# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Scott, Walter (1771-1832)

1904 Errata appended.
​SCOTT, Sir WALTER (1771–1832), author of the ‘Waverley Novels,’ son of Walter Scott by his wife Anne Rutherford, was born on 15 Aug. 1771 in a house in the College Wynd at Edinburgh, since demolished. The ‘True History of several honourable Families of the Right Honourable Name of Scot’ (1688), by Walter Scott of Satchells [q. v.], was a favourite of the later Walter from his earliest years. He learnt from it the history of many of the heroes of his writings. Among them were John Scott of Harden, called ‘the Lamiter,’ a younger son of a duke of Buccleuch in the fourteenth century; and John's son, William the ‘Boltfoot,’ a famous border knight. A later Scott called ‘Auld Wat,’ the Harden of the ‘Lay of the Last Minstrel,’ married Mary Scott, the ‘Flower of Yarrow,’ in 1567, and was the hero of many legends [see Scott, Walter, (1550?–1629?)]. His son, William Scott of Harden, was made prisoner by Gideon Murray of Elibank, and preferred a marriage with Murray's ugliest daughter to the gallows. William's third son, Walter, laird of Raeburn, became a quaker, and suffered persecutions described in a note to the ‘Heart of Midlothian.’ Raeburn's second son, also Walter, became a Jacobite, and was known as ‘Beardie,’ because he gave up shaving in token of mourning for the Stuarts. He died in 1729. ‘Beardie’ and his son Robert are described in the introductory ‘Epistles’ to ‘Marmion.’ Robert quarrelled with his father, became a whig, and set up as a farmer at Sandy Knowe. He was a keen sportsman and a ‘general referee in all matters of dispute in the neighbourhood.’ In 1728 he married Barbara, daughter of Thomas Haliburton of New Mains, by whom he had a numerous family. One of them, Thomas, died on 27 Jan. 1823, in his ninetieth year. Another, Robert, was in the navy, and, after retiring, settled at Rosebank, near Kelso. Walter Scott, the eldest son of Robert of Sandy Knowe, born 1729, was the first of the family to adopt a town life. He acquired a fair practice as writer to the signet. His son says (Autobiographical Fragment) that he delighted in the antiquarian part of his profession, but had too much simplicity to make money, and often rather lost than profited by his zeal for his clients. He was a strict Calvinist; his favourite study was church history; and he was rather formal in manners and staunch to old Scottish prejudices. He is the original of the elder Fairford in ‘Redgauntlet.’ In April 1758 he married Anne, eldest daughter of John Rutherford, professor of medicine in the university of Edinburgh [q. v.] Her mother was a daughter of Sir John Swinton [q. v.], a descendant of many famous warriors, and through her her son traced a descent ​from Sir William Alexander, earl of Stirling [q. v.], the friend of Ben Jonson. Mrs. Scott was short, and ‘by no means comely.’ She was well educated for the time, though with old-fashioned stiffness; was fond of poetry, and was of light and happy temper of mind. Though devout, she was less austere than her husband. Her son Walter had no likeness, it is said, to her or to his father, but strongly resembled his great-grandfather ‘Beardie,’ and especially his grandfather Robert.
Walter Scott, the writer to the signet, had a family of twelve, the first six of whom died in infancy. The survivors were Robert, who served in the navy under Rodney, wrote verses, and was afterwards in the East India Company's service. John, the second, became a major in the army, retired, and died in 1816. The only daughter, Anne, suffered through life from an early accident, and died in 1801. Thomas, who showed much talent, entered his father's profession, failed in speculations, was made paymaster of the 70th regiment in 1811, accompanied it to Canada in 1813, and died there in April 1823. Daniel, the youngest, who was bred to trade, ruined himself by dissipation, and emigrated to Jamaica. There he showed want of spirit in a disturbance, and returned a dishonoured man, to die soon afterwards (1806). His brother Walter refused to see him, and afterwards felt bitter regret for the harshness.
Walter Scott, the fourth surviving child, was a very healthy infant, but at the age of eighteen months had a fever when teething, and lost the use of his right leg (on this illness see a medical note by Dr. Creighton to the article on Scott in the ‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ 9th ed.). After various remedies had failed he was sent to Sandy Knowe, where his grandfather was living with his second son, Thomas. Scott's earliest recollections were of his lying on the floor in this house, wrapped in the skin of a sheep just killed, and being enticed by his grandfather to crawl. Sheepskins and other remedies failed to cure the mischief, which resulted in a permanent deformity; but he recovered his general health, became a sturdy child, caught from his elders a ‘personal antipathy’ to Washington, and imbibed Jacobite prejudices, due partly to the fall of some of his relations at Culloden. He learnt from his grandmother many songs and legends of the old moss-troopers and his border ancestry. In his fourth year he was sent with his aunt, Miss Janet Scott, to try the waters at Bath. He was taken to London shows on his way; and at Bath was petted by John Home, the author of ‘Douglas,’ and by his uncle, Captain Robert Scott. He learnt a little reading at a dame school, and saw ‘As you like it’ at the theatre. He returned after a year to Edinburgh and Sandy Knowe, where he learnt to ride. Mrs. (Alison) Cockburn [q. v.] describes him in a letter of December 1777 as the ‘most extraordinary genius of a boy’ she ever saw. In his eighth year he was sent for sea-bathing to Prestonpans, where a veteran named Dalgetty told him stories of the German wars, and where he first made acquaintance with George Constable, the original of Jonathan Oldbuck.
In 1778 he returned to his father's house in George's Square, Edinburgh, and after a little preparation was sent, in October 1778, to the high school. A sturdy presbyterian, James Mitchell, also acted as private tutor to him and his brother. Scott had many ‘amicable disputes’ with the tutor about cavaliers and roundheads, and acquired some knowledge of the church history of Scotland. Mitchell testifies to his sweetness and intelligence. He did not, however, distinguish himself at school, where he was for three years under Luke Fraser, and afterwards under Alexander Adam [q. v.], the rector. He was an ‘incorrigibly idle imp,’ though ‘never a dunce.’ He was better at the ‘yards’ (or playground) than in the class, and famous, in spite of his infirmity, for climbing the ‘kittle nine stanes’ on the castle rock and taking part in pugilistic ‘bickers’ with the town boys. Under Adam, however, he became a fair latinist, and won praise for poetical versions of Horace and Virgil. His mother encouraged him to read Shakespeare, and his father allowed the children to act plays occasionally after lessons. His rapid growth having weakened him, he was sent for a half-year to his aunt at Kelso, where he attended school and made the acquaintance of James Ballantyne. Ballantyne reports that he was already an incomparable story-teller. An acquaintance with Thomas Blacklock [q. v.], the blind poet, had led to his reading Ossian and especially the ‘Faerie Queen,’ of which he could repeat ‘marvellous’ quantities. He also read Hoole's Tasso, and was, above all, fascinated by Percy's ‘Reliques.’ He was already beginning to collect ballads. He says that he had bound up ‘several volumes’ of them before he was ten (Lockhart, ch. iv.), and a collection at Abbotsford dates from about 1783. To the Kelso time he also refers his first love of romantic scenery.
In November 1783 Scott began to attend classes at the college. He admired Dugald ​Stewart, and attended a few lectures on law and history. Finding that his fellows were before him in Greek, he forswore the language and gave up the Latin classics as well. He remained ignorant of even the Greek alphabet, though in later years he was fond of some Latin poetry. He was, however, eagerly pursuing his favourite studies. With John Irving (afterwards a writer to the signet) he used to ramble over Arthur's Seat, each composing romantic legends for the other's amusement. He learnt Italian enough to read Tasso and Ariosto in the original, acquired some Spanish, and read French, though he never became a good linguist. A severe illness, caused by the ‘bursting of a blood-vessel in the lower bowels,’ interrupted his serious studies; and he solaced himself, with Irving, in reading romantic literature. His recovery was completed at Rosebank, where his uncle Robert had recently settled, and which became a second home to him. He studied fortification on Uncle Toby's method, and read Vertot's ‘Knights of Malta’ and Orme's ‘Hindostan.’ Gradually he recovered, became tall and muscular, and delighted in rides and, in spite of lameness, walks of twenty or thirty miles a day. His rambles made him familiar with many places of historical interest, and he tried, without success, to acquire the art of landscape-painting. His failure in music was even more decided.
He did not resume his attendance at college in 1785, and on 15 May 1786 he was apprenticed to his father as writer to the signet. Soon after this he had his only sight of Burns. As an apprentice Scott acquired regular business habits. He made a little pocket-money by copying legal documents, and says that he once wrote 120 folio pages at a sitting. His handwriting, as Lockhart observes, shows the marks of his steady practice as a clerk. He began to file his letters regularly, and was inured to the methodical industry to be afterwards conspicuously displayed in literature. The drudgery, however, was distasteful at the time. In 1788 he began to attend civil-law classes, which then formed part of the education of both branches of the legal profession. He here made the acquaintance of young men intended for the bar, and aspired to become an advocate himself. His father kindly approved of the change, but offered to take him into partnership. Both, however, preferred that the younger son, Thomas, should take this position; and Walter accordingly attended the course of study necessary for an advocate, along with his particular chum, William Clerk. They ‘coached’ each other industriously, and were impressed by the lectures of David Hume, the historian's nephew. Both were called to the bar on 11 July 1792, Scott having defended a thesis ‘on the disposal of the dead bodies of criminals,’ which was a ‘very pretty piece of latinity,’ and was dedicated to Lord Braxfield [see Macqueen, Robert].
Scott was already a charming companion and was a member of various clubs; the ‘Teviotdale Club,’ to which Ballantyne belonged; ‘The Club’ (of Edinburgh), where he met William Clerk and other young advocates, and was known as ‘Colonel Grogg;’ and the ‘Literary Society,’ where discussions were held in which, although Scott was not distinguished as an orator, he aired his antiquarian knowledge, and gained the nickname ‘Duns Scotus.’ Scott's companions were given to the conviviality of the period; and, though strictly temperate in later life, he occasionally put the strength of his head to severe tests at this time. When the hero of ‘Rob Roy’ is persuaded that he had sung a song during a carouse, he is repeating the author's experience. It seems, too, that such frolics occasionally led to breaches of the peace, when Scott was complimented as being the ‘first to begin a row and the last to end it.’ He fell, however, into no discreditable excesses, and was reading widely and storing his mind, by long rambles in the country, with antiquarian knowledge. As an apprentice he had to accompany an expedition for the execution of a writ, which first took him into the Loch Katrine region. He made acquaintance with a client of his father's, Alexander Stewart of Invernahyle, who had been out in 1715 and 1745, and had met Rob Roy in a duel. Scott visited him in the highlands, and listened eagerly to his stories. At a rather later period he visited the Cheviots, and made a careful study of Flodden Field.
The ‘Literary Society’ encouraged him to take a higher place among his friends. He had ‘already dabbled,’ says Lockhart, ‘in Anglo-Saxon and the Norse sagas.’ In 1789 he read before the society an essay intended to show that the feudal system was the natural product of certain social conditions, instead of being the invention of a particular period. In the winter of 1790–91 he attracted the attention of Dugald Stewart, whose class he was again attending, by an essay ‘on the Manners and Customs of the Northern Nations.’ On 4 Jan. 1791 he was elected a member of the Speculative Society. He took great interest in its proceedings, was soon chosen librarian and secretary, and kept the minutes with businesslike reg​ularity. An essay upon ballads which he read upon the night of Jeffrey's admission led to an acquaintance between the two, and Jeffrey found him already collecting the nucleus of a museum of curiosities.
By this time he had also become qualified for ladies' society. He had grown to be tall and strong; his figure was both powerful and graceful; his chest and arms were those of a Hercules. Though his features were not handsome, their expression was singularly varied and pleasing; his eye was bright and his complexion brilliant. It was a proud day, he said, when he found that a pretty young woman would sit out and talk to him for hours in a ballroom, where his lameness prevented him from dancing. This pretty young lady was probably Williamina, daughter of Sir John and Lady Jane Belsches, afterwards Stuart, of Fettercairn, near Montrose, born October 1776. She ultimately married, on 19 Jan. 1797, Sir William Forbes, bart., of Pitsligo, was mother of James David Forbes [q. v.], and died 5 Dec. 1810. Scott appears to have felt for her the strongest passion of his life. Scott's father, says Lockhart, thought it right to give notice to the lady's father of the attachment. This interference, however, produced no effect upon the relations between the young people. Scott, he adds, hoped for success for ‘several long years.’ Whatever the true story of the failure, there can be no doubt that Scott was profoundly moved, and the memory of the lady inspired him when describing Matilda in ‘Rokeby’ (Letters, ii. 18), and probably other heroines. He refers to the passion more than once in his last journal, and he had affecting interviews with her mother in 1827 (Journal, 1890, i. 86, 96, 404, ii. 55, 62, 321). According to Lockhart, Scott's friends thought that this secret attachment had helped to keep him free from youthful errors, and had nerved him to diligence during his legal studies. As, however, she was only sixteen when he was called to the bar, Lockhart's language seems to imply rather too early a date for the beginning of the affair (see Bain's James Mill for an account of the Stuart family; James Mill was for a time Miss Stuart's tutor).
Scott, on joining the bar, received some employment from his father and a few others, but had plenty of leisure to become famous as a story-teller among his comrades. Among his dearest friends of this and later times was William Erskine (afterwards Lord Kinneder) [q. v.] At the end of 1792 he made his first excursion to Liddesdale, with Robert Shortreed, the sheriff-substitute of Roxburghshire. He repeated these ‘raids’ for seven successive years, exploring every corner of the country, collecting ballads and occasionally an old border war-horn, and enjoying the rough hospitalities of the Dandie Dinmonts. A Willie Elliot of Millburnholme is said to have been the original of this great creation, though a Jamie Davidson, who kept mustard-and-pepper terriers, passed by the name afterwards; and Lockhart thinks that the portrait was filled up from Scott's friend, William Laidlaw [q. v.] Scott was everywhere welcome, overflowing with fun, and always a gentleman, even when ‘fou,’ which, however, was a rare occurrence. Other rambles took him to Perthshire, Stirlingshire, and Forfarshire. He became familiar with the scenery of Loch Katrine. At Craighall in Perthshire he found one original of the Tully-Veolan of ‘Waverley,’ and at Meigle in Forfarshire he met Robert Paterson [q. v.], the real ‘Old Mortality.’ In 1796 he visited Montrose, and tried to collect stories of witches and fairies from his old tutor, Mitchell. The neighbourhood of the Stuarts at Fettercairn was probably a stronger inducement, but his suit was now finally rejected. His friends were alarmed at the possible consequences to his romantic temper, but he appears to have regained his self-command during a solitary ramble in the highlands.
