Margaret Ball - Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature

M >> Margaret Ball >> Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

In one direction Scott seems to have been more conscientious than we
might be inclined to suppose after seeing the discrepancy between the
standard of exactness that his own statements lead us to expect and the
results that actually appear. I believe that he intended to preserve the
manuscript texts just as he received them, and that he would have wished
to have them given to the public when the public was prepared to want
them. To support this theory we have first the fact that most of his own
emendations have been traced by means of the manuscripts which he
used.[58] It is significant that in speaking of a poet who had altered a
manuscript to suit a revised reading he grew indignant over that fault
far more than over the mere change in the published version. _The Raid
of the Reidswire_, he said, "first appeared in Allan Ramsay's
_Evergreen_, but some liberties have been taken by him in transcribing
it; and, what is altogether unpardonable, the manuscript, which is
itself rather inaccurate, has been interpolated to favour his readings;
of which there remain obvious marks."[59] Scott said also that the time
had come for the publication of Percy's folio manuscript; though we must
believe that he would not have wished to see the manuscript published
until the ballads had become familiar to the world in what he considered
a beautified form.

The changes Scott made were usually in style rather than in substance.
Often he merely substituted an archaic word for a modern one; but often
whole lines and longer passages offered temptations which the poet in
him could not resist, and he "improved" lavishly. For example, we have
his note on _Earl Richard_--"The best verses are here selected from both
copies, and some trivial alterations have been adopted from
tradition,"--with the comment by Mr. Henderson--"The emendations of
Scott are so many, and the majority relate so entirely to style, that no
mere tradition could have supplied them."[60] His versions are in
general characterized by a smoothness and precision of meter which to
the student of ballads is very suspicious. But he seems occasionally to
have altered or supplied incidents as well as phrases. The historical
event which furnished the purpose for the expedition of Sir Patrick
Spens seems to have been introduced into the ballad by Scott, and Mr.
Henderson thinks that "when the deeds of his ancestors were concerned it
was impossible for him to resist the temptation to employ some of his
own minstrel art on their behalf."[61]

Certainly Scott's qualifications for evolving true poetry out of the
crude fragments that sometimes served as a basis formed a very unusual
combination when they were united with his knowledge of early history
and literature. He had such confidence in his own powers in this
direction that he at one time intended to write a series of imitations
of Scottish poets of different periods, from Thomas the Rhymer down, and
thus to exhibit changes in language as well as variations in literary
style.[62] He evidently thought that the ballads as they appeared in the
_Minstrelsy_ were truer to their originals than were the copies he was
able to procure from recitation. Lockhart gives him precisely the kind
of praise he would have desired, in saying, "From among a hundred
corruptions he seized with instinctive tact the primitive diction and
imagery."[63]

It is evident that Scott's public did not wish him to be more careful
than he was in discriminating between new and old matter. One of his
moments of strict veracity seems even to have occasioned some annoyance
to the writer of the _Edinburgh_ article, who apparently preferred to
believe in the antiquity of _The Flowers of the Forest_ rather than to
learn that "the most positive evidence" proved its modern origin. The
editor's introduction to the poem seems perfectly clear; he names his
authority and quotes two verses which are ancient;[64] but the reviewer
says with a perverse irritability: "Mr. Scott would have done well to
tell us how much he deems ancient, and to give us the 'positive
evidence' that convinced him _the whole_ was not so."[65] This review
was, however, for the most part favorable.

The fact that Scott included modern imitations of the ballad in his book
is another indication that his attitude was like that of his
predecessors.[66] Doubtless these helped the _Minstrelsy_ to sell, but a
more modern taste would choose to put them in a place by themselves, not
in a collection of old ballads. An essay on _Imitations of the Ancient
Ballad_ was written, as were the _Remarks on Popular Poetry_, for the
1833 edition. It is chiefly interesting for its autobiographical matter,
though it also contains criticisms of Burns and other writers of ballad
poetry--"a species of literary labour which the author has himself
pursued with some success."[67] Scott's statement that the ballad style
was very popular at the time he began to write, and that he followed the
prevailing fashion, was one of many examples of his modesty, taken in
connection with the remark in another part of the essay to the effect
that this style "had much to recommend it, especially as it presented
considerable facilities to those who wished at as little exertion or
trouble as possible to attain for themselves a certain degree of
literary reputation." To complete the comparison, however, we need an
observation found in one of Scott's reviews, on the spurious ballad
poetry, full of false sentiment, sometimes written in the eighteenth
century. "It is the very last refuge of those who can do nothing better
in the shape of verse; and a man of genius should disdain to invade the
province of these dawdling rhymers."[68]

