f attending to
minute niceties and on this account chose to emphasize the large
qualities of literature. For notwithstanding that lack of delicacy which
characterized his physical senses and which we might therefore conclude
would affect his literary discernment, we have among his small poems
some that show his power, occasionally at least, to satisfy the most
fastidious critic of detail. Evidently he could write in more than one
style, and though the style he used most is undoubtedly that which was
most natural to him, it was also that which he thought, on other grounds
than the character of his own talents, best worth while. Yet he had so
little vanity in regard to his own work that he could hardly understand
his success, though it depended on those very qualities which, in other
authors, excited his utmost admiration.

One of his fundamental opinions about literary work was that to write
much and with abundant spontaneity is better than to polish minutely.
Over and over again we find this idea expressed, most noticeably in
connection with the poet Campbell, whom Scott could scarcely forgive for
making so little use of his poetical gifts. He applauded the
much-criticised fertility of Byron, whose genius was in that respect
akin to his own. "I never knew name or fame burn brighter by over-chary
keeping of it,"[351] Scott said. The greatest writers he observed, have
been the most voluminous. His position was one that could be fortified
by inductive reasoning, contrasting in this respect with theories which
seem plausible only until they are tested by actual facts, as, for
example, Poe's idea that long poems lose effectiveness by their length.
But perhaps Scott did not sufficiently take into account the circular
nature of his argument; for since the world has refused to consider the
men very great who "never spoke out," the truth is not so much that a
great man ought to write copiously as that if a man does not write
copiously he will not be counted great. Scott seemed to think it was
mere wilfulness that prevented a man of such gifts as Campbell's from
writing abundantly.

The corresponding disadvantages of rapid composition were of course
evident to him. From the first appearance of the _Lay_ to the end of his
career he lamented his inability to plan a story in an orderly manner
and follow out the scheme; he admitted also that "the misfortune of
writing fast is that one cannot at the same time write concisely."[352]