HOGG

"What on earth," it was once asked "will you make of Hogg?" I think that there is something to be made of Hogg, and that it is something worth the making. In the first place, it is hardly possible, without studying "the Shepherd" pretty close, fully to appreciate three other persons, all greater, and one infinitely greater, than himself; namely, Wilson, Lockhart, and Scott. To the two first he was a client in the Roman sense, a plaything, something of a b.u.t.t, and an invaluable source of inspiration or at least suggestion. Towards the last he occupied a very curious position, never I think quite paralleled elsewhere--the position of a Boswell who would fain be a Boswell and is not allowed to be, who has wild notions that he is really a greater man than Johnson and occasionally blasphemes against his idol, but who in the intervals is truly Boswellian. In the second place, he has usually hitherto been not criticised at all, but either somewhat sneered at or else absurdly over-praised. In the third place, as both Scott and Byron recognised, he is probably the most remarkable example we have of absolute self-education, or of no education: for Burns was an academically instructed student in comparison with Hogg. In the fourth, he produced, amid a ma.s.s of rubbish, some charming verse and one prose-story which, though it is almost overlooked by the general, some good judges are, I believe, agreed with me in regarding as one of the very best things of its kind, while it is also a very curious literary puzzle.

The anecdotic history, more or less authentic, of the Ettrick Shepherd would fill volumes, and I must try to give some of the cream of it presently. The non-anecdotic part may be despatched in a few sentences.

The exact date of his birth is not known, but he was baptized on 9th December 1770. His father was a good shepherd and a bad farmer--a combination of characteristics which Hogg himself inherited unimpaired and unimproved. If he had any early education at all, he forgot it so completely that he had, as a grown-up man, to teach himself writing if not reading a second time. He pursued his proper vocation for about thirty years, during the latter part of which time he became known as a composer of very good songs, "Donald Macdonald" being ranked as the best. He printed a few as a pamphlet in the first year of the century, but met with little success. Then he fell in with Scott, to whom he had been introduced as a purveyor of ballads, not a few of which his mother, Margaret Laidlaw, knew by heart. This old lady it was who gave Scott the true enough warning that the ballads were "made for singing and no for reading." Scott in his turn set Hogg on the track of making some money by his literary work, and Constable published _The Mountain Bard_ together with a treatise called _Hogg on Sheep_, which I have not read, and of which I am not sure that I should be a good critic if I had. The two books brought Hogg three hundred pounds. This sum he poured into the usual Danaids" vessel of the Scotch peasant--the taking and stocking of a farm, which he had neither judgment to select, capital to work, nor skill to manage; and he went on doing very much the same thing for the rest of his life. The exact dates of that life are very sparely given in his own _Autobiography_, in his daughter"s _Memorials_, and in the other notices of him that I have seen. He would appear to have spent four or five years in the promising attempt to run, not one but two large stock-farms. Then he tried shepherding again, without much success; and finally in 1810, being forty years old and able to write, he went to Edinburgh and "commenced," as the good old academic phrase has it, literary man. He brought out a new book of songs called _The Forest Minstrel_, and then he started a periodical, _The Spy_. On this, as he tells us, Scott very wisely remonstrated with him, asking him whether he thought he could be more elegant than Addison or Mackenzie.

Hogg replied with his usual modesty that at any rate he would be "mair original." The originality appears to have consisted in personality; for Hogg acknowledges one exceedingly insolent attack on Scott himself, which Scott seems, after at first resenting it (and yet Hogg tells us elsewhere that he never resented any such thing), to have forgiven. He had also some not clearly known employments of the factorship or surveyorship kind; he was much patronised by two worthy hatters, Messrs.

