Knowing that criticism was not the main business of his life, we are inclined to be surprised at the broad fields which he seemed to have no hesitation in entering upon.  His remarkable memory doubtless had something to do with this, but he lived in a period when generalization was more possible and more permissible than it is in this era of special monographs.  The large tendencies and characteristics that he traced in his essay on Romance, for instance, are undoubtedly to be qualified at numberless points, but writing when he did, Scott was comparatively untroubled by these limitations.  Moreover, he had the gift of seeing things broadly, so that in essentials his survey remains true.  But the amount of his work is almost as astonishing as its scope and variety.  He could accomplish so much only by disregarding details of form; and that he did so we know from our study of his principles of composition, confirmed by the evidence of the passages from him that have here been quoted.  It is clear, also, that he was not limited by that “horror of the obvious,” which, as Mr. Saintsbury says, “bad taste at all times has taken for a virtue."[493] Beyond this we have to fall back for explanation on the unusual qualities of his mind.  An observing friend said of him that, “With a degree of patience and quietude which are seldom combined with much energy, he could get through an incredible extent of literary labour."[494]

Every quality which made Scott a great man contributes to the interest and importance of his criticism.  Such a body of criticism, formulated by a large creative genius, would be of special consequence if it served merely as the basis for a study of his other work, a commentary on the principles which underlay his whole literary achievement.  But it would be strange if a man of Scott’s intellectual personality could write criticism which was not important in itself, and we can only account for the general neglect of this part of his work by considering how large a place his poems and novels give him in the history of our literature.  If he deserves a still larger place, we may remember with satisfaction that as a man he was great enough to support honorably any distinction won by his mind.

APPENDIX I.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography of Scott’s writings is given in three parts, as follows: 

1.  Books which Scott wrote or edited, or to which he was an important
   contributor.  The list is chronological.

2.  Contributions to periodicals.

3.  Books which contain letters written by Scott.  These titles are
   arranged approximately in the order of their importance from the
   point of view of a study of Scott.

1. Books which Scott wrote or edited, or to which he was an important contributor.

(In the following list the first editions of the poems and novels are noted without bibliographical details.  In the case of other works the main facts in regard to publication are given; and an attempt is made to indicate the nature of the books named, unless they have been discussed in the text.)