Another line of study was now attracting his attention. In 1788 a paper read by Henry Mackenzie to the Royal Society of Edinburgh had roused an interest in German literature. Scott and some of his friends formed a class about 1792 to study German, engaging as teacher Dr. Willich (afterwards a translator of Kant), and gained a knowledge of the language, which was then a ‘new discovery.’ Scott disdained the grammar, but forced his way to reading by his knowledge of Anglo-Saxon and Scottish dialects. William Erskine shared his zeal, and restrained his taste for the extravagances of the German dramatists. He became Scott's most trusted literary adviser. Three or four years later James Skene of Rubislaw [q. v.] returned from Germany with a thorough knowledge of the language and a good collection of books. Their literary sympathies led to the formation of another of Scott's warmest friendships.
The French revolution affected Scott chiefly by way of repulsion and by stimulating his patriotism. In 1794 some Irish students of the opposite persuasion made a riot in the theatre. Scott joined with such effect as to break the heads of three democrats, and was bound over to keep the peace. He was keenly interested in the raising of ​a volunteer regiment in Edinburgh, from which he was excluded by his lameness. He joined, however, in a scheme for raising a body of volunteer cavalry. It was not organised till February 1797, when Scott was made quartermaster, ‘that he might be spared the rough usage of the ranks.’ He attended drills at five in the morning before visiting the parliament house, dined with the mess, and became a most popular member of the corps. His military enthusiasm, which excited some amusement among his legal friends, was lasting. When, in 1805, there was a false alarm of an invasion, he rode a hundred miles in one day, from Cumberland to Dalkeith, an incident turned to account in the ‘Antiquary’ (Lockhart, ch. xiv.).
Scott's income at the bar had risen from 24l. in his first year to 144l. in 1797. Lockhart gives some specimens of his arguments, which apparently did not rise above the average. In the autumn of 1797 he was persuaded by a friend to visit the English lakes, and thence they went to the little watering-place of Gilsland, near the ‘waste of Cumberland’ described in ‘Guy Mannering.’ Here he saw a beautiful girl riding, and, finding that she was also at Gilsland, obtained an introduction, and immediately fell in love with her. She was Charlotte Mary Carpenter, daughter of a French refugee, Jean Charpentier. Upon his death, early in the revolution, his wife, with her children, had gone to England. They found a friend in the Marquis of Downshire, on whose property Charpentier held a mortgage. The son obtained a place in the East India Company's service, and changed his name to Carpenter. The daughter is said by Lockhart to have been very attractive in appearance, though not of regular beauty, with dark-brown eyes, masses of black hair, and a fairy-like figure. She spoke with a slight French accent. Scott, at any rate, was soon ‘raving’ about her. She was just of age. Lord Downshire approved. Her brother had settled an annuity of 500l. upon her; and, though this was partly dependent upon his circumstances, Scott thought that the income, with his own professional earnings, would be sufficient. They were therefore married at St. Mary's Church, Carlisle, on 24 Dec. 1797.
The Scotts settled at a lodging in George Street, Edinburgh; then at 10 Castle Street; and in 1802 at 39 Castle Street, a house which Scott bought, and where he lived till 1826. The bride's lively tastes were apparently not quite suited to the habits of Scott's parents; but she was warmly welcomed by his friends at the bar and among the volunteers. They were both fond of the theatre, and heartily enjoyed the simple social amusements of the time. Scott's father was failing before the marriage, and died in April 1799.
Although still courting professional success, Scott now began to incline to literature. He had apparently written and burnt a boyish poem on the ‘Conquest of Granada’ about 1786 (Lockhart, p. 37), but afterwards confined himself to an occasional ‘sonnet to his mistress's eyebrow.’ In 1796 he heard of the version of Bürger's ‘Lenore’ by William Taylor of Norwich [q. v.], one of the first students of German literature. He was stimulated to attempt a rival translation, which he began after supper and finished that night in a state of excitement which spoilt his sleep. He published this in October with a companion ballad, ‘The Wild Huntsman;’ the publisher being one of his German class. The ballads were praised by Dugald Stewart, George Chalmers, and others; and his rival, Taylor, sent him a friendly letter. He had, however, many other rivals; and most of the edition went to the trunkmaker. In 1797 William Erskine showed the ballads to Matthew Gregory Lewis [q. v.] of the ‘Monk,’ who was then collecting the miscellany called ‘Tales of Wonder’ (1801). He begged for contributions from Scott, whom he met on a visit to Scotland. Scott, though amused by Lewis's foibles, was flattered by the attentions of a well-known author and edified by his criticisms. Lewis was also interested by Scott's version of Goethe's ‘Goetz von Berlichingen.’ He induced a publisher to give 25l. for it, with a promise of an equal sum for a second edition. It appeared in February 1799, but failed to obtain republication. Another dramatic performance of the time was the ‘House of Aspen,’ an adaptation from ‘Der heilige Vehme’ of G. Wächter; it was offered to Kemble by Lewis, and, it is said, put in rehearsal. It was not performed, however, and remained unpublished. Meanwhile Scott had been writing ballads for Lewis, some of which he showed to his friend, James Ballantyne [q. v.], who was then publishing a newspaper at Kelso. Ballantyne agreed to print twelve copies of these ballads, which, with a few poems by other authors, appeared as ‘Apology for Tales of Terror’ in 1799. Scott had suggested that they would serve as advertisements of Ballantyne's press to his friends at Edinburgh. He was pleased with the result, and now began to think of publishing his collection of ‘Border Ballads,’ to be printed by Ballantyne. ​The office of sheriff-depute of Selkirkshire was at this time vacant, and Scott had the support of the Duke of Buccleuch in an application for the office. Scott's volunteering had also brought him into close connection with Robert Dundas, eldest son of Lord Melville, then the great distributor of Scottish patronage. Melville's nephews were also interested, and on 16 Dec. 1799 Scott was appointed sheriff-depute. It brought him 300l. a year for light work and a closer connection with his favourite district. Scott now set about his ballad collection energetically. On 22 April 1800 he wrote to Ballantyne, whom he proposed to entrust with the printing, and suggested, at the same time, that Ballantyne would find a good opening for a printing establishment in Edinburgh. Scott's ballad-hunting brought him many new acquaintances, who, as usual, became warm friends. Among them were Richard Heber [q. v.], the great book-collector, and, through Heber, George Ellis [q. v.], then preparing his ‘Specimens of Early English Romances.’ They kept up an intimate correspondence until Ellis's death. Scott managed also to form a friendly alliance with the touchy antiquary, Joseph Ritson [q. v.] He took up John Leyden [q. v.], whose enthusiastic co-operation he repaid by many good services. He made the acquaintance of William Laidlaw, ever afterwards an attached friend; and, through Laidlaw, of James Hogg (1770–1835) [q. v.], to whom also he was a steady patron. The first two volumes of the ‘Border Minstrelsy,’ printed by Ballantyne, were published early in 1802 by Cadell & Davies, and welcomed by many critics of the time, including Miss Seward. Scott received 78l. 10s. for a half-share of the profits, and then sold the copyright to the Longmans for 500l. This price apparently included a third volume, which appeared in 1803. Other editions followed when Scott had become famous. The collection included various introductory essays, and showed, as Lockhart remarks, that his mind was already stored with most of the incidents and images afterwards turned to account. The ‘Minstrelsy’ had been intended to include the romance of ‘Sir Tristram,’ which he and Leyden had persuaded themselves to be the work of Thomas of Ercildoune [q. v.] A small edition of this was published separately by Constable in May 1804.
The ‘Minstrelsy’ included some imitations of the ancient ballad by Scott, Leyden, and others. ‘Glenfinlas,’ written for Lewis in 1799, was, he says, his ‘first serious attempt in verse.’ Another poem, intended for the ‘Minstrelsy,’ led to more important results (Letters, i. 22). The Countess of Dalkeith (afterwards Duchess of Buccleuch) suggested to him as a fit subject for a ballad the legend of Gilpin Horner. Soon afterwards (Sir) John Stoddart [q. v.], on a visit to Scotland, repeated to him the then unpublished ‘Christabel.’ Scott thought the metre adapted to such an ‘extravaganza’ as he intended. A verse or two from ‘Christabel’ was actually introduced in Scott's poems; and Coleridge seems afterwards to have been a little annoyed by the popularity due in part to this appropriation and denied to the more poetical original. Scott in his preface of 1830 fully acknowledges the debt, and in his novels makes frequent references to Coleridge's poems. The framework of the ‘Last Minstrel’ was introduced on a hint from W. Erskine or George Cranstoun [q. v.], to whom he had read some stanzas; and its form was suggested by the neighbourhood of Newark Castle to Bowhill, where he had met the Countess of Dalkeith. He read the beginning to Ellis early in 1803. The ‘Lay of the Last Minstrel’ was published at the beginning of 1805 by the Longmans and Constable on half profits. The Longmans bought the copyright on a second edition for 500l., Scott thus receiving 769l. 6s. on the whole. It succeeded at once so brilliantly as to determine Scott's future career.
Scott's literary occupations had naturally told against his success at the bar. His professional income had increased slowly, and in 1802–3 amounted to 228l. 18s. In 1804 his father's business had dwindled in the hands of his brother Thomas, and his own prospects suffered. In 1804 the lord lieutenant of Selkirkshire complained that Scott's military zeal had interfered with the discharge of his duties as sheriff, and that he was legally bound to reside four months in the year within his own jurisdiction. Scott had, upon his marriage, taken a cottage at Lasswade, six miles from Edinburgh, where he spent his summers. He now had to look out for a house in a more appropriate situation, and took a lease of Ashestiel on the Tweed, near Selkirk. On 10 June 1804 his uncle, Robert Scott, died, leaving him the house at Rosebank. He sold this for 5,000l., and, with the sheriff-depute-ship and his wife's settlement, had now about 1,000l. a year independently of his practice (Lockhart, ch. xiii.). Ashestiel was in a rustic district, seven miles from the nearest town, and in the midst of the Buccleuch estates. He had plenty of sporting and a small sheep farm. He thought of making Hogg his bailiff, but took a fancy to Thomas Purdie, who had been charged with poaching, and had touched Scott's heart by his ​apology. Purdie became his shepherd, then his bailiff, and remained till death an attached friend.
Scott now resolved, as he says (Introd. to the Lay), that literature should be his ‘staff, but not his crutch.’ He desired to be independent of his pen, though giving up hopes of the highest legal preferments. He applied, therefore, through Lord Dalkeith (2 Feb. 1805), to Lord Melville for an appointment, which he succeeded in obtaining in the following year. Lockhart thinks (ib. ch. xv. p. 36) that, besides the Buccleuch interest, a hint of Pitt's, who had expressed admiration of the ‘Lay,’ may have been serviceable. George Home, one of the ‘principal clerks of the quarter session,’ was becoming infirm; and, as there was no system of retiring pensions, Scott was associated in the office, on the terms of doing the duty for nothing during Home's life and succeeding to the position on his death. Some formal error having been made in the appointment, Scott went to London to obtain its rectification, and was afraid that upon the change of government advantage might be taken of the mistake. His fears were set at rest by Lord Spencer, then at the home office, and the appointment was gazetted on 8 March 1806. Scott was for the first time received in London as a literary lion, and made the acquaintance of Joanna Baillie, ever afterwards a warm friend. The duties of his clerkship occupied him from four to six hours daily for four days a week during six months of the year, and, though partly mechanical, required care and businesslike habits and the study of law papers at home. It brought him into close connection with his colleagues, the children of the several families all calling the other fathers ‘uncle.’ Soon afterwards he wrote a song, which James Ballantyne sang at a public dinner (27 June 1806), to commemorate the failure of Melville's impeachment. He desired, as Lockhart thinks (ib. ch. xv.), to show that his appointment had not interfered with his political independence. The words ‘Tally-ho to the Fox!’ used at a time when Fox's health was beginning to collapse, gave deep offence; and some friends, according to Cockburn (Memorials, p. 217), were permanently alienated. The particular phrase was of course used without ungenerous intention, and Scott paid a compliment to Fox's memory in ‘Marmion’ soon afterwards. But he was now becoming a keen partisan. Lockhart observes that during the whig ministry his tory feelings were ‘in a very excited state,’ and that he began to take an active part as a local manager of political affairs. When Jeffrey playfully complimented him on a speech before the faculty of advocates, Scott burst into tears, and declared that the whigs would leave nothing of all that made Scotland Scotland.
Ballantyne had removed to Edinburgh at the end of 1802, and set up a press in the precincts of Holyrood House (Lockhart, ch. xi.). It was called the Border Press, and gained a reputation for beauty and correctness. Soon after the publication of the ‘Lay,’ Ballantyne, who had already received a loan from Scott, found that more capital was needed; Scott (ib. ch. xiv.) thought it imprudent to make a further advance, but agreed at the beginning of 1805 to become a partner in the business. The connection was a secret; and Scott, whose writings were now eagerly sought by publishers, attracted many customers. He arranged that all his own books should be printed by Ballantyne, while as a printer he became more or less interested in the publishing speculations. Scott's sanguine disposition and his generous trust in other authors led him also to suggest a number of literary enterprises, some very costly, and frequently ending in failure. Money had to be raised; and Scott, who seems to have first taken up Ballantyne somewhat in the spirit of a border-chief helping one of his clan, soon caught the spirit of commercial speculation. The first scheme which he proposed was for a collection of British poets, to be published by Constable. A similar scheme, in which Thomas Campbell was to be the editor, was in the contemplation of some London publishers. After some attempts at an alliance, Scott's scheme was given up; but he took up with great energy a complete edition of Dryden. In 1805 he was also writing for the ‘Edinburgh Review,’ and had made a beginning of ‘Waverley’ (ib. ch. xiv.). The name was probably suggested by Waverley Abbey, near Farnham, which was within a ride of Ellis's house where he had been recently staying. The first few chapters were shown to William Erskine (ib. ch. xxii. p. 202), and upon his disapproval the task was dropped for the time. Scott now adopted the habits which enabled him to carry out his labours. He gave up his previous plan of sitting up late, rose at five, dressed carefully, was at his desk by six, and before the family breakfast had ‘broken the neck of the day's work.’ A couple of hours afterwards he finished the writing, and was his ‘own man’ by noon. At Ashestiel he rode out, coursed with his greyhounds or joined in ‘burning the water,’ as described in ‘Guy Mannering.’ He answered every letter the same day, and thus got through a surprising ​amount of work. Lockhart describes (ib. ch. xxvii. p. 256) how in 1814 a youthful friend of his own was irritated by the vision of a hand which he could see, while drinking his claret, through the window of a neighbouring house, unweariedly adding to a heap of manuscripts. It was afterwards identified as Scott's hand, then employed upon ‘Waverley;’ and the anecdote shows that he sometimes, at least, wrote into the evening.
