it inferior to “Guy Mannering,” although it has great merits,—­“a kind of simple, unsought charm,”—­and is a transcript of actual Scottish life.  It had a great success; Scott says in a letter to his friend Terry:  “It is at press again, six thousand having been sold in six days.”  Before the novel was finished, the author had already projected his “Tales of My Landlord.”

Scott was now at the flood-tide of his creative power, and his industry was as remarkable as his genius.  There was but little doubt in the public mind as to the paternity of the Waverley Novels, and whatever Scott wrote was sure to have a large sale; so that every publisher of note was eager to have a hand in bringing his productions before the public.  In 1816 appeared the “Edinburgh Annual Register,” containing Scott’s sketch of the year 1814, which, though very good, showed that the author was less happy in history than in fiction.

The first series of “Tales of My Landlord” was published by Murray, and not by Constable, who had brought out Scott’s other works, and the book was received with unbounded enthusiasm.  Many critics place “Old Mortality” in the highest niche of merit and fame.  Frere of the Quarterly Review, Hallam, Boswell, Lamb, Lord Holland, all agreed that it surpassed his other novels.  Bishop Heber said, “There are only two men in the world,—­Walter Scott and Lord Byron.”  Lockhart regarded “Old Mortality” as the “Marmion” of Scott’s novels; but the painting of the Covenanters gave offence to the more rigid of the Presbyterians.  For myself, I have doubt as to the correctness of their criticisms.  “Old Mortality,” in contrast with the previous novels of Scott, has a place similar to the later productions of George Eliot as compared with her earlier ones.  It is not so vivid a sketch of Scotch life as is given in “Guy Mannering.”  Like “The Antiquary,” it is bookish rather than natural.  From a literary point of view, it is more artistic than “Guy Mannering,” and more learned.  “The canvas is a broader one.”  Its characters are portrayed with great skill and power, but they lack the freshness which comes from actual contact with the people described, and with whom Scott was familiar as a youth in the course of his wanderings.  It is more historical than realistic.  In short, “Old Mortality” is another creation of its author’s brain rather than a painting of real life.  But it is justly famous, for it was the precursor of those brilliant historical romances from which so much is learned of great men already known to students.  It was a new departure in literature.

Before Scott arose, historical novels were comparatively unknown.  He made romance instructive, rather than merely amusing, and added the charm of life to the dry annals of the past.  Cervantes does not portray a single great character known in Spanish history in his “Don Quixote,” but he paints life as he has seen it.  So does Goldsmith.  So does George Eliot in “Silas Marner.”  She presents life, indeed, in “Romola,”—­not, however, as she had personally observed it, but as drawn from books, recreating the atmosphere of a long gone time by the power of imagination.