Allegory and Exchange in the Waverley NovelsWith the permission of [Cambridge University Press](http://cambridge.org/us/), this essay
includes excerpts from [Real Money and Romanticism](http://cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521193795), by Matthew Rowlinson. Copyright
© 2010 Matthew Rowlinson.
Matthew Rowlinson
University of Western Ontario
The third of Sir Walter Scott’s Waverley novels,
The
Antiquary was published in 1816 and set in 1794. It was Scott’s
favorite among his novels and of them all displays the most playful consciousness
of itself as a fiction. Historic struggles elsewhere in the series are fought to a
close by characters who, according to Lukács, engage in them as types of
whole contending classes. Here some of the same conflicts appear in a belated and
oddly inconsequential staging—Marx might say, as farce—with characters whose
enactments of political struggle the novel tends to expose as fantasy. “In
The Antiquary,” as Ian Duncan writes,
“Scott undertakes what might be called the Shandyfication of historical
romance, glossing his earlier fiction and its cultural themes in a self-reflexive
and metafictional novel in which ‘nothing happens’” (
Scott’s Shadow 139).
For much of the twentieth century criticism of the Waverley
novels had their place in the history of realism as its dominant topic; the
facetiousness of The Antiquary’s representation
of history made it for this criticism a marginal title in the series.
Duncan’s treatment of the work results from his stated aim of taking
seriously the fictional character of Scott’s novels. The novel’s
stress on the unreliability of antiquarian narratives has led other critics to
adopt it as a key text in readings of Scott as a novelist whose realism is
strongly qualified by skepticism and a belief in the contingency of
representations of the past; see Elam and McCracken-Flesher. The novel has also
attracted interest as one of several among the Waverley novels in which the
claim of historical realism coexists more or less uneasily with an adoption of
the conventions of gothic; see Robertson. The conflict of the Stewart
and Hanoverian monarchies thus dwindles into the after-dinner quarrels of Jonathan
Oldbuck, the antiquary of the title, and his neighbor, Sir Arthur Wardour.
For a bravura return to Lukàcs as an
interpreter of Scott in an essay that, unlike Lukàcs himself, deals at
length with The Antiquary, see Maxwell. Regarding the
“emptiness” of history in the Waverley novels, of which the
non-events of The Antiquary provide the essay’s
paradigm, see Maxwell 444 and 455. Their respective descents, from a
German Protestant printer and refugee and from a Norman knight, establish their
figural relation to the rival parties of 1688, 1715, and 1745. In spite of Wardour
and Oldbuck’s quarrels, the novel’s topic is historical closure; it
argues that the struggles these characters seem to represent are actually
concluded, and that both are in practice loyal subjects of a united Britain, who
share a single class position as members of the landed gentry. The differences
between them are mere remainders and are appropriately staged by their
disagreements about the value of old coins, curiosities, and other relics. These
disagreements arise, in their most elementary form, from the absence of single
standard of
price, which thus functions in the novel as the belated
afterimage of a century-long absence in Scotland of a single accepted
monarch.
See the argument that
antiquarianism’s “family resemblance to commerce” makes it
the “negation” of traditionalism in Lee 78-79.
Since Lukács first read Scott in this way, much of the best criticism of his
fiction has adopted his conception of its characters as types, even when putting
it in service of political and historiographic arguments that differ widely from
his.Alexander Welsh treats
Scott’s protagonists as types of a particular historical formation of
masculinity in relation to landed property in his The Hero of the Waverley Novels. More recently, Ian Duncan has read the characters of the Waverley novels as types of contrasting
narrative genres and discursive modes, whose dialectical engagement the novel
stages through their interaction—see Duncan Modern
Romance and Transformations of the Novel. Among critical works on
Scott for which character is not a crucial analytic category, I should note
readings of the Waverley novels’ construction of authorship in Ferris and
Wilt. As I shall do in this essay, Wilt argues that there is a homology between
the quest romance structure of the Waverley novels and their production of
authorship as self-concealment. In the first section of this essay,
however, we will discuss problems of identifying and representing money that do
not operate in
The Antiquary only at the level of
character. Individual characters disagree about what counts as money, or show
irrational preferences for one representative of money over another. The novel
itself embraces difference and mediation in the money form; money proper—in
the form of silver, which in 1794 still provided the legal standard for British
money—appears in it only as an alien and unintelligible intruder. Standard money,
moreover, proves alien not only to the historical setting the novel represents,
but also to its own diegetic conventions. Its appearance produces a crux, not only
in the novel’s historical representation, but also in its text.
When in chapter 22 Wardour presents Oldbuck “as a gift of friendship”
with a collection of antique coins and medals, begging him to choose those that
will improve his collection, he initiates a sequence of misunderstandings. Wardour
owes Oldbuck money—and is in fact offering the gift as propitiation before
requesting a further loan—so Oldbuck proposes to take the pieces at their
catalogue valuation as partial payment of the debt. Wardour objects both to the
confusion of a gift with payment, and more centrally to the catalogue itself, with
its implication that the curiosity’s value derives from the auction room
rather than from the mere facts of age and association with the crown. Oldbuck
himself shows a different kind of scepticism about market prices when he finally
values the gold and silver pieces at twenty guineas in bullion and as much more
only “to such fools as ourselves, who are willing to pay for
curiosity” (
The Antiquary ch. 22; Scott
The Waverley Novels 3: 217). The market, in this final view,
would be a confederation of fools who collectively drive the curiosity’s
price over what Oldbuck ironically pretends to believe is its only real value,
that of the bullion it contains.
The problem of valuing the curiosity involves both characters in contradiction.
Wardour owes Oldbuck a money debt, but offers him coins on which he does not want
to set a money value. Oldbuck proposes first to cite their value in
money, then to value them as money. For each of them the curiosity
flashes into existence, either as a gift or as a commodity in its own right, only
as the negation of money. The recurring difficulty of valuing old and curious
artifacts that Yoon Sun Lee has noted in
The Antiquary is
especially acute in this episode because in the case of old coins the
indeterminate value of the curiosity is the mirror-image of the indeterminacy of
circulating coin, a trait of late eighteenth-century Scotland that forms one of
the novel’s minor recurring themes.
Jonathan Oldbuck’s collecting mania is an object of mild satire throughout
the novel; the major vehicle for this satire is the beggar Edie Ochiltree.
Ochiltree is the novel’s principal truth-teller, repository of secrets, and
returner of persons and things to their proper places. One of his running jokes at
Oldbuck’s expense concerns the antiquary’s exchange of
“siller” with a packman for an artifact he believed to be an old coin.
Twice in the novel Ochiltree reminds him of this transaction, tormenting him with
the fact that the supposed “auld coin” had actually proved only to be
a “bodle” (
Antiquary chs. 4, 44;
WN 2: 42, 400). This joke is odder than it at first seems,
since the bodle was a copper two penny piece of the old Scots coinage, which had
nominally been superseded at the Act of Union in 1707.
