It is not so difficult to understand how Lord Buchan recognised the unnamed portrait in his Temple to be a likeness of George Buchanan as how he discovered it to be the work of Titian. He was acquainted with the portrait at the Royal Society, and the engravings from it in the editions of Buchanan's History. The general aspect of the face, the beard, and the collar agreed so fairly well with what was accepted as a genuine likeness of the historian that it was a fair conclusion that his unnamed painting was the portrait of the same person in a different position by another painter.

The source of the error was the determination by Thomas Povey, F.R.S., that his portrait of a George Buchanan was that of the historian, and this error was strengthened and perpetuated by his presentation of the painting to the Royal Society, who accepted it on the testimony of their Fellow, and gave it a place among the famous portraits on their walls. The first portrait to be identified from this painting belonged to Dr. Richard Mead, who was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1703; it is now at Dunrobin Castle. This was engraved by Houbraken towards the middle of the eighteenth century. The Earl of Buchan made a further discovery that an unnamed portrait in Hamilton Palace was that of the historian when he was a young man. This was engraved for Pinkerton's Scottish Gallery, 1799. The engraving in the seventh edition of the History (1799) is from a copy of the Hamilton Palace portrait, made for Professor Anderson, and now in the Glasgow and West of Scotland Technical College.

From a drawing by Lord Buchan of his Titian painting, Woolnoth made an engraving, which was published in Tilloch's London Philosophical Journal, October, 1810. Drummond, in his Portraits of Knox and Buchanan, says that Lord Buchan, calling with an impression to astonish a friend, who at the time was sitting in his library, asked him if he had ever seen that print before; but going to his book-shelves took down a volume, and opening it, asked his Lordship if he had ever seen that before. His expression may be better imagined than described, for here was a large and most characteristic engraving of the same portrait, which was that of Peter Jeannin, Finance Minister to Henry IV. in Les Hommes Illustres, etc., par C. Perrault, Paris, 1696-1700.'

Nothing is heard of this portrait till 1814. We learn, from a valuable communication to The Glasgow Herald of 12th Dec.,

1908, by Mr. J. E. Ewing, of Baillie's Institution, that Sir Henry Raeburn, on 7th February, 1814, wrote to the Earl of Buchan for permission to copy your portrait of Geo. Buchanan for the representative of that family.' The letter is endorsed by the Earl, 1814, Feb. 7. Fine arts. Henry Raeburn, Esqre, desires to copy the Portrait of Buchanan for the family of Drammikill. The picture is now at Mrs. Fletcher's, in North Castle Street, and is to remain with Mr. Raeburn till I come to Edinburgh or send for it. B.[uchan].' The Titian portrait was committed to the care of Sir Henry Raeburn, and was copied. Mr. Ewing's suggestion is, I have no doubt, correct that the representative of the family was Robert Buchanan of Ross Priory. The painting is still in that house, and is the property of Sir Alexander W. Leith-Buchanan, Bart. Later in the year Lord Buchan wrote to the treasurer of the Buchanan Society, Glasgow, a letter, which was read to the directors of the Society on 18th October, 1814. The letter stated that his Lordship had an original painting of the celebrated George Buchanan, the Scottish Historian, and politely offered to allow any artist to take a copy of it for the use of the Society.' Sir Henry Raeburn was commissioned to make the copy, which was delivered to the Society in December of the same year, and is still in their possession.

The Titian painting was in the possession of Sir Henry Raeburn during the year 1814. Lord Buchan appears never to have sent for it. The present Earl informs me that the portrait of Buchanan attributed to Titian is no longer in my possession, nor can I give you its history.' Sir Henry Raeburn died in 1823, Lord Buchan in 1829. There is no trace as to where it was till 1884, when it was purchased from a picture dealer in Edinburgh by the University of St. Andrews as a genuine portrait of the historian by the famous Italian master. The present representatives of the firm who sold it to the University cannot trace any entry in their books referring to the transaction. After the purchase it was sent by the University to the Exhibition of Scottish National Portraits held at Edinburgh in 1884 as the portrait of George Buchanan painted by Titian.

An important contribution to the final determination of the person represented in the Buchan portrait has come into my hands, by the favour of Sir William Bilsland, Bart. When Lord Provost of Glasgow he visited Lyons and Dijon along with his colleagues on the invitation of the Municipalities of those cities. At Dijon they were taken round the Public