Historical fiction; Jacobite Rebellion, 1745-1746 -- Fiction; Scotland -- History -- 18th century -- Fiction
Through his whole life he remained the dreamer of dreams and teller of
wild legends, who had held the lads of the High School entranced round
Luckie Brown’s fireside, and had fleeted the summer days in interchange
of romances with a schoolboy friend, Mr. Irving, among the hills that
girdle Edinburgh. He ever had a passion for “knights and ladies and
dragons and giants,” and “God only knows,” he says, “how delighted I
was to find myself in such society.” But with all this delight, his
imagination had other pleasures than the fantastic: the humours and
passions of ordinary existence were as clearly visible to him as the
battles, the castles, and the giants. True, he was more fastidious in
his choice of novels of real life than in his romantic reading. “The
whole Jemmy and Jessamy tribe I abhorred,” he said; “and it required
the art of Burney or the feeling of Mackenzie to fix my attention upon
a domestic tale.” But when the domestic tale was good and true, no man
appreciated it more than he. None has more vigorously applauded Miss
Austen than Scott, and it was thus that as the “Author of ‘Waverley’”
he addressed Miss Edgeworth, through James Ballantyne: “If I could but
hit Miss Edgeworth’s wonderful power of vivifying all her persons, and
making them live as _beings_ in your mind, I should not be afraid.”
“Often,” Ballantyne goes on, “has the Author of ‘Waverley’ used such
language to me; and I knew that I gratified him most when I could say,
‘Positively, this _is_ equal to Miss Edgeworth.’”
[* Abbotsford Manuscripts. Hogg averred that nobody either read or
wrote poetry after Sir Walter took to prose.]
Thus Scott’s own taste was catholic: and in this he was particularly
unlike the modern novelists, who proclaim, from both sides of the
Atlantic, that only in their own methods, and in sharing their own
exclusive tastes, is literary salvation. The prince of Romance was no
one-sided _romanticiste;_ his ear was open to all fiction good in its
kind. His generosity made him think Miss Edgeworth’s persons more alive
than his own. To his own romances he preferred Mrs. Shelley’s
“Frankenstein.”[*] As a critic, of course, he was mistaken; but his was
the generous error of the heart, and it is the heart in Walter Scott,
even more than the brain, that lends its own vitality to his creations.
Equipped as he was with a taste truly catholic, capable in old age of
admiring “Pelham,” he had the power to do what he calls “the big
bow-wow strain;” yet he was not, as in his modesty he supposed, denied
“the exquisite touch which renders ordinary commonplace things and
characters interesting, from the truth of the description and the
sentiment.”[**]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account