During 1806–7 Scott was hard at work upon ‘Dryden,’ and in the spring of 1807 visited London to make researches in the British Museum. He was also appointed secretary to the parliamentary commission upon Scottish jurisprudence (ib. ch. xvi.), and took much pains in qualifying himself for the duty. An essay upon the changes proposed by the commission was afterwards contributed by him to the ‘Edinburgh Annual Register’ for 1808 (published 1810), and shows his suspicion of the reforms which were being urged by Bentham among others (see Bentham, Works, vol. v.) At the same time he was writing ‘Marmion,’ upon which he says (Introduction of 1830) that he thought it desirable to bestow more care than his previous compositions had received. Some of it, especially the battle, was composed while he was galloping his charger along Portobello Sands during his volunteer exercises (Lockhart, ch. xvi.). The introductory epistles, which most of his critics thought a disagreeable interruption, were carefully laboured, and at one time advertised for separate publication (ib. ch. xvi. p. 154). They are of great biographical interest. Constable offered a thousand guineas for the poem before seeing it, and Scott at once accepted the offer. He had a special need of money in consequence of the failure, at the end of 1806, of his brother Thomas. ‘Marmion’ was published on 23 Feb. 1808, and was as successful as the ‘Lay.’ The general applause was interrupted by some sharp criticism from Jeffrey in the ‘Edinburgh Review.’ Jeffrey, besides a general dislike to the romanticism of the new school, strangely accused Scott of neglecting ‘Scottish feelings and Scottish characters.’ He sent the review, with a note, to Scott, with whom he was engaged to dine. Scott received him with unchanged cordiality, but Mrs. Scott sarcastically hoped that he had been well paid by Constable for his ‘abuse’ of his host. Scott himself ceased to be a contributor to the ‘Edinburgh,’ although his personal relations with Jeffrey were always friendly (see Letters, i. 436–40, ii. 32). Other reasons sufficiently explain his secession. In November 1807 he had proposed to Southey to become one of Jeffrey's contributors, in spite of certain attacks upon ‘Madoc’ and ‘Thalaba.’ Southey declined, as generally disapproving of Jeffrey's politics, and Scott was soon annoyed by what he thought the unpatriotic tone of the review, especially the ‘Cevallos’ article of October 1808. He at once took up eagerly the scheme for the ‘Quarterly Review,’ which was now being started by Murray, who visited him in October 1808 (see Smiles's Murray, i. 96 seq.) Canning approved the scheme, and Scott wrote to all his friends to get recruits. Lockhart says that he could ‘fill half a volume with the correspondence upon this subject’ (see, too, Gifford's letters in Letters, vol. ii. appendix). The quarrel with Jeffrey involved a quarrel with Constable, the publisher at this time of the ‘Edinburgh.’ Other serious difficulties had arisen. The edition of ‘Dryden’ in eighteen volumes, with Scott's admirable life, had appeared in the last week of April 1808. He had worked hard as an editor, and received 756l., or forty guineas a volume. He had by October 1808 prepared an edition of the ‘Sadler Papers’ (published in 1809–10), and was at work upon a new edition of the ‘Somers Tracts,’ and now, besides some other trifles, had undertaken the edition of Swift, for which Constable offered him 1,500l. A partner of Constable's, named Hunter, an intelligent and honourable man, but strongly opposed to Scott in politics, was dissatisfied with the Swift bargain. Scott was bitterly offended at some of Hunter's language, and on 12 Jan. 1809 wrote an indignant letter breaking off all connection with the firm. He had previously engaged John (1774–1821) [q. v.], the younger brother of James Ballantyne, who had failed in business, to act as clerk under the brother. It was now decided to start a publishing firm (John Ballantyne & Co.) in opposition to Constable. Scott was to supply half the capital, and the other half was to be divided equally between James and John. According to Lockhart, Scott had also to provide for James's quarter, while John had to borrow his quarter either from Scott or some one else (Lockhart, ch. xviii. p. 174). The new firm undertook various enterprises, especially the ‘Edinburgh Annual Register,’ to which Southey was a contributor; and Scott now hoped, with the alliance of John Murray, to compete successfully with Constable.
In the spring of 1809 he visited London and saw much of his new acquaintance, John Bacon Sawrey Morritt [q. v.], with whom he stayed at Rokeby Park on his return. In London he saw much of Canning, Ellis, and ​Croker. The first number of the ‘Quarterly Review,’ to which he contributed three articles, appeared during his stay, and he had frequent conferences with John Murray concerning the new alliance with Ballantyne. This was soon cooled in consequence of John Ballantyne's modes of doing business (Smiles, John Murray, i. 175). Scott added to his other distractions a keen interest in theatrical matters. He became intimate with J. P. Kemble and Mrs. Siddons. In the summer he took a share in the theatre at Edinburgh, and induced Henry Siddons [q. v.], the nephew of Mrs. Siddons, to undertake the management and to produce as his first play the ‘Family Legend’ of his friend Joanna Baillie. This led to a friendship with Daniel Terry [q. v.], an actor in the Edinburgh company, who shared Scott's taste for curiosities, dramatised his novels, and admired him so much as to catch a trick of personal likeness.
In 1810 an act was passed to put in force some of the recommendations of the judicature commission. Compensation was made to the holders of some offices abolished. Scott had recently appointed a deserving old clerk to a vacant place and given the ‘extractorship’ thus vacated to his brother Thomas. Thomas was now pensioned off with 130l. a year. The transaction was attacked as a job in the House of Lords by Lord Holland. Thomas had been forced by his difficulties to retreat to the Isle of Man, and did his duty at Edinburgh by deputy. The appointment was apparently not out of the usual course of things at that period. Scott bitterly resented the attack, and ‘cut’ Lord Holland soon afterwards at Edinburgh. The quarrel, however, was made up in later years. Meanwhile Scott was finishing his third poem, ‘The Lady of the Lake.’ He received nominally 2,000l. for the copyright, but ‘Ballantyne & Co.’ retained three-fourths of the property. He had taken special care to be accurate in details, and repeated the king's ride from Loch Vennachar to Stirling, in order to assure himself that it could be done in the time. The poem was published in May 1810, and equalled the success of its predecessors. There was a rush of visitors to Loch Katrine, and the post-horse duty in Scotland rose regularly from that date (Lockhart, ch. xx. p. 192). From Lockhart's statement, it appears that twenty thousand copies were sold in the year, the quarto edition of 2,050 copies being sold for two guineas. This success was even more rapid than that of the ‘Lay’ or ‘Marmion,’ though the sale of each of the poems down to 1825 was about the same, being in each case something over thirty thousand. ‘The Lady of the Lake’ was praised by Jeffrey in the ‘Edinburgh,’ while Ellis (who reviewed it in the ‘Quarterly’) and Canning entreated him to try next time to adopt Dryden's metre. The extraordinary success of these ‘novels in verse’ was in proportion less to their purely poetical merits than to the romantic spirit afterwards more appropriately embodied in the novels. A poem of which it can be said that the essence could be better given in prose is clearly not of the highest class, though the lays include many touches of most genuine poetry. Scott himself never formed an exalted estimate of his own verses. Johnson's poems, he said, gave him more pleasure than any others. His daughter, on being asked what she thought of the ‘Lay,’ said that she had not read it; ‘papa says there's nothing so bad for young people as reading bad poetry.’ His son had never heard of it, and conjectured as the reason of his father's celebrity that ‘it's commonly him that sees the hare sitting’ (Lockhart, ch. xx. p. 196). The compliment to the ‘Lady’ which probably pleased its author most was from his friend, Adam Ferguson, who was serving in Portugal, and had read the poem to his comrades, while lying under fire at the lines of Torres Vedras (ib. ch. xxii. p. 206). Ferguson afterwards read to similar audiences the ‘Vision of Don Roderick,’ in Spenserian stanzas, published for the benefit of the distressed Portuguese in 1811. This, with an imitation of Crabbe and one or two trifles of the same period, seems to have resulted from his desire to try his friend's advice of attempting a different style in poetry. After finishing the ‘Lay,’ Scott had again taken up ‘Waverley,’ and again laid it aside upon a discouraging opinion from Ballantyne, who, it seems, wanted more ‘Lays.’ Scott's regular employment was the edition of Swift. Meanwhile the publishing business was going badly, partly owing to Scott's characteristic patronage of other authors. Anna Seward [q. v.] had begun a correspondence with him on the publication of the ‘Minstrelsy.’ She was not sparing of comically pedantic compliments, which Scott repaid with praises which, if insincere, brought a fit punishment. She died in 1809, and left him her poems with an injunction to publish them. He obeyed, and the firm suffered by the three volumes, which appeared in the autumn of 1810. Another unlucky venture was the edition of Beaumont and Fletcher by Henry William Weber [q. v.] Scott had taken him for an amanuensis in 1804 when he was a half-starved bookseller's hack. Though Weber was a Jacobin in principles, ​and given occasionally to drink, Scott helped him frequently, till in 1814 he went mad; and afterwards supported him till his death in 1818. Unluckily, Scott also put too much faith in his client's literary capacity, and lost heavily by publishing his work. Somewhat similar motives prompted him to publish the ‘History of the Culdees,’ by his old friend John Jamieson [q. v.], and another heavy loss was caused by the ‘Tixall’ poetry. The ‘Edinburgh Annual Register,’ in which he was glad to employ Southey, caused a loss of never less than 1,000l. a year. Scott's professional income, however, was now improved. The reconstitution of the court of session enabled Home to retire from the clerkship on a pension, and from January 1812 Scott received the salary, as well as performed the duties, of his office. The salary was fixed at 1,300l., which was a clear addition to his previous income. As his lease of Ashestiel was ending, he resolved to buy a place of his own. He paid 4,000l. for an estate about five miles further down the Tweed, to which he gave the name of Abbotsford. It included a meadow on the Tweed, one hundred acres of rough land, and a small farmhouse (a facsimile plan of Abbotsford in 1811 is given at the end of Letters, vol. i.) The neighbourhood of Melrose Abbey, to which the lands had formerly belonged, was an additional attraction. Scott at once set about planting and building, with the constant advice of his friend Terry. He moved into the house from Ashestiel in May 1812. He wrote here, amid the noise of masons, in the only habitable room, of which part had been screened off for him by an old curtain. He engaged as a tutor for the children George Thomson [q. v.], son of the minister of Melrose, who lived with him many years, and was the original of Dominie Sampson. While amusing himself with his planting and his children, he was now writing ‘Rokeby’ and ‘The Bridal of Triermain.’ He visited Morritt at Rokeby in the autumn, to refresh his impressions, and the book was published at Christmas 1812, and was followed in two months by ‘Triermain.’ Although an edition of three thousand two-guinea copies of ‘Rokeby’ was sold at once, and ten thousand copies went off in a few months, its success was very inferior to that of its predecessors. Scott attributes this to various causes (Preface of 1830), such as the unpoetical character of the Roundheads. A ‘far deeper’ cause, as he says, was that his style had lost its novelty by his own repetitions and those of his many imitators. He was writing with less vivacity; and Moore, in the ‘Two-penny Postbag,’ hit a blot by saying that Scott had left the border, and meant ‘to do all the gentlemen's seats on the way’ to London. Another cause assigned by Scott was that he had been eclipsed by Byron, whose poems he cordially admired. Murray brought Scott into communication with Byron on the publication of ‘Childe Harold’ in 1812. Byron reported compliments from the prince regent to Scott, and apologised for the sneer at ‘Marmion’ in ‘English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.’ They afterwards met on very friendly terms. Scott wrote a generous review of Byron, at his final departure from England, by which Byron was much gratified (Quarterly, vol. xiv.), and Lady Byron, though complaining of certain misunderstandings, acknowledged Scott's good intentions, and was cordially received by him soon afterwards at Abbotsford. ‘The Bridal of Triermain,’ which was composed as a relief to ‘Rokeby,’ was published anonymously, and Scott endeavoured to spread the impression that William Erskine, who had suggested the poem and consented to humour the jest, was its author.
The affairs of Ballantyne & Co. had now reached a serious crisis. Scott had made up his personal quarrel with Constable in 1810, and had some friendly communications with him (ib. ch. xx. p. 192). The edition of Swift had remained on Constable's hands. In May 1813 Scott consented, though reluctantly, to apply to Constable for help in Ballantyne's affairs, engaging that the publishing business should be wound up if proper terms could be obtained. The printing concern was bringing in about 1,800l. a year. Constable examined the books in August, and reported that the liabilities were about 15,000l., and that the assets, if they could be realised, would about balance them (Archibald Constable, iii. 31). It was, however, a period of financial difficulty, and it was impossible to dispose of the stock and copyrights in time. An advance was necessary to meet the immediate difficulties. Scott hereupon applied to his friend, the Duke of Buccleuch, who had, as he observed, the ‘true spirit of a border chief’ (ib. iii. 23), and who at once agreed to guarantee an advance of 4,000l. by a London banker. Constable had already in May agreed to take part of the stock of the Ballantynes for 2,000l., which was ultimately resold to the trade at a great loss. Much more was still left on hand. John Ballantyne set up as an auctioneer, though he continued to act as Scott's agent for the ‘Waverley Novels.’ In January 1816 a new arrangement was made, under which James Ballantyne became simply ​Scott's agent, receiving a salary of 400l. a year for managing the printing business. The affairs of this and the publishing business had become indistinguishable. John Ballantyne said that the publishing business was wound up with a clear balance of 1,000l. in consequence of Scott's energy. The new firm took over, according to Lockhart (p. 451), liabilities to the amount of 10,000l. Scott complained much in 1813 of having been kept in ignorance by his partners of the real state of affairs; and it seems that the printing, as well as the publishing, office had been in difficulties from an early period. The printing business, however, was substantially a good one, and, now that the publishing was abandoned, might be expected to thrive.
For two or three years after the arrangement with Constable the affairs of the firm were in a very critical state, and Scott was put to many straits for raising money. He cordially admitted his obligations to Constable's sagacity and help, while he begged John Ballantyne to treat him ‘as a man, and not as a milch-cow’ (Lockhart, ch. xxvi. p. 246). Scott, however, was sanguine by nature, and had sufficiently good prospects. His income, he says (24 Aug. 1813), was over 2,000l. a year, and he was owner of Abbotsford and the house in Castle Street. He was clear that no one could ultimately be a loser by him. Just at this time the regent offered him the poet-laureateship, which he erroneously supposed to be worth 400l. a year. It had fallen into such discredit that he feared to be ridiculed for taking it, and declined on the ground that he could not write the regular odes then imperative, and that his legal offices were a sufficient provision. In the midst of his difficulties he was sending 50l. to Maturin, then in distress, and was generous to other struggling authors while pressed to pay his family expenses.
Unfortunately, Scott had been seized with a passion for adding to his landed property. A property was for sale which would extend his estate from the Tweed to the Cauldshiels Loch; and to raise the money he offered, in June 1813, to sell an unwritten poem (afterwards ‘The Lord of the Isles’) to Constable for 5,000l. Though the literary negotiation failed, he bought the land, and was at the same time buying ‘a splendid lot of ancient armour’ for his museum.