Ochiltree’s Scots vernacular refers to money as either
“siller” or “gowd.” He distinguishes regularly between
the two, refusing gifts of gold as excessive, and begging only for silver. In
this respect, as in others, the novel is meticulous in its registration of the
heterogeneity of the circulating currency in late eighteenth-century
Scotland. The bodle itself was last minted in 1697 (Stewart 117); since
the old Scots currency was converted into Sterling at the rate of twelve to one,
it might after the Union be said to have the value of one sixth of a
penny—though legally it had no monetary value at all. In 1794 a bodle would
thus have to be at least 97 years old; it would also have been a relic of
Scotland’s former status as an independent state with its own mint. Why does
Edie Ochiltree, apparently with the novel’s endorsement, take it for granted
that a bodle is not an “auld coin”?
The episode demonstrates both the indeterminacy of the category
‘money’ and the curiosity’s status as money’s negative
image. The reason the bodle doesn’t count as an old coin in 1794 appears to
be that even a century after the last example was minted it still counts as money.
At the union the gold and silver Scots coinage was reminted to the English
standard; not so the copper. Nor was there anywhere in Britain enough copper
minted during the eighteenth century to supply the need for change. The result was
a dilapidated and heterogeneous copper circulation throughout the country, the
more so the further one got from the Mint in London. In the latter part of the
eighteenth century some merchants and manufacturers took to issuing their own
copper tokens to supply the needs of local trade. This practice, illegal though
tolerated, was especially common in Scotland (Stewart 124 and plate XX). Such
tokens continued to be issued into the nineteenth century; some were merely old
coins stamped with a new countermark: an 1811 example of such recycled coinage was
made from old bodles (Stewart 166), which suggests a terminal date for their
circulation as originally minted.
The problematic relation of the curiosity to current coin is not the only form in
which
The Antiquary represents money’s
inhomogeneity and the consequent difficulty of identifying it. More important to
the plot than Oldbuck’s purchase of ambiguous coins is the duping of his
neighbor by a German named Dousterswivel. Dousterswivel’s swindle is to take
Wardour’s money as a fee, offering in exchange to discover by occult arts,
first a lead mine, then hoards of silver and gold supposedly hidden on his
property in the ruined priory of St. Ruth’s. During the course of the novel
Wardour is bilked of his entire fortune, with the eventual result that his
property is seized by creditors and he narrowly avoids bankruptcy.
Like Oldbuck’s pursuit of the curiosity, his neighbor’s quixotic
pursuit of gold and silver takes the form of an irrational exchange of money for
money. While Oldbuck makes himself ridiculous by exchanging good silver for bad
copper, Dousterswivel appeals to his victims by promising not only to multiply
their money, but to change its kind: "If you join wid Sir Arthur, as he is put in
one hundred and fifty—see, here is one fifty in your dirty Fairport banknote—you
shall put in one other hundred and fifty in de dirty notes, and you shall have de
pure gold and silver, I cannot tell how much!" (
Antiquary
ch. 23;
WN 3: 218). Dousterswivel’s arts will
transmute money from mere dirt into something sublime.
In the Lacanian formula for the sublime, it is an object that has been raised to
the dignity of the Thing; that is to say, it is an object that can appear to fill
the gap or pay the debt on which the Symbolic order is founded (Lacan 126, 134).
In Scott, the promise of such an object always turns out to be a snare:
Wardour’s acceptance of the offer to produce pure gold and silver in
exchange for paper money leads him to spend his entire fortune and everything he
can borrow. His debts are paid in the end with bills of exchange supplied by the
novel’s pseudonymous hero Lovel in a resolution that restores the
circulation of symbolic as well as monetary debt, since Lovel’s gift is
ultimately repaid by his marriage to Wardour’s daughter.
In the interim, however, Doutserswivel’s diggings in fact prove to contain
silver ingots worth £1000. These have "neither inscription nor stamp upon
them, excepting one, which seemed to be Spanish" (
The
Antiquary ch. 23;
WN 3: 225). Their origin is
a mystery, especially to Dousterswivel, who is deluded by the discovery to believe
in his own spells, and ultimately led to become his own greatest dupe. Eventually,
the silver turns out to have been left as a gift for the almost-bankrupt Baronet
to find. Both the medium of the gift—unstamped silver—and the means of conveying
it have been chosen to conceal that its source is Lovel, his daughter’s
suitor.
Lovel’s courtship of Sir Arthur’s daughter Isabella is the
novel’s principal narrative thread; he believes himself to be illegitimate,
and the bar to his suit is a prejudice against illegitimacy that has been handed
down in the Wardour family ever since its founding. The blank surface of the
silver ingots he leaves for the baronet both conceals his identity and figures the
bastard’s lack of a proper name. But the romance-plot of
The Antiquary is oriented towards the discovery at its close that the
hero is not illegitimate at all. He was raised as the illegitimate son of Geraldin
Neville, in Yorkshire, but discovers that Neville had in fact only adopted and not
fathered him. When his adoptive father refused to reveal his real paternity, the
son renounced his name and took the fictitious one of Lovel. He inherits the
mysterious silver from Neville, who dies in the course of the novel; it had come
to Neville as plate from the family of Glenallan, of which Lovel/Neville’s
real father is the head. The novel as Scott published it affirms that the blank
silver ingots which make it possible for the son to conceal his identity—as Lovel
or Neville—had originally been melted down to conceal
from him the
identity he bears without knowing it as the heir of Glenallan, with whose arms the
silver plate would have been stamped.
The silver ingots at the center of this episode appear to resolve the problem we
began with, that of money’s indeterminate identity. Britain in the
eighteenth century was nominally on a silver standard; the silver coinage was in
such poor condition, however, that legislation of 1774 provided that silver would
be legal tender for debts of over £25 only by weight, not by tale
(Kindleberger 61). A box of silver ingots would in 1794 have been the most exact
possible representation of money as such. In this form, money is antithetical to
symbolic identity; the blank surface of the silver figures the effaced names of
those through whose hands it has passed and the illegibility of its own
history.
The effects of Scott’s representation of money as a materialized gap in the
Symbolic, however, are not confined within the frame of his novel. The
impossibility of accounting for the silver’s appearance in
Dousterswivel’s excavations is a problem that the novel shares with its own
characters. The sentences from chapter 45 (
WN 3: 408-09)
that provide the narrative summarized above are, like the novel’s
protagonist, of dubious legitimacy. They are uttered by “Lovel”
himself, and, as we have seen, they explain that the silver’s ultimate
source was his father the Earl of Glenallan. At this point in the novel, however,
“Lovel” does not yet
know his true descent—that
discovery is reserved for the following paragraph. His explanation of the
silver’s source thus assumes information he does not yet possess. The
novel’s latest editor, David Hewitt, has discovered that this error in its
diegesis was introduced into the novel as an authorial revision. Scott originally
had “Lovel” explain that he bought the silver from a bank that had
recently imported it, and it is this version that Hewitt prints in his 1995
Edinburgh edition. Scott changed the story on the verso of his original manuscript
before the relevant passage had been set up in type, though, and it was the
revised version that appeared in print, both in the first edition and in each of
the two or three subsequent editions that he oversaw.
