THE “GREAT UNKNOWN”
The Waverley Novels long continued to be spoken of as the works of the
“Great Unknown,”—the titles of the successive novels simply showing
that they were by the “Author of ‘Waverley.’” The designation was
first conferred upon Scott by James Ballantyne. It was never publicly
discarded until the Theatrical Fund dinner on February 23, 1827, when
the author, in reply to the toast of his health, in which the secret was
divulged,[28] uttered these memorable words: “I certainly did not think,
in coming here to-day, that I should have the task of acknowledging,
before three hundred gentlemen, a secret which, considering it was
communicated to more than twenty people, has been remarkably well
kept.... I am willing, however, to plead _guilty_—nor shall I detain the
Court by a long explanation why my confession has been so long deferred.
Perhaps caprice might have a considerable share in the matter. I have now
to say, however, that the merits of these works, if they had any, and
their faults, are all imputable to myself.”
[Illustration: THE “GREAT UNKNOWN”
_By permission of_ CHARLES E. S. CHAMBERS, Esq.]
During much of this period of secrecy James Ballantyne had the almost
exclusive task of corresponding with the author, who had thus the
advantage not only of his professional talents, but also of his critical
abilities; and it is admitted that the works of his friend and patron are
indebted to him for many judicious emendations, as Scott’s inattention to
not unimportant details rendered such assistance necessary. In early life
Scott wrote a legible hand, though being—
“A clerk foredoomed his father’s soul to cross,
Who pens a stanza when he should engross,”
his verses displayed more character than his chirography. In regard to
this Mr. Andrew Lang, in his Introduction to the Border Edition of
“Waverley,” says: “About Shakespeare it was said that he ‘never blotted
a line.’ The observation is almost literally true about Sir Walter.
The pages of his manuscript novels show scarcely a retouch or erasure,
whether in the ‘Waverley’ fragment of 1805 or the unpublished ‘Siege
of Malta’ of 1832. The handwriting becomes closer and smaller; from
thirty-eight lines to the page in ‘Waverley,’ he advances to between
fifty and sixty in ‘Ivanhoe.’ The few alterations are usually additions.”
Professor Saintsbury observes: “Scott was always a rapid worker, but it
was only now, under the combined stimulus of the new-found gift, the
desire for more land and a statelier Abbotsford, and the pressure of the
affairs of Ballantyne & Co., that he began to work at the portentous
rate which, though I do not believe that it at all injured the quality
of his production, pretty certainly endangered his health.” The only
systematic check on Scott’s rapid production was that introduced by James
Ballantyne, who read his proofs, and frequently saved him from oversights
and inconsistencies. In this connection the following entry is to be
found in Scott’s “Journal,” June 22, 1828—no doubt when he was in failing
health:—“Had a note from Ballantyne complaining of my manuscript, and
requesting me to read it over. I would give £1000 if I could; but it
would take me longer to read than to write. I cannot trace my _pieds de
mouche_ but with great labour and trouble; so e’en take your own share of
the burden, my old friend; and, since I cannot read, be thankful I can
write.”
When the manuscript or “copy” was transcribed the original was preserved
with great care. As the novels were frequently begun to be set in type
before they were fully written, only a few compositors were required to
keep pace with author and amanuensis; and it is remarkable that there
was not an instance of treachery during all the years these precautions
were resorted to, although various amanuenses were employed at different
times. Double proof-sheets were regularly printed. One was forwarded to
the author by Ballantyne, and the alterations which it received from
Scott were copied by him upon the other proof-sheet for the use of the
printers; so that even the corrected proofs of the author were never seen
in the printing-office. In this way the curiosity of such eager inquirers
as made minute investigations was baulked, though the authorship was an
“open secret” with many of the compositors.
The following Notice, however, shows that sheets of the work in hand must
have been finding their way out of the printing-office:—
“NOTICE
“Having reason to believe that the Workmen in the PRINTING
OFFICE AT PAUL’S WORK are in the habit of Abstracting Sheets of
New Books in the progress of Printing,—more especially those
of the Original Works of the Author of ‘Waverley,’—Notice is
hereby given, that the most effectual steps are taken to detect
those offending in this manner; and the utmost Punishment of
the Law will be executed on those proved guilty of so flagrant
an offence.
“255 HIGH STREET, _20th April 1822_.”