On 1 July 1814 appeared Scott's edition of Swift in nineteen volumes, which was reviewed by Jeffrey in the ‘Edinburgh’ at Constable's request. Jeffrey praised Scott, but his hostile estimate of Swift was thought by Constable to have injured the sale of the works. In the midst of his troubles Scott had accidentally found his old manuscript of ‘Waverley’ in looking for some fishing-tackle. He thought that his critics, Erskine and Ballantyne, had been too severe; and in the last three weeks of June 1814 wrote the two concluding volumes. The book appeared on 7 July 1814. The first edition of one thousand copies was sold in five weeks, and a sixth had appeared before the end of a year. Constable had offered 700l. for the copyright, which Scott said was too little if it succeeded, and too much if it failed. It was therefore published upon half-profits. On 29 July Scott sailed upon a cruise with the lighthouse commissioners, in which he was accompanied by his friend William Erskine and others. They visited the Orkney and Shetland islands, and returned by the Hebrides, reaching Greenock on 8 Sept. The delightful journal published in Lockhart's ‘Life’ gives a graphic picture of Scott's charm as a travelling companion, and of his keen delight in the scenery, the antiquities, and the social condition of the people. He turned his experience to account in ‘The Pirate’ and ‘The Lord of the Isles.’ On returning he received the news of the death of his old friend the Duchess of Buccleuch, who, as Countess of Dalkeith, had suggested ‘The Lay of the Last Minstrel.’ He found also that ‘Waverley’ was making a startling success. For the time he had other pieces of work in hand. Besides writing articles on chivalry and the drama for Constable's ‘Supplement’ to the ‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ and other minor pieces of work, he had finally agreed, while passing through Edinburgh, for ‘The Lord of the Isles.’ Constable gave 1,500l. for half the copyright. It was rapidly finished, and published on 18 Jan. 1815. Though it was about as popular as ‘Rokeby,’ Scott became aware that the poetical vein was being exhausted. When Ballantyne told him of the comparative failure, he received the news after a moment with ‘perfect cheerfulness,’ and returned to work upon the conclusion of his second novel, ‘Guy Mannering,’ which, as Lockhart calculates, was written in six weeks, about Christmas 1814. The success of his novels encouraged him to make new purchases. ‘Money,’ he writes to Morritt in November 1814, ‘has been tumbling in upon me very fast;’ his pinches from ‘long-dated bills’ are over, and he is therefore buying land (Letters, i. 351).
For the next ten years Scott was pouring out the series of novels, displaying an energy and fertility of mind which make the feat one ​of the most remarkable recorded in literary history. The main interruption was in 1815. All his patriotic feelings had been stirred to the uttermost by the concluding scenes of the war; and he went to France in August, visited Waterloo, saw the allies in Paris, met the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh, was courteously received by Blücher, and kissed by the hetman Platoff. For Wellington he had the highest admiration, and wondered that the hero should care for the author of a ‘few bits of novels.’ Scott's impressions on this tour were described by him in ‘Paul's Letters to his Kinsfolk’ (1815), and in a poem on the ‘Field of Waterloo,’ published in October 1815 for the benefit of soldiers' widows, and an admitted failure. His last poem of any length, ‘Harold the Dauntless,’ was published in January 1817, as by the author of ‘Triermain,’ and had, says Lockhart, ‘considerable success,’ but not such as to encourage him to further attempts in the same line.
The ‘Waverley Novels,’ on the contrary, had at once become the delight of all readers, even of those who, like Hazlitt, detested Scott from a political point of view. Scott had determined to be anonymous, and the secret was at first confided only to his publishers and to his friends Morritt and Erskine. In his preface of 1830, and in some letters of the time, Scott gives reasons for this decision which are scarcely convincing. The most intelligible is his dislike to be accepted as an author, and forced to talk about his own books in society. This fell in with his low estimate of literary reputation in general. He considered his writings chiefly as the means of supporting his position as a gentleman, and would rather be received as Scott of Abbotsford than the author of the ‘Waverley Novels.’ When writing his earlier books, as Lockhart shows, he had frankly consulted his friends; but as he became more of a professional author, he was less disposed to wear the character publicly. It is probable that his connection with the Ballantynes had an effect in this change. He began to take a publisher's point of view, and was afraid of making his name too cheap. Whatever his motives, he adhered to his anonymity, and in agreements with Constable introduced a clause that the publisher should be liable to a penalty of 2,000l. if the name of the author were revealed (ib. ch. xliii. and liv. pp. 388, 469). He says, in his preface, that he considered himself to be entitled to deny the authorship flatly if the question were put to him directly. It was reported that he had solemnly disavowed ‘Waverley’ to the prince regent, who entertained him at dinner in the spring of 1815. Scott, however, told Ballantyne that the question had not been put to him, though he evaded the acknowledgment when the regent proposed his health as the ‘author of Waverley’ (For a similar story see Smiles's John Murray, i. 474). From the first, the most competent readers guessed the truth. It was sufficiently intimated by Jeffrey in his review of ‘Waverley,’ and the constant use in the novels of his own experiences gave unmistakable evidence to all his familiars. Less intimate friends, such as Southey and Sydney Smith, speak without doubt of his authorship. The letters on the authorship of ‘Waverley’ by John Leycester Adolphus [q. v.] in 1821 gave a superfluous, though ingenious, demonstration of the fact. Scott countenanced a few rumours attributing the novels to others, especially to his brother, Thomas Scott, now in Canada. Thomas, he suggested, need not officiously reject the credit of the authorship. Murray believed this report in 1817; and a discovery of the same statement in a Canadian paper led a Mr. W. J. Fitzgerald to write a pamphlet in 1855 attributing the authorship (partly at least) to Thomas (see Notes and Queries, 1st ser. vols. i. and ii.).
Scott said that his first suggestion of novels intended to portray Scottish character came from Miss Edgeworth's Irish stories. He sent her a copy of ‘Waverley’ and warm compliments from the anonymous author. Scott's sympathetic reproduction of the national characteristics was of course combined with the power, which distinguished his novels from all previous works, of giving life to history and to the picturesque and vanishing forms of society. His ‘feudalism’ and toryism were other aspects of his intense interest in the old order broken down by the revolution. He was also pouring out the stores of anecdote and legend and the vivid impressions of the scenery which he had been imbibing from his early childhood while rambling through the country in close and friendly intercourse with all classes. Scott's personal charm, his combination of masculine sense with wide and generous sympathy, enabled him to attract an unprecedentedly numerous circle of readers to these almost impromptu utterances of a teeming imagination.
The first nine novels, in which these qualities are most conspicuous, appeared in five years; the last on 10 June 1819. ‘Waverley’ was followed on 24 Feb. 1815 by ‘Guy Mannering,’ the hero of which was at once ​recognised by Hogg as a portrait of the author himself. ‘The Antiquary,’ which, as he told Basil Hall (Fragments, iii. 325; and see Archdeacon Sinclair, Old Times and Distant Places), was his own favourite, appeared in May 1816. The ‘Black Dwarf’ and ‘Old Mortality’ appeared together, as the first series of the ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ on 1 Dec. 1816. The ‘author of “Waverley”’ was not mentioned on the title-page, but the identity was instantly recognised. Scott himself reviewed this in the ‘Quarterly,’ inserting, however, as Lockhart says, a general estimate of the novels written by W. Erskine. The main purpose of the article is to give facts in justification of some of his Scottish portraits, especially his account of the covenanters in ‘Old Mortality,’ which had been attacked by Thomas McCrie (1772–1835) [q. v.] (the article is in his ‘Miscellaneous Works’). ‘Rob Roy’ appeared on 31 Dec. 1817, and the ‘Heart of Midlothian’ in June 1818. This representation of the nobler side of the covenanting temper gave the best answer to McCrie's criticism, and the story caused, says Lockhart, an unequalled burst of enthusiasm throughout Scotland. The third series of ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ including the ‘Bride of Lammermoor’ and the ‘Legend of Montrose,’ appeared on 10 June 1819.
The arrangements for publishing these novels were unfortunately carried on by Scott through the Ballantynes, of whom other publishers, such as Cadell and Blackwood, seem to have felt thorough distrust (see Constable, iii. 108, &c.; Smiles, Murray, i. 462). John Ballantyne tried to work upon the eagerness of various competitors for the works of the popular author. The books were printed by James Ballantyne. Scott retained the permanent copyright, but sold the early editions for such a sum as would give half the profits to the publisher. ‘Guy Mannering’ was thus sold to the Longmans for 1,500l. on condition of taking 500l. of John Ballantyne's stock. Constable was vexed on being passed over, and the ‘Antiquary’ was given to him on the usual terms; but the first ‘Tales of my Landlord’ were sold to Murray and Blackwood, who again took some of Ballantyne's stock (Constable, iii. 35). Constable, it seems, resented some of John Ballantyne's proposals, and was unwilling to be connected with the firm. On the appearance of ‘Rob Roy,’ however, John Ballantyne again agreed with Constable, who gave 1,700l. for the copies, besides taking more stock, and Ballantyne himself gained 1,200l. by the bargain. On the next occasion Ballantyne worked so successfully upon Constable's jealousy of Murray that the publisher, besides taking the second series of the ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ ‘cleared the Augean stable’ by taking the remainder of Ballantyne's stock for 5,270l.—two thirds of which was ultimately a dead loss. [This transaction, according to Constable (iii. 96), took place later.] Scott thus got rid of the last remains of the publishing business, and now supposed himself to be emerging from his difficulties. He was able, in consequence of some arrangement with Constable, to return the Duke of Buccleuch's bond discharged (7 Jan. 1818). Finally, in December 1818, Scott, who required money for land-purchases, building, and the expense of obtaining a commission for his son, made a bargain by which Constable bought the copyrights of all his works published up to that date for 12,000l. This included all the novels above mentioned and the poetry, with the exception of a fourth share of ‘Marmion’ belonging to Murray. The Constables signed bonds for this amount on 2 Feb. 1819, but failed to pay them off before their insolvency. Scott therefore retained some interest in the copyrights. Longman published the ‘Monastery,’ and joined Constable in publishing the ‘Abbot.’ But Constable published all Scott's other works, and came into exceedingly intricate relations with Scott and the Ballantynes.
‘Ivanhoe,’ which appeared at the end of 1819, marked a new departure. Scott was now drawing upon his reading instead of his personal experience, and the book has not the old merit of serious portraiture of real life. But its splendid audacity, its vivid presentation of mediæval life, and the dramatic vigour of the narrative, may atone for palpable anachronisms and melodramatic impossibilities. The story at once achieved the popularity which it has always enjoyed, and was more successful in England than any of the so-called ‘Scottish novels.’ It was Scott's culminating success in a bookselling sense, and marked the highest point both of his literary and his social prosperity.
The year was indeed a sad one for Scott. He had been deeply grieved by the death of the (fourth) Duke of Buccleuch on 20 April 1819. He lost his mother, between whom and himself there had been a cordial affection, on 24 Dec. Her brother, Dr. Rutherford, and her sister had died on the 20th and 22nd of the same month. His own health was in so serious a state at the publication of the ‘Tales’ in June that the general impression was that he would write no more. He had been suddenly attacked, in March 1817, by violent cramps ​of the stomach. Similar attacks were repeated during the next two years, and the change in his appearance shocked his acquaintances. In April 1819 Scott himself took a solemn leave of his children, in expectation of immediate death. The Earl of Buchan had already designed a splendid funeral, and tried to force his way into the patient's room to comfort him by explaining the details. The attacks caused intense agony, which he bore with unflinching courage. When unable to write he dictated to Ballantyne and Laidlaw in the midst of his suffering. The greatest part of the ‘Bride of Lammermoor,’ the ‘Legend of Montrose,’ and ‘Ivanhoe,’ was written under these conditions (Ballantyne's full account is printed in Journal, i. 408). James Ballantyne testified to the remarkable fact that Scott, while remembering the story upon which the ‘Bride of Lammermoor’ was founded, had absolutely forgotten his own novel, and read it upon its appearance as entirely new to him. The attacks were repeated in 1820, but became less violent under a new treatment.
Scott's growing fame had made him the centre of a wide and varied social circle. In Edinburgh he was much occupied by his legal as well as literary duties, and kept early hours, which limited his social engagements. In the evenings he enjoyed drives in the lovely scenery and rambles in the old town. Every Sunday he entertained his old cronies, who were chiefly of the tory persuasion. The bitterness of political divisions in Scotland divided society into two sections, though Scott occasionally met Jeffrey and other whigs; and Cockburn testifies (Memorials, p. 267) that the only question among them at an early period used to be whether his poetry or his talk was the more delightful. The ‘Edinburgh Reviewers’ talked Adam Smith and Dugald Stewart, and aimed at epigrammatic smartness, while Scott simply poured out the raw material of the ‘Waverley Novels;’ and one may easily believe that his easy humour was more charming than their brilliance. He took part also in the jovial dinners, where he was the idol of his courtiers, the Ballantynes, and where the dignified Constable occasionally appeared. Scott himself was temperate, ate little after a hearty breakfast, and was as indifferent to cookery as to music. He kept up the ponderous ceremonial of the ‘toasts’ and ‘sentiments’ of the old-fashioned dinners (Cockburn, Memorials, p. 40), at which the Ballantynes would read specimens of the forthcoming novel. It was at Abbotsford that Scott was in his glory. He had from the first been eager to extend his property. In 1816, according to Lockhart, the estate had grown from one hundred and fifty to nearly one thousand acres by purchases from small holders, who took advantage of his eagerness to exact extravagant prices. In 1817 he settled his old friend William Laidlaw on one of his farms at Kaeside. In 1817 he also bought the house and land of Huntly Burn for 10,000l., upon which next spring he settled Adam Ferguson, now retired on half-pay. In 1819 he was contemplating a purchase of Faldonside for 30,000l. This was not carried out, though he was still hankering after it in 1825 (Letters, ii. 260, 347); but in 1821, according to Lockhart, he had spent 29,000l. on land (Ballantyne Humbug, p. 93). He had set about building as soon as he came into possession, and a house-warming, to celebrate the completion of his new house, took place in November 1818. Beginning with a plan for an ‘ornamental cottage,’ he gradually came to an imitation of a Scottish baronial castle.