For the rationale of this emendation to his first edition base
text, see Hewitt 390. See 370-80 for the evolution of the text through
successive editions in Scott’s lifetime.
Scott’s plot required that the money-hoard uncovered by Dousterswivel should
have no legible history. It hence could not have been paper, or even coin. But the
Scottish monetary system in the second half of the eighteenth century afforded no
very plausible source of specie. Unlike England, where gold and silver were in
general circulation owing to a ban on banknotes of less than £5 (Kindleberger
78), in Scotland small denomination banknotes had driven most gold and silver out
of circulation. Much of what precious metal did make its way to Scotland was used
to pay debts in England, which enjoyed a trade surplus with Scotland throughout
the eighteenth century. The effect on Scottish money and banking was notorious: in
1776 Adam Smith estimated the whole Scottish circulation at £2 million, of
which no more than a quarter was in gold and silver (1: 316). Scott writes in 1826
of Scotland as a nation that had adopted paper money because it “is too poor
to retain a circulating medium of the precious metals” (
Critical and Miscellaneous Essays 3: 350).
The unlikelihood of finding £1000 worth of silver at a rural Scottish bank in
1794 seems to have led Scott to revise his original account. Hewitt retains the
deleted reading in the name of narrative coherence, but at the cost of introducing
an historical and textual anomaly. Needing to represent an embodiment of money
whose history is as illegible as its protagonist’s, the novel succeeds too
well, and produces one of whose history its own text can provide only defective
accounts. The representation of money as such opens an irreducible textual
fault.
This fault does not arise from the divided political allegiance of
eighteenth-century Scots, but from divided allegiance among Scott’s modern
editors with respect to the authority of manuscript and print.See the appendix to this essay for a discussion of
the treatment of this and other textual problems in the Edinburgh Edition of
the Waverley Novels (EEWN). The reason for this divided allegiance lies
in the social process by which Scott and others produced the historical phenomenon
that was the Waverley Novels. That
The Antiquary sets its
representation of money as such in this crux suggests that, rather than reading
its blank money and nameless hero as
types of a crisis of political
authority in eighteenth-century Scotland, we should take all of these
representations out of the historical setting in which Scott placed them, and
consider them as
allegorical presentations of a nineteenth-century
crisis in the process of literary production.
II
“Mr. Cadell, there is a certain thing called Capital. You should look to
that, for these times are bad, and your transactions very large” (Constable
3: 361). Thus the manager of an Edinburgh bank to Robert Cadell, Archibald
Constable’s junior partner, in the fall of 1815. Constable had already
published the first two Waverley novels and had the third, which was to be
The Antiquary, under contract; it was eventually published in
May of 1816. Publishing Scott was an expensive business as well as a lucrative
one, and, as this rebuff implies, Constable carried it on for the most part with
borrowed money. In refusing to extend further credit, Cadell’s interlocutor
tells him that the amount of his firm’s transactions with borrowed money is
already in disproportion to the small size of its own capital.
Cadell must have found it a heavy-handed irony to be addressed not as if his firm
had too little capital, but as if he had never heard of it. Like other rhetorical
figures that sometimes intrude on discussions of money (“Do you think
I’m made of money?” “Money doesn’t grow on trees”)
however, this one suggests a problem of reference for which its extravagance is a
kind of compensation. Is capital a thing? How sure can anyone, even a
banker, be of recognizing it when they see it?
Marx’s elementary formula for capital in Vol. 1 of
Capital, M-C-M, designates the exchange of money for a commodity that
is once more sold as money. For our purposes, the central point of this formula is
that it locates the identity of capital in the money form. Though capital may and
indeed must repeatedly assume the form of commodities, these commodities’
identity as capital depends upon their eventual retransformation into money. The
commodity is capital’s “disguised” mode of existence, while
money is its “general” one; capital’s “identity with
itself” can be affirmed only by its repeated re-embodiment of itself in
money (Marx 255).
For discussion of capital
as a subject in Marx, see Postone 75-81.
For Marx money is both a commodity, the material product of social labor, and the
mediator of other commodities’ value. As capital, however, money is a
mediator that appears to mediate itself; at the center of
Capital is the critique of this appearance. For Marx the appearance of
capital’s self-identity belongs to metaphysics, and he satirizes the way it
“differentiates . . . itself from itself” while still remaining the
same by comparing it to the theology of the Incarnation, according to which
“God the Father differentiates himself as God the Son” (256).
The project of
Capital is to dissolve this appearance of
capital’s identity. In discussing Scott, we are concerned with an historical
moment at which that appearance has scarcely yet been constituted. If money is the
medium in which capital identifies itself, Scott wrote at a time and in a place
where the money supply was in practice extremely heterogeneous and monetary theory
was a hotly debated topic in political economy. As we have seen, in Scotland
throughout the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the circulating
currency mostly comprised notes of Scottish joint-stock banks and dilapidated
token coin. Legal tender coin minted in England was rarely found there. Between
1797 and 1817, moreover, all of Britain was in the anomalous position of having
no legal tender in circulation. Owing to the exigencies of
wartime, the government prohibited the Bank of England from paying out gold and
allowed issues of small-denomination bank notes to circulate in its place.
From 1797 to 1821 the Bank Restriction Act
forbade the Bank of England from redeeming its notes in gold. From 1817, the
Bank began to mint gold in the form of a new coin with a one-pound face value,
the sovereign. Owing to the overissue of notes that Restriction made possible,
however, most of the early sovereigns were immediately taken out of the country
rather than being used in Britain at a depreciated value. See Clapham 2:
63-64. Gold and silver rapidly became scarce throughout Britain, but the
government decided that they would remain the only legal tender. During this
period, adjudicating the value of different representatives of money was an
everyday problem for Britons of all classes.
This history provides a backdrop to the specific conditions in which Scott sold
his labor in the Waverley novels during the first two decades of the nineteenth
century. In a cash-poor economy without capital markets or facilities for
long-term lending other than on mortgage, trade was financed by regional or
trade-specific networks of short-term credit. When Scott sold his labour he
encountered his publishers’ capital as a series of obligations dispersed in
networks of this kind.
