It is pretty universally known, and must have been perceived even from the foregoing summary, that Scott was by no means a very precocious writer.  He takes rank, indeed, neither with those who, according to a famous phrase, ‘break out threescore thousand strong’ in youth; nor with those who begin original composition betimes, and by degrees arrive at excellence; nor yet with those who do not display any aptitude for letters till late in life.  His class ­a fourth, which, at least as regards the greater names of literature, is perhaps the smallest of all ­comprises those who may almost be said to drift into literary work and literary fame, whose first production is not merely tentative and unoriginal, but, so to speak, accidental, who do not discover their real faculty for literary work till after a pretty long course of casual literary play.

Part of this was no doubt due to the fact ­vouched for sufficiently, and sufficiently probable, though not, so far as I know, resting on any distinct and firsthand documentary evidence ­that Walter Scott the elder had, even more than his eidolon the elder Fairford, that horror of literary employment on the part of his son which was for generations a tradition among persons of business, and which is perhaps not quite extinct yet.  For this opposition, as is well known, rather stimulates than checks, even in dutiful offspring, the noble rage.  It was due partly, perhaps, to a metaphysical cause ­the fact that until Scott was well past his twentieth year, the wind of the spirit was not yet blowing, that the new poetical and literary day had not yet dawned; and partly to a more commonplace reason or set of reasons.  About 1790 literary work was extremely badly paid; and, even if it had been paid better, Scott had no particular need of money.  Till his marriage he lived at home, spent his holidays with friends, or on tours where the expenses were little or nothing, and obtained sufficient pocket-money, first by copying while he was still apprenticed to his father, then by his fees when he was called.  He could, as he showed later, spend money royally when he had it or thought he had it; but he was a man of no extravagant tastes of the ordinary kind, and Edinburgh was not in his days at all an extravagant place of living.  Even when he married, he was by no means badly off.  His wife, though not exactly an heiress, had means which had been estimated at five hundred a year, and which seem never to have fallen below two hundred; Scott’s fees averaged about another two hundred; he evidently had an allowance from his father (who had been very well off, and was still not poor), and before very long the Sheriffship of Selkirkshire added three hundred more, though he seems to have made this an excuse for giving up practice, which he had never much liked.  His father’s death in 1799 put him in possession of some property; legacies from relations added more.  Before the publication of the Lay (when he was barely three-and-thirty), Lockhart estimates his income, leaving fees and literary work out of the question, at nearly if not quite a thousand a year; and a thousand a year at the beginning of the century went as far as fifteen hundred, if not two thousand, at its close.

Thus, with no necessity to live by his pen, with no immediate or extraordinary temptation to use it for gain, and as yet, it would seem, with no overmastering inducement from his genius to do so, while he at no time of his life felt any stimulus from vanity, it is not surprising that it was long before Scott began to write in earnest.  A few childish verse translations and exercises of his neither encourage nor forbid any particular expectations of literature from him; they are neither better nor worse than those of hundreds, probably thousands, of boys every year.  His first published performance, now of extreme rarity, and not, of course, produced with any literary object, was his Latin call-thesis on the rather curious subject (which has been, not improbably, supposed to be connected with his German studies and the terror-literature of the last decade of the century) of the disposal of the dead bodies of legally executed persons.  His first English work was directly the result of the said German studies, to which, like many of his contemporaries, he had been attracted by fashion.  It consisted of nothing more than the well-known translations of Buerger’s Lenore and Wild Huntsman, which were issued in a little quarto volume by Manners & Miller of Edinburgh, in October 1796 ­a date which has the special interest of suggesting that Scott sought some refuge in literature from the agony of his rejection by Miss Stuart.

