursuing a train of
unembodied ideas. Coleridge's judgments, moreover, would be unaffected
by public estimation, for he sought to found them on the spiritual and
philosophic consciousness that exists apart from the crowd.[466] Scott,
on the other hand, was ready to use popular judgment as an important
test of his opinions. Coleridge himself pointed out another interesting
contrast. He wrote: "Dear Sir Walter Scott and myself were exact, but
harmonious opposites in this;--that every old ruin, hill, river, or
tree, called up in his mind a host of historical or biographical
associations, ... whereas, for myself, notwithstanding Dr. Johnson, I
believe I should walk over the plain of Marathon without taking more
interest in it than in any other plain of similar features."[467] We
might perhaps say that Coleridge's affection was given to ideas,
Scott's, to objects; hence Coleridge was a critic of literary principles
and theories, Scott a critic of individual books and writers. It follows
that Scott was on the whole an impressionistic critic. A study of his
personality is essential to a consideration of his critical work, for he
was not so much a systematic student of literature, guided by fixed
principles, as a man of a certain temperament who read particular things
and made particular remarks about them as he felt inclined. The
inconsistencies and contradictions which would naturally result from
such a procedure are occasionally noticeable, but they are fewer than
would occur in the work of a less well-balanced man than himself.

His ideas about criticism were influenced by his feeling that the
judgment of the public would after all take its own course, and that it
was in the long run the best criterion. He used his opinion that an
author, even in his own lifetime, commonly receives fair treatment from
the public, as an argument against establishing in England any literary
body having the power of pensioning literary men.[468] On this subject
he said, "There is ... really no occasion for encouraging by a society
the competition of authors. The land is before them, and if they really
have merit they seldom fail to conquer their share of public applause
and private profit.... I cannot, in my knowledge of letters, recollect
more than two men whose merit is undeniable while, I am afraid, their
circumstances are narrow. I mean Coleridge and Maturin."

Scott's whole attitude toward criticism shows that he felt its supreme
function to be elucidation. It should also, he believed, warn the world
against books that were foolish, or pernicious, intellectually or
morally; but unless there were good reason for issuing such warnings the
bad books should be ignored and the good treated sympathetically, not
without such discrimination as should distinguish between the better and
the worse in them, but with emphasis on the better. His literary creed,
though not formulated into a system, was conscious and fairly definite;
but it consisted of general principles which never resolved themselves
into intricate subtleties requiring great space for their development.
Scott could not think in that way, and he felt convinced that such
thinking was useless and worse than useless. A magazine-writer of his
own period who said of him,--"The author of _Waverley_, we apprehend,
has neither the patience nor the disposition requisite for writing
philosophically upon any subject,"[469] was mistaken, for much of
Scott's criticism, without making any pretensions, is really
philosophical. But any fine-drawn analysis seemed to him to serve the
vanity of the critic rather than the need of the public; and he despised
that arrogance in the critic which leads him to assume to direct
literary taste.

Historical illustration was that kind of editorial work which he found
most congenial, and which harmonized best with his critical principles;
for when he could bring definite facts to the service of elucidation he
felt that he was doing something worth while. Among all the
introductions and annotations that we have from his hand, including
those of the _Dryden_ and the _Swift_, this kind of explanation greatly
predominates over the more strictly literary comment; in his reviews,
also, it is evident that he seized every opportunity for turning from
literary to historical discussion. He was in the habit of "embroidering
the subject, whatever it might be, with lively anecdotic
illustration,"[470] as one of his biographers says. We are not to
conclude that in writing on specifically literary subjects he felt ill
at ease. He felt, on the contrary, that the objection lay in the too
great ease with which the critic might become dictatorial. He was fond
enough of details when they were concrete and vital. The facts of
literary history were in this category to him, as distinguished from the
notions of literary theory; and we find that his critical principles are
apt to appear incidentally among remarks on what seemed to him the more
tangible and important facts of literary and social history. The books
he chose to review were chiefly those which gave him a chance to use his
historical information and imagination. His ideas were concrete, as
those of a great novelist must inevitably be. Indeed the dividing line
between creative work and criticism seems often to be obliterated in
Scott's literary discussions, since he was inclined to amplify and
illustrate instead of dissecting the book under consideration. As a
critic he was distinguished by the qualities which appear in his novels,
and which may be described in Hazlitt's words, as "the most amazing
retentiveness of memory, and vividness of conception of what would
happen, be seen, and felt by everybody in given circumstances."[471]

Scott felt that there was especial danger of futile theorizing in the
criticism of poetry. In writing about _Alexander's Feast_ he discussed
for a moment the possibility of detecting points at which the author had
paused in his work, but almost immediately he stopped himself with the
characteristic remark--"There may be something fanciful ... in this
reasoning, which I therefore abandon to the reader's mercy; only begging
him to observe, that we have no mode of estimating the exertions of a
quality so capricious as a poetic imagination."[472] Early in his career
he gave this rather over-amiable explanation of the fact that he had
never undertaken to review poetry: "I am sensible there is a greater
difference of tastes in that department than in any other, and that
there is much excellent poetry which I am not nowadays able to read
without falling asleep, and which would nevertheless have given me great
pleasure at an earlier period of my life. Now I think there is something
hard in blaming the poor cook for the fault of our own palate or
deficiency of appetite."[473] We have seen that he did review poetry
afterwards, but that he was inclined to do it with the least possible
emphasis on the specifically aesthetic elements. On the subject of
novel-writing he developed a somewhat fuller critical theory, but here
also his discussions concerned themselves rather with the kind of ideas
set forth than with the manner of presentation.

It does indeed seem as if Scott's feelings were more easily aroused to
the point of formulating "laws" in the field of political criticism than
in that which appears to us his more legitimate sphere. He has his
fling, to be sure, at Madame de Staël, because she "lived and died in
the belief that revolutions were to be effected, and countries governed,
by a proper succession of clever pamphlets."[474] But in proposing the
establishment of the _Quarterly Review_ he made no secret of the fact
that his motives were political. The literary aspect of the periodical
was thought of as a subordinate, though a necessary and not unimportant
phase of the undertaking. The _Letters of Malachi Malagrowther_ contain
some very definite maxims on the subject of political economy, and just
as decided are the remarks made in the last of _Paul's Letters_, as well
as in the _Life of Napoleon_ and elsewhere, as to how Louis XVIII. ought
to set about the task of calming his distracted kingdom of France. But
however emphatic Scott may be in the comments on government which appear
throughout his writings, he was as strongly averse in this matter as in
literary affairs to any separation of philosophy from fact: his maxims
are always derived from experience. The following statement of opinion
is typical: "In legislating for an ancient people, the question is not,
what is the best possible system of law, but what is the best they can
bear. Their habitudes and prejudices must always be respected; and,
whenever it is practicable, those prejudices, instead of being
destroyed, ought to be taken as the basis of the new regulations."[475]

It was Scott's political creed that roused the ire of such men as
Hazlitt and Hunt, though they may also have been exasperated at the
unprecedented success of poetry which seemed so facile and so
superficial to them as Scott's. Leigh Hunt calls him "a poet of a purely
conventional order," "a bitter and not very large-minded politician," "a
critic more agreeable than subtle."[476] But Scott's politics may be
looked at in another way. "In his patriotism," says Mr. Courthope, "his
passionate love of the past, and his reverence for established
authority, literary or political, Scott is the best representative among
English men of letters of Conservatism in its most generous form."[477]

Though it seems to have been a common opinion among the literary men of
his own time that Scott's criticism was superficial, his knowledge of
mediaeval literature was, as we have seen, recognized and respected.
Favorable comments by his contemporaries on other parts of his critical
work are not difficult to find. For example, Gifford wrote to Murray in
regard to the article on _Lady Suffolk's Correspondence_: "Scott's paper
is a clever, sensible thing--the work of a man who knows what he is
about."[478] Isaac D'Israeli made the following observation on another
of Scott's papers: "The article on Pepys, after so many have been
written, is the only one which, in the most charming manner possible,
shows the real value of these works, which I can assure you many good
scholars have no idea of."[479] A more recent verdict may be set beside
those just quoted, and it is in perfect agreement with them. "His
critical faculty," says Professor Saintsbury, "if not extraordinarily
subtle, was always as sound and shrewd as it was good-natured."[480]

Scott's influence as a critic was not very great, but his creative work
exerted a strong influence on criticism as well as on the whole
intellectual life of his age. His own novels demanded of the critic that
kind of appreciation of the large qualities and negligence of the small
which he had insisted on considering the function of criticism; and they
became a fact in literature which determined to some degree the attitude
taken toward ephemeral ideas. Newman notes the popularity of Scott's
novels as one of the influences which prepared the ground for the
Tractarian movement, for Scott enriched the visions of men by his
pictures of the past, gave them noble ideas, and created a desire for a
greater richness of spiritual life.[481] Much of his criticism also was
inspired by the wish to construct an adequate picture of the past; so
far it worked in the same direction with the novels. Its most important
offices aside from this were perhaps to present large and kindly views
of literature and literary characters, especially through biographical
essays; and to ameliorate somewhat the prevailing asperity of periodical
criticism.

A man of Scott's temperament was little likely to set himself up for a
prophet, and probably no literary prophecies of his were in the least
influential. Though he sometimes boasted that he understood the varying
currents of popular taste, his experience in the publishing business
taught him the fallibility of his impressions when the work of writers
other than himself was concerned. He once wrote,--"The friends who know
me best, and to whose judgment I am myself in the constant habit of
trusting, reckon me a very capricious and uncertain judge of poetry; and
I have had repeated occasion to observe that I have often failed in
anticipating the reception of poetry from the public."[482] But it is
beyond the strength of flesh and blood to resist saying things about the
future sometimes, and Scott occasionally yielded to the temptation,
helped, no doubt, by his amiability. Southey's _Madoc_, however, has not
yet assumed that place at the feet of Milton which, as we have seen, he
ventured to predict for it. Yet, if we may trust the memory of one of
his friends, Scott foresaw the literary success of two of his greatest
contemporaries. R.P. Gillies said in his _Recollections_: "I remember
well how correct Scott's impressions were of such beginners in the
literary world as had not then acquired any fixed character. Of Lord
Byron he had from the first a favourable impression.... Of Wordsworth he
always spoke favourably, insisting that he was a true poet, but
predicting that it would be long ere his works obtained the praise which
they merited from the public."[483] Scott explicitly prided himself on
two of his prophecies: that Washington Irving would make a name for
himself, and that Sir Arthur Wellesley would become known as an
extraordinary man.

Though Scott's critical work is comparatively little known, and though
it presents no solidly organized front by which the public may be
impressed, the opinions of so notable a writer have always had a certain
weight. Mr. Churton Collins thinks Scott's judgment on Dunbar has led
modern editors to indulge in very exaggerated statements concerning the
merit of that poet.[484] A heavier charge has been laid at Scott's door
on the score of his edition of the _Memoirs of Captain Carleton_. He
concluded on very insufficient evidence, says Colonel Parnell, that
these memoirs were genuinely historical, published them as such, and by
the weight of his opinion falsified "the whole stream of
nineteenth-century history bearing on the reign of Queen Anne."[485]
Stanhope, Macaulay, and other historians were ready to accept Scott's
judgment without further investigation, it seems; and if the accusation
be true we may conclude that his influence as a critic has reached
farther than might at first sight appear. Yet we may be content to
follow his lead in general, except in those bits of enthusiasm over his
friends which bear witness to a generously optimistic nature rather than
to a rigid critical attitude such as we should hardly demand in any case
from a man of letters commenting on his contemporaries and friends.
George Ticknor was greatly impressed by the "right-mindedness" of the
young Sophia Scott,[486] and we may fairly adopt the word to describe
the father whom she so much resembled. There was in him, as Carlyle
said, "such a sunny current of true humour and humanity, a free joyful
sympathy with so many things; what of fire he had all lying so
beautifully latent, as radical latent heat, as fruitful internal warmth
of life;--a most robust, healthy man!"[487]

Writers upon Scott have made much, perhaps too much, of his feeling that
his position as a landed gentleman was more enviable than his prominence
as a writer. The point would be of greater consequence if it performed
so important a function in explaining his work as has commonly been
assigned to it. We are told that he wrote much and hastily because he
wanted money to establish and support an estate; but the truth is that
if he wrote at all he had to write in this way. He justly believed that
he could do his best work so. Yet it was a natural result of his
facility that he should look upon the literature he produced as of
comparatively little moment. Some of his remarks about his critical
work, however, show that he really regarded creative writing as the
business of his life, and that in contrast with it he considered his
criticism a relief from more arduous labor. After the publication of
_Marmion_ he wrote: "I have done with poetry for some time--it is a
scourging crop, and ought not to be hastily repeated. Editing,
therefore, may be considered as a green crop of turnips or peas,
extremely useful for those whose circumstances do not admit of giving
their farm a summer fallow."[488] After years of novel-writing he said
of writing a review, "No one that has not laboured as I have done on
imaginary topics can judge of the comfort afforded by walking on
all-fours, and being grave and dull."[489]

From what Scott said about Dryden as a critic we may conclude that the
unsystematic character of his own scholarly work may have been a matter
of principle as well as inclination. "Dryden," he wrote, "forebore, from
prudence, indolence, or a regard for the freedom of Parnassus, to erect
himself into a legislator."[490] The words remind us of comments made
upon Scott's own work, as for example by Professor Masson, who spoke of
"the shrewdness and sagacity of some of his critical prefaces to his
novels, where he discusses principles of literature without seeming to
call them such."[491] Scott was quick to notice "cant and slang"[492] in
the professional language of men in all arts; and he valued most highly
the remarks of those whose intelligence had not been overlaid by a
conventional pedantry.

Knowing that criticism was not the main business of his life, we are
inclined to be surprised at the broad fields which he seemed to have no
hesitation in entering upon. His remarkable memory doubtless had
something to do with this, but he lived in a period when generalization
was more possible and more permissible than it is in this era of special
monographs. The large tendencies and characteristics that he traced in
his essay on Romance, for instance, are undoubtedly to be qualified at
numberless points, but writing when he did, Scott was comparatively
untroubled by these limitations. Moreover, he had the gift of seeing
things broadly, so that in essentials his survey remains true. But the
amount of his work is almost as astonishing as its scope and variety. He
could accomplish so much only by disregarding details of form; and that
he did so we know from our study of his principles of composition,
confirmed by the evidence of the passages from him that have here been
quoted. It is clear, also, that he was not limited by that "horror of
the obvious," which, as Mr. Saintsbury says, "bad taste at all times has
taken for a virtue."[493] Beyond this we have to fall back for
explanation on the unusual qualities of his mind. An observing friend
said of him that, "With a degree of patience and quietude which are
seldom combined with much energy, he could get through an incredible
extent of literary labour."[494]

Every quality which made Scott a great man contributes to the interest
and importance of his criticism. Such a body of criticism, formulated by
a large creative genius, would be of special consequence if it served
merely as the basis for a study of his other work, a commentary on the
principles which underlay his whole literary achievement. But it would
be strange if a man of Scott's intellectual personality could write
criticism which was not important in itself, and we can only account for
the general neglect of this part of his work by considering how large a
place his poems and novels give him in the history of our literature. If
he deserves a still larger place, we may remember with satisfaction that
as a man he was great enough to support honorably any distinction won by
his mind.




APPENDIX I.

BIBLIOGRAPHY


The bibliography of Scott's writings is given in three parts, as
follows:

1. Books which Scott wrote or edited, or to which he was an important
   contributor. The list is chronological.

2. Contributions to periodicals.

3. Books which contain letters written by Scott. These titles are
   arranged approximately in the order of their importance from the
   point of view of a study of Scott.


1. _Books which Scott wrote or edited, or to which he was an important
contributor_.

(In the following list the first editions of the poems and novels
are noted without bibliographical details. In the case of other
works the main facts in regard to publication are given; and an
attempt is made to indicate the nature of the books named, unless
they have been discussed in the text.)

1796
  The Chase and William and Helen. (Translated from Bürger.)

1799
  Goetz of Berlichingen. (Translated from Goethe.)

  Apology for Tales of Terror.

      Twelve copies were privately printed, to exhibit the work of the
      Ballantyne press at Kelso. The title was occasioned by the delay
      in the publication of Matthew Lewis's Tales of Terror, and the
      little book contains poems which Scott had contributed to that
      work. (The contents are named in the Catalogue of the Centenary
      Exhibition.)

1800
  The Eve of St. John, a Border ballad.

1802-3
  Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border; consisting of historical and
  romantic ballads, collected in the southern counties of Scotland; with
  a few of modern date founded upon local tradition.

      3 vols. Vols. I and 2, Kelso, 1802; vol. 3, Edinburgh, 1803.
      Second edition, 1803. The book was republished frequently before
      1830, when it was included in the collected edition of Scott's
      poems. It has also been reprinted independently since then several
      times. The latest and most complete edition is that published in
      1902, edited by T.F. Henderson. Other books in which part of
      Scott's ballad material was used in such a way as to give his name
      a place on the title-page are named below:

      Kinmont Willie: a Border ballad, with an historical introduction,
      by Sir Walter Scott. (Carlisle Tracts No. 6) Carlisle, 1841.

      A Ballad Book by C.K. Sharpe. MDCCCXXIII. Reprinted with notes and
      ballads from the unpublished manuscripts of C.K. Sharpe and Sir
      Walter Scott ... edited by ... D. Laing. Edinburgh, 1880.

1804
  Sir Tristrem: a metrical romance of the thirteenth century, by Thomas
  of Ercildoune, called the Rhymer. Edited from the Auchinleck
  manuscript by Walter Scott. Edinburgh.

      Only 12 copies of Sir Tristrem were printed in the form in which
      Scott had intended to publish it, without the expurgation which
      his friends insisted upon. (_Letters to R. Polwhele_, etc., p. 18;
      _Lockhart_, I. 361). The following book contains a part of the
      same material:

      A Penni worth of Witte, Florice and Blancheflour, and other pieces
      of ancient English poetry, selected from the Auchinleck
      manuscript. (With an account of the Auchinleck manuscript by Sir
      Walter Scott) Edinburgh, 1857. Printed for the Abbotsford Club.

1805
  The Lay of the Last Minstrel.

1806
  Original Memoirs written during the great civil war; being the life of
  Sir H. Slingsby, and memoirs of Capt. Hodgson. With notes, etc.
  Edinburgh. [Edited by Scott anonymously.]

  Ballads and Lyrical Pieces. [Poems which had already appeared in
  various collections.]

1808
  Marmion.

  Memoirs of Captain Carleton, ... including anecdotes of the war in
  Spain under the Earl of Peterborough, ... written by himself.
  Edinburgh. (8vo, but 25 copies were printed on large paper.) [Edited
  by Scott anonymously.]

      Scott was probably mistaken in considering this to be a genuine
      autobiography. (See Col. Parnell's argument in _The English
      Historical Review_, vi:97.) It has been attributed to Defoe, and
      Col. Parnell attributes it to Swift, but the question of its
      authorship is still unsolved. The book was first published in
      1728, but Scott used the edition of 1743, which he was so
      inaccurate as to take for the original edition; and as at that
      date Defoe had long been dead and Swift had lost his mind, the
      possibility of attributing it to either of them naturally would
      not occur to him. Scott wrote scarcely any notes, but his short
      introduction contains some interesting general reflections which
      are quoted by Lockhart.

  The Works of John Dryden, now first collected; illustrated with notes,
  historical, critical and explanatory, and a life of the author, by
  Walter Scott, Esq. 18 vols. London.

      Second edition, 18 vols., Edinburgh, 1821.

      Another edition, revised and corrected by George Saintsbury,
      Edinburgh, 1882-1893.

  The Life of John Dryden (4to, only 50 copies printed).

      Memoirs of John Dryden, Paris, 1826.

  Memoirs of Robert Carey, Earl of Monmouth, written by himself, and
  Fragmenta Regalia, being a history of Queen Elizabeth's favourites, by
  Sir Robert Naunton. With explanatory annotations. Edinburgh. [Edited
  by Scott anonymously.]

      Scott contributed no introductions, but his notes are copious,
      especially with regard to the history of the Border. This is one
      of the books of which Scott is reported to have said to his
      publisher, Mr. Constable, "Did I not do Hodgson, Carey, Carleton,
      etc., to serve you; and did I ever ask or receive any
      remuneration?" (_Ballantyne's Refutation_, etc., p. 76.)

  Queenhoo-Hall, a romance; and Ancient Times, a drama. By the late
  Joseph Strutt, author of Rural Sports and Pastimes of the People of
  England. [Edited by Scott, who wrote a conclusion for Queenhoo-Hall.
  This conclusion is given in an appendix to the introduction of
  Waverley.] Edinburgh.

1809
  The State Papers and Letters of Sir Ralph Sadler ... edited by Arthur
  Clifford ... to which is added a memoir of the life of Sir Ralph
  Sadler, with historical notes, by Walter Scott, Esq. 2 vols.
  Edinburgh. (Also the same work in 3 vols., with same date.)

      The biography is included in all the editions of Scott's Prose
      Works.

  The Life of Edward Lord Herbert of Cherbury, written by himself. With
  a prefatory memoir. Edinburgh; printed by James Ballantyne & Co. for
  John Ballantyne & Co. and John Murray. (A reprint of Walpole's
  edition, with the prefatory memoir added.)

      It is a question whether Scott edited this book, but it has been
      ascribed to him, and is given under his name without hesitation in
      the British Museum catalogue. The prefatory memoir is short and
      largely made up of quotations, but it sounds as if Scott might
      have written it. The book is one to which he often refers. Mr.
      Sidney Lee, in his edition of the Autobiography, says merely,
      "Walpole's edition was reprinted in 1770, 1809, and in 1826."
      Reprinted in the Universal Library: Biography, vol. I, London,
      1853.

1809-15
  A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts on the most interesting and
  entertaining subjects: but chiefly such as relate to the history and
  constitution of these kingdoms. Selected from an infinite number in
  print and manuscript, in the Royal, Cotton, Sion, and other public, as
  well as private, libraries; particularly that of the late Lord Somers.
  The second edition, revised, augmented, and arranged by Walter Scott,
  Esq. 13 vols. London.

      There are some additions. Scott says in the Advertisement: "The
      Memoirs of the Wars in the Low Countries by the gallant Williams,
      and the very singular account of Ireland by Derrick, are the most
      curious of those now published for the first time.... The
      introductory remarks and notes have been added by the present
      Editor, at the expense of some time and labour. It is needless to
      observe, that both have been expended upon a humble and
      unambitious, though not, it is hoped, an useless task. The object
      of the introductions was to present such a short and summary view
      of the circumstances under which the Historical and Controversial
      Tracts were respectively written, as to prevent the necessity of
      referring to other works. Such therefore, as refer to events of
      universal notoriety are but slightly and generally mentioned; such
      as concern less remarkable points of history are more fully
      explained. The Notes are in general illustrative of obscure
      passages, or brief notices of authorities, whether corroborative
      or contradictory of the text." The following book contains a part
      of the same material:

      The Image of Irelande with a Discoverie of Woodkarne. By John
      Derricke, 1581. With Notes by Sir Walter Scott. Edited by John
      Small. Edinburgh, 1883. (See _Somers' Tracts_, Vol. I.)

1810
  English Minstrelsy. Being a selection of fugitive poetry from the best
  English authors, with some original pieces hitherto unpublished. 2
  vols. Edinburgh.

      The Centenary Catalogue says that Scott and his friend William
      Erskine edited this book together. In the Advertisement the
      publishers (John Ballantyne & Co.) say: "To one eminent
      individual, whose name they do not venture to particularize, they
      are indebted for most valuable assistance in selection,
      arrangement, and contribution; and to that individual they take
      this opportunity to present the humble tribute of their thanks,
      for a series of kindnesses, of which that now acknowledged is
      among the least." There is no critical apparatus. The book
      contains original poems by Scott, Southey, Rogers, Joanna Baillie,
      and others not so well known.

  The Lady of the Lake.

  Memoirs of the Duke of Sully. Translated from the French [by Charlotte
  Lennox] ... a new edition ... corrected, with additional notes, some
  letters of Henry the Great, and a brief historical introduction
  embellished with portraits. 5 vols. London.

      Another edition, 4 vols. London 1858, has these words on the
      title-page: "A new edition, revised and corrected; with additional
      notes, and an historical introduction, attributed to Sir Walter
      Scott." I have found no external evidence that Scott was the
      editor. The introduction sounds as if Scott wrote it, but that so
      much work could have been done by him without occasioning any
      record seems unlikely. There is a historical introduction of 35
      pp., and copious notes. The book is one with which Scott was
      familiar. See Memoirs of Robert Carey, pp. 34 and 41.

  The Poetical Works of Anna Seward, with extracts from her literary
  correspondence. Edited by Walter Scott, Esq. 3 vols. Edinburgh.

      The biographical preface is given in the Miscellaneous Prose
      Works. The notes are by Miss Seward.

  Ancient British Drama, in three volumes. London. (Printed for William
  Miller, by James Ballantyne & Co., Edinburgh.)

      I find no evidence that Scott was the editor of this book, but it
      is sometimes ascribed to him in library catalogues. It contains
      merely a two-page introduction and brief notes, and a collection
      of plays. (See above, p. 52, note.)

1811
  The Modern British Drama, in five volumes. London. (Printed for
  William Miller, by James Ballantyne & Co., Edinburgh.)

      Vols. I and II, Tragedies, with introduction in vol. I.

      Vols. III and IV, Comedies, with introduction in vol. III.

      Vol. V, Operas and Farces, with introduction.

      These volumes apparently belong to the same collection as the
      Ancient British Drama, noted above, and the external evidence for
      Scott's authorship is the same. But the introductions are fuller,
      and they sound very much like Scott. (See above, p. 52, note.)

