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.