emphasis."

The conclusion of the contemporaneous article in the Quarterly Review
is as follows:--

"The many beautiful passages which we have extracted from
the poem, combined with the brief remarks subjoined to each
canto, will sufficiently show, that although The Lord of the
Isles is not likely to add very much to the reputation of
Mr. Scott, yet this must be imputed rather to the greatness
of his previous reputation, than to the absolute inferiority
of the poem itself. Unfortunately, its merits are merely
incidental, while its defects are mixed up with the very
elements of the poem. But it is not in the power of Mr.
Scott to write with tameness; be the subject what it will
(and he could not easily have chosen one more
impracticable), he impresses upon whatever scenes he
describes so much movement and activity,--he infuses into
his narrative such a flow of life, and, if we may so express
ourselves, of animal spirits, that without satisfying the
judgment, or moving the feelings, or elevating the mind, or
even very greatly interesting the curiosity, he is able to
seize upon, and, as it were, exhilarate the imagination of
his readers, in a manner which is often truly unaccountable.
This quality Mr. Scott possesses in an admirable degree; and
supposing that he had no other object in view than to
convince the world of the great poetical powers with which
he is gifted, the poem before us would be quite sufficient
for his purpose. But this is of very inferior importance to
the public; what they want is a good poem, and, as
experience has shown, this can only be constructed upon a
solid foundation of taste, and judgment, and meditation."

These passages appear to me to condense the result of deliberate and
candid reflection, and I have therefore quoted them. The most
important remarks of either Essayist on the details of the plot and
execution are annexed to the last edition of the poem; and show such
an {p.021} exact coincidence of judgment in two masters of their
calling, as had not hitherto been exemplified in the professional
criticism of his metrical romances. The defects which both point out
are, I presume, but too completely explained by the preceding
statement of the rapidity with which this, the last of those great
performances, had been thrown off; nor do I see that either Rev