These well-known translations, or rather imitations, the first published under the title of William and Helen, which it retains, the other as The Chase, which was subsequently altered to the better and more literal rendering, show unmistakably the result of the study of ballads, both in the printed forms and as orally delivered.  Some crudities of rhyme and expression are said to have been corrected at the instance of one of Scott’s (at this time rather numerous) Egerias, the beautiful wife of his kinsman, Scott of Harden, a young lady partly of German extraction, but of the best English breeding.  Slight books of the kind, even translations, made a great deal more mark sometimes in those days than they would in these; but there were a great many translations of Lenore about, and except by Scott’s friends, little notice was taken of the volume.  There were some excuses for the neglect, the best perhaps being that English criticism at the time was at nearly as low an ebb as English poetry.  A really acute critic could hardly have mistaken the difference between Scott’s verse and the fustian or tinsel of the Della Cruscans, the frigid rhetoric of Darwin, or the drivel of Hayley.  Only Southey had as yet written ballad verses with equal vigour and facility; and, I think, he had not yet published any of them.  It is Scott who tells us that he borrowed

    ’Tramp, tramp, along the land they rode,       Splash, splash, along the sea,’

from Taylor of Norwich; but Taylor himself had the good taste to see how much it was improved by the completion ­

    ’The scourge is red, the spur drops blood,       The fashing pebbles flee’ ­

which last line, indeed, Coleridge himself hardly bettered in the not yet written Ancient Mariner, the ne plus ultra of the style.  It must be mainly a question of individual taste whether the sixes and eights of the Lenore version or the continued eights of the Huntsman please most.  But any one who knows what the present state of British poetry was in October 1796 will be more than indifferently well satisfied with either.

It was never Scott’s way to be cast down at the failure or the neglect of any of his work; nor does he seem to have been ever actuated by the more masculine but perhaps equally childish determination to ’do it again’ and ‘shame the fools.’  It seems quite on the cards that he might have calmly acquiesced in want of notoriety, and have continued a mere literary lawyer, with a pretty turn or verse and a great amount of reading, if his most intimate friend, William Erskine, had not met ‘Monk’ Lewis in London, and found him anxious for contributions to his Tales of Wonder.  Lewis was a coxcomb, a fribble, and the least bit in the world of a snob:  his Monk is not very clean fustian, and most of his other work rubbish.  But he was, though not according to knowledge, a sincere Romantic; he had no petty jealousy in matters literary; and, above all, he had, as Scott recognised, but as has not been always recognised since, a really remarkable and then novel command of flowing but fairly strict lyrical measures, the very things needed to thaw the frost of the eighteenth-century couplet.  Erskine offered, and Lewis gladly accepted, contributions from Scott, and though Tales of Wonder were much delayed, and did not appear till 1801, the project directly caused the production of Scott’s first original work in ballad, Glenfinlas and The Eve of St. John, as well as the less important pieces of the Fire King, Frederick and Alice, etc.

In Glenfinlas and The Eve the real Scott first shows, and the better of the two is the second.  It is not merely that, though Scott had a great liking for and much proficiency in ‘eights,’ that metre is never so effective for ballad purposes as eights and sixes; nor that, as Lockhart admits, Glenfinlas exhibits a Germanisation which is at the same time an adulteration; nor even that, well as Scott knew the Perthshire Highlands, they could not appeal to him with the same subtle intimacy of touch as that possessed by the ruined tower where, as a half-paralysed infant, he had been herded with the lambs.  But all these causes together, and others, join to produce a freer effect in The Eve.  The eighteenth century is farther off; the genuine mediaeval inspiration is nearer.  And it is especially noticeable that, as in most of the early performances of the great poetical periods, an alteration of metrical etiquette (as we may call it) plays a great part.  Scott had not yet heard that recitation of Christabel which had so great an effect on his work, and through it on the work of others.  But he had mastered for himself, and by study of the originals, the secret of the Christabel metre, that is to say, the wide licence of equivalence in trisyllabic and dissyllabic feet, of metre catalectic or not, as need was, of anacrusis and the rest.  As is natural to a novice, he rather exaggerates his liberties, especially in the cases where the internal rhyme seduces him.  It is necessary not merely to slur, but to gabble, in order to get some of these into proper rhythm, while in other places the mistake is made of using so many anapaests that the metre becomes, not as it should be, iambic, with anapaests for variation, but anapaestic without even a single iamb.  But these are ‘sma’ sums, sma’ sums,’ as saith his own Bailie Jarvie, and on the whole the required effect of vigour and variety, of narrative giving place to terror and terror to narrative is capitally achieved.  Above all, in neither piece, in the less no more than in the more successful, do we find anything of what the poet has so well characterised in one of his early reviews as the ’spurious style of tawdry and affected simplicity which trickles through the legendary ditties’ of the eighteenth century.  ‘The hunt is up’ in earnest; and we are chasing the tall deer in the open hills, not coursing rabbits with toy terriers on a bowling-green.

