University of Virginia Library

(i)

The proposal that the biography be included in 'Constable's Miscellany' was apparently not long pursued, and the earliest subsequent references to it regard it as constituting a separate publication, to be issued in three volumes. Even before Scott had started writing, Ballantyne produced estimates for printing the work in four volumes post octavo and three volumes demy octavo, but a decision was made in favour of three volumes post octavo, a compression to be achieved by increasing the size of the type page.[3] By early September 1825 Scott had begun reading and making notes,[4] and by early October he had completed volume 1 except for revising and adding authorities (Letters 9:231; to Ballantyne, 7 Oct. 1825). At this stage Scott believed that the work would run to five volumes, having decided that the first volume should be 'entirely preliminary a sketch of the Revolution'.[5] As writing progressed, Scott's estimate of the number of volumes that the work would occupy increased. By late April 1826, when he had completed volume 2, he believed that 'from the materials that pour in it cannot be comprised in less than six volumes' (Letters 10:22; to Ballantyne, 26 April [1826]). By mid-September, when volume 5 was nearly complete, he had realised that 'the work must necessarily extend to seven volumes. I cannot squeeze it into six' (Letters 10:105; to John Gibson, junior, 15 Sept. [1826]). In March 1827 he was referring to an eighth volume (Letters 10:177; to Ballantyne, [21 March

1827]), in May to a ninth (Letters 10:212; to Maria Edgeworth, 15 May 1827). Scott's changing estimates of the extent of the work were duly reflected in advertisements for it—Ruff cites those from The Edinburgh Weekly Journal: 11 January 1826, 5 volumes; 8 November 1826, 7 volumes; 11 April 1827, 8 volumes; and finally, 27 June 1827 (the day before publication), 9 volumes.

Great though the task was of writing a biography of Napoleon, it did not occupy Scott's entire attention in the two years in which he was at work on it. In November 1825 he began Woodstock (Letters 9:217; to Ballantyne, [6 Nov. 1825]), published 28 April 1826, and by June 1826 he had started on Chronicles of the Canongate (Letters 10:52; to Ballantyne, 8 June 1826), published October 1827. In addition he oversaw the preparation of the six-volume Miscellaneous Prose Works, published October 1827, and apparently did further work on the subsequently abandoned edition of Shakespeare. Scott's capacity for churning out page after page seemingly at will is renowned. At one stage while working on Napoleon he even described himself as 'a perfect Automaton. Bonaparte runs in my head from 7 in the morning till ten at night without intermission'.[6] As long as he remained in good health Scott seems to have found writing not only easy but also pleasurable. But an added goad to maintaining a feverish pace was provided by the financial disaster of January 1826—when Constable, the printer James Ballantyne and Scott himself were all ruined by the failure of Hurst Robinson (the London booksellers)—for Scott's response to the financial mess was to attempt to recoup the losses by the exercise of his pen. Henceforth the writing of Napoleon is frequently associated with financial recovery: 'I have little to add excepting that I am instantly turning my thoughts to Napoleon. Labour of that kind is to me as it always has been pleasure and if I can extricate my unpleasant affairs by it surely it will not be wanting' (Letters 9:487; to Ballantyne, 26 March 1826). (In fact Scott received from Longman for Napoleon 10,500 guineas—i.e. £11,025 [Letters 10:113; to John Gibson, (8 Oct. 1826)].)

Despite the general pleasurability of the task, towards the end Scott had come to resent the time devoted to Napoleon. Writing to Morritt, he lamented that 'Napoleon has been such an absolute millstone about my neck not permitting me for many a long day to think my own thoughts to work my own work an[d] a fortiori to write my own letters' (Letters 10:226; to John B. S. Morritt, 16 June 1827). In the same letter he expressed himself unconcerned about the work's reception: 'I am now finishd . . . and as usual not very anxious about the opinion of the public as I have never been able to see that much anxiety has any effect in mollyfying the minds of the readers while it renders that of the author very uncomfortable'. And yet earlier he had described it as 'the only work of mine the popularity of which I somehow anticipate with confidence' (Letters 10:22; to Ballantyne, 26 April [1826]).

