18 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
Wright, Paris, Hazlitt, Halliwell, Garnett, Murray, Schofield, 
and Kolbing to prove—not that some other person was the 
author of the poem, but simply that Thomas was not its com¬ 
poser. In McNeill, the latest editor of the romance, critical 
judgment seems to be swinging back to the common-sense po¬ 
sition taken by Ritson and Scott. After reviewing carefully 
the evidence and the arguments in favor of an unknown author 
other than Thomas of Erceldoune, McNeill concludes thus: 
‘‘Broadly viewed, the question of the authorship of the poem 
is one which, from the nature of the evidence, must be answered 
in accordance rather with reasonable probability than with 
absolute demonstration; and the reasonable probability is that 
Robert Mannyng of Brunne was right when he ascribed the 
poem to Thomas of Erceldoune.” 54) 
Ritson’s letter bears no address. Until its recipient is 
definitely determined, it cannot be known just what was the de¬ 
gree of Scott’s indebtedness to his friend’s research, if, indeed, 
he owed anything at all to it. There is but one reference to 
Ritson in Scott’s Introduction, and that is a statement of his 
suggestion that Thomas may have assumed the third person 
so as to gain the greater authority of the reputation of his own 
name for what he was writing—an opinion not specifically ex¬ 
pressed in this letter. Only one student of ‘ ‘ Sir Tristem ’ ’ seems 
to have been cognizant of the existence of this letter. Matzner 
gives Ritson credit for being the first to discover the romance 
in the Auchinleck manuscript. 55) 
Ms. Laing II. 589. 
Dear Sir, 
The romance of Sir Tristrem, if admitted to be the pro¬ 
duction of Thomas of Ercildon, i may be well enough said to 
have discovered, as i know of none who had anticipated my con¬ 
jecture though i have not been permited to announce that dis¬ 
covery myself. 56) It is extant in a most valuable, but shock- 
G, P. McNeill, Tristem, Edinburgh and London, 1886, p. xliv. 
Eduard Matzner, Altenglische Sprachproben, Berlin, 1867, Vol. I, p. 233. 
There are two possible reasons why Ritson had not been ‘permitted’ to 
announce his discovery. The first is the state of his health, which, at the 
time of this letter, was such that he had for five years done no publishing 
and very little literary work of any kind. Secondly, his knowledge that 
Scott, whom he held in very high esteem, was preparing an edition of the 
romance might probably have operated to keep him from publishing his 
own material. See Letters, Vol. II, pp. 217, 222, 228, 232, 237. 