The writing of these pieces had, however, been preceded by the publication of Scott’s second volume, the translation of Goetz von Berlichingen, for which Lewis had arranged with a London bookseller, so that this time the author was not defrauded of his hire.  He received twenty-five guineas, and was to have as much more for a second edition, which the short date of copyright forestalled.  The book appeared in February 1799, and received more attention than the ballads, though, as Lockhart saw, it was in fact belated, the brief English interest in German Sturm und Drang having ceased directly, though indirectly it gave Byron much of his hold on the public a dozen years later.  At about the same time Scott executed, but did not publish, an original, or partly original, dramatic work of the same kind, The House of Aspen, which he contributed thirty years later to The Keepsake.  Few good words have ever been said for this, and perhaps not many persons have ever cared much for the Goetz, either in the original or in the translation.  Goethe did not, in drama at least, understand adventurous matter, and Scott had no grasp of dramatic form.

It has been said that there was considerable delay in the publication of the Tales of Wonder; and some have discussed what direct influence this delay had on Scott’s further and further advance into the waters of literature.  It is certain that he at one time thought of publishing his contributions independently, and that he did actually print a few copies of them privately; and it is extremely probable that his little experiments in publication, mere hors-d’oeuvre as they were, had whetted his appetite.  Even the accident of his friend Ballantyne’s having taken to publishing a newspaper, and having room at his press for what I believe printers profanely call ‘job-work,’ may not have been without influence.  What is certain is that the project of editing a few Border ballads ­a selection of his collection which might make ’a neat little volume of four or five shillings’ ­was formed roughly in the late autumn of 1799, and had taken very definite shape by April 1800.  Heber, the great bibliophile and brother of the Bishop, introduced Scott to that curious person Leyden, whose gifts, both original and erudite, are undoubted, although perhaps his exile and early death have not hurt their fame.  And it so happened that Leyden was both an amateur of old ballads and (for the two things went together then, though they are sternly kept apart now) a skilful fabricator of new.  The impetuous Borderer pooh-poohed a ‘thin thing’ such as a four or five shilling book, and Scott, nothing loath, extended his project.  Most of his spare time during 1800 and 1801 was spent on it; and besides corresponding with the man who ‘fished this murex up,’ Bishop Percy, he entered into literary relations with Joseph Ritson.  Even Ritson’s waspish character seems to have been softened by Scott’s courtesy, and perhaps even more by the joint facts that he had as yet attained no literary reputation, and neither at this nor at any other time gave himself literary airs.  He also made the acquaintance of George Ellis, who became a warm and intimate friend.  These were the three men of the day who, since Warton’s death, knew most of early English poetry, and though Percy was too old to help, the others were not.

The scheme grew and grew, especially by the inclusion in it of the publication not merely of ballads, but of the romance of Sir Tristrem (of the authorship of which by someone else than Thomas the Rhymer, Scott never would be convinced), till the neat four or five shilling volume was quite out of the question.  When at last the two volumes of the first (Kelso) edition appeared in 1802, not merely was Sir Tristrem omitted, but much else which, still without ’the knight who fought for England,’ subsequently appeared in a third.  The earliest form of the Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border is a very pretty book; it deservedly established the fame of Ballantyne as a printer, and as it was not printed in the huge numbers which have reduced the money value of Sir Walter’s later books, it is rather surprising that it is not more sought after than it is at present.  My copy ­I do not know whether by exception or not ­wears the rather unusual livery of pink boards instead of the common blue, grey, or drab.  The paper and type are excellent; the printing (with a few slips in the Latin quotations such as concedunt for comedunt) is very accurate, and the frontispiece, a view of Hermitage Castle in the rain, has the interest of presenting what is said to have been a very faithful view of the actual state of Lord Soulis’ stronghold and the place of the martyrdom of Ramsay, attained by the curious stages of (1) a drawing by Scott, who could not draw at all; (2) a rifacimento by Clerk, who had never seen the place; and (3) an engraving by an artist who was equally innocent of local knowledge.

