IV.  CRITICISMS OF THE POEM.

When ‘Marmion’ was little more than begun Scott’s publishers offered him a thousand pounds for the copyright, and as this soon became known it naturally gave rise to varied comment.  Lord Byron thought it sufficient to warrant a gratuitous attack on the author in his ‘English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.’  This is a portion of the passage:—­

     ’And think’st thou, Scott! by vain conceit perchance,
      On public taste to foist thy stale romance. 
      Though Murray with his Miller may combine
      To yield thy muse just half-a-crown per line? 
      No! when the sons of song descend to trade,
      Their bays are sear, their former laurels fade.’

As a matter of fact, there was on Scott’s part no trade whatever in the case.  If a publisher chose to secure in advance what he anticipated would be a profitable commodity, that was mainly the publisher’s affair, and the poet would have been a simpleton not to close with the offer if he liked it.  Scott admirably disposes of Byron as follows in the 1830 Introduction:—­

’The publishers of the “Lay of the Last Minstrel,” emboldened by the success of that poem, willingly offered a thousand pounds for “Marmion.”  The transaction being no secret, afforded Lord Byron, who was then at general war with all who blacked paper, an apology for including me in his satire, entitled “English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.”  I never could conceive how an arrangement between an author and his publishers, if satisfactory to the persons concerned, could afford matter of censure to any third party.  I had taken no unusual or ungenerous means of enhancing the value of my merchandise—­I had never higgled a moment about the bargain, but accepted at once what I considered the handsome offer of my publishers.  These gentlemen, at least, were not of opinion that they had been taken advantage of in the transaction, which indeed was one of their own framing; on the contrary, the sale of the Poem was so far beyond their expectation, as to induce them to supply the author’s cellars with what is always an acceptable present to a young Scottish housekeeper, namely, a hogshead of excellent claret.’

A second point on which Scott was attacked was the character of Marmion.  It was held that such a knight as he undoubtedly was should have been incapable of forgery.  Scott himself; of course, knew better than his critics whether or not this was the case, but, with his usual good nature and generous regard for the opinion of others, he admitted that perhaps he had committed an artistic blunder.  Dr. Leyden, in particular, for whose judgment he had special respect, wrote him from India ’a furious remonstrance on the subject.’  Fortunately, he made no attempt to change what he had written, his main reason being that ’corrections, however in themselves judicious, have a bad effect after publication.’