The commodity forms in which Scott sold his labour were no more ready to assume a
determinate form than the money for which he exchanged them. Until the end of the
eighteenth century, authors’ agreements with publishers normally involved
the outright sale of copyright for a one-time payment or, in exceptional cases,
for other consideration such as an annuity. The transfer of copyright would be
embodied in the delivery of fair copy to the press, and, from the point of view of
the author, copyright as an abstraction would remain invisible. Scott’s
contracts were very different. For all of the Waverley novels, he retained the
copyright at the time of first publication and sold only the right to publish
editions of a specified size. The copyrights to the first nine of the series were
sold to Constable in a separate agreement in 1819; Scott retained his subsequent
copyrights until he became insolvent in 1826. Scott’s contracts are thus
documents in the historical development of commodity forms in which intellectual
labor circulates independently of any particular material embodiment. In his
practice, however, this apparent independence is invariably qualified. Scott did
not merely license his publishers to print editions of his work; he ensured that
the physical books making up the edition would be printed at his press. The mass
sale of his copyrights to Constable in 1819 was accompanied by a gift of all the
corresponding manuscripts—whose return Scott demanded when in 1826 he sued to
recover the copyrights on the grounds that they hadn’t been paid for. The
commodity forms involved in these transactions—and indeed the nature of the
transactions themselves—prove to be as indeterminate as the money that
mediates them.
It is my main theoretical claim in this essay that the indeterminate form in which
Scott sold the labor embodied in his novels is allegorized in traits of the novels
themselves. The most important of these for my purpose is their anonymity.For a rich treatment of Scott’s
anonymous publication in the context of early nineteenth century Edinburgh
print culture, see Duncan Scott’s Shadow.
Waverley, the first novel of the series, was published
anonymously in 1814; upon its success, the next two were published as by
“the Author of
Waverley.” Subsequent novels
either appeared under this signature, or were presented by “editors”
under obviously fictitious names as works deriving from oral or manuscript
traditions. Very soon, this kind of elaborate disguise of the author’s
identity was recognized as itself a trait of what came to be known as the Waverley
novels. Though I am afraid that at this point the analogy will seem fanciful, the
identity of the Author of
Waverley, like that of capital
itself in Marx’s account, becomes an effect of serial self-reference and
self-disguise.
Scott himself seems to have half believed that there was an uncanny connection
between the anonymity of his work as a writer of fiction and the historically
unprecedented sums he made by it. In writing about his earnings, he tends to
describe them as if they had been gained by a deception, or else by magic.
Consider the following, published in a retrospect of his career written well after
insolvency had forced Scott to give up his incognito. Looking back at his the
period of his anonymity, he writes that “in the pen of this nameless
romancer, I seemed to possess something like the secret fountain of coined gold
and pearls vouchsafed to the traveller of the Eastern Tale " (
Chronicles of the Canongate, Introduction;
WN
19: 321). One striking point about this figure is that even as Scott in a signed
preface acknowledges his identity as author of the Waverley novels, he disavows
it, referring in the third person to “the nameless romancer” who held
the pen that composed them. Another is that the figure’s identification of
the pen and the fountain is founded as much on the fact that they are both secret
as on their apparently limitless flow. Taken as a whole, the figure aligns the
authorship of the Waverley novels with possession of the money for which they were
sold, both the money and the novels being tokens of an identity that is
constitutively secret and fated to vanish when revealed.
Scott’s money and his incognito really did vanish
together; as he faced insolvency in late 1825, he knew that one of the
consequences would be his exposure as the Author of Waverley. Hence his
complaint in his Journal: “the wand of the
Unknown is shivered in his grasp. He must henceforth be termed the Too well
known” (Scott Journal 40). Here too for Scott
the magic of authorship is the magic of money, and both of them disappear when
they are exposed to view.
The anonymity of the Waverley novels was not merely an extrinsic fact about them.
Rather, it reiterated on the title page formal and thematic preoccupations with
signature, anonymity, and disguise that also appear in the body of the texts. Each
of the first three of the series has a protagonist who is effectively separated
from his signature. The protagonists of
Guy Mannering and
The Antiquary cannot sign because they do not know
their own names. Waverley knows his all too well; the romance of his life begins
when he is separated from it by the theft of his signet ring. Without his
knowledge the signet is used to enlist him as a supporter of the 1745 Jacobite
uprising—and in so doing, ironically, to constitute for him the true
symbolic identity he is destined to assume. In each of these novels, then, Scott
works a gambit in which the protagonist’s proper signature is hidden from
him and from other characters. In Scott’s subsequent fiction the deception
of characters about their own identity is less characteristic than the deception
of the reader; it becomes a favorite device of his to introduce a major character
under a disguise that is only gradually lifted. Often the character is the monarch
or a claimant of the throne, as in the cases of
Ivanhoe,
Quentin Durward, and
Redgauntlet. Even where the reader is in on the secret, Scott’s
monarchs are typically as fond of masquerade, concealment, and bluff as the Author
of
Waverley himself.
The Waverley novels often represent a narrative of the protagonist’s
self-discovery; in these narratives, the protagonist’s proper name and
symbolic identity are hidden in the world the novel represents, from which they
emerge to view before the close. They are often embodied in a material token, the
symbolon, such as Waverley’s signet or Elspeth Mucklebackit’s ring in
The Antiquary. From a formal standpoint, such
narratives are a guarantee of closure; the novel sets no problems and presents no
appearances for which it does not contain the corresponding solution or reality.
The material token that the novel represents as guaranteeing the identity of its
protagonist thus also figures its identity with itself.
Precisely because it recurs from novel to novel, the protagonist’s narrative
of self-discovery is a central topic in criticism of Scott’s fiction;For Alexander Welsh this narrative is a
“romance of property.” He argues that in the Waverley novels the
protagonist’s discovery of his destiny, both as an heir and as a lover,
involves accession to real estate. The identity-conferring power of this kind
of property is distinguished from the effect of conveyables, from too close an
association with which Scott “carefully protects” his heroes and
heroines at the novels’ endings (Welsh 79). among the effects of
its recurrence is to undermine the closure that it also guarantees. At the opening
of
The Antiquary the protagonist presents himself to the
novel’s title character under the name of Lovel. It emerges however that the
name is a disguise which he has been using to conceal the name under which he was
raised, that of Neville. Finally, at the novel’s close, the antiquary learns
that he himself possesses the information necessary to discover the truth about
his friend’s birth, and is able to inform him that his name is no more
Neville than it is Lovel, but is rather William Geraldin. In this last reversal
the dupe and the subject of knowledge change places with a symmetrical neatness
that provides the novel’s final cadence. The effect of closure is however
undermined by the traits that
The Antiquary’s
protagonist shares with those of other novels. These traits liken him for instance
to Waverley, to Harry Bertram, to Frank Osbaldistone, and to others from other
novels in the series.
For a discussion of
fraternal similarities among the Waverley protagonists, see Welsh 27.
