Unerring Nature, ftill divinely bright, POPE's Efay on Criticism. I believe there never was such a race of men upon the face of the earth; never did men look and act like thofe we fee reprefented in the works of Raphael, Michael Angelo, Coregio, Parmegiano, and others of the beft mafters; yet nature appears throughout we rarely or never fee fuch landfcapes as those of Titian, Annibale Caracci, Salvator Rofa, Claude Lorrain, Jafper Pouffin, and Rubens; fuch buildings and magnificence as in the pictures of Paulo Veronefe: but yet there is nothing but what we can believe may be. Our ideas even of fruits, flowers, infects, draperies, and indeed of all vifible things, and of some that are invisible, or creatures of the imagination, are raised and improved in the hands of a good painter; and the mind is thereby filled with the nobleft and therefore the most delightful images. The defcription of one in an advertisement of a newspaper is nature, fo is a character by my Lord Clarendon; but they are nature very differently reprefented.' This, we believe, is faying as much as can be faid on the principles of the Writer. But we conceive, that what is called improving nature, &c. admits only of an apology and excufe from the imperfection of art. Draw the picture of a man truly and perfectly, and what more is there to be done? You fay no artift can do it; and to conceal his own fkill, or to impose on weak judgments, he goes beyond what he cannot perfectly imitate. The introductory chapters are followed by the critical account of the ftatues, buftos, &c. at Wilton, of which the following may be a good fpecimen. In the court, before the grand front of this fuperb mansion, is a granite column, with a ftatue of Venus on the top of it; both purchased from the Arundel collection. • Mr. Evelyn, who bought them at Rome for Lord Arundel, was told by the Italian antiquaries, that this column fupported anciently the ftatue of Venus Genetrix, and had been fet up by Julius Cæfar before the temple of that goddess, from whom he claimed to be defcended. It was added, that Cæfar had brought them from Egypt, where they had been erected to the oriental deity Aftarte, the fame with the Grecian Venus; and to put the matter beyond all doubt, he was fhewn five letters upon the upper fillet of the column, which, it was affirmed, being read from the right-hand to the left, and having the proper vowels fupplied, made Aftarte. • This This intelligence, which impofed on Mr. Evelyn *, was tranfmitted by him, with the column and ftatue, to the Earl of Arundel. It was even inferted in his Lordship's catalogue, and from thence it was tranfcribed into that of Lord Pembroke. But whence, it may be afked, had the connoiffeurs of modern Italy the account of Cæfar's bringing this column from Egypt, or of its having then the statue of Aftarte on its top? To thefe particulars, we are well aflured, no fatisfactory answer can be given. It may be curious, notwithstanding, to examine more minutely this magnified curiofity. 1. Granite, of which this column confifts, is common in Egypt, in Italy, in Spain, and in other countries. The Egyptian is of two kinds; a ftrong or a pale red †, and a pure or a lefs intenfe black. The Italian has fmall blackifh fpots on a whitish ground;-of this fort is the prefent column. 2. If the fillets above and below on this column, and the proportion of its leffening in the diameter, are compared with the chapter of Pliny 1, cited in the margin, it will appear to have been one of the pillars of a fmall Roman temple. 3. The letters on the fillet are evidently a forgery; for they have been compared with Bernard's table of oriental and occidental alphabets, lately improved by Dr. Morton, and with the Greek alphabets exhibited by Dr. Sharp 6; and it can with truth be affirmed, that the word Aftarte cannot be made out from them in the most distant manner. If these confiderations were not fufficient to overthrow the common opinion about this column and ftatue, it might be shewn from Selden |, that Aftarte was purely a Syrian deity, and was never admitted into the Egyptian mythology. Though this column is by no means fo ancient as is pretended, it must be allowed, notwithstanding, to be extremely elegant. It is thirteen feet and a half high, twenty-two inches in diameter, and diminishes fcarce two inches at the top. It is here fet up with a Corinthian capital and bafe. The statue of Venus