Guy Mannering; or The Astrologer — Complete Read online

  EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

  TO

  GUY MANNERING.

  The second essay in fiction of an author who has triumphed in his firstromance is a doubtful and perilous adventure. The writer is apt to becomeself-conscious, to remember the advice of his critics,--a fatalerror,--and to tremble before the shadow of his own success. He knowsthat he will have many enemies, that hundreds of people will be ready tofind fault and to vow that he is "written out." Scott was notunacquainted with these apprehensions. After publishing "Marmion" hewrote thus to Lady Abercorn:--

  "No one acquires a certain degree of popularity without exciting an equaldegree of malevolence among those who, either from rivalship or from themere wish to pull down what others have set up, are always ready to catchthe first occasion to lower the favoured individual to what they call his'real standard.' Of this I have enough of experience, and my politicalinterferences, however useless to my friends, have not failed to make memore than the usual number of enemies. I am therefore bound, in justiceto myself and to those whose good opinion has hitherto protected me, notto peril myself too frequently. The naturalists tell us that if youdestroy the web which the spider has just made, the insect must spendmany days in inactivity till he has assembled within his person thematerials necessary to weave another. Now, after writing a work ofimagination one feels in nearly the same exhausted state as the spider. Ibelieve no man now alive writes more rapidly than I do (no greatrecommendation); but I never think of making verses till I have asufficient stock of poetical ideas to supply them,--I would as soon jointhe Israelites in Egypt in their heavy task of making bricks withoutclay. Besides, I know, as a small farmer, that good husbandry consists innot taking the same crop too frequently from the same soil; and asturnips come after wheat, according to the best rules of agriculture, Itake it that an edition of Swift will do well after such a scourging cropas 'Marmiou.'"

  [March 13, 1808. Copied from the Collection of Lady Napier and Ettrick.]

  These fears of the brave, then, were not unfamiliar to Scott; but heaudaciously disregarded all of them in the composition of "GuyMannering." He had just spun his web, like the spider of his simile, hehad just taken off his intellectual fields the "scourging crop" of "TheLord of the Isles," he had just received the discouraging news of itscomparative failure, when he "buckled to," achieved "Guy Mannering" insix weeks, and published it. Moliere tells us that he wrote "Les Facheux"in a fortnight; and a French critic adds that it reads indeed as if ithad been written in, a fortnight. Perhaps a self-confident censor mightventure a similar opinion about "Guy Mannering." It assuredly showstraces of haste; the plot wanders at its own will; and we may believethat the Author often--did not see his own way out of the wood. But thereis little harm in that. "If I do not know what is coming next," a modernnovelist has remarked, "how can the public know?" Curiosity, at least, islikely to be excited by this happy-go-lucky manner of Scott's. "The worstof it is;" as he wrote to Lady Abercorn about his poems (June 9,1808),"that I am not very good or patient in slow and careful composition; andsometimes I remind myself of the drunken man, who could run long after hecould not walk." Scott could certainly run very well, though averse to aplodding motion.

  [He was probably thinking of a famous Edinburgh character, "Singing JamieBalfour." Jamie was found very drunk and adhering to the pavement onenight. He could not raise himself; but when helped to his feet, ran hispreserver a race to the tavern, and won!]

  The account of the year's work which preceded "Guy Mannering" is given byLockhart, and is astounding. In 1814 Scott had written, Lockhartbelieves, the greater part of the "Life of Swift," most of "Waverley" andthe "Lord of the Isles;" he had furnished essays to the "Encyclopaedia,"and had edited "The Memorie of the Somervilles." The spider might wellseem spun out, the tilth exhausted. But Scott had a fertility, aspontaneity, of fancy equalled only, if equalled at all, by AlexandreDumas.

