9"- 8. IX. MARCH 15, 1902.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
211
tions and allusions as 'incontrovertible facts.'"
There is much truth in this criticism.
Mr. Douglas J. Maclagan, in his pains- taking and accurate work on 4 The Scottish Para pn rases ' (Edinburgh, Andrew Elliot, 1889), devotes chap. v. to Logan and Michael Bruce. The two specimens of hymns remem- bered by David Pearson were said to have been considerably altered by Logan. ** And yet" these, says Mr. Maclagan, "are un- altered." What becomes of the memory of "John Birrel, the Bicker tons, Arnots, Hendersons, and, indeed, the whole com- munity" of Dr. Grosart 1 ? Could none of them corroborate the statement of Pearson 1 Could none of them remember the unaltered Hymns which they learned in that music class? (Buchan's, at Kinnesswood.) "Truly, on such hearsay evidence as has been ad- vanced, we cannot assign the Paraphrases or yet Logan's Hymns to Michael Bruce. The one point in Bruce's favour seems to us to break down on examination. Logan was in possession ; he is, to our mind, in possession still of the title to the authorship of the Paraphrases."
In view of such arguments as have recently been advanced by Drs. Small and Sprott, Messrs. Hewison, McDonald, Maclagan, and others, I am firmly of the opinion that Logan claimed nothing more than his due in his various publications. ADAM SMAIL.
Edinburgh.
MR. BAYNE has certainly not been able to acquaint himself with all that has been done recently towards establishing the case in favour of Logan as author of the various compositions claimed for Bruce. Even should the papers connected with the interdict (1782) remain inaccessible, much has been brought forward to show upon how unsatis- factory a foundation one composed chiefly of tradition intermixed with some astounding errors Mackelvie built a superstructure called by Bruce's latest biographer (Stephen) a "great work." As "qualified specialists" Drs. Mackelvie and Grosart are unfortunate in their treatment of the case. The attempt to blacken Logan's character as much as possible in one glaring instance shows the careless manner in which Mackelvie gathered his material. At paragraph 100 of the ' Life ' this sentence appears :
"To these instances of his free use of other men's works, we have to add that a great portion of the fourth sermon in volume second is copied
verbatim from Zollikofer slavishly transcribed
from Tooke's English translation of that author's works."
In the United Presbyterian Magazine,
January, 1900, the Rev. Dr. Small, in an
interesting article detailing the steps taken
in the investigation, has at length not only
disproved this charge, but has shown that it
was Tooke who purloined from Logan in a
second edition, corrected and improved,"
of Zollikofer's sermons, the passage being
wanting from the original. Logan was dead
before this second edition appeared. In regard
to the * View of Antient History,' in which
is to be found incorporated almost the whole
of Logan's ' Synopsis of Lectures on the
Philosophy of History,' acknowledged in a
foot-note as Logan's, it is only necessary to
point out, in refutation of the charge that
Logan had delivered as his own lectures be-
longing to Dr. Wm. Rutherford, that Logan's
lectures, of which the incorporated synopsis
was an outline, were not upon ancient history,
but upon a subject with which he was well
able to deal namely, the 'Philosophy of
Ancient History.' Two gross errors on the
part of Mackelvie are thus disposed of. His
apology to Mr. Douie, of the Glasgow Gram-
mar School, written February, 1838, adver-
tised in the public journals, and printed as
an addendum to, and bound up with, unsold
copies of Bruce's * Poems,' does not increase
one's confidence in the methods pursued in
preparing his work. For Mackelvie says,
" I had no definite person whatever in view,
having of my own knowledge no acquaintance
with the statements made, which I am now
satisfied were unfounded." Bruce died in 1767 ;
Mackelvie published in 1837. Writing thus
after an interval of seventy years, it must
have been exceedingly difficult to verify oral
statements. One is therefore not surprised
to find that much of Mackelvie's work is
based on local tradition.
MR. BAYNE'S reference to the MSS. having been committed to Logan's care in 1767 puts him on the horns of a dilemma. He must either admit that Mackelvie is in error or that Logan executed his task in a much shorter space of time than that usually stated. In any case, eighteen months, not three years, is the limit. Paragraph 67 says, "Logan, then a tutor in the family of Sir John Sinclair." "Then" is significant. For it was not until some time in 1768, pro- bably the summer, that Logan, on the re- commendation of Dr. Blair, entered upon his duties as tutor to the Sinclairs. Here, again, in his foot-note to this paragraph, Mackelvie is in error in saying that no reference to Logan is to be found "in a recently pub- lished l Life and Correspondence of Sir John Sinclair, Bart.'" Pp. 15, 16, 17, refer to Logan's introduction to this family, bo
