or Miss Edgeworth, or even with some other novel writers of the day whose names are now scarcely remembered, they would have considered it an amusing instance of family conceit. To the multi- tude her works appeared tame and commonplace,[1] poor in colouring, and sadly deficient in incident and interest. It is true that we were sometimes cheered by hearing that a different verdict had been pronounced by more competent judges: we were told how some great statesman or distinguished poet held these works in high estimation; we had the satisfac- tion of believing that they were most admired by the best judges, and comforted ourselves with Horace's 'satis est Equitem mihi plaudere.' So much was this the case, that one of the ablest men of my acquaintance [2] said, in that kind of jest which has much carnest in it, that he had established it in his own mind, as a new test of ability, whether people could or could not appreciate Miss Austen's merits.
But though such golden opinions were now and then gathered in, yet the wide field of public taste
- ↑ A greater genius than my aunt shared with her the imputation of being commonplace. Lockhart, speaking of the low estimation in which Scott's conversational powers were held in the literary and scientific society of Edinburgh, says: 'I think the epithet most in vogue concerning it was commonplace." He adds, however, that one of the most eminent of that society was of a different opinion, 'who, when some glib youth chanced to echo in his hearing the consolatory tenet of local mediocrity, answered quietly, I have the misfortune to think differently from you in my humble opinion Walter Scott's sense is a still more wonderful thing than his genius."'-Lockhart's Life of Scott, vol. iv, chap. v.
- ↑ † The late Mr. R. H. Cheney.
