We have stated that David Ritchie loved objects of natural beauty.His only living favourites were a dog and a cat, to which he was particularly attached, and his bees, which he treated with great care.He took a sister, latterly, to live in a hut adjacent to his own, but he did not permit her to enter it.She was weak in intellect, but not deformed in person; simple, or rather silly, but not, like her brother, sullen or bizarre.David was never affectionate to her; it was not in his nature; but he endured her.He maintained himself and her by the sale of the product of their garden and bee-hives; and, latterly, they had a small allowance fromthe parish.Indeed, in the simple and patriarchal state in which the country then was, persons in the situation of David and his sister were sure to be supported.They had only to apply to the next gentleman or respectable farmer, and were sure to find them equally ready and willing to supply their very moderate wants.David often received gratuities from strangers, which he never asked, never refused, and never seemed to consider as an obligation.He had a right, indeed, to regard himself as one of Nature's paupers, to whom she gave a title to be maintained by his kind, even by that deformity which closed against him all ordinary ways of supporting himself by his own labour.Besides, a bag was suspended in the mill for David Ritchie's benefit; and those who were carrying home a melder of meal, seldom failed to add a GOWPEN [Handful] to the alms- bag of the deformed cripple.In short, David had no occasion for money, save to purchase snuff, his only luxury, in which he indulged himself liberally.When he died, in the beginning of the present century, he was found to have hoarded about twenty pounds, a habit very consistent with his disposition; for wealth is power, and power was what David Ritchie desired to possess, as a compensation for his exclusion from human society.
His sister survived till the publication of the tale to which this brief notice forms the introduction; and the author is sorry to learn that a sort of "local sympathy," and the curiosity then expressed concerning the Author of WAVERLEY and the subjects of his Novels, exposed the poor woman to enquiries which gave her pain.When pressed about her brother's peculiarities, she asked, in her turn, why they would not permit the dead to rest? To others, who pressed for some account of her parents, she answered in the same tone of feeling.
The author saw this poor, and, it may be said, unhappy man, in autumn 1797 being then, as he has the happiness still to remain, connected by ties of intimate friendship with the family of the venerable Dr.Adam Fergusson, the philosopher and historian, who then resided at the mansion- house of Halyards, in the vale of Manor, about a mile from Ritchie's hermitage, the author was upon a visit at Halyards, which lasted for several days, and was made acquainted with this singular anchorite, whomDr.Fergusson considered as an extraordinary character, and whom he assisted in various ways, particularly by the occasional loan of books.Though the taste of the philosopher and the poor peasant did not, it may be supposed, always correspond, [I remember David was particularly anxious to see a book, which he called, I think, LETTERS TO ELECT LADIES, and which, he said, was the best composition he had ever read; but Dr.Fergusson's library did not supply the volume.] Dr.Fergusson considered him as a man of a powerful capacity and original ideas, but whose mind was thrown off its just bias by a predominant degree of self- love and self- opinion, galled by the sense of ridicule and contempt, and avenging itself upon society, in idea at least, by a gloomy misanthropy.
David Ritchie, besides the utter obscurity of his life while in existence, had been dead for many years, when it occurred to the author that such a character might be made a powerful agent in fictitious narrative.He, accordingly, sketched that of Elshie of the Mucklestane-Moor.The story was intended to be longer, and the catastrophe more artificially brought out; but a friendly critic, to whose opinion I subjected the work in its progress, was of opinion, that the idea of the Solitary was of a kind too revolting, and more likely to disgust than to interest the reader.As I had good right to consider my adviser as an excellent judge of public opinion, I got off my subject by hastening the story to an end, as fast as it was possible; and, by huddling into one volume, a tale which was designed to occupy two, have perhaps produced a narrative as much disproportioned and distorted, as the Black Dwarf who is its subject.