  On November 7 of this laborious year, 1814, Scott was writing to Mr.Joseph Train, thanking him for a parcel of legendary lore, including theGalloway tale of the wandering astrologer and a budget of gypsytraditions. Falling in the rich soil of Scott's imagination, the tale ofthe astrologer yielded a name and an opening to "Guy Mannering," whilethe gypsy lore blossomed into the legend of Meg Merrilies. The seed ofthe novel was now sown. But between November 11 and December 25 Scott waswriting the three last cantos of the "Lord of the Isles." Yet before the"Lord of the Isles" was published (Jan. 18, 1815), two volumes of "GuyMannering" were in print (Letter to Morritt, Jan. 17, 1815.) The novelwas issued on Feb. 14, 1815. Scott, as he says somewhere, was like theturnspit dog, into whose wheel a hot cinder is dropped to encourage hisactivity. Scott needed hot cinders in the shape of proof-sheets freshfrom the press, and he worked most busily when the printer's devil waswaiting. In this case, not only the printer's devil, but the wolf was atthe door. The affairs of the Ballantynes clamoured for moneys In theirnecessity and his own, Scott wrote at the rate of a volume in ten days,and for some financial reason published "Guy Mannering" with Messrs.Longmans, not with Constable. Scott was at this moment facing creditorsand difficulties as Napoleon faced the armies of the Allies,--presenteverywhere, everywhere daring and successful. True, his "Lord of theIsles" was a disappointment, as James Ballantyne informed him. "'Well,James, so be it; but you know we must not droop, for we cannot afford togive over. Since one line has failed, we must just stick to somethingelse.' And so he dismissed me, and resumed his novel."

  In these circumstances, far from inspiring, was "Guy Mannering" writtenand hurried through the press. The story has its own history: one canwatch the various reminiscences and experiences of life that crystallizedtogether in Scott's mind, and grouped themselves fantastically into hisunpremeditated plot. Sir Walter gives, in the preface of 1829, the legendwhich he heard from John MacKinlay, his father's Highland servant, and onwhich he meant to found a tale more in Hawthorn's manner than in his own.That plan he changed in the course of printing, "leaving only just enoughof astrology to annoy pedantic reviewers and foolish Puritans." Whencecame the rest of the plot,--the tale of the long-lost heir, and so on?The true heir, "kept out of his own," and returning in disguise, has beena favourite character ever since Homer sang of Odysseus, and probablylong before that. But it is just possible that Scott had a certain moderninstance in his mind. In turning over the old manuscript diary atBranxholme Park (mentioned in a note to "Waverley"), the Editor lightedon a singular tale, which, in the diarist's opinion, might have suggested"Guy Mannering" to Sir Walter. The resemblance between the story ofVanbeest Brown and the hero of the diarist was scanty; but in a longletter of Scott's to Lady Abercorn (May 21, 1813), a the Editor finds SirWalter telling his correspondent the very narrative recorded in theBranxholme Park diary. Singular things happen, Sir Walter says; and hegoes on to describe a case just heard in the court where he is sitting asClerk of Sessions. Briefly, the anecdote is this: A certain Mr.Carruthers of Dormont had reason to suspect his wife's fidelity. Whileproceedings for a divorce were pending, Mrs. Carruthers bore a daughter,of whom her husband, of course, was legally the father. But he did notbelieve in the relationship, and sent the infant girl to be brought up,in ignorance of her origin and in seclusion, among the Cheviot Hills.Here she somehow learned the facts of her own story. She married a Mr.Routledge, the son of a yeoman, and "compounded" her rights (but notthose of her issue) for a small sung of ready money, paid by old Dormont.She bears a boy; then she and her husband died in poverty. Their son wassent by a friend to the East Indies, and was presented with a packet ofpapers, which he left unopened at a lawyer's. The young man made afortune in India, returned to Scotland, and took a shooting inDumfriesshire, near bormont, his ancestral home. He lodged at a small innhard by, and the landlady, struck by his name, began to gossip with himabout his family history. He knew nothing of the facts which the landladydisclosed, but, impressed by her story, sent for and examined hisneglected packet of papers. Then he sought legal opinion, and wasadvised, by President Blair, that he had a
claim worth presenting on theestate of Dormont. "The first decision of the cause," writes Scott, "wasfavourable." The true heir celebrated his legal victory by adinner-party, and his friends saluted him as "Dormont." Next morning hewas found dead. Such is the true tale. As it occupied Scott's mind in1813, and as he wrote "Guy Mannering" in 1814-15, it is not impossiblethat he may have borrowed his wandering heir, who returns by pureaccident to his paternal domains, and there learns his origin at awoman's lips, from the Dormont case. The resemblance of the stories, atleast, was close enough to strike a shrewd observer some seventy yearsago.