Scott's criticism of ballad style probably suffered from his interest in
modern imitations of ballads. Perhaps also the real quality of ancient
popular poetry was a little obscured for him by his belief that it was
written by professional or semi-professional poets. If he wrote _Kinmont
Willie_, he succeeded in catching the right tone better than anyone
since him has been able to do, but even in this poem there are turns of
phrase that remind one of the _Lay of the Last Minstrel_ rather than of
the true folk-song.[69] After his first attempts at versifying he
received from William Taylor, of Norwich, who had made an earlier
translation of Buerger's _Lenore_, a letter of hearty praise intermingled
with very sensible remarks about the tendency in some parts of Scott's
_Chase_ toward too great elaboration.[70] Scott's answer was as follows:
"I do not ... think quite so severely of the Darwinian style, as to deem
it utterly inconsistent with the ballad, which, at least to judge from
the examples left us by antiquity, admits in some cases of a
considerable degree of decoration. Still, however, I do most sincerely
agree with you, that this may be very easily overdone, and I am far from
asserting that this may not be in some degree my own case; but there is
scarcely so nice a line to distinguish, as that which divides true
simplicity from flatness and _Sternholdianism_ (if I may be allowed to
coin the word), and therefore it is not surprising, that in endeavouring
to avoid the latter, so young and inexperienced a rhymer as myself
should sometimes have deviated also from the former."[71] This was
Scott's earliest stage as a man of letters, and he evidently learned
more about ballads later. But there appears in much of his criticism on
the subject a limitation which may be assigned partly to his time, and
partly, no doubt, to the fact that he was a poet and could not forget
all the sophistications of his art.

The true nature of ballad poetry could hardly be understood until
scholars had investigated the structure of primitive society in a way
that Scott's contemporaries were not at all prepared to do. Even Scott,
with all his intelligent interest in bygone institutions and modes of
expression, could hardly have foreseen the anthropological researches
which the problem of literary origins has since demanded. We do not
find, then, that Scott's work on ballads was marked by any special
originality in point of view or method. _The Minstrelsy of the Scottish
Border_ was a notable book because it did better what other men had
tried to do, and especially because of the charm and effectiveness of
its historical comment. It was more trustworthy than Percy's collection
and more graceful than Ritson's; it was richer than other books of the
kind in what people cared to have when they wanted ballads, and yet was
not, for its time, over-sophisticated. Scott's conclusions cannot now be
accepted without question, but the illustrations with which he sets them
forth and the wide reading and sincere love of folk-poetry which
evidently lie behind them produce a pleasant effect of ripe and
reasonable judgment. The admirable qualities of the book were at once
recognized by competent critics, and it will always be studied with
enthusiasm by scholars as well as by the uncritical lover of ballads.

_Studies in the Romances_

Scott's theory as to the connection between ballads and
romances--His early fondness for romances--His acquaintance with
Romance languages--His work on the _Sir Tristrem_--Value of his
edition--Special quality of Scott's interest in the Middle
Ages--General theories expressed in the body of his work on
romances--His type of scholarship.

Ballads and romances are so closely related that Scott's early and
lasting interest in the one form naturally grew out of his interest in
the other. He held the theory that "the romantic ballads of later times
are for the most part abridgments of the ancient metrical romances,
narrated in a smoother stanza and more modern language."[72] It is not
surprising, then, that a considerable body of his critical work has to
do with the subject of mediaeval romance.

