mong the literary men of
his own time that Scott's criticism was superficial, his knowledge of
mediaeval literature was, as we have seen, recognized and respected.
Favorable comments by his contemporaries on other parts of his critical
work are not difficult to find. For example, Gifford wrote to Murray in
regard to the article on _Lady Suffolk's Correspondence_: "Scott's paper
is a clever, sensible thing--the work of a man who knows what he is
about."[478] Isaac D'Israeli made the following observation on another
of Scott's papers: "The article on Pepys, after so many have been
written, is the only one which, in the most charming manner possible,
shows the real value of these works, which I can assure you many good
scholars have no idea of."[479] A more recent verdict may be set beside
those just quoted, and it is in perfect agreement with them. "His
critical faculty," says Professor Saintsbury, "if not extraordinarily
subtle, was always as sound and shrewd as it was good-natured."[480]

Scott's influence as a critic was not very great, but his creative work
exerted a strong influence on criticism as well as on the whole
intellectual life of his age. His own novels demanded of the critic that
kind of appreciation of the large qualities and negligence of the small
which he had insisted on considering the function of criticism; and they
became a fact in literature which determined to some degree the attitude
taken toward ephemeral ideas. Newman notes the popularity of Scott's
novels as one of the influences which prepared the ground for the
Tractarian movement, for Scott enriched the visions of men by his
pictures of the past, gave them noble ideas, and created a desire for a
greater richness of spiritual life.[481] Much of his criticism also was
inspired by the wish to construct an adequate picture of the past; so
far it worked in the same direction with the novels. Its most important
offices aside from this were perhaps to present large and kindly views
of literature and literary characters, especially through biographical
essays; and to ameliorate somewhat the prevailing asperity of periodical
criticism.

A man of Scott's temperament was little likely to set himself up for a
prophet, and probably no literary prophecies of his were in the least
influential. Though he sometimes boasted that he understood the varying
currents of popular taste, his experience in the publishing business
taught him the fallibility of his i