The truth of the protagonist’s identity and filiation was only apparently
contained within a single text; as soon as this appearance is breached, so too are
the borders of the text itself.
In some of the paratexts with which Scott increasingly surrounded his novels as
the series developed, he dramatizes the permeability of their borders by putting
characters from different novels together in a single scene and even allowing them
encounters with the anonymous Author who invented them. The most elaborate such
paratext is the introduction to
Tales of the Crusaders,
published in 1825; it presents itself as the transcript of a meeting between the
still-anonymous Author of Waverley and a miscellaneous collection of characters
from the novels—or, where this would violate chronology, of their descendants.
Present therefore are Jonathan Oldbuck of
The Antiquary,
Josiah Cargill of
St. Ronan’s Well, Lawrence
Templeton, the purported editor of
Ivanhoe, Captain
Clutterbuck of
The Monastery and
The
Fortunes of Nigel, the son of Dandie Dinmont of
Guy
Mannering and so forth. The introduction’s conceit is that the
characters, along with the Author, have produced the Waverley novels already in
print collectively, in accordance with “the doctrine so well laid down by
the immortal Adam Smith, concerning the division of labour” (
Tales of the Crusaders, Introduction;
WN 19: 11).
For a treatment of
this introduction, of Scott’s relation to Adam Smith, and of his
understanding of his novels as a commercial enterprise, see Sutherland.
They meet here as joint proprietors of what the Author of Waverley describes as
“the valuable property which has accumulated under our common labour”
(
Tales of the Crusaders, Introduction;
WN 19: 11). By the late twentieth century characters could be
a form of intellectual property, and a text representing in a single scene
characters from divers sources is thus in our own day not only an example of the
intertextual citation of character but also of the social circulation of
value.
Think of Warner Bros. cartoons
that represent a variety of characters from their “stable,” or of
the heterogeneous mass of personified intellectual properties that is Disney
World. For Scott, the assembly of the characters is more ambiguous: they
appear as proprietors as well as property, and even the Author of Waverley
himself, when he becomes a character in a Waverley novel, becomes a part of the
property of which he is also the proprietor. The breaching of the novelistic
border effected by paratext here generates an incoherence or internal
differentiation in the notion of property as such.
To put the point otherwise, I am claiming that the difficulty in the Waverley
novels of identifying certain characters, like the difficulty of identifying the
author, allegorizes the difficulty of identifying the value form of the novel
itself. Like the King, the protagonist, or the author, the Waverley novel too
comes hedged about by disguises and proxies in the form of prefaces, frames, and
apparent narrative dead ends. Insofar as these formal traits are shared by novels
with different historical settings they are anachronisms; in
The
Antiquary we saw that the anachronism of disputing the monarch’s
legitimacy is an explicit theme, conveyed by staging the difference between the
Jacobite and Whig positions as a dispute between antiquaries and reducing it to a
series of disagreements over the authenticity and value of curiosities.
These disagreements, however, remain unresolved at the novel’s close.
Moreover, the botched or disputed purchase of the curiosity is one of the forms in
which it presents en travesti the exchange of money for money.
This exchange, which Marx was to identify as the elementary form of capital,
appears in
The Antiquary only as a mistake or a
deception. The exchange M->M in Marx enables an identification; in
The Antiquary, quite the contrary, it is structured by difference and
masquerade. The novel’s insistence on the problem of relating money to
money, indeed on the problem of identifying money, leads me to propose that in its
allegorical dimension, as is necessarily the case with allegory, it has more than
one point of historical reference. Though the topic of money’s indeterminacy
appears in
The Antiquary’s representation of 1794
as an after-image of historic struggles that the novel regards as closed, it also
falls on it as a shadow of the future in which the novel itself will be written
and published.
Untimeliness
is a crucial trait of the allegorical object in Walter Benjamin, whose
conception of it as an historical remainder that has been wrenched into service
as an arbitrary sign of modernity is the main theoretical point of reference in
my reading of The Antiquary. See Benjamin Origin 223-24 and also convolut J of The
Arcades Project, on Baudelaire: “The stamp of time that
imprints itself on antiquity presses out of it the allegorical
configuration” (Benjamin Arcades Project
239).
III
For historical and geographical reasons, Scott had a particularly acute experience
of the impossibility of fully identifying a capital: of specifying what is and
what is not part of it at a given moment, and of symbolizing his own relation to
it. Scott’s relations with his publishers were so complex that it is
difficult to discover in them the underlying exchange of the product of his labor
for money. The formal anonymity under which the novels appeared to the public was
maintained, as a more or less transparent fiction, with their various publishers.
For the most part Scott communicated with his publishers through the brothers John
and James Ballantyne, who in functioning as his literary agents carried on
correspondence for him in which he is typically referred by periphrasis, usually
as the Author of
Waverley. In his communications with his
publishers themselves, then, Scott acts by proxy. As his hand is concealed in his
negotiations with the publishers, moreover, so it is in the production of the
novels themselves, of which the publishers were not shown the original
manuscripts. Sometimes they were allowed to read transcriptions by James
Ballantyne; more often they were only shown page proofs printed at
Ballantyne’s press.
James Ballantyne’s press was thus the medium in which the work of
Scott’s hand was transmuted into the anonymous Authorship of the Waverley
novels. It was not, however, only as a producer and seller of fiction that
Scott’s identity was hidden by the Ballantynes. Much more closely held than
the secret of his authorship was the further secret that Scott himself owned more
than half of Ballantyne’s printing office and was in fact the dominant
partner.Scott had known James
Ballantyne since they were schoolboys together in Kelso. By 1800 Ballantyne was
the owner of a thriving print-shop and a newspaper there; at that date Scott
proposed to him that he should set up shop in Edinburgh. This he did in 1802,
with the assistance of a £500 loan from Scott, leaving the Kelso business
in the hands of his brother Sandy. In 1805 Scott increased his investment in
the firm to £2008, becoming half-owner (Johnson 233). The partnership
continued until the crash of 1826, with the exception of the years 1816-22,
during which Scott assumed sole ownership of the firm, while Ballantyne
continued to manage it at a salary of £400 a year (Johnson 516, 764).
Constable certainly knew that in dealing with the Ballantynes he was
effectively dealing with Scott. On the other hand, in 1826 Scott was obliged to
reveal his dealings to his own lawyer, who affirms that he had no idea that
Scott was involved in the printing firm (Gibson 4-5). See also the discussion
of this controversial aspect of Scott’s business dealings in Sutherland
97-98. All Scott’s contracts for his novels stipulated that they
be printed at Ballantyne’s; he was moreover paid for them through
Ballantyne’s, in such a way that the distinction between the payment for the
right to print a specified number of copies of a work and the
payment for the printed copies themselves is far from explicit. Using
the Ballantynes as intermediaries, Scott confronts his publishers at once
and—on my reading of the contracts—indistinguishably as the seller of
a copyright and as the seller of printed volumes.
