Scott of Satchells, in his doggerel True History of the Name of Scott
(1688).

The positions of Colonel Elliot are in each case the reverse of mine.
In the instance of Auld Maitland (where Scott's conduct would be
unpardonable if Colonel Elliot's view were correct), I have absolute
proof that he is entirely mistaken. For Otterburne I am equally
fortunate; that is, I can show that Scott's part went no further than
"the making of a standard text" on his avowed principles. For Jamie
Telfer, having no original manuscript, I admit DECORATIVE
interpolations, and for the rest, argue on internal evidence, no
other being accessible. For Kinmont Willie, I confess that the poem,
as it stands, is Scott's, but give reasons for thinking that he had
ballad fragments in his mind, if not on paper.

It will be understood that Colonel Elliot does not, I conceive, say
that his charges are PROVED, but he thinks that the evidence points
to these conclusions. He "hopes that I will give reasons for my
disbelief" in his theories; and "hopes, though he cannot expect that
they will completely dispose of" his views about Jamie Telfer. {17a}

I give my reasons, though I entertain but slight hope of convincing
my courteous opponent. That is always a task rather desperate. But
the task leads me, in defence of a great memory, into a countryside,
and into old times on the Border, which are so alluring that, like
Socrates, I must follow where the logos guides me. To one conclusion
it guides me, which startles myself, but I must follow the logos,
even against the verdict of Professor Child, notre maitre a tous. In
some instances, I repeat, positive proof of the correctness of my
views is impossible; all that I can do is to show that Colonel