Scott’s letters to Erskine, Ellis, Leyden, Ritson, Miss Seward, and other literary correspondents are filled with discussions of antiquarian questions and the results of his favourite reading in old books and manuscripts.  He communicates his conclusions on the subject of “Arthur and Merlin” or on the authorship of the old metrical romance of “Sir Tristram.” [9] He has been copying manuscripts in the Advocates’ Library at Edinburgh.  In 1791 he read papers before the Speculative Society on “The Origin of the Feudal System,” “The Authenticity of Ossian’s Poems,” “The Origin of the Scandinavian Mythology.”  Lockhart describes two note-books in Scott’s hand-writing, with the date 1792, containing memoranda of ancient court records about Walter Scott and his wife, Dame Janet Beaton, the “Ladye” of Branksome in the “Lay”; extracts from “Guerin de Montglave”; copies of “Vegtam’s Kvitha” and the “Death-Song of Regner Lodbrog,” with Gray’s English versions; Cnut’s verses on passing Ely Cathedral; the ancient English “Cuckoo Song,” and other rubbish of the kind.[10] When in 1803 he began to contribute articles to the Edinburgh Review, his chosen topics were such as “Amadis of Gaul,” Ellis’ “Specimens of Ancient English Poetry,” Godwin’s “Chaucer,” Sibbald’s “Chronicle of Scottish Poetry,” Evans’ “Old Ballads,” Todd’s “Spenser,” “The Life and Works of Chatterton,” Southey’s translation of “The Cid,” etc.

Scott’s preparation for the work which he had to do was more than adequate.  His reading along chosen lines was probably more extensive and minute than any man’s of his generation.  The introductions and notes to his poems and novels are even overburdened with learning.  But this, though important, was but the lesser part of his advantage.  “The old-maidenly genius of antiquarianism” could produce a Strutt[11] or even perhaps a Warton; but it needed the touch of the creative imagination to turn the dead material of knowledge into works of art that have delighted millions of readers for a hundred years in all civilised lands and tongues.

The key to Scott’s romanticism is his intense local feeling.[12] That attachment to place which, in most men, is a sort of animal instinct, was with him a passion.  To set the imagination at work some emotional stimulus is required.  The angry pride of Byron, Shelley’s revolt against authority, Keats’ almost painfully acute sensitiveness to beauty, supplied the nervous irritation which was wanting in Scott’s slower, stronger, and heavier temperament.  The needed impetus came to him from his love of country.  Byron and Shelley were torn up by the roots and flung abroad, but Scott had struck his roots deep into native soil.  His absorption in the past and reverence for everything that was old, his conservative prejudices and aristocratic ambitions, all had their source in this feeling.  Scott’s Toryism was of a different spring from Wordsworth’s and Coleridge’s.  It was not a reaction