siness to be
irresponsible children; and it is certainly true that in this unlucky
pamphlet Hogg distinctly accuses Scott of anonymously puffing himself at
his, Hogg's, expense, of being over and over again jealous of him, of
plagiarising his plots, of sneering at him, and, if the passage has any
meaning, of joining a conspiracy of "the whole of the aristocracy and
literature of the country" to keep Hogg down and "crush him to a
nonentity." Neither could Lockhart have been exactly pleased at the
passage where Scott is represented as afraid to clear the character of
an innocent friend to the boy Duke of Buccleuch.

He told me that which I never knew nor suspected before; that a
certain gamekeeper, on whom he bestowed his maledictions without
reserve, had prejudiced my best friend, the young Duke of
Buccleuch, against me by a story; and though he himself knew it
to be a malicious and invidious lie, yet seeing his grace so
much irritated, he durst not open his lips on the subject,
further than by saying, "But, my lord duke, you must always
remember that Hogg is no ordinary man, although he may have shot
a stray moorcock." And then turning to me he said, "Before you
had ventured to give any saucy language to a low scoundrel of an
English gamekeeper, you should have thought of Fielding's tale
of Black George."

"I never saw that tale," said I, "and dinna ken ought about it.
But never trouble your head about that matter, Sir Walter, for
it is awthegither out o' nature for our young chief to entertain
ony animosity against me. The thing will never mair be heard of,
an' the chap that tauld the lees on me will gang to hell, that's
aye some comfort."

Part of my reason for quoting this last passage is to recall to those
who are familiar with the _Noctes Ambrosianae_ the extraordinary felicity
of the imitation. This, which Hogg with his own pen represents himself
as speaking with his own mouth, might be found textually in any page of
the _Noctes_ without seeming in the least out of keeping with the ideal
Hogg.

And this brings me to the second charge of Hogg's friends, that Wilson
wickedly caricatured his humble friend, if indeed he did not manufacture
a Shepherd out of his own brain. This is as uncritical as the other, and
even more surprising. That any one acquainted with Hogg's works,
especially his autobiographic productions, should fail to recognise