Grieve and Scott, and in 1813 the book which contains all his best verse, _The Queen"s Wake_, was published. It was deservedly successful; but, by a species of bad luck which pursued Hogg with extraordinary a.s.siduity, the two first editions yielded nothing, as his publisher was not solvent. The third, which Blackwood issued, brought him in good profit. Two years later he became in a way a made man. He had very diligently sought the patronage of Harriet, d.u.c.h.ess of Buccleuch, and, his claims being warmly supported by Scott and specially recommended by the d.u.c.h.ess on her deathbed to her husband, Hogg received rent free, or at a peppercorn, the farm of Mossend, Eltrive or Altrive. It is agreed even by Hogg"s least judicious admirers that if he had been satisfied with this endowment and had then devoted himself, as he actually did, to writing, he might have lived and died in comfort, even though his singular luck in not being paid continued to haunt him. But he must needs repeat his old mistake and take the adjacent farm of Mount Benger, which, with a certain reckless hospitable way of living for which he is not so blamable, kept him in difficulties all the rest of his life and made him die in them. He lived twenty years longer; married a good-looking girl much his superior in rank and twenty years his junior, who seems to have made him an excellent wife; engaged in infinite magazine- and book-writing, of which more presently; became the inspirer, model and b.u.t.t of _Blackwood"s Magazine_; constantly threatened to quarrel with it for traducing him, and once did so; loved Edinburgh convivialities more well than wisely; had the very ill luck to survive Scott and to commit the folly of writing a pamphlet (more silly than anything else) on the "domestic manners" of that great man, which estranged Lockhart, hitherto his fast friend; paid a visit to London in 1832, whereby hang tales; and died himself on 21st November 1835.

Such, briefly but not I think insufficiently given, is the Hogg of history. The Hogg of anecdote is a much more considerable and difficult person. He mixes himself up with or becomes by turns (whichever phrase may be preferred) the Shepherd of the _Noctes_ and the Hogg who is revealed to us, say his panegyrists, with "uncalled-for malignity" in Lockhart"s _Life of Scott_. But these panegyrists seem to forget that there are two doc.u.ments which happen not to be signed either "John Gibson Lockhart" or "Christopher North," and that these doc.u.ments are Hogg"s _Autobiography_, published by himself, and the _Domestic Manners of Sir Walter Scott_, likewise authenticated. In these two we have the Hogg of the _ana_ put forward pretty vividly. For instance, Hogg tells us how, late in Sir Walter"s life, he and his wife called upon Scott.

"In we went and were received with all the affection of old friends. But his whole discourse was addressed to my wife, while I was left to shift for myself.... In order to attract his attention from my wife to one who I thought as well deserved it, I went close up to him with a scrutinising look and said, "Gudeness guide us, Sir Walter, but ye hae gotten a braw gown."" The rest of the story is not bad, but less characteristic. Immediately afterwards Hogg tells his own speech about being "not sae yelegant but mair original" than Addison. Then there is the other capital legend, also self-told, how he said to Scott, "Dear Sir Walter, ye can never suppose that I belang to your school of chivalry! Ye are the king of that school, but I"m the king of the mountain and fairy school, which is a far higher ane than yours!"

"This," says Professor Veitch, a philosopher, a scholar, and a man of letters, "though put with an almost sublime egotism, is in the main true." Almost equally characteristic is the fact that, after beginning his pamphlet by calling Lockhart "the only man thoroughly qualified for the task" of writing Scott"s life, Hogg elsewhere, in one of the extraordinary flings that distinguish him, writes: "Of Lockhart"s genius and capabilities Sir Walter always spoke with the greatest enthusiasm: more than I thought he deserved. For I knew him a great deal better than Sir Walter did, and, whatever Lockhart may pretend, I knew Sir Walter a thousand times better than he did."

Now be it remembered that these pa.s.sages are descriptive of Hogg"s Hogg, to use the always useful cla.s.sification of Dr. Holmes. To complete them (the actual texts are too long to give here) it is only necessary to compare the accounts of a certain dinner at Bowhill given respectively by Hogg in the _Domestic Manners_ and by Lockhart in his biography, and also those given in the same places of the one-sided quarrel between Scott and Hogg, because the former, according to his almost invariable habit, refused to collaborate in Hogg"s _Poetic Mirror_. In all this we have the man"s own testimony about himself. It is not in the least incompatible with his having been, as his panegyrists contend, an affectionate friend, husband, and father; a very good fellow when his vanity or his whims were not touched; and inexhaustibly fertile in the kind of rough profusion of flower and weed that uncultivated soil frequently produces. But it most certainly is also not inconsistent, but on the contrary highly consistent, with the picture drawn by Lockhart in his great book; and it shows how, to say the least and mildest, the faults and foibles of the curious personage known as "the Shepherd of the _Noctes_" were not the parts of the character on which Wilson need have spent, or did spend, most of his invention. Even if the "boozing buffoon" had been a boozing buffoon and nothing more, Hogg, who confesses with a little affected remorse, but with evident pride, that he once got regularly drunk every night for some six weeks running, till "an inflammatory fever" kindly pulled him up, could not have greatly objected to this part of the matter. The wildest excesses of the _Eidolon_-Shepherd"s vanity do not exceed that speech to Scott which Professor Veitch thinks so true; and the quaintest pranks played by the same shadow do not exceed in quaintness the immortal story of Hogg being introduced to Mrs. Scott for the first time, extending himself on a sofa at full length (on the excuse that he "thought he could never do wrong to copy the lady of the house," who happened at the time to be in a delicate state of health), and ending by addressing her as "Charlotte."