Throughout his boyhood Scott read all the fairy tales, eastern stories,
and romances of knight-errantry that fell in his way. When he was about
thirteen, he and a young friend used to spend hours reading together
such authors as Spenser, Ariosto, and Boiardo.[73] He remembered the
poems so well that weeks or months afterwards he could repeat whole
pages that had particularly impressed him. Somewhat later the two boys
improvised similar stories to recite to each other, Scott being the one
who proposed the plan and the more successful in carrying it out. With
this same friend he studied Italian and began to read the Italian poets
in the original. In his autobiography he says:[74] "I had previously
renewed and extended my knowledge of the French language, from the same
principle of romantic research. Tressan's romances, the Bibliotheque
Bleue, and Bibliotheque de Romans, were already familiar to me, and I
now acquired similar intimacy with the works of Dante, Boiardo, Pulci,
and other eminent Italian authors." Writing some years later he
remarked: "I was once the most enormous devourer of the Italian romantic
poetry, which indeed is the only poetry of their country which I ever
had much patience for; for after all that has been said of Petrarch and
his school, I am always tempted to exclaim like honest Christopher Sly,
'Marvellous good matter, would it were done.' But with Charlemagne and
his paladins I could dwell forever."[75] Scott learned languages easily,
and he read Spanish with about as much facility as Italian. Don Quixote
seems often to be the guide with whom he chooses to traverse the fields
of romance.[76] In Scott's boyhood one of his teachers noticed that he
could follow and enjoy the meaning of what he read in Latin better than
many of his school-fellows who knew more about the language, and it was
the same all through his life--he got what he wanted from foreign
literatures with very little trouble.

Scott constantly refers to the work of Percy, Warton, Tressan,[77]
Ritson, and Ellis, in the study of ancient romances, but in editing _Sir
Tristrem_ he made one part of the field his own, and became the
authority whom he felt obliged to quote in the Essay on Romance.

Thomas the Rhymer of Erceldoune was at first an object of interest to
Scott because of the ballad of _True Thomas_ and the traditions
concerning him that floated about the countryside. The "Rhymer's Glen"
was afterwards a cherished possession of Scott's own on the Abbotsford
estate. In the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh, of which Scott was in
1795 appointed a curator, was an important manuscript that contained
among other metrical romances one professing to be a copy of that
written by Thomas of Erceldoune on Sir Tristrem. From a careful piecing
together of evidence furnished by this poem and by Robert of Brunne,
with the assistance of certain legal documents which supplied dates,
Scott built up about the old poet a theory that he elaborated in his
edition of _Sir Tristrem_, published in 1804, and that continued to
interest him vividly as long as he lived. It reappears in many of his
critical writings[78] and also in the novels. In the _Bride of
Lammermoor_ Ravenswood goes to his death in compliance with the prophecy
of Thomas quoted by the superstitious Caleb Balderstone. And in _Castle
Dangerous_ Bertram, who is unconvincing perhaps because he is endowed
with the literary and antiquarian tastes of a Walter Scott himself, is
actuated by an irrepressible desire to discover works of the Rhymer.

Scott's edition of _Sir Tristrem_ gives--besides the text, introduction,
and notes--a short conclusion written by himself in imitation of the
original poet's style. Much of his theory has fallen. He considered this
_Sir Tristrem_ to be the first of the written versions of that story, a
supposition that was not long tenable. The poem is now known to be based
upon a French original, and many scholars think the name Erceldoune was
arbitrarily inserted by the English translator; though Mr. McNeill, the
latest editor, thinks there is a "reasonable probability" in favor of
Scott's opinion that the author was the historic Thomas, who flourished
in the thirteenth century. It is important, however, that Scott's
scholarship in the matter passed muster at that time with such men as
Ellis, who wrote the review in the _Edinburgh_, in which he said, "Upon
the whole we are much disposed to adopt the general inferences drawn by
Mr. Scott from his authorities, and have great pleasure in bearing
testimony to the very uncommon diligence which he has evinced in
collecting curious materials, and to the taste and sagacity with which
he has employed them.... With regard to the notes, they contain an
almost infinite variety of curious information, which had been hitherto
unknown or unnoticed."[79] John Hookham Frere said, as quoted in a
letter by Ellis, "I consider _Sir Tristrem_ as by far the most
interesting work that has as yet been published on the subject of our
earliest poets."[80] Scott's opinions were in 1824 thought to be of
sufficient importance, either from their own merits or on account of his
later fame, to call forth a dissertation appended to the edition of
Warton's _History of English Poetry_ published in that year.

