Much of his theory has fallen.

He considered this _Sir Tristrem_ to be the first of the written versions of that story, a supposition that was not long tenable.

The poem is now known to be based upon a French original, and many scholars think the name Erceldoune was arbitrarily inserted by the English translator; though Mr.McNeill, the latest editor, thinks there is a "reasonable probability" in favor of Scott's opinion that the author was the historic Thomas, who flourished in the thirteenth century.

It is important, however, that Scott's scholarship in the matter passed muster at that time with such men as Ellis, who wrote the review in the _Edinburgh_, in which he said, "Upon the whole we are much disposed to adopt the general inferences drawn by Mr.Scott from his authorities, and have great pleasure in bearing testimony to the very uncommon diligence which he has evinced in collecting curious materials, and to the taste and sagacity with which he has employed them....

With regard to the notes, they contain an almost infinite variety of curious information, which had been hitherto unknown or unnoticed."[79] John Hookham Frere said, as quoted in a letter by Ellis, "I consider _Sir Tristrem_ as by far the most interesting work that has as yet been published on the subject of our earliest poets."[80] Scott's opinions were in 1824 thought to be of sufficient importance, either from their own merits or on account of his later fame, to call forth a dissertation appended to the edition of Warton's _History of English Poetry_ published in that year.
The first edition of the text swarms with errors, according to Koelbing,[81] a recent editor of the romance, and later editions are still very inaccurate.[82] It could hardly be expected that a man with Scott's habits of mind would edit a text accurately.