  The Vision of Don Roderick.

  Memoirs of the Court of Charles II, by Count Grammont. With numerous
  additions and illustrations. London. [Edited by Scott.]

      Reprinted in 1846, 1853, 1864. This last edition, in the Bohn
      Library, has about 100 pp. of historical notes.

  Secret History of the Court of James the First. With notes and
  introductory remarks. 2 vols. Edinburgh. [Edited by Scott
  anonymously.]

      The book contains 1. Osborne's Traditional Memoirs; 2. Sir Anthony
      Welldon's Court and Character of King James; 3. Aulicus
      Coquinariae; 4. Sir Edward Peyton's Divine Catastrophe of the
      House of Stuarts.

1813
  Rokeby.

  Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles I., by Sir Philip Warwick.
  Edinburgh. [Edited by Scott anonymously.]

  The Bridal of Triermain.

1814
  Illustrations of Northern Antiquities from the earlier Teutonic and
  Scandinavian romances, by Robert Jamieson ... with an abstract of the
  Eyrbyggja-Saga; being the early annals of that district of Iceland
  lying around the promontory called Sudefells, by Walter Scott.
  Edinburgh.

      See also Northern Antiquities by P.H. Mallet, London, 1847; and
      the edition in Bohn's Library, 1890.

      Lockhart says: "Any one who examines the share of the work which
      goes under Weber's name will see that Scott had a considerable
      hand in that also. The rhymed versions from the _Nibelungen Lied_
      came, I can have no doubt, from his pen." (_Lockhart_, II, 320.)

  The Works of Jonathan Swift, containing additional letters, tracts,
  and poems, not hitherto published; with notes and a life of the
  author, by Walter Scott. 19 vols. Edinburgh.

      Second edition, revised, Edinburgh, 1824.

      Memoirs of Jonathan Swift, Paris, 1826.

  The Letting of Humour's Blood in the Head Vaine, etc. By Samuel
  Rowlands. Edinburgh. [Edited by Scott. His name is not given, but the
  Advertisement is dated at Abbotsford.]

      This is an exact reproduction of the 1611 edition, except for the
      addition of a few pages containing the Advertisement and the
      notes. Another edition was printed in 1815.

  Waverley.

1814-17
  The Border Antiquities of England and Scotland; comprising specimens
  of architecture and sculpture, and other vestiges of former ages,
  accompanied by descriptions. Together with illustrations of remarkable
  incidents in Border history and tradition, and original poetry. By
  Walter Scott, Esq. 2 vols. 4to. London.

      Another edition, in 2 vols. folio, London, 1889.

      Lockhart says the introduction to this work was written in 1817,
      but this is a mistake, for it is in the first volume, which was
      published in 1814.

1815
  The Lord of the Isles.

  Guy Mannering.

  The Field of Waterloo.

  The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns, and Fairies, by Robert Kirk.

      The attribution of this to Scott rests on a letter by George
      Ticknor, in Allibone's Dictionary (vol. II, p. 1967) in which he
      says: "Kirk's Secret Commonwealth, a curious tract, of about a
      hundred quarto pages, on Fairy Superstitions and second sight,
      originally published in 1691, and of which, in 1815, Mr. Scott had
      caused a hundred copies to be privately printed by the
      Ballantynes, with additions, a circumstance, I think, not noted by
      Lockhart." Mr. Lang thinks the book was never printed until 1815.
      (See his edition, London, 1893). This 1815 edition of 100 copies
      was made, he says, from a manuscript copy preserved in the
      Advocates' Library, for Longman & Co. He quotes one of Scott's
      references to the book, but does not intimate that Scott was the
      editor.

  Memorie of the Somervilles; being a history of the baronial house of
  Somerville, by James, eleventh Lord Somerville. 2 vols. Edinburgh.
  [Edited by Scott anonymously.]

      The additions by the editor consist of a short preface and
      abundant notes.

1816
  Paul's Letters to his Kinsfolk. Edinburgh.

      These letters were anonymous, but Scott was always recognized as
      the author of them. They are contained in the Miscellaneous Prose
      Works.

  The Antiquary.

  Tales of my Landlord. First series:
    The Black Dwarf.
    Old Mortality.

1817
  Harold the Dauntless.

  Rob Roy.

1818
  Tales of my Landlord. Second series:
    The Heart of Midlothian.

  Burt's Letters from the North of Scotland ... the fifth edition, with
  a large appendix, containing various important historical documents,
  hitherto unpublished; with an introduction and notes, by the editor,
  R. Jamieson ... and the history of Donald the Hammerer, from an
  authentic account of the family of Invernahyle (by Scott: see a note
  accompanying the text). 2 vols. London.

      Scott's contribution is short. See also Appendix IV, which is
      taken "from a manuscript in the possession of the Gartmore Family,
      communicated by Walter Scott Esq." Scott's name had become so
      valuable that the publishers tried to put it on the title-page of
      this book, to his great indignation. (See _Constable_, III, III,
      119-20.)

1818-24
  The Encyclopædia Britannica: Supplement. [For this work Scott wrote
  the following essays:] Chivalry, published in 1818; The Drama,
  published in 1819; Romance, published in 1824. (These are given in the
  Miscellaneous Prose Works.)

1819
  Tales of my Landlord. Third series:
    The Bride of Lammermoor.
    A Legend of Montrose.

  The Visionary, by Somnambulus. (A political satire in three letters,
  republished from the Edinburgh Weekly Journal.) Edinburgh.

  Description of the Regalia of Scotland. Edinburgh.

      This has been reprinted many times. It was included also in
      Provincial Antiquities.

  Ivanhoe.

1819-26
  The Provincial Antiquities and Picturesque Scenery of Scotland, with
  descriptive illustrations by Sir Walter Scott, Bart. [First published
  in ten parts between 1819 and 1826.] 2 vols. London, 1826. 4to.

1820
  The Monastery.

  The Abbot.

  Memorials of the Haliburtons. Edinburgh. [Edited by Scott
  anonymously.]

      30 copies were printed in 1820, and 30 more in 1824.

      Reprinted, London, 1877, for the Royal Historical Society, in
      Genealogical Memoirs of the Family of Sir Walter Scott, Bart., of
      Abbotsford, by the Rev. Charles Rogers, LL.D.

  Trivial Poems and Triolets. Written in obedience to Mrs. Tomkin's
  commands. By Patrick Carey. London. [Edited by Scott. His name is not
  given, but the introduction is dated at Abbotsford.]

      A thin 4to, with a short introduction and a few notes. A part of
      the material had been used in the Edinburgh Annual Register for
      1810.

1821
  Northern Memoirs, calculated for the meridian of Scotland. To which is
  added the contemplative and practical angler. Writ in the year 1658.
  By Richard Franck. A new edition, with preface and notes. Edinburgh.
  [Edited by Scott.]

  Kenilworth.

  The Pirate.

1821-4
  The Novelists' Library. Edited, with prefatory memoirs, by Sir Walter
  Scott. 10 vols. London.

      Also Lives of the Novelists, 2 vols., Paris, 1825. A recent
      edition is that published, with an introduction by Austin Dobson,
      by the Oxford University Press (No. 94 in The World's Classics).
      When these Lives were issued among the Miscellaneous Prose Works
      some of the biographical prefaces were put with them, and also
      biographical notices, reprinted from the Edinburgh Weekly Journal,
      of Charles Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, John Lord
      Somerville, King George III, Lord Byron, and The Duke of York. I
      give below the names of certain books in which Scott's biographies
      were utilized, but the list is probably far from complete:

      An Account of the death and funeral procession of Frederick Duke
      of York, etc. To which is subjoined Sir Walter Scott's Character
      of His Royal Highness. By John Sykes. Newcastle, 1827.

      The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, gentleman. By Laurence
      Sterne, A.M., with a life of the author, by Sir Walter Scott.
      Paris, 1832. (Baudry's Foreign Library.)

      Beauties of Sterne, with some account of his writings by Sir
      Walter Scott. Amsterdam, 1836.

      Select Works of Smollett. Memoir by Sir W. Scott. Philadelphia,
      1849.

      The Novels and Miscellaneous Works of Daniel De Foe. With a
      biographical memoir of the author, literary prefaces to the
      various pieces, illustrative notes, etc., including all contained
      in the edition attributed to the late Sir Walter Scott, with
      considerable additions. 20 vols., London, 1840.

      The Novels and Miscellaneous Works of Daniel de Foe. With prefaces
      and notes, including those attributed to Sir Walter Scott. 6
      vols., London, 1854-6. (Bonn's British Classics.)

      The Rambler, by Samuel Johnson LL.D., with a sketch of the
      author's life by Sir Walter Scott. 2 vols., London, 187?

1822
  Chronological Notes of Scottish Affairs, from 1680 till 1701; being
  chiefly taken from the diary of Lord Fountainhall. Edinburgh. [Edited
  by Scott.]

      See Historical Notices of Scotish Affairs, selected from the
      manuscripts of Sir John Lauder of Fountainhall, bart. 2 vols.
      Edinburgh, 1848, printed for the Bannatyne club. Here Scott's
      edition is referred to, and his introduction is reprinted. The
      book was re-edited because Scott did not use the original
      manuscript, but an interpolated transcript, and he had no means
      for accurately determining the original text.

  Halidon Hill, a dramatic sketch.

  Macduff's Cross (in Joanna Baillie's Poetical Miscellanies).

  Military Memoirs of the Great Civil War. Being the military memoirs of
  John Gwynne; and an account of the Earl of Glencairn's expedition, as
  general of His Majesty's forces, in the highlands of Scotland, in the
  years 1653 and 1654, by a person who was eye and ear witness to every
  transaction.... Edinburgh. [Edited by Scott. His name is not given,
  but the introduction is dated at Abbotsford.]

      There are some notes, and a short historical introduction.

  Sketch of the Life and Character of the late Lord Kinneder. [Edited by
  Scott. A postscript says: "This notice was chiefly drawn up by the
  late Mr. Hay Donaldson."] Edinburgh.

      Only a few copies were printed, for private distribution.

  The Fortunes of Nigel.

1823
  Peveril of the Peak.

  Quentin Durward.

  St. Ronan's Well.

1824
  Lays of the Lindsays, being poems by the ladies of the House of
  Balcarras. Edinburgh. [Edited by Scott, and designed as a contribution
  to the Bannatyne Club, but suppressed after being printed.]

  Redgauntlet.

1825
  Auld Robin Gray; a ballad. By the Rt. Honourable Lady Anne Barnard,
  born Lady Anne Lindsay, of Balcarras. [Edited by Scott for the
  Bannatyne Club.]

  Tales of the Crusaders:
    The Betrothed.
    The Talisman.

1826
  Letters of Malachi Malagrowther on the Currency. (To the editor of the
  Edinburgh Weekly Journal.) 3 parts. Edinburgh.

  Woodstock.

1826?
  Shakspeare [edited by Scott and Lockhart?], volumes II, III, and IV,
  without title page and date. Printed by James Ballantyne & Co.

      Scott and Lockhart began in 1823 or 1824 to prepare an edition of
      Shakspere. In Jan., 1825, Constable wrote to a London bookseller:
      "It gives me great pleasure to tell you that the first sheet of
      Sir Walter Scott's Shakspeare is now in type ... This I expect
      will be a first-rate property." (_Constable's Correspondence_, II,
      344.) At the time of Constable's bankruptcy in 1826 there was a
      disagreement in regard to the ownership of the property. Scott
      wrote to Lockhart, May 30, 1826, "What do you about Shakspeare?
      Constable's creditors seem desirous to carry it on. Certainly
      their bankruptcy breaks the contract. For me _c'est égal_: I have
      nothing to do with the emoluments, and I can with very little
      difficulty discharge my part of the matter, which is the
      Prolegomena, and Life and Times." (Lang's _Lockhart_, I, 409.) In
      1827 the question of carrying on the work was still undecided, and
      it was also mentioned in a letter in 1830. (Lang's _Lockhart_ II,
      13 and 59). The project was ultimately abandoned, and the fate of
      that part of the work which was actually in print is unknown. In
      the Barton Collection in the Boston Public Library is preserved
      what is perhaps a unique copy of three volumes of the set of ten
      that Scott and Lockhart undertook to prepare. But as the books are
      bound up without title-pages, and as the commentary contains
      nothing that would determine its authorship, the attribution is
      probable rather than certain. These volumes include twelve of the
      comedies. On the fly-leaf of one of them is a note written by Mr.
      Rodd, a London bookseller. He says: "I purchased these three
      volumes from a sale at Edinburgh. They were entered in the
      catalogue as 'Shakespeare's Works, edited by Sir Walter Scott and
      Lockhart, vols. ii, in, iv, all published, _unique_'." It was not
      positively known that such a work had been planned until the
      publication of Constable's _Correspondence_ in 1874. At that time
      Justin Winsor wrote a letter to the _Boston Advertiser_ (March 21,
      1874) in which he said: "The account of the Barton collection,
      which was printed fifteen years ago, contained the earliest public
      mention, I believe, of the supposition that Scott ever engaged in
      such a work, which this life of Constable now renders certain.
      These later corroborative statements give a peculiar interest to
      the volumes which are now in this library and which are perhaps
      the only ones of the edition now in existence." The introductions
      to the plays are each only a page or two long, and are mainly,
      like the notes, compilations. The book corresponds fairly well
      with the description given in _Constable_. (See Vol. III, pp. 183,
      193, 237-8, 241, 242, 244, 246, 305, 321, 442. See also Lang's
      _Lockhart_, I, 308-9, 395-6, and Lang's Introduction to _Peveril
      of the Peak_.)

1827
  The Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, Emperor of the French. With a
  preliminary view of the French Revolution. By the author of Waverley.
  9 vols. Edinburgh.

  Chronicles of the Canongate. First series:
    The Highland Widow.
    The Two Drovers.
    The Surgeon's Daughter

  Memoirs of the Marchioness de la Rochejaquelin. Translated from the
  French. Edinburgh. (Constable's Miscellany, Vol. V. Introduction and
  notes by Scott.)

  The Miscellaneous Prose Works of Sir Walter Scott.

      6 vols. Edinburgh, 1827, and Boston, 1829.

      9 vols. Paris, 1827-34.

      30 vols. London, 1834-46. (Containing many of the reviews
      contributed by Scott to periodicals.)

      Same, first 28 vols. (Omitting the Letters on Demonology and
      Witchcraft.) Edinburgh, 1842-6, 1851, and 1861.

      7 vols. Paris, 1837-8.

      8 vols. Paris, 1840?

      3 vols. Edinburgh, 1841-2, 1846, and 1854.

1827-55
  The Bannatyne Miscellany; containing original papers and tracts
  relating to the history and literature of Scotland. (Edited by Sir
  Walter Scott, D. Laing, and T. Thomson.) 3 vols.

1828
  Tales of a Grandfather. First series. 3 vols. Edinburgh. Religious
  Discourses. By a layman. London.

      Two sermons written by Sir Walter for George Huntly Gordon, then a
      Probationer. Afterwards published by Gordon, with the author's
      permission, to raise money.

  Chronicles of the Canongate. Second series:
    The Fair Maid of Perth.

  Proceedings in the Court-martial held upon John, Master of Sinclair,
  captain-lieutenant in Preston's regiment, for the murder of Ensign
  Schaw of the same regiment, and Captain Schaw, of the Royals, 17
  October, 1708; with correspondence respecting that transaction.
  Edinburgh.

      Edited by Sir Walter Scott and presented by him to the Roxburghe
      club. Some of the same material seems to have been used in the
      book named below:

      Memoirs of the Insurrection in 1715, by John, Master of Sinclair.
      With notes by Sir Walter Scott. Edinburgh, 1858, printed for the
      Abbotsford Club.

1829
  Papers relative to the Regalia of Scotland. Edinburgh. Edited by Sir
  Walter Scott and presented to the members of the Bannatyne Club by
  William Bell, Esq.

  Memorials of George Bannatyne, 1545-1608. Edited by Sir Walter Scott
  for the Bannatyne Club. Edinburgh.

      Scott wrote the memoir of George Bannatyne which occupies the
      first 25 pages of the book. This memoir is also to be found in the
      publications of the Hunterian Club, part 8, published in 1886.

  Anne of Geierstein.

  Tales of a Grandfather. Second series.

1829-32
  Novels, Tales, and Romances, with introductions and notes by the
  author. (The "Opus Magnum.")

      The same material is used in the following books:

      Introductions and notes and illustrations to the novels, tales,
      and romances of the author of Waverley. 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1833.

      Autobiography of Sir Walter Scott. Philadelphia, 1831. Anderson,
      in his bibliography of Scott, gives this as a supposititious work,
      but with the exception of the title it is genuine, for it is
      simply the piecing together of Scott's introductions to his
      novels.

1830
  Tales of a Grandfather. Third series.

  The Doom of Devorgoil, and Auchindrane or The Ayrshire Tragedy.

  Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft, addressed to J.G. Lockhart,
  Esq. London. (The Family Library.)

      Other editions: New York, 1845; London, 1868 and 1876,
      (illustrated by Cruikshank); London 1884, with an introduction by
      Henry Morley. Included in the 30 vol. edition of the Miscellaneous
      Prose works, but not in the 28 vol. edition.

  Poems, with prefaces by the author. 11 vols. Introductory Remarks on
  Popular Poetry (prefixed to Minstrelsy, Vol. I) and Essay on Imitations
  of the Ancient Ballad (prefixed to Minstrelsy, Vol. III).

      These essays were printed in 1830 and attached to the edition of
      the poems then on sale. They were first regularly included in the
      edition of 1833.

  The History of Scotland. (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia.) 2 vols.
  London. [Not in the Miscellaneous Prose Works.]

1831
  Tales of a Grandfather. Fourth series. History of France.

  The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D., including a Journal of his Tour to
  the Hebrides, by James Boswell, Esq. New edition with numerous
  anecdotes and notes by The Right Hon. John Wilson Croker, M.P.... 10
  vols. London. [Scott wrote and signed the notes for the Tour to the
  Hebrides.]

  Trial of Duncan Terig, alias Clerk, and Alexander Bane Macdonald, for
  the murder of Arthur Davis, Sergeant in General Guise's regiment of
  foot. June, A.D. 1754. Edinburgh.

      "To the members of the Bannatyne Club, this copy of a trial,
      involving a curious point of evidence, is presented, by Walter
      Scott." There is an introduction of 11 pages, giving the story of
      the crime, and bringing together instances from literature and
      history of the evidence of ghosts being cited in trials. That is
      the "curious point of evidence" referred to. The proceedings of
      the court are then reprinted without annotation.

1832
  Tales of my Landlord. Fourth series:
    Count Robert of Paris.
    Castle Dangerous.

1848
  Two Bannatyne Garlands from Abbotsford.

      This little book was prepared for members of the Bannatyne club by
      the secretary, D. Laing. It contains two ballads--of which one is
      ancient and one a modern imitation written by Robert
      Surtees--annotated by Scott.

1889
  Reliquiae Trottosienses, or Catalogue of the Gabions of the late
  Jonathan Oldbuck. (Partially published in _Harper's Magazine_ for
  April, 1889: Vol. lxxviii, pp. 778-788. This fragment describing the
  main apartments at Abbotsford is the only part of the Reliquiae
  Trottosienses that has been printed. There is a short introduction by
  Mary Monica Maxwell Scott.)

      The same material was included in the following book: Abbotsford,
      the personal relics and antiquarian treasures of Sir Walter Scott,
      described by the Hon. Mary Monica Maxwell Scott. London, 1893.

1890
  The Journal of Sir Walter Scott, from the original manuscript at
  Abbotsford. (Edited by David Douglas.) 2 vols. Edinburgh.

      Second edition, 1891. Large extracts from this Journal had
      previously been published in Lockhart's Life of Scott.


2. _Contributions to Periodicals_.

(a) Reviews

(Most of these essays are reprinted in the 28 and 30 volume editions of
Scott's Miscellaneous Prose Works. Articles not included in that
collection are marked by a note indicating the evidence on which they
are attributed to Scott.)

1803
  Amadis de Gaul, translated by Southey and by Rose. (_Edinburgh
  Review_, October. Vol. III.)

  Sibbald's Chronicle of Scottish Poetry. (_Edinburgh_, October. Vol.
  III. Not in M.P.W. See Lockhart, Vol. I, p. 335.)

1804
  Godwin's Life of Chaucer. (_Edinburgh_, January. Vol. III.)

  Ellis's Specimens of the Early English Poets. (_Edinburgh_, April.
  Vol. IV.)

  The Life and Works of Chatterton. (_Edinburgh_, April. Vol. IV.)

1805
  Johnes's Translation of Froissart. (_Edinburgh_, January. Vol. V.)

  Colonel Thornton's Sporting Tour. (_Edinburgh_, January. Vol. V.)

  Fleetwood, a novel by William Godwin. (_Edinburgh_, April. Vol. VI.)

  The New Practice of Cookery. (_Edinburgh_, July. Vol. VI.)

  The Ossianic Poems. (_Edinburgh_, July. Vol. VI. Not in M.P.W. See
  Lockhart, Vol. I, p. 409.)

  Todd's Edition of Spenser. (_Edinburgh_, October. Vol. VII.)

1806
  Ellis's Specimens of English Romance, and Ritson's Ancient English
  Metrical Romances. (_Edinburgh_, January. Vol. VII.)

  The Miseries of Human Life. [By Rev. James Beresford.] (_Edinburgh_,
  October. Vol. IX.)

  Miscellaneous Poetry by the Hon. William Herbert. (_Edinburgh_,
  October. Vol. IX.)

1809
  Reliques of Burns, collected by R.H. Cromek. (_Quarterly Review_,
  February. Vol. I.)

  Southey's Translation of The Cid. (_Quarterly_, February. Vol. I.)

  Sir John Carr's Caledonian Sketches. (_Quarterly_, February. Vol. I.)

  Campbell's Gertrude of Wyoming and other poems. (_Quarterly_, May.
  Vol. I.)

  John de Lancaster, a novel by Richard Cumberland. (_Quarterly_, May.
  Vol. I.)

  The Battles of Talavera, a poem [by John Wilson Croker]. (_Quarterly_,
  November. Vol. II.)

1810
  The Fatal Revenge or The Family of Montorio, a romance [by C.R.
  Maturin]. (_Quarterly_, May. Vol. III.)

  Collections of Ballads and Songs by R.H. Evans and John Aiken.
  (_Quarterly_, May. Vol. III.)

1811
  Southey's Curse of Kehama. (_Quarterly_, February. Vol. V.)

1815
  Emma and other novels by Jane Austen. (_Quarterly_, October. Vol. XIV.
  Not in M.P.W. See Lockhart, Vol. IV, p. 3.)

1816
  The Culloden Papers. (_Quarterly_, January. Vol. XIV.)

  Childe Harold, Canto III, and other poems by Lord Byron. (_Quarterly_,
  October. Vol. XVI.)

1817
  Tales of My Landlord. [Probably written with the help of William
  Erskine. See Lockhart, Vol. III, p. 81. See also the Introduction to
  Waverley, written in 1830.] (_Quarterly_, January. Vol. XVI.)

1818
  Douglas on Military Bridges. (_Quarterly_, May. Vol. XVIII. Not in
  M.P.W. See Lockhart, Vol. III, p. 173.)

  Kirkton's History of the Church of Scotland, edited by C.K. Sharpe.
  (_Quarterly_, May. Vol. XVIII.)

  Letters from Horace Walpole to George Montague. (_Quarterly_, April.
  Vol. XIX. Not in M.P.W. See Memoir of John Murray, Vol. II, p. 12.)

  Childe Harold, Canto IV. (_Quarterly_, April. Vol. XIX.)

  Women or Pour et Contre, a tale [by C.R. Maturin]. (_Edinburgh_, June.
  Vol. XXX.)

  Frankenstein, a novel [by Mrs. Shelley]. (_Blackwood_, March. Vol.
  II.)

  Remarks on General Gourgaud's Narrative. (_Blackwood_, November. Vol.
  IV. Not in M.P.W. See Lockhart, Vol. III, p. 238.)

1824
  The Correspondence of Lady Suffolk. (_Quarterly_, January. Vol. XXX.)

1826
  Pepys' Diary. (_Quarterly_, March. Vol. XXXIII.) Boaden's Life of
  Kemble, and Kelly's Reminiscences. (_Quarterly_, June. Vol. XXXIV.)

  The Omen [by John Galt]. (_Blackwood_, July. Vol. XX.)

1827
  Mackenzie's Life and Works of John Home. (_Quarterly_, June. Vol.
  XXXVI.)

  The Forester's Guide, by Robert Monteath. On Planting Waste Lands.
  (_Quarterly_, October. Vol. XXXVI.)

  On the Supernatural in Fictitious Composition, and particularly on the
  Works of Hoffman. (_Foreign Quarterly Review_, July. Vol. I.)

      See also Contes Fantastiques de E.T.A. Hoffmann, traduits de
      l'Allemand par M. Loève-Veimars, et précédés d'une notice
      historique sur Hoffmann par Walter Scott. Paris, 1830. 16 vols.

1828
  The Planter's Guide, by Sir Henry Steuart. On Landscape Gardening.
  (_Quarterly_, March. Vol. XXXVII.)

  Sir Humphrey Davy's Salmonia or Days of Fly-fishing. (_Quarterly_,
  October. Vol. XXXVIII.)

  Molière. (_Foreign Quarterly Review_, February. Vol. II.)

1829
  Hajji Baba in England; and The Kuzzilbash, a tale of Khorasan.
  (_Quarterly_, January. Vol. XXXIX.)

  Ritson's Annals of the Caledonians, Picts, and Scots, etc.
  (_Quarterly_, July. Vol. XLI.)