At Abbotsford Scott was visited by innumerable admirers of all ranks. American tourists, including Washington Irving and George Ticknor, English travellers of rank, or of literary and scientific fame, such as Sir Humphry Davy, Miss Edgeworth, Wordsworth, Moore, and many others, stayed with him at different periods, and have left many accounts of their experience. His businesslike habits enabled him during his most energetic labours to spend most of his mornings out of doors, and to give his evenings to society. His guests unanimously celebrate his perfect simplicity and dignity, as well as the charms of his conversation and his skill in putting all his guests at their ease. The busiest writer of the day appeared to be entirely absorbed in entertaining his friends. He was on intimate terms with all his neighbours, from the Duke of Buccleuch to Tom Purdie, and as skilful in chatting to the labourers, in whose planting he often took an active share, as in soothing the jealousies of fine ladies. He had annually two grand celebrations, devoted to salmon-fishing and coursing, which brought the whole country-side together, and gave a ‘kirn,’ or harvest-home, to his peasantry. Scott was always surrounded by his dogs, of whom the bulldog Camp and the deerhound Maida are the most famous. On Camp's death in 1809 he gave up an engagement for the loss ‘of a dear old friend.’ Maida died in 1824, and was celebrated by an epitaph, translated into Latin by Lockhart. Even a pig took a ‘sentimental attachment’ to him. ​Probably few men have charmed so many fellow-creatures of all classes.
His family was now growing up. Scott had made companions of his children, and never minded their interruptions. He cared little for the regular educational systems, but tried to interest them in poetry and history by his talk, and taught them to ride and speak the truth. The boys were sent to the high school from their home. In 1819 the eldest, Walter, joined the 18th hussars, in spite of his father's preference for the bar. Scott's letters to him are full of admirable good sense and paternal confidence. The eldest daughter, Sophia, married John Gibson Lockhart [q. v.] in April 1820. The Lockharts took the cottage of Chiefswood upon the Abbotsford estate, where they became valuable elements of Scott's circle.
At the end of 1818 Lord Sidmouth informed Scott of the prince regent's desire to confer a baronetcy upon him. Scott's hesitation was overcome by the prospect of an inheritance from his brother-in-law, Charles Carpenter, who had left a reversion of his property to his sister's children. It was estimated at 40,000l. or 50,000l., though it turned out to be only half that amount. The actual appointment was delayed by his illness till 30 March 1820, when he went to London, and kissed the new king's hands. George IV at the same time directed Lawrence to paint a portrait of Scott, as the beginning of a series for the great gallery at Windsor. Both Oxford and Cambridge offered him an honorary degree in 1820; but he was unable to present himself for the purpose. In the same year he was induced to accept the rather incongruous position of president of the Royal Society of Scotland. If he knew little of science, he succeeded in making friends of scientific men and giving charm to their meetings. Scott was informed in 1823 that the ‘author of “Waverley”’ was elected member of the Roxburghe Club, and consented to act as locum tenens of the ‘great unknown.’ He founded the Bannatyne Club the same year, and took a very active part in it for the rest of his life. He was also about 1823 elected to ‘The Club.’
In 1821 Scott attended the coronation of George IV, and wrote a description for Ballantyne's ‘Edinburgh Weekly Journal’ (given in Lockhart, p. 454, &c.). In 1822 he took a leading part in the reception of George IV at Edinburgh. He arranged the details; coaxed highland chiefs and lowland bailies into good humour, wrote appropriate ballads, and showed an enthusiasm scarcely justified by the personal character of the monarch. He begged a glass out of which the king had drunk his health to be kept as a relic, and sat down upon it, fortunately injuring only the glass (Lockhart, ch. lvi.) He was amused by the visit at this time of the poet Crabbe, with whom he had previously corresponded, and profoundly saddened by the melancholy death of his old, and it seems his dearest, friend, William Erskine. Scott had to snatch opportunities in the midst of the confusion to visit the dying man. During this period Scott's toryism and patriotic feelings were keenly excited. In January 1819 he had taken extraordinary interest in the discovery of the Scottish regalia, which had been locked up at the time of the union and were reported to have been sent to England. On the king's visit, he applied for the restoration to Edinburgh of ‘Mons Meg,’ then in the Tower of London, which was ultimately returned in 1829. He petitioned at the same time also for the restoration of the Scottish peerages forfeited in 1715 and 1745. He had some connection with more important political affairs. The popular discontent in 1819 had induced Scott and some of his neighbours to raise a volunteer force in the loyal districts, to be prepared against a supposed combination of Glasgow artisans and Northumberland colliers. The force was to be called the ‘Buccleuch legion,’ and Scott was ready to take the command. The political bitterness roused by this and the queen's trial led to the starting of the notorious ‘Beacon’ in 1821. Scott was induced to be one of the subscribers to a bond for raising the necessary funds. He was considered to be partly responsible for the virulent abuse which the paper directed against the whigs, and which led to the duel in which Sir Alexander Boswell [q. v.] was killed in March 1822. Sir James Gibson Craig [q. v.] intended, according to Cockburn (Memorials, p. 382), to send a challenge to Scott, but refrained on receiving an assurance that Scott was not personally concerned. The paper was suppressed, and Scott was as much disgusted by the cowardice as by the previous imprudence. Cockburn complains that the young tories who indulged in this warfare were encouraged by his ‘chuckling’ over their libels instead of checking them. He was, as Cockburn says, flattered by their admiration into condoning offences, though there ‘could not be a better natured or a better hearted man.’ It must be added that, as Mr. Lang has shown (Life of Lockhart, i. 194, &c.), Scott seriously disapproved of the personalities, and remonstrated effectually with Lockhart. Scott in 1821 adopted plans ​for the ‘completion of Abbotsford’ (Lockhart, ch. liv.) The masonry was finished and the roof being placed in October 1822 (ib. ch. lvii.–lviii.). He amused himself by introducing gas, then a novelty, the glare from which was, as Lockhart thinks, bad for his health, and a bell-ringing device, which was a failure. During 1824 he was occupied in personally superintending the decorations. Most of the furniture was made on the spot by local carpenters and tailors, to whom Scott showed his usual kindness. ‘He speaks to every man,’ said one of them, ‘as if he were a blood relation.’ The painting was carried out by a young man whom Scott had judiciously exhorted to stick to his trade instead of trying to rival Wilkie, and who prospered in consequence. At the end of 1824 the house was at last finished, and a large party assembled at Christmas. On 7 Jan. 1825 there was a ball in honour of Miss Jobson of Lochore, a young lady with 60,000l. who, on 3 Feb. following, was married to Scott's son Walter. Scott had bought a captaincy for his son for 3,500l. He now settled the estate of Abbotsford upon the married pair, in accordance with the demands of her guardian.
The whole expenditure upon Abbotsford is estimated by Sir J. Gibson Craig at 76,000l. (Letter to Miss Edgeworth). In the summer Scott made a tour in Ireland, visited his son, then quartered at Dublin, and Miss Edgeworth, who accompanied him to Killarney. He was everywhere received with an enthusiasm which made the journey, as he said, ‘an ovation.’ He visited the ‘ladies of Llangollen’ on his way home, and met Canning at the English lakes. A grand regatta, with a procession of fifty barges, was arranged upon Windermere, in which Wilson acted as ‘admiral’ and Wordsworth joined the party. Scott reached Abbotsford on 1 Sept., and soon heard the first news of approaching calamity.
Scott's mode of life involved a large expenditure, but he was also making apparently a very large income. The production of novels had been going on more rapidly than ever; though after ‘Ivanhoe’ there was a decline, of which he was not fully aware, in their circulation. He had begun the ‘Monastery’ before concluding ‘Ivanhoe.’ It was published in March 1820, and the ‘Abbot’ followed in September. He agreed with the public that the first was ‘not very interesting,’ and admitted that his supernatural machinery was a blunder. The ‘Abbot’ was suggested by his visits to Blair Adam, the seat of Chief Commissioner William Adam [q. v.], in sight of Lochleven Castle. The Blair Adam Club, consisting of a few of Adam's friends, met at his house to make antiquarian excursions, and Scott attended the meetings regularly from 1816 to 1831. ‘Kenilworth,’ which had much success, appeared in January, and the ‘Pirate’ in December 1821. During the autumn he composed a series of imaginary ‘private letters’ supposed to be written in the time of James I. On the suggestion of Ballantyne and Lockhart that he was throwing away a good novel, he changed his plan, and wrote the ‘Fortunes of Nigel,’ which appeared in May 1822. ‘Peveril of the Peak’ appeared in January, ‘Quentin Durward’ in June, and ‘St. Ronan's Well’ in December 1823. ‘Quentin Durward’ was coldly received in England, though its extraordinary power was recognised after it had been received in France with an enthusiasm comparable to that which had greeted ‘Ivanhoe’ in England. In talking over the French excitement, Laidlaw told Scott that he was always best on his native heath. This, as Lockhart thinks, suggested ‘St. Ronan's Well,’ published December 1823, his only attempt at a novel of society. The experiment has been generally regarded as in this respect a failure, and James Ballantyne injured the story by inducing Scott to yield to his notions of propriety. The English sale showed a falling off, but in Scotland it was well received. The people of Innerleithen judiciously identified their well with that of St. Ronan's, attracted sightseers, and set up the St. Ronan's border games, where Hogg presided with the support of Scott. In June 1824 appeared ‘Redgauntlet,’ which was ‘somewhat coldly received.’ The magnificent tale of Wandering Willie, which probably gives the best impression of Scott's power of story-telling, and the autobiographical interest of the portraits of his father, himself, and his friend, W. Clerk (‘Darsie Latimer’), give it a peculiar interest. The ‘Tales of the Crusaders’ appeared in June 1825, and though ‘The Betrothed’ is an admitted failure, its companion, ‘The Talisman,’ showed enough of the old spirit to secure for the two ‘an enthusiastic reception.’
This series of novels was produced under circumstances which had serious consequences for Scott's future. ‘Kenilworth’ was the last novel in which John Ballantyne had a share of the profits. The later novels were all published by Constable on terms which greatly affected Scott's position. Constable had printed at once ten thousand copies of ‘Rob Roy,’ whereas the first edition of its predecessor had been only two thousand, and a second impression of three thousand copies had been required in a fortnight. A ​copy of John Ballantyne's agreement for ‘Kenilworth’ (in journal communicated by Mr. A. Constable) gives the terms of sale for it, which were little varied in other cases. Constable undertook to print twelve thousand copies; he was to raise immediately 1,600l. and each of the Ballantynes 400l. for expenses of publishing, and the profits to be divided proportionally. Scott was to be paid 4,500l. The retail price of the copies was 10s. a volume, or 1l. 10s., and they were apparently sold to the trade for about 1l. Scott thus enabled the Ballantynes to have a share in the profits, which Lockhart calls a ‘bonus.’ He of course retained the copyright.
Besides allowing John Ballantyne this ‘bonus,’ Scott had offered in 1819 to write biographical prefaces for a ‘Novelist's Library,’ to be published for his sole benefit. Scott fulfilled this promise by several lives profixed to an edition of the ‘Novelist's,’ the first volume of which appeared in February 1821. Ten volumes were published, but the scheme dropped after Ballantyne's death in June 1821. Ballantyne left 2,000l. to his benefactor, but had unfortunately only debts to bequeath. In the following November Constable agreed to pay five thousand guineas for the copyright of the four novels (‘Kenilworth’ being the last) published since those bought in 1819. In June 1823 Constable bought the copyright of the next four published (including ‘Quentin Durward,’ then just appearing) for an equal sum. Besides this, he had advanced 11,000l. on still unfinished works. Constable also gave 1,000l. for the dramatic sketch called ‘Halidon Hill’ (published in June 1822), which Scott wrote in two rainy mornings at Abbotsford. This ‘wild bargain,’ as Lockhart calls it, was made by Constable's partner, Cadell, ‘in five minutes,’ to the satisfaction of both partners (Lockhart, ch. lv., and Constable, iii. 216). Constable suggested that Scott might turn out such a work every three months. Both writer and publisher seem to have regarded Scott's genius as a perpetual and inexhaustible spring. Scott held that his best writing was that which came most easily, and was ready to undertake any amount of work suggested. In March 1822 he says that Constable has ‘saddled him with fortune,’ and made twelve volumes grow where there might only have been one. He admits that he is building ‘a little expensively,’ but he has provided for his family, and no one could be indifferent to the solid comfort of 8,000l. a year, especially if he ‘buys land, builds, and improves’ (Constable, iii. 207). In 1818 Lockhart says that Scott's income from his novels had been for several years not less than 10,000l. His expenses required steady supplies, and, as the advances involved an extension of credit, the publishers were naturally eager for new work which would bring in ready money. In 1823 the liabilities incurred began to be serious, and the novels were selling less freely. Constable and his partner, Cadell, were afraid of damping Scott, and yet began to see that the supply was outrunning the demand, and even exhausting Scott's powers. Cadell reports in June 1823 that Scott was alarmed by the comparative failure of ‘Quentin Durward,’ while Ballantyne had to meet engagements in July (Constable, iii. 271). Cadell told Scott that he ‘must not be beaten or appear to be beaten.’ He must go on with the novel in hand, but interpolate other work, such as a proposed volume on ‘Popular Superstitions.’ Constable meanwhile had fresh projects. He proposed a collection of English poets. He would give Scott 6,000l. for editing it and writing prefaces ‘as an occasional relief from more important labours.’ He then (February 1822) proposed an edition of Shakespeare (by Scott and Lockhart), of which, it is said, three volumes were actually printed, but sold as waste paper after the crash of 1826 (see Constable, iii. 241, and Lang's Lockhart, i. 308, 396. In ‘Notes and Queries,’ 5th ser. i. 343, it is said that some sheets are in existence in America). In 1823 Constable had become alarmed at the transactions between his house and Ballantyne's, and proposed to Scott measures for reducing the ‘floating balance’ (Constable, iii. 275–86). Scott fully agreed, and said that he looked forward to such an arrangement ‘without the least doubt or shadow of anxiety.’ Constable's son David states that by his desire an accountant was called in to make a plain statement of the accounts, but that his investigations were stopped by Scott. Scott, it is plain, was not seriously alarmed, and Constable was still sanguine, and before long was contemplating another great undertaking enthusiastically. In May 1825 he expounded to Scott his scheme for the ‘Miscellany.’ This series, intended to create a popular demand for standard literature, was to start with a reprint of ‘Waverley’ (Constable, iii. 307, 314), which was to be followed by a ‘life’ of Napoleon, to be written by Scott. Scott took up the ‘life’ at once, which speedily expanded under his hands until it became too large for publication in the ‘Miscellany.’ Lockhart was painfully impressed by the obvious effort which the drudgery of consulting authorities imposed upon Scott. ​Scott was at this time helping the widow and children of his brother Thomas (d. 1824). The son Walter went to India as an engineer, became a general, and died in 1873 (Letters, ii. 363, &c.).
