mpressions when the work of writers
other than himself was concerned. He once wrote,--"The friends who know
me best, and to whose judgment I am myself in the constant habit of
trusting, reckon me a very capricious and uncertain judge of poetry; and
I have had repeated occasion to observe that I have often failed in
anticipating the reception of poetry from the public."[482] But it is
beyond the strength of flesh and blood to resist saying things about the
future sometimes, and Scott occasionally yielded to the temptation,
helped, no doubt, by his amiability. Southey's _Madoc_, however, has not
yet assumed that place at the feet of Milton which, as we have seen, he
ventured to predict for it. Yet, if we may trust the memory of one of
his friends, Scott foresaw the literary success of two of his greatest
contemporaries. R.P. Gillies said in his _Recollections_: "I remember
well how correct Scott's impressions were of such beginners in the
literary world as had not then acquired any fixed character. Of Lord
Byron he had from the first a favourable impression.... Of Wordsworth he
always spoke favourably, insisting that he was a true poet, but
predicting that it would be long ere his works obtained the praise which
they merited from the public."[483] Scott explicitly prided himself on
two of his prophecies: that Washington Irving would make a name for
himself, and that Sir Arthur Wellesley would become known as an
extraordinary man.

Though Scott's critical work is comparatively little known, and though
it presents no solidly organized front by which the public may be
impressed, the opinions of so notable a writer have always had a certain
weight. Mr. Churton Collins thinks Scott's judgment on Dunbar has led
modern editors to indulge in very exaggerated statements concerning the
merit of that poet.[484] A heavier charge has been laid at Scott's door
on the score of his edition of the _Memoirs of Captain Carleton_. He
concluded on very insufficient evidence, says Colonel Parnell, that
these memoirs were genuinely historical, published them as such, and by
the weight of his opinion falsified "the whole stream of
nineteenth-century history bearing on the reign of Queen Anne."[485]
Stanhope, Macaulay, and other historians were ready to accept Scott's
judgment without further investigation, it seems; and if the accusation
be true we may conclude that his influence as a critic has reached
farther than might at first sight appear.