  Tytler's History of Scotland. (_Quarterly_, November. Vol. XLI.)

  Revolutions of Naples in 1647 and 1648. (_Foreign Quarterly Review_,
  August. Vol. IV. Not in M.P.W. See Journal, Vol. I, p. 145, and Vol.
  II, p. 278.)

1830
  Southey's Life of John Bunyan. (_Quarterly_, October. Vol. XLIII.)

1831
  Pitcairn's Ancient Criminal Trials. (_Quarterly_, February. Vol.
  XLIV.)


(b) Contributions to the Edinburgh Annual Register

(The dates given are those on the volumes. In most cases the book was
issued about a year and a half after the nominal date. Most of Scott's
contributions are unsigned. Those which were afterwards included in the
collected edition of his poems are in this list marked "Poems"; in other
cases (unless the article is signed) a note is made of the reason for
attributing it to Scott).

1808 Vol. I, part 2.

  The Bard's Incantation. Poems.

  To a Lady, with Flowers from a Roman Wall. Poems.

  The Violet. Poems.

  Hunting Song. Poems.

  The Resolve. Poems.

  View of the changes proposed and adopted in the administration of
  justice in Scotland. (See _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 154.)

  Living Poets of Great Britain. (From internal evidence I think this
  article may have been written by Scott, and am sure that he dictated
  many of the opinions it expresses, if he is not responsible for the
  whole.)

1809 Vol. II, part 2.

  The Vision of Don Roderick. (Reprinted from the first edition.) Poems.

  Epitaph designed for a Monument to be erected in Lichfield Cathedral
  to the Rev. Thomas Seward. Poems.

  Cursory remarks upon the French order of battle, particularly in the
  campaigns of Buonaparte. (See _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 161.)

  Periodical Criticism. (From internal evidence I am sure that this was
  written by Scott. The style is decidedly more interesting than that of
  the article on the poets, in the volume for the preceding year.)

  The Inferno of Altisidora. (This immediately follows the article on
  Periodical Criticism, and is a burlesque sketch on the same subject.
  It serves to introduce the following imitations, respectively, of
  Crabbe, Moore, and Scott himself.)

    The Poacher.

    "Oh say not, my love, with that mortified air."

    The Vision of Triermain.

1810 Vol. III, part 2.

  Account of the poems of Patrick Carey, a poet of the seventeenth
  century. (Afterwards prefixed to the volume of Carey's poems published
  in 1820. See _Lockhart_, Vol. II, pp. 245-8.)

1811 Vol. IV, part 2.

  Biographical memoir of John Leyden, M.D. (In the Miscellaneous Prose
  Works.)

1812 Vol. V, part 2.

  Extracts from a journal kept during a coasting voyage through the
  Scottish Islands. (Published in complete form in _Lockhart_, Vol. II.)

1813 Vol. VI.

  The Dance of Death. Poems.

  Romance of Dunois, from the French. Poems.

  Song for the anniversary meeting of the Pitt Club of Scotland. Poems.

  Song on the lifting of the banner of the House of Buccleuch, at a
  great football match on Carterhaugh. Poems.

1814 Vol. VII.

  Historical Review of the Year. (See _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 76.)

1815 Vol. VIII.

  Historical Review of the Year. (See _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 124.)

  The Search after Happiness, or the Quest of Sultaun Solimaun.
  (Reprinted from the _Sale-Room_. See _Lockhart_, Vol. III, pp. 89-90.)

1816 Vol. IX.

  The Noble Moringer. Translated from the German. Poems. (See also the
  introduction to _The Betrothed_.)

1817 Vol. X.

  Farewell Address, spoken by Mr. Kemble to the Edinburgh Theatre, on
  the 29th March, 1817. (Reprinted from the _Sale-Room_. ) Poems.

1824 Vol. XVII.

  To Mons. Alexandre.


(c) Contributions to other periodicals

Scott contributed frequently to _The Edinburgh Weekly Journal_, edited
and published by James Ballantyne. Some of the articles are reprinted in
the Miscellaneous Prose Works. Lockhart reprints in the Life Scott's
account of the coronation of George IV., and his Reply to General
Gourgaud.

Scott also contributed to _The Sale-Room_, a weekly paper edited and
published by John Ballantyne from January 4 to July 12, 1817 (28
numbers). (See _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 89.)

To _The Keepsake_, an annual, Scott contributed in 1828 The Tapestried
Chamber, My Aunt Margaret's Mirror, and The Laird's Jock, and in 1830
The House of Aspen.

In _Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine_, Vol. I, appeared three articles
entitled "Notices concerning the Scottish Gypsies," for which Scott
furnished a large part of the material. (Numbers for April, May, and
September, 1817.) Lockhart says that Scott dictated to Thomas Pringle "a
collection of anecdotes concerning Scottish gypsies, which attracted a
good deal of notice." The first article refers to "Mr. Walter Scott, a
gentleman to whose distinguished assistance and advice we have been on
the present occasion very peculiarly indebted, and who has not only
furnished us with many interesting particulars himself, but has also
obligingly directed us to other sources of curious information." Scott
quotes from the first of the three articles in his review of _Tales of
My Landlord_, and he afterwards used the same anecdotes in the
introduction to _Guy Mannering_.


3. _Books which contain letters written by Scott_.

(As there is no complete collection of Scott's letters it has been
thought wise to name the various sources, so far as the letters have
appeared at all in print, from which such a collection might be made.
The list includes only those books or articles in which letters were
published for the first time; yet it is probably far from exhaustive.
Notes are given in regard to the number or kind of the letters from
Scott to be found in some of the less-known books.)

Memoirs of Sir Walter Scott, by J.G. Lockhart.

    Edinburgh, 7 vols. 1837-8. 10 vols. 1839. Abridged edition 1848. The
    edition referred to throughout this study is that published by
    Macmillan and Company in 5 volumes, 1900.

Familiar Letters of Sir Walter Scott [edited by D. Douglas].

    2 vols. Edinburgh, 1894.

Letters and Recollections of Sir Walter Scott, by Mrs. Hughes (of
Uffington), edited by Horace G. Hutchinson.

    London, 1904. (First published in _The Century_, xliv: 424 and 566;
    July and August, 1903.)

The Life and Letters of John Gibson Lockhart, by Andrew Lang, from
Abbotsford and Milton Lockhart mss. and other original sources.

    2 vols. London, 1897.

    These volumes contain many letters from Scott to Lockhart.

Memoir and Correspondence of the late John Murray, with an account of
the origin and progress of the House, 1768-1843, by Samuel Smiles.

    2 vols. London, 1891.

    This book contains many letters from Scott to Murray, who published
    some of Scott's works and was the proprietor of the _Quarterly
    Review_.

Archibald Constable and his Literary Correspondents. A Memorial by his
son Thomas Constable.

    3 vols. Edinburgh, 1873.

    The third volume is wholly taken up with an account of Scott's
    relations with Constable, his publisher, and many letters are given.
    See also Vol. II, pages 347 and 474.

[The Ballantyne and Lockhart Pamphlets.]

I. Refutation of the Misstatements and Calumnies contained in Mr.
Lockhart's Life of Sir Walter Scott, bart., respecting the Messrs.
Ballantyne, by the trustees and son of the late Mr. James Ballantyne.
(1835.)

II. The Ballantyne Humbug Handled by the author of the Life of Sir
Walter Scott. (1839.)

III. Reply to Mr. Lockhart's Pamphlet, entitled "The Ballantyne-Humbug
Handled," etc. (1839.)

    The two last pamphlets contain numerous letters of Scott's. For a
    history of Scott's publishing operations these pamphlets should be
    studied in connection with the Memoirs of Lockhart, Murray, and
    Constable.

Annals of a Publishing House; William Blackwood and his sons, their
magazine and friends. By Mrs. Oliphant.

    3rd edition, 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1897.

    About half a dozen letters not elsewhere published are given in this
    book.

Letters from and to Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, Esq., edited by
Alexander Allardyce, with a memoir by Rev. W.K.R. Bedford.

    2 vols. Edinburgh, 1888.

    Lockhart wrote to Sharpe in 1834: "He had preserved so many letters
    of yours.... that I must suppose the correspondence was considered
    by himself as one not of the common sort." (Vol. II, p. 479.) Both
    men were authors and antiquaries, and their letters as given in this
    book illustrate their favorite studies.

Lady Louisa Stuart. Selections from her manuscripts, edited by Hon.
James Home.

    London, 1899. (One section of the book is entitled "Unpublished
    Letters of Sir Walter Scott and Lady Louisa Stuart.")

Abbotsford Notanda, by Robert Carruthers. Subjoined to the Life of Sir
Walter Scott by Robert Chambers, edited by W. Chambers.

    London, 1871.

    Letters from Scott to Hogg and Laidlaw are included.

Memorials of Coleorton, being letters from Coleridge, Wordsworth and his
Sister, Southey, and Sir Walter Scott, to Sir George and Lady Beaumont
of Coleorton, Leicestershire, 1803 to 1834. Edited, with introduction
and notes, by William Knight.

    2 vols. Boston, 1887.

    The second volume contains three letters by Scott.

The Letters of Sir Walter Scott and Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe to Robert
Chambers, 1821-45. With original memoranda of Sir Walter Scott, etc.
[Edited by C.E.S. Chambers.]

    Edinburgh, 1904.

Reminiscences of Sir Walter Scott, by John Gibson.

    Edinburgh, 1871.

    Besides nine letters from Scott this book gives in full a memorial
    written by him in regard to the claim of Constable's trustee on
    _Woodstock_ and _Napoleon_.

Traditions and Recollections, Domestic, Clerical, and Literary; in which
are included letters of Charles II, Cromwell, Fairfax, Edgecumbe,
Macaulay, Wolcot, Opie, Whitaker, Gibbon, Buller, Courtenay, Moore,
Downman, Drewe, Seward, Darwin, Cowper, Hayley, Hardinge, Sir Walter
Scott, and other distinguished characters. By the Rev. R. Polwhele.

    2 vols. London, 1826.

    Vol. II. contains five letters from Scott.

Letters of Sir Walter Scott, addressed to the Rev. R. Polwhele; D.
Gilbert, Esq.; Francis Douce, Esq.; etc.

    London, 1832.

    Twenty-eight letters from Scott are given, of which at least one had
    previously been published.

A Memoir of the Life and Writings of the late William Taylor of Norwich,
... containing his correspondence of many years with the late Robert
Southey, Esq., and original letters from Sir Walter Scott, and other
eminent literary men. Compiled and edited by J.W. Robberds, F.G.S., of
Norwich.

    2 vols. London, 1843.

    Vol. I. contains two letters from Scott, of which the second has
    decided critical interest. See pp. 94-100. Vol. II. has one letter
    from Scott. See p. 533.

Memoirs of Sir William Knighton, Bart. G.C.H. ... including his
correspondence with many distinguished personages. By Lady Knighton.
Philadelphia, 1838.

    Fourteen letters from Scott are given.

Letters between James Ellis, Esq., and Walter Scott, Esq.

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1850.

    The letters from Scott are two in number.

Haydon's Correspondence and Table-talk, with a Memoir by his son,
Frederick Wordsworth Haydon.

    2 vols., London, 1876.

    The first volume contains a few letters by Scott.

The Life and Letters of Washington Irving, by his nephew, Pierre M.
Irving.

    4 vols., New York, 1865.

    Vol. I, p. 240, contains a letter to Brevoort; pp. 439-40, 442-4 and
    450-1 contain three letters to Irving.

Memorials of James Hogg, by M.G. Garden.

    London, 1903.

    Four letters by Scott are included.

Memoirs of a Literary Veteran, including sketches and anecdotes of the
most distinguished literary characters from 1794 to 1849, by R.P.
Gillies.

    3 vols. London, 1851.

    Vol. II, pp. 77-83, contains three letters from Scott; Vol. III, pp.
    143-4, contains one.

Sir Walter Scott. The story of his life, by R. Shelton Mackenzie.

    Boston, 1871.

    See p. 471 for a letter not published elsewhere.

Byron's Letters and Journals. Rowland E. Prothero, ed.

    6 vols., London, 1898-1901.

    See Vol. VI, p. 55 for a letter of Scott's not published elsewhere.

Catalogue of the Exhibition held at Edinburgh in July and August, 1871,
on occasion of the commemoration of the centenary of the birth of Sir
Walter Scott.

    Edinburgh, 1872.

    This catalogue contains notices of the autograph letters which were
    exhibited, and prints a few of the letters.

A Critical Dictionary of English Literature and British and American
Authors.... By S. Austin Allibone.

    3 vols. Philadelphia, 1870.

    Two letters from Scott to Ticknor are given in the article on Scott.

Fragments of Voyages and Travel, by Basil Hall. Third series.

    Chapter I. contains a letter written by Scott in the original
    manuscript of _The Antiquary_, explaining why the author
    particularly liked that novel.

Letters, hitherto unpublished, written by members of Sir Walter Scott's
family to their old governess. Edited, with an introduction and notes,
by the Warden of Wadham College, Oxford.

    London, 1905.

    See pp. 13-15 for a letter from Scott, and pp. 37-38 for a note of
    instructions in regard to his daughter Sophia's history lessons.

Correspondence between J. Fenimore Cooper and Sir Walter Scott.

    _The Knickerbocker Magazine_, xi: 380; April, 1838.

    The letter from Scott to Cooper quoted above, p. 102, is here given.

Fiction, Fair and Foul. By John Ruskin.

    _Nineteenth Century_, viii: 195; August, 1880.

    A footnote on pp. 196-7 contains fragments of five letters from
    Scott to the builder of Abbotsford.

Wordsworth's Poetical Works. Edited by William Knight.

    II vols. Edinburgh, 1882.

    See the index. Vol. XI, p. 196 has a letter from Scott which I think
    had not previously been published. Vol. X, p. 105, gives one which
    Lockhart quotes "very imperfectly," according to Prof. Knight.

Portraits of Illustrious Personages of Great Britain ... with
biographical and historical memoirs of their lives and actions, by
Edmund Lodge.

    London, 1835.

    Vol. I contains, in the appendix to the preface, a letter from Scott
    to the publisher, dated 25th March 1828. (See _Lockhart_, V, 350.)

The Life and Letters of Maria Edgeworth, edited by Augustus J.C. Hare.

    2 vols. Boston, 1895.

    This contains a few letters of Scott's, but only one which is not
    published elsewhere.

A Short Account of successful exertions in behalf of the fatherless and
widows after the war in 1814; containing letters from Mr. Wilberforce,
Sir Walter Scott, Marshal Blücher, etc. By Rudolf Ackermann.

    Oxford, 1871.

    There is only one letter by Scott.

The Courser's Manual, etc., by T. Goodlake. 1828.

    This book contains one letter by Scott, dated 16th October, 1828,
    about an old Scottish poem entitled "The Last Words of Bonny Heck."
    (See _Lockhart_, V. 219, for what is doubtless the same letter.)

The Chimney-sweeper's Friend and Climbing-boy's Album. Arranged by James
Montgomery.

    London, 1824.

    The Preface contains part of a letter from Scott, in which he
    describes the construction of the chimneys at Abbotsford. (See
    _Lockhart_, IV. 158-9.)




APPENDIX II.


1. _Bibliographies of Scott_

Allibone, S.A. Dictionary of British and American Authors and
Literature. 3 vols. Phil., 1870.

Anderson, J.P. Bibliography of Scott, in the Life of Scott by C.D. Yonge
(Great Writers Series). London, 1888.

Lockhart's Life of Scott; the Centenary Catalogue (see above, p. 171);
the British Museum Catalogue; the Dictionary of National Biography.


2. _A partial list of the books used in the preparation of this Study_,
aside from those given in the bibliography of Scott's works. (See
particularly the list of books which contain letters written by Scott:
Appendix I. 3.)

Adolphus, J.L.
  Letters to Richard Heber, Esq., containing critical remarks on the
  series of novels beginning with "Waverley," and an attempt to
  ascertain their author. Second edition. London, 1822.

Aitken, G.A., ed.
  Romances and Narratives by Daniel Defoe. 16 vols. London, 1895.

Arnold, Matthew.
  Byron. In Essays in Criticism. Second series. London, 1889.

Carlyle, Thomas.
  Sir Walter Scott. In Critical and Miscellaneous Essays. 4 vols.
  London, 1857.

Chambers, E.K.
  The Mediaeval Stage. 2 vols. Oxford, 1903.

Chesterton, G.K.
  Varied Types. New York, 1903.

Child, Francis J.
  English and Scottish Popular Ballads. 5 vols. Boston, 1882-96.

  English and Scottish Popular Ballads, edited from the collection of
  Francis James Child by Helen Child Sargent and George Lyman Kittredge.
  Boston, 1904.

Clemens, S.L. (Mark Twain).
  Life on the Mississippi. Boston, 1883.

Cockburn, Henry.
  Memorials of His Time. Edinburgh, 1874.

Coleridge, S.T.
  Specimens of the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. 2 vols.
  London, 1835.

  Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, edited by E.H. Coleridge. 2 vols.
  Boston, 1895.

Collins, J. Churton.
  Ephemera Critica. London, 1901.

Courthope, W.J.
  A History of English Poetry. 4 vols. New York, 1895-1903.

  The Liberal Movement in English Literature. London, 1885.

Cunningham, Allan.
  Life of Scott. Boston, 1832.

Dowden, Edward.
  Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. 2 vols. London, 1886.

Fitzgerald, Percy.
  New History of the English Stage, from the Restoration to the liberty
  of the theatres, in connection with the patent houses. 2 vols. London,
  1882.

Forster, John.
  Walter Savage Landor, a biography. 2 vols. London, 1869.

Freeman, E.A.
  The History of the Norman Conquest of England. 5 vols. New
  York, 1873.

Gates, L.E.
  Three Studies in Literature. New York, 1899.

Gillies, R.P.
  Recollections of Sir Walter Scott. (Republished in book form from
  _Fraser's Magazine_, Sept., Nov., Dec. 1835, and Jan., 1836.)

Hazlitt, William.
  Collected Works, edited by A.R. Waller and Arnold Glover. 12 vols.
  London, 1902-4. (Spirit of the Age, Vol. IV; Plain Speaker, Vol. VII;
  Dramatic Essays, Vol. VIII.)

Herford, C.H.
  The Age of Wordsworth. (Handbooks of English Literature.) London,
  1905.

Hogg, James, ed.
  Jacobite Relics of Scotland, being the songs, airs, and legends of the
  adherents of the House of Stuart. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1819-21.

  Domestic Manners and Private Life of Sir Walter Scott. Glasgow, 1834.

Hudson, W.H.
  Sir Walter Scott, London, 1901.

Hunt, J.H. Leigh.
  Autobiography; with reminiscences of friends and contemporaries. 2
  vols. New York, 1850.

  Feast of the Poets. London, 1814.

  Lord Byron and some of his contemporaries. Second edition. 2 vols.
  London, 1828.

Hutton, R.H.
  Sir Walter Scott. (English Men of Letters.) New York, 1878.

Irving, Washington.
  Abbotsford and Newstead Abbey. (First volume of the "Crayon
  Miscellany.") London, 1835.

Lang, Andrew.
  Sir Walter Scott (Literary Lives). New York, 1906.

  Border edition of the Waverley Novels, 48 vols. London, 1892-1894.

Laing, Malcolm, ed.
  Poems of Ossian, containing the poetical works of James MacPherson in
  prose and verse. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1805.

Legaré, H.S.
  Writings.... Edited by his sister. Charleston, S.C., 1846.

Lounsbury, T.R.
  James Fenimore Cooper. (American Men of Letters.) Boston, 1882.

Maigron, Louis.
  Le Roman Historique à l'Époque Romantique: essai sur l'influence de
  Walter Scott. Paris, 1898.

Masson, David.
  British Novelists and Their Styles. Cambridge, Eng., 1859.

Matthews, Brander.
  The Historical Novel, etc. New York, 1901.

Meteyard, Eliza.
  A Group of Englishmen (1795-1815), being records of the younger
  Wedgwoods and their friends. London, 1871.

Millar, J.H.
  The Mid-Eighteenth Century. (Periods of European Literature.) New
  York, 1902.

Moore, Thomas.
  Letters and Journals of Lord Byron, with notices of his life. 2 vols.
  London, 1830.

Myers, F.W.H.
  Wordsworth. (English Men of Letters.) New York, 1881.

Newman, J.H.
  Apologia Pro Vita Sua. London, 1892.

Nichol, John.
  Byron. (English Men of Letters.) New York, 1880.

Palgrave, F.T.
  Biographical and Critical Memoir of Sir Walter Scott. (In Poetical
  Works of Scott. London, 1866, Macmillan and Company.)

Paris, Gaston.
  La Littérature Française au Moyen Age. Paris, 1890.

Percy, W.
  Reliques of Ancient English Poetry, consisting of old heroic ballads,
  songs, and other pieces of our earlier poets (chiefly of the lyric
  kind) together with some few of later date. 3 vols. London, 1765.

Pierce, E.L.
  Memoirs and Letters of Charles Sumner. 2 vols. Boston, 1877.

Ruskin, John.
  Modern Painters. New edition, 5 vols. London, 1897.

Saintsbury, George.
  Life of Scott. (Famous Scots Series.) New York. [1897.]

  A History of Criticism and Literary Taste in Europe.... 3 vols. New
  York, 1900-1904.

Scott, Temple, ed.
  The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D. (Bohn's Standard Library.)
  London, 1898-1905.

Southey, Robert.
  Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey, edited by John Wood
  Warter. 4 vols. London, 1856.

Stephen, Leslie.
  English Literature and Society in the Eighteenth Century. (Ford
  Lectures, 1903.) London, 1904.

  Swift. (English Men of Letters.) New York, 1882.

Taine, H.A.
  Histoire de la Littérature Anglaise. 4 vols. Paris, 1863-64.

Ticknor, George.
  Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor. Sixth edition. 2 vols.
  Boston, 1877.

White, A.D.
  Autobiography. 3 vols. New York, 1905.

Wylie, L.J.
  Studies in the Evolution of English Criticism. Boston, 1894.


3. _Periodicals and articles referred to, aside from the articles
written by Scott._

_The Bibliographer_: Notes for a Bibliography of Swift, by Stanley
Lane-Poole. Vol. VI, pp. 160-71.

_The Edinburgh Review_: Review of The Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border,
Vol. I, pp. 395-406; Review of Sir Tristrem, Vol. IV, pp. 427-43; Review
of Scott's edition of Swift, Vol. XXVII, pp. 1-58; Border Ballads, Vol.
CCIII, pp. 306-26.

_The English Historical Review_: Dean Swift and The Memoirs of Captain
Carleton, by Col. the Hon. Arthur Parnell, R.E. Vol. VI, pp. 97-151.

_Fraser's Magazine_: Review of Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft,
Vol. II, pp. 507-519.

_The Knickerbocker Magazine_: Review by J. Fenimore Cooper of Lockhart's
Life of Scott, Vol. XII, pp. 349 ff.

_Macmillan's Magazine_: The Historical Novel: Scott and Dumas, by Prof.
Saintsbury, Vol. LXX, pp. 321-330.

_The Nineteenth Century_: Defoe's "Apparition of Mrs. Veal," by G.A.
Aitken, Vol. XXXVII, pp. 95 ff.

_The Quarterly Review_: Review of Dunlop's History of Fiction, Vol.
XIII, pp. 384-408; Review of Frankenstein, Vol. XVIII, pp. 37-385;
Review of The Lives of the Novelists, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 349-378.




INDEX.