The first edition of the text swarms with errors, according to
Koelbing,[81] a recent editor of the romance, and later editions are
still very inaccurate.[82] It could hardly be expected that a man with
Scott's habits of mind would edit a text accurately. But no one of that
period was competent to construct a text that would seem satisfactory
now. The study of English philology was not sufficiently developed in
that direction, nor did scholars appreciate either the difficulties or
the requirements of text-criticism. It is not to be wondered at that
Scott failed, in this instance as well as afterwards in the case of the
text of Dryden, to give a version that would stand the minute scrutiny
of later scholarship.

His sympathies were rather with the scholar who opens the store of old
poetry to the public, than with him who uses his erudition simply for
the benefit of erudite people. The diction of the Middle Ages was
interesting to him only as it reflected the customs and emotions of its
period. He used the romances as authorities on ancient manners. The
_Chronicles_ of Froissart, because they give "a knowledge of
mankind,"[83] were almost as much a hobby with him as Thomas the Rhymer,
and in this case also he endows characters in his novels with his own
fondness for the ancient writer.[84] The fruit of Scott's acquaintance
with Froissart appears prominently in his essay on _Chivalry_ and in
various introductions to ballads in the _Minstrelsy_, as well as in the
novels of chivalry. Scott at one time proposed to publish an edition of
Malory, but abandoned the project on learning that Southey had the same
thing in mind.[85]

The first periodical review Scott ever published was on the subject of
the _Amadis de Gaul_, as translated by Southey and by Rose. The article
is long and very carefully constructed, and expresses many ideas on the
subject of the mediaeval romance in general that reappear again and
again, particularly in the essay on _Romance_ written in 1823 for the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_. Among these general ideas that found frequent
expression in his critical writings, one which in the light of his
creative work becomes particularly interesting to us is his judgment on
the distinctions between metrical and prose romances. He always
preferred the poems, though he was so interested in the prose stories
that he talked about them with much enthusiasm, and it sometimes seems
as if he liked best the kind he happened to be analyzing at the moment.

Other matters that necessarily presented themselves when he was treating
the subject of romance were the problem of the sources of narrative
material, especially the perplexed question concerning the development
of the Arthurian cycle, and the problem, already discussed in connection
with ballads, concerning the character of minstrels. The minstrels
reappear throughout Scott's studies in mediaeval literature, and were
perhaps more interesting to him than any other part of the subject.
Though, as we have seen, he formulated a compromise between the opposing
opinions of Percy and Ritson, no one who reads the description of the
Last Minstrel can doubt what was the picture that he preferred to carry
in his mind.

His ideas on the subject of the origin and diffusion of narrative
material were those of the sensible man trying to look at the matter in
a reasonable way. Here again he adopted an attitude of compromise, in
that he admitted the partial truth of various theories which he
considered erroneous only in so far as any one of them was stretched
beyond its proper compass. "Romance," he said, "was like a compound
metal, derived from various mines, and in the different specimens of
which one metal or other was alternately predominant."[86]

On the subject of the Arthurian cycle, the origin of which has never
ceased to be matter for debate, he held essentially the opinions that
the highest French authority has adopted that Celtic traditions were the
foundation, and that the metrical romances preceded those in prose.[87]
The important offices of French poets in giving form to the story he
underestimated. When he said, "It is now completely proved, that the
earliest and best French romances were composed for the meridian of the
English court,"[88] he fell into the error that has not always been
avoided by scholars who have since written on the subject, of feeling
certitude about a proposition in which there is no certainty.

Scott's work on romances, though it does not always rise above
commonplaceness, escapes the perfunctory quality of hack writing by
virtue of his keen interest in the subject. He continued to like this
prosaic kind of literary task even while he was writing novels with the
most wonderful facility. We may judge not only by the fact that he
continued to write reviews at intervals throughout his life, but by an
explicit reference in his _Journal_: "I toiled manfully at the review
till two o'clock, commencing at seven. I fear it will be uninteresting,
but I like the muddling work of antiquities, and besides wish to record
my sentiments with regard to the Gothic question."[89]

