Sylva

‘Of writers other than poets, we have already mentioned Philemon Holland's translation of Pliny as a book which did much to perpetuate the names of plants. Eacon's celebrated essay on Gardens may well be reckoned among the treasures of garden literature. After him John Evelyn holds a high place; for though his 'Sylva' is specially devoted to trees, and so might perhaps be more fitly classed with the Herbals of the seventeenth century, yet it stands above and in many respects apart from them all, and retains its peculiar value. 'Evelyn's "Sylva,"' said Sir Walter Scott, 'is still the manual of British planters, as his life, manners, and principles, as illustrated in his Memoirs, ought to be the manual of English gentlemen.'…’

The text above is from “The Quarterly Review”, volume 183.  Walter Scott shared a good portion of John Evelyn’s enthusiasm for trees, and had ample opportunity to enjoy them at Abbotsford.  Evelyn, of course, shares one other trait with Scott, being a famous diarist, himself. The author of "Sylva"  published his memoirs, which cover much the same era as his friend Samuel Pepys.  John Evelyn was born on October 31^st, 1620.

Frankenstein

June 5 [1827]—Proofs. Parliament House till two. Commenced the character of Bonaparte. To-morrow being a Teind-day I will hope to get it finished. Meantime I go out to-night to see Frankenstein at the theatre.

The above is from Scott's Journal.  Sir Walter Scott enjoyed the production of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", later writing in the Quarterly Review  "upon the whole, the work impresses us with a high idea of the author's original genius and happy power of expression", but most reviewers thought it "a tissue of horrible and disgusting absurdity".

Norfolk Agrarians

'May 23 [1828].—I breakfasted with Chantrey, and met the celebrated Coke of Norfolk, a very pleasing man, who gave me some account of his plantations. I understand from him that, like every wise man, he planted land that would not let for 5s. per acre, but which now produces £3000 a year in wood. He talked of the trees which he had planted as being so thick that a man could not fathom them. Withers, he said, was never employed save upon one or two small jobs of about twenty acres on which every expense was bestowed with a view to early growth. So much for Withers. I shall have a rod in pickle for him if worth while...'

Sir Walter Scott is in England during the spring of 1828, when he meets Earl of Leicester, Thomas Coke.  Coke of Norfolk and the William Withers mentioned in Scott's Journal entry of May 23rd, 1828, both had estates in Norfolk, England. Coke in particular is thought of as having been a leading part of the British agricultural revolution. 


Withers published a letter criticizing Sir Walter Scott's Essay on Planting Waste Lands, which Scott published in the Quarterly Review of October 1827.  The essay is lengthy, and the first couple of paragraphs are here:

'Education has been often compared to the planting and training up of vegetable productions, and the parallel holds true in this remarkable particular, amongst others, that numerous systems are recommended and practised in both cases which are totally contradictory of each other, and most of which can, nevertheless, be supported by an appeal to the fruits they have brought forth. It would seem to follow that the oak is more easily taught to grow, and the young idea how to shoot, than is generally allowed by the warm assertors of particular systems, and that nature will even in cases of neglect or mismanagement do a great deal to supply the errors of carelessness whether of the preceptor or the forester. It would be wasting words, to set about proving that in both departments there are certain rules which greatly assist Nature in her operations, and bring the tree, or the youth, to an earlier and higher degree of maturity than either would otherwise have obtained. But we think it equally plain, that the rules which are found most effectual are of a very general character, and, when put into practice, must be modified according to the circumstances of each individual case; from which it results, that an exclusive attachment to the minutise of particular systems will, in many instances, be found worse than unnecessary.

To apply this maxim to the art of planting, we would remark that there are certain general principles respecting planting, pruning, thinning, and so forth, without which no plantation will be found eminently successful, even in the most advantageous situations; and, which being carefully followed in less favourable circumstances, will make up for many deficiencies of soil and climate. But on the other hand, there are many peculiar modes of treating plantations which, succeeding extremely well in one situation, will in another impede, rather than advance, the progress of the wood. Yet it frequently happens, that these very varieties, or peculiarities of practice, are insisted upon, by those who build systems, as the indispensable requisites for success in every case, This leads to empirical doctrines of all sorts, which, perhaps, prevail more among planters than in any other department of rural practice. Such are, violent and exclusive prepossessions entertained in favour of any particular kind of tree, how valuable soever; such are also the differences eagerly and obstinately maintained respecting particular modes of preparing the ground, and the precise season of putting in the plants, Such, also, are some particular doctrines held concerning pruning. Upon all these points we find practical men entertain and express very opposite opinions, with as much pertinacity as if they had been handed down, in direct tradition, from the first of men and of foresters. The feuds arising from these differences of opinion have, as in the case of religion itself, been unfavourable to the progress of the good cause; and one of the most important of national improvements has been, in a great measure, neglected, because men could not make up their minds concerning the very best possible mode of conducting it.

