ect of the Arthurian cycle, the origin of which has never
ceased to be matter for debate, he held essentially the opinions that
the highest French authority has adopted that Celtic traditions were the
foundation, and that the metrical romances preceded those in prose.[87]
The important offices of French poets in giving form to the story he
underestimated. When he said, "It is now completely proved, that the
earliest and best French romances were composed for the meridian of the
English court,"[88] he fell into the error that has not always been
avoided by scholars who have since written on the subject, of feeling
certitude about a proposition in which there is no certainty.

Scott's work on romances, though it does not always rise above
commonplaceness, escapes the perfunctory quality of hack writing by
virtue of his keen interest in the subject. He continued to like this
prosaic kind of literary task even while he was writing novels with the
most wonderful facility. We may judge not only by the fact that he
continued to write reviews at intervals throughout his life, but by an
explicit reference in his _Journal_: "I toiled manfully at the review
till two o'clock, commencing at seven. I fear it will be uninteresting,
but I like the muddling work of antiquities, and besides wish to record
my sentiments with regard to the Gothic question."[89]

It is evident that Scott did not himself find the "muddling work of
antiquities" dull, because he realized, emotionally as well as
intellectually, the life of past times. This led him to form broader
views than the ordinary student constructs out of his knowledge of
special facts. An admirable illustration of this characteristic occurs
in the essay on Romance, at the point where Scott is discussing the
social position of the minstrels, in the light of what Percy and Ritson
had said on the subject. He goes on: "In fact, neither of these
excellent antiquaries has cast a general or philosophic glance on the
necessary condition of a set of men, who were by profession the
instruments of the pleasure of others during a period of society such as
was presented in the Middle Ages." There follows a detailed and very
interesting account of what the writer's own "philosophic glance" leads
him to believe. The method is useful but dangerous; in the same essay
occurs an amusing example of what philosophy may do when it is given
free rein. Within two pages appear these conflicting statements: "The