Meanwhile the speculative fever, which culminated in the crisis of 1825–6, was reaching its height. Constable and Cadell found themselves in difficulties in the autumn. Hurst, Robinson, & Co., their London agents, with whom they had many transactions, were hard pressed, having, it is said, indulged, among other things, in a large speculation upon hops. In November Lockhart heard a report that Constable's London banker had ‘thrown up his book.’ He told Scott, who was incredulous, but drove at once to Constable by night, and came back with the news that the business was ‘as firm as Benlomond.’ Scott's alarm gave the first hint to his family of the closeness of the connection with Ballantyne. His subsequent history is fully told in the ‘Journal’ which he began to keep at this time. Though freely used by Lockhart, its publication in full in 1890 first revealed the full interest of this most pathetic piece of autobiography. In December Scott was seriously alarmed, and at the end of the year borrowed 10,000l. which his son's settlement empowered him to raise upon Abbotsford. This, he thought, would make Ballantyne secure, but he was anxious about Constable. A severe attack of illness at Christmas was aggravated by anxiety. In January Constable, after a delay from illness, went to London, and found that matters were almost desperate. Among other schemes for borrowing, he proposed that Scott should raise 20,000l. Scott, with Cadell's advice, absolutely refused, saying that he had advanced enough for other people's debts, and must now pay his own. This led to Scott's later alliance with Cadell, who had fallen out with his old partner. On 16 Jan. Scott received decisive news of the stoppage of payment by Hurst & Robinson, which involved the fall of Constable and of Ballantyne. He dined that day with Skene, apparently in his usual spirits. Next morning, before going to the court, he told Skene that he was a beggar, and that his ruin must be made public. He felt ‘rather sneaking’ when he showed himself in court. Cockburn (Memorials, p. 431) says that there was no feeling but sympathy. When some of his friends talked of raising money, he replied, ‘No, this right hand shall work it all off.’ In spite of business, he wrote a chapter of ‘Woodstock’ every day that week, finishing ‘twenty printed pages’ on the 19th.
The liabilities of Constable, according to Lockhart, amounted to 256,000l., those of Hurst, Robinson, & Co. to near 300,000l., and those of Ballantyne & Co. to 117,000l. The first two firms became bankrupt and paid 2s. 6d. and 1s. 3d. in the pound respectively. Much controversy followed, with little definite results, as to the apportionment of responsibility for this catastrophe. The immediate cause was the system of accommodation between the firms of Constable and Ballantyne. Sir J. Gibson Craig, who was thoroughly acquainted with the facts, throws the chief blame on Scott. Craig was in Constable's confidence from the first difficulties of 1813. Though a strong whig, he behaved generously as one of Scott's chief creditors. Constable's loss, according to him, originated ‘in a desire to benefit Scott, which Sir Walter had always the manliness to acknowledge.’ Constable had supported the Ballantynes, but had found it necessary to take bills from them in order to protect himself. When affairs became serious, he took all these bills to Scott, offering to exchange them for those granted to Scott. Scott being unable to do this, Constable was forced to discount the bills, and upon his insolvency Scott became responsible for both sets of bills, thus incurring a loss of about 40,000l. A similar statement is made by Lockhart, and no doubt represents the facts, though Lockhart's version is disputed by Ballantyne's trustees (Craig's letter of 1848 in Constable, iii. 456–7, and a fuller letter to Miss Edgeworth of 1832 communicated by Mr. A. Constable).
Constable was a shrewd man of business, and engaged in speculations sound in themselves and ultimately profitable. It is, however, abundantly clear that, from want of sufficient capital, he was from the first obliged to raise credit on terms which, as his partner Cadell said, ‘ran away with all their gains.’ Cadell was anxious in 1822 to retire in consequence of his anxieties (Smiles, Murray, i. 185, &c.; Constable, iii. 236). Though Constable's regard for Scott was undoubtedly genuine, his advances meant that he was anxious to monopolise the most popular author of the day, and the profit on the ‘Waverley Novels’ was a main support of his business. He was therefore both ready to supply Scott with credit and anxious not to alarm him by making difficulties. Scott was completely taken by surprise when Constable failed. ‘No man,’ he says (Journal, 29 Jan. 1826), ‘thought (Constable's) house worth less than 150,000l.’ Had Constable stood, Scott would have stood too. The problem remains why Scott should not have been independent of Constable. ​From 1816 to 1822 James Ballantyne had been simply Scott's paid manager. In 1822 Scott had again taken him into partnership, carefully defining the terms in a ‘missive letter’ (printed in the ‘Ballantyne Humbug’). He spoke of the business as ‘now so flourishing.’ Profits were to be equally divided; but Scott undertook to be personally responsible for bills then due by the firm to the amount of about 30,000l. This sum had been increased before the bankruptcy to about 46,000l. The substantial question in the controversy between Lockhart and Ballantyne's trustees was whether Scott or Ballantyne was mainly responsible for this accumulation of indebtedness. That Scott's extravagant expenditure contributed to the catastrophe is of course clear. Had he not wasted money at Abbotsford, he would have been able to put his business in a sound position. It is, however, disputed how far the accumulation of bills was caused by Ballantyne's shiftlessness or by Scott's direct drafts upon the business.
The Ballantyne connection had undoubtedly been a misfortune. James was inefficient and John reckless. They had apparently been in debt from the first, and had initiated Scott in the system of bill-discounting. Scott was in a thoroughly false position when he concealed himself behind his little court of flatterers rather than counsellors. He became involved in petty intrigues and reckless dealing in money. The failure of the publishing house, indeed, was due in great part to Scott's injudicious speculations. A debt apparently remained when the publishing was finally abandoned, in spite of Scott's ultimate disposal of the stock. The printing business, however, was sound, and made good profits even after the crash, under James Ballantyne's management (cf. Ballantyne Humbug, p. 109, and Reply, p. 118). Why, then, should the debt have continued to grow when, after 1816, the publishing had ceased? The new firm—that is, Scott—had taken over, according to Lockhart, some 10,000l. of the old liabilities, and this, if not paid off, would of course accumulate (Lockhart, ch. lii. p. 451n.) Ballantyne's trustees, however, argue that Scott's assumption of the debt in 1822 proves his consciousness that it had been created for his private purposes. They show conclusively that Scott was fully cognisant of all the bill transactions, and directing Ballantyne at every step in making provision for bills as they came due. When Scott had become aware of the entanglements of 1813, he had remonstrated energetically and done his best to clear them off. Could he have submitted to a repetition of the same process on behalf of the ‘flourishing (printing) business’ had he not been aware that the debt was being incurred for his own requirements? Lockhart wonders that Scott, who could have told what he had spent on turnpikes for thirty years, should never have looked into his own affairs. Scott was not so ignorant as Lockhart implies. He had apparently become accustomed to the bill-discounting, while he fully believed that he was investing the proceeds safely. Lockhart denies (Ballantyne Humbug, p. 94) that Scott drew sums from the business in behalf of his own private needs. But the accounts published by the trustees show that large sums had been advanced during the partnership (1822–1826) for Scott's building and other expenses. He had thus drawn out 15,000l. more than he had paid in. Scott, of course, was personally responsible for these sums; but he injured the firm by saddling it with a bad debt. Whatever, therefore, may have been Ballantyne's inefficiency, and the automatic accumulation of debt by renewing bills, it is hardly to be doubted that Scott encumbered the business by using it as his instrument in raising money for his own purposes. It belonged to him exclusively at the time when his outlay on Abbotsford was greatest, and he had been the real creator of the business. He seems to have spoken the simple truth when he told Lockhart on 20 Jan. 1826 that he had not suffered by Ballantyne: ‘I owe it to him to say that his difficulties, as well as his advantages, are owing to me.’
The Ballantynes also complain that the settlement of Abbotsford in January 1825 put the bulk of his property beyond the reach of his creditors, without, as they state, due notice to Ballantyne. Scott, as Lockhart urges, clearly imagined himself at this time to be perfectly solvent, and certainly did not in any way conceal the transaction, of which Constable at least was quite aware. Up to the last he seems to have felt not a trace of misgiving.
Whatever blame Scott may deserve, his action was henceforth heroic. He resolved not to become a bankrupt, but to carry on the business for the benefit of his creditors. ‘I will,’ he says (24 Jan. 1826), ‘be their vassal for life, and dig in the mine of my imagination to find diamonds … to make good my engagements, not to enrich myself.’ The creditors, with few exceptions, behaved generously throughout. On 26 Jan. he heard that they had unanimously agreed to the proposed private trust. An attack upon the settlement of Abbotsford was afterwards contemplated by some of them; and, accord​ing to Sir J. G. Craig, it might certainly have been upset. Scott would then, he says, have felt it necessary to become a bankrupt (Journal, 16 Feb.) This would have been against the creditors' interests. The general feeling seems to have been that his bankruptcy would have been a national calamity, and that he should be treated with all gentleness in his attempt to atone for his errors. His son Walter made offers to help him which he declined; and ‘poor Mr. Pole, the harper,’ who had taught his daughters music, offered to contribute all his own savings, amounting to five or six hundred pounds. Scott was deeply touched by this, and by the great kindness of Sir William Forbes, his old friend and successful rival in his first love affair. In the following year, when a creditor threatened Scott with arrest, Forbes paid the demand of 2,000l. from his own pocket, ranking as an ordinary creditor for the amount, and carefully keeping the transaction secret till after Scott's death (Lockhart, ch. lxxiv.) Scott's servants accepted the change with equal loyalty. His old coachman, Peter Matheson, became ‘ploughman in ordinary;’ the butler doubled his work and took half the wages; and though Laidlaw had to leave Kaeside, which was let by the trustees, he came every week for a ramble with his patron. The house in Castle Street was sold, and Scott had to take lodgings during the legal session. The rest of the time was spent at Abbotsford, where he had made all possible reductions.
Scott's attention, even at this time, was diverted to a patriotic object. The proposal of government to suppress the circulation of small bank-notes was supposed to be injurious to Scottish banks; and Scott attacked the measure in three letters of vehement patriotism, signed ‘Malachi Malagrowther,’ in the Edinburgh ‘Evening Journal’ of March. A sensation was produced comparable to that caused by Swift's ‘Drapier's Letters;’ and the government, though much annoyed at Scott's action, consented in May to drop the application of the measure to Scotland. Scott's pleasure at this success was dashed by a new calamity. Lady Scott's health had shown ominous symptoms. The news of her condition, he says (19 March), ‘is overwhelming. … Really these misfortunes come too close upon each other!’ She became gradually worse, and died on 15 May. Lady Scott is not a very conspicuous figure in his life, and she apparently rather encouraged than checked his weaknesses; nor did he feel for her so romantic a passion as for his early love. He was, however, an affectionate and generous husband; and many entries in the journal show that this catastrophe severely tried his stoicism. The younger son, Charles, was now at Oxford; and his younger daughter, Anne, also in weak health, was the only permanent member of his household. Another anxiety which weighed heavily upon his spirits was the fatal diseases of his ‘darling grandson,’ John Hugh Lockhart. ‘The best I can wish for him,’ he says (18 March), ‘is early death.’ Though there were occasional hopes, the fear of the coming loss overshadowed Scott's remaining years. Scott hid his gloomy feelings as well as he could, and his family learnt their existence only from his journal. He was at his desk again soon after his wife's funeral. He had been encouraged (3 April) by news that ‘Woodstock,’ written in three months, had been sold for 8,228l., ‘all ready money.’ His chief employment was now the ‘Life of Napoleon,’ but he resolved to fill up necessary intervals by a new story, the ‘Chronicles of the Canongate.’ ‘Woodstock,’ according to Lockhart, was a good bargain for the purchasers. Scott drudged steadily at ‘Napoleon’ till, in the autumn, he found it desirable to examine materials offered to him in London and Paris. He left Abbotsford on 12 Oct., and returned by the end of November. He was cordially received by his old friends in England, from the king downwards, and in Paris he declares (5 Nov.) that the French were ‘outrageous in their civilities.’ In the following winter he suffered severely from rheumatism, but stuck to his work, grudging every moment that was not spent at his desk. He was depressed by the sense of ‘bodily helplessness,’ and his writing became ‘cramped and confused.’ At the beginning of 1827 he was living quietly with his daughter, occasionally dining with old friends, and still heartily enjoying their society. On 23 Feb. he took the chair at a meeting to promote a fund for decayed actors. He allowed Lord Meadowbank to propose his health as author of the ‘Waverley Novels,’ and in his reply made the first public acknowledgment that he was the sole writer.
Scott still found time to write various articles, including one for the benefit of R. P. Gillies, to whom it brought 100l. Another gift of a year later was a couple of sermons written to help G. H. Gordon when a candidate for ordination. Gordon was one of the countless young men whom he had helped; after employing him as an amanuensis, he had obtained a place for him in a public office, and now allowed him to clear off debt by selling the sermons for 250l. The ‘Life of Napoleon’ was published ​in nine volumes in June 1827. Lockhart calculates that it contains as much as five of the ‘Waverley Novels,’ and that the actual writing, after making allowance for absences and other works, had occupied twelve months. Though Scott had collected many books and consulted such authorities as he could, a work done at such speed, with powers already overstrained and amid pressing anxieties, could not have serious historical value. It was, however, sold for 18,000l., and warmly received at the time. Goethe, who had just addressed a complimentary letter to Scott (dated 12 Jan. 1827) acknowledging his lively interest in his ‘wonderful pictures of human life,’ speaks favourably (‘Kunst und Alterthum’) of the ‘Napoleon.’ The book also led to a controversy with General Gourgaud, about whom Scott had published certain documents. There was some talk of a duel, which ‘pleasurably stimulated’ Scott's feelings; but the affair blew over without a challenge.
Scott, having finished ‘Napoleon,’ began, without a day's intermission (Journal, 10 June 1827), a history of Scotland for children. The Lockharts were near him in the summer, and Scott told the story to the child before putting it on paper. The first series of the ‘Chronicles of Canongate’ appeared in the early winter. He was discouraged by the reception of the novel, and only at Cadell's entreaty consented to make another start in fiction. The history published as ‘Tales of a Grandfather’ appeared in December, and was more ‘rapturously’ received than any of his books since ‘Ivanhoe.’ A second and third series appeared in 1828 and 1829. Questions as to the copyrights of ‘Woodstock’ and ‘Napoleon’ had now been settled in Scott's favour. Affairs being simplified, Constable's creditors sold the copyrights of the ‘Waverley Novels’ and most of the poems. They were put up to auction and bought, half for Scott's trustees and half for Cadell, for 8,500l. The purchase enabled Scott to carry out a plan which appears to have been suggested by Constable in 1823 (Constable, iii. 255). This was an edition of the works with autobiographical prefaces, which was carried out with singular success, and chiefly contributed to the reduction of the debt. Scott refers to it as the magnum opus. A dividend of six shillings in the pound was paid at Christmas 1827, near 40,000l. having been raised in the two years by Scott's exertions.