The mystification of Scott’s identity as an author is thus inseparable from
the mystification of the commodity form into which his written work was absorbed
when it was sold and became capital. This mystification is in part due to the
relatively recent appearance of copyright as a commodity form in its own
right.See Rose 67-112 for an account
of the eighteenth-century emergence of copyright as a form of abstract
intellectual property created by an author’s labor. Copyright in this
form replaced the earlier institution of copy; this was a license to print a
given work granted by the Stationers’ Guild and ultimately sustained by
state power. The history of intellectual property began with the first
copyright statute, passed in 1710; disputes over how the statute was to be
applied were however not resolved until the House of Lords’ verdict in
Donaldson v. Becket in 1774. It was in the legal and philosophical debates over
copyright during this period that the idea of the author as producer of an
abstract intellectual property distinct from any of its material embodiments
entered British jurisprudence and publishing practice. For another account of
Donaldson v. Becket as a decisive moment for the whole subsequent history of
intellectual property, see St. Clair 111-21. For a theory of the
“commodity-text” as the form of abstract intellectual property that
emerged in the period 1710-74 and an account of its difference from the
“commodity-book,” see Feltes 7-8. But its fundamental
determinant in Scott’s case is as a reflection of the money-form in which
the value of Scott’s labor was realized. No more in Scotland in 1815 than at
other times and places could transactions on the scale of Scott’s and
Constable’s have conveniently been carried out in cash. David Hewitt
estimates Scott’s share of the profits from the first 5000 copies of
The Antiquary at about £1682 (364), independent of his
share of the profits from the printing-office. In England during the period of the
Bank Restriction Act (1797-1821), and in Scotland at any time since the early
eighteenth century, the payment of such a sum in legal tender coin would have been
almost unthinkable. The actually circulating currency, as we have seen, comprised
a regionally variable combination of token silver used as change and of different
kinds of locally-issued paper instruments that served as money-substitutes. Legal
tender was at this period effectively unavailable throughout Britain, and
especially so in Scotland.
For the immediate discharge of debts, therefore, in 1815 Scots used the token
silver currency of the Royal Mint in London and banknotes issued by Scots banks.
For the purposes of trade, however, which was normally conducted on credit, the
usual instrument was the bill of exchange, as it had been throughout Britain for
more than a hundred years. A bill of exchange is draft by a creditor on a debtor,
made payable to a third party at a specified date and place. Bills of exchange
originated as a means of making payments at a distance, but in the eighteenth
century they came to be used as a way of extending credit in transactions among
producers, merchants, and tradespeople even within a single locality. Bills
continue nonetheless to articulate place: a bill on London, for instance, would in
Edinburgh carry a premium over one payable locally, owing to the trade imbalance
between Scotland and the South.
The bill extended credit by deferring payment: if a retailer bought commodities
from a producer, the latter would draw a bill on the former, payable at a date
when the commodities could be expected to have sold, enabling the retailer to pay
it with the proceeds. Normally, the drawer of the bill, wanting ready money, would
take it at once to a bank, which would give cash for it at a discounted rate,
taking interest for the time until it fell due. This was broadly the system by
which Scott received payment for his fiction. Thus, contracting for
The Antiquary in January of 1815 he drew bills dated at six,
twelve, and eighteen months on the publishers, Constable and Co. in Edinburgh and
Longmans in London. Acting through James Ballantyne, Scott would at once have
discounted the bills, thus obtaining—at the cost of some interest—his half of
the profits for the first 5000 copies before he even began to write the novel. As
The Antiquary was slated for publication in early
June, the publishers expected it to be bringing in revenue before they had to pay
even the first set of bills—though in the event Scott was more than a year late
with it, causing some anxious correspondence between Longmans and Constable.
For a general account of Scott’s
contracts, see Grierson 145-46. For specific details of Scott’s payment
for The Antiquary, see the essay on the text in the
EEWN edition, Hewitt 357-64.
When he sold his fiction, then, Scott encountered a capital whose
identity, like his own identity as an author, was mediated and hedged about with
substitutes. The capital into which his labor was incorporated could appear to him
only in the dispersed form of the bills of exchange that served as its
representatives. This form of appearance necessarily obscured from him its borders
and indeed its mode of existence as property. The example of
The
Antiquary has shown us how a publishing house—or any other
business—could operate without investing money in an undertaking at the outset.
In negotiating for an advance, then, Scott would consider not the actual assets of
his publishers, but the ease with which he would be able to discount their
bills—a question decided by the general state of their credit, and more
specifically by the number of their bills already outstanding and in the hands of
the banks. Scott insisted that Longmans be brought in as the London co-publisher
of his second novel,
Guy Mannering, and then of
The Antiquary, precisely because fewer of their bills were in
the Edinburgh market than of Constable’s, and he wanted to give
Constable’s credit a rest.
Scott
Letters 1: 473 The market value of a bill
thus depended on the state of an entire circulation of bills on which the
acceptor’s name appeared. For this reason, it represented a capital only
visible in dispersal, having been at no time in the immediate possession of any
single individual.
This effect of dispersal was exacerbated by the fact that bills circulated by
endorsement. As we have seen, a bill needed not be held until its due date; it
could be discounted at a bank, or it could be used by its drawer to make payments
in further transactions. In either case, the bill would change hands at a price
determined by the time left until it fell due. As it did so, each person through
whose hands it passed would endorse it, beginning with the original drawer. Each
endorser became liable to pay the bill if the acceptor and earlier endorsers
failed to do so. The value of a bill in circulation was thus supported not only by
the credit of its original acceptor but also by that of its drawer and very likely
by a series of other endorsers.
In taking payment for his fiction by means of bills, therefore, Scott legally made
himself liable to pay again the very payment he took. The reason why the hazards
of trade were so notorious throughout the eighteenth century, and why book-keeping
was so difficult, was that neither the acceptance of a payment nor the discharge
of a debt could be considered final until the bill involved had finally been paid
by its original acceptor—possibly years after many of the transactions in which
it had played a part.". . . hence it
comes to be a proverbial Saying, That no man knows what a Tradesman is
till he is dead" (Defoe 2: 204). In the crash of 1826, many of
the debts of Constable that Scott was required to pay were thus debts which had
originally been due to him in return for novels promised or actually written.