This is the story that Mrs. Garden, Hogg"s daughter, without attempting to contest its truth, describes as told by Lockhart with "uncalled-for malignity." Now when anybody who knows something of Lockhart comes across "malignant," "scorpion," or any term of the kind, he, if he is wise, merely shrugs his shoulders. All the literary copy-books have got it that Lockhart was malignant, and there is of course no more to be said.[7] But something may be done by a little industrious clearing away of fiction in particulars. It may be most a.s.suredly and confidently a.s.serted that no one reading the _Life of Scott_ without knowing what Hogg"s friends have said of it would dream of seeing malignity in the notices which it contains of the Shepherd. Before writing this paper I gave myself the trouble, or indulged myself in the pleasure (for perhaps that is the more appropriate phrase in reference to the most delightful of biographies, if not of books), of marking with slips of paper all the pa.s.sages in Lockhart referring to Hogg, and reading them consecutively.

I am quite sure that any one who does this, even knowing little or nothing of the circ.u.mstances, will wonder where on earth the "ungenerous a.s.saults," the "virulent detraction," the "bitter words," the "false friendship," and so forth, with which Lockhart has been charged, are to be found. But any one who knows that Hogg had, just before his own death, and while the sorrow of Sir Walter"s end was fresh, published the possibly not ill-intentioned but certainly ill-mannered pamphlet referred to--a pamphlet which contains among other things, besides the grossest impertinences about Lady Scott"s origin, at least one insinuation that Scott wrote Lockhart"s books for him--if any one further knows (I think the late Mr. Scott Douglas was the first to point out the fact) that Hogg had calmly looted Lockhart"s biography of Burns, then he will think that the "scorpion," instead of using his sting, showed most uncommon forbearance. This false friend, virulent detractor and ungenerous a.s.sailant describes Hogg as "a true son of nature and genius with a naturally kind and simple character." He does indeed remark that Hogg"s "notions of literary honesty were exceedingly loose."

But (not to mention the Burns affair, which gave me some years ago a clue to this sentence) the remark is subjoined to a letter in which Hogg placidly suggests that he shall write an autobiographic sketch, and that Scott, transcribing it and subst.i.tuting the third person for the first, shall father it as his own. The other offence I suppose was the remark that "the Shepherd"s nerves were not heroically strung." This perhaps might have been left out, but if it was the fact (and Hogg"s defenders never seem to have traversed it) it suggested itself naturally enough in the context, which deals with Hogg"s extraordinary desire, when nearly forty, to enter the militia as an ensign. Moreover the same pa.s.sage contains plenty of kindly description of the Shepherd. Perhaps there is "false friendship" in quoting a letter from Scott to Byron which describes Hogg as "a wonderful creature," or in describing the Shepherd"s greeting to Wilkie, "Thank G.o.d for it! I did not know you were so young a man" as "graceful," or in the citation of Jeffrey"s famous blunder in selecting for special praise a fabrication of Hogg"s among the "Jacobite Ballads," or in the genial description, without a touch of ridicule, of Hogg at the St. Ronan"s Games. The sentence on Hogg"s death is indeed severe: "It had been better for his memory had his end been of earlier date; for he did not follow his benefactor until he had insulted his dust." It is even perhaps a little too severe, considering Hogg"s irresponsible and childlike nature. But Lockhart might justly have retorted that men of sixty-four have no business 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 pa.s.sage 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 nonent.i.ty." Neither could Lockhart have been exactly pleased at the pa.s.sage 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 moorc.o.c.k." 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 h.e.l.l, that"s aye some comfort."