We are far, very far, from supposing ourselves capable of filling up, by a general sketch, a summary of rules which may be useful to the planter, yet we claim some knowledge of the subject, from sixteen years undeviating attention to the raising young plantations of considerable extent, upon lands, which may be, in general, termed waste and unimproved. Indeed, to lay aside for a moment our impersonality, the author of this article having, in the course of that time, seen reason to change his opinion on many important points, and particularly upon those in which the expense of planting is chiefly concerned, takes the freedom to consider Mr. Monteath's useful and interesting treatise with reference to his own experince, and the facts which that experience has suggested…’

Aside from Coke's comments on Withers, recorded by Scott in his Journal, Sir Henry Steuart, who published "The Instant Landscape" responded to Withers' open letter to Scott.  Steuart's response is covered in the Journal of Agriculture in 1831:

'The next essay of our author is in the form of a letter to Sir Walter Scott, controverting certain opinions expressed by the latter in a very pleasing essay on planting, which all planters ought to read, contained in the Quarterly Review. We do not certainly propose to take up the gauntlet for the Author of Waverley. The task of replying to Mr Withers has already been performed by Sir Henry Steuart, who, in a note to the second edition of his own work, disposes of some of the opinions of that gentleman, though, in doing so, we cannot help thinking, that the ingenious Baronet falls himself into certain errors, quite as great as those which he endeavours to controvert....

The scientific principles on which the process should be conducted, and my anxiety to impress them on the minds of planters, are sufficiently shown in the present section and notes, whether for arboricultural or agricultural purposes, to which Mr Withers's able pamphlet may serve as a practical commentary…

"There is one thing, with which I have been rather surprised in Mr Withers's pamphlet, and which cannot be passed over without notice by any person of intelligence, and that is, his denominating the ordinary or pitting method of planting, as every where practised, without any previous deepening of the soil, 'The Scotch System and for no other alleged reason that I can discover, on the most attentive perusal of his publication, than that some Scotch contractors had executed about forty acres of plantation for Admiral Windham, according to this method, and that the thing had turned out 'a total failure.'

"It is certainly very candid in Mr Withers to inform us, that he knows nothing of Scotland or Ireland, and that his observations on wood, and his practice in raising it, are wholly confined to Norfolk. His pamphlet as clearly informs us, that he knows nothing of general planting, or of its history and progress in Britain, and the rest of Europe; and that the anatomy of plants and vegetable physiology have not come within the range of his studies…’

STOPT!

'...I believe it  was just about this time that Scott had abandoned his place in Mr Jeffrey's corps. The journal had been started among the clever young society with which Edinburgh abounded when they were both entering life as barristers; and Jeffrey's principal coadjutors for some time were Sydney Smith, Brougham, Horner, Scott himself—and on scientific subjects, Playfair...'

Professor John Playfair was well known in Edinburgh society during Scott's time.  As a mathematician, he even has an axiom named after him; Playfair's Axiom.  John Playfair was born on March 10, 1748.

The text above is from Lockhart's "Memoirs of Sir Walter Scott".  The journal referenced is the Edinburgh Review, which was published by Archibald Constable.  Scott initially supported the Review, but became so fed up with the politics that he canceled, later supporting publisher John Murray in developing the Quarterly Review. 

Walter Scott's relationship with Edinburgh Review is described in Samuel Smiles' "A Publisher and his Friends": '...Walter Scott still continued to write for the Edinburgh, notwithstanding the differences of opinion which existed between himself and the editor as to political questions. He was rather proud of the Review, inasmuch as it was an outgrowth of Scottish literature...'  And on the rift: 'A severe and unjust review of "Marmion," by Jeffrey, appeared in 1808, accusing Scott of a mercenary spirit in writing for money (though Jeffrey himself was writing for money in the same article), and further irritating Scott by asserting that he "had neglected Scottish feelings and Scottish characters." "Constable," writes Scott to his brother Thomas, in November 1808, "or rather that Bear, his partner [Mr. Hunter], has behaved by me of late not very civilly, and I owe Jeffrey a flap with a foxtail on account of his review of 'Marmion,' and thus doth the whirligig of time bring about my revenges." 

Smiles quotes Lockart on the subject '..."When he read the article on 'Marmion,' and another on foreign politics, in the same number of the Edinburgh Review, Murray said to himself, 'Walter Scott has feelings, both as a gentleman and a Tory, which these people must now have wounded; the alliance between him and the whole clique of the Edinburgh Review is now shaken'"...'

The final straw came happened to occur when Murray himself was visiting Scott at Ashestiel '..During Murray's visit to Ashestiel No. 26 of the Edinburgh Review arrived. It contained an article entitled "Don Cevallos on the Occupation of Spain." It was long supposed that the article was written by Brougham, but it has since been ascertained that Jeffrey himself was the author of it. This article gave great offence to the friends of rational liberty and limited monarchy in this country. Scott forthwith wrote to Constable: "The Edinburgh Review had become such as to render it impossible for me to become a contributor to it; now it is such as I can no longer continue to receive or read it."


