ntroversy
between the representatives of the Ballantynes and Mr. Lockhart,
concerning these matters, can be content with Mr. Lockhart's--no doubt
perfectly sincere--judgment on the case. It is obvious that amidst
these intricate accounts, he fell into one or two serious
blunders--blunders very unjust to James Ballantyne. And without
pretending to have myself formed any minute judgment on the details, I
think the following points clear:--(1.) That James Ballantyne was very
severely judged by Mr. Lockhart, on grounds which were never alleged
by Scott against him at all,--indeed on grounds on which he was
expressly exempted from all blame by Sir Walter. (2.) That Sir Walter
Scott was very severely judged by the representatives of the
Ballantynes, on grounds on which James Ballantyne himself never
brought any charge against him; on the contrary, he declared that he
had no charge to bring. (3.) That both Scott and his partners invited
ruin by freely spending gains which they only expected to earn, and
that in this Scott certainly set an example which he could hardly
expect feebler men not to follow. On the whole, I think the troubles
with the Ballantyne brothers brought to light not only that eager
gambling spirit in him, which his grandfather indulged with better
success and more moderation when he bought the hunter with money
destined for a flock of sheep, and then gave up gambling for ever, but
a tendency still more dangerous, and in some respects involving an
even greater moral defect,--I mean a tendency, chiefly due, I think,
to a very deep-seated pride,--to prefer inferior men as working
colleagues in business. And yet it is clear that if Scott were to
dabble in publishing at all, he really needed the check of men of
larger experience, and less literary turn of mind. The great majority
of consumers of popular literature are not, and indeed will hardly
ever be, literary men; and that is precisely why a publisher who is
not, in the main, literary,--who looks on authors' MSS. for the most
part with distrust and suspicion, much as a rich man looks at a
begging-letter, or a sober and judicious fish at an angler's fly,--is
so much less likely to run aground than such a man as Scott. The
untried author should be regarded by a wise publisher as a natural
enemy,--an enemy indeed of a class, rare specimens whereof will always
be his best friends, and who, therefore, should not be needlessly
affronted--but also as one of a class