(springalds), and many others . . . " {24a}

That Scott got the ballad in spring 1802 is easily proved. On 10th
April 1802, Joseph Ritson, the crabbed, ill-tempered, but
meticulously accurate scholar, who thought that ballad-forging should
be made a capital offence, wrote thus to Scott:-

"I have the pleasure of enclosing my copy of a very ancient poem,
which appears to me to be the original of The Wee Wee Man, and which
I learn from Mr. Ellis you are desirous to see." In Scott's letter
to Ellis, just quoted, he says: "I have lately had from him"
(Ritson) "A COPIE of 'Ye litel wee man,' of which I think I can make
some use. In return, I have sent him a sight of Auld Maitland, the
original MS . . . I wish him to see it in puris naturalibus." "The
precaution here taken was very natural," says Lockhart, considering
Ritson's temper and hatred of literary forgeries. Scott, when he
wrote to Ellis, had received Ritson's The Wee Wee Man "lately": it
was sent to him by Ritson on 10th April 1802. Scott had already,
when he wrote to Ellis, got "the original MS. of Auld Maitland" (now
in Abbotsford Library). By 10th June 1802 Ritson wrote saying, "You
may depend on my taking the utmost care of Old Maitland, and
returning it in health and safety. I would not use the liberty of
transcribing it into my manuscript copy of Mrs. Brown's ballads, but
if you will signify your permission, I shall be highly gratified."
{25} "Your ancient and curious ballad," he styles the piece.

Thus Scott had Auld Maitland in May 1802; he sent the original MS. to
Ritson; Ritson received it graciously; he had, on 10th April 1802,
sent Scott another MS., The Wee Wee Man: and when Scott wrote to
Ellis about his surprise at getting "a complete and perfect copy of