_Abbot, The_, 88, 132, 155
_Abbotsford and Newstead Abbey_, 15, 176
_Abbotsford, described by the Hon. Mary Monica Maxwell Scott_, 161
_Abbotsford Notanda_, 169
_Absalom and Achitophel_, 60, 63-4, 66
_Account of the Death of Frederick, Duke of York, An_, 156
Addison, Joseph, 80
Adolphus, J.L., see _Letters to Heber_
Aeschylus, 50
_Age of Wordsworth, The_, 10, 20, 125, 131, 136, 175
_Aiken's Collection of Songs_, Scott's review of, 26, 163
Aitken, G.A., 77, 174, 178
_Alastor_, 89
_Alexander's Feast_, 63, 139
Allibone, S.A., 56, 153, 172, 174
_Amadis de Gaul_, Scott's review of, 4, 37, 128, 129, 162
_Ancient British Drama_, 52, 151-2
_Ancient Criminal Trials_, Scott's review of, 46, 143, 165
_Ancient English Metrical Romances_, Scott's review of, 125, 162
_Ancient Mariner, The_, 87-8
_Ancient Times_, 149
Anderson, J.P., see _Bibliography of Scott_
_Annals of a Publishing House_, 169
_Annals of the Caledonians_, etc., Scott's review of, 164
_Anne of Geierstein_, 51, 65, 104, 127, 160
_Antiquary, The_, 3, 50, 51, 89, 154, 172
_Apologia_, Newman's, 142, 176
_Apology for Tales of Terror_, 147
_Apparition of Mrs. Veal, The_, 76-7, 178
Arbuthnot, John, 68
Ariosto, 33, 105
Aristotle, 53, 54
Arnold, Matthew, 95-6, 174
_Auchindrane, or The Ayrshire Tragedy_, 160
_Auchinleck Manuscript, The_, 34, 148
_Auld Robin Gray_, 157
Austen, Jane, 75, 100, 130
_Autobiography of Scott_, 160


Bage, Robert, 73, 75, 79
Baillie, Joanna, 46, 85, 97, 98, 114, 118, 151, 156
_Ballad Book, The_, 28, 148
_Ballads and Lyrical Pieces_, 148
_Ballantyne and Lockhart Pamphlets, The_, 149, 169
_Bannatyne, Memoir of_, 44, 160
_Bannatyne Miscellany, The_, 159
Barnard, Lady Anne, 157
_Bartholomew Fair_, 118
_Battle of Brunanburgh, The_, 20, 43
_Battles of Talavera_, Scott's review of, 106, 112-13, 163
Beaumont and Fletcher, 42, 50, 51, 52, 56
_Beggar's Bush, The_, 50
_Beggar's Opera, The_, 50
_Beowulf_, 42
Berners, John, Lord, 128
_Betrothed, The_, 157, 167
_Bibliographer, The_, 67, 177
_Bibliography of Scott_, Anderson's, 174
_Bibliothèque Bleue_, 33
_Bibliothèque de Romans_, 33
_Black Dwarf, The_, 3, 87, 109, 154
Blackmore, Sir Richard, 80
_Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine_, 78, 83, 100, 164, 167, 169
Blair, Hugh, 15
_Boaden's Life of Kemble_, Scott's review of, 46, 47, 58, 164
Boiardo, 33
Boileau, 136
_Border Antiquities_, 153
Boswell, James, 80, 161
_Brennoralt_, 51
_Bridal of Triermain, The_, 27, 152
_Bride of Lammermoor, The_, 3, 34, 155
_British Novelists and Their Styles_, 3, 145, 176
Brome, Richard, 50
Broughton, Hugh, 71
Brown, Charles Brockden, 104
Buchan, Peter, 27
Bunyan, Scott's review of Southey's Life of, 111, 165
Bürger, Gottfried, 18, 31, 147
Burney, Fanny, 100
Burns, Robert, 22, 30, 86, 93, 96
_Burt's Letters from the North of Scotland_, 154
Butler, Samuel, 64
Byron, George Gordon, Lord, 11, 50, 86, 88-9, 91, 92-6, 97, 98, 99, 101,
    104, 105, 106, 110, 121, 129, 143, 163, 171, 176


_Cadyow Castle_, 30
_Cain_, 95
_Caledonian Sketches_, Scott's review of, 84, 163
Calprenède, 53, 76
Campbell, Thomas, 96, 100, 118, 163
Carey, Patrick, 155
_Carey, Robert, Memoirs of_, 149, 151
_Carleton, Captain, Memoirs of_, 68, 144, 148, 178
Carlyle, Thomas, 125, 131, 144, 174
Carr, Sir John, 84, 163
Cartwright, William, 50
_Castle Dangerous_, 18, 34, 161
_Castle of Otranto, The_, 76
_Catalogue of the Centenary Exhibition_, 147, 151, 171, 174
Chambers, E.K., 21, 174
Chambers, Robert, 50, 169, 170
_Changeling, The_, 56
Chapman, George, 50
_Chase, The_, 31, 147
Chatterton, Scott's review of the Life and Works of, 43, 162
Chaucer, 43, 44-5, 62, 162
Chesterton, G.K., 11, 174
_Childe Harold_, 14, 88, 93, 94, 95, 129, 163
Child, Francis J., 24, 28, 31, 174
_Chimney-Sweeper's Friend_, 173
_Chivalry_, Essay on, 36, 46, 154
_Christabel_, 62, 86-7, 88
Christie, W.D., 60
_Chronicles of the Canongate_, 2, 3, 80, 119, 129, 159
_Chronological Notes of Scottish Affairs_, 156
_Chrononhotonthologos_, 50
_Cid, The_, Scott's review of, 92, 163
_Clarissa Harlowe_, 74
Clemens, Samuel L., 142, 174
Clifford, Arthur, 149
_Cock and the Fox, The_, 45
Cockburn, Henry, 15, 175
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 11, 22, 51, 86-9, 90-91, 92, 106, 135, 137,
    138, 169, 175
Collins, Churton, 68, 143-4, 175
Colvin, Sidney, 100
Congreve, William, 57, 60
_Conquest of Granada, The_, 57
_Constable, Archibald, Literary Correspondence of_, 12, 33, 48, 52, 98,
    104, 121, 126, 127, 154, 158, 168, 169
Conybeare, John J., 42
Cooper, J. Fenimore, 14, 101-3, 172, 178
_Correspondence of Lady Suffolk_, Scott's review of, 142, 164
_Count Julian_, 99
_Count Robert of Paris_, 161
_Courser's Manual, The_, 173
Courthope, W.J., 21, 141, 175
Cowley, Abraham, 59, 64
Cowper, William, 64
Crabbe, George, 97, 166
Craik, Sir Henry, 68
_Critic, The_, 50
Croker, J.W., 161, 163
_Cromek's Reliques of Burns_, Scott's review of, 22, 86, 163
_Culloden Papers_, Scott's review of, 45, 163
Cumberland, Richard, 73, 163
Cunningham, Allan, 47-8, 81-2, 96, 175
_Curse of Kehama, The_, Scott's review of, 91, 92, 163


Dante, 33, 92
_Darkness_, 88-9
Davy, Sir Humphrey, see _Salmonia_
_Dean Swift and the Memoirs of Captain Carleton_, 68, 144, 148, 178
Defoe, Daniel, 71, 73, 76-7, 148-9, 156, 178
Dekker, Thomas, 50, 56
_Demonology and Witchcraft, Letters on_, 45, 104, 138, 160, 178
DeQuincey, Thomas, 99
Derrick, John, 71, 150
_Description of the Regalia of Scotland_, 155
_Diable Boiteux, Le_, 74
_Dictionary of British and American Authors_, 56, 153, 172, 174
D'Israeli, Isaac, 20, 142
_Domestic Manners and Private Life of Sir Walter Scott_, 114, 175
_Don Juan_, 95
Donne, John, 62
_Don Quixote_, 33
_Doom of Devorgoil, The_, 46-7, 48, 160
Douce, Francis, 20
_Douglas_, 47, 51, 111
Douglas, David, 161, 168
_Douglas on Military Bridges_, Scott's review of, 163
Dowden, Prof. Edward, 91, 175
_Drama_, Essay on, 50, 52-9, 136, 154
_Drapier's Letters, The_, 69
Drayton, Michael, 62
Drelincourt's _Defence_, etc., 76-7
Dryden, John, 44, 59-65, 93, 112, 145
_Dryden's Works_, edited by Scott, 2, 5, 7, 36, 44-5, 50, 51, 52-8,
    59-65, 66, 70, 73, 80, 126, 131, 136, 139, 145, 149
Dunbar, William, 44, 143-4
Dunlop, J.C., 73, 178
Dyce, Alexander, 55


Eberty, Felix, 2
Edgeworth, Maria, 75, 76, 97, 100, 101, 103, 173
_Edinburgh Annual Register, The_, 6, 26, 85, 91, 118, 141, 155, 165-7
_Edinburgh Review_, 4, 5, 18, 25, 26, 29, 31, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 44,
    46, 61, 69, 82, 84, 91, 125, 128, 129, 134, 135, 162, 164, 178
_Edinburgh Weekly Journal, The_, 155, 156, 157, 167
Elliott, Hon. Fitzwilliam, 25
Ellis, George, 4, 20, 34, 35, 43, 44, 58, 60, 91, 113, 162
Ellis, James, Letters of Scott to, 171
_Emma_, Scott's review of, 100, 163
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, 37, 46, 52, 154
_English and Scottish Popular Ballads_, 24, 28, 31, 174
_English Historical Review, The_, 68, 144, 148, 178
_English Literature and Society in the Eighteenth Century_, 97, 177
_English Minstrelsy_, 151
_Ephemera Critica_, 143-4, 175
_Evans's Old Ballads_, Scott's review of, 26, 163
_Eve of St. John, The_, 30, 147
_Evergreen, The_, 28
_Eyrbyggja Saga, The_, 42, 152


_Fables_, Dryden's, 44-5, 64
_Fair Maid of Perth, The_, 159
_Fair Maid of the Inn, The_, 50
_Family Legend, The_, 46
_Familiar Letters of Sir Walter Scott_, 5, 13, 14, 33, 37, 40, 47, 50,
    62, 80, 84, 85, 87, 89, 96, 97, 103, 104, 108, 110, 114, 115, 116,
    118, 120, 138, 143, 168
_Fatal Revenge, The_, Scott's review of, 163
_Faust_, 104
_Faustus_, 55
_Ferdinand, Count Fathom_, 74
Fergusson, Robert, 86
_Ferrex and Porrex_, 54
Ferrier, Susan, 100
Fielding, Henry, 73, 74, 75-6, 78-9, 110
_Field of Waterloo, The_, 121, 153
Fitzgerald, Percy, 49, 175
_Fleetwood_, Scott's review of, 162
Fletcher, John, 42, 50, 51, 52, 56
Fletcher, Phineas, 64
Ford, John, 50, 56
_Foreign Quarterly Review_, 57, 58, 105, 132, 133, 164
_Forester's Guide, The_, Scott's review of, 164
Forster, John, 85, 91, 98-9, 175
_Fortunes of Nigel, The_, 27, 47, 48, 49, 51, 77, 108, 110, 111, 118,
    119, 128, 131, 157
Fouqué, Baron de la Motte, 105
_Fragmenta Regalia_, 55, 149
_Fragments of Voyages and Travel_, 172
France, Anatole, 127
Franck, Richard, 155
_Frankenstein_, 78, 89, 164, 178
_Fraser's Magazine_, 85, 106, 130, 138, 143, 146, 175, 178
Freeman, Edward, 126, 127, 175
Frere, John Hookham, 20, 35
Froissart, 36, 128, 162


Galt, John, 129, 164
_Gammer Gurton's Needle_, 54
Gates, Prof. L.E., 134, 135, 175
Gay, John, 128
_Gebir_, 98
_Gertrude of Wyoming_, Scott's review of, 82, 96, 163
Gibson, John, 170
Gifford, William, 50, 52, 83, 84, 134, 141
Gilfillan, George, 1
Gillies, R.P., 14, 85, 95, 106, 130, 143, 146, 171, 175
_Glenfinlas_, 30
Godwin, William, 9, 44, 99
_Godwin's Life of Chaucer_, Scott's review of, 9, 44, 84, 124, 162
Goethe, 54, 95, 104-5, 125, 147
_Goetz von Berlichingen_, 54, 147
Goldsmith, Oliver, 73, 75
Gosson, Stephen, 71
_Gourgaud's Narrative, Remarks on_, 164
Grammont, Count, 5, 152
_Gray Brother, The_, 30
Greene, Robert, 55, 71
Grimm, Jacob, 21
_Groat's-worth of Wit_, 71
_Group of Englishmen, A_, 87, 176
_Gulliver's Travels_, 70
_Guy Mannering_, 3, 6, 46, 50, 76, 117, 120, 121, 153, 167
_Gwynne, John, Military Memoirs of_, 157


_Hajji Baba in England_, Scott's review of, 164
_Halidon Hill_, 48, 156
_Hall of Justice, The_, 97
_Harold the Dauntless_, 121, 154
_Harper's Magazine_, 161
Hawkesworth, John, 65
Haydon, B.R., 99, 171
Hazlitt, William, 49, 51, 85, 99, 114, 135, 139, 141, 175
_Heart of Midlothian, The_, 3, 46, 154
_Heber, Richard, Letters to_, 10, 15-16, 49, 65, 85, 88, 97, 114, 129,
    131, 132, 174
Hemans, Mrs. Felicia, 98
Henderson's edition of _The Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border_, 22, 23,
    24-5, 26, 28, 29, 148
Henry, Robert, 126
Herbert, Lord, of Cherbury, 150
Herbert, William, Scott's review of the Poems of, 18, 31, 41, 162
Herford, C.H., see _Age of Wordsworth_
_Highland Widow, The_, 120, 159
_Hind and the Panther, The_, 60
_History of Criticism_, Saintsbury's, 146, 177
_History of English Poetry_, Courthope's, 21, 175
_History of English Poetry_, Warton's, 19, 21, 34, 35
_History of John Bull_, 68
_History of Prose Fiction_, Dunlop's, 73, 178
_History of Queen Elizabeth's Favourites_, 5, 149
_History of Scotland_, Scott's, 127, 160
_History of Scotland_, Tytler's, Scott's review of, 45, 124, 164
_History of the Church of Scotland_, Defoe's, 77
_History of the Church of Scotland_, Sharpe's Kirkton's, Scott's review
    of, 163
_History of the Norman Conquest of England_, 126, 127, 175
_History of the Years 1814 and 1815_, 6, 166
_Hodgson, Captain, Memoirs of_, 148, 149
Hoffman, Scott's review of the Works of, 89, 105, 132, 164
Hogg, James, 26, 96, 114, 169, 171, 175
Home, Scott's review of the Life of, 15, 80, 82, 106, 164
Homer, 63, 71, 118, 131
Horace, 54, 84
_Hours of Idleness_, 93
_House of Aspen, The_, 167
_Hudibras_, 64
Hudson, W.H., 2, 175
Hughes, Mrs., 54, 168
Hume, David, 15
Hunt, Leigh, 99, 100, 135, 141, 176
Hutton, R.H., 1, 176
Hutchinson, H.G., 54, 168


_Iliad, The_, 63, 131
_Illustrations of Northern Antiquities_, 152
_Image of Ireland, The_, 71, 150
_Imitations of the Ancient Ballad_, Essay on, 19, 30, 41, 42, 88, 115,
    160
_Indian Emperor, The_, 53
_Introductions, etc., to the Novels, Tales, and Romances, of the Author
    of Waverley_, 160
Irving, Washington, 15, 97, 101, 103-4, 117, 143, 171, 176
_Ivanhoe_, 6, 87, 108, 120, 126, 127, 128, 142, 155


_Jacobite Relics_, 26, 175
Jamieson, Robert, 42, 152, 154
Jeffrey, Francis, 4, 69, 83, 84, 93, 134-5
_Jests of George Peele_, 71
_Jonathan Wild_, 74
_John de Lancaster_, Scott's review of, 163
_Johnes's Froissart_, Scott's review of, 36, 162
Johnson, Samuel, 60, 61, 64, 68, 73, 74, 79-80, 102, 128, 135, 137, 161
Johnstone, Charles, 73
_Jolly Beggars, The_, 86
Jonson, Ben, 50, 51, 56, 118
_Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides_, 161
_Journal, Scott's_, 12, 38, 51, 56, 84, 100, 117, 122, 129, 161, 164
    (see the footnotes for the many references not here indexed)
_Judicial Reform_, Essay on, 141, 165


Keats, John, 11, 100
_Keepsake, The_, 167
_Kelly's Reminiscences_, Scott's review of, 46, 47, 58, 164
Kemble, Scott's review of the Life of, 46, 47, 58, 164
Kemble, J.M., 43
_Kenilworth_, 10, 51, 98, 155
_Kinmont Willie_, 24, 26, 31, 148
Kirk, Robert, 45, 153
_Kirkton's History, etc._, Scott's review of, 163
_Knickerbocker's History of New York_, 103
_Knickerbocker Magazine, The_, 102, 172, 178
Knight, Prof. William, see _Memorials of Coleorton_, and _Wordsworth_
_Knight's Tale, The_, 44
_Knighton, Sir William, Memoirs of_, 12, 171
Kölbing, E., 35, 36
_Kuzzilbash, The_, Scott's review of, 164


_Lady of the Lake, The_, 46, 97, 113, 118, 119, 151
_Lady Suffolk's Correspondence_, Scott's review of, 142, 164
_Laird's Jock, The_, 167
Laing, Malcolm, 40, 176
Lamb, Charles, 20, 51, 99, 100, 135
_Landor_, Forster's _Life of_, 85, 91, 98-9, 175
_Landscape Gardening_, see _Planter's Guide_
Lane-Poole, Stanley, 67, 177
Lang, Andrew,
    _Border Edition of the Waverley Novels_, 51, 89, 108, 158, 176
    _Life of Lockhart_, 52, 84, 99, 100, 158, 168
    _Life of Scott_, 87, 100, 126, 127, 176
    _Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns, and Fairies_, 153
Langhorne, John, 98
_Lay of the Last Minstrel, The_, 4, 18, 31, 87, 110, 148
_Lays of the Lindsays_, 157
Lee, Sidney, 150
Lee, William, 77
Legaré, H.S., 94, 176
_Legend of Montrose, A_, 51, 155
Lennox, Charlotte, 151
_Lenore_, 31, 147
Le Sage, 73, 74
_Letter from Dr. Tripe to Nestor Ironside_, 67
_Letters of Malachi Malagrowther on the Currency_, 59, 69, 116, 140, 157
_Letters of Sir Walter Scott_, 168-173, see also _Familiar Letters_,
    Hutchinson, Polwhele, and Stuart, Lady Louisa
_Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft_, 45, 104, 160, 178
_Letters to Richard Heber, etc._, 10, 15-16, 49, 65, 85, 88, 97, 114,
    129, 131, 132, 174
_Letting of Humour's Blood in the Head Vaine, The_, 153
_Levett, Robert, Verses on the Death of_, 80
Lewis, Matthew, 30, 97-8, 147
Leyden, John, 25, 30, 166
_Liberal Movement in English Literature, The_, 141, 175
_Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, The_, 7, 12, 78, 102, 124-5, 127, 140,
    158, 170
_Life on the Mississippi_, 142, 174
_Life of Sir Walter Scott, The_, see Cunningham, Gilfillan, Hudson,
    Hutton, Lang, Lockhart, Mackenzie, and Saintsbury
_Littérature Française au Moyen Age, La_, 38, 177
_Little French Lawyer, The_, 50
_Lives of the Novelists_, 6, 7, 15, 72-9, 128, 131, 156, 178
_Lives of the Poets_, 74
_Living Poets of Great Britain_, Article on, 118, 165
_Livre de Mon Ami, Le_, 127, 175
Lockhart, John Gibson, 6, 22, 25, 27, 29, 52, 83, 84, 85, 98, 99, 112,
    117, 158, 160, 168, 169
_Lockhart's Life of Scott_, 1, 11, 12, 13, 96, 98, 101, 102-3, 112, 148,
    149, 152, 153, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173,
    174, 178 (see the footnotes for the many references not here indexed)
Lodge, Edmund, 132, 172
_London_, 79
_Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries_, 99-100, 176
_Lord of the Isles, The_, 120, 153
Lounsbury, Prof. T.R., 14, 102, 176
_Love_, 87
Lyly, John, 61


Macaulay, T.B., 144
_Macduff's Cross_, 156
Mackenzie, Colin, 30
Mackenzie, Henry, 17, 73, 75, 100,
    see also Home, John
Mackenzie, R. Shelton, 1, 52, 123, 139, 171
_Macmillan's Magazine_, 51, 142, 178
McNeill, G.P., 35
Macpherson, James, 40, 41, 176
_Madoc_, 91
_Magnalia_, 104
Maigron, Louis, 105, 176
_Malachi Malagrowther, Letters of_, 59, 69, 116, 140, 157
Malone, Edmund, 60, 61
Malory, 37
_Manfred_, 50, 51
Mark Twain, 142, 174
Marlowe, Christopher, 55
_Marmion_, 5, 6, 31, 90, 93, 97, 110, 113, 115, 145, 148
Marston, John, 50
_Masque of Owls, The_, 51
Massinger, Philip, 56
Masson, David, 3, 145, 176
Mather, Cotton, 104
Matthews, Prof. Brander, 76, 176
Maturin, C.R., 138, 163, 164
_Mediaeval Stage, The_, 21, 174
_Memoirs of a Literary Veteran_, 14, 171
_Memoirs of Captain Carleton_, 68, 144, 148-9, 178
_Memoirs of Captain Hodgson_, 148, 149
_Memoirs of Robert Carey_, 149, 151
_Memoirs of the Court of Charles II._, 5, 152
_Memoirs of the Insurrection in 1715_, 159
_Memoirs of the Duke of Sully_, 151
_Memoirs of the Marchioness de la Rochejaquelin_, 159
_Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles I._, 5, 152
_Memorials of Coleorton_, 169
_Memorials of George Bannatyne_, 44, 160
_Memorials of His Time_, Cockburn's, 15, 175
_Memorials of James Hogg_, 171
_Memorials of the Haliburtons_, 155
_Memorie of the Somervilles_, 154
_Merry Devil of Edmonton, The_, 50
Meteyard, Eliza, 87, 176
_Mezeray's History of France_, 80
Mickle, W.J., 98
Middleton, Thomas, 50, 56
_Mid-Eighteenth Century, The_, 74, 176
Millar, J.H., 74, 176
_Military Bridges_, Scott's review of, 163
_Military Memoirs of the Great Civil War_, 5, 157
Milton, 40, 62, 65, 88, 91, 92, 95, 104, 143
Minot, Laurence, 43
_Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border_, 3, 4, 7, 17-32, 33, 36, 45, 80,
    147-8, 160, 178
_Mirror for Magistrates, The_, 55
_Miscellaneous Prose Works_, Scott's, 7, 26, 73, 149, 151, 154, 156,
    159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167
_Miseries of Human Life_, Scott's review of, 162
_Modern British Drama, The_, 52, 152
_Modern Painters_, 10, 129, 177
Molière, 53, 57, 58, 133, 164
_Monastery, The_, 88, 105, 116, 155
_Monk, The_, 98
Moore, Thomas, 96, 97, 166, 176
_Murray, John, Memoir and Correspondence of_, 83, 84, 93, 105, 141, 142,
    163, 168, 169
_My Aunt Margaret's Mirror_, 131, 167
Myers, F.W.H., 130, 176
_Mysterious Mother, The_, 50


_Napoleon_, Scott's _Life of_, 7, 12, 78, 102, 124-5, 127, 140, 158, 170
Nash, Thomas, 59
Naunton, Sir Robert, 149
_Neidpath Castle_, Wordsworth's sonnet on, 87
_New History of the English Stage_, 49, 175
Newman, J.H., 142, 176
_New Practice of Cookery, The_, Scott's review of, 162
_New Test of the Church of England's Loyalty, A_, 71
Nichol, John, 95, 176
Nichols, John, 65
_Nineteenth Century, The_, 77, 172, 178
_Norman Conquest of England, The_, 126, 127, 175
_Northern Antiquities_, 42, 152
_Northern Memoirs_, 155
_Notices concerning the Scottish Gypsies_, 167
_Novelists' Library, The_, 6, 7, 72-79, 156


_Ode on Scottish Music_, 30
_Oedipe_, 53
_Old Mortality_, 36, 62, 77, 89, 109, 128, 154
Oliphant, Mrs., 169
_Omen, The_, Scott's review of, 164
_Opus Magnum, The_, 7, 108, 160
_Original Memoirs Written during the Great Civil War_, 4, 148
Ossian, 40-41, 162, 176
Otway, Thomas, 50, 57, 58


_Paradise Lost_, 95
_Palamon and Arcite_, 64
Palgrave, Francis, 13, 40, 177
_Papers relative to the Regalia of Scotland_, 160
Paris, Gaston, 38, 177
Parnell, Col., the Hon. Arthur, 68, 144, 148, 178
Parnell, Thomas, 80
_Paul's Letters to his Kinsfolk_, 6, 88, 125, 140, 154
Peele, George, 55
_Penni Worth of Wit, A_, 148
Pepys, Samuel, 65, 142, 164
Percy, Thomas, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 32, 34, 37, 38, 177
_Periodical Criticism_, Article on, 165
Petrarch, 33
_Peveril of the Peak_, 44, 105, 157
Pierce, E.L., 177
_Pilot, The_, 101
_Pioneers, The_, 14
_Pinner of Wakefield, The_, 59
_Pirate, The_, 3, 117, 125-6, 155
_Pitcairn's Ancient Criminal Trials_, Scott's review of, 46, 143, 165
_Planter's Guide, The_, Scott's review of, 164
_Planting Waste Lands_, Scott's review of, 164
_Plays on the Passions_, 50
Poe, Edgar Allan, 109, 110
_Poems, with Prefaces by the Author_, 160
Polwhele, R., Letters of Scott to, 132, 148, 170
_Poor Richard's Almanac_, 104
Pope, Alexander, 79, 81, 93, 97, 106, 113
_Popular Poetry, Remarks on_, 19, 22, 30, 34, 160
_Portraits of Illustrious Personages_, 132, 172
_Prairie, The_, 101
Prior, Matthew, 80
_Proceedings in the Court-martial, etc._, 159
_Provincial Antiquities_, 6, 56, 59, 155
Pulci, 33


_Quarterly Review_, 2, 5-6, 20, 22, 26, 45, 46, 55, 73, 77, 78, 82, 83,
    84, 94, 96, 99, 100, 109, 112, 113, 114, 124, 129, 140, 143, 163,
    164, 165, 168, 178
_Queenhoo Hall_, 5, 128, 149
_Quentin Durward_, 88, 104, 122, 127, 157


Radcliffe, Mrs. Anne, 73, 75, 76, 131
_Rambler, The_, 80, 156
Ramsay, Allan, 28, 86
_Recollections of Sir Walter Scott_, R.P. Gillies', 106, 130, 143, 146,
    175
_Redgauntlet_, 3, 89, 157
_Red Rover, The_, 101
Reeve, Clara, 73, 76, 78
_Religio Laici_, 64
_Religious Discourses by a Layman_, 159
_Reliquiae Trottosienses_, 161
_Reliques of Burns_, Scott's review of, 22, 86, 163
_Remarks on Gen. Gourgaud's Narrative_, 164
_Remarks on Popular Poetry_, 19, 22, 30, 34, 160
_Remarks on the Death of Lord Byron_, 93, 95
_Reminiscences of Sir Walter Scott_, John Gibson's, 170
_Revolutions of Naples_, Article on, 164
Richardson, Samuel, 73, 74-5, 77, 78
Ritson, Joseph, 19, 20, 21, 23, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 45, 162, 164
Robert of Brunne, 34
Robertson, William, 15
Robinson, Crabbe, 87
_Rob Roy_, 3, 76, 154
Rogers, Samuel, 151
_Rokeby_, 108, 111, 115, 116, 152
_Romance_, Essay on, 34, 37, 38-9, 42, 46, 146, 154
_Roman Historique à l'Époque Romantique, Le_, 105, 176
Roscommon, Earl of, 136
Rose, W.S., 37, 92, 162
Rowlands, Samuel, 153
Rowley, 43, 50
Ruskin, John, 10, 129, 172, 177


