On the subject 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 Metrical Romances, though in some instances sent to the press, were not very fit to be published in this form.  The dull amplifications, which passed well enough in the course of a half-heard recitation, became intolerable when subjected to the eye.”  “The Metrical Romances in some instances indeed ran to great length, but were much exceeded in that particular by the folios which were written on the same or similar topics by their prose successors.  Probably the latter judiciously reflected that a book