  Another possible source of the plot--a more romantic origin,certainly--is suggested by Mr. Robert Chambers in "Illustrations of theAuthor of 'Waverley.'" A Maxwell of Glenormiston, "a religious andbigoted recluse," sent his only son and heir to a Jesuit College inFlanders, left his estate in his brother's management, and died. Thewicked uncle alleged that the heir was also dead. The child, ignorant ofhis birth, grew up, ran away from the Jesuits at the age of sixteen,enlisted in the French army, fought at Fontenoy, got his colours, and,later, landed in the Moray Firth as a French officer in 1745. He wentthrough the campaign, was in hiding in Lochaber after Drumossie, and inmaking for a Galloway port, was seized, and imprisoned in Dumfries. Herean old woman of his father's household recognized him by "a mark whichshe remembered on his body." His cause was taken up by friends; but theusurping uncle died, and Sir Robert Maxwell recovered his estates withouta lawsuit. This anecdote is quoted from the "New Monthly Magazine," June,1819. There is nothing to prove that Scott was acquainted with thisadventure. Scott's own experience, as usual, supplied him with hints forhis characters. The phrase of Dominie Sampson's father, "Please God, mybairn may live to wag his pow in a pulpit," was uttered in his ownhearing. There was a Bluegown, or Bedesman, like Edie Ochiltree, who hada son at Edinburgh College. Scott was kind to the son, the Bluegown askedhim to dinner, and at this meal the old man made the remark about thepulpit and the pow.' A similar tale is told by Scott in the Introductionto "The Antiquary" (1830). As for the good Dominie, Scott remarks that,for "certain particular reasons," he must say what he has to say abouthis prototype "very generally." Mr. Chambers' finds the prototype in aMr. James Sanson, tutor in the house of Mr. Thomas Scott, Sir Walter'suncle. It seems very unlike Sir Walter to mention this excellent manalmost by his name, and the tale about his devotion to his patron'sdaughter cannot, apparently, be true of Mr. James Sanson. The prototypeof Pleydell, according to Sir Walter himself (Journal, June 19, 1830),was "my old friend Adam Rolland, Esq., in external circumstances, but notin frolic or fancy." Mr. Chambers, however, finds the original in Mr.Andrew Crosbie, an advocate of great talents, who frolicked to ruin, anddied in 1785. Scott may have heard tales of this patron of "High Jinks,"but cannot have known him much personally. Dandie Dinmont is simply thetypical Border farmer. Mr. Shortreed, Scott's companion in his Liddesdaleraids, thought that Willie Elliot, in Millburnholm, was the greatoriginal. Scott did not meet Mr. James Davidson in Hindlee, owner of allthe Mustards and Peppers, till some years after the novel was written."Guy Mannering," when read to him, sent Mr. Davidson to sleep. "The kindand manly character of Dandie, the gentle and delicious one of his wife,"and the circumstances of their home, were suggested, Lockhart thinks, byScott's friend, steward, and amanuensis, Mr. William Laidlaw, by Mrs.Laidlaw, and by their farm among the braes of Yarrow. In truth, theBorder was peopled then by Dandies and Ailies: nor is the race even nowextinct in Liddesdale and Teviotdale, in Ettrick and Yarrow. As forMustard and Pepper, their offspring too is powerful in the land, and isthe deadly foe of vermin. The curious may consult Mr. Cook's work on "TheDandie Dinmont Terrier." The Duke of Buccleugh's breed still resemblesthe fine example painted by Gainsborough in his portrait of the duke (ofScott's time). "Tod Gabbie," again, as Lockhart says, was studied fromTod Willie, the huntsman of the hills above Loch Skene. As for theGalloway scenery, Scott did not know it well, having only visited "theKingdom" in 1793, when he was defending the too frolicsome Mr. McNaught,Minister of Girthon. The beautiful and lonely wilds of the Glenkens, incentral Galloway, where traditions yet linger, were, unluckily, terraincognita to Scott. A Galloway story of a murder and its detection by theprints of the assassin's boots inspired the scene where Dirk Hatteraickis traced by similar means. In Colonel Mannering, by the way, the EttrickShepherd recognized "Walter Scott, painted by himself."

  The reception of "Guy Mannering" was all that could be wished. WilliamErskine and Ballantyne were "of opinion that it is much more interestingthan 'Waverley.'" Mr. Morritt (March, 1815) pronounced himselfto be "quite charmed with Dandie, Meg Merrilies, and DirkHatteraick,--characters as original as true to nature, and as forciblyconceived as, I had almost said, could have been drawn by Shakspearehimself." The public were not less appreciative. Two thousand copies, ata guinea, were sold the day after publication, and three thousand morewere disposed of in three months. The professional critics acted just asScott, speaking in general terms, had prophesied that they would. Let usquote the "British Critic" (1815).