His labours continued monotonously through the next two years. The ‘Fair Maid of Perth,’ the last novel which shows unmistakable marks of the old vigour, appeared in the spring of 1828, and the character of the chief whose cowardice is made pardonable reflected his sorrow for his harsh judgment upon his brother Daniel. In the summer he was much troubled by the bankruptcy of his friend Terry, whom he endeavoured to help. ‘Anne of Geierstein,’ the next novel, was warmly praised by his friends at Christmas, to his great encouragement. It was disliked by Ballantyne, but, though the printer's judgment anticipated that of later readers, succeeded fairly on its publication in May 1829. His spirits were raised by the success of the magnum opus, which was now coming out in monthly volumes, and by the end of the year reached a sale of thirty-five thousand. He was greatly shocked by the death of his favourite, Tom Purdie, on 29 Oct. (see Lang's Lockhart, ii. 56).
In the winter Scott wrote the ‘Ayrshire Tragedy,’ the least unsuccessful of his dramatic attempts. Soon afterwards, however, on 15 Feb. 1830, a paralytic or apoplectic attack showed that his toils were at last telling. He submitted to a severe regimen, and an apparent improvement encouraged him to struggle on. His family could see a painful change. Writing was obviously injurious, and Cadell hoped that the success of the magnum opus would induce him to confine himself to writing the prefaces. Cadell tried also to divert his attention to a catalogue of the Abbotsford Museum. Scott was taken by the scheme, but after beginning it insisted upon starting a new story. He could still speak effectively at an election dinner, and he made a successful appeal through the papers to the people of Edinburgh to receive Charles X on his exile with dignified decorum. He retired at the end of the summer season from his clerkship on an allowance of 800l. a year. He declined an offer from the ministry to make up the deficiency of his income by a pension, after consulting his creditors, who generously agreed that he should obey his sense of delicacy. He also declined the rank of privy councillor, as unsuitable to his position. He passed the winter at Abbotsford, toiling at his new story, ‘Count Robert of Paris.’ Cadell and Ballantyne became alarmed at its obvious indication of declining powers, and Ballantyne at last wrote a frank opinion of its future. Another seizure had shaken him in November. He summoned his advisers to consider the novel. On 17 Dec. 1830 a meeting of Scott's creditors took place, when a further dividend of three shillings in the pound was paid. ​They unanimously agreed to Gibson Craig's motion that he should be presented with his library and other furniture in recognition of his ‘unparalleled exertions.’ Cadell and Ballantyne found him on the same evening soothed by this recognition of his sacrifices. Next day they discussed the novel. Scott had meanwhile written a third ‘Malagrowther’ letter, denouncing parliamentary reform. Both his friends protested against the publication of this ill-timed performance, when his success depended upon popularity. Scott was greatly moved, and, in Cadell's opinion, never recovered the blow. Alarmed by his agitation, his friends begged him to go on with ‘Count Robert.’ To have condemned it would have been a ‘death-warrant.’ He burnt the pamphlet but toiled on with the story, dictating to Laidlaw, who happily thought it his best work (7 March 1831). He wrote as many pages in 1830, says Lockhart, as in 1829, in spite of his decay. The ‘Letters on Demonology,’ in execution of an old scheme, was the chief result.
In January 1831 Scott made his will, being enabled by his creditors' liberality to make some provision for the younger children. He had an attack more serious than any which had yet occurred in April 1831. He was afterwards distressed by an unfavourable opinion of ‘Count Robert’ from his publishers. On 18 May he persisted, in spite of remonstrance, in attending an election at Jedburgh, to protest for the last time against parliamentary reform. A mob of weavers from Hawick filled the town and grossly insulted him. He was taken away at last amid a shower of stones and cries of ‘Burke Sir Walter!’ At Selkirk, a few days later, he seized a rioter with his own hands.
Scott after this took up his last novel, ‘Castle Dangerous,’ in July, confiding in no one but Lockhart, with whom he was able to make a short tour in order to verify the descriptions of scenery. Lockhart's account of this last conscious return to the old haunts is especially touching. He afterwards finished both this and ‘Count Robert,’ which appeared together in November. His friends had now decided that a tour to a milder climate would offer the only chance of prolonging his life. Captain Basil Hall [q. v.] suggested to Sir James Graham, then first lord of the admiralty, that a frigate might be placed at his disposal. The government at once adopted the proposal, to Scott's great pleasure; and his eldest son obtained leave to sail with his father. Wordsworth happened to reach Abbotsford on the day before Scott's departure, and wrote a fine sonnet on the occasion. Scott travelled to London by Rokeby, still writing notes for the opus magnum. He saw a few friends, but was distressed by the Reform Bill demonstrations. He sailed from Portsmouth on 29 Oct. in the Barham frigate, every possible attention being paid to him. He insisted on landing upon the curious island just formed by a submarine volcano, and wrote a description of it to Skene. He reached Malta on 22 Nov., sailed for Naples in the Barham on 14 Dec., and there a month later heard of his grandson's death. He made a last attempt at two novels, founded on stories told to him at Naples, but became anxious to return to his home. On 16 April 1832 he left for Rome, where he insisted upon visiting St. Peter's to see the tomb of the last of the Stuarts. Italian scenery suggested to him snatches of old Scottish ballads. He was still able to see a little society, and could at times talk like himself. On 11 May he left Rome, passed through the Tyrol, and down the Rhine. On 9 June at Nimeguen he was prostrated by an attack of apoplexy and paralysis. He was brought to London on 13 June in a half-conscious state; the longing for home, whenever he could express himself, induced his physicians to permit his removal. He left London on 7 July, and proceeded by steamboat to Newhaven, near Edinburgh. Thence he was taken by carriage to Abbotsford, and roused to great excitement by the sight of the familiar scenes. He recognised Laidlaw, and for a short time was better, and able to listen to passages from the Bible and his favourite Crabbe. Once he made a pathetic effort to resume his pen; but his mind seemed to be with Tom Purdie and his old amusements. He repeated the ‘Burke Sir Walter’ and often the ‘Stabat Mater.’ A bill was passed, on Jeffrey's proposal, to provide for his duties as sheriff, as he was incapable of resigning. On 17 Sept. he spoke his last words to Lockhart: ‘My dear, be a good man,’ and refused to let his daughter be disturbed. His eldest son had come to him, and on 21 Sept. 1832 he died quietly in presence of all his children. ‘It was so quiet a day,’ says Lockhart, ‘that the sound he best loved, the gentle ripple of the Tweed over its pebbles, was distinctly audible as we knelt round the bed and his eldest son kissed and closed his eyes.’
Scott was succeeded in the baronetcy by his eldest son, Walter, who was born on 28 Oct. 1801, and died on 8 Feb. 1847, when the title became extinct. His other children were: (1) Charlotte Sophia, born 24 Oct. 1799 (afterwards Mrs. Lockhart), who died 17 May 1837; her daughter, Charlotte, married James ​Robert Hope-Scott [q. v.], and died in 1858. (2) Anne, born 2 Feb. 1803, and died unmarried 25 June 1833. (3) Charles, born 24 Dec. 1805, died at Teheran, where he was attaché to the British embassy, in 1841.
Scott is now lineally represented by the family of his great-granddaughter the Hon. Mrs. Mary Monica Maxwell Scott, now of Abbotsford; the second daughter of J. R. Hope-Scott, she married the Hon. Joseph Constable Maxwell (third son of William Maxwell, lord Herries). Mr. Maxwell assumed the additional surname of Scott on his marriage.
Upon Scott's death the principal of the debt amounted to about 54,000l., against which there was a life insurance of 22,000l. Cadell advanced the balance of about 30,000l. upon the security of the copyrights. A settlement was then made (2 Feb. 1833) with the creditors. The debt to Cadell appears to have been finally discharged in 1847, when Cadell accepted the remaining copyright of the works and of Lockhart's ‘Life,’ fortunately prolonged by the Act of 1842. Abbotsford was thus freed from the debts of the founder (Lang, Lockhart, ii. 297).
Scott will be severely judged by critics who hold, with Carlyle, that an author should be a prophet. Scott was neither a Wordsworth nor a Goethe, but an ‘auld Wat’ come again, and forced by circumstances to substitute publishing for cattle-lifting. The sword was still intrinsically superior in his eyes to the pen. His strong commonsense and business training kept him from practical anachronisms, and gave that tinge of ‘worldliness’ to his character which Lockhart candidly admits, but his life was an embodiment of the genial and masculine virtues of the older type so fondly celebrated in his writings. A passionate patriotism in public and cordial loyalty to his friends mark his whole career. A chief (in one of his favourite quotations) should be ‘a hedge about his friends, a heckle to his foes.’ He was too magnanimous to have personal foes, and no petty jealousy entangled him in a literary squabble. His history is a long record of hearty friendships. His old chums, Clerk, Erskine, and Skene; his literary acquaintances, George Ellis and Morritt; his great rivals, Moore and Byron on one side, and Wordsworth, Southey, and Coleridge on the other; political antagonists such as Jeffrey and Cockburn; publishers who ascribed their misfortunes to him, Constable and Ballantyne; the feminine authors, Miss Seward, Joanna Baillie, Miss Edgeworth, and Miss Austen (whose merits, though she was personally unknown to him, he was among the first to recognise); and a whole host of obscurer authors, Leyden, Hogg, Maturin, Gillies, and others, are all names which recall a generous friendliness on Scott's part, which was in almost every case returned by good feeling, and in very many by the warmest affection. In his own circle at Abbotsford and Edinburgh, including his family, his servants, and his numerous dependents and associates, he was idolised, and was at once a warm and judicious friend. The same qualities make all appreciative readers love him, even when the secret of the charm is not observed. No doubt these qualities are compatible with the characteristic which, in its unfavourable aspects, is called pride. We may be induced to forgive him if, in the active discharge of his duties as friend and patron, he took a rather low estimate of the functions of preacher or artist, and was blind to the equivocal practices into which he was first seduced as the protector of an old friend. The pride, in any case, displayed itself as a noble self-respect and sense of honour when he was roused by calamity to a sense of his errors and made his last heroic struggle.
Lockhart gives a list of portraits of Scott, most of which were shown at the centenary exhibition of 1871. The catalogue then published gives some interesting notices and photographic reproductions. A miniature taken at Bath about 1775 belonged in 1871 to D. Laing; an early copy is at Abbotsford. A miniature of 1797, sent to Charlotte Carpenter, is also at Abbotsford. A portrait by James Saxon, 1805, is engraved for the ‘Lady of the Lake.’ Raeburn painted a full-length portrait in 1808 for Constable, with Hermitage Castle in the distance, and ‘Camp.’ A replica of 1809, with a greyhound added, is at Abbotsford. Raeburn painted other portraits, including a head for Lord Montagu in 1822, and another, about the same time, for Chantrey. William Nicholson (1781–1844) [q. v.] painted a watercolour in 1815, and an etching from it in 1817 for a series of eminent Scotsmen. He painted three others, one of which, and portraits of Scott's daughters, are at Abbotsford. Andrew Geddes [q. v.] made a sketch for his picture of the discovery of the regalia in 1818. Another sketch was made by Joseph Slater, from which a portrait was painted in 1821 for Sir R. H. Inglis. Thomas Phillips (1770–1845) [q. v.] painted a head in 1819 for John Murray, the publisher. John Watson Gordon [q. v.] painted a portrait, with an Irish terrier, for the Marchioness of Abercorn in 1820; and one in 1829, frequently engraved. The ​original sketch is in the National Portrait Gallery, Scotland, and there were many repetitions. Gordon also painted Scott in his study at Castle Street, and painted a portrait for Cadell in March 1830, seated with his greyhound ‘Bran.’ Sir Thomas Lawrence (see above) painted in 1822 a portrait for George IV, finished in 1826, now at Windsor Castle. Wilkie in 1822 made a study of Scott for his picture of ‘George IV at Holyrood’ (now at Windsor), and finished the separate portrait for Sir W. Knighton. Gilbert Stuart Newton [q. v.] painted a three-quarter portrait for Mrs. Lockhart in 1824, now at Abbotsford, said by Lockhart to be ‘the best domestic portrait ever done.’ Charles Robert Leslie [q. v.] painted a half-length for Mr. Ticknor in 1824, now in America. In 1825 Daniel Maclise [q. v.] made a sketch of Scott during his Irish tour, which was lithographed and largely sold. Another is in the ‘Maclise Portrait Gallery’ (ed. Bates). John Prescott Knight [q. v.] painted in 1826 a portrait, ‘ill-drawn and feeble in expression,’ engraved for Lodge's ‘Portraits.’ James Northcote [q. v.] painted, in May 1828, a portrait for Sir William Knighton, in which the artist is introduced. Colvin Smith painted a portrait in 1828, of which he made as many as twenty copies for various people. John Graham-Gilbert [q. v.] painted a portrait in 1829 for the Royal Society of Edinburgh. A portrait by the same is in the National Portrait Gallery, which has also a portrait of Scott in his study, painted by Sir William Allan [q. v.] in 1831, and a sketch by Sir Edwin Landseer. Sir Francis Grant [q. v.] painted a portrait in 1831; and Sir Edwin Landseer, who had known Scott, painted him, after his death, in the ‘Rhymer's Glen.’ R. S. Lauder painted him as ‘Peter’ Paterson. Wilkie painted a picture of the Abbotsford family in 1817, and Thomas Faed a picture of Scott and his friends at Abbotsford.
Chantrey made two busts of Scott, one in 1820, presented to Scott, and copied in marble for the Duke of Wellington, and one in 1828, bought by Sir Robert Peel. The latter is now in the National Portrait Gallery, London. A replica of the former, executed by Mr. John Hutchison, R.S.A., at the expense of some of Scott's admirers, was placed in May 1897 in Westminster Abbey. There are also busts by Samuel Joseph [q. v.] of 1822, and one by Lawrence Macdonald in 1830. A statue made by John Greenshields at the end of Scott's life is now in the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh. Two casts of the head, one taken during life and the other after death, are at Abbotsford.
The Scott monument designed by George Kemp, with a statue of the novelist by Sir John Steell, was erected in Princes Street, Edinburgh, and was inaugurated 17 Aug. 1846.
