side of the prætorium stood the questorium and the forum; and, on the left, the tents of the lieutenant-generals. In the open space between the two partitions opposite the prætorium, and equally convenient for the whole army, stood the principia, or chapel for the altars and statues of the gods, where sometimes the ensigns were placed. Two hundred feet from the last line was the vallum, called agger and sudes, that is, the mound and wooden stakes; and along that the ditch, or fossa*. Without being more minute, let us apply this description to the camp of Fortingall. The square divisions, though they cannot accurately and minutely be traced, are visible enough to justify the appellation of Roman. The principia still remain a little above the prætorium. The watering-place, the forum, the quæstorium, the posts of the allies, also correspond. The prætorium almost exactly measures 100 feet, and is large enough for the general's pavilion, for the augurale, or oratory, and for the contubernales, or those young noblemen who followed the general in order to learn the art of war. The empty space between the lines and the rampart is marked; and the vallum and ditch, though mostly ploughed down, remain distinct enough to show what they have been. The pillars, and heaps of stones and earth, evince the same thing. Hence there is a strong probability in favour of its Roman origin. The prætorium, indeed, has not usually been surrounded with a ditch; but, in such a situation, when the army was contending with fierce and warlike Caledonians, such a precaution would be readily suggested; or, perhaps, the prætorium may have been converted into a fortress by some succeeding warriors. In the successive revolutions and contests which, during every period of its history, agitated Scotland, it may justly be inferred that the face of the country must have suffered many alterations. We may now adduce a more positive proof in favour of its claim. At the request of the late earl of Breadalbane, the late Colonel Campbell of Glenlyon examined the camp, and found in it two Roman urns. It admits of no question that these urns had been deposited there by the Romans themselves. They contained fine black or grey dust. Roman coins have also been found along the course of the Tay, the route which the Romans pursued when they descended from the plains of Fortingall. Some of the coins of Titus have been put into the poor's box in the church of Logierate. The appearance of these reliques furnishes at least a presumption that the natives and Romans had some intercourse further north than is commonly imagined. Port-na-Gael is situated on the north side of the river Lyon. * For a fuller account see Polybius's history, book vi. from p. 624 to 631, edit. 1554. It stands on the top of a high rock called Craigmore, or Great Rock, commanding the pass below, a view of the plain of Appin, and a great number of surrounding towers. It is accessible only in the rear; looking over a height of nearly 500 yards perpendicular. It is said that here the Caledonians posted themselves to annoy the march of the Romans along the Lyon; and, by rolling down large stones, killed great numbers. South-west from this fortress is another on the summit of a rock overhanging the camp, called Dungeal, or perhaps Dungael; the former signifying the white mount, the latter the mount of the Gaels. It is 70 paces in diameter, built of large rude stones, and appears never to have been roofed. On the south-side of the Lyon, on the highest part of the hill of Drummond, east-south-east from Dungeal, and of the same dimensions, is another round tower, called Dun-mac-Tual*, commanding the view to the north-east and north, nearly opposite to Port-na-Gael. Between Dun-mac-Tual and Dungeal, on the north bank of the Lyon, there is another ruin of the same nature with the rest, but not so large. It is commonly called the castle of Drumchary. It commands the plain of Fortingall. In the neighbourhood of this there probably was a pillar, as the name Drumchary, that is, the back or ridge of the pillar, seems to indicate. These round towers were the first rude efforts of architecture, serving, as occasion required, for defence and signal-posts. Their construction does honour to the strength and perseverance of the Caledonians. I must not omit to mention a collection of circular ruins in the north-east end of Fortingall. There is one large circle in the middle, surrounded by a great number of smaller ones. The large circle is supposed to have been the residence of the chief, and the rest that of his followers. In their neighbourhood is the castle of Garth, which, from its romantic situation, deserves some notice. It is among the first erections of stone and lime. Some refer its date to the middle ages. Its form is nearly square. It is three stories high, and roofed with a stone arch. The first story is arched over in the same manner. It was accessible on the north side by a drawbridge over a ditch cut in the hard rock with incredible labour; on all other sides fortified by deep precipices, or rather channels formed by the mountain-streams; so that, before the use of artillery, it was no contemptible fortress. From the number of balls found in the vicinity, it appears to have been the scene of several rencounters during the civil wars which divided the Highlands. I * Tual is said to have been the son of a king of Scandinavia, and cousin to the famed Garbt, the son of Starno. Garbt is the Swaran of Mr Macpherson. seen. I ought not here to pass over the religious monuments of antiquity. At the west end of the plain of Appin, near the junction of the Keltney and the Lyon, is the most entire cairn that I have It is 72 paces in circumference, and about 16 feet high, in the form of an obtruncated cone. Round the base there is a way six feet broad, defended by an outer wall, which seems never to have been high. On a height above is a circle of stones, which commands the view of the adjacent ground. If this heap be Druidical, the space round the base must have served for the circumvolutions of the votaries, according to the rites of Druidical worship. To the EDITOR of the EDINBURGH MONTHLY MAGAZINE. SIR-When your publication was announced, I was led to entertain very sanguine hopes of its utility and success. I joined heartily in your opinion that there was ample room for such an additional work in Scotland, and that, in respect of useful information and literary amusement, it would not be difficult to equal the only other work with which you would have to contend for the public favour; more especially when you closed your prospectus with an assurance that the work would be supported by many of the most eminent literati in Great Britain. I opened the first number with high expectations; but, may I be allowed, Sir, to add, I closed it with some displeasure? In the eye of others, part of this displeasure may perhaps