  "There are few spectacles in the literary world more lamentable than toview a successful author, in his second appearance before the public,limping lamely after himself, and treading tediously and awkwardly in thevery same round, which, in his first effort, he had traced with vivacityand applause. We would not be harsh enough to say that the Author of'Waverley' is in this predicament, but we are most unwillingly compelledto assert that the second effort falls far below the standard of thefirst. In 'Waverley' there was brilliancy of genius.... In 'GuyMannering' there is little else beyond the wild sallies of an originalgenius, the bold and irregular efforts of a powerful but an exhaustedmind. Time enough has not been allowed him to recruit his resources, bothof anecdote and wit; but, encouraged by the credit so justly, bestowedupon one of then most finished portraits ever presented to the world, hehas followed up the exhibition with a careless and hurried sketch, whichbetrays at once the weakness and the strength of its author.

  "The character of Dirk Hatteraick is a faithful copy from nature,--it isone of those moral monsters which make us almost ashamed of our kind.Still, amidst the ruffian and murderous brutality of the smuggler, somefew feelings of our common nature are thrown in with no less ingenuitythan truth. . . . The remainder of the personages are very little abovethe cast of a common lively novel. . . . The Edinburgh lawyer is perhapsthe most original portrait; nor are the saturnalia of the Saturdayevenings described without humour. The Dominie is overdrawn andinconsistent; while the young ladies present nothing above par. . . .

  "There are parts of this novel which none but one endowed with thesublimity of genius could have dictated; there are others which anyordinary character cobbler might as easily have stitched together. Thereare sparks both of pathos and of humour, even in the dullest parts, whichcould be elicited from none but the Author of 'Waverley.' . . . If,indeed, we have spoken in a manner derogatory to this, his later effort,our censure arises only from its comparison with the former. . .

  "We cannot, however, conclude this article without remarking the absurdinfluence which our Author unquestionably attributes to the calculationsof judicial astrology. No power of chance alone could have fulfilled thejoint predictions both of Guy Mannering and Meg Merrilies; we cannotsuppose that the Author can be endowed with sufficient folly to believein the influence of planetary conjunctions himself, nor to have somiserable an idea of the understanding of his readers as to suppose themcapable of a similar belief. We must also remember that the time of thisnovel is not in the dark ages, but scarcely forty years since; no aid,therefore, can be derived from the general tendency of popularsuperstition. What the clew may be to this apparent absurdity, we cannotimagine; whether the Author be in jest or earnest we do not know, and weare willing to suppose in this dilemma that he does not know himself."

  The "Monthly Review" sorrowed, like the "British," over the encouragementgiven to the follies of astrology. The "Critical Review" "must lamentthat 'Guy Mannering' is too oft
en written in language unintelligible toall except the Scotch." The "Critical Monthly" also had scruples aboutmorality. The novel "advocates duelling, encourages a taste for peepinginto the future,--a taste by far too prevalent,--and it is not over niceon religious subjects!"

  The "Quarterly Review" distinguished itself by stupidity, if not byspite. "The language of 'Guy Mannering,' though characteristic, is mean;the state of society, though peculiar, is vulgar. Meg Merrilies isswelled into a very unnatural importance." The speech of Meg Merrilies toEllangowan is "one of the few which affords an intelligible extract." TheAuthor "does not even scruple to overturn the laws of Nature"--becauseColonel Mannering resides in the neighbourhood of Ellangowan! "The Authoreither gravely believes what no other man alive believes, or he has, ofmalice prepense, committed so great an offence against good taste as tobuild his story on what he must know to be a contemptible absurdity. . . .The greater part of the characters, their manners and dialect, are atonce barbarous and vulgar, extravagant and mean. . . . The work would be,on the whole, improved by being translated into English. Though wecannot, on the whole, speak of the novel with approbation, we will notaffect to deny that we read it with interest, and that it repaid us withamusement."

  It is in reviewing "The Antiquary" that the immortal idiot of the"Quarterly" complains about "the dark dialect of Anglified Erse."Published criticism never greatly affected Scott's spirits,--probably, hevery seldom read it. He knew that the public, like Constable's friendMrs. Stewart, were "reading 'Guy Mannering' all day, and dreaming of itall night."