It is an unwritten tradition that such knowledge of anonymous authorship
is never carried outside the printing-house, although the manuscript
might be well enough known to the compositors; and there have been
instances in which attempts to pry into secrets of this nature have
been made. Though suspected and sometimes taxed with the authorship of
the novels, before the fact was made publicly known, Scott’s invariable
reply to those who asked his reason for concealment was that it was
his humour. The author, in his works of fiction, displayed wonderful
skill and resource, and no one understood better how to turn the public
favour to a thrifty advantage. He knew the value of the incognito after
the publication of “Waverley,” and made excellent use of it, while his
denials were intended rather as rebuffs to persons asking questions they
had no right to ask than as conveying a false impression. He may also
have wished to escape the annoyance of having productions known to be his
made the topic of discussion in his presence.
So well was the secret kept, however, that even William Blackwood and
John Murray did not know who the author was, though they had their
surmises, as appears from the following under the date of February
1816: “Mr. Blackwood, like Mr. Murray, was anxious to have a share in
the business of publishing the works of Walter Scott, especially the
novels teeming from the press by ‘The Author of “Waverley.”’ Although
Constable and the Ballantynes were necessarily admitted to the knowledge
of their authorship, to the world at large they were anonymous, and
the author still remained unknown. Mr. Murray had, indeed, pointed out
to Mr. Canning that ‘Waverley’ was by Walter Scott; but Scott himself
trailed so many red herrings across the path, that publishers as well
as the public were thrown off the scent, and both Blackwood and Murray
continued to be at fault with respect to the authorship of the Waverley
Novels.” Again, a few months after: “The controversy still continued as
to the authorship. ‘For these six months past,’ wrote Blackwood (6th June
1816), ‘there have been various rumours with regard to Greenfield being
the author, but I never paid much attention to it; the thing appeared to
me so very improbable.... But from what I have heard lately, I now begin
to think that Greenfield may probably be the author.’ On the other hand,
Mr. Mackenzie called upon Blackwood, and informed him that ‘he was now
convinced that Thomas Scott, Walter’s brother in Canada, writes all the
novels.’ The secret, however, was kept for many years longer.”[29]
In Sinclair’s “Old Times and Distant Places,” a characteristic story is
related by Mr. Guthrie Wright, one of Scott’s friends: “I called one
day,” he says, “at the Edinburgh Post Office, and began to read in the
lobby a letter from Lady Abercorn, in which she gave an answer to some
arguments I had stated to her in proof that Sir Walter was the author
of ‘Waverley’; while thus employed I stumbled on Sir Walter himself. He
immediately inquired about whom I was reading so busily. ‘About _you_,’
I replied, and put the letter into his hands. I soon observed him blush
as red as scarlet, and recollected that Lady Abercorn in her letter had
said, ‘I am quite sure you are wrong, for Sir Walter Scott declared to
me _upon his honour_ that he was not the author of “Waverley.”’ On
reading this, Sir Walter exclaimed, ‘I am sure I never said so, I never
pledged my honour—she is quite mistaken.’ Then, perceiving that he had
thus betrayed himself, he stammered out some unintelligible sentence,
and then continued: ‘Well, Mr. Wright, it is a very curious question,
who can be the author of these novels. Suppose we take a walk round the
Calton Hill, and lay our heads together to find him out.’ We proceeded
arm-in-arm, and I said, ‘I think that we can soon so completely hedge
in the author that he cannot escape us.’ ‘Well, then,’ said Sir Walter,
‘how would you hedge him in?’ I replied, ‘You will agree with me that
the author of “Waverley,” whoever he may be, must be a lawyer?’ ‘True,
it is evident he must be a lawyer.’ ‘You will also admit that he must be
an antiquary?’ ‘No doubt he must be an antiquary.’ ‘He must also be of
Jacobite connections?’ ‘Certainly, he must have Jacobite propensities.’
‘He must also have a strong turn for poetry?’ ‘Yes, he must be something
of a poet.’ I next assigned some reasons why he must be rather more than
forty years of age, and then added, ‘Now, among our friends in the
Parliament House, let us consider how many there are who, besides being
lawyers, poets, antiquaries, and of Jacobite connections, are rather
more than forty years of age.’ ‘Well,’ says Sir Walter, ‘what do you
think of Cranstoun?’ I gave reasons for setting aside Lord Cranstoun’s
pretensions, adverting particularly to his want of humour; and then Sir
Walter, seeing that he himself must inevitably come next, unloosed his
arm and said, ‘Mr. Wright, the author of “Waverley,” whoever he may be,
gets people to buy his books without a name; and he would be a greater
fool than I think he is, were he to give a name. Good morning.’”
