was，ontheotherhand，sofardiscouragedbytheindifferentreceptionofMr。Strutt’sromance，astobecomesatisfiedthatthemannersofthemiddleagesdidnotpossesstheinterestwhichIhadconceived；
andwasledtoformtheopinionthataromancefoundedonaHighlandstory，andmoremodernevents，wouldhaveabetterchanceofpopularitythanataleofchivalry。Mythoughts，therefore，returnedmorethanoncetothetalewhichIhadactuallycommenced，andaccidentatlengththrewthelostsheetsinmyway。
Ihappenedtowantsomefishing-tacklefortheuseofaguest，whenitoccurredtometosearchtheold，writing-deskalreadymentioned，inwhichIusedtokeeparticlesofthatnature。Igotaccesstoitwithsomedifficulty，andinlookingforlinesandfliesthelong-lostmanuscriptpresenteditself。Iimmediatelysettoworktocompleteitaccordingtomyoriginalpurpose。AndhereImustfranklyconfessthatthemodeinwhichIconductedthestoryscarcelydeservedthesuccesswhichtheromanceafterwardsattained。ThetaleofWaverleywasputtogetherwithsolittlecare，thatIcannotboastofhavingsketchedanydistinctplanofthework。ThewholeadventuresofWaverley，inhismovementsupanddownthecountrywiththeHighlandcateranBeanLean，aremanagedwithoutmuchskill。Itsuitedbest，however，theroadIwantedtotravel，andpermittedmetointroducesomedescriptionsofsceneryandmannerstowhichtherealitygaveaninterestwhichthepowersoftheauthormighthaveotherwisefailedtoattainforthem。AndthoughIhavebeeninotherinstancesasinnerinthissort，IdonotrecollectanyofthesenovelsinwhichIhavetransgressedsowidelyasinthefirstoftheseries。
Amongotherunfoundedreports，ithasbeensaidthatthecopyrightofWaverleywas，duringthebook’sprogressthroughthepress，offeredforsaletovariousbooksellersinLondonataveryinconsiderableprice。Thiswasnotthecase。Messrs。ConstableandCadell，whopublishedthework，weretheonlypersonsacquaintedwiththecontentsofthepublication，andtheyofferedalargesumforitwhileinthecourseofprinting，which，however，wasdeclined，theauthornotchoosingtopartwiththecopyright。
TheoriginofthestoryofWaverley，andtheparticularfactsonwhichitisfounded，aregivenintheseparateIntroductionprefixedtothatromanceinthisedition，andrequirenonoticeinthisplace。
Waverleywaspublishedin1814，andasthetitle-pagewaswithoutthenameoftheauthor，theworkwaslefttowinitswayintheworldwithoutanyoftheusualrecommendations。Itsprogresswasforsometimeslow；butafterthefirsttwoorthreemonths，itspopularityhadincreasedinadegreewhichmusthavesatisfiedtheexpectationsoftheauthor，hadthesebeenfarmoresanguinethanheeverentertained。
Greatanxietywasexpressedtolearnthenameoftheauthor，butonthisnoauthenticinformationcouldbeattained。Myoriginalmotiveforpublishingtheworkanonymously，wastheconsciousnessthatitwasanexperimentonthepublictastewhichmightveryprobablyfail，andthereforetherewasnooccasiontotakeonmyselfthepersonalriskofdiscomfiture。Forthispurposeconsiderableprecautionswereusedtopreservesecrecy。Myoldfriendandschoolfellow，Mr。JamesBallantyne，whoprintedtheseNovels，hadtheexclusivetaskofcorrespondingwiththeAuthor，whothushadnotonlytheadvantageofhisprofessionaltalents，butalsoofhiscriticalabilities。Theoriginalmanuscript，or，asitistechnicallycalled，copy，wastranscribedunderMr。Ballantyne’seyebyconfidentialpersons；norwasthereaninstanceoftreacheryduringthemanyyearsinwhichtheseprecautionswereresortedto，althoughvariousindividualswereemployedatdifferenttimes。Doubleproof-sheetswereregularlyprintedoff。OnewasforwardedtotheauthorbyMr。
Ballantyne，andthealterationswhichitreceivedwere，byhisownhand，copiedupontheotherproof-sheetfortheuseoftheprinters，sothateventhecorrectedproofsoftheauthorwereneverseenintheprintingoffice；andthusthecuriosityofsucheagerinquirersasmadethemostminuteinvestigation，wasentirelyatfault。
Butalthoughthecauseofconcealingtheauthor’snameinthefirstinstance，whenthereceptionofWaverleywasdoubtful，wasnaturalenough，itismoredifficult，itmaybethought，toaccountforthesamedesireforsecrecyduringthesubsequenteditions，totheamountofbetwixtelevenandtwelvethousandcopies，whichfollowedeachotherclose，andprovedthesuccessofthework。IamsorryIcangivelittlesatisfactiontoqueriesonthissubject。Ihavealreadystatedelsewhere，thatIcanrenderlittlebetterreasonforchoosingtoremainanonymous，thanbysayingwithShylock，thatsuchwasmyhumour。Itwillbeobserved，thatIhadnottheusualstimulusfordesiringpersonalreputation，thedesire，namely，tofloatamidsttheconversationofmen。Ofliteraryfame，whethermeritedorundeserved，Ihadalreadyasmuchasmighthavecontentedamindmoreambitiousthanmine；andinenteringintothisnewcontestforreputation，ImightbesaidrathertoendangerwhatIhad，thantohaveanyconsiderablechanceofacquiringmore。I
