ed, in the character of the Author of these
Novels, subjected me occasionally to awkward embarrassments, as it
sometimes happened that those who were sufficiently intimate with me
would put the question in direct terms. In this case, only one of three
courses could be followed. Either I must have surrendered my secret, or
have returned an equivocating answer, or, finally, must have stoutly and
boldly denied the fact. The first was a sacrifice which I conceive no one
had a right to force from me, since I alone was concerned in the matter.
The alternative of rendering a doubtful answer must have left me open to
the degrading suspicion that I was not unwilling to assume the merit (if
there was any) which I dared not absolutely lay claim to; or those who
might think more justly of me must have received such an equivocal answer
as an indirect avowal. I therefore considered myself entitled, like an
accused person put upon trial, to refuse giving my own evidence to my own
conviction, and flatly to deny all that could not be proved against me.
At the same time I usually qualified my denial by stating that, had I
been the Author of these works, I would have felt myself quite entitled
to protect my secret by refusing my own evidence, when it was asked for
to accomplish a discovery of what I desired to conceal.

The real truth is, that I never expected or hoped to disguise my
connection with these Novels from any one who lived on terms of intimacy
with me. The number of coincidences which necessarily existed between
narratives recounted, modes of expression, and opinions broached in these
Tales and such as were used by their Author in the intercourse of private
life must have been far too great to permit any of my familiar
acquaintances to doubt the identity betwixt their friend and the Author
of Waverley; and I believe they were all morally convinced of it. But
while I was myself silent, their belief could not weigh much more with
the world than that of others; their opinions and reasoning were liable
to be taxed with partiality, or confronted with opposing arguments and
opinions; and the question was not so much whether I should be generally
acknowledged to be the Author, in spite of my own denial, as whether even
my own avowal of the works, if such should be made, would be sufficient
to put me in undisputed possession of that character.

I have been often asked concerning supposed cases, in which I was said to
have been placed