Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature | Page 9

historical. The
introduction in the original edition gives an account of life on the
Border in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, with the outlines of

many of the events that stimulated ballad-making, and an analysis of
the temper of the Marchmen among whom this kind of poetry
flourished; then by special introductions and notes to the poems an
attempt is made to explain both the incidents on which they seem to
have been founded, and parallel cases that appear in tradition or record.
Some enthusiastic comment is included, of the kind that was so natural
to Scott, on the effect of ballad poetry upon a spirited and warlike
people. The writer continues: "But it is not the Editor's present
intention to enter upon a history of Border poetry; a subject of great
difficulty, and which the extent of his information does not as yet
permit him to engage in." It was, in fact, nearly thirty years later[35]
that Scott wrote the Remarks on Popular Poetry which since that date
have formed an introduction to the book, as well as the essay, On
Imitations of the Ancient Ballad, which at present precedes the third
part. The more purely literary side of the editor's duty--leaving out of
account the modern poems written by Scott and others--was exhibited
chiefly in the construction of texts, a matter of which I shall speak later,
after considering his views of the origin and character of folk-poetry in
general.
But first we may recall the fact that Scott was following a fairly well
established vogue in giving scholarly attention to ancient popular
poetry. A revival of interest in the study of mediaeval literature had
been stimulated in England by the publication of Percy's Reliques in
1765 and Warton's History of English Poetry in 1774. In 1800 there
were enough well-known antiquaries to keep Scott from being in any
sense lonely. Among them Joseph Ritson[36] was the most learned, but
he was crotchety in the extreme; and while his notions as to research
were in advance of his time, his controversial style resembled that of
the seventeenth century. George Ellis,[37] on the other hand, was
distinguished by an eighteenth-century urbanity, and his combination
of learning and good taste fitted him to influence a broader public than
that of specialists. At the same time he was a delightful and stimulating
friend to other scholars. Southey was becoming known as an authority
on the history and literature of the Spanish peninsula. A review in the
Quarterly a dozen years later mentions these three,--Ellis, Scott, and
Southey,--as "good men and true" to serve as guides in the remote

realms of literature.[38] Ellis's friend, John Hookham Frere, had great
abilities but was an incurable dillettante. Scott particularly admired a
Middle-English version of The Battle of Brunanburgh which Frere
wrote in his school-boy days, and considered him an authoritative critic
of mediaeval English poetry. Robert Surtees[39] and Francis Douce[40]
were antiquaries of some importance, and both, like all the others
named, were friends of Scott. Mr. Herford calls this period a day of
"Specimens" and extracts: "Mediaeval romance was studied in Ellis's
Specimens," he says, "the Elizabethan drama in Lamb's, literary history
at large in D'Israeli's gently garrulous compilations of its 'quarrels,'
'amenities,' 'calamities,' and 'curiosities.'"[41] But the scholarship of the
time on the whole is worthy of respect. In the case of ballads and
romances notable work had been done before Scott entered the field,[42]
and he and his contemporaries were carrying out the promise of the half
century before them--continuing the work that Percy and Warton had
begun.
Among the problems connected with ballad study, that which arises
first is naturally the question of origins. Scott made no attempt to
formulate a theory different in any main element from that which was
held by his predecessors. He agreed with Percy that ballads were
composed and sung by minstrels, and based his discussion on the
materials brought forward by Percy and Ritson for use in their great
controversy.[43] Ritson himself never doubted that ballads were
composed and sung by individual authors, though he might refuse to
call them minstrels. The idea of communal authorship, which Jacob
Grimm was to suggest only half a dozen years after the first edition of
the Minstrelsy, would doubtless have been rejected by Scott, even if he
had considered it. But we have no evidence that he did so. Probably he
did not, as he never felt the need of a new theory.[44]
Scott's opinion in regard to the transmission of ballads followed
naturally from his theory of their origin. His aristocratic instincts
perhaps helped to determine his belief that ballads were composed by
gifted minstrels, and that they had deteriorated in the process of being
handed down by recitation. He called tradition "a sort of perverted
alchymy which