wasaffected，too，bynoneofthosemotiveswhich，atanearlierperiodoflife，woulddoubtlesshaveoperateduponme。Myfriendshipswereformed，-myplaceinsocietyfixed，mylifehadattaineditsmiddlecourse。MyconditioninsocietywashigherperhapsthanI
deserved，certainlyashighasIwished，andtherewasscarceanydegreeofliterarysuccesswhichcouldhavegreatlyalteredorimprovedmypersonalcondition。
Iwasnot，therefore，touchedbythespurofambition，usuallystimulatingonsuchoccasions；andyetIoughttostandexculpatedfromthechargeofungraciousorunbecomingindifferencetopublicapplause。Ididnotthelessfeelgratitudeforthepublicfavour，althoughIdidnotproclaimit，-astheloverwhowearshismistress’sfavourinhisbosom，isasproud，thoughnotsovainofpossessingit，asanotherwhodisplaysthetokenofhergraceuponhisbonnet。Farfromsuchanungraciousstateofmind，Ihaveseldomfeltmoresatisfactionthanwhen，returningfromapleasurevoyage，IfoundWaverleyinthezenithofpopularity，andpubliccuriosityinfullcryafterthenameoftheauthor。TheknowledgethatIhadthepublicapprobation，waslikehavingthepropertyofahiddentreasure，notlessgratifyingtotheownerthanifalltheworldknewthatitwashisown。AnotheradvantagewasconnectedwiththesecrecywhichIobserved。Icouldappear，orretreatfrom，thestageatpleasure，withoutattractinganypersonalnoticeorattention，otherthanwhatmightbefoundedonsuspiciononly。Inmyownpersonalso，asasuccessfulauthorinanotherdepartmentofliterature，Imighthavebeenchargedwithtoofrequentintrusionsonthepublicpatience；buttheAuthorofWaverleywasinthisrespectasimpassabletothecritic，astheGhostofHamlettothepartisanofMarcellus。Perhapsthecuriosityofthepublic，irritatedbytheexistenceofasecret，andkeptafloatbythediscussionswhichtookplaceonthesubjectfromtimetotime，wentagoodwaytomaintainanunabatedinterestinthesefrequentpublications。Therewasamysteryconcerningtheauthor，whicheachnewnovelwasexpectedtoassistinunravelling，althoughitmightinotherrespectsranklowerthanitspredecessors。
Imayperhapsbethoughtguiltyofaffectation，shouldIallegeasonereasonofmysilence，asecretdisliketoenteronpersonaldiscussionsconcerningmyownliterarylabours。Itisineverycaseadangerousintercourseforanauthortobedwellingcontinuallyamongthosewhomakehiswritingsafrequentandfamiliarsubjectofconversation，butwhomustnecessarilybepartialjudgesofworkscomposedintheirownsociety。Thehabitsofself-importance，whicharethusacquiredbyauthors，arehighlyinjurioustoawell-regulatedmind；forthecupofflattery，ifitdoesnot，likethatofCirce，reducementothelevelofbeasts，issure，ifeagerlydrained，tobringthebestandtheablestdowntothatoffools。ThisriskwasinsomedegreepreventedbythemaskwhichIwore；andmyownstoresofself-conceitwere，lefttotheirnaturalcourse，withoutbeingenhancedbythepartialityoffriends，oradulationofflatterers。
IfIamaskedfurtherreasonsfortheconductIhavelongobserved，Icanonlyresorttotheexplanationsuppliedbyacriticasfriendlyasheisintelligent；namely，thatthementalorganizationoftheNovelistmustbecharacterised，tospeakcraniologically，byanextraordinarydevelopmentofthepassionfordelitescency！Itherathersuspectsomenaturaldispositionofthiskind；for，fromtheinstantIperceivedtheextremecuriositymanifestedonthesubject，Ifeltasecretsatisfactioninbafflingit，forwhich，whenitsunimportanceisconsidered，Idonotwellknowhowtoaccount。
