at is, consist in
bringing the materials together and leaving them to produce
their own effect....

'No one admires or delights in the Scotch Novels more than I
do, but at the same time, when I hear it asserted that his
mind is of the same class with Shakespeare, or that he
imitates nature in the same way, I confess I cannot assent to
it. No two things appear to me more different. Sir Walter is
an imitator of nature and nothing more; but I think
Shakespeare is infinitely more than this.... Sir Walter's mind
is full of information, but the "_o'er informing power_" is
not there. Shakespeare's spirit, like fire, shines through
him; Sir Walter's, like a stream, reflects surrounding
objects.'

I may not at this time quote much more of Hazlitt's criticism, but the
point of it would be misunderstood if it were construed as depreciation
of Scott. What may be considered merely memory in contrast to
Shakespeare's imagination is regarded by Hazlitt as a limitless source
of visionary life when compared with the ideas of self-centred authors
like Byron. This is what Hazlitt says in another essay of the same
series:--

'Scott "does not 'spin his brains' but something much better."
He "has got hold of another clue--that of Nature and
history--and long may he spin it, 'even to the crack of
doom!'" Scott's success lies in not thinking of himself. "And
then again the catch that blind Willie and his wife and the
boy sing in the hollow of the heath--there is more mirth and
heart's ease in it than in all Lord Byron's _Don Juan_ or Mr.
Moore's _Lyrics_. And why? Because the author is thinking of
beggars and a beggar's brat, and not of himself, while he
writes it. He looks at Nature, sees it, hears it, feels it,
and believes that it exists before it is printed, hotpressed,
and labelled on the back _By the Author of 'Waverley.'_ He
does not fancy, nor would he for one moment have it supposed,
that his name and fame compose all that is worth a moment's
consideration in the universe. This is the great secret of his
writings--a perfect indifference to self."'

Hazlitt appears to allow too little to the mind of the Author of
_Waverley_--as though the author had nothing to do but let the contents
of his mind arrange themselves on his pages. What this exactly may mean
is doubtful. We are not disposed