from the _Lay of the Last Minstrel_ to _Castle Dangerous_.

Important as the _Minstrelsy_ is from the point of view of literary
criticism, the material of its introductions is chiefly 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. A