17 
Burd—EigU Unedited Letters of Joseph Ritson 
that they should no more go abroad into private hands. 53) As 
the terms were inconvenient, I did not accept the offer; & have 
■thereby had an opportunity of being much more pleaseingly 
indebted to your superior liberality. 
■ I remain, Dear sir, 
Your most obliged & respectful 
humble servant, 
J. Eitson. 
Grays-inn, 
29th Jany. 1799. 
The final letter presents Eitson’s views on some of the prob¬ 
lems connected with the romance of ‘^Sir Tristrem.It was 
written three years before the appearance of Scott’s edition of 
the romance, in 1804, and thus antedates the critical contro¬ 
versy over the authorship of the poem which was precipitated 
by the announcement of Scott ^s conclusions in the Introduction. 
From this letter it appears that Eitson had independently ar¬ 
rived at practically the same conclusions, that he had estimated 
the age and origin of the poem, and that he had stated the most 
plausible theory yet advanced for a definite authorship of it, 
and supported his theory by all the available internal and by 
almost all the corroborative external evidence which the subse¬ 
quent century of scholarly investigation has sufficed to un¬ 
earth. 
To the question of the authorship of ‘‘Sir Tristrem’’ there 
has not been, and probably can never be, a definite answer. 
The theory held by Eitson and propounded by Scott, that the 
‘Thomas’ mentioned in the first lines of the romance was in all 
probability its author, was too simple to go long unchallenged. 
In their anxiety to prove all things scholars have explored the 
hidden, labyrinthian paths and have been prone to ignore the 
plain and straight ways, if for no other reason than because 
they were obvious. And so, after Scott’s declaration that 
“the Eomance of Sir Tristrem was composed by THOMAS OF 
EECELDOUNE called the EYHMEE, who flourished in the 
thirteenth century,” came the testimony of such men as Price, 
Steevens’ interest in procuring these books for Ritson came as 'a result 
of his suggestion that the antiquary undertake a catalogue of English poets 
of the early centuries—which was published as BibliograpJiia Poetioa. Their 
cooperation in this regard is evidence that editorial controversy did not cut 
Ritson off entirely from the men he criticised. 
2--S. A. L. 
