HIS CHARACTER 105 



Nothing could be more proper than this, but against it must be 

 set the opinion of men of his own time, as expressed in the quo- 

 tation on p. 88, taken from Baker's Biographica Dramatica. 



Many estimates of the character of Hill have been put 

 forward, the first of any authority being that of Johnson l : 

 " The King then asked him what he thought of Dr Hill. 

 Johnson answered, that he was an ingenious man, but had no 

 veracity ; and immediately mentioned, as an instance of it, an 

 assertion of that writer, that he had seen objects magnified to 

 a much greater degree by using three or four microscopes at 

 a time than by using one. * Now,' added Johnson, * everyone 

 acquainted with microscopes knows, that the more of them he 

 looks through, the less the object will appear.'../ I now,' said 

 Johnson to his friends, when relating what had passed, * began 

 to consider that I was depreciating the man in the estimation 

 of his sovereign, and thought it was time for me to say some- 

 thing that might be more favourable.' He added, therefore, 

 that Dr Hill was, notwithstanding, a very curious observer ; 

 and if he would have been contented to tell the world no more 

 than he knew, he might have been a very considerable man, 

 and needed not to have recourse to such mean expedients to 

 raise his reputation." 



If Hill's reputation for lying rests on no surer foundation 

 than this, he must be held acquitted of much that is charged 

 him. In the above quotation the term microscopes must be 

 read lenses ; thus Johnson's reason for his opinion is unfortunate 

 and clearly shews, as Bishop Elrington has remarked, that 

 Johnson was talking of things he knew nothing about. This 

 is the more to be regretted since the opinion of a man of 

 Johnson's rank, who was contemporary with Hill, might have 

 biassed the judgment of smaller and later men. 



According to Fitzgerald 2 , Hill was a "quack and blustering 

 adventurer," the " Holloway of his day," endowed with "cowardice 

 that seemed a disease." This author is, I think, prejudiced, and 

 his estimate appears to be based upon the least creditable 

 of Hill's performances without giving a proper value to the 



1 Boswell's Life of Johnson, ed. by Fitzgerald, London, 1897. 



2 Ibid. ; Life of Garrick, loc. cit. 