To be paid by bill was thus for Scott invariably to sign; and since after
Waverley itself he always had an advance on his share of the
profits, Scott
wrote his novels to make sure that the bills he had signed
were retired. Scott wrote, in short,
to withdraw his signature
from circulation. And we recall that in mentioning his signature, we are
in fact referring to a hand that was until 1826 concealed behind those of James
and John Ballantyne—far more so in entering into bill transactions than it was in
producing fiction. The major reason for Scott’s employment of a literary
agent and for his secret ownership of a printing works was not to conceal his
identity as the Author of
Waverley, but to conceal the
extent of his potential liability in the bill market and so extend his ability,
using his proxies, to discount new bills. Scott increased his liabilities by
personal expenditure, but the fundamental cause of his exposure in the bill market
and eventual insolvency was the historical necessity that dictated the mode of his
payment. The phenomenon of the Waverley novels could not have been financed by a
capital embodied in a retail bookselling establishment or in a printing shop, as
publishing ordinarily had been hitherto.
John Feather asserts that in the eighteenth century publishing was invariably
associated with the retail sale of books; the earlier model, in which
publishing is a branch of the printing trade, disappears in the seventeenth
century (101, 132). Constable could not have paid Scott the
unprecedented sums he received, nor financed the publication of the novels in the
size and variety of editions that he did, without mobilizing bank capital through
loans secured by the signatures on his bills.
The means by which Scott was paid for his novels thus make it extraordinarily
difficult to say when the sale and purchase of a given novel have been completed.
When he is paid with a bill, Scott involves himself, and his proxies, in an
indeterminate series of future transactions and obligations; this fact is
reflected in the serial character of the novels themselves and the series of
mutually supporting signatures that they bear. To put the point otherwise, when
Scott accepted payment, he also assumed an obligation. The internal difference in
the money form in which he realized the value of his work was the specific form in
which he encountered the difference of capital from itself, and it is reflected in
the internal self-differentiation of his novels and of the Authorship they
embody.
Appendix on the texts of the Waverley novels
Their staging in what appears to be a single text of different and contradictory
versions of the author-function is one of the Waverley novels’ cardinal
features, and it has determined my use of the text of Scott’s final edition
of the novels, which he termed his Magnum Opus, as the source for citations in
this essay.For discussion of the Magnum
Opus edition and the circumstances under which it was produced, see Millgate
Scott’s Last Edition. In the Magnum
text, Scott appears as the no longer-anonymous author, as editor and annotator,
and also as a character and as proprietor. This multiple self-inscription is an
extension of the internally differentiated representations of authorship that
appeared in the novels and their paratexts from the very outset, which are my
topic here.
In one of these representations, the Introductory Epistle to
The
Fortunes of Nigel, the “eidolon” or image of the Author of
Waverley appears—in the act of correcting proof
for the very volume in which he is described—at the back of Archibald
Constable’s Edinburgh bookshop (
WN 14: 8). The
author is thus an emanation of the premises where the writer’s product is
put into circulation and not of the scene of production itself. The social
processes by which Scott’s labor was commodified and circulated were indeed
integral to the shaping of the novels and the institution of their authorship.
This was as true for the first editions as for any others. Before they were shown
to his publishers, Scott’s novels were transcribed and usually set up in
print by John and James Ballantyne. During this process they underwent extensive
correction and revision. Scott anticipated and relied on this work, which was part
of the authoring of the novels.
By far and away the most fully documented and carefully edited version of
Scott’s fiction ever to appear is the recently completed Edinburgh Edition
of the Waverley Novels (EEWN). Though this edition will be invaluable to future
scholarship on Scott, as it has been to my own, the texts it establishes must be
used with some caution, as its editorial procedures do not take sufficient account
of the novels’ social origin. The general editor states that the EEWN aims
to produce an “ideal text” of the novels’ first editions (Hewitt
xv),The general introduction including
this statement appears in every volume of the edition published before 1999,
and in an expanded and somewhat modified form after. rectifying errors
that were the result of haste and pressure in the production process. As we have
seen, however, this process was irreducibly social. No more than any of their
successors were the first editions of the Waverley novels the sole product of the
historical Sir Walter Scott; yet the EEWN announces that integral to its project
is “a return to the authentic Scott ” (Hewitt xii), to be achieved by
stripping away from the first edition texts “mistakes” introduced
there by those whom the editors characterize as
“intermediaries”—James Ballantyne and other copyists,
compositors, and copyeditors.
The result is a series of texts that are fundamentally unhistorical. Neither a
version of the first editions, in whose production Scott’s collaboration
with the so-called intermediaries played an essential part, nor a presentation of
Scott’s manuscripts, the Edinburgh edition of the novels too often
corresponds to no historically specifiable state of the texts.
The anomalies introduced into the novels by this editorial practice are in several
cases substantial and thematically significant. I will give a summary account of
three examples:
1) Since Lockhart’s biography in 1838 it has been known that Scott was
persuaded by James Ballantyne to alter the last chapter of
St.
Ronan’s Well after the novel had been set up in type. At issue
was a revelation in the
dénouement that the hero and the
heroine had been lovers before she was tricked into a feigned wedding with someone
else. Ballantyne objected to the supposed indecency; after protesting, Scott
acquiesced and altered the passage in which the revelation occurs. The censored
version was the one published in the first and every subsequent edition; Mark
Weinstein, the editor of the Edinburgh edition, however prints the text of the
original proof (363-64, 403-04). By so doing he may arguably recover a more
“authentic” Scott than the one who actually approved the other
version—but he produces a text that effaces an important effect of the
novel’s social production.
2) As in
St. Ronan’s Well, a textual crux in
The Antiquary arises from Scott’s revision during the
production process of the first edition. In this case—which I have discussed
at more length above—there is no evidence of pressure from any of the
“intermediaries.” Rather, Scott altered the
dénouement of the novel he had originally written to
another that he apparently preferred. It was the revised text that appeared in
every edition of
The Antiquary he published.
Unfortunately, in making the revision, Scott introduced an anomaly into the
sequence of events that he narrates, making an effect precede its cause. On the
grounds of narrative coherence, therefore, the novel’s editor, David Hewitt,
who is also the EEWN General Editor, has restored Scott’s first version from
the manuscript. There is no question here of restoring the work of an authentic
Scott that has been obscured by other hands; Hewitt’s decision aims rather
to correct what appears to him a mistake of Scott’s own—a mistake,
moreover, that exists only if the novel is judged by standards of narrative
coherence for which there is every evidence Scott cared very little.
3) Most egregious is the case of
The Bride of Lammermoor.
The dating of this novel’s action has long been a matter of dispute;
A full discussion of the topic appears in
Millgate Walter Scott: The Making of the Novelist
171-73. in every edition Scott published there are indications that
point to dates in the eighteenth century both before and after the crucial year of
1707, when the Act of Union ended Scotland’s existence as an independent
kingdom. The historical events on which Scott based his story, moreover, belong in
the seventeenth century, and traces of this setting also made their way into the
novel. The editor of
The Bride for EEWN, J. H. Alexander,
follows Jane Millgate in the view that the action of the novel in its first
edition can best be dated just before the Act, between 1702 and 1707. This dating
is perhaps more plausible than any other; nonetheless, it requires a distinctly
tendentious editorial note explaining away passages that seem to refer to a date
after the union (Alexander 333-35). Worse yet, to prevent the date from slipping
the other way, to before 1702 when Queen Anne ascended the English throne, it
requires the explaining away of several references to the reigning monarch as male
and in one passage the outright emendation of the word “King” to read
“Queen” instead (Alexander 209, 334 and 337n. 9). Alexander makes this
emendation
without warrant from any prior printed or manuscript version of
the text.
