it was a type of poem adapted by the professors of the declining art of minstrelsy, from the romances once in favour with the educated classes.  Everything in the ballad—­matter, form, composition—­is the work of the minstrel; all that the people do is to remember and repeat what the minstrel has put together.”  This statement represents a position which is actively assailed by the adherents of the communal origin theory.  Another critical idea which originated in Germany, and in which Scott had no interest, though he knew something about it, was the Wolffian hypothesis in regard to the Homeric poems.  He once heard Coleridge expound the subject, but failed to join in the discussion. (Journal, Vol.  II, p. 164; Lockhart, Vol.  V, p. 193.) He said the theory could never be held by any poet.  See a note by Lockhart on the essay on Popular Poetry.  Henderson’s edition of Minstrelsy, Vol.  I, p. 3.]

  [Footnote 45:  Review of Cromek’s Reliques of Burns. Quarterly
  Review, February, 1809.]

[Footnote 46:  “No one but Burns ever succeeded in patching up old Scottish songs with any good effect,” Scott wrote in his Journal (Vol.  II, p. 25).  And in his review of Cromek’s Reliques of Burns he said on the same subject of Scottish songs:  “Few, whether serious or humorous, past through his hands without receiving some of those magic touches which, without greatly altering the song, restored its original spirit, or gave it more than it had ever possessed.” (Quarterly, February, 1809.)]

  [Footnote 47:  Remarks on Popular Poetry, Henderson’s edition of
  Minstrelsy, Vol.  I, p. 46.]

  [Footnote 48:  Henderson’s edition of Minstrelsy, Vol.  I, p. xix.]

  [Footnote 49:  Henderson’s edition of Minstrelsy, Vol.  I, pp. 167-8.]

[Footnote 50:  The matter may be traced in Child’s collection of ballads, or more easily in the latest edition of the Minstrelsy, edited by T.F.  Henderson and published in four volumes in 1902.  Mr. Henderson’s views of ballad origins are quite in accord with Scott’s own, but he notes the points at which Scott failed to follow any originals.  There seems to be some reason to believe, however, though Mr. Henderson does not say so, that Scott wrote Kinmont Willie without any originals at all, except the very similar situations in three or four other ballads.  See the introduction by Professor Kittredge to the abridged edition of Child’s ballads, edited by himself and Helen Child Sargent.

It is unnecessary to give here any detailed account of Scott’s procedure, as the matter has been thoroughly worked out by students of ballads.  A few examples may be given as illustrations, however.  In The Dowie Dens of Yarrow (Henderson’s edition, Vol.  III, p. 173) 28 lines out of the 68 are noted by Mr. Henderson as either changed