mind for
earnest investigation."[407] It was otherwise with Scott himself. The
result of the wide and desultory reading of his youth, acting upon a
remarkably strong memory, was to put him into the position, as he says,
of "an ignorant gamester, who kept a good hand until he knew how to play
it."[408] So it was that he said of those who followed his lead in
writing historical novels, "They may do their fooling with better grace;
but I, like Sir Andrew Aguecheek, do it more natural."[409] His
knowledge of history and antiquities was that part of his intellectual
equipment in which he seemed to take most pride. He had the highest
opinion of the value of historical study for ripening men's judgment of
current affairs,[410] and indeed there were few relations of life in
which an acquaintance with history did not seem to him indispensable.

But he felt that historical writing had not been adapted "to the demands
of the increased circles among which literature does already find its
way."[411] Accordingly he resolved to use in the service of history that
"knack ... for selecting the striking and interesting points out of dull
details," which he felt was his endowment.[412] The original
introduction to the _Tales of the Crusaders_ has the following burlesque
announcement of his intention, in the words of the Eidolon Chairman: "I
intend to write the most wonderful book which the world ever read--a
book in which every incident shall be incredible, yet strictly true--a
work recalling recollections with which the ears of this generation once
tingled, and which shall be read by our children with an admiration
approaching to incredulity. Such shall be the _Life of Napoleon_, by the
_Author of Waverley_." He wished to controvert "the vulgar opinion that
the flattest and dullest mode of detailing events must uniformly be that
which approaches nearest to the truth."[413] There is no doubt that his
histories are readable, yet we feel that Southey was right in his
comment on the _Life of Napoleon_,--"It was not possible that Sir Walter
could keep up as a historian the character which he had obtained as a
novelist; and in the first announcement of this 'Life' he had, not very
wisely, promised something as stimulating as his novels. Alas! he forgot
that there could be no stimulus of curiosity in it."[414] A recent
critic has said, "Scott lost half his power of vitalizing the past when
he sat down formally to record it--when he turned from hi