Part of my reason for quoting this last pa.s.sage 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 the resemblance is astonishing enough; but what is more astonishing is that any one interested in Hogg"s fame should not perceive that the Shepherd of the _Noctes_ is Hogg magnified and embellished in every way. He is not a better poet, for the simple reason that the verses put in his mouth are usually Hogg"s own and not always his best. But out of the _Confessions of a Sinner_, Hogg has never signed anything half so good as the best prose pa.s.sages a.s.signed to him in the _Noctes_. They are what he might have written if he had taken pains: they are in his key and vein; but they are much above him. Again, unless any reader is so extraordinarily devoid of humour as to be shocked by the mere horse-play, it must be clear to him that the Shepherd"s manners are dressed up with extraordinary skill, so as to be just what he would have liked them to be. As for the drinking and so forth, it simply comes to this--that the habits which were fashionable when the century was not yet in its teens, or just in them, were getting to be looked on askance when it was entering or had entered on its thirties. But, instead of being annoyed at this Socrates-Falstaff, as somebody has called it, one might have thought that both Hogg himself and his admirers would have taken it as an immense compliment. The only really bad turn that Wilson seems to have done his friend was posthumous and pardonable. He undertook the task of writing the Shepherd"s life and editing his _Remains_ for the benefit of his family, who were left very badly off; and he not only did not do it but appears to have lost the doc.u.ments with which he was entrusted. It is fair to say that after the deaths, which came close together, of his wife, of Blackwood, and of Hogg himself, Wilson was never fully the same man; and that his strongly sentimental nature, joined to his now inveterate habit of writing rapidly as the fancy took him, would have made the task of hammering out a biography and of selecting and editing _Remains_ so distasteful from different points of view as to be practically impossible. But in that case of course he should not have undertaken it, or should have relinquished it as soon as he found out the difficulties. Allan Cunningham, it is said, would have gladly done the business; and there were few men better qualified.

And now, having done a by no means unnecessary task in this preliminary clearance of rubbish, let us see what sort of a person in literature and life this Ettrick Shepherd really was--the Shepherd whom Scott not only befriended with unwearied and lifelong kindness, but ranked very high as an original talent, whom Byron thought Scott"s only second worth speaking of, whom Southey, a very different person from either, esteemed highly, whom Wilson selected as the mouthpiece and model for one of the most singular and (I venture to say despite a certain pa.s.sing wave of unpopularity) one of the most enduring of literary character-parts, and to whom Lockhart was, as Hogg himself late in life sets down, "a warm and disinterested friend." We have seen what Professor Veitch thinks of him--that he is the king of a higher school than Scott"s. On the other hand, I fear the general English impression of him is rather that given by no Englishman, but by Thomas Carlyle, at the time of Hogg"s visit to London in 1832. Carlyle describes him as talking and behaving like a "gomeril," and amusing the town by walking about in a huge gray plaid, which was supposed to be an advertis.e.m.e.nt, suggested by his publisher.

The king of a school higher than Scott"s and the veriest gomeril--these surely, though the judges be not quite of equal competence, are judgments of a singularly contradictory kind. Let us see what middle term we can find between them.

The mighty volume (it has been Hogg"s ill-fortune that the most accessible edition of his work is in two great double-columned royal octavos, heavy to the hand and not too grateful to the eye) which contains the Shepherd"s collected poetical work is not for every reader.

"Poets? where are they?" Wordsworth is said, on the authority of De Quincey, to have asked, with a want of graciousness of manners uncommon even in him and never forgiven by Hogg, when the latter used the plural in his presence, and in that of Wilson and Lloyd. It was unjust as well as rude, but endless allowance certainly has to be made for Hogg as a poet. I do not know to whom the epigram that "everything that is written in Scotch dialect is not necessarily poetry" is originally due, but there is certainly some justice in it. Scotch, as a language, has grand accommodations; it has richer vowels and a more varied and musical arrangement of consonants than English, while it falls not much short of English in freedom from that mere monotony which besets the richly-vowelled continental languages. It has an almost unrivalled provision of poetical _cliches_ (the sternest purist may admit a French word which has no English equivalent), that is to say, the stock phrases which Heaven knows who first minted and which will pa.s.s till they are worn out of all knowledge. It has two great poets--one in the vernacular, one in the literary language--who are rich enough to keep a bank for their inferiors almost to the end of time. The depreciation of it by "glaikit Englishers" (I am a glaikit Englisher who does not depreciate), simply because it is unfamiliar and rustic-looking, is silly enough. But its best pract.i.tioners are sometimes p.r.o.ne to forget that nothing ready-made will do as poetry, and that you can no more take a short cut to Parna.s.sus by spelling good "guid" and liberally using "ava," than you can execute the same journey by calling a girl a nymph and a boy a swain. The reason why Burns is a great poet, and one of the greatest, is that he seldom or never does this in Scots. When he takes to the short cut, as he does sometimes, he usually "gets to his English." Of Hogg, who wrote some charming things and many good ones, the same cannot be said. No writer known to me, not even the eminent Dr.