Sackville, Thomas, 54-5
_Sadler, Sir Ralph, State Papers and Letters of_, 149
_Saint Ronan's Well_, 51, 64, 88, 100, 108, 157
Saintsbury, Prof. George, 2, 51, 53, 57, 60, 61, 63, 142, 146, 177, 178
_Sale-Room, The_, 166, 167
_Salmonia_, Scott's review of, 164
Schlegel, 53
_School of Abuse, The_, 71
Scott, Temple, 67, 177
Scudéri, 53, 76
_Secret Commonwealth, The_, 45, 153
_Secret History of One Year, The_, 71
_Secret History of the Court of James I._, 5, 55, 152
Severn, Joseph, 100
Seward, Anne, 30, 85, 89, 91, 151
Shadwell, Thomas, 51, 57
Shakspere, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55-6, 57, 58, 59, 62, 65, 86, 95, 97, 157-8
Sharpe, C.K., 27, 28, 30, 31, 66, 81, 97, 114, 118, 148, 163, 169
Shelley, Mrs. Mary, 78, 163
Shelley, P.B., 11, 89, 91, 106, 175
Sheridan, Thomas, 65
Shirley, James, 50, 56
_Short Account of Successful Exertions, etc._, 173
_Sibbald's Chronicle_, Scott's review of, 46, 162
_Sir Eustace Grey_, 97
_Sir John Oldcastle_, 59
_Sir Tristrem_, 4, 34-6, 39, 42, 43, 56, 148, 178
_Sketch Book, The_, 104
_Sketch of Lord Kinneder_, 157
_Slingsby, Sir H., Life of_, 148
Smith, Adam, 15
Smith, Charlotte, 73
Smollett, Tobias, 73, 74, 156
_Somers Tracts, The_, 4, 6, 60, 63, 70-72, 126, 150
Somerville, Lord, 154
Southerne, Thomas, 50
Southey, Robert, 4, 20, 37, 46, 49, 82, 87, 89, 90, 91-2, 93, 96, 98,
    99, 106, 110, 111, 118, 124, 143, 151, 162, 163, 165, 169, 170, 177
_Spae-Wife, The_, 129
_Specimens of Early English Romances_, Scott's review of, 125, 162
_Specimens of English Dramatic Poets_, 20, 51, 99
_Specimens of the Early English Poets_, Scott's review of, 43, 44, 162
Spenser, 33, 62, 64
Staël, Mme. de, 140
Stanhope, Philip, Earl, 144
Steele, Sir Richard, 67, 120
Stephen, Sir Leslie, 65, 68, 97, 177
Sterne, Laurence, 73, 75, 103, 156
_Story of Rimini, The_, 99
Strutt, Joseph, 5, 126, 149
_Stuart, Lady Louisa, Letters of_, 10, 83, 127, 128, 169
_Studies in the Evolution of English Criticism_, 137, 177
Suckling, Sir John, 51, 59
_Sumner, Charles, Memoirs and Letters of_, 102, 177
_Supernatural in Fictitious Composition, The_, 164
_Surgeon's Daughter, The_, 159
Surtees, Robert, 20, 27, 30, 161
Swift, Deane, 65
Swift, Jonathan, 65-70, 103, 148-9, 177
_Swift's Works_, edited by Scott, 6, 7, 65-70, 73, 79, 126, 139, 153, 178


Taine, H.A., 125, 177
_Tales of a Grandfather_, 7, 123, 127, 141, 159, 160
_Tales of My Landlord_, 77, 109, 111-12, 128, 132, 154, 155, 161, 163,
    167
_Tales of the Crusaders_, 98, 124, 157
_Talisman, The_, 157
_Tapestried Chamber, The_, 85, 167
Taylor, William, 31, 170
_Tender Husband, The_, 120
Terry, Daniel, 46, 49
Thackeray, W.M., 80, 123
_Thalaba_, 91, 135
Thomas the Rhymer, 29, 30, 34-6, 148
Thorkelin, 42
_Thornton's Sporting Tour_, Scott's review of, 162
_Three Studies in Literature_, 134, 135, 175
Ticknor, George, 15, 56, 103, 144, 153, 177
Tieck, 10
Tierry, 127
_Todd's Spenser_, Scott's review of, 61, 62, 84
_Tom Jones_, 75
_Traditions and Recollections, etc._, 170
Tressan, 33, 34
_Trial of Duncan Terig, The_, 161,
_Tristram Shandy_, 75, 156
_Trivial Poems and Triolets_, 155
_Troilus and Criseyde_, 45
_True-born Englishman, The_, 71
_Trustworthiness of Border Ballads, The_, 25, 178
Turner, Sharon, 42, 126
_Two Bannatyne Garlands_, 161
_Two Drovers, The_, 159
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, Scott's review of, 45, 124, 164


_Varied Types_, 11, 174
_Vanity of Human Wishes, The_, 79
_Venis and Adonis_, 58
_Vicar of Wakefield, The_, 75
_Virgin Queen, The_, 51
_Visionary, The_, 155
_Vision of Don Roderick, The_, 152, 165
Voltaire, 78, 105


Waldron, Francis, 51
_Wallenstein_, 51, 88
Waller, Edmund, 64
Walpole, Horace, 71, 72, 73, 76, 150, 163
Walpole, Robert, 71
Walton, Isaac, 64-5
_War Song of the Royal Edinburgh Light Dragoons_, 30
Warton, Joseph, 60
Warton, Thomas, 19, 21, 34, 35
Warter, J.W., 124, 177
Warwick, Sir Philip, 152
_Waverley_, 3, 6, 36, 85, 100, 120, 122, 123, 125, 149, 153, 163
Weber, Henry, 42, 52, 152
Webster, John, 50, 55, 56
White, Hon. Andrew, D., 127, 177
_William and Helen_, 147
Wilson, John, 50, 83
_Women_, Scott's review of, 164
_Women Pleased_, 50
_Woodstock_, 44, 51, 141, 157, 170
Wordsworth, William, 85, 87, 89-91, 92, 93, 97, 98, 106, 130, 143, 169,
    172, 176
Wylie, L.J., 137, 177


_Yarrow Revisited_, 90



  [Footnote 1: Mr. Hutton's _Life of Scott_, in the English Men of
  Letters series, contains no chapter nor any extended passage on
  Scott's critical and scholarly work, though there is a chapter on
  "Scott's Morality and Religion," and one on "Scott as a Politician."
  This, like the other short biographies of Scott, is professedly a
  compilation, so far as its facts are concerned, from Lockhart's book.
  The Lives of Scott by Gilfillan and by Mackenzie, published about the
  time of the Scott centenary in 1871, are longer than Hutton's, but
  contain no more extended references to the critical writings.
  Mackenzie's book out of nearly five hundred pages gives only one to a
  discussion of the edition of Dryden, and half a page to an account of
  the establishment of the _Quarterly Review_. Gilfillan characterizes
  the critical work in almost as short a space, but with a good deal of
  judgment. The German biography of Scott contemporary with these, by
  Dr. Felix Eberty, is concerned with the man rather than his works. Of
  later Lives of Scott, Prof. Saintsbury's gives, in proportion to its
  length, more space than any other to Scott's critical work, but the
  book has only a hundred and fifty-five pages in all. Another recent
  biographer, Mr. W.H. Hudson, says of Scott's editorial and critical
  work, "these exertions, though they call for passing record, occupy a
  minor place in his story"; and he gives them only "passing record."
  Mr. Andrew Lang's still more recent and briefer _Sir Walter Scott_
  devotes only a few lines here and there to comment on Scott as a
  critic, and contains hardly even a reference to the little-known
  volumes that he edited.]

  [Footnote 2: Ten of Scott's twenty-seven novels (counting the first
  series of _Chronicles of the Canongate_ as one) have scenes laid in
  the eighteenth century. They are as follows, arranged approximately in
  the order of their periods: _The Bride of Lammermoor_, _The Pirate_,
  _The Black Dwarf_, _Rob Roy_, _The Heart of Midlothian_, _Waverley_,
  _Guy Mannering_, _Redgauntlet_, _Chronicles of the Canongate (First
  series)_, _The Antiquary_. The long poems all found their setting in
  earlier periods.]

  [Footnote 3: _British Novelists and their Styles_, pp. 167-8.]

  [Footnote 4: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 9.]

  [Footnote 5: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 194.]

  [Footnote 6: See particularly _Paul's Letters; Provincial
  Antiquities_; and the Histories of the years 1814 and 1815, each a
  respectable volume, written for the _Edinburgh Annual Register_.]

  [Footnote 7: Ruskin's remark that "The excellence of Scott's work is
  precisely in proportion to the degree in which it is sketched from
  present nature," should not necessarily lead on to the condemnation
  which follows: "He does not see how anything is to be got out of the
  past but confusion, old iron on drawing-room chairs, and serious
  inconvenience to Dr. Heavysterne." (_Modern Painters_, Part IV, ch.
  16, § 32.)]

  [Footnote 8: _Letters to Richard Heber_, etc. (by J.L. Adolphus), pp.
  136-137.]

  [Footnote 9: Mr. Herford distinguishes two lines of romantic
  sentiment--"the one pursuing the image of the past as a refuge from
  reality, the other as a portion of it: the mediaevalism of Tieck and
  the mediaevalism of Scott." _The Age of Wordsworth_, Introduction, p.
  xxiv, note.]

  [Footnote 10: _Letters of Lady Louisa Stuart_, p. 249.]

  [Footnote 11: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 333; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 81.
  The edition of Lockhart's _Life of Scott_ to which reference is made
  throughout this study is that in five volumes, published by Macmillan
  & Co. in the "Library of English Classics."]

  [Footnote 12: Chesterton, _Varied Types_, pp. 161-2.]

  [Footnote 13: The fact that Scott was a Clerk of the Court of Sessions
  is remembered less frequently than the fact that he had business
  complications. But this employment of his, which could be undertaken
  only by a lawyer, occupied a large proportion of his time during
  twenty-four years. He once wrote, "I cannot work well after I have had
  four or five hours of the court, for though the business is trifling,
  yet it requires constant attention, which is at length exhausting."
  (_Constable's Correspondence_, Vol. III, p. 195.) Again he wrote, "I
  saw it reported that Joseph Hume said I composed novels at the clerk's
  table; but Joseph Hume said what neither was nor could be correct, as
  any one who either knew what belonged to composing novels, or acting
  as clerk to a court of justice, would easily have discovered."
  (_Memoirs of Sir William Knighton_, p. 252.)]

  [Footnote 14: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 60; _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 390.]

  [Footnote 15: See the Memoir prefixed to the Globe Edition of Scott's
  poems.]

  [Footnote 16: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 217.]

  [Footnote 17: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 447.]

  [Footnote 18: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 122.]

  [Footnote 19: Cooper measured his own success by the same test. At the
  conclusion of the Letter to the Publisher with which _The Pioneers_
  originally opened he said he should look to his publisher for "the
  only true account of the reception of his book." (Lounsbury's _Life of
  Cooper_, pp. 43-4.)]

  [Footnote 20: _Napoleon_, Vol. I, ch. 2.]

  [Footnote 21: "He fixed his attention on his employments without the
  slightest consideration for his own feelings of whatever kind, either
  in regard to state of health or domestic sorrows." (_Memoirs of a
  Literary Veteran_, by R.P. Gillies, Vol. III, p. 141.)]

  [Footnote 22: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 365.]

  [Footnote 23: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 112.]

  [Footnote 24: _Journal_, Vol. 1, p. 303; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 68.]

  [Footnote 25: _Letters to Heber_, p. 69.]

  [Footnote 26: Irving's _Abbotsford_.]

  [Footnote 27: _Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor_, Vol. I,
  p. 282. See also Scott's review of the _Life of Home_; and _Lockhart_,
  Vol. III, p. 304.]

  [Footnote 28: _Cockburn's Memorials_, p. 181.]

  [Footnote 29: _Ticknor_, Vol. I, p. 280.]

  [Footnote 30: _Letters to Heber_, p. 63; _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p.
  496.]

  [Footnote 31: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 177.]

  [Footnote 32: Review of _Poems of William Herbert_, _Edinburgh
  Review_, October, 1806.]

  [Footnote 33: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, pp. 275-6.]

  [Footnote 34: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 333.]

  [Footnote 35: In 1830.]

  [Footnote 36: Ritson's principal works were as follows: _Select
  Collection of English Songs_ (1783); _Pieces of Ancient Popular Poetry
  from Authentic Manuscripts and Old Printed Copies_ (1791); _Ancient
  Songs from the Time of Henry III. to the Revolution_ (1792); _Scottish
  Songs with the Genuine Music_ (1794); _Poems by Laurence Minot_
  (1795); _Robin Hood Poems_ (1795); _Ancient English Metrical Romances_
  (1802).]

  [Footnote 37: Ellis published his _Specimens of the Early English
  Poets_ in 1790, and it was reissued with the addition of the
  Introduction in 1801 and 1803. He edited also Way's translations of
  the Fabliaux (1796), and _Specimens of Early English Romances in
  Metre_ (1805).]

  [Footnote 38: Review of Dunlop's _History of Fiction_, July, 1815.]

  [Footnote 39: The _Magnum Opus_ of Robert Surtees was his _History of
  Durham_, published 1816-1840.]

  [Footnote 40: Douce published _Illustrations of Shakespeare_ in 1807.
  Later he edited _Arnold's Chronicle; Judicium, a Pageant_; and a
  metrical _Life of St. Robert_. The two latter, which appeared in 1822
  and 1824, were done for the Roxburghe Club. In 1824 he also wrote some
  notes for Warton's _History of English Poetry_.]

  [Footnote 41: _Age of Wordsworth_, p. 39.]

  [Footnote 42: A number of volumes containing old ballads together with
  modern imitations had been published both before and after the
  appearance of Percy's _Reliques_, but Ritson's collections were the
  first, except Percy's, to treat the material in a scholarly way.]

  [Footnote 43: The discussion centered upon the social and literary
  position of minstrels. The first edition of the _Reliques of Ancient
  English Poetry_, published in 1765, contained an essay on the History
  of Minstrelsy, and one on the Origin of the Metrical Romances, which,
  taken together, says Mr. Courthope, "may be said to furnish the first
  generalized theory of the nature of mediaeval poetry." (_History of
  English Poetry_, Vol. I, p. 426.) Percy considered the minstrels as
  the authors of the compositions which they sang to the harp, and as
  holding a dignified social position similar to that of the Anglo-Saxon
  scôp or the old Norse scald. This theory was vigorously attacked by
  Joseph Ritson in the preface of his _Select Collection of English
  Songs_ in 1783, and again in his _Ancient English Metrical Romances_
  in 1802, and in his essay On the Ancient English Minstrels in Ancient
  Songs and Ballads (1792). Ritson contended that minstrels were musical
  performers of a low class, or even acrobats, and that they were not
  literary composers. Scott used his knowledge of ballads and romances
  and the customs depicted in them to reinforce his own decision that
  the truth lay somewhere between the two extremes. He pointed out that
  the word may have covered a wide variety of professional entertainers.
  A modern comment (by E.K. Chambers, in _The Mediaeval Stage_, Vol. I,
  p. 66) seems like an echo of Scott: "This general antithesis between
  the higher and lower minstrelsy may now, perhaps, be regarded as
  established. It was the neglect of it, surely, that led to that
  curious and barren logomachy between Percy and Ritson, in which
  neither of the disputants can be said to have had hold of more than a
  bare half of the truth."]

  [Footnote 44: Scott's theory as to the authorship of ballads is even
  now held by Mr. Courthope. At the end of his chapter on Minstrelsy, in
  _The History of English Poetry_, he thus sums up the matter: "All the
  evidence cited in this chapter shows that, so far from the ballad
  being a spontaneous product of popular imagination, it was a type of
  poem adapted by the professors of the declining art of minstrelsy,
  from the romances once in favour with the educated classes. Everything
  in the ballad--matter, form, composition--is the work of the minstrel;
  all that the people do is to remember and repeat what the minstrel has
  put together." This statement represents a position which is actively
  assailed by the adherents of the communal origin theory. Another
  critical idea which originated in Germany, and in which Scott had no
  interest, though he knew something about it, was the Wolffian
  hypothesis in regard to the Homeric poems. He once heard Coleridge
  expound the subject, but failed to join in the discussion. (_Journal_,
  Vol. II, p. 164; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 193.) He said the theory could
  never be held by any _poet_. See a note by Lockhart on the essay on
  _Popular Poetry_. Henderson's edition of _Minstrelsy_, Vol. I, p. 3.]

  [Footnote 45: Review of Cromek's _Reliques of Burns_. _Quarterly
  Review_, February, 1809.]

  [Footnote 46: "No one but Burns ever succeeded in patching up old
  Scottish songs with any good effect," Scott wrote in his _Journal_
  (Vol. II, p. 25). And in his review of Cromek's _Reliques of Burns_ he
  said on the same subject of Scottish songs: "Few, whether serious or
  humorous, past through his hands without receiving some of those magic
  touches which, without greatly altering the song, restored its
  original spirit, or gave it more than it had ever possessed."
  (_Quarterly_, February, 1809.)]

  [Footnote 47: _Remarks on Popular Poetry_, Henderson's edition of
  _Minstrelsy_, Vol. I, p. 46.]

  [Footnote 48: Henderson's edition of _Minstrelsy_, Vol. I, p. xix.]

  [Footnote 49: Henderson's edition of _Minstrelsy_, Vol. I, pp. 167-8.]

  [Footnote 50: The matter may be traced in Child's collection of
  ballads, or more easily in the latest edition of the _Minstrelsy_,
  edited by T.F. Henderson and published in four volumes in 1902. Mr.
  Henderson's views of ballad origins are quite in accord with Scott's
  own, but he notes the points at which Scott failed to follow any
  originals. There seems to be some reason to believe, however, though
  Mr. Henderson does not say so, that Scott wrote _Kinmont Willie_
  without any originals at all, except the very similar situations in
  three or four other ballads. See the introduction by Professor
  Kittredge to the abridged edition of Child's ballads, edited by
  himself and Helen Child Sargent.

  It is unnecessary to give here any detailed account of Scott's
  procedure, as the matter has been thoroughly worked out by students of
  ballads. A few examples may be given as illustrations, however. In
  _The Dowie Dens of Yarrow_ (Henderson's edition, Vol. III, p. 173) 28
  lines out of the 68 are noted by Mr. Henderson as either changed or
  added by Scott. Scott writes (beginning of fifth stanza), "As he gaed
  up the Tennies bank" for "As he gaed up yon high, high hill," and we
  find from a note of Lockhart's that _The Tennies_ is the name of a
  farm belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch. In the sixth stanza Scott
  changes the lines,

    "O ir ye come to drink the wine
     As we hae done before, O?" to
    "O come ye here to part your land,
     The bonnie forest thorough?"

  In the seventeenth stanza he changes,

    "A better rose will never spring
     Than him I've lost on Yarrow?" to
    "A fairer rose did never bloom
     Than now lies cropp'd on Yarrow."

  In _Jellon Grame_ (Vol. III, p. 203), Mr. Henderson notes changes in
  15 different lines, and points out 2 whole stanzas, out of the 21,
  that are interpolated. In the _Gay Goss-hawk_ (Vol. III, p. 187) 6
  stanzas out of 39 are noted as probably wholly or mainly by Scott, and
  30 stanzas were changed by him. Sometimes his alterations occurred in
  every line of a stanza. It is probable that Scott changed _Jamie
  Telfer_ enough to make the Scotts take the place of prominence that
  had been held by the Elliotts in the original form of the story. See
  _The Trustworthiness of Border Ballads as Exemplified by 'Jamie Telfer
  i' the Fair Dodhead' and other Ballads_; by Lieut.-Col. the Hon.
  Fitzwilliam Elliott. Reviewed in _Edinburgh Review_, No. 418, p. 306
  (October, 1906).]

  [Footnote 51: See the examples given in the preceding note. Most of
  the changes there spoken of were made without annotation.]

  [Footnote 52: This extraordinary young man was poet and scholar on his
  own account by 1800, though he was four years younger than Scott. His
  erudition in many fields was remarkable, and he was as enthusiastic as
  Scott himself about Scotch poetry, and was the chief assistant in
  gathering ballads for the _Minstrelsy_. He also collected the material
  for the essay on Fairies in the second volume, which was especially
  praised by the reviewer in the _Edinburgh Review_ (January, 1803).
  Leyden's chief fame was derived from his wonderfully varied activities
  in India, from 1803 to his early death in 1811. Any reader of
  Lockhart's _Life of Scott_ or of Scott's delightful little memoir,
  published first in the _Edinburgh Annual Register_ for 1811, and
  included in the _Miscellaneous Prose Works_, must feel that the
  uncouth young genius is a familiar acquaintance.]

  [Footnote 53: The Ettrick Shepherd, who, after reading the first two
  volumes of the _Minstrelsy_, sought an acquaintance with Scott, and
  offered assistance which was gladly made use of in the preparation of
  the third volume. Scott in his turn provided much of the material for
  Hogg's _Jacobite Relics_, published in 1819. The following note on one
  of the songs in that work adds to the reader's doubts concerning the
  accuracy of Scott's texts: "I have not altered a word from the
  manuscript, which is in the handwriting of an amanuensis of Mr.
  Scott's, the most incorrect transcriber, perhaps, that ever tried the
  business." (_Jacobite Relics_, Vol. I, p. 282. Note on song lxiii.)]

  [Footnote 54: Henderson's edition of the _Minstrelsy_, Vol. I, p.
  284.]

  [Footnote 55: _Quarterly_, May, 1810.]

  [Footnote 56: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 514.]

  [Footnote 57: Still more striking evidence that Scott lacked an
  infallible sense of the difference between genuine and spurious ballad
  material is afforded by his comments on Peter Buchan's collection,
  which is now considered particularly untrustworthy. He thought that
  with two or three exceptions the pieces in the book were genuine, and
  said: "I scarce know anything so easily discovered as the piecing and
  patching of an old ballad; the darns in a silk stocking are not more
  manifest." (_Correspondence of C.K. Sharpe_, Vol. II, p. 424.)]

  [Footnote 58: Scott's manuscript collections of ballads dropped
  partially out of sight after his death, and it was only about 1890
  that their magnitude and importance became known. Professor Child and
  later editors have found them of very great service. (On Child's use
  of the Abbotsford materials, see the Advertisement to Part VIII of his
  collection, contained in Volume IV.) In 1880 appeared a reprint of the
  _Ballad Book_ of C.K. Sharpe, "with notes and ballads from the
  unpublished manuscripts of C.K. Sharpe and Sir Walter Scott," but the
  contributions from Scott's papers did not amount to much. Scott's
  materials were at the service of his friend for use in the original
  edition of the _Ballad Book_, published in 1823. See _Sharpe's
  Correspondence_, Vol. II, pp. 264, 271 and 325, for letters from Scott
  on this subject.]

  [Footnote 59: Note on _The Raid of the Reidswire_, in the
  _Minstrelsy_.]

  [Footnote 60: Henderson's edition of the _Minstrelsy_, Vol. III, p.
  232.]

  [Footnote 61: Henderson's edition of the _Minstrelsy_, Vol. II, p.
  57.]

  [Footnote 62: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 360.]

  [Footnote 63: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 332.]

  [Footnote 64: First edition of the _Minstrelsy_, Vol. II, pp. 156-7.]

  [Footnote 65: _Edinburgh Review_, January, 1803.]

  [Footnote 66: The _Minstrelsy_ is arranged in three parts: I.,
  Historical Ballads; II., Romantic Ballads; III., Imitations of the
  Ballad. The first part is preceded by the Introductory Remarks on
  Popular Poetry, and by the historical introduction. The second part is
  preceded by the essay on The Fairies of Popular Superstition; and the
  third by the essay on Imitations of the Ancient Ballad. The poems by
  Scott given in this third part are as follows: _Thomas the Rhymer_
  (parts 2 and 3), _Glenfinlas_, _The Eve of St. John_, _Cadyow Castle_,
  _The Gray Brother_, _War Song of the Royal Edinburgh Light Dragoons_.
  Besides these there are three poems by John Leyden (and he has also an
  _Ode on Scottish Music_ preceding the Romantic ballads), two by C.K.
  Sharpe, three by John Marriott, who was tutor to the children of the
  Duke of Buccleuch, and one each by Matthew Lewis, Anna Seward, Dr.
  Jamieson, Colin Mackenzie, J.B.S. Morritt, and an unnamed author. In
  the other parts of the book there are a few imitations, notably the
  three by Surtees--_Lord Ewine_, the _Death of Featherstonhaugh_, and
  _Barthram's Dirge_, which Scott supposed were old; and one or two like
  the _Flowers of the Forest_, which he noted as largely modern, or
  which he had found, after arranging his material, to be wholly modern.
  Nearly forty old ballads were published in the _Minstrelsy_ for the
  first time.]

  [Footnote 67: _Remarks on Popular Poetry_, conclusion.]

  [Footnote 68: Review of the Poems of William Herbert. _Edinburgh
  Review_, October, 1806.]