Napoleon, a work of history rather than purely of imagination, was a 'Brickwork' which could not be 'carried on without straw' (Letters 9:193; to Ballantyne, 27 July 1825). On the one hand Scott had to travel to inspect

official records and to tap the memories of those with first-hand knowledge—hence his trip to London and Paris in October-November 1826. In London his objective was to see the correspondence in the Foreign Office relating to Napoleon's final years on St. Helena (Journal 177, 27 July 1826, and 217, 19 Oct. 1826). Of his visit to Paris he reported to Ballantyne: 'I cannot say I have gaind much new information by my researches but I have cleard up many doubts and got much light on Bonapartes character of which I think I have got a very clear view by dint of conversing with friends and foes. So I have no reason to regret my coming here [London] or my trip to Paris' (Letters 10:124; to Ballantyne, 11 Nov. 1826). On the other hand appropriate source materials had to be assembled at Abbotsford. At the outset Constable undertook to supply volumes that Scott needed, including seventy-seven volumes of Le Moniteur universel (the official French government journal, 1789-1869), extending from June 1789 to December 1823; these he obtained in September 1825 from Paris (Archibald Constable 3:314). From time to time Scott expressed a need for specific volumes. In September 1825 it was for 'the Memoires of Segur . . . who was Master of Ceremonies to Buonaparte' (Letters 9:220; to Constable, [9 Sept. 1825]) and 'Made. de Genlis Memoirs— also Made. de Staels personal memoris—in the original, translations are such butcherly work' (Letters 9:224; to Constable, 22 Sept. 1825). In September 1826 it was for Southey's History of the Peninsular War (Letters 10:105; to John Gibson, junior, 15 Sept. [1826]), a work the first two volumes of which he had received by 5 October (Letters 10:110; to John Gibson, [5 Oct. 1826]) and which he read during the visit to London (Journal 217, 19 Oct. 1826). Occasionally writing was actually held up for want of a particular volume— in September 1826 'Denon's Egypt' (Letters 10:72; to Ballantyne, [8 July 1826]).

Other problems beset Scott too—for example: 'I have got Nap: d---n him into Italy where with bad eyes and obscure maps I have a little difficulty in tracing out his victorious chess-play' (Journal 135-136, 25 April 1826). And when Lady Scott died, 14 May 1826, Scott sought solace in writing. In the period 1-11 June he wrote the final 52 sheets of volume 3 (the equivalent of about 200 pages of print [Journal 137, 26 April 1826]). He admitted to his journal that it was 'an awful screed' and fully expected there to be inaccuracies in it (Journal 157, 12 June 1826). The topic of inaccuracies is a recurrent one. After Ballantyne had dined with him in March 1827 Scott noted: 'There must be sad inaccuracies, some which might certainly have been prevented by care, but as the Lazaroni used to say—"Did you but know how Lazy I am"' (Journal 287, 11 March 1827). Many of Scott's difficulties with Napoleon were in the event transferred to Ballantyne for resolution. When Ballantyne expressed pleasure with the manuscript of volume 1 Scott enjoined: 'Pray be careful in noticing repetitions of expression of which I am but too guilty' (Letters 9:277; to Ballantyne, [6 Nov. 1825]). Once printing started, Ballantyne became all too aware of the difficulties that the text presented: 'By the by, I have been reading over, critically, what has been printed; and I find the tautologies and inaccuracies very numerous indeed. Yet every

one sheet costs me 5 hours labour, if it costs me five minutes' (quoted in Letters 9:493, fn. 1). Scott's reply seems to convey both the speed with which he was working and perhaps a casual attitude to the resultant text: 'As for inaccuracies I really correct as attentively as my eyes will permit though as for spending five hours on a proof Sheet why I never spend two in writing the copy' (Letters 9:493; to Ballantyne, 28 March [1826]). In the end Scott appears to have anticipated publication with a certain resignation: 'I wish it may answer your expectations. It will disappoint unreasonable people on both sides and what I care much more about it will be found I fear in some particulars less accurate than I could wish. At the same time I think the errors will be chiefly verbal or literal. My eyes do not serve me so well to correct proofs as they did formerly' (Letters 10:159; to J. G. Lockhart, 15 Feb. [1827]).

Essentially, then, Scott erred—in matters of fact especially—because of the speed at which he was writing and the handicap of working at a distance from some of his primary sources. These difficulties were compounded by the effects of personal calamities experienced during the writing and what might be described as an ambivalent or changeable attitude towards the task in hand.