The book, however, which brought in the modest profit of rather less than eighty pounds, would have been of equal moment under whatever guise it had pleased to assume.  The shock of Percy’s Reliques was renewed, and in a far more favourable atmosphere, before a far better prepared audience.  The public indeed had not yet been ‘ground-baited’ up to the consummation of thousands of copies of poetry as they were later by Scott himself and Byron; but an edition of eight hundred copies went off in the course of the year, and a second, with the additional volume, was at once called for.  It contained, indeed, not much original verse, though ‘Glenfinlas’ and ‘The Eve,’ with Leyden’s ‘Coût of Keeldar,’ ‘Lord Soulis,’ etc., appeared in it after a fashion which Percy had set and Evans had continued.  But the ballads, familiar as they have become since, not merely in the Minstrelsy itself, but in a hundred fresh collections, selections, and what not, could never be mistaken by anyone fitted to appreciate them.  ‘The Outlaw Murray,’ with its rub-a-dub of e rhymes throughout, opens the book very cunningly, with something not of the best, but good enough to excite expectation, ­an expectation surely not to be disappointed by the immortal agony (dashed with one stroke of magnificent wrath) of ‘Helen of Kirkconnell,’ the bustle, frolic, and battle-joy of the Border pieces proper, the solemn notes of ‘The Lyke-Wake Dirge,’ the eeriness of ‘Clerk Saunders’ and ‘The Wife of Usher’s Well.’

Even Percy had not been lucky enough to hit upon anything so characteristic of the average ballad style at its best as the opening stanza of ’Fause Foodrage’ ­

    ’King Easter courted her for her lands,       King Wester for her fee,     King Honour for her comely face       And for her fair bodie’;

and Percy would no doubt have been tempted to ‘polish’ such more than average touches as Margaret’s ‘turning,’ without waking, in the arms of her lover as he receives his deathblow, or as the incomparable stanza in ‘The Wife of Usher’s Well’ which tells how ­

    ’By the gates of Paradise       That birk grew fair enough.’

Those who study literature in what they are pleased to call a scientific manner have, as was to be expected, found fault (mildly or not, according to their degree of sense and taste) with Scott, for the manner in which he edited these ballads.  It may be admitted that the practice of mixing imitations with originals is a questionable one; and that in some other cases, Scott, though he was far from the illegitimate and tasteless fashion of alteration, of which in their different ways Allan Ramsay and Percy himself had set the example, was not always up to the highest lights on this subject of editorial faithfulness.  It must, for instance, seem odd to the least pedantic nowadays that he should have thought proper to print Dryden’s Virgil with Dr. Somebody’s pedantic improvements instead of Dryden’s own text.  But the case of the ballads is very different.  Here, it must be remembered, there is no authentic original at all.  Even in the rare cases, where very early printed or MS. copies exist, we not only do not know that these are the originals, we have every reasonable reason for being pretty certain that they are not.  In the case of ballads taken down from repetition, we know as a matter of certainty that, according to the ordinary laws of human nature, the reciter has altered the text which he or she heard, that that text was in its day and way altered by someone else, and so on almost ad infinitum.  ‘Mrs. Brown’s version,’ therefore, or Mr. Smith’s, or Mr. Anybody’s, has absolutely no claims to sacrosanctity.  It is well, no doubt, that all such versions should be collected by someone (as in this case by Professor Child) who has the means, the time, and the patience.  But for the purposes of reading, for the purposes of poetic enjoyment, such a collection is nearly valueless.  We must have it for reference, of course; nobody grudges the guineas he has spent for the best part of the last twenty years on Professor Child’s stately, if rather cumbrous, volumes.  But who can read a dozen versions, say, of ’The Queen’s Marie’ with any pleasure?  What is exquisite in one is watered, messed, spoiled by the others.