  [Footnote 69: Stanzas 10-12, and 31, are noted by Child as
  particularly suspicious. "Basnet," which occurs in stanza 10, is not a
  very common word in ballads. It is used in _The Lay_, Canto I., stanza
  25, and in _Marmion_, Canto VI, st. 21.]

  [Footnote 70: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 221.]

  [Footnote 71: _Memoir of William Taylor_, Vol. I, pp. 98-99, and see
  _Sharpe's Correspondence_, Vol. I, pp. 146-7, for a letter to Sharpe
  on a similar point.]

  [Footnote 72: _Minstrelsy_, Introduction to _Lord Thomas and Fair
  Annie_.]

  [Footnote 73: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 101.]

  [Footnote 74: _Ibid._, Vol. I, pp. 35-6.]

  [Footnote 75: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 244. See also _Lockhart_,
  Vol. V, p. 408.]

  [Footnote 76: Sometime before 1821 (probably a good while before, but
  the date cannot be fixed), Scott began a translation of _Don Quixote_,
  and afterwards gave the work over to Lockhart, who completed it. See
  _Constable's Correspondence_, Vol. III, p. 161.]

  [Footnote 77: Louis-Elizabeth de la Vergne, Comte de Tressan, was born
  in 1705 and died in 1783. In early life he was sent to Rome on
  diplomatic business, and it is said that in the Vatican library he
  acquired his taste for the literature of chivalry. His chief works
  were _Amadis de Gaules_ (1779); _Roland furieux_ (translated from the
  Italian, 1780); _Corps d'extraits romans de chevalerie_ (1782). His
  translations were partly adaptations, and were far from being rendered
  with precision.]

  [Footnote 78: See particularly his article on Ellis's and Ritson's
  _Metrical Romances_ (_Edinburgh Review_, January, 1806), the essay on
  _Romance_, and _Remarks on Popular Poetry_ in the _Minstrelsy_.]

  [Footnote 79: _Edinburgh Review_, July, 1804. Ellis and Scott had had
  much correspondence on _Sir Tristrem_, and it was Ellis's queries that
  first led Scott into the detailed investigation which resulted in the
  separate publication of the work. He had intended to print it in the
  _Minstrelsy_ (_Lockhart_, Vol. I. p. 289). The letters are given in
  _Lockhart_, Vol. I.]

  [Footnote 80: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 381.]

  [Footnote 81: _Die nordische und die englische Version der
  Tristan-sage_--II. _Sir Tristrem_. Heilbronn, 1882. Mr. George P.
  McNeill's edition of _Sir Tristrem_ was printed for the Scottish Text
  Society, Edinburgh, 1886.]

  [Footnote 82: Kölbing thinks Scott probably hired a transcriber who
  knew nothing of Middle English--a usual method of procedure in the
  beginning of the nineteenth century. In later editions more errors
  were introduced by the carelessness of printers, until, after 1830,
  when the book was included in the complete editions of Scott's poems,
  the text was collated with the manuscript. But it was still far from
  correct. Kölbing enumerates about a hundred and thirty mistakes (see
  his Introduction, p. xvii). Of these I took twenty-one at random, and
  found that eight of them did not occur in the 1806 edition--in other
  words, the person who collated the text nearly thirty years after
  Scott or his hired transcriber had done it was far from infallible. A
  few illustrations may be given of mistakes that occur in both the 1806
  and the 1833 editions: l. 117, _send_ is given for _sent_; l. 846,
  _telle_ for _tel_; l. 863, _How_ for _Hou_; l. 912, _mak_ for _make_;
  l. 1212, _leuedi_ for _leuedy_; l. 1580, _wende sche weren_ for
  _whende sche were_; l. 1334. _have_ for _han_; l. 1514, _as_ for
  _als_.]

  [Footnote 83: Review of Johnes's Translation of Froissart, _Edinburgh
  Review_, January, 1805.]

  [Footnote 84: Waverley, and Claverhouse in _Old Mortality_.]

  [Footnote 85: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, pp. 480 and 482. _Familiar Letters_,
  Vol. I, p. 147.]

  [Footnote 86: _Essay on Romance_.]

  [Footnote 87: See Gaston Paris, _La Littérature Française au Moyen
  Age_, 1ère partie, ch. IV.]

  [Footnote 88: Review of _Metrical Romances_, _Edinburgh Review_,
  January, 1806.]

  [Footnote 89: _Journal_, Vol. II, pp. 258-259.]

  [Footnote 90: _Essay on Romance_.]

  [Footnote 91: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 46.]

  [Footnote 92: Memoir in the Globe edition of Scott's poems.]

  [Footnote 93: Scott adopted the conclusions of Malcolm Laing, who
  edited Macpherson's poems and adduced parallel passages from "a mass
  of poetry, enough to serve any six gentle readers for their lifetime,"
  as the reviewer says. The most of these parallels were found in
  "Homer, Virgil, and their two translators; Milton, Thomson, Young,
  Gray, Mason, Home, and the English Bible." Although he was convinced
  by the argument, Scott saw that the editor was in some cases misled by
  his own ingenuity.]

  [Footnote 94: Later, however (in the essay on Imitations of the
  Ancient Ballad, 1830), he said: "In their spirit and diction they
  nearly resemble fragments of poetry extant in Gaelic." By this time he
  was probably reverting to the earlier opinion which had made the more
  vivid impression.]

  [Footnote 95: For the _Northern Antiquities_, edited by Robert
  Jamieson and published in 1814, Scott wrote an abstract of the
  _Eyrbyggja Saga_, using, as one would conclude from his introductory
  words, the Latin version made by Thorkelin, who published the saga in
  1787. The purpose of the publication required the historical and
  antiquarian rather than the literary point of view, and accordingly we
  find Scott's notes occupied with historical comment.]

  [Footnote 96: In 1804 Weber came to Edinburgh in a deplorable
  condition of poverty, and was employed and assisted in literary work
  by Scott during the following nine years. In 1813 he was seized with
  insanity, and challenged Scott, across the study table, to an
  immediate duel with pistols. Scott supported Weber during the
  remaining five years of his life in an insane hospital. He was much
  liked by the Scott family. Scott rated his learning very highly, and
  gave him valuable assistance in various literary projects. Weber's
  chief publications were: _Metrical Romances of the Thirteenth,
  Fourteenth, and Sixteenth Centuries_, with Introduction, Notes and
  Glossary (1810); _Dramatic Works of John Ford_, with Introduction and
  Explanatory Notes (1811); _Works of Beaumont and Fletcher_, with
  Introduction and Explanatory Notes (1812): to this Scott's notes were
  the most valuable contribution; _Illustrations of Northern
  Antiquities_ (1814), with Jamieson and Scott.]

  [Footnote 97: See his essay on _Imitations of the Ancient Ballad_.]

  [Footnote 98: _Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry, translated by the
  Vicar of Batheaston_. Conybeare had died two years before the
  publication of the book.]

  [Footnote 99: Review of Ellis's _Specimens_, _Edinburgh Review_,
  April, 1804.]

  [Footnote 100: Bletson and Richard Ganlesse.]

  [Footnote 101: But see the dictum quoted by Scott in a somewhat
  over-emphatic way from Ellis's _Specimens of the Early English Poets_,
  to the effect that Chaucer's "peculiar ornaments of style, consisting
  in an affectation of splendour, and especially of latinity," were
  perhaps his special contribution to the improvement of English poetry.
  (_Edinburgh Review_, April, 1804.) Scott said of Dunbar, "This darling
  of the Scottish muses has been justly raised to a level with Chaucer
  by every judge of poetry to whom his obsolete language has not
  rendered him unintelligible." (_Memoir of Bannatyne_, p. 14.) After
  naming the various qualities in which Dunbar was Chaucer's rival, he
  pronounces the Scottish poet inferior in the use of pathos. The
  relative position here assigned to the two poets seems to be rather an
  exaltation of Dunbar than a degradation of Chaucer.]

  [Footnote 102: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 408.]

  [Footnote 103: _Dryden_, Vol. XI, p. 245.]

  [Footnote 104: _Dryden_, Vol. XI, p. 396.]

  [Footnote 105: _Ibid._, Vol. VI, p. 243.]

  [Footnote 106: _Ibid._, Vol. XI, p. 338.]

  [Footnote 107: The discussion of popular superstitions given in the
  introduction to the _Minstrelsy_ and in the Essay on Fairies, which is
  prefixed to the ballad of _Young Tamlane_, suggests comparison with
  the _Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft_ which Scott wrote in the
  year before he died. He collected a remarkable library in regard to
  superstition, and thought at various times of making a book on the
  subject, but the project was pushed aside for other matters until
  1831. The _Letters_ which he wrote then are full of pleasant anecdote
  and judicious comment, and though they lack the vigor of his earlier
  work they have remained fairly popular. An edition of Kirk's _Secret
  Commonwealth of Elves and Fairies_, published in 1815, has been
  attributed to Scott. (See below, the Bibliography of books edited by
  Scott.) Reviews of his which have not been mentioned in this chapter,
  but which naturally connect themselves with the subjects here
  discussed, are the following: _The Culloden Papers_--an account of the
  Highland clans, largely narrative (_Quarterly_, January, 1816);
  Ritson's _Annals of the Caledonians, Picts and Scots_--an article of
  more than forty pages, discussing the early history of Scotland and
  the historians who have written upon it (_Quarterly_, July, 1829);
  Tytler's _History of Scotland_--an article similar to that on Ritson's
  book (_Quarterly_, November, 1829); Pitcairn's _Ancient Criminal
  Trials_--a long article, which begins with an extended digression on
  booksellers and collectors and on the Roxburghe and Bannatyne clubs
  (_Quarterly_, February, 1831); Sibbald's _Chronicle of Scottish
  Poetry_--merely a series of notes on special points (_Edinburgh
  Review_, October, 1803); Southey's _Chronicle of the Cid_
  (_Quarterly_, February, 1809). For the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ Scott
  wrote an essay on Chivalry, as well as the one on Romance to which
  reference has been made.]

  [Footnote 108: Review of _Kelly's Reminiscences and the Life of
  Kemble_, _Quarterly Review_, June, 1826.]

  [Footnote 109: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 97.]

  [Footnote 110: Terry had been educated as an architect, and his
  knowledge and taste were of assistance to Scott in connection with the
  building and furnishing of Abbotsford. After 1812 he played chiefly in
  London. In 1816 his version of _Guy Mannering_, the first of his
  adaptations from Scott, was presented. Before this he had taken the
  part of Roderick Dhu in two dramatic versions of _The Lady of the
  Lake_. In 1819 he was the first David Deans in his adaptation of _The
  Heart of Midlothian_. Six years later he became manager of the Adelphi
  theater, in association with F.H. Yates. At this time Scott became
  Terry's security for £1280, a sum which he was afterward obliged to
  pay with the addition of £500 for which the credit of James Ballantyne
  was pledged. When financial embarrassment caused Terry to retire from
  the management his mental and physical powers gave way, and he died of
  paralysis in 1829. Terry admired Scott so much that he learned to
  imitate his facial expression, his speech and his handwriting.]

  [Footnote 111: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 94.]

  [Footnote 112: The phrase, which was a favorite one of Scott's, is
  spoken not by Tony Lumpkin, but by one of his tavern companions.
  Scott's use of it is an indication of the way in which he was familiar
  with the drama. Very likely he never reread the play after his youth,
  but his strong memory doubtless retained a pretty definite impression
  of it.]

  [Footnote 113: _Review of the Life and Works of John Home_,
  _Quarterly_, June, 1827.]

  [Footnote 114: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 143.]

  [Footnote 115: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 427. It may be noted that this
  criticism does not show much dramatic insight.]

  [Footnote 116: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, pp. 445-6.]

  [Footnote 117: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 117; _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p.
  447.]

  [Footnote 118: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 94; _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 419.]

  [Footnote 119: Advertisement to _Halidon Hill_. When the publisher
  Cadell closed a bargain with Scott in five minutes for _Halidon Hill_,
  giving him £1000, he wrote as follows to his partner: "My views were
  these: here is a commencement of a series of dramatic writings--let us
  begin by buying them out." (_Constable's Correspondence_, Vol. III, p.
  217.)]

  [Footnote 120: "That well-written, but very didactic 'Old Play'," as
  Adolphus calls it. (_Letters to Heber_, p. 55.)]

  [Footnote 121: Introductory epistle to _Nigel_.]

  [Footnote 122: _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 414.]

  [Footnote 123: Fitzgerald's _New History of the English Stage_, Vol.
  II, p. 404.]

  [Footnote 124: _Dramatic Essays_, Hazlitt's _Works_, Vol. VIII, p.
  422.]

  [Footnote 125: _Lockhart_, Vol. III. p. 176.]

  [Footnote 126: _Ibid._, Vol. III. p. 265.]

  [Footnote 127: _Ibid._, Vol. III. p. 332.]

  [Footnote 128: _Essay on the Drama_.]

  [Footnote 129: In 1808 he wrote to a friend: "We have Miss Baillie
  here at present, who is certainly the best dramatic writer whom
  Britain has produced since the days of Shakspeare and Massinger."
  (_Fam. Let._, Vol. I. p. 99.) But Wilson also put Joanna Baillie next
  to Shakspere, and quite seriously. The article in the _Dictionary of
  National Biography_, on Joanna Baillie says that when the first volume
  of _Plays on the Passions_ was published anonymously in 1798, Walter
  Scott was at first suspected of being the author. But as Scott had
  done nothing to give him a literary reputation in 1798, the assertion
  is incredible. It seems to be based on the following very inexact
  statement in _Chambers's Biographical Dictionary of Eminent
  Scotsmen._ (Vol. V, Art. _Joanna Baillie_.) "Rich though the period
  was in poetry, this work made a great impression, and a new edition of
  it was soon required. The writer was sought for among the most gifted
  personages of the day, and the illustrious Scott, with others then
  equally appreciated, was suspected as the author."]

  [Footnote 130: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 380.]

  [Footnote 131: _Life of Dryden_, ch. I. In _Guy Mannering_ and _The
  Antiquary_, the first two novels in which Scott habitually used
  mottoes to head his chapters, most of the selections are from plays.
  Eighteen plays of Shakspere are represented by twenty-nine quotations.
  Other mottoes are from _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_, from Jonson,
  from Fletcher (_The Little French Lawyer_, _Women Pleased_, _The Fair
  Maid of the Inn_, _The Beggar's Bush_), from Brome, Dekker, Middleton
  and Rowley, Cartwright, Otway, Southerne, _The Beggar's Opera_,
  Walpole's _Mysterious Mother_, _The Critic_, _Chrononhotonthologos_,
  Joanna Baillie. For the latter part of _The Antiquary_ many of the
  mottoes were composed by Scott himself. _Kenilworth_ presents a
  similar list, with some variations: Jonson's _Masque of Owls_ was
  used, more than one play by Beaumont and Fletcher, Waldron's _Virgin
  Queen_, _Wallenstein_, and _Douglas_. In _St. Ronan's Well_ there is a
  larger proportion of non-dramatic mottoes, as in most of the later
  novels, but we find represented nine of Shakspere's plays and one of
  Beaumont and Fletcher's. _The Legend of Montrose_ (chapter XIV) has a
  motto from Suckling's _Brennoralt_. In _Anne of Geierstein_ ten of
  Shakspere's plays were drawn upon, and _Manfred_ was twice used. Scott
  made his chapters much longer in these later novels, and used fewer
  mottoes, but the evidence of the selections would seem to indicate
  that he had lost something of his early familiarity with dramatic
  literature.]

  [Footnote 132: Hazlitt's _Characters of Shakespeare's Plays_ appeared
  in 1817; his _Lectures on the Dramatic Literature of the Age of Queen
  Elizabeth_ in 1821.]

  [Footnote 133: Scott first began to fabricate occasional mottoes for
  his chapters during the composition of _The Antiquary_ in 1816.]

  [Footnote 134: Saintsbury in _Macmillan's Magazine_, lxx: 323. Scott's
  style in many sages is strongly colored by the influence of
  Shakspere.]

  [Footnote 135: Introduction by Lang to _The Fortunes of Nigel_.]

  [Footnote 136: It is possible that among the various jobs of editing
  undertaken by Scott with a view to keeping the Ballantyne types busy,
  were certain collections of dramas. _Ancient British Drama_, in three
  volumes, and _Modern British Drama_, in five volumes, published in
  1810 and 1811, are sometimes attributed to Scott in library
  catalogues, but on what authority it seems impossible to discover.
  There is almost no commentary in the _Ancient British Drama_, but the
  _Modern British Drama_ contains three brief introductions which I
  believe were written by Scott. They show a striking likeness to some
  parts of the _Essay on the Drama_ written several years later, and it
  is not probable that Scott took his criticism ready-made from another
  author. In the preface to the _Ancient British Drama_ we find this
  statement: "The present publication is intended to form, with _The
  British Drama_ and _Shakspeare_, a complete and uniform collection in
  ten volumes of the best English plays." The Shakspeare here referred
  to is doubtless that of which Constable the publisher afterwards spoke
  in his correspondence with Scott as "Ballantyne's Shakespeare," and
  Scott had no hand in the editorship. (_Constable's Correspondence_,
  Vol. III, p. 244.)

  It is true, however, as R.S. Mackenzie says in his _Life of Scott_,
  that Scott "had not only meditated, but partly executed an edition of
  Shakespeare." The work was suggested by Constable in 1822, was begun
  in 1823 or 1824, and three volumes of the proposed ten were printed by
  the time of Constable's financial crash in the beginning of 1826. The
  project was sometime afterwards abandoned, and the printed sheets,
  which apparently were not bound up, disappeared from view. The first
  volume was to be a life of Shakspere by Scott, and this was probably
  not begun at all. Of the commentary in the other volumes, Scott was to
  have the oversight but Lockhart was to do most of the work. It was not
  designed that the critical apparatus should to any great degree
  represent original ideas furnished by Lockhart or Scott, but the book
  was to be "a sensible Shakespeare, in which the useful and readable
  notes should be condensed and separated from the trash." (See the
  discussion of the matter in letters between Scott and his publisher
  given in the third volume of _Constables Correspondence_. See also
  Lang's _Life of Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 409, and Vol. II, p. 13, and
  Mackenzie's _Life of Scott_, pp. 475-6.) The Boston Public Library
  contains three volumes which are thought to be a unique copy of so
  much of the Scott-Lockhart Shakspere as was printed. (See below, the
  Bibliography of books edited by Scott.)

  Scott's notes on Beaumont and Fletcher, which he had wished in 1804 to
  offer to Gifford, were actually used by Weber in his _Beaumont and
  Fletcher_, published about 1810, an edition which was characterized by
  Scott as "too carelessly done to be reputable." (_Lockhart_, Vol. IV,
  p. 472.)]

  [Footnote 137: He seems to have connected heroic plays too closely
  with "the romances of Calprenède and Scudéri." See his introduction to
  _The Indian Emperor_, Dryden, Vol. II, pp. 317-20; also Vol. I, p. 56,
  and Vol. VI, p. 125. On his opinion in regard to the relation between
  novels and plays see below, pp. 75-6.]

  [Footnote 138: See his comment on Corneille's _Oedipe_, _Dryden_, Vol.
  VI, p. 125 and Mr. Saintsbury's note.]

  [Footnote 139: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 446.]

  [Footnote 140: Hutchinson's _Letters of Scott_, p. 224.]

  [Footnote 141: That Scott admired Sackville greatly is evident from
  more than one comment. Of _Ferrex and Porrex_ he says, "In Sackville's
  part of the play, which comprehends the two last acts, there is some
  poetry worthy of the author of the sublime Induction to the Mirror of
  Magistrates." (_Dryden_, Vol. II, p. 135.) Elsewhere Scott calls
  Sackville "a beautiful poet." (_Fragmenta Regalia_, p. 277. _Secret
  History of the Court of James I._, Vol. I, p. 278, note.)]

  [Footnote 142: _Dryden_, Vol. II, p. 136.]

  [Footnote 143: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 229. See also Vol. III, p. 223.]

  [Footnote 144: _Ibid._, Vol. V, p. 322.]

  [Footnote 145: See, for example, _Hawthornden_, in _Provincial
  Antiquities_.]

  [Footnote 146: _Dryden_, Vol. XV, p. 337.]

  [Footnote 147: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 10.]

  [Footnote 148: Note on _Sir Tristrem_, Fytte II., stanza 56.]

  [Footnote 149: See Middleton's Plays in the Mermaid edition:
  Introduction, Vol. I, pp. viii-ix.]

  [Footnote 150: Ticknor, in Allibone's _Dictionary_, Vol. II, p. 1968.]

  [Footnote 151: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 234; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 23.]

  [Footnote 152: See Scott's article on Molière, _Foreign Quarterly
  Review_, February, 1828.]

  [Footnote 153: _Essay on Drama_; _Dryden_, Vol. I, p. 101 ff., Vol.
  II, pp. 317-20, Vol. IV, p. 4.]

  [Footnote 154: _Dryden_, Vol. IV, p. 4.]

  [Footnote 155: Article on Molière, _Foreign Quarterly Review_,
  February, 1828.]

  [Footnote 156: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 431.]

  [Footnote 157: Review of _Kelly's Reminiscences and the Life of
  Kemble_, _Quarterly Review_, June, 1826.]

  [Footnote 158: _Ibid._]

  [Footnote 159: _Dryden_, Vol. VI, p. 128.]

  [Footnote 160: _In Provincial Antiquities_ (Borthwick Castle). Scott
  cites parallels from _Sir John Oldcastle, The Pinner of Wakefield_,
  and one of Nash's pamphlets, for a curious incident in Scottish
  history.]

  [Footnote 161: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 431. This search among
  seventeenth century pamphlets may have suggested to Scott the need of
  a new edition of _Somers' Tracts_. Apparently he arranged with the
  publishers in 1807 to undertake this task, but the first volume did
  not appear till 1809. (_Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 10, and see below, pp.
  89-90, for an account of Scott's edition of the _Tracts_.) Some of his
  materials for the _Dryden_ were taken from this collection, but more
  from the Luttrell collection, to which he refers in the
  Advertisement.]

  [Footnote 162: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 433. Scott's _Dryden_ appeared
  in 1808, and with some slight changes in 1821; as reëdited by Mr.
  Saintsbury it was published in 1882-1893. It was the first complete
  and uniform edition of Dryden's works, and it remains the only one.
  The dramatic works had appeared in folio in 1701. They were edited by
  Congreve in 1717, and Scott used Congreve's text. The non-dramatic
  poems were also published in 1701 in folio. They appeared in more
  convenient forms in 1741, 1743, and 1760, but of these editions only
  the last was reasonably complete. In 1800 the Critical and
  Miscellaneous Prose Works were edited by Malone, who added a Life of
  Dryden which has furnished a large part of the material used by
  biographers since his time. This biography was badly written, but with
  Johnson's brilliant essay it was the only Life of Dryden before
  Scott's that was worth considering. An edition of Dryden's poems, with
  notes by Joseph Warton and others, appeared in 1811, but seems to have
  been prepared before Scott's edition was published. The text of this
  is very incorrect. Since then the non-dramatic poems have been
  published several times. Mr. Christie said in his preface to the Globe
  edition: "Sir Walter Scott's is the last important edition of Dryden,
  as it is indeed still the only general collection of his works; and it
  is to be regretted that that distinguished man did not give as much
  pains to the purification of Dryden's text as he did to his excellent
  biography and to the notes which enrich the edition."]

  [Footnote 163: Editor's Preface.]

  [Footnote 164: _Dryden_, Vol. IX, p. 226.]

  [Footnote 165: _Ibid._, Vol. IX, p. 2.]

  [Footnote 166: In this connection Scott's review of Todd's edition of
  Spenser is interesting. He takes exception to the lack of an
  appearance of continuity in the biography, caused by the long
  quotations included in the body of the narrative; and censures the
  editor for not having used the history of Italian poetry in
  elucidating Spenser's work. (_Edinburgh Review_, October, 1805.)]

  [Footnote 167: Review of Todd's _Spenser_.]

  [Footnote 168: _Dryden_, Vol. I, p. 6.]

  [Footnote 169: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 229; and _Dryden_, Vol.
  I, p. 6.]

  [Footnote 170: _Dryden_, Vol. I, pp. 402-3.]

  [Footnote 171: _Dryden_, Vol. I, p. 403.]

  [Footnote 172: _Ibid._, p. 404. Mr. Saintsbury thinks that Scott's
  prefatory introductions to the plays are often "both meagre and
  depreciatory"; also that Scott's judgment on Dryden's letters is
  rather harsh, for him, and that after he had begun to write novels he
  would not have been so impatient of remarks on "turkeys,
  marrow-puddings, and bacon."]

  [Footnote 173: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 405.]

  [Footnote 174: _Ibid._, Vol. X, p. 307 ff.]

  [Footnote 175: _Ibid._, Vol. XIV, pp. 136 and 146.]

  [Footnote 176: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 405.]

