to this theory, or whether to the more simple and probable cause of
the author's failure in the delineation of the subject he had proposed
to himself, the formidable objection of _incredulus odi_ was
applied to the Euphuist, as well as to the White Lady of Avenel; and
the one was denounced as unnatural, while the other was rejected as
impossible.

There was little in the story to atone for these failures in two
principal points. The incidents were inartificially huddled together.
There was no part of the intrigue to which deep interest was found to
apply; and the conclusion was brought about, not by incidents arising
out of the story itself, but in consequence of public transactions,
with which the narrative has little connexion, and which the reader
had little opportunity to become acquainted with.

This, if not a positive fault, was yet a great defect in the Romance.
It is true, that not only the practice of some great authors in this
department, but even the general course of human life itself, may be
quoted in favour of this more obvious and less artificial practice of
arranging a narrative. It is seldom that the same circle of
personages who have surrounded an individual at his first outset in
life, continue to have an interest in his career till his fate comes
to a crisis. On the contrary, and more especially if the events of his
life be of a varied character, and worth communicating to others, or
to the world, the hero's later connexions are usually totally
separated from those with whom he began the voyage, but whom the
individual has outsailed, or who have drifted astray, or foundered on
the passage. This hackneyed comparison holds good in another point.
The numerous vessels of so many different sorts, and destined for such
different purposes, which are launched in the same mighty ocean,