The critic happened not to know (or did not mention) the history of how the ballad was first heard by Laidlaw in the mouth of a servant girl; and how Laidlaw got a version in manuscript from Hogg, who heard a recitation by his uncle, Will o' Phawhope. The critic had never seen the extant original MS. sent by Hogg to Laidlaw, and given by Laidlaw to Scott. He had never, of course, collated that manuscript with the copy published by Scott. When we make the collation, we find that Scott neither rejected nor added a single stanza; that he made a necessary and successful emendation in one line; and that the few small verbal differences between Hogg's MS. and Scott's printed ballad may be accounted for by the fact that the copy printed from was that received from a recitation by Hogg's mother. Thus the higher criticism, working on lines recognised as orthodox in Homeric circles, was absolutely erroneous from beginning to end. The critic was acute, ingenious, even brilliant, but he had scanty knowledge of the facts in the case. He had not consulted certain printed books germane to the matter; he had not consulted the ballad-manuscripts at Abbotsford, and the manuscript letters. In Homeric criticism, alas! we have not the letters and manuscripts of the poet. But it is clear from the case of "Auld Maitland" that, in the absence of facts, our motto, in conjecture, should be--_Gang warily!_ [1] _R. G. E._ p. 165. [2] As has been said, I am aware of no evidence for this statement. [3] _R. G. E._ p. 164. [4] _R. G. E._ p. 163. [5] See Motherwell's essay on "The Origin and History of Scottish Ballad Literature," in his _Ancient and Modern Minstrelsy_. [6] _Further Essays on the Border Ballads_. By Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. Fitzwilliam Elliot. 1910. INDEX (Figures in italics signify notes, r.--referred to)