  Indeed, it is much better to read "Guy Mannering" than to criticise it. Abook written in six weeks, a book whose whole plot and conception waschanged "in the printing," must have its faults of construction. Thus, wemeet Mannering first as "a youthful lover," a wanderer at adventure, anamateur astrologer, and suddenly we lose sight of him, and only recoverhim as a disappointed, "disilluded," and weary, though still vigorous,veteran. This is the inevitable result of a novel based on a prediction.Either you have to leap some twenty years just when you are becomingfamiliar with the persons, or you have to begin in the midst of theevents foreseen, and then make a tedious return to explain the prophecy.Again, it was necessary for Scott to sacrifice Frank Kennedy, who israther a taking adventurer, like Bothwell in "Old Mortality." Readersregret the necessity which kills Kennedy. The whole fortunes of VanbeestBrown, his duel with the colonel, and his fortunate appearance in thenick of time, seem too rich in coincidences: still, as the Dormont caseand the Ormiston case have shown, coincidences as unlooked for do occur.A fastidious critic has found fault with Brown's flageolet. It is amodest instrument; but what was he to play upon,--a lute, a concertina, abarrel-organ?

  The characters of the young ladies have not always been applauded. Taste,in the matter of heroines, varies greatly; Sir Walter had no high opinionof his own skill in delineating them. But Julia Mannering is probably amasterly picture of a girl of that age,--a girl with some silliness andmore gaiety, with wit, love of banter, and, in the last resort, sense andgood feeling. She is particularly good when, in fear and trembling, sheteases her imposing father.

  "I expect," says Colonel Mannering, "that you will pay to this young ladythat attention which is due to misfortune and virtue." "Certainly, sir.Is my future friend red-haired?" Miss Mannering is very capable oflistening to Brown's flageolet from the balcony, but not of accompanyingBrown, should he desire it, in the boat. As for Brown himself, he is oneof Sir Walter's usual young men,--"brave, handsome, not too clever,"--thedespair of their humorous creator. "Once you come to forty year," asThackeray sings, "then you'll know that a lad is an ass;" and Scott hadcome to that age, and perhaps entertained that theory of a jeune premierwhen he wrote "Guy Mannering." In that novel, as always, he was mosthimself when dealing either with homely Scottish characters of everydaylife, with exaggerated types of humorous absurdity, and with wildlyadventurous banditti, who appealed to the old strain of the Border reiverin his blood. The wandering plot of "Guy Mannering" enabled him tointroduce examples of all these sorts. The good-humoured, dull, dawdlingEllangowan, a laird half dwindled to a yeoman, is a sketch absolutelyaccurate, and wonderfully touched with pathos. The landladies, Mrs.MacCandlish and Tib Mumps, are little masterpieces; so is Mac-Morlan, thefoil to Glossin; and so is Pleydell, allowing for the manner of the age.Glossin himself is best when least villanous. Sir Robert Hazlewood ishardly a success. But as to Jock Jabos, a Southern Scot may say that heknows Jock Jabos in the flesh, so persistent is the type of thatcharioteer. It is partly Scott's good fortune, partly it is his evilluck, to be so inimitably and intimately true in his pictures of Scottishcharacter. This wins the heart of his countrymen, indeed; but thestranger can never know how good Scott really is, any more than aFrenchman can appreciate Falstaff. Thus the alien may be vexed by what hethinks the mere clannish enthusiasm of praise, in Scott's countrymen.Every little sketch of a passing face is exquisite in Scott's work, whenhe is at his best. For example, Dandie Dinmont's children are onlyindicated "with a dusty roll of the brush;" but we recognize at once thelarge, shy, kindly families of the Border. Dandie himself, as the"Edinburgh Review" said (1817), "is beyond all question the best rusticportrait that has ever yet been exhibited to the public,--the mosthonourable to rustics, and the most creditable to the heart as well as tothe genius of the Author, the truest to nature, the most complete in allits lineaments." Dandie is always delightful,--whether at Mumps's Hall,or on the lonely moor, or at home in Charlieshope, or hunting, orleistering fish, or entering terriers at vermin, or fighting, or going tolaw, or listening to the reading of a disappointing will, or entertainingthe orphan whom others neglect; always delightful he is, always generous,always true, always the Border farmer. There is no better stock of men,none less devastated by "the modern spirit." His wife is worthy of him,and has that singular gentleness, kindliness, and dignity which prevailon the Border, even in households far less prosperous than that of DandieDinmont.--[Dr. John Brown's Ailie, in "Rab and his Friends," willnaturally occur to the mind of every reader.]