Therefore I shall maintain that though the most excellent way of all might have been to record his alterations, and the original, in an appendix-dustbin of apparatus criticus, Scott was right, and trebly right, in such dealing as that with the first stanza of ’Fause Foodrage,’ which I have quoted and praised.  That stanza, as it stands above, does not occur in any of the extant quasi-originals.  ’Mrs. Brown’s MS.,’ from which, as Professor Child says, with almost silent reproach, Scott took his text, ‘with some forty small changes,’ reads ­

    ’King Easter has courted her for her gowd,       King Wester for her fee,     King Honour for her lands sae braid,       And for her fair bodie.’

Now this is clearly wrong.  Either ‘gowd’ or ‘lands’ is a mere repetition of ‘fee,’ and if not, the reading does not point any ethical antithesis between Kings Easter and Wester and their more chivalrous rival.  As it happens, there are two other versions, shorter and less dramatic, but one of them distinctly giving, the other implying, the sense of Scott’s alteration.  Therefore I say that Scott was fully justified in adjusting the one text that he did print, especially as he did it in his own right way, and not in the wrong one of Percy and Mickle.  There is here no Bentleian impertinence, no gratuitous meddling with the at least possibly genuine text of a known and definite author.  The editor simply picks out of the mud, and wipes clean, something precious, which has been defaced by bad usage, and has become masterless.

The third volume of the Minstrelsy was pretty speedily got ready, with more matter; and Sir Tristrem (which is in a way a fourth) was not very long in following.  This last part contained a tour de force in the shape of a completion of the missing part by Scott himself, a completion which, of course, shocks philologists, but which was certainly never written for them, and possesses its own value for others.

Not the least part of the interest of the Minstrelsy itself was the editor’s appearance as a prose-writer.  Percy had started, and others down to Ritson had continued, the practice of interspersing verse collections with dissertations in prose; and while the first volume of the Minstrelsy contained a long general introduction of more than a hundred pages, and most of the ballads had separate prefaces of more or less length, the preface to ‘Young Tamlane’ turned itself into a disquisition on fairy lore, which, being printed in small type, is probably not much shorter than the general introduction.  In these pieces (the Fairy essay is said to be based on information partly furnished by Leyden) all the well-known characteristics of Scott’s prose style appear ­its occasional incorrectness, from the strictly scholastic point of view, as well as its far more than counterbalancing merits of vivid presentation, of arrangement, not orderly in appearance but curiously effective in result, of multifarious facts and reading, of the bold pictorial vigour of its narrative, of its pleasant humour, and its incessant variety.

Nor was this the only opportunity for exercising himself in the medium which, even more than verse, was to be his, that the earliest years of the century afforded to Scott.  The Edinburgh Review, as everybody knows, was started in 1802.  Although its politics were not Scott’s, they were for some years much less violently put forward and exclusively enforced than was the case later; indeed, the Whig Review started with much the same ostensible policy as the Whig Deliverer a century before, the policy, at least in declared intention, of using both parties as far as might be for the public good.  The attempt, if made bona fide, was not more successful in one case than in the other; but it at least permitted Tories to enlist under the blue-and-yellow banner.  The standard-bearer, Jeffrey, moreover, was a very old, an intimate, and a never-quite-to-be-divorced friend of Scott’s.  At a later period, Scott’s contributions to periodicals attained an excellence which has been obscured by the fame of the poems and novels together, even more unjustly than the poems have been obscured by the novels alone.  His reviews at this time on Southey’s Amadis, on Godwin’s Chaucer, on Ellis’s Specimens, etc., are a little crude and amateurish, especially in the direction (well known, to those who have ever had to do with editing, as a besetting sin of novices) of substituting a mere account of the book, with a few expressions of like and dislike, for a grasped and reasoned criticism of it.  But this is far less peculiar to them than those who have not read the early numbers of the great reviews may suppose.  The fact is that Jeffrey himself, Sydney Smith, Scott, and others were only feeling for the principles and practice of reviewing, as they themselves later, and the brilliant second generation of Carlyle and Macaulay, De Quincey and Lockhart, were to carry it out.  Perhaps the very best specimens of Scott’s powers in this direction are the prefaces which he contributed much later and gratuitously to John Ballantyne’s Novelists’ Library ­things which hardly yield to Johnson’s Lives as examples of the combined arts of criticism and biography.  At the time of which we speak he was ‘making himself’ in this direction as in others.  I hope that Jeffrey and not he was responsible for a fling at Mary Woollstonecraft in the Godwin article, which would have been ungenerous in any case, and which in this was unpardonable.  But there is nothing else to object to, and the Amadis review in particular is a very interesting one.