So decided was Scott on this matter of anonymity that the legal form,
dated 1818, conveying to Messrs. Constable & Co. the existing copyrights,
contained a clause by which they were bound, under a penalty of £2000,
never to divulge the author’s name during his lifetime; and a similar
clause appeared in another legal instrument in 1821. There was no
necessity for the manuscripts being re-written by James Ballantyne
and others, unless it were to prevent the “Great Unknown” from being
identified. The handwriting of Scott was eminently readable and easily
followed, and so was that of his various amanuenses; and this for the
compositor was a great boon.[30]
Subsequent to transcription and publication, the “Waverley” manuscripts
were either sent back to Scott himself or placed in charge of his
intimate friend, William Erskine (Lord Kinnedder). After the latter’s
death the manuscripts and correspondence were carefully sealed up and
returned by Erskine’s trustees to Sir Walter, and these, along with
others, were afterwards widely dispersed by private arrangement or at
public sales.
In 1823, four years prior to the public acknowledgment of the authorship
of the Waverley Novels, Scott presented a number of his manuscripts to
Constable. This gift was made on the morning after the first Bannatyne
Club dinner, when the publisher received a letter from Scott begging his
“acceptance of a parcel of MSS., which I know your partialities will give
more value to than they deserve; and only annex the condition that they
shall be scrupulously concealed during the author’s life.” Among those
sent were manuscripts which had been in Lord Kinnedder’s possession, and
also a few more from Abbotsford; but, before this, Constable had already
in his possession the manuscripts of several of Sir Walter’s poems,—of
“Rokeby,” “Marmion,” “Don Roderick,” “Waterloo,” “Lord of the Isles”;
and also of the “Life of Swift.” That of the “Lay” was unfortunately
not preserved, as it had not been thought important, till after the
publication of “Marmion,” that such should be kept; but John Ballantyne
long possessed the manuscript of “The Lady of the Lake,” and it was to
him that Constable was indebted for “Rokeby.” The poet Hogg, referring to
the manuscript of “Marmion,” says it was “a great curiosity, being all
written off-hand on post-letters from Ashestiel, Mainsforth, Rokeby and
London.”
On the death of Constable in 1827 the various manuscripts of Scott’s
works in his possession were claimed by the creditors on Sir Walter’s
estate and also by Sir Walter himself. The matter having been referred
to arbitration, it was decided that the condition originally attached
was no longer of any avail, and the author of the Waverley Novels then
said, “If they are not mine, I do not wish to interfere in the matter
in the slightest degree.” The trustees accordingly sent the manuscripts
to Mr. Evans, at that time the principal literary auctioneer in London,
and they were put up for sale in August 1831. “The sale-rooms of Mr.
Evans,” says a literary journal of the day, “were crowded by the curious
to witness the sale of the original manuscripts of the Waverley Novels.”
They did not realise anything like the prices expected. The whole amount
obtained for the manuscripts of the Constable lot was only £317, and it
was believed that rumours of the large sums such manuscripts would be
likely to fetch had deterred many prospective purchasers from attending
the sale. For instance, it may be mentioned that the manuscript of
“Waverley” was bought by Mr. Wilks, M.P., for £18, and re-sold a few days
after to Mr. Hall for £42. The latter subsequently gave a small portion
of it to Cadell, and this portion afterwards found its way to Abbotsford.
The main part of “Waverley,” however, was presented, in September 1850,
by Mr. Hall to the Advocates’ Library at Edinburgh, where it may now be
seen.[31] The manuscript of “Rob Roy” was another purchase of Mr. Wilks,
for £50, and at his death it was bought by Cadell for £82, the latter
afterwards presenting it to Lockhart.
[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF A PAGE OF THE MS. OF “WAVERLEY”]
Shortly after their publication many of the Waverley Novels were pirated
in Germany. A copy of one, picked up at a bookstall in Edinburgh some
years ago, bears the title: “The Monastery, a Romance. By the Author of
‘Waverley.’ In Four Volumes. Zwickau, printed for the Brothers Schumann.
1824.” It is actually in two volumes—1 and 2 being together, but each
of the four has separate title and steel frontispiece. There was also
published, in 1825, a German romance called “Walladmor,” which was
impudently ascribed to Sir Walter Scott. Presumably the long-continued
anonymity regarding the authorship of the Waverley Novels encouraged the
publisher of this book to hope for a successful sale.[32]