be ascribed to the height of these expectations, and perhaps more to a fastidiousness of taste; but, without attempting to acquit myself from the improper influence of either, I hope you will have the candour to give the reasons, which I am to urge, a fair examination; and, when I reflect on the subject of these reasons, I cannot but add, that I trust you will have the justice to do so, In the department which you have devoted to the Review of Scotish Publications, there is an article entitled "Caledonia, or an Account, Historical and Topographic, of North Britain, from the most ancient to the present Times, by George Chalmers, F. R. S. and S. A." &c. I had seen this work, Sir, and, I am ready to allow, was no friend to it. But, on proceeding to your stric tures, I found they went far beyond the measure of my opinion, and indeed of any idea I had formed of literary flagellation, With out giving the mind that preparation which in prudence it ought always to receive before any violent shock, by exposing what you may consider faulty in the character of the author, you burst forth at once into the most violent philippic against it. You elevate Mr Chalmers, in the outset, to the first rank among unhappy Vol. I, pretenders N -pretenders to literature. He is said to be destitute of common scholarship, and totally incapable of reasoning. But these, you add, "might easily be excused," were it not for the author's "inhuman arrogance and presumption ;" and you end with averring, that his conduct" would disgrace the character of a ferocious CANNIBAL, who sallies forth with the professed intention of eating his enemies." This, Sir, I doubt is too much. You could not well do worse than banish Mr Chalmers from the field of literature; but to send him to prowl and mangle with cannibals, is the ne plus ultra of punishment. Perhaps he may merit all this severity, for I pretend not to that thorough knowledge which you appear to possess of the gentleman's character; but I am extremely doubtful whether you have not exceeded the legitimate powers of criticism, and even sound discretion, in your judgment. I consider the opinion you have expressed of Mr Chalmers's character as unwarranted, because his character is not before you for judgment; and particularly because you have not attempted to substantiate that opinion by evidence. You cannot shelter yourself under a pretence that the faults you attribute to Mr Chalmers are notorious; for they are not so. Mr Chalmers, as far as I can learn, maintains a respectable character in the circle of common life, as well as of literature; and it is improper in you to drag him from the place he holds, without assigning adequate reasons. General and unqualified assertions will not do; you are bound to produce circumstances in his conduct which authorize them. In the view of mere expediency, your attack is equally reprehensible; its acrimony, without any apparent reason to justify it, must tend to render it utterly abortive. Were Mr Chalmers even as bad as you describe him, the manner in which he is used is not calculated to excite that detestation or contempt which a critic ought to have solely in view, by exposing a wicked or a weak author. To use the expression of the writer who opens your Magazine, you seem to cast away the balance of justice, and to grasp only her sword. The merciless appearance of your strictures is calculated to alarm the most common feelings of benevolence; no one can think that justice requires so much severity; and, instead of acquiescing in the censure, emotions of resentment against tyranny, and pity for the oppressed, will rouse, in all unbiassed readers, a degree of friendship and respect, however unmerited, for the object of your animadversions. After you have exhausted the character of Mr Chalmers, you proceed to make some strictures on his publication, which properly was the only thing on which you were entitled to give an opinion. These, I am sorry to say, breathe the same strain of harshness and illiberality. The work is styled "as ponderous and shapeless a mass of inert matter as has ever yet been obtruded on express on the public. The style is "turgid, clumsy, and disgusting," floating with "laughable and loathsome peculiarities;" and you the comfortable belief, that " no man has ever given, or will ever give, a complete perusal to either of these two volumes." All this bold censure is levelled against the work, without a single proof or illustration which might support what you aver, or tend to show that you have been one of those who have had the tience to read further than the preface, so as to be able to bring forward such damning evidence. pa I do not appear, Sir, as the vindicator of the character of Mr Chalmers or his work. I have not that intimate knowledge of the one, nor precise recollection of the other, which could give me an inclination to do so. I address you upon general grounds. The strictures which you have made on Mr Chalmers and his book appear to me to be a breach of that fair and liberal criticism which the public have a right to expect from those who claim a share of its favour. If you are entitled to lash to the extreme of severity, you must show satisfying proof of an adequate fault in the culprit. There is a general abhorrence against secret inquisitorial practices; and men can never so far forget the rights of humanity in a respect for the assumed authority of any set of fellow-creatures, as to countenance the sacrifice of any individual upon their naked and unsupported fiat. The guilt and punishment must be alike open and public. I have certainly, Mr Editor, used some freedom in thus addressing you. It has proceeded from a confidence, which I hope is not misplaced, that a love of truth will induce you to give that explanation of the strictures in question, which alone can rescue the integrity of your critical character from reproach, and procure your Magazine that extension of public patronage which, I think, in other respects it so well merits. I am, &c. ANTI-CANNIBAL. If the writer of this letter had any very confident expectation of its being inserted in our publication, he must have entertained a more favourable opinion of our good-nature than some of his expressions would seem to indicate. We have, however, inserted it without any mutilations or changes; and shall leave the public ultimately to decide the very unimportant question of Mr Chalmers's judgment and learning. If our limits would permit, it would be a very practicable, though at the same time a very disgusting task, to substantiate all the charges which the reviewer has so unceremoniously urged against him. If such strong expressions can in any case be justified, they are certainly justifiable when applied to such a person as Mr Chalmers; who has treated many great and venerable characters in a manner grossly indecent, and who never treats with common civility any writer, |