We must now look back a little, so as to give a brief sketch of Scott’s domestic life, from his marriage until the publication of The Lay of the Last Minstrel, which, with that of Waverley and the crash of 1825-26, supplies the three turning-points of his career.  After a very brief sojourn in lodgings (where the landlady was shocked at Mrs. Scott’s habit of sitting constantly in her drawing-room), the young couple took up their abode in South Castle Street.  Hence, not very long afterwards, they moved to the house ­the famous N ­in the northern division of the same street, which continued to be her home for the rest of her Edinburgh life, and Scott’s so long as he could afford a house in Edinburgh.  Their first child was born on the 14th of October 1798, but did not live many hours.  As was (and for the matter of that is) much more customary with Edinburgh residents, even of moderate means, than it has been for at least a century with Londoners, Scott, while his own income was still very modest, took a cottage at Lasswade in the neighbourhood.  Here he lived during the summer for years; and in March 1799 he and his wife went to London, for the first time in his case since he had been almost a baby.  His father died during this visit, after a painful breakdown, which is said to have suggested the touching particulars of the deathbed of Chrystal Croftangry’s benefactor (not ‘the elder Croftangry,’ as is said in a letter quoted by Lockhart), and was repeated to some extent in Scott’s own case.

His appointment to the Sheriff[depute]ship of Selkirkshire was made in December 1799, and gave, for light work, three hundred a year.  It need not have interfered with even an active practice at the Bar had such fallen to him, and at first did not impose on him even a partial residence.  The Lord-Lieutenant, however, Lord Napier of Ettrick, insisted on this, and though Scott rather resented a strictness which seems not to have been universal, he had to comply.  He did not, however, do so at once, and during the last year of the century and its two successors, Lasswade and Castle Street were Scott’s habitats, with various radiations; while in the spring of 1803 he and Mrs. Scott repeated their visit to London and extended it to Oxford.  It is not surprising to read his confession in sad days, a quarter of a century later, of the ‘ecstatic feeling’ with which he first saw this, the place in all the island which was his spiritual home.  The same year saw the alarm of invasion which followed the resumption of hostilities after the armistice of Amiens; and Scott’s attention to his quartermastership, which he still held, seems to have given Lord Napier the idea that he was devoting himself, not only tam Marti quam Mercurio, but to Mars rather at Mercury’s expense. Scott, however, was never fond of being dictated to, and he and his wife were still at Lasswade when the Wordsworths visited them in the autumn, though Scott accompanied them to his sheriffdom on their way back to Westmoreland.  He had not yet wholly given up practice, and though its rewards were not munificent, they reached about this time, it would seem, their maximum sum of L218, which, in the days of his fairy-money, he must often have earned by a single morning’s work.

Lord Napier, by no means improperly (for it was a legal requirement, though often evaded, that four months’ residence per annum should be observed), persisted; and Scott, after a pleasing but impracticable dream of taking up his summer residence in the Tower of Harden itself, which was offered to him, took a lease of Ashestiel, a pleasant country house, ­’a decent farmhouse,’ he calls it, in his usual way, ­the owner of which was his relation, and absent in India.  The place was not far from Selkirk, on the banks of the Tweed and in the centre of the Buccleuch country.  He seems to have settled there by the end of July 1804.  The family, after leaving it for the late autumn session in Edinburgh, returned at Christmas, by which time The Lay of the Last Minstrel, though not actually published, was printed and ready.  It was issued in the first week of the new year 1805, being, except Wordsworth’s and Coleridge’s, the first book published, which was distinctly and originally characteristic of the new poetry of the nineteenth century.