Young, who has the root of the poetical matter in him at all, is so utterly uncritical as Hogg. He does not seem even to have known when he borrowed and when he was original. We have seen that he told Scott that he was not of his school. Now a great deal that he wrote, perhaps indeed actually the major part of his verse, is simply imitation and not often very good imitation of Scott. Here is a pa.s.sage:--

Light on her airy steed she sprung, Around with golden ta.s.sels hung.

No chieftain there rode half so free, Or half so light and gracefully.

How sweet to see her ringlets pale Wide-waving in the southland gale, Which through the broom-wood odorous flew To fan her cheeks of rosy hue!

Whene"er it heaved her bosom"s screen What beauties in her form were seen!

And when her courser"s mane it swung, A thousand silver bells were rung.

A sight so fair, on Scottish plain, A Scot shall never see again.

I think we know where this comes from. Indeed Hogg had a certain considerable faculty of conscious parody as well as of unconscious imitation, and his _Poetic Mirror_, which he wrote as a kind of humorous revenge on his brother bards for refusing to contribute, is a fair second to _Rejected Addresses_. The amusing thing is that he often parodied where he did not mean parody in the least, and nowadays we do not want Scott-and-water. Another vein of Hogg"s, which he worked mercilessly, is a similar imitation, not of Scott, but of the weakest echoes of Percy"s _Reliques_:--

O sad, sad, was young Mary"s plight: She took the cup, no word she spake, She had even wished that very night To sleep and never more to wake.

Sad, sad indeed is the plight of the poet who publishes verses like this, of which there are thousands of lines to be found in Hogg. And then one comes to "Kilmeny," and the note changes with a vengeance:--

Bonny Kilmeny gaed up the glen; But it wasna to meet Duneira"s men, Nor the rosy monk of the isle to see, For Kilmeny was pure as pure could be.

It was only to hear the yorlin sing, And pu" the cress-flower round the spring, The scarlet hip and the hindberry, For Kilmeny was pure as pure could be.

Kilmeny looked up with a lovely grace, But nae smile was seen on Kilmeny"s face; As still was her look and as still was her ee As the stillness that lay on the emeraut lea, Or the mist that sleeps on a waveless sea.

For Kilmeny had been she kent not where, And Kilmeny had seen what she could not declare; Kilmeny had been where the c.o.c.k never crew, Where the rain never fell and the wind never blew.

No matter that it is necessary even here to make a cento, that the untutored singer cannot keep up the song by natural force and has not skill enough to dissemble the lapses. "Kilmeny" at its best is poetry--such poetry as, to take Hogg"s contemporaries only, there is none in Rogers or Crabbe, little I fear in Southey, and not very much in Moore. Then there is no doubt at all that he could write ballads. "The Witch of Fife" is long and is not improved by being written (at least in one version) in a kind of Scots that never was on land or sea, but it is quite admirable of its cla.s.s. "The Good Grey Cat," his own imitation of himself in the _Poetic Mirror_, comes perhaps second to it, and "The Abbot McKinnon" (which is rather close to the imitations of Scott) third. But there are plenty of others. As for his poems of the more ambitious kind, "Mador of the Moor," "Pilgrims of the Sun," and even "Queen Hynde," let blushing glory--the glory attached to the literary department--hide the days on which he produced those. She can very well afford it, for the hiding leaves untouched the division of Hogg"s poetical work which furnishes his highest claims to fame except "Kilmeny," the division of the songs. These are numerous and unequal as a matter of course. Not a few of them are merely variations on older sc.r.a.ps and fragments of the kind which Burns had made popular; some of them are absolute rubbish; some of them are mere imitations of Burns himself. But this leaves abundance of precious remnants, as the Shepherd"s covenanting friends would have said. The before-mentioned "Donald Macdonald" is a famous song of its kind: "I"ll no wake wi"

Annie" comes very little short of Burns"s "Green grow the rashes O!" The piece on the lifting of the banner of Buccleuch, though a curious contrast with Scott"s "Up with the Banner" does not suffer too much by the comparison: "Cam" ye by Athole" and "When the kye comes hame"

everybody knows, and I do not know whether it is a mere delusion, but there seems to me to be a rare and agreeable humour in "The Village of Balmaquhapple."

D"ye ken the big village of Balmaquhapple?

The great muckle village of Balmaquhapple?

"Tis steeped in iniquity up to the thrapple, An" what"s to become o" poor Balmaquhapple?

