The learned Dr. Burney, who is the chief dissentient from the popular belief on this subject, thus states the grounds for his difference of opinion:

"This assertion (of Tassoni) greatly encreased our desire to examine works in which so many excellencies were concentred; particularly as we had long been extremely desirous of tracing the peculiarities of the national melodies of Scotland from a higher source than David Rizzio. But in a very attentive perusal of all the several parts of the whole six books of the Prince of Venosa's madrigals, we were utterly unable to discover the least similitude or imitation of Caledonian airs in any one of them; which so far from Scots' melodies, seem to contain no melodies at all; nor, when scored, can we discover the least regularity of design, phraseology, rhythm, or, indeed, any thing remarkable in these madrigals, except unprincipled modulation, and the perpetual embarrassments and inexperience of an amateur, in the arrangement and filling up of the parts."

Now let us see to what all this reasoning amounts? James was reputed to be the inventor of a new kind of music, of the same character as the national music of Scotland; the Prince of Venosa is said to have imitated James; but on examining the productions of Venosa, they have not the least similitude to Caledonian airs; and therefore it must follow that James did not invent what Venosa has not been able to imitate. Is it necessary to say any thing of the solidity of such a deduction? The similitude of Venosa's madrigals is but a link in a long chain; take it away, and the century of traditional repute must still remain

as unimpaired as when Tassoni first spoiled it by his unfortunate illustration.

The question comes then to be one of traditional probability entirely-how far is it likely that James the First could have been, as he is popularly considered, the inventor of our national style of music? The tradition, it may be worth remarking, has not its origin in any speculative antiquarianism; nor in any feeling of national pride, angry at the idea of making unmerited compensation to the memory of an Italian fidler, cut off by a ruthless assassination; it is a tradition as old as the oldest songs extant in our country, and as spontaneous in its sources as any tradition that belongs to us.

It has been objected, that national characteristics do not usually spring from so narrow a basis as the influence of any single individual. It rather appears to me, that it is nearly the same in this respect with the polite attainments of a country, as with its vegetable treasures; and that, as a single seed, brought from afar, has been often known to spread a valuable plant over a whole kingdom, so any single individual, inspired by sentiments beyond what are common to his countrymen, may give such a new impulse and direction to their pursuits, as will give a leading feature to their character for ages. James, moreover, was a king, and of kings the adage is old :

Regis ad exemplum totus componitur orbis.

He was a king, too, who appears not from tradition merely, but from contemporary and unquestionable authorities, to have cultivated music with more than

usual ardour; and under circumstances of long confinement and solitude, singularly calculated to impart to his compositions that "plaintive and melancholy" air which Tassoni tells us was regarded as the characteristic of the kind of music which he invented, and which we know to be the characteristic of the national music of Scotland, as existing from the remotest periods. If we combine with these strong circumstances the fact, that James gave to his country a richer and a purer vein of poetry than it before possessed, and reflect how extremely natural it was, that a poet scientifically skilled iu the rules of musical composition, should be fond of singing his own songs to tunes of his own composing, we can scarcely hesitate in coming to the conclusion, that no tradition was ever founded on stronger circumstances of probability, than that which ascribes to the same illustrious prince, who may be said to have given, or at least, restored to us the lyre, a knowledge of the choicest melody to which it might be strung.

J. T.

THOMAS THE RHYMER.

THOMAS the Rhymer, or Thomas of Ercildoune, as the father of Scottish poets is commonly called, is supposed to have been born about the end of the twelfth century at Erceldoune, or, according to modern corruption, Earlstoun, a village in the county of Berwick. His history is involved in so much obscurity, that even his name is a subject of dispute among antiquaries. The uniform tradition of centuries had ascribed to him the family name of Learmont, and in all our biographical collections, he takes his place as THOMAS LEARMONT. Later writers, however, have been led, by a reference to ancient authorities, to doubt the correctness of the common fame on this point. In a charter, granted by the poet's son and heir to the convent of Soltre or Soultra, he calls himself "Filius et hæres Thoma Rymour de Ercildon." Robert de Brunne, Fordun, Barbour, and Winton, the writers most nearly contemporary with him, style him simply, Thomas of Ercildoune; while Blind Henry the Minstrel, and Boece, authors of later period, call him "Thomas Rymour." Mr.* Scott says, that Henry the Minstrel styles him, "Thomas the Rhymer;" but this is a mistake; the very passages which he quotes from Henry shew the contrary.

"Thomas Rymour into the Feale was then," &c.

*Now Sir Walter.

As none of these authorities, embracing a period of two centuries, mention the name of Learmont, nothing can be more reasonable than the inference which is drawn, that it has been improperly ascribed to the bard. But how is the subsequent variation in the popular tradition attempted to be explained? Macpherson supposes, that Thomas or his predecessor had married an heiress of the family of Learmont, and thus occasioned the mistake, as if it ever were, at any time, a common thing for husbands to assume the names of their wives. Mr. Scott suggests, that "it may also have arisen from some family of that name, tracing their descent from him by the female side"-a fancy so difficult to trace, that any other "also" might have served as well.

Were it not a common fault of antiquarianism to drag at the bottom for what is swimming on the surface, some credit might be taken for pointing out where the real explanation undoubtedly lies. In the charter before quoted, the son of the poet,-not speaking, it will be observed, with that vernacular familiarity which might admit of his calling his father by any appellation by which he was popularly known, such as "the Rhymer;" but with all the solemn precision necessary in a legal deed of conveyance, where correctness of family names was the last thing likely to be disregarded-calls himself the son and heir, "Thoma Rymour de Ercildon." The word "Rymour" appears here in the Latin deed as a proper name, and there is not the least pretence for supposing that it could be meant to designate that the person spoken of was a rhymer by profession. Robert de Brunne and the other authorities, next in weight to the son,