Mydesiretoremainconcealed，inthecharacteroftheAuthoroftheseNovels，subjectedmeoccasionallytoawkwardembarrassments，asitsometimeshappenedthatthosewhoweresufficientlyintimatewithmewouldputthequestionindirectterms。Inthiscase，onlyoneofthreecoursescouldbefollowed。EitherImusthavesurrenderedmysecret，-orhavereturnedanequivocatinganswer，-or，finally，musthavestoutlyandboldlydeniedthefact。ThefirstwasasacrificewhichIconceivenoonehadarighttoforcefromme，sinceIalonewasconcernedinthematter。ThealternativeofrenderingadoubtfulanswermusthaveleftmeopentothedegradingsuspicionthatIwasnotunwillingtoassumethemeritiftherewasanywhichIdarednotabsolutelylayclaimto；orthosewhomightthinkmorejustlyofme，musthavereceivedsuchanequivocalanswerasanindirectavowal。Ithereforeconsideredmyselfentitled，likeanaccusedpersonputupontrial，torefusegivingmyownevidencetomyownconviction，andflatlytodenyallthatcouldnotbeprovedagainstme。AtthesametimeIusuallyqualifiedmydenialbystating，that，hadIbeentheauthoroftheseworks，Iwouldhavefeltmyselfquiteentitledtoprotectmysecretbyrefusingmyownevidence，whenitwasaskedfortoaccomplishadiscoveryofwhatIdesiredtoconceal。
Therealtruthis，thatIneverexpectedorhopedtodisguisemyconnectionwiththeseNovelsfromanyonewholivedontermsofintimacywithme。Thenumberofcoincidenceswhichnecessarilyexistedbetweennarrativesrecounted，modesofexpression，andopinionsbroachedintheseTales，andsuchaswereusedbytheirauthorintheintercourseofprivatelife，musthavebeenfartoogreattopermitanyofmyfamiliaracquaintancestodoubttheidentitybetwixttheirfriendandtheAuthorofWaverley；andIbelievetheywereallmorallyconvincedofit。ButwhileIwasmyselfsilent，theirbeliefcouldnotweighmuchmorewiththeworldthanthatofothers；theiropinionsandreasoningwereliabletobetaxedwithpartiality，orconfrontedwithopposingargumentsandopinions；andthequestionwasnotsomuch，whetherIshouldbegenerallyacknowledgedtobetheauthor，inspiteofmyowndenial，aswhetherevenmyownavowaloftheworks，ifsuchshouldbemade，wouldbesufficienttoputmeinundisputedpossessionofthatcharacter。
Ihavebeenoftenaskedconcerningsupposedcases，inwhichIwassaidtohavebeenplacedonthevergeofdiscovery；butasImaintainedmypointwiththecomposureofalawyerofthirtyyears’
standing，Ineverrecollectbeinginpainorconfusiononthesubject。
InCaptainMedwyn’sConversationsofLordByron，thereporterstateshimselftohaveaskedmynobleandhighlygiftedfriend，IfhewascertainabouttheseNovelsbeingSirWalterScott’s？’’TowhichLordByronreplied，ScottasmuchasownedhimselftheAuthorofWaverleytomeinMurray’sshop。Iwastalkingtohimaboutthatnovel，andlamentedthatitsauthorhadnotcarriedbackthestorynearertothetimeoftheRevolution-Scott，entirelyoffhisguard，replied，`Ay，Imighthavedoneso；but-’therehestopped。
Itwasinvaintoattempttocorrecthimself；helookedconfused，andrelievedhisembarrassmentbyaprecipitateretreat。’’Ihavenorecollectionwhateverofthisscenetakingplace，andIshouldhavethoughtthatIwasmorelikelytohavelaughedthantoappearconfused，forIcertainlyneverhopedtoimposeuponLordByroninacaseofthekind；andfromthemannerinwhichheuniformlyexpressedhimself，Iknewhisopinionwasentirelyformed，andthatanydisclamationsofminewouldonlyhavesavouredofaffectation。
Idonotmeantoinsinuatethattheincidentdidnothappen，butonlythatitcouldhardlyhaveoccurredexactlyunderthecircumstancesnarrated，withoutmyrecollectingsomethingpositiveonthesubject。Inanotherpartofthesamevolume，LordByronisreportedtohaveexpressedasuppositionthatthecauseofmynotavowingmyselftheAuthorofWaverleymayhavebeensomesurmisethatthereigningfamilywouldhavebeendispleasedwiththework。Icanonlysay，itisthelastapprehensionIshouldhaveentertained，asindeedtheinscriptiontothesevolumessufficientlyproves。Thesufferersofthatmelancholyperiodhave，duringthelastandpresentreign，beenhonouredbothwiththesympathyandprotectionofthereigningfamily，whosemagnanimitycanwellpardonasighfromothers，andbestowonethemselvestothememoryofbraveopponents，whodidnothinginhate，butallinhonour。
Whilethosewhowereinhabitualintercoursewiththerealauthorhadlittlehesitationinresigningtheliterarypropertytohim，others，andthosecriticsofnomeanrank，employedthemselvesininvestigatingwithperseveringpatienceanycharacteristicfeatureswhichmightseemtobetraytheoriginoftheseNovels。Amongstthese，onegentleman，equallyremarkableforthekindandliberaltoneofhiscriticism，theacutenessofhisreasoning，andtheverygentlemanlikemannerinwhichheconductedhisinquiries，displayednotonlypowersofaccurateinvestigation，butatemperofminddeservingtobeemployedonasubjectofmuchgreaterimportance；andIhavenodoubtmadeconvertstohisopinionofalmostallwhothoughtthepointworthyofconsideration。Ofthoseletters，andotherattemptsLettersontheAuthorofWaverley；Rodwell&Martin，London，1822。