Whereafter follows an invocation to St. Andrew, with a characteristic suggestion that he may spare himself the trouble of intervening for certain persons such as

Geordie, our deacon for want of a better, And Bess, wha delights in the sins that beset her--

ending with the milder prayer:

But as for the rest, for the women"s sake save them, Their bodies at least, and their sauls if they have them.

And save, without word of confession auricular, The clerk"s bonny daughters, and Bell in particular; For ye ken that their beauty"s the pride and the stapple Of the great wicked village of Balmaquhapple!

"Donald McGillavry," which deceived Jeffrey, is another of the half-inarticulate songs which have the gift of setting the blood coursing;

Donald"s gane up the hill hard an" hungry; Donald"s come down the hill wild an" angry: Donald will clear the gowk"s nest cleverly; Here"s to the King and Donald McGillavry!

Donald has foughten wi" reif and roguery, Donald has dinnered wi" banes and beggary; Better it war for Whigs an" Whiggery Meeting the deevil than Donald McGillavry.

Come like a tailor, Donald McGillavry, Come like a tailor, Donald McGillavry, Push about, in an" out, thimble them cleverly.

Here"s to King James an" Donald McGillavry!

"Love is Like a Dizziness," and the "Boys" Song,"

Where the pools are bright and deep, Where the grey trout lies asleep, Up the river and over the lea, That"s the way for Billy and me--

and plenty more charming things will reward the explorer of the Shepherd"s country. Only let that explorer be prepared for pages on pages of the most unreadable stuff, the kind of stuff which hardly any educated man, however great a "gomeril" he might be, would ever dream of putting to paper, much less of sending to press. It is fair to repeat that the educated man who thus refrained would probably be a very long time before he wrote "Kilmeny," or even "Donald McGillavry" and "The Village of Balmaquhapple."

Still (though to say it is enough to make him turn in his grave) if Hogg had been a verse-writer alone he would, except for "Kilmeny" and his songs, hardly be worth remembering, save by professed critics and literary free-selectors. A little better than Allan Cunningham, he is but for that single, sudden, and unsustained inspiration of "Kilmeny,"

and one or two of his songs, so far below Burns that Burns might enable us to pay no attention to him and not lose much. As for Scott, "Proud Maisie" (an unapproachable thing), the fragments that Elspeth Cheyne sings, even the single stanza in _Guy Mannering_, "Are these the Links of Forth? she said," any one of a thousand s.n.a.t.c.hes that Sir Walter has scattered about his books with a G.o.dlike carelessness will "ding" Hogg and all his works on their own field. But then it is not saying anything very serious against a man to say that he is not so great as Scott. With those who know what poetry is, Hogg will keep his corner ("not a polished corner," as Sydney Smith would say) of the temple of Apollo.

Hogg wrote prose even more freely than he wrote verse, and after the same fashion--a fashion which he describes with equal frankness and truth by the phrases, "dashing on," "writing as if in desperation,"

"mingling pathos and absurdity," and so forth. Tales, novels, sketches, all were the same to him; and he had the same queer mixture of confidence in their merits and doubt about the manner in which they were written. _The Brownie of Bodsbeck_, _The Three Perils of Man_ (which appears refashioned in the modern editions of his works as _The Siege of Roxburgh_), _The Three Perils of Woman_, _The Shepherd"s Calendar_ and numerous other uncollected tales exhibit for the most part very much the same characteristics. Hogg knew the Scottish peasantry well, he had abundant stores of unpublished folklore, he could invent more when wanted, he was not dest.i.tute of the true poetic knowledge of human nature, and at his best he could write strikingly and picturesquely. But he simply did not know what self-criticism was, he had no notion of the conduct or carpentry of a story, and though he was rather fond of choosing antique subjects, and prided himself on his knowledge of old Scots, he was quite as likely to put the baldest modern touches in the mouth of a heroine of the fourteenth or fifteenth century as not. If anybody takes pleasure in seeing how a good story can be spoilt, let him look at the sixth chapter of the _Shepherd"s Calendar_, "The Souters of Selkirk;" and if any one wants to read a novel of antiquity which is not like Scott, let him read _The Bridal of Polmood_.

In the midst, however, of all this chaotic work, there is still to be found, though misnamed, one of the most remarkable stories of its kind ever written--a story which, as I have said before, is not only extraordinarily good of itself, but insists peremptorily that the reader shall wonder how the devil it got where it is. This is the book now called _The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Fanatic_, but by its proper and original t.i.tle, _The Confessions of a Justified Sinner_.