In so doing, Alexander effaces the historical fact of a mistake or inconsistency
and deprives the text of its status as an historical artifact. The appeal to the
authority of the “authentic Scott” has here been stripped of any
historical content whatsoever and has become the pure means of imposing an
arbitrary formal coherence on his novel.
Recent interest in the cultures of collecting and antiquarianism has also brought
the novel new attention. Lee 90-101 gives a particularly full account of the
practices of antiquarianism in late eighteenth-century Britain and of their
embeddedness in the institutions of the marketplace and consequent conflict with
an organic or Burkean historicism. A contrasting argument that sees the novel as
countering charges of unmanliness leveled against Burke in the 1790’s
appears in Goode. Ferris discusses the contrast between the enlightened historian
and the antiquary in Romantic-era discourse, with special attention to Jonathan
Oldbuck in
The Antiquary. See also Malley for a
discussion of
The Antiquary in the context of
Scott’s own antiquarian collections and of the construction of the
“new/old” structure of Abbotsford.
Works Cited
Alexander, J.H.
The Bride of Lammermoor
The Edinburgh Edition of the Waverley Novels.
Vol 7a
Edinburgh and New York
Edinburgh University Press and Columbia University Press
1995
Benjamin, Walter
The Arcades Project
Eiland, Howard
McLaughlin, Kevin
Cambridge, Mass
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
1999
Benjamin, Walter
The Origin of German Tragic Drama
Osborne, John
London
NLB
1977
Clapham, J. H
The Bank of England, a History
Cambridge
Cambridge University Press
1944
2 vols
Constable, Thomas
Archibald Constable, and His Literary
Correspondents
Edinburgh
Edmonston & Douglas
1873
3 vols
Defoe, Daniel
The Complete English Tradesman
3rd ed
London
C. Rivington
1732
2 vols
Duncan, Ian
Modern Romance and Transformations of the Novel: The
Gothic, Scott, and Dickens
Cambridge
New York
Cambridge University Press
1992
Duncan, Ian
Scott’s Shadow: The Novel in Romantic
Edinburgh
Princeton
Princeton University Press
2007
Elam, Diane
Romancing the Postmodern
London
New York
Routledge
1992
Feather, John
A History of British Publishing
London
New York
Croom Helm
1988
Feltes, N. N
Modes of Production of Victorian Novels
Chicago
University of Chicago Press
1986
Ferris, Ina
Pedantry and the Question of Enlightenment History: The
Figure of the Antiquary in Scott
European Romantic Review
13
3
2002
273-83
Ferris, Ina
The Achievement of Literary Authority: Gender, History, and
the Waverley Novels
Ithaca, NY
Cornell University Press
1991
Gibson, John
Reminiscences of Sir Walter Scott
Edinburgh
Adam and Charles Black
1871
Goode, Mike
Dryasdust Antiquarianism and Soppy Masculinity: The Waverly
Novels and the Gender of History
Representations
82
2003
52-86
Grierson, Herbert
Sir Walter Scott, Bart
London
Constable and Co
1938
Hewitt, David
The Antiquary
The Edinburgh Edition of the Waverley Novels.
Edinburgh
New York
Edinburgh University Press
Columbia University Press
1993
Vol 3
Johnson, Edgar
Sir Walter Scott: the Great Unknown
New York
Macmillan
1970
Kindleberger, Charles P
A Financial History of Western Europe
2nd ed
New York
Oxford University Press
1993
Lacan, Jacques
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-1960
Porter, Dennis
New York
Norton
1992
Vol 7
The Seminar of Jacques Lacan
Lee, Yoon Sun
Nationalism and Irony: Burke, Scott, Carlyle
New York
Oxford University Press
2004
Lukács, Georg
The Historical Novel
Mitchell, Hannah
Mitchell, Stanley
London
Merlin Press
1962
Malley, Shawn
Walter Scott’s Romantic Archaeology: New/Old
Abbotsford and the Antiquary
SiR
40
2
2001
233-51
Marx, Karl
Capital: Volume One
Fowkes, Ben
Harmondsworth
Penguin
1976
Maxwell, Richard
Inundations of Time: A Definition of Scott’s
Originality
ELH
68
2
2001
419-68
McCracken-Flesher, Caroline
Possible Scotlands: Walter Scott and the Story of
Tomorrow
Oxford
New York
Oxford University Press
2005
Millgate, Jane
Scott’s Last Edition: A Study in Publishing
History
Edinburgh
Edinburgh University Press
1987
Millgate, Jane
Walter Scott: The Making of the Novelist
Toronto
University of Toronto Press
1984
Postone, Moishe
Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of
Marx’s Critical Theory
Cambridge [England]
New York
Cambridge University Press
1993
Robertson, Fiona
Legitimate Histories: Scott, Gothic, and the Authorities of
Fiction
Oxford
New York
Oxford University Press
1994
Rose, Mark
Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright
Cambridge, Mass
Harvard University Press
1993
Scott, Walter
Critical and Miscellaneous Essays of Sir Walter
Scott
Philadelphia
Carey & Hart
1841
3 vols
Scott, Walter
The Journal of Sir Walter Scott
Anderson, W.E.K
Oxford
Clarendon Press
1972
12 vols
Scott, Walter
The Letters of Sir Walter Scott
Grierson, H.J.C
London
Constable & Co
1932
Smith, Adam
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations
Chicago
University of Chicago Press
1976
2 vols
St Clair, William
The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period
Cambridge, UK
New York
Cambridge University Press
2004
Stewart, B.H.I.H
The Scottish Coinage
London
Spink
1955
Sutherland, John
The Life of Walter Scott
Oxford
Blackwell Publishers
1995
Sutherland, Kathryn
Fictional Economies: Adam Smith, Walter Scott and the
Nineteenth Century Novel
ELH
54
1
1987
97-127
Weinstein, Mark
St Ronan’s Well
The Edinburgh Edition of the Waverley Novels.
Edinburgh
New York
Edinburgh University Press
Columbia University Press
1995
Vol 16
Welsh, Alexander
The Hero of the Waverley Novels: With New Essays on
Scott
2nd ed
Princeton, NJ
Princeton University Press
1992
Wilt, Judith
Secret Leaves: The Novels of Walter Scott
Chicago
University of Chicago Press
1985