  Among Scott's "character parts," or types broadly humorous, few have beenmore popular than Dominie Sampson. His ungainly goodness, unwieldystrength, and inaccessible learning have made great sport, especiallywhen "Guy Mannering" was "Terryfied" for the stage.

  As Miss Bertram remarks in that singular piece,--where even Jock Jabos"wins till his English," like Elspeth in the Antiquary,--the Dominie"rather forces a tear from the eye of sentiment than a laugh from thelungs of ribaldry." In the play, however, he sits down to read a folio onsome bandboxes, which, very naturally, "give way under him." As he hasjust asked Mrs. Mac-Candlish after the health of both her husbands, whoare both dead, the lungs of ribaldry are more exercised than the fine eyeof sentiment. We scarcely care to see our Dominie treated thus. Hiscreator had the very lowest opinion of the modern playwright's craft, andprobably held that stage humour could not be too palpable and practical.Lockhart writes (v. 130): "What share the novelist himself had in thisfirst specimen of what he used to call 'the art of Terryfying' I cannotexactly say; but his correspondence shows that the pretty song of the'Lullaby' was not his only contribution to it; and I infer that he hadtaken the trouble to modify the plot and rearrange for stage purposes aconsiderable part of the original dialogue." Friends of the Dominie maybe glad to know, perhaps on Scott's own testimony, that he was an alumnusof St. Andrews. "I was boarded for twenty pence a week at LuckieSour-kail's, in the High Street of St. Andrews." He was also fortunateenough to hold a bursary in St. Leonard's College, which, however, is ablunder. St. Leonard's and St. Salvator's had already been merged in theUnited College (1747). All this is in direct contradiction to theevidence in the novel, which makes the Dominie a Glasgow man. Yet thechange seems to be due to Scott rather than to Terry. It is certain thatColonel Mannering would not have approved of the treatment which theDominie undergoes, in a play whereof the plot and conduct fall littleshort of the unintelligible.

  Against the character of Pleyde
ll "a few murmurs of pedantic criticism,"as Lockhart says, were uttered, and it was natural that Pleydell shouldseem an incredible character to English readers. But there is plenty ofevidence that his "High Jinks" were not exaggerated.

  There remains the heroine of the novel, as Mr. Ruskin not incorrectlycalls her, Meg Merrilies, the sybil who so captivated the imagination ofKeats. Among Scott's many weird women, she is the most romantic, with herloyal heart and that fiery natural eloquence which, as Scott trulyobserved, does exist ready for moments of passion, even among thereticent Lowlanders. The child of a mysterious wandering race, Meg has adouble claim to utter such speeches as she addresses to Ellangowan afterthe eviction of her tribe. Her death, as Mr. Ruskin says, is"self-devoted, heroic in the highest, and happy." The devotion of MegMerrilies, the grandeur of her figure, the music of her songs, more thanredeem the character of Dirk Hatteraick, even if we hold, with the"Edinburgh" reviewer, that he is "a vulgar bandit of the German school,"just as the insipidity and flageolet of the hero are redeemed by theballad sung in the moment of recognition. "Are these the Links of Forth, she said, Or are they the crooks of Dee, Or the bonnie woods of Warroch Head, That I so fain would see?""Guy Mannering," according to Lockhart, was "pronounced by acclamationfully worthy to share the honours of 'Waverley.'" One star differeth fromanother in glory, and "Guy Mannering" has neither that vivid picture ofclannish manners nor that noble melancholy of a gallant and forlornendeavour of the Lost Cause, "When all was done that man may do, And all was done in vain,"which give dignity to "Waverley." Yet, with Lockhart, we may admire, in"Guy Mannering," "the rapid, ever-heightening interest of the narrative,the unaffected kindliness of feeling, the manly purity of thought,everywhere mingled with a gentle humour and homely sagacity, but, aboveall, the rich variety and skilful contrast of character and manners, atonce fresh in fiction and stamped with the unforgeable seal of truth andnature."

  ANDREW LANG.

  GUY MANNERING

  OR

  THE ASTROLOGER