is of lead; and the goddels appears in an inclined modest attitude.' The Author, in this manner, very properly and judiciously corrects the errors of the common catalogue; and his book may be useful to many of those who vifit Wilton-Houfe. Vide the article Evelyn, in Biog. Britan. "Le granit eft de deux fortes differentes; le granit noir, ou noirâtre; le granit rouge, ou rougeâtre. Les trois plus grandes ftatues Egyptiennes du capitolle, font de cette dernier efpece de granit." Winckleman Hift. de l'Art, pag. 106. Hiftor. lib. 36. cap. 23. On the ftructure, &c. of the Greek tongue. D 3 W. ART. ART. VIII. Remarks on the History of Scotland. By Sir David Dalrymple. Edinburgh. 12mo. 4 s. 6d. bound. Balfour. 1773. HE character of Sir David Dalrymple, as a diligent, and candid antiquary, is fo well known from his former publications, that the prefent work cannot fail of being favourably received by the lovers of historical researches. The general fubject of it must, indeed, be more peculiarly interefting to the natives of Scotland: nevertheless, feveral of the questions here difcuffed, will afford fome amufement to many English readers. The volume before is divided into nineteen chapters; the first of which relates to the alliance between Charlemagne and Achaius king of Scotland. Our Author informs us, that if a Scotchman, in the laft age, had ventured to fufpect that the alliance between the emperor Charlemagne and Achaius King of Scotland was a filly fable, he would have been deemed an enemy of his country. Even at this day, fays he, I hardly venture to exprefs my doubts as to the hiftorical evidence of that alliance. Sir David Dalrymple has, however, expreffed his doubts with freedom, and has difcuffed the matter with great accuracy. The refult of his inquiry is, that there is no fufficient proof of the account commonly received. If it be asked, when did the alliance between France and England commence ? Sir David answers, when the two nations faw that mutual aid was neceffary, and could be afforded. As nearly as he can judge, this concurrence of circumftances happened in the reign of William the Lyon, and from that 'æra may be dated the alliance between France and Scotland. The fecond chapter contains a copious examination of the queftion, whether Malcolm the Fourth acknowledged himself the vaffal of Henry the Second, for Lothian in Scotland; in which our Author controverts Lord Lyttelton's account of that event; yet ftill leaves the queftion fomewhat obfcure: and well, fays he, may I ftyle that circumftance in British history obfcure, which Lord Lyttelton has unfuccefsfully attempted to illuftrate. The prophecies yet extant, in Scottish rhymes, of Thomas Lermonth, commonly called Thomas the Rhymer, are confidered in the third chapter. The Author makes the following apo. logy for treating upon what may [very juftly] be deemed fo infignificant a fubject. Perhaps it may be thought that I have bestowed unneceffary pains in difcrediting this popular prediction afcribed to Thomas the Rhymer. Let it, however, be confidered, that the name of Thomas the Rhymer is not forgotten in Scotland, nor his authority altogether lighted, even at this day. • Within Within the memory of man, his prophecies, and the prophecies of other Scottish foothfayers, have not only been reprinted, but have been confulted with a weak, if not criminal curiofity. I mention not particulars; for I hold it ungenerous to reproach men with weakneffes of which they themselves are ashamed. The fame fuperftitious credulity might again fpring up. I flatter myself that my attempts to eradicate it will not prove altogether vain. Be this as it will, in endeavouring to expofe forgeries, I endea vour to maintain the cause of truth.' The next article relates to the death of Thomas Randolph Earl of Moray, in which Sir David confutes the affertion of the Scotch Hiftorians, that the Earl was poifoned by a vagrant monk from England, and that the fact was perpetrated with the knowledge and approbation of Edward the Third. Chap. V. which treats of an extraordinary propofal made by David II, to his parliament, we fhall lay before our readers. "In 1363, David II. affembled a parliament at Scone, where he propofed to the three eftates, that, after his death, they should chufe for king one of the fons of Edward II. king of England, and efpecially Lionel." This is one of the most fingular incidents in the history