flogged into a dunce by a severe schoolmaster."[356] He was better satisfied with the result when he resumed his pen in his “old Cossack manner."[357] Similarly he writes of John Home’s tragedy, Douglas, that the finest scene was, “we learn with pleasure but without surprise,” unchanged from the first draft;[358] and elsewhere he speaks of the greater chance for popularity of the “bold, decisive, but light-touched strain of poetry or narrative in literary composition,” over the “more highly-wrought performance."[359]

A good exposition of Scott’s real opinion in regard to his own style is to be found in his review of Tales of My Landlord.  Some parts of the article were probably inserted by his friend William Erskine, but the section I quote bears unmistakable evidence that it was written by the author himself, for it expresses that combined reprobation and approval of his style which is amusingly characteristic of him.  He says:  “Our author has told us that it was his object to present a series of scenes and characters connected with Scotland in its past and present state, and we must own that his stories are so slightly constructed as to remind us of the showman’s thread with which he draws up his pictures and presents them successively to the eye of the spectator....  Against this slovenly indifference we have already remonstrated, and we again enter our protest....  We are the more earnest in this matter, because it seems that the author errs chiefly from carelessness.  There may be something of system in it, however, for we have remarked, that with an attention which amounts even to affectation, he has avoided the common language of narrative and thrown his story, as much as possible, into a dramatic shape.  In many cases this has added greatly to the effect, by keeping both the actors and action continually before the reader and placing him, in some measure, in the situation of an audience at a theater, who are compelled to gather the meaning of the scene from what the dramatis personae say to each other, and not from any explanation addressed immediately to themselves.  But though the author gain this advantage, and thereby compel the reader to think of the personages of the novel and not of the writer, yet the practice, especially pushed to the extent we have noticed, is a principal cause of the flimsiness and incoherent texture of which his greatest admirers are compelled to complain."[360]

Lockhart points out that the fruit of Scott’s study of Dryden may have been to fortify his opinion as to what the greatness of literature really consists in, and applies to Scott himself some of the phrases used in the characterization of the earlier poet. “’Rapidity of conception, a readiness of expressing every idea, without losing anything by the way’; ‘perpetual animation and elasticity of thought’; and language ’never laboured, never loitering, never (in Dryden’s own phrase) cursedly confined,’” are set over against “pointed and nicely turned lines,