Scott's works are: 1. ‘Disputatio Juridica,’ &c., 1792 (exercise on being called to the bar). 2. ‘The Chase and William and Helen … from the German of Bürger,’ 1796 (anon.). 3. ‘Goetz of Berlichingen,’ with the ‘Iron Hand,’ a tragedy, 1799, translated from the German of Goethe, author of the ‘Sorrows of Werter,’ by Walter Scott, Advocate. Some copies have ‘William’ (afterwards cancelled) instead of ‘Walter.’ 4. ‘Apology for Tales of Terror,’ 1799 (twelve copies privately printed, includes some of his own ballads. For contents see Catalogue of Centenary Exhibition, where a copy from Abbotsford was shown). 5. ‘The Eve of St. John: a Border Ballad,’ 1800. 6. Ballads in Lewis's ‘Tales of Wonder,’ 1801. 7. ‘Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border’ (anon.), vols. i. and ii. 1802, vol. iii. 1803. 8. ‘Lay of the Last Minstrel,’ 1805. 9. ‘Ballads and Lyrical Pieces,’ 1806 (from ‘Border Minstrelsy’ and the ‘Tales of Wonder’). 10. ‘Marmion: a Tale of Flodden Field,’ 1808. 11. ‘Life of Dryden,’ prefixed to Works (fifty copies separately printed), 1808. 12. ‘The Lady of the Lake,’ 1810. 13. ‘Vision of Don Roderick,’ 1811 (some poems collected in second edition of this). 14. ‘Rokeby,’ 1813 (really 1812). 15. ‘The Bridal of Triermain, or Vale of St. John’ (anon.), 1813. 16. ‘Abstract of Eyrbiggia Saga’ in Jamieson's ‘Northern Antiquities,’ 1814. 17. ‘Waverley, or 'Tis Sixty Years Since,’ 1814. The later novels, except the ‘Tales of my Landlord’ (four series), are ‘by the author of Waverley.’ 18. ‘Life of Swift,’ prefixed to Works (1814). 19. ‘Chivalry’ and the ‘Drama’ in Supplement to ‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ 1814. 20. Introduction to ‘Border Antiquities,’ 1814–17. 21. ‘The Lord of the Isles,’ 1815. 22. ‘Guy Mannering,’ 1815. 23. ‘The Field of Waterloo,’ 1815. 24. ‘Paul's Letters to his Kinsfolk,’ 1815. 25. ‘The Antiquary,’ 1816, 3 vols. 12mo. 26. ‘Tales of my Landlord, collected and arranged by Jedediah Cleishbotham: the Black Dwarf, Old Mortality,’ 1817 (really 1816). 27. ‘Harold the Dauntless, by the author of the Bridal of Triermain,’ 1817. 28. ‘The Search after Happiness; or the Quest of Sultan Solimaun,’ and Kemble's address on the ‘Sale room,’ 1817. 29. ‘Rob Roy,’ 1818, 3 vols. 12mo. 30. ‘Tales of my Landlord, 2nd ser. Heart of Midlothian,’ 1818, 4 vols. 12mo. 31. Articles in ‘Provincial Antiquities of Scotland,’ issued in two parts, 1819–26 (2 vols. 4to, 1826). 32. ‘Tales of my Landlord, 3rd ser. The Bride of Lammermoor: a Legend of ​Montrose,’ 1819, 4 vols. 12mo. 33. ‘Description of the Regalia of Scotland,’ 1819, 16mo (anon.). 34. ‘The Visionary, by Somnambulus’ (a political satire in three letters, republished from the ‘Edinburgh Weekly Journal’), 1820. 35. ‘Ivanhoe,’ 1820 (really 1819), 3 vols. 12mo. 36. ‘The Monastery,’ 1820, 3 vols. 8vo. 37. ‘The Abbot,’ 1820, 3 vols. 8vo. 38. ‘Kenilworth,’ 1821, 3 vols. 8vo. 39. Biographies in Ballantyne's ‘Novelists,’ 1821. 40. ‘Account of George IV's Coronation,’ 1821. 41. ‘The Pirate,’ 1822, 3 vols. 8vo. 42. ‘Halidon Hill,’ 1822. 43. ‘Macduff's Cross’ in Joanna Baillie's ‘Poetical Miscellanies,’ 1822. 44. ‘The Fortunes of Nigel,’ 1822, 3 vols. 8vo. 45. ‘Peveril of the Peak,’ 1822 (January 1823), 3 vols. 8vo. 46. ‘Quentin Durward,’ 1823, 3 vols. 8vo. 47. ‘St. Ronan's Well,’ 1824, 3 vols. 8vo. 48. ‘Redgauntlet,’ 1824, 3 vols. 8vo. 49. ‘Tales of the Crusaders: The Betrothed; The Talisman,’ 1825, 4 vols. 50. ‘Thoughts on the proposed Change of Currency … three Letters by Malachi Malagrowther,’ 1826 (from the ‘Edinburgh Weekly Journal’ of March). 51. ‘Woodstock, or the Cavalier: a Tale of 1651,’ 1826, 3 vols. 8vo. 52. ‘Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, Emperor of the French, with a preliminary view of the French Revolution, by the Author of Waverley,’ 9 vols. 1827. 53. ‘Chronicles of the Canongate: the Two Drovers; the Highland Widow; the Surgeon's Daughter; by the author of Waverley’ (with introduction signed Walter Scott), 1827. 54. ‘Tales of a Grandfather,’ 1st ser. 1828; 2nd ser. 1829; 3rd ser. 1830 (Scotland); 4th ser. (France), 1830. 55. ‘Chronicles of the Canongate (2nd ser.): St. Valentine's Day, or the Fair Maid of Perth,’ 1828. 56. ‘My Aunt Margaret's Mirror;’ ‘The Tapestried Chamber,’ and ‘The Laird's Jock,’ in the ‘Keepsake’ for 1828. 57. ‘Religious Discourses, by a Layman,’ 1828. 58. ‘Anne of Geierstein,’ 1829, 3 vols. 8vo. 59. ‘History of Scotland’ (Lardner's ‘Cabinet Cyclopædia’), 2 vols. 1830. 60. ‘Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft’ (Murray's ‘Family Library’), 1830. 61. ‘House of Aspen,’ in the ‘Keepsake,’ 1830. 64. ‘Doom of Devorgoil: Auchindrane, or the Ayrshire Tragedy,’ 1830. 63. ‘Essays on Ballad Poetry,’ 1830 (attached to octavo edition of ‘Poetical Works’). 64. ‘Tales of my Landlord (fourth series): Count Robert of Paris; Castle Dangerous,’ 1832.
Scott edited the following: 1. ‘Sir Tristram, an historical romance, edited from the Auchinleck MS.,’ 1804. 2. ‘Original Memoirs of Sir Henry Slingsby’ (with memoirs of Captain Hodgson), 1806. 3. ‘Dryden's Works,’ 1808, 18 vols.; reprinted 1821. 4. ‘Memoirs of Captain George Carleton’ (fl. 1728) [q. v.], 1808. 5. ‘Memoirs of Patrick Cary [q. v.]’, 1808. 6. ‘Queenhoo Hall,’ by Joseph Strutt [q. v.], 1808. 7. ‘Sadler Papers’ [see under Clifford, Arthur, and {{sc|Sadler, Sir Ralph}], 1809–10, 2 vols. 4to. 8. ‘Somers Tracts’ (2nd edit.), 1809–15, 13 vols. 9. ‘Poems of Anna Seward [q. v.] ’, 1810. 10. ‘Secret History of the Court of James I,’ 1811, 2 vols. 11. ‘Memoirs of Sir Philip Warwick,’ 1813. 12. ‘Swift's Works,’ 1814 and (revised) 1824, 19 vols. 13. ‘The letting of Humor's Blood in the Head Vaine,’ by Samuel Rowlands [q. v.], 1814. 14. ‘Memorie of the Somervilles,’ 1815. 15. ‘Burt's Letters from Scotland’ (with Robert Jamieson, 1780?–1844 [q. v.]), 1818. 16. ‘Northern Memoirs,’ by Richard Franck [q. v.], 1821. 17. ‘Chronological Notes of Scottish Affairs,’ &c., by Sir John Lauder, lord Fountainhall [q. v.], 1822. 18. ‘Memoirs of Mme. de la Rochejaquelin’ (vol. v. of ‘Constable's Miscellany’), 1827. Scott edited the ‘Bannatyne Miscellany’ in 1827, and contributed a memoir to the ‘Bannatyne Memorial’ in 1829. He wrote the ‘Bannatyne Garland, quhairin the President speaketh for thir first dinner;’ and printed for the club ‘Lays of the Lindsays,’ 1824 (suppressed; a copy at the Centenary exhibition), ‘Auld Robin Gray,’ 1824, and a report of the trial of Duncan Terig, 1831. He presented to the Roxburghe Club the ‘Court-martial on John, Master of Sinclair,’ 1828.
Scott contributed many articles to the ‘Edinburgh’ and ‘Quarterly’ reviews, of which lists are given in Lockhart and in Allibone's ‘Dictionary.’ He wrote historical sketches of 1813 and 1814 for the ‘Edinburgh Annual Register,’ in which he also published a memoir of Leyden and some poems.
Scott's poems were collected in 1820 in 12 vols. 12mo; in 10 vols. 8vo in 1821, to which was added an eleventh volume in 1830; in 10 vols. 12mo in 1823; and in 11 vols. 8vo in 1830 (with author's prefaces). An octavo volume of ‘Miscellaneous Poems’ in 1820 includes ‘Triermain,’ ‘Harold,’ and various poems, first collected in the 12mo edition of that year. The poetry from the ‘Waverley Novels’ was published in 1822. An edition in 12 vols. 8vo, edited by Lockhart, appeared in 1834, and was republished in 1 vol. in 1848.
The ‘Waverley Novels’ were issued collectively by Constable, as he bought the copyright, as ‘Novels and Tales’ (12 vols. 1820), ‘Historical Romances’ (7 vols. 1822), ​and ‘Novels and Romances’ (7 vols. 1824). ‘Tales and Romances’ were published by Cadell in continuation, and two volumes of introductions (1827, 1833). The Collected edition, with the author's notes, appeared in 48 vols. from 1829 to 1833. Cadell also published the Cabinet edition (25 vols. fcap. 8vo, 1841–3), the People's edition (5 vols. royal 8vo, 1844–8), and the Abbotsford edition (12 vols. impl. 8vo, 1842–7). The copyright of Scott's works was bought in 1851 by Messrs. Black for about 27,000l. after Cadell's death. They published a Library edition of the ‘Waverley Novels’ in 25 vols. 8vo in 1852–4, Roxburghe edition (48 vols. 8vo, 1859–61), a Railway edition (1854–60), a Shilling edition (1862–4), and a Sixpenny edition (1866–8), each in 25 vols., and a Centenary edition in 25 vols. 8vo in 1870–1. Many other editions have appeared, and it is stated that about three million volumes of one of the cheaper issues were sold between 1851 and 1890 (Scott's Journal, ii. 108). Among the latest are the Dryburgh edition, 1892–4, in 25 vols. 8vo, and the Border edition in 48 vols. 4to, 1892–4, edited by Mr. Andrew Lang.
Scott's miscellaneous prose works were first collected in 1827 in 6 vols. 8vo, in 28 vols. 8vo, 1834–6; and in 3 vols. royal 8vo in 1841. They include the ‘Lives of the Novelists,’ the ‘Life of Leyden’ (from the ‘Edinburgh Annual Register’), ‘Paul's Letters,’ the articles in the ‘Encyclopædia,’ and the ‘Border and Provincial Antiquities,’ some reviews from the ‘Edinburgh’ and ‘Quarterly,’ the ‘Life of Napoleon,’ and the ‘Tales of a Grandfather.’
[The main authority for Scott is Lockhart's admirable life. It appeared originally in seven volumes, 1837. Pages cited above refer to the one-volume edition of 1841. Scott's last Journals (1890) and his Familiar Letters (1894), published by David Douglas from the Abbotsford collections, are an important supplement. The first includes some extracts from Skene's unpublished reminiscences. Other lives had been published by W. Weir, 1832, and by George Allan in 1834. References to Scott are to be found in nearly every biographical work of the period, especially in Southey's Life and Correspondence, where Southey's replies to Scott's letters in Lockhart are published, and the ‘selections’ from his letters, and Cockburn's Memorials (pp. 40, 211, 217, 267, 280, 317, 382, 401, 430). Of books more especially devoted to Scott may be mentioned the ‘Refutation’ of misstatements in Lockhart by Ballantyne's trustees (1838), Lockhart's Ballantyne Humbug Handled, and the Reply to this by the trustees, 1839. Archibald Constable and his Literary Correspondents (1873), vol. iii., and Smiles's Memoir of John Murray (1891), also throw some light upon the publishing transactions. The present Mr. Archibald Constable has kindly contributed some unpublished papers. Mr. Andrew Lang's Life of J. G. Lockhart (1897) discusses some of these points and gives other valuable information. Other books are: Domestic Life and Manners of Sir Walter Scott, by James Hogg (1834), which Lockhart resented, but which has some interest; Recollections of Sir Walter Scott [by R. P. Gillies], 1837, ‘valuable and written in an admirable spirit,’ says Mr. Lang; Letters from and to C. K. Sharpe (1838), with many letters of Scott's; Journal of a Tour to Waterloo … with Sir W. Scott in 1815, by the late John Scott of Harden (1842); Reminiscences of Scott, by John Gibson (one of Scott's trustees), 1871; Basil Hall's Fragments, iii. 280–328 (last voyage); Washington Irving's Abbotsford and Newstead Abbey (London, 1850); G. Ticknor's Life and Letters (1870), i. 280–4, 430, ii. 360, &c. (see also letters from Ticknor and Edward Everett in Allibone's Dictionary); R. Chambers's Life of Scott with Abbotsford Notanda (chiefly referring to W. Laidlaw), by R. Carruthers (1874); Centenary Memorial of Sir W. Scott, by C. S. M. Lockhart (1871), Catalogue of Library at Abbotsford, by J. G. Cochrane (Maitland Club, 1838); Abbotsford, the personal relics and antiquarian treasures of Sir W. Scott, described by the Hon. Mary Monica Maxwell Scott, with illustrations by W. Gibb (1893).]
L. S.
Dictionary of National Biography, Errata (1904), p.244 N.B.— f.e. stands for from end and l.l. for last line
| Page | Col. | Line | |
| 87 | ii | 27 | Scott, Sir Walter (1771-1832): for 1809 read 1809-10 |
| 91 | i | 15 | for (1816) read (1815) |
| 92 | i | 6 | for 1815 read 1816 |
| 101 | ii | 7 f.e. | for Scott's children were: read Scott was succeeded in the baronetcy by his eldest son, Walter, who was born on 28 Oct. 1801, and died on 8 Feb. 1847, when the title became extinct. His other children were: |
| | | 3-1 f.e. | omit Walter, born . . . . no issue. (3) |
| 102 | i | 1 | for (4) read (8) |
| | | 4 | for Scott has now no descendants except read Scott is now lineally represented by the family of his great-granddaughter, |
| | | 5-6 | for daughter of Hope-Scott and her children. read now of Abbotsford; she is second daughter of J. R. Hope-Scott [q. v.] and wife of the Hon. Joseph Constable Maxwell (third son of William Maxwell, Lord Herries), who assumed the additional surname of Scott on his marriage. |
| 103 | ii | 21 | after printed) insert 1808 |
| | | 24 | after 1813 insert (really 1812) |
| | | 3 f.e. | for 1849 read 1820 and after 1820 insert (really 1819) |
| 104 | i | 3 | for George III's read George IV's |
| | | 19 | after 1651,' insert 1826 |