the heir was also dead. The child, ignorant of his birth, grew up, ran away from the Jesuits at the age of sixteen, enlisted in the French army, fought at Fontenoy, got his colours, and, later, landed in the Moray Firth as a French officer in 1745. He went through the campaign, was in hiding in Lochaber after Drumossie, and in making for a Galloway port, was seized, and imprisoned in Dumfries. Here an old woman of his father's household recognized him by "a mark which she remembered on his body." His cause was taken up by friends; but the usurping uncle died, and Sir Robert Maxwell recovered his estates without a lawsuit. This anecdote is quoted from the "New Monthly Magazine," June, 1819. There is nothing to prove that Scott was acquainted with this adventure.

Scott's own experience, as usual, supplied him with hints for his characters. The phrase of Dominie Sampson's father, "Please God, my bairn may live to wag his pow in a pulpit," was uttered in his own hearing. There was a Bluegown, or Bedesman, like Edie Ochiltree, who had a son at Edinburgh College. Scott was kind to the son, the Bluegown asked him to dinner, and at this meal the old man made the remark about the pulpit and the pow. A similar tale is told by Scott in the Introduction to "The Antiquary " (1830). As for the good Dominie, Scott remarks that, for "certain particular reasons, " he must say what he has to say about his prototype 66 very generally." Mr. Chambers 2 finds the prototype in a Mr. James Sanson, tutor in the house of Mr. Thomas Scott, Sir Walter's uncle.3 It seems very unlike Sir Walter

1 Lockhart, i. 238.

2 "Illustrations of the Author of Waverley,'" p. 80, edition of 1884.

3 Lockhart also mentions Mr. George Thomson, a tutor in Scott's own family.

PI

sembles the fine example painoi V Gansberrash in his portrait of the duke of Sort's time), Gabble” again & Leviter sus vs soiled from

Skene. As for the Galloway scenery, Scott did not know it well, having only visited "the Kingdom" in 1793, when he was defending the too frolicsome Mr. McNaught, Minister of Girthon. The beautiful and lonely wilds of the Glenkens, in central Galloway, where traditions yet linger, were, unluckily, terra incognita to Scott. A Galloway story of a murder and its detection by the prints of the assassin's boots inspired the scene where Dirk Hatteraick is traced by similar means.2 In Colonel Mannering, by the way, the Ettrick Shepherd recognized "Walter Scott, painted by himself."

The reception of "Guy Mannering" was all that could be wished. William Erskine and Ballantyne were "of opinion that it is much more interesting than Waverley.'" Mr. Morritt (March, 1815) pronounced himself to be "quite charmed with Dandie, Meg Merrilies, and Dirk Hatteraick, characters as original as true to nature, and as forcibly conceived as, I had almost said, could have been drawn by Shakspeare himself.” 4 The public were not less appreciative. Two thousand copies, at a guinea, were sold the day after publication, and three thousand more were disposed of in three months. The professional critics acted just as Scott, speaking in general terms, had prophesied that they would. Let us quote the "British Critic" (1815).

"There are few spectacles in the literary world more lamentable than to view a successful author, in his second appearance before the public, limping lamely after himself, and treading tediously and awkwardly in the very same round, which, in his first effort, he had traced with vivacity and applause. We would not be harsh enough to say that the Au

1 Lockhart, ii. 271.

2 Lockhart, iv. 52. A letter to Mr. Morritt, dated Jan. 12, 1813. 3 Letter to Mr. Morritt, Jan. 19, 1815 (Lockhart, v. 17).

4 Abbotsford MSS.

thor of Waverley' is in this predicament, but we are most unwillingly compelled to assert that the second effort falls far below the standard of the first. In Waverley' there was brilliancy of genius. . . . In 'Guy Mannering' there is little else beyond the wild sallies of an original genius, the bold and irregular efforts of a powerful but an exhausted mind. Time enough has not been allowed him to recruit his resources, both of anecdote and wit: but, encouraged by the credit so justly bestowed upon one of the most finished portraits ever presented to the world, he has followed up the exhibition with a careless and hurried sketch, which betrays at once the weakness and the strength of its author.

"The character of Dirk Hatteraiek is a faithful copy from nature, it is one of those moral monsters which make us almost ashamed of our kind. Still, amidst the ruffian and murderous brutality of the smuggler, some few feelings of our common nature are thrown in with no less ingenuity than truth. . . . The remainder of the personages are very little above the east of a common lively novel. . . . The Edinburgh lawyer is perhaps the most original portrait ; nor are the saturnalia of the Saturday evenings described without humour. The Dominie is overdrawn and inconsistent; while the young ladies present nothing above par. . . .

"There are parts of this novel which none but one endowed with the sublimity of genius could have dictated; there are others which any ordinary character cobbler might as easily have stitched together. There are sparks both of pathos and of humour, even in the dullest parts, which could be elicited from none but the Author of Waverley.' . . . If, indeed, we have spoken in a manner derogatory to this, his later effort, our censure arises only from its comparison with the former. . . .

"We cannot, however, conclude this article without remarking the absurd influence which our Author unquestionably attributes to the calculations of judicial astrology. No power of chance alone could have fulfilled the joint predictions both of Guy Mannering and Meg Merrilies; we cannot suppose that the Author can be endowed with sufficient folly to believe in the influence of planetary conjunctions himself, nor to have so miserable an idea of the understanding of his readers as to suppose them capable of a similar belief. We must also remember that the time of this novel is not in the dark ages, but scarcely forty years since; no aid, therefore, can be de

rived from the general tendency of popular superstition. What the clew may be to this apparent absurdity, we cannot imagine; whether the Author be in jest or earnest we do not know, and we are willing to suppose in this dilemma that he does not know himself."

6

The "Monthly Review" sorrowed, like the "British," over the encouragement given to the follies of astrology. The "Critical Review" "must lament that Guy Mannering' is too often written in language unintelligible to all except the Scotch." The "Critical Monthly " also had scruples about morality. The novel "advocates duelling, encourages a taste for peeping into the future, a taste by far too prevalent, and it is not over nice on religious subjects!"

The Quarterly Review" distinguished itself by stupidity, if not by spite. "The language of 'Guy Mannering,' though characteristic, is mean; the state of society, though peculiar, is vulgar. Meg Merrilies is swelled into a very unnatural importance." The speech of Meg Merrilies to Ellangowan is "one of the few which affords an intelligible extract." The Author "does not even scruple to overturn the laws of Nature " because Colonel Mannering resides in the neighbourhood of Ellangowan! "The Author either gravely believes what no other man alive believes, or he has, of malice prepense, committed so great an offence against good taste as to build his story on what he must know to be a contemptible absurdity. . The greater part of the characters, their manners and dialect, are at once barbarous and vulgar, extravagant and mean. .. The work would be, on the whole, improved by being translated into English. Though we cannot, on the whole, speak of the novel with approbation, we will not affect to deny that we read it with interest, and that it repaid us with amusement.” It is in reviewing "The Antiquary" that the im