_Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine_ was the result of more stringent stimuli, however, than the restlessness of its founder. It was necessary that the sentiments of those opposed to Jeffrey and the _Edinburgh Review_ should have a medium of expression. Blackwood considered the _Quarterly_ “too ponderous, too sober, dignified and middle-aged”[20] to frustrate the influence of the _Edinburgh_. It was not stimulating, in other words, and the present day agrees with him. His ideal was a magazine “more nimble, more frequent, more familiar”. But not least among the many stirrings of mind and brain which gave rise to “Maga” was Blackwood’s disappointment over the loss of the Waverley series. The honesty and courage of the man need no other evidence than the fact that he criticised “The Black Dwarf” and even suggested a different ending. Scott, of course, would have none of his meddling, and transferred his future dealings to Constable, publisher of the despised _Edinburgh Review_, and the _Scots Magazine_, which was at that moment more or less insignificant. It is evident that Blackwood did not take pains to seek out any specious circumlocution in his criticism, and the idea that any man should criticise the Great Wizard of the North brings a catch to the breath and a tingling down one’s spinal column! [20] Mrs. Oliphant: _Annals of a Publishing House_, V. i, p. 97 There is no doubt that the politics, the conceit, the unappreciative and at times irreligious tone of the _Edinburgh Review_ were the main reasons for the bitter hatred of the _Blackwood_ writers; but there is less doubt that thus to lose the Waverley series was a last incendiary straw to William Blackwood. He immediately set about putting in action the plans which had been smouldering so long.