Mr. Elton has already been commented on in the chapter on clergymen; a more perfect match than he and his vulgar flashy wife would be difficult to find. As for Jane’s traits of character in regard to the hero and his brother, her genius cannot be better expressed than in the words of Mr. Herries Pollock, who calls it “the finely touched likeness and unlikeness between the brothers Knightley. At every turn of phrase, at every step so to speak, one knows which is the better man, and yet the point is never pressed by the author.” Though on the whole the book has less _verve_ than _Pride and Prejudice_, it is rich in observation and quiet humour. It was published by Mr. Murray in December 1815. Jane says of it— “My greatest anxiety at present is that this fourth work should not disgrace what was good in the others. But on this point I will do myself the justice to declare that, whatever may be my wishes for its success, I am strongly haunted with the idea that to those readers who have preferred _Pride and Prejudice_ it will appear inferior in wit, and to those who have preferred _Mansfield Park_ inferior in good sense.” (Mr. Austen-Leigh’s _Memoir_.) A reviewer in _The Quarterly_ of the autumn 1815 includes _Emma_ with other works of the same writer. It has been supposed, therefore, that the proof sheets must have been in the hands of the _Quarterly_ reviewer before the work was actually issued. Mr. Austin-Dobson, by application to Mr. Murray, cleared up the difficulty, for he ascertained that, owing to exceptional delays, the number of the Review bearing date October 1815 did not in reality come out until March 1816, and that therefore _Emma_ had actually appeared before its production. The reviewer was Sir Walter Scott, as is stated by Lockhart in a note to the _Life_, who adds that _Emma_ and _Northanger Abbey_ were in particular great favourites of Scott’s. In his summary at the end of the article, Sir Walter Scott says— “The author’s knowledge of the world and the peculiar tact with which she presents characters that the reader cannot fail to recognise, reminds us something of the merits of the Flemish school of painting. The subjects are not often elegant and certainly never grand; but they are finished up to nature, and with a precision which delights the reader.” “The faults on the contrary arise from the minute detail which the author’s plan comprehends. Characters of folly or simplicity such as those of old Woodhouse and Miss Bates, are ridiculous when first presented, but if too often brought forward, or too long dwelt upon, their prosing is apt to become as tiresome in fiction as in real society.”