Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 9.djvu/218

 210

NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. ix. MARCH 15, 1902.

as Logan's own leaving only six to have been by his friend and the other 'different authors' spoken of in the old preface. As a matter of fact, only one piece' The Ode to the Cuckoo' appeared in both volumes, but several alterations were made in the later version. Both differ from that printed in Ruddiraan's Weekly Magazine for 1774, which is believed to be in reality from one of the copies in MS. which Mrs. Hutcheson, Logan's cousin, told Dr. Anderson in 1795 she knew had been circulating in East Lothian in 1767, before Logan obtained Bruce's MSS.

The fourth verse appears as follows in the three versions already mentioned : 1774.

The school-boy, wand'ring in the wood To pull the cowslip gay

Starts when thy curious voice he hears, And imitates thy lay.

1770. The schoolboy, wand'ring in the wood

To pull the flow'rs so gay Starts, thy curious voice to hear

And imitates thy lay.

1781. The school-boy, wandering thro' the wood

To pull the primrose gay, Starts, the new voice of Spring to hear,

And imitates thy lay.

Mr. Graham concludes by asking, "Was it the poor schoolmaster lad of Kinross-shire or the brilliant, dissipated clerical failure who wrote 'The Ode to the Cuckoo'?" The latter, I maintain, although I do not admit that he was a " failure."

The articles in the /Scots Magazine are as under :

of the " Ode to the Cuckoo,'" Jan., 1892 (published by Cowan & Co., Perth, N.B.).
 * Smeaton (James), ' A Letter on the Authorship

Hewison (Rev. J. King, M.A.), 'John Logan, the Poet, Nov. and Dec., 1894, and Jan., 1895.

"Inquirer" (Dr. A. M. McDonald), 'The Ode to the Cuckoo,' Nov. and Dec., 1897.

Smail (Adam), ' The Bruce-Logan Controversy a Notice of some Recent Writings,' Dec., 1897, and Jan., 1898.

- ' Some Early Notices of Michael Bruce and the Rev. John Logan,' Feb., 1898.

' John

and

"Inquirer" (Dr. A M. McDonald), 'The Bruce- Logan Controversy,' July, 1898.

f lhe Scottish Paraphrases,'

A careful perusal of the above-named articles will prove that recent criticism has


 * These two writers uphold the claims of Bruce.

done something to dispel the cloud of obloquy which too long had gathered round the name and fame of Logan. It has lately been con- clusively shown that the charges of pla- garism against Logan with reference to Zollikofer's 'Sermons,' Rutherford's 'View of Antient History,' the ' Scottish Paraphrases,' and some of his poems are not in accordance with facts. The United Presbyterian Maga- zine from August, 1896, to January, 1900, contained some very important material on "this ancient controversial matter." MR. THOMAS BAYNE therefore scarcely does justice to his opponents when he remarks that " nothing new on the problem has come to light since Dr. Grosart advanced his damaging indictment of Logan in his edition of Michael Bruce's poems." MR. BAYNE allows that "he [Dr. Grosart] may have been wrong, but his error is still to be proved." Dr. Robertson, of Dalmeny, was by no means " a very insig- nificant factor in the discussion." Fortu- nately for the reputation of Logan he did not deal with Bruce's MSS. unaided, as the annexed letter of his friend Mr. Robertson to Dr. Baird fully proves :

"Dalmeny, 22nd February, 1791. Bruce was my class-fellow at college, and very particular acquaint- ance. He shewed me all his pieces himself. After his death, Mr. Logan and I looked overall his MSS., and selected those which are published. The rest we judged not in a state to be seen by the public, and I believe they were all destroyed, among which I remember to have seen the poem on the ' Las*

,y,' a long work, and very unequal. I have none his pieces in my own hands, and never had."

It will be remembered that Mr. Mack el vie on Birrell's authority says that Logan re- turned ' k a few loose papers, containing among other poems ' The Last Day.' "

Dr. Grosart evidently stands high in the good graces of MR. BAYNE, but this favourable view was not taken by Dr. David Laing, Signet Library, Edinburgh, who, in his privately printed brochure entitled ' Ode to the Cuckoo : Edinburgh. 1770, with Remarks on its Author- ship, in a Letter to Principal Shairp,' Edin- burgh, 1873, says: "Like the critic who re- viewed Grosart's volume in the Athenaeum for 1865, p. 48, I may apply to the ' Hymn question ' what he said respecting that of the authorship of the ' Ode to the Cuckoo,' that it is one 'so unimportant that we do not care to waste time upon it.' And truly Mr. Grosart's statements and conclusions are so preposterous as not to be worthy of notice." Dr. Laing also blames Dr. Grosart for reiterating "at great length all the charges against Logan made by Mr. (after- wards Dr.) Mackelvie, and that in a most offensive style, while adducing vague tradi-