It is evident that Scott did not himself find the "muddling work of
antiquities" dull, because he realized, emotionally as well as
intellectually, the life of past times. This led him to form broader
views than the ordinary student constructs out of his knowledge of
special facts. An admirable illustration of this characteristic occurs
in the essay on Romance, at the point where Scott is discussing the
social position of the minstrels, in the light of what Percy and Ritson
had said on the subject. He goes on: "In fact, neither of these
excellent antiquaries has cast a general or philosophic glance on the
necessary condition of a set of men, who were by profession the
instruments of the pleasure of others during a period of society such as
was presented in the Middle Ages." There follows a detailed and very
interesting account of what the writer's own "philosophic glance" leads
him to believe. The method is useful but dangerous; in the same essay
occurs an amusing example of what philosophy may do when it is given
free rein. Within two pages appear these conflicting statements: "The
Metrical Romances, though in some instances sent to the press, were not
very fit to be published in this form. The dull amplifications, which
passed well enough in the course of a half-heard recitation, became
intolerable when subjected to the eye." "The Metrical Romances in some
instances indeed ran to great length, but were much exceeded in that
particular by the folios which were written on the same or similar
topics by their prose successors. Probably the latter judiciously
reflected that a book which addresses itself only to the eyes may be
laid aside when it becomes tiresome to the reader; whereas it may not
always have been so easy to stop the minstrel in the full career of his
metrical declamation." Flaws like this may be picked in the details of
Scott's method, just as we may sometimes find fault with the lapses in
his mediaeval scholarship. We do him no injustice when we say that aside
from certain aspects of his work on the ballads and _Sir Tristrem_, his
achievement was that of a popularizer of learning.

But if he lacked some of the authority of erudition, he escaped also the
induration of pedantry. In writing of remote and dimly known periods,
critics are perhaps most apt to show their defects of temper, and Scott
often commented on the acerbity of spirit which such studies seem to
induce. "Antiquaries," he said, "are apt to be both positive and
polemical upon the very points which are least susceptible of proof, and
which are least valuable if the truth could be ascertained; and which
therefore we would gladly have seen handled with more diffidence and
better temper in proportion to their uncertainty."[90] Of Ritson he says
many times in one form or another that his "severe accuracy was
connected with an unhappy eagerness and irritability of temper." Scott
rode his own hobbies with an expansive cheerfulness that did not at all
hinder them from being essentially serious.

_Other Studies in Mediaeval Literature_

Scott's attitude on the Ossianic controversy--His slight
acquaintance with other northern literatures--Anglo-Saxon
scholarship of the time--Character of his familiarity with
Middle-English poetry--His opinions in regard to Chaucer--General
importance of Scott's work on mediaeval literature.

Part of Scott's critical work on mediaeval literature falls outside the
limits of the two divisions we have been considering--those of ballad
and romance. He knew comparatively little about the early poetry of the
northern nations, but at some points his knowledge of Scottish
literature made the transition fairly easy to the literature of other
Teutonic peoples. But he was especially bound to be interested in the
Gaelic, for a Scotsman of his day could hardly avoid forming an opinion
in regard to the Ossianic controversy then raging with what Scott
thought must be its final violence. He did not understand the Gaelic
language,[91] but he had a vivid interest in the Highlanders. The
picturesque quality of their customs made it natural enough for him to
use them in his novels, and by the "sheer force of genius," says Mr.
Palgrave, who considers this Scott's greatest achievement, "he united
the sympathies of two hostile races."[92]

As early as 1792 Scott had written for the Speculative Society an essay
on the authenticity of Ossian's poems, and one of his articles for the
_Edinburgh Review_ in 1805 was on the same subject, occasioned by a
couple of important documents which supported opposite sides, and which,
he said, set the question finally at issue. This article represents
Scott the critic in a typical attitude. The material was almost
altogether furnished in the works which he was surveying.[93] His task
was to distinguish the essential points of the problem, to state them
plainly, and to weigh the evidence on each side. In this he shows
notable clearness of thought, and also, throughout the rather long
treatment of a complicated subject, great lucidity in arrangement and
statement. He was led by this study to change the opinion which he had
held in common with most of his countrymen, and to adopt the belief that
the poems were essentially creations of Macpherson, with only the names
and some parts of the story adopted from the Gaelic.[94] Other
references to Ossian occur in Scott's writings, and it is evident in
this case, as in many others, that an investigation of the matter in his
early career, whether from original or from secondary sources, gave him
material for allusion and comment throughout his life. For, as we have
constant occasion to remark in studying Scott, with a very definite
grasp of concrete fact he combined a vigorous generalizing power, and
all the parts of his knowledge were actively related. He seems to have
made little preparation for some of his most interesting reviews, but to
have utilized in them the store gathered in his mind for other purposes.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18