"The list of the then subscribers," said Mr. Cadell to Mr. Lockhart, "exhibits, in an indignant dash of Constable's pen opposite Mr. Scott's name, the word 'STOPT!'"...'

Critique of Burns

It is the 252nd anniversary of Robert Burns' birth.  Sir Walter Scott met the older Burns once when he was a youth.  He also critiqued a work of Burns' in the Quarterly Review.  This review was later published in a collection of Burns critiques titled "Early Critical Reviews of Robert Burns".  In Scott's critique, he draws on the work of Dr. James Currie, whose review is also published in this book.  Scott's review is lengthy, and sometimes hard hitting, but recognizes the bard's unique gift.  It begins:


By SIR WALTER SCOTT.


From "the Quarterly Review," February, 1809.

A REVIEW OF "RELIQUES OF ROBERT BURNS."

We opened a book bearing so interesting a title with no little anxiety. Literary reliques vary in species and value almost as much as those of the Catholic or of the antiquary. Some deserve a golden shrine for their intrinsic merit; some are valued from the pleasing recollections and associations with which they are combined; some, reflecting little honour upon their unfortunate authors, are dragged by interested editors from merited obscurity. The character of Burns, on which we may perhaps hazard some remark in the course of this article, was such as to increase our apprehensions. The extravagance of genius with which this wonderful man was gifted, being in his later and more evil days directed to no fixed or general purpose, was, in the morbid state of his health and feelings, apt to display itself in hasty sallies of virulent and unmerited severity—sallies often regretted by the bard himself; and of which justice to the living and to the dead alike demanded the suppression. Neither was this anxiety lessened when we recollected the pious care with which the late excellent Dr. Currie had performed the task of editing the works of Burns. His selection was limited, as much by respect to the fame of the living as of the dead. He dragged from obscurity none of those satirical effusions which ought to be as ephemeral as the transient offences which called them forth. He excluded everything approaching to licence, whether in morals or religion, andthus rendered his collection such as, doubtless, Burns himself, in his moments of sober reflection, would have most highly approved. Yet applauding, as we do most highly applaud, the leading principles of Dr. Currie's selection, we are aware that they sometimes led him into fastidious and over-delicate rejection of the bard's most spirited and happy effusions...'

Castle of Giant Despair

July 3 (1828).—Corrected proofs in the morning, and wrote a little. I was forced to crop vol. i. as thirty pages too long; there is the less to write behind. We were kept late at the Court, and when I came out I bethought me, like Christian in the Castle of Giant Despair, "Wherefore should I walk along the broiling and stifling streets when I have a little key in my bosom which can open any lock in Princes Street Walks, and be thus on the Castle banks, rocks, and trees in a few minutes?" I made use of my key accordingly, and walked from the Castle Hill down to Wallace's Tower, and thence to the west end of Princes Street, through a scene of grandeur and beauty perhaps unequalled, whether the foreground or distant view is considered—all down hill, too. Foolish never to think of this before. I chatted with the girls a good while after dinner, but wrote a trifle when we had tea.

Scott alludes to John Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress" several times in his journal, and in his published works.  He also reviewed Robert Southey's "Life of Bunyan", which review was published in the Quarterly Review (vol 43).  Scott evidently believed that Bunyan derived from gypsy stock: "...we surmise the probability that Bunyan's own family, though reclaimed and settled, might have sprung from this caste of vagabonds..."

From Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress":

...So Mr Great-Heart, old Honest, and the four young men, went to go up to Doubting Castle, to look for Giant Despair. When they came at the castle gate, they knocked for entrance with an unusual noise. At that the old giant comes to the gate, and Diffidence his wife follows. Then said he, Who and what is he that is so hardy, as after this manner to molest the Giant Despair? Mr Great-Heart replied, It is I, Great-Heart, one of the King of the celestial country's conductors of pilgrims to their place; and I demand of thee that thou open thy gates for my entrance: prepare thyself also to fight, for I am come to take away thy head, and to demolish Doubting Castle...

Samuel Pepys

Samuel Pepys was born on February 23, 1633.  Pepys is best known for his diary, but he was also Chief Secretary to the Admiralty under Charles II and James II,  and a Member of Parliament in Charles II's Third Parliament.

Walter Scott reviewed "Pepys' Diary" for John Lockhart for the Quarterly Review.  This work took place in late 1825/early 1826, as reported in Scott's Journal:

December 27th (1825).—...Worked at Pepys in the evening, with the purpose of review for Lockhart.

Jedburgh, April 17 (1826).—Received £100 from John Lockhart, for review of Pepys...[Quarterly Review, No. 66, Pepys' Diary].