  [Footnote 177: In order to give a more specific view of Scott's
  methods, two or three of the introductions to well-known poems may be
  briefly analysed. The introduction to _Absalom and Achitophel_
  occupies 111/2 pages, of which about 21/2 are given to quotation from a
  tract which Scott thought furnished the argument to Dryden, and which
  was unnoticed by any former commentator. Scott's remarks follow this
  outline: Position of the poem in literature, and history of its
  composition; origin of the particular allegory as applied to modern
  politics; a parallel use of the allegory (with a quotation from
  _Somers' Tracts_ in illustrations); aptness of the allegory; merits of
  the satire--treatment of Monmouth and other main characters; changes
  in the second edition to mitigate the satire; characterization of the
  poem as having few flights of imagination but much correctness of
  taste as well as fire and spirit; other objections by Johnson refuted;
  success of the poem; history of the first publication and of the
  replies and congratulatory poems; editions, and Latin versions. The
  notes on this poem are historical and very full, but the introduction
  contains as much literary as historical comment. _Religio Laici_ is
  prefaced by 8 pages of introduction, in which are discussed the motive
  of the writing, the argument, the title, the purpose of the poem, and
  its reputation. Dryden's style in didactic poetry is compared with
  Cowper's, to the disadvantage of the later poet. The introduction to
  _The Hind and the Panther_ is 20 pages long, and discusses the history
  of the period as well as the argument of the poem, its style, the
  subject of fables in general, and the effects the poem produced. The
  notes on this poem are copious. As he discussed the _Fables_ in the
  _Life of Dryden_, Scott gave them no general introduction, and for
  each poem he wrote only a slight preface, telling something of the
  source and pointing out special beauties. His notes vary greatly in
  abundance. Those on _Palamon and Arcite_, _e.g._, are brief,
  explaining terms of chivalry and heraldry, but not giving literary or
  linguistic comment.]

  [Footnote 178: _Dryden_, Vol. XIII, p. 324.]

  [Footnote 179: _Ibid._, Vol. XII, p. 20.]

  [Footnote 180: _Ibid._, Vol. X, p. 213.]

  [Footnote 181: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 411.]

  [Footnote 182: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 98. See also _St. Ronan's Well_,
  Vol. I, p. 105, and various mottoes in the novels. The edition of the
  novels used for reference is that published in Edinburgh (1867) in 48
  volumes.]

  [Footnote 183: _Dryden_, Vol. X, p. 26.]

  [Footnote 184: For example see _Anne of Geierstein_, Vol. II, p. 307.]

  [Footnote 185: _Letters to Heber_, p. 292.]

  [Footnote 186: The price offered for the _Swift_ was £1500. This must
  have been a rather rash speculation on the publisher's part, as there
  had been several editions of Swift's works published. The first
  appeared in twelve volumes in 1755, edited by Hawkesworth. Deane
  Swift, Hawkesworth, and others, added thirteen more volumes in the
  course of the next twenty-five years, and when the whole was completed
  it was reissued in three different sizes. In 1785 an edition in
  seventeen volumes was published, edited by Thomas Sheridan. In 1801
  the edition by Nichols was published, and it reappeared in 1804 and in
  1808. Hawkesworth and Thomas Sheridan supplied biographies which
  Leslie Stephen characterized by saying that Hawkesworth's gave no new
  material and that Sheridan's was "pompous and dull." (Preface to
  Leslie Stephen's _Life of Swift_.)]

  [Footnote 187: _Correspondence of C.K. Sharpe_, Vol. II, p. 178.]

  [Footnote 188: This correspondence consisted of 28 letters from Swift,
  and 16 "Vanessa."]

  [Footnote 189: A comparison of the index with the bibliography in the
  _Dictionary of National Biography_ and with Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole's
  _Notes for a Bibliography of Swift_ (_Bibliographer_, vi: 160-71)
  shows that Scott was usually right in his judgment on the main
  articles. But since Mr. Lane-Poole ends his list thus: "And numerous
  short poems, trifles, characters and short pieces," it is evident that
  one cannot carry the investigation far without undertaking to make a
  complete bibliography of Swift. Mr. Temple Scott says, in the
  Advertisement of his edition of Swift's Prose Works, begun in 1897,
  that since Sir Walter's edition of 1824 "there has been no serious
  attempt to grapple with the difficulties which then prevented and
  which still beset the attainment of a trustworthy and substantially
  complete text."]

  [Footnote 190: _Swift_, Vol. IV, p. 280. Two more of Scott's comments
  may be given, further to illustrate his method. "This piece [William
  Crowe's Address to her Majesty, _Swift_, Vol. XII, p. 265] and those
  which follow, were first extracted by the learned Dr. Barrett, of
  Trinity College, Dublin, from the Lanesborough and other manuscripts.
  I have retained them from internal evidence, as I have discarded some
  articles upon the same score." "The following poems [poems given as
  "ascribed to Swift," Vol. X, p. 434] are extracted from the manuscript
  of Lord Lanesborough, called the Whimsical Medley. They are here
  inserted in deference to the opinion of a most obliging correspondent,
  who thinks they are juvenile attempts of Swift. I own I cannot
  discover much internal evidence in support of the supposition."]

  [Footnote 191: Colonel Parnell, writing in the _English Historical
  Review_ on "Dean Swift and the Memoirs of Captain Carleton," has
  spoken of the biography as "this most partial, verbose, and inaccurate
  account of the dean's life and writings." He says also that in editing
  _Carleton's Memoirs_ Scott adopted, without investigation and in the
  face of evidence, Johnson's opinion that the memoirs were genuine;
  that Scott was mistaken about the date of the first edition and
  misquoted the title page; and that his "glowing account" of Lord
  Peterborough, in the introduction, was amplified (without
  acknowledgment) from a panegyric by Dr. Birch in "Houbraken's Heads."
  (_English Historical Review_, January, 1891; vi: 97. For a further
  reference to the article see below, p. 144.)]

  [Footnote 192: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 20.]

  [Footnote 193: September, 1816.]

  [Footnote 194: _Swift_ Vol. XVII, p. 4, note.]

  [Footnote 195: _Life of Swift_, conclusion.]

  [Footnote 196: _Swift_, Vol. XI, p. 12.]

  [Footnote 197: Vol. IX, p. 569. The tract had already been correctly
  assigned. A similar note on another tract indicates more careful
  research on the part of the editor. The paper is _A Secret History of
  One Year_, which had commonly been attributed to Robert Walpole. Scott
  says: "This tract in not to found in Mr. Coxe's list of Sir Robert
  Walpole's publications, nor in that given by his son, the Earl of
  Oxford, in the Royal and Noble Authors.... It does not seem at all
  probable that Walpole should at this crisis have thought it proper to
  advocate these principles." (Vol. XIII, p. 873.) The piece is now
  attributed to Defoe.]

  [Footnote 198: See above, p. 4.]

  [Footnote 199: _Horace Walpole_, in _Lives of the Novelists_.]

  [Footnote 200: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 512.]

  [Footnote 201: _Quarterly_, September, 1826.]

  [Footnote 202: See his explanation, in the articles themselves.]

  [Footnote 203: _The Mid-Eighteenth Century_, by J.H. Millar, p. 143,
  note.]

  [Footnote 204: _Ibid._, p. 159. Scott compares Fielding and Smollett
  at some length in the _Life of Smollett_.]

  [Footnote 205: _Life of Le Sage_.]

  [Footnote 206: _Life of Richardson_.]

  [Footnote 207: _Life of Fielding_.]

  [Footnote 208: _Life of Goldsmith_. As we might expect, Scott speaks
  rather too favorably of Goldsmith's hack work in history and science.]

  [Footnote 209: _Life of Sterne_.]

  [Footnote 210: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 35.]

  [Footnote 211: See above, p. 53, note.]

  [Footnote 212: See also the Introductory epistle to _Ivanhoe_; and the
  Review of _Walpole's Letters_. "In attaining his contemporary
  triumph," says Mr. Brander Matthews, "Scott owed more to Horace
  Walpole than to Maria Edgeworth." _The Historical Novel_, p. 10.]

  [Footnote 213: Scott uses the word.]

  [Footnote 214: Mr. G.A. Aitken has given convincing evidence that the
  story was not invented by Defoe. Mr. Aitken also shows the falsity of
  Scott's statement that Drelincourt's book was in need of advertising,
  as William Lee, in his _Life of Defoe_, had previously done. (See _The
  Nineteenth Century_, xxxvii: 95. January, 1895; and also Aitken's
  edition of Defoe's _Romances and Narratives_, Vol. XV, Introduction.)
  A passage from Defoe's _History of the Church of Scotland_ is quoted
  in the review of _Tales of My Landlord_, by Scott, who says that it
  probably suggested one of the scenes in _Old Mortality_. Scott there
  speaks of Defoe's "liveliness of imagination," and says he "excelled
  all others in dramatizing a story, and presenting it as if in actual
  speech and action before the reader." (_Quarterly Review_, January,
  1817.)]

  [Footnote 215: See also _The Fortunes of Nigel_, Vol. II, pp. 88-9.]

  [Footnote 216: _Life of Clara Reeve_.]

  [Footnote 217: Blackwood, March, 1818.]

  [Footnote 218: _Quarterly_, May, 1818.]

  [Footnote 219: See a reference to Voltaire and other French authors;
  _Napoleon_, Vol. I, ch. 2.]

  [Footnote 220: _Life of Richardson_.]

  [Footnote 221: We gather from Scott's article that he considered the
  following to be the chief "speculative errors" of Bage: he was an
  infidel; he misrepresented different classes of society, thinking the
  high tyrannical and the low virtuous and generous; his system of
  ethics was founded on philosophy instead of religion; he was inclined
  to minimize the importance of purity in women; he considered
  tax-gatherers extortioners, and soldiers, licensed murderers.]

  [Footnote 222: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 132.]

  [Footnote 223: Familiar Letters, Vol. I, p. 192. In his _George the
  Third_, Thackeray said: "Do you remember the verses--the sacred
  verses--which Johnson wrote on the death of his humble friend Levett?"
  (Biographical edition of Thackeray, Vol. VII, p. 671.)]

  [Footnote 224: _Life of Johnson_.]

  [Footnote 225: Introduction to _Chronicles of the Canongate_.]

  [Footnote 226: _Dryden_, Vol. XI, p. 81, note; Review of the _Life and
  Works of John Home_, _Quarterly_, June, 1827.]

  [Footnote 227: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 44.]

  [Footnote 228: _Swift_, Vol. XVI, p. 275, note. On one of the last sad
  days before Sir Walter left Scotland for his Italian journey he quoted
  in full Prior's poem on Mezeray's History of France. (_Lockhart_, Vol.
  V, pp. 339-40.)]

  [Footnote 229: _Swift_, Vol. III, p. 36.]

  [Footnote 230: _Ibid._, Vol. XIII, p. 24.]

  [Footnote 231: _Correspondence of C.K. Sharpe_, Vol. II, p. 194.]

  [Footnote 232: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 67; _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 401.]

  [Footnote 233: Allan Cunningham's _Life of Scott_, p. 96.]

  [Footnote 234: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 483.]

  [Footnote 235: See the satirical paragraph in his review of _Gertrude
  of Wyoming_, on the habits of reviewers in general. "We are perfectly
  aware," he says, "that, according to the modern canons of criticism,
  the Reviewer is expected to show his immense superiority to the author
  reviewed, and at the same time to relieve the tediousness of
  narration, by turning the epic, dramatic, moral story before him into
  quaint and lively burlesque." (_Quarterly_, May, 1809.) In his review
  of the _Life and Works of John Home_ he speaks of "the hackneyed rules
  of criticism, which, having crushed a hundred poets, will never, it
  may be prophesied, create, or assist in creating, a single one."
  (_Quarterly_, June, 1827.)]

  [Footnote 236: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 363.]

  [Footnote 237: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 501. For a further comparison of
  Scott and Jeffrey as critics see below, pp. 134-5.]

  [Footnote 238: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 204.]

  [Footnote 239: _Ibid._, Vol. V, p. 97.]

  [Footnote 240: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 262]

  [Footnote 241: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 173]

  [Footnote 242: In general Scott admired Lockhart. "I have known the
  most able men of my time," he once wrote, "and I never met any one who
  had such ready command of his own mind, and possessed in a greater
  degree the power of making his talents available upon the shortest
  notice, and upon any subject." (_Life of Murray_, Vol. II, p. 222.)
  But in Lockhart's earlier days Scott said, "I am sometimes angry with
  him for an exuberant love of fun in his light writings, which he has
  caught, I think, from Wilson, a man of greater genius than himself
  perhaps, but who disputes with low adversaries, which I think a
  terrible error, and indulges in a sort of humour which exceeds the
  bounds of playing at ladies and gentlemen, a game to which I have been
  partial all my life." (_Letters of Lady Louisa Stuart_, p. 225.)]

  [Footnote 243: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 400.]

  [Footnote 244: Lang's _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 406.]

  [Footnote 245: _Life of Murray_, Vol. I, pp. 146-7.]

  [Footnote 246: _Quarterly_, February, 1809.]

  [Footnote 247: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 327.]

  [Footnote 248: Scott wrote a poetical epitaph for the burial place of
  Miss Seward and her father. See _Edinburgh Annual Register_, Vol. II,
  pt. 2. In the introduction to _The Tapestried Chamber_, Scott said,
  "It was told to me many years ago by the late Miss Anna Seward, who,
  among other accomplishments that rendered her an amusing inmate in a
  country house, had that of recounting narratives of this sort with
  very considerable effect; much greater, indeed, than anyone would be
  apt to guess from the style of her written performances." It must be
  remembered that Miss Seward was one of the first persons of any
  literary note, outside of Edinburgh, to show an interest in Scott's
  work, and he committed himself to admiration of her poetry when he was
  still in a rather uncritical stage. In regard to his later feeling
  about her see _Recollections_, by R.P. Gillies, _Fraser's_, xiii: 692,
  January, 1836.]

  [Footnote 249: J.L. Adolphus, in an interesting passage in his
  _Letters to Heber on the Authorship of Waverley_, noted many of the
  references to contemporary poets. See pp. 53-4. See also Hazlitt's
  _Spirit of the Age_, art. _Sir Walter Scott_]

  [Footnote 250: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 341. See also a similar
  anecdote in Forster's _Life of Landor_, Vol. II, p. 244.]

  [Footnote 251: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, pp. 116-17.]

  [Footnote 252: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 132.]

  [Footnote 253: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 321.]

  [Footnote 254: Review of _Cromek's Reliques of Burns_, _Quarterly_,
  February, 1809.]

  [Footnote 255: _Ibid._]

  [Footnote 256: _Ibid._]

  [Footnote 257: Crabbe Robinson, in his diary (quoted by Knight in his
  edition of Wordsworth, Vol. X, p. 189), says that Coleridge and his
  friends "consider Scott as having stolen the verse" of _Christabel_.
  On this point see also a letter by Coleridge, given in Meteyard's
  _Group of Englishmen_, pp. 327-8. In 1807 Coleridge wrote to Southey:
  "I did not over-hugely admire the 'Lay of the Last Minstrel,' but saw
  no likeness whatever to the 'Christabel,' much less any improper
  resemblance." (_Letters of Coleridge_, ed. by E.H. Coleridge, Vol. II,
  p. 523.) Yet Mr. Lang seems to think that in this matter Scott "showed
  something of the deficient sense of _meum_ and _tuum_ which marked his
  freebooting ancestors." (_Sir Walter Scott_, p. 36.) Apparently Scott
  never dreamed that the matter could be looked at in this way. In
  Lockhart's _Scott_ (Vol. II, pp. 77-8) we find described an occasion
  on which the two men once met in London, when they were asked, with
  other poets who were present, to recite from their unpublished
  writings. Coleridge complied with the request, but Scott said he had
  nothing of his own and would repeat some stanzas he had seen in a
  newspaper. The poem was criticised adversely in spite of Scott's
  protests, till Coleridge lost patience and exclaimed, "Let Mr. Scott
  alone; I wrote the poem." Coleridge's lines:

     "The Knight's bones are dust
      And his good sword rust,
      His soul is with the saints, I trust,"

  are probably much better known as they appear in _Ivanhoe_,
  incorrectly quoted, than in their proper form. Scott also added a note
  on Coleridge in this connection. (_Ivanhoe_, Chapter VIII.)]

  [Footnote 258: But apparently not in any earlier than _The Black
  Dwarf_, which was written in 1816, the year in which the poem was
  published. It was about 1803 that Scott heard _Christabel_ recited.
  See _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 221.]

  [Footnote 259: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 356.]

  [Footnote 260: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 315.]

  [Footnote 261: See _Letters to Heber_, p. 293; _On Imitations of the
  Ancient Ballad_; _Lockhart_, Vol. III, pp. 56 and 264; _Quentin
  Durward_, Vol. II, p. 394.]

  [Footnote 262: Note in _The Abbot_.]

  [Footnote 263: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 223.]

  [Footnote 264: Note in _St. Ronan's Well_. See also the comment on
  _Wallenstein_ in _Paul's Letters_, Letter XV.]

  [Footnote 265: Review of _Childe Harold_, _Canto III_, _Quarterly_,
  October, 1816.]

  [Footnote 266: In 1818 Scott wrote a review of _Frankenstein_ in which
  it appears that he thought Shelley was the author. Shelley had sent
  the book with a note in which he said that it was the work of a friend
  and he had merely seen it through the press; and Scott took this for
  the conventional evasion so often resorted to by authors. (See Mr.
  Lang's note in his Introduction to the Waverley Novels, p. lxxxvi.)
  Scott praises the substance and style of the book, and advises the
  author to cultivate his poetical powers, in words which make it
  evident that he did not know Shelley as a poet, though _Alastor_ had
  appeared in 1816. Scott also praises _Frankenstein_ in his article on
  Hoffmann. In reading Scott's novels I have noted two reminiscences of
  the line, "One word is too often profaned." They are to be found in
  _Old Mortality_, Vol. II, p. 93, and in _Redgauntlet_, Vol. I, p.
  224.]

  [Footnote 267: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 179.]

  [Footnote 268: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 40.]

  [Footnote 269: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 97.]

  [Footnote 270: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 333]

  [Footnote 271: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 190.]

  [Footnote 272: I quote from the letter as given in Knight's
  _Wordsworth_, Vol. II, p. 105. Prof. Knight says that Lockhart quotes
  the letter less exactly (Vol. I, p. 489.)]

  [Footnote 273: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 428.]

  [Footnote 274: Even Byron admired Southey. He once wrote, "His prose
  is perfect. Of his poetry there are various opinions: there is,
  perhaps, too much of it for the present generation; posterity will
  probably select. He has _passages_ equal to anything." (Byron's
  _Letters and Journals_, ed. Prothero, Vol. II, p. 331.) Shelley also
  had a high opinion of Southey's work. (Dowden's _Life of Shelley_,
  Vol. I, p. 158, and pp. 471-2.) Landor liked _Madoc_ and _Thalaba_ so
  much that, when he found Southey hesitating to write more poems of a
  similar kind because they did not pay, he offered to bear the expense
  of the publication. Southey refused the assistance, but was stimulated
  by the kindness and considered Landor's encouragement responsible for
  his later work in poetry. (Forster's _Life of Landor_, Vol. I, pp.
  209-214.)]

  [Footnote 275: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 307.]

  [Footnote 276: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 415.]

  [Footnote 277: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 477; see also _Edinburgh Annual
  Register_ for 1809, part 2, p. 588.]

  [Footnote 278: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 197.]

  [Footnote 279: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 127.]

  [Footnote 280: In his youth Scott read Dante with other Italian
  authors, but he did not become well acquainted with him, and later
  even expressed dislike for his work. (See _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 408.)
  In 1825 he wrote to W.S. Rose, "I will subscribe for Dante with all
  pleasure, on condition you do not insist on my reading him." (_Fam.
  Let._, Vol. II, p. 356.)]

  [Footnote 281: It may be interesting to have Southey's comment on the
  same article. (See _Southey's Letters_, Vol. II, p. 307.) He says,
  "Bedford has seen the review which Scott has written of it, and which,
  from his account, though a very friendly one, is, like that of the
  'Cid,' very superficial. He sees nothing but the naked story; the
  moral feeling which pervades it has escaped him. I do not know whether
  Bedford will be able to get a paragraph interpolated touching upon
  this, and showing that there is some difference between a work of high
  imagination and a story of mere amusement." Either Bedford was
  mistaken in saying that Scott had ignored the moral aspect of the
  poem, or else he succeeded in getting a passage interpolated, for the
  review is sufficiently definite on that point.]

  [Footnote 282: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 481.]

  [Footnote 283: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 296.]

  [Footnote 284: _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 413.]

  [Footnote 285: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 112; _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p.
  429.]

  [Footnote 286: _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 391.]

  [Footnote 287: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 211.]

  [Footnote 288: Introduction to _Marmion_; _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 82.]

  [Footnote 289: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 508.]

  [Footnote 290: Byron did not altogether approve of Scott's poetry, but
  he felt its effectiveness. In his "Reply to Blackwood's Edinburgh
  Magazine," Byron wrote: "What have we got instead [of following Pope]?
  A deluge of flimsy and unintelligible romances, imitated from Scott
  and myself, who have both made the best of our bad materials and
  erroneous system."]

  [Footnote 291: Review of _Childe Harold_, _Canto III_, _Quarterly_,
  October, 1816.]

  [Footnote 292: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 182.]

  [Footnote 293: It should be remembered also that Scott's first review
  of _Childe Harold_ appeared at a time when all England was condemning
  Byron for his treatment of Lady Byron, and that the article was
  thought by many to be altogether too lenient. Byron wrote to Murray
  expressing his pleasure in the review before he knew who was
  responsible for it, and some years later he wrote to Scott as follows:
  "To have been recorded by you in such a manner would have been a proud
  memorial at any time, but at such a time ... was something still
  higher to my self-esteem.... Had it been a common criticism, however
  eloquent or panegyrical, I should have felt pleased, undoubtedly, and
  grateful, but not to the extent which the extraordinary
  good-heartedness of the whole proceeding must induce in any mind
  capable of such sensations." (_Byron's Letters and Journals_, Vol. VI,
  p. 2.) See _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 510, for quotations from Byron
  showing his admiration for Scott. An interesting contrast between the
  characters of the two poets is drawn by H.S. Legaré. (See his
  _Collected Writings_, Vol. II, p. 258.)]

  [Footnote 294: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 221]

  [Footnote 295: _Remarks on the Death of Lord Byron_.]

  [Footnote 296: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 525]

  [Footnote 297: See Nichol's _Byron_ (English Men of Letters), p. 205;
  and Arnold's essay on Byron.]

  [Footnote 298: _Quarterly Review_, May, 1809.]

  [Footnote 299: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 341.]

  [Footnote 300: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 9.]

  [Footnote 301: _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 70.]

  [Footnote 302: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 306.]

  [Footnote 303: Byron said, "Crabbe's the man, but he has got a coarse
  and impracticable subject." (Moore's _Life and Letters of Byron_, Vol.
  IV, pp. 63-4.) Leslie Stephen remarks that Crabbe "was admired by
  Byron in his rather wayward mood of Pope-worship, as the last
  representative of the legitimate school." (_English Literature and
  Society in the 18th Century_, p. 207.)]

  [Footnote 304: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 197.]

  [Footnote 305: The reader will at once recall the ingenuous remark of
  Sophia Scott when she was asked, shortly after its appearance, how she
  liked _The Lady of the Lake_. She said, "Oh, I have not read it; Papa
  says there's nothing so bad for young people as reading bad poetry."
  (_Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 130. See also the _Life of Irving_, Vol. I,
  p. 444.)]

  [Footnote 306: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 94.]

  [Footnote 307: _Correspondence of C.K. Sharpe_, Vol. I, p. 353.]

  [Footnote 308: See _Marmion_, introduction to Canto III, and other
  passages noted by Adolphus in the _Letters to Heber_, p. 295. See also
  _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 198, and the passage in _Lockhart_
  (Vol. II, p. 132), in which James Ballantyne reports Scott as saying
  to him, "If you wish to speak of a real poet, Joanna Baillie is now
  the highest genius of our country."]

  [Footnote 309: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 306.]

  [Footnote 310: _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 359; also Vol. I, p. 255; and
  _Constable's Correspondence_, Vol. III, p. 300.]

  [Footnote 311: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 117.]

  [Footnote 312: _Ibid._, Vol. V, p. 448.]

  [Footnote 313: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 14.]

  [Footnote 314: _Forster_, Vol. I, p. 84, note.]

  [Footnote 315: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 95.]

  [Footnote 316: _Haydon's Correspondence_, Vol. I, p. 356.]

  [Footnote 317: Hunt says Scott was interested in reading _The Story of
  Rimini_. See Hunt's _Autobiography_, Vol. I, p. 260.]

  [Footnote 318: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 22. Scott wrote as follows to
  Lockhart after the appearance of _Lord Byron and Some of his
  Contemporaries_: "Hunt has behaved like a hyena to Byron, whom he has
  dug up to girn and howl over him in the same breath." Mr. Lang makes
  this comment: "Leigh Hunt ... had gone out of his way to insult Sir
  Walter and to make the most baseless insinuations against him. Scott
  probably never mentioned Leigh Hunt's name publicly in his life, and
  he refers to the insults neither in his correspondence nor in his
  _Journal_." (Lang's _Life of Lockhart_, Vol. II, pp. 22 and 24.) Hunt
  evidently thought that Scott was partly responsible for the articles
  in _Blackwood_ on the Cockney School. He says, "Unfortunately some of
  the knaves were not destitute of talent: the younger were tools of
  older ones who kept out of sight." (Hunt's _Lord Byron_, etc., Vol. I,
  p. 423.) In his _Autobiography_, Hunt says, "Sir Walter Scott
  confessed to Mr. Severn at Rome that the truth respecting Keats had
  prevailed." (Vol. II, p. 44.) Mr. Lang points out that though Colvin
  said of Scott (in his _Life of Keats_) "that he was in some measure
  privy to the Cockney School outrages seems certain," he afterwards
  recanted the statement. (In his edition of _Keats's Letters_, p. 60,
  note. See Lang's _Lockhart_, Vol. I, pp. 196-8.) Scott invited Lamb to
  Abbotsford when Lamb was looked upon as a leader of the Cockney
  School. (Lang's _Scott_, p. 52.)]

  [Footnote 319: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 155; _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 476,
  and Vol. V, p. 380.]

  [Footnote 320: _Quarterly_, October, 1815.]

