to persons, both living and dead, with whom I have had
intercourse in society, should not have risen to my pen in such
works as Waverley, and those which followed it. But I have
always studied to generalize the portraits, so that they should
still seem, on the whole, the productions of fancy, though
possessing some resemblance to real individuals. Yet I must own
my attempts have not in this last particular been uniformly
successful. There are men whose characters are so peculiarly
marked, that the delineation of some leading and principal
feature inevitably places the whole person before you in his
individuality. Thus, the character of Jonathan Oldbuck, in the
Antiquary, was partly founded on that of an old friend of my
youth, to whom I am indebted for introducing me to Shakespeare,
and other invaluable favours; but I thought I had so completely
disguised the likeness that his features could not be recognized
by any one now alive. I was mistaken, however, and indeed had
endangered what I desired should be considered as a secret; for I
afterwards learned that a highly-respectable gentleman, one of
the few surviving friends of my father, and an acute critic,
[James Chalmers, Esq., Solicitor at Law, London, who (died during
the publication of the present edition of these Novels. (Aug.
1831.)] had said, upon the appearance of the work, that he was
now convinced who was the author of it, as he recognized in the
Antiquary of Monkbarns traces of the character of a very intimate
friend of my father's family.

I may here also notice that the sort of exchange of gallantry
which is represented as taking place betwixt the Baron of
Bradwardine and Colonel Talbot, is a literal fact. The real
circumstances of the anecdote, alike honourable to Whig and Tory,