and Richardson also. Indeed Richardson wrote "Pamela" here, and
Goldsmith was his "press corrector."

DICKENS' CONTEMPORARIES

When Scott was at the height of his popularity and reputation, cultivated
and imaginative prose was but another expression of the older poesy. But
within twenty-five years of Scott's concluding fictions, Dickens and
Thackeray, and still later, George Eliot and Kingsley, had come into the
mart with an entirely new brand of wares, a development unknown to Scott,
and of a tendency which was to popularize literature far more than the
most sanguine hopes of even Scott's own ambition.

There was more warmth, geniality, and general good feeling expressed in
the printed page, and the people--that vast public which must ever make or
mar literary reputations, if they are to be financially successful ones,
which, after all, is the standard by which most reputations are
valued--were ready and willing to support what was popularly supposed to
stand for the spread of culture.

Biographers and critics have been wont to attribute this wide love for
literature to the influence of Scott. Admirable enough this influence
was, to be sure, and the fact is that since his time books have been more
pleasingly frank, candid, and generous. But it was not until Dickens
appeared, with his almost immediate and phenomenal success, that the real
rage for the novel took form.

The first magazine, _The Gentleman's_, and the first review, _The
Edinburgh_, were contemporary with Scott's productions, and grew up quite
independently, of course, but their development was supposed, rightly or
wrongly, to be coincident with the influences which were set in motion by
the publication of Scott's novels. Certainly they were sent broadcast, and
their influence was widespread, likewise Scott's devotees, but his books
were "hard reading" for the masses nevertheless, and his most ardent
champion could hardly claim for him a tithe of the popularity which came
so suddenly to Charles Dickens.

"Pickwick Papers" (1837) appeared only six years later than Scott's last
works, and but eight years before Thackeray's "Vanity Fair." It was,
however, a thing apart from either, with the defects and merits of its
author's own peculiar and energetic style.

Jealousies and bickerings there doubtless were, in those days, as ever,
among literary folk, but though there may have been many who were
envious, few were impolite or unjust enough not to