of Scotland. Fordun conjectures that David made this propofal to his parliament, in confequence of fome promife extorted from him during his captivity. The propofal was not made till about fix years after David had obtained his liberty. It is probable enough that David II. a fhallow Prince, had conceived a jealoufy of Robert Stewart, as one who was more refpected, and who, in truth, had reigned longer in Scotland than himself. Neither is it improbable that David may have projected a fettlement of the royal fucceffion on John Sutherland his nephew, by his only fifter of full blood, the Countess of Sutherland. I know that many of our hiftorians, and particularly Boece and Buchanan, have fuppofed that this fettlement was actually established by act of parliament: but of this fuppofition I never could difcover any evidence. Yet I muft obferve, that the capital objection generally urged against the hypothefis of Boece and Buchanan is of no force, viz. "That fuch a fettlement would have been contrary to the two parliamentary entails in the reign of Robert I." For, not to infill an the argument, that the fame power which made, could have varied the entail, it is plain that thofe entails introduced no limitations with refpect to the fucceffion in the event of Robert I. having iffue male. This event happened; he had iffue, David II. Now, Who was the heir of David II. in the event of his dying without iffue, the heir of Marjory his fifter confanguinean, or the heir of Margaret Countess of Sutherland, his fifter of full blood? If the former, then Robert Stewart was preferable; if the latter, John Sutherland. To this, another pretext might have been added. Marjory was the daughter of Bruce, a private man; Margaret, of Bruce, King of Scotland. If David I!. ever formed fuch a plan, it was totally overthrown by the death of his nephew John Sutherland in 1361. That he may have formed fome plan of this nature, in order to difappoint Robert Stewart, is not improbable, when his extraordinary negotiation with England, and his wild propofal of fettling the crown on a fon of Edward III. are confidered. The parliament of Scotland received the propofal with merited contempt and execration. It was rejected, fays Fordun, in his scholaftic jargon," Per univerfaliter fingulos et fingulariter univerfos de tribus ftatibus;" generally by each man, and particularly by all.' The defign of the fixth article is to fhew, that Archibald III. Earl of Douglas was not the Brother of James II. Earl of Douglas, and that he did not fucceed to the earldom in right of blood. After having greatly laboured the point, the Author acknowledges, that what he has advanced has a paradoxical appearance. Ifhould, therefore, fays he, fufpect that there is fome error in my hypothesis, but where that error lies, I cannot difcover. In the two fubfequent chapters, Mary of Gueldre, Queen Dowager of James II. of Scotland, is vindicated from the charge of incontinency; and a copy is given of the fenfible proclamation, iffued by the magiftrates of Edinburgh, upon the first report of the battle of Floudden. The ftatute in favour of the reformed, April 19th, 1567, is confidered in the ninth chapter; and the account of Buchanan and Spotifwood is defended, in oppofition to that of Keith and Dr. Robertfon. The tenth and eleventh chapters relate to James Hepburn Earl of Bothwell, and the Sonnets afcribed to Queen Mary. With regard to that Earl, it does not appear that, when he began his famous connections with that Queen, he was either fo ugly or fo old as hath fometimes been represented. As to the fonnets afcribed to her, Sir David feems decifively to have proved, that the fonnets in the Scottish language are, what they are faid to be, a verfion from the French; and he inclines to the opinion, that Mary was herself the Author of them. This article is more curious and valuable than fome in the present work. A circumftance in the hiftory of James VI. is next exhibited, the infertion of which will probably gratify many of our Englith readers. James VI. ordains a Perfon charged with an Offence not Capital, to be tried; and, if found guilty, to be executed. A learned and ingenious gentleman gave me an original warrant figned by James VI. which I here tranfcribe for its fingularity. "James, be the grace of God, King of Scottis, to all and findrie our lieges and fubditis, quhomever it effeiris, [concerns,] to quhais knawlege |