Sir Walter Scott tried to wean both Wilson and Lockhart away from “that mother of mischief”110 as he termed the magazine. According to Mr. Lang, he “disapproved (though he chuckled over it) the reckless extravagance of juvenile satire”. But it is easy to comprehend how “a chuckle” from Sir Walter would be the last incentive to curb their literary abandon. Blackwood worked long for the support of Scott, knowing well what it would mean to “Maga”. A semblance of support, at least, he secured through his patronage of Scott’s favorite, William Laidlaw, whose agricultural chronicles ran for a time as one of the regular features. Scott even contributed an occasional article himself from time to time, which, though anonymous, could not escape recognition. Probably he never attained a very cordial affection for the publisher, and it is well known that he disapproved of much that “Maga” said and did, yet outwardly he professed neutrality between Constable’s and Blackwood’s; and in a letter to William Laidlaw, February 1818, while “Maga” was still in its youth, his verdict is not vindictive. “Blackwood is rather in a bad pickle just now—sent to Coventry by the trade, as the booksellers call themselves and all about the parody of the two beasts. Surely these gentlemen think themselves rather formed of porcelain clay than of common potters’ ware. Dealing in satire against all others, their own dignity suffers so cruelly from an illimagined joke! If B. had good books to sell, he might set them all at defiance. His Magazine does well and beats Constable’s; but we will talk of this when we meet.”111
110 A. Lang: Life andLetters ofJohnGibsonLockhart, V. i, p. 193
111 J. G. Lockhart: LifeofSirWalterScott, V. v, p. 268
Continuing the panorama, the issue for February 1818 contains three pages of notes “To Correspondents”, of which several deserve mention: “We have no objection to insert Z.’s Remarks on Mr.