  [Footnote 321: Postscript to _Waverley_, and General Introduction.]

  [Footnote 322: For references to the group of women novelists who were
  so successful in depicting manners, see the _Life of Charlotte Smith_;
  the Postscript to _Waverley_; the Introduction to _St. Ronan's Well_;
  _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 164.]

  [Footnote 323: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. III.]

  [Footnote 324: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 116.]

  [Footnote 325: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, 164.]

  [Footnote 326: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 299; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 65.]

  [Footnote 327: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 295; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 62.]

  [Footnote 328: The reference as given by Lockhart is as follows: "This
  man, who has shown so much genius, has a good deal of the manners, or
  want of manners, peculiar to his countrymen." (_Lockhart_, Vol. V, p.
  62.) Cooper observes in regard to this point: "The manners of most
  Europeans strike us as exaggerated, while we appear cold to them. Sir
  Walter Scott was certainly so obliging as to say many flattering
  things to me, which I, as certainly, did not repay in kind. As Johnson
  said of his interview with George the Third, it was not for me to
  bandy compliments with my sovereign. At that time the diary was a
  sealed book to the world, and I did not know the importance he
  attached to such civilities." It is a pity that the transcriber of the
  passage in the _Journal_ changed "manner," which was the word Scott
  wrote, to the more objectionable "manners." (_Journal_, Vol. I, p.
  295.)]

  [Footnote 329: Scott's letter was substantially as follows: "I have
  considered in all its bearings the matter which your kindness has
  suggested. Upon many former occasions I have been urged by my friends
  in America to turn to some advantage the sale of my writings in your
  country, and render that of pecuniary avail as an individual which I
  feel as the highest compliment as an author. I declined all these
  proposals, because the sale of this country produced me as much profit
  as I desired, and more--far more--than I deserved. But my late heavy
  losses have made my situation somewhat different, and have rendered it
  a point of necessity and even duty to neglect no means of making the
  sale of my works effectual to the extrication of my affairs, which can
  be honorably and honestly resorted to. If therefore Mr. Carey, or any
  other publishing gentleman of credit and character, should think it
  worth while to accept such an offer, I am willing to convey to him the
  exclusive right of publishing the _Life of Napoleon_, and my future
  works in America, making it always a condition, which indeed will be
  dictated by the publisher's own interest, that this monopoly shall not
  be used for the purpose of raising the price of the work to my
  American readers, but only for that of supplying the public at the
  usual terms....

  "At any rate, if what I propose should not be found of force to
  prevent piracy, I cannot but think from the generosity and justice of
  American feeling, that a considerable preference would be given in the
  market to the editions emanating directly from the publisher selected
  by the author, and in the sale of which the author had some interest.

  "If the scheme shall altogether fail, it at least infers no loss, and
  therefore is, I think, worth the experiment. It is a fair and open
  appeal to the liberality, perhaps in some sort to the justice, of a
  great people; and I think I ought not in the circumstances to decline
  venturing upon it. I have done so manfully and openly, though not
  perhaps without some painful feelings, which however are more than
  compensated by the interest you have taken in this unimportant matter,
  of which I will not soon lose the recollection." (_Knickerbocker
  Magazine_, Vol. XI, p. 380 ff., April, 1838.)]

  [Footnote 330: _Knickerbocker_, Vol. XII, p. 349 ff., October, 1838.]

  [Footnote 331: In a letter written in January, 1839, Sumner said,
  speaking of Cooper's article, "I think a proper castigation is applied
  to the vulgar minds of Scott and Lockhart." (See _Memoir and Letters
  of Charles Sumner_, by Edward L. Pierce, Vol. II, p. 38; and
  Lounsbury's _Cooper_, p. 160.)]

  [Footnote 332: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, pp. 163-4.]

  [Footnote 333: _Ibid._, Vol. III, p. 262.]

  [Footnote 334: _Ibid._, Vol. III, p. 131, note; _Fam. Let._, Vol. I,
  p. 440. "Walter Scott was the first transatlantic author to bear
  witness to the merit of Knickerbocker," wrote P.M. Irving in his _Life
  of Washington Irving_. Henry Brevoort presented Scott with a copy of
  the second edition in 1813, and received this reply: "I beg you to
  accept my best thanks for the uncommon degree of entertainment which I
  have received from the most excellently jocose history of New York. I
  am sensible that as a stranger to American parties and politics I must
  lose much of the concealed satire of the piece, but I must own that
  looking at the simple and obvious meaning only, I have never read
  anything so closely resembling the style of Dean Swift, as the annals
  of Diedrich Knickerbocker.... I think too there are passages which
  indicate that the author possesses powers of a different kind, and has
  some touches which remind me much of Sterne." (_Life of Irving_, Vol.
  I, p. 240.) When, in 1819, Irving needed money, he wrote to Scott for
  advice about publishing the _Sketch Book_ in England. "Scott was the
  only literary man," he says, "to whom I felt that I could talk about
  myself and my petty concerns with the confidence and freedom that I
  would to an old friend--nor was I deceived. From the first moment that
  I mentioned my work to him in a letter, he took a decided and
  effective interest in it, and has been to me an invaluable friend."
  (Vol. I, p. 456.) At this time Scott asked Irving to accept the
  editorship of a political newspaper in Edinburgh, an offer which
  Irving of course refused. (_Fam. Let._, Vol. II, p. 60; _Life of
  Irving_, Vol. I, pp. 441-2, and Vol. III, pp. 272-3.) Scott called the
  _Sketch Book_ "positively beautiful." He was by some people supposed
  to be the author. In this connection it was said of him that his "very
  numerous disguises," and his "well-known fondness for literary
  masquerading, seem to have gained him the advantage of being suspected
  as the author of every distinguished work that is published." (Letter
  by Lady Lyttleton, in _Life of Irving_, Vol. II, p. 21.)]

  [Footnote 335: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 131; _Life of Irving_, Vol. I,
  p. 240.]

  [Footnote 336: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 161.]

  [Footnote 337: _Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft_, Letter II.]

  [Footnote 338: _Constable's Correspondence_, Vol. III, p. 199.]

  [Footnote 339: _Lockhart_, Vol. V, pp. 100-104.]

  [Footnote 340: Vol. I, p. 371.]

  [Footnote 341: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 359; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 100.
  See also _Journal_, Vol. II, pp. 483-4.]

  [Footnote 342: Review of Hoffmann's novels, _Foreign Quarterly
  Review_, July, 1827.]

  [Footnote 343: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 19.]

  [Footnote 344: M. Maigron says, speaking of the vogue of Scott in
  France: "On peut affirmer mème que, de 1820 à 1830, aucun nom français
  ne fut en France aussi connu et aussi glorieux." (_Le Roman Historique
  à l'Époque Romantique_, p. 99. See also pp. 100-133.)]

  [Footnote 345: The phrase is quoted from Scott's article on the _Life
  and Works of John Home_, in which it is applied to Home's critical
  work. The same idea occurs frequently in Scott's books, as indicating
  one of the finest graces of life. It was one which Sir Walter was
  foremost in practicing in all his social relations.]

  [Footnote 346: He was talking about Pope. See the _Recollections_, by
  R.P. Gillies, _Fraser's_, xii: 253 (Sept., 1835).]

  [Footnote 347: Review of _The Battles of Talavera_, _Quarterly_,
  November, 1809.]

  [Footnote 348: Editor's Introduction to _Montrose_, Border edition of
  the Waverley Novels.]

  [Footnote 349: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 125.]

  [Footnote 350: _Quarterly_, January, 1817. Scott evidently wrote this
  article chiefly for the purpose of defending the historical accuracy
  of _Old Mortality_. He also wished to show that _The Black Dwarf_ was
  founded on fact; and he devoted some space, as will appear in the
  passage quoted below (pp. 111-112), to a discussion of the artistic
  aspects of these and the earlier Waverly novels.]

  [Footnote 351: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 269.]

  [Footnote 352: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 276.]

  [Footnote 353: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 96.]

  [Footnote 354: Introductory epistle to _Nigel_; _Fam. Let._, Vol. I,
  p. 28.]

  [Footnote 355: Introduction to the _Monastery_.]

  [Footnote 356: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 258.]

  [Footnote 357: _Rokeby_, Canto VI, stanza 26; _Waverley_, Vol. II, pp.
  399-400; _Journal_, Vol. 1, p. 117; _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, pp. 447-8.]

  [Footnote 358: Review of the _Life and Works of John Home_,
  _Quarterly_, June, 1827.]

  [Footnote 359: Review of Southery's _Life of Bunyan_, _Quarterly_,
  October, 1830.]

  [Footnote 360: _Quarterly_, January, 1817.]

  [Footnote 361: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, pp. 7-8.]

  [Footnote 362: _Quarterly_, November, 1809.]

  [Footnote 363: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 128.]

  [Footnote 364: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 129.]

  [Footnote 365: Epistle prefixed to Canto V.]

  [Footnote 366: Epistle prefixed to Canto III.]

  [Footnote 367: Hazlitt's _Spirit of the Age_, art. _Sir Walter Scott_;
  see _Letters to Heber_, p. 75 ff.]

  [Footnote 368: It is hard to say just how much he accomplished by the
  proof-reading, which, to judge by his Journal, he habitually
  performed. He wrote to Kirkpatrick Sharpe in 1809, after seeing a new
  number of the _Quarterly_: "I am a little disconcerted with the
  appearance of one or two of my own articles, which I have had no
  opportunity to revise in proof." (_Sharpe's Correspondence_, Vol. I,
  p. 370.) Lockhart gives an interesting sample of a sheet of Scott's
  poetry tentatively revised by Ballantyne and reworked by the author.
  (_Lockhart_, Vol. III, pp. 32-5.) It is certain that Ballantyne made
  many suggestions, some of which Scott accepted and some of which he
  summarily rejected. In Hogg's _Domestic Manners of Scott_ we find the
  following account of what the printer said when Hogg reported that Sir
  Walter was to correct some proofs for him: "He correct them for you!
  Lord help you and him both! I assure you if he had nobody to correct
  after him, there would be a bonny song through the country. He is the
  most careless and incorrect writer that ever was born, for a
  voluminous and popular writer, and as for sending a proof sheet to
  him, we may as well keep it in the office. He never heeds it.... He
  will never look at either your proofs or his own, unless it be for a
  few minutes amusement" (pp. 242-3). When he wrote to Miss Baillie that
  he had read the proofs of a play of hers which was being published in
  Edinburgh, he added, "but this will not ensure their being altogether
  correct, for in despite of great practice, Ballantyne insists I have a
  bad eye." (_Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 173.)]

  [Footnote 369: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 79; also 234 and 239;
  _Lockhart_, Vol. V, pp. 116 and 240.]

  [Footnote 370: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 117; _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p.
  448.]

  [Footnote 371: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, pp. 2 and 391.]

  [Footnote 372: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 72.]

  [Footnote 373: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 101.]

  [Footnote 374: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 113.]

  [Footnote 375: Essay on _Imitations of the Ancient Ballad_.]

  [Footnote 376: A friend of Scott's once wrote to him, "You are the
  only author I ever yet knew to whom one might speak plain about the
  faults found with his works." (_Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 282.) He
  took great pains, contrary to his usual custom, in revising and
  correcting the _Malachi Malagrowther_ papers, but these were
  argumentative and in an altogether different class from his poems and
  novels; and besides he felt a special responsibility in writing upon a
  public matter "far more important than anything referring to [his]
  fame or fortune alone." (_Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 460.)]

  [Footnote 377: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 379.]

  [Footnote 378: Introduction to the _Pirate_.]

  [Footnote 379: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 250.]

  [Footnote 380: This was, of course, an effect of overwork and disease.
  Irving quotes Scott as saying: "It is all nonsense to tell a man that
  his mind is not affected, when his body is in this state." (_Irving's
  Life_, Vol. II, p. 459.)]

  [Footnote 381: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 181.]

  [Footnote 382: See _Lockhart_, Vol. II, pp. 265-6.]

  [Footnote 383: _Journal_, Vol. I, pp. 212-13; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p.
  13.]

  [Footnote 384: See _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 309; _Lockhart_,
  Vol. I, p. 216; Vol. IV, pp. 128 and 498; Vol. V, pp. 128, 412, 448.]

  [Footnote 385: _Correspondence of C.K. Sharpe_, Vol. I, p. 352.]

  [Footnote 386: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 276. In the _Edinburgh Annual
  Register_ for 1808 (published 1810) is an article on the _Living Poets
  of Great Britain_, which if not written by Scott was evidently
  influenced by him. Speaking of Southey, Campbell and Scott, the writer
  says: "Were we set to classify their respective admirers we should be
  apt to say that those who feel poetry most enthusiastically prefer
  Southey; those who try it by the most severe rules admire Campbell;
  while the general mass of readers prefer to either the Border Poet. In
  this arrangement we should do Mr. Scott no injustice, because we
  assign to him in the number of suffrages what we deny him in their
  value." He once wrote to Miss Baillie, "No one can both eat his cake
  and have his cake, and I have enjoyed too extensive popularity in this
  generation to be entitled to draw long-dated bills upon the applause
  of the next." (_Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 173.) But in the
  Introductory Epistle to _Nigel_ he said, "It has often happened that
  those who have been best received in their own time have also
  continued to be acceptable to posterity. I do not think so ill of the
  present generation as to suppose that its present favour necessarily
  infers future condemnation."]

  [Footnote 387: Introduction to the _Lady of the Lake_; _Lockhart_,
  Vol. II, p. 130.]

  [Footnote 388: Introduction to _Chronicles of the Canongate_.]

  [Footnote 389: _Journal_, Vol. II, p 473.]

  [Footnote 390: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 355.]

  [Footnote 391: _Ibid._, Vol. V, p. 164.]

  [Footnote 392: See speech of Humphry Gubbin, in _The Tender Husband_,
  Act I, Sc. 2.]

  [Footnote 393: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p 297; see also _Familiar
  Letters_, Vol. I, p. 55.]

  [Footnote 394: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, pp. 104 and 124.]

  [Footnote 395: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 222; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 18.]

  [Footnote 396: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 350.]

  [Footnote 397: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 508.]

  [Footnote 398: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 229.]

  [Footnote 399: When Constable was proposing to publish the poetry of
  the novels separately, Scott wrote to him that it was beyond his own
  power to distinguish what was original from what was borrowed, and
  suggested the following Advertisement for the book:

  "We believe by far the greater part of the poetry interspersed through
  these novels to be original compositions by the author. At the same
  time the reader will find passages which are quoted from other
  authors, and may probably debit more of these than our more limited
  reading has enabled us to ascertain. Indeed, it is our opinion that
  some of the following poetry is neither entirely original nor
  altogether borrowed, but consists in some instances of passages from
  other authors, which the author has not hesitated to alter
  considerably, either to supply defects of his own memory, or to adapt
  the quotation more explicitly and aptly to the matter in hand."
  (_Constable's Correspondence_, Vol. III, pp. 222-3.)]

  [Footnote 400: "I have taught nearly a hundred gentlemen to fence very
  nearly, if not altogether, as well as myself," he said. (_Journal_,
  Vol. I, p. 167. See also pp. 273-5.)]

  [Footnote 401: _Journal_, Vol. I, pp. 275-6; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p.
  45.]

  [Footnote 402: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, pp. 322 and 492; Vol. V, p. 186.]

  [Footnote 403: _Ibid._, Vol. IV, p. 110.]

  [Footnote 404: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 106, and _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p.
  162.]

  [Footnote 405: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, pp. 33-4.]

  [Footnote 406: _Ibid._, Vol. III, p. 259.]

  [Footnote 407: _Waverley_, Vol. I, pp. 112-3. See also Mackenzie's
  _Life of Scott_, p. 364.]

  [Footnote 408: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 29.]

  [Footnote 409: _Journal_, Vol. I, pp. 274-5; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p.
  44. See also his review of Godwin's _Life of Chaucer_.]

  [Footnote 410: _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 103.]

  [Footnote 411: _Ibid._, Vol. IV, p. 260.]

  [Footnote 412: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 96.]

  [Footnote 413: Review of Tytler's _History of Scotland_, _Quarterly_,
  November, 1829.]

  [Footnote 414: _Southey's Letters_, Vol. IV, p. 62.]

  [Footnote 415: Herford's _Age of Wordsworth_, pp. 39-40.]

  [Footnote 416: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 60.]

  [Footnote 417: _Paul's Letters_, Letter XVI.]

  [Footnote 418: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 320.]

  [Footnote 419: On Goethe's favorable opinion of the _Napoleon_, see a
  letter given in the appendix to Scott's _Journal_ (Vol. II, pp. 485-6
  and note).]

  [Footnote 420: Carlyle's _Essay on Scott_. See also Taine's _History
  of English Literature_, Introduction, I.]

  [Footnote 421: Review of _Metrical Romances_, _Edinburgh Review_,
  January, 1806.]

  [Footnote 422: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 333.]

  [Footnote 423: _The Pirate_, Vol. II, p. 138.]

  [Footnote 424: Introductory Epistle to _Ivanhoe_. Freeman, in his
  _Norman Conquest_, vigorously attacks _Ivanhoe_ for its unwarranted
  picture of the relations between Saxons and Normans in the thirteenth
  century. (Vol. V, pp. 551-561.)]

  [Footnote 425: Mr. Lang points out that he made many written notes of
  his reading, as we should hardly expect a man of his unrivalled memory
  to do. (_Life of Scott_, p. 27.)]

  [Footnote 426: _Constable's Correspondence_, Vol. III, p. 161.]

  [Footnote 427: _Constable's Correspondence_, Vol. III, pp. 93-4.]

  [Footnote 428: _Letters of Lady Louisa Stuart_, p. 247.]

  [Footnote 429: Mr. Lang's theory that Scott was responsible for a
  decline in serious reading cannot be either proved or refuted
  completely, but more than one man has given personal testimony
  concerning the stimulating effect of the Waverley novels. Thierry's
  _Norman Conquest_ was directly inspired by _Ivanhoe_, and with
  _Ivanhoe_ is condemned by Freeman for its mistaken views. Mr. Andrew
  D. White says in his _Autobiography_ that _Quentin Durward_ and _Anne
  of Geierstein_ led him to see the first that he had ever clearly
  discerned of the great principles that "lie hidden beneath the surface
  of events"--"the secret of the centralization of power in Europe, and
  of the triumph of monarchy over feudalism." (Vol. I, pp. 15-16.)]

  [Footnote 430: Scott had theories as to what children's books ought to
  be. They should stir the imagination, he said, instead of simply
  imparting knowledge as certain scientific books attempted to do.
  (_Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 27.) But he seriously objected to any attempt
  to write down to the understanding of children. Of the _Tales of a
  Grandfather_ he said: "I will make, if possible, a book that a child
  shall understand, yet a man will feel some temptation to peruse,
  should he chance to take it up." (_Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 112. See also
  _ib._, Vol. I, p. 19.) Anatole France has expressed ideas about
  children's books which are practically the same as those of Scott.
  (See _Le Livre de Mon Ami_, 3me partie: "A Madame D * * *.")]

  [Footnote 431: Introduction to _The Fortunes of Nigel_.]

  [Footnote 432: See the Introduction to _Waverley_.]

  [Footnote 433: Introductory Epistle to _Ivanhoe_.]

  [Footnote 434: _Ibid._ In _Old Mortality_, Claverhouse was made to use
  the phrase "sentimental speeches," but when Lady Louisa Stuart pointed
  out to Scott that the word "sentimental" was modern, he struck it out
  of the second edition.]

  [Footnote 435: Introductory Epistle to _Ivanhoe_. For other references
  to the use of a moderately antique diction see the essays on Walpole
  and Clara Reeve in _Lives of the Novelists_, and the review of
  Southey's _Amadis de Gaul_, _Edinburgh Review_, October, 1803.]

  [Footnote 436: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 226.]

  [Footnote 437: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 319.]

  [Footnote 438: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 216.]

  [Footnote 439: _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 323.]

  [Footnote 440: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 40.]

  [Footnote 441: Introduction to _Chronicles of the Canongate_. See also
  _Letters to Heber_, pp. 128-32, and 154; and Ruskin's analysis of
  Scott's descriptions: _Modern Painters_, Part IV, ch. 16, § 23 ff.]

  [Footnote 442: See particularly his reviews of _Childe Harold_, _Canto
  III_, _Quarterly_, October, 1816; and of Southey's translation of the
  _Amadis de Gaul_, _Edinburgh Review_, October, 1803.]

  [Footnote 443: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, pp. 232-3.]

  [Footnote 444: Quoted in _Wordsworth_ (English Men of Letters) by
  F.W.H. Myers, p. 143.]

  [Footnote 445: _Recollections of Scott_, by R.P. Gillies. _Fraser's_,
  xii: 254.]

  [Footnote 446: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 62.]

  [Footnote 447: _Journal_, Vol. I, p. 155, and Vol. II, p. 37;
  _Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 476, and Vol. V, p. 380.]

  [Footnote 448: In the discussion of _Lives of the Novelists_.]

  [Footnote 449: See his _Essay on Scott_.]

  [Footnote 450: _Dryden_, Vol. XIV, p. 136.]

  [Footnote 451: _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 415, and Introductory Epistle to
  _Nigel_.]

  [Footnote 452: _Letters to Heber_, p. 44.]

  [Footnote 453: _Op. cit._, p. 120.]

  [Footnote 454: _My Aunt Margaret's Mirror_.]

  [Footnote 455: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 8.]

  [Footnote 456: Review of Hoffmann's Novels, _Foreign Quarterly
  Review_, July, 1827.]

  [Footnote 457: _Letters to R. Polwhele_, etc., p. 102.]

  [Footnote 458: Lodge's _Illustrious Personages_, Preface.]

  [Footnote 459: Article on Molière, _Foreign Quarterly Review_,
  February, 1828.]

  [Footnote 460: _Three Studies in Literature_, p. 12.]

  [Footnote 461: _Edinburgh Review_, No. 1, October, 1802: review of
  _Thalaba_.]

  [Footnote 462: _Three Studies in Literature_, p. 38.]

  [Footnote 463: _Dryden_, Vol. XI, p. 26.]

  [Footnote 464: Herford, _op. cit._, pp. 51-2.]

  [Footnote 465: _Essay on the Drama_.]

  [Footnote 466: Wylie, _Studies in Criticism_, pp. 107-8.]

  [Footnote 467: _Table Talk_, August 4, 1833. _Works_, Vol. VI, p.
  472.]

  [Footnote 468: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. II, p. 402.]

  [Footnote 469: Article on Scott's _Demonology and Witchcraft_,
  _Fraser's_, December, 1830.]

  [Footnote 470: Mackenzie's _Life of Scott_, p. 118.]

  [Footnote 471: _The Plain Speaker_, Hazlitt's _Works_, Vol. VII, p.
  345.]

  [Footnote 472: _Dryden_, Vol. I, p. 342. See above, pp. 136-7.]

  [Footnote 473: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, p. 84.]

  [Footnote 474: _Life of Bage_, in _Novelists' Library_.]

  [Footnote 475: _Essay on Judicial Reform_, _Edinburgh Annual
  Register_, Vol. I, pt. 2, p. 352. Everyone knows that Scott was a
  decided Tory, and it is commonly supposed that he was an extremely
  prejudiced partisan. But he closes a political passage in _Woodstock_
  with these words: "We hasten to quit political reflections, the rather
  that ours, we believe, will please neither Whig nor Tory." (End of
  Chapter 11.) From the definitions of Whig and Tory given in the _Tales
  of a Grandfather_, no one could guess his politics. (Chapter 53.)]

  [Footnote 476: Leigh Hunt's _Autobiography_, Vol. I, p. 263. See also
  pp. 258-260, and the notes on his _Feast of the Poets_.]

  [Footnote 477: Courthope's _Liberal Movement_, p. 122.]

  [Footnote 478: _Life of Murray_, Vol. II, p. 159.]

  [Footnote 479: _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 232]

  [Footnote 480: _Macmillan's Magazine_, lxx: 326.]

  [Footnote 481: Newman's _Apologia_, pp. 96-97. Mark Twain thinks the
  influence of the novels was pernicious. He says: "A curious
  exemplification of the power of a single book for good or harm is
  shown in the effects wrought by Don Quixote and those wrought by
  Ivanhoe. The first swept the world's admiration for the mediaeval
  chivalry-silliness out of existence; and the other restored it.... Sir
  Walter had so large a hand in making Southern character, as it existed
  before the war, that he is in great measure responsible for the war."
  (_Life on the Mississippi_, ch. xlvi.)]

  [Footnote 482: _Familiar Letters_, Vol. I, pp. 216-17. See also his
  remarks upon booksellers in his review of Pitcairn's _Ancient Criminal
  Trials_, _Quarterly_, February, 1831.]

  [Footnote 483: _Fraser's_, xiii: 693.]

  [Footnote 484: Essay on Dunbar in _Ephemera Critica_.]

  [Footnote 485: _English Historical Review_, vi: 97.]

  [Footnote 486: _Life, Letters and Journals of George Ticknor_, Vol. I,
  p. 283.]

  [Footnote 487: Carlyle's _Essay on Scott_.]

  [Footnote 488: _Lockhart_, Vol. II, p. 9.]

  [Footnote 489: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 259; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p.
  248.]

  [Footnote 490: _Dryden_, Vol. I, conclusion.]

  [Footnote 491: _British Novelists and their Styles_, p. 204.]

  [Footnote 492: _Journal_, Vol. II, p. 173; _Lockhart_, Vol. V, p. 99.]

  [Footnote 493: _History of Criticism_, Vol. I, p. 156.]

  [Footnote 494: _Recollections of Scott_ by R.P. Gillies, _Fraser's_,
  xii: 688.]