io6 JOHN HILL 



better side of his nature and work. On the other hand the 

 author a grateful patient of the short account of the life of 

 HilP went to the other extreme. This account is entirely 

 laudatory, and describes Hill as being little short of a genius 

 surrounded and continually attacked by "envious and malevolent 

 persons " who " did not fail to make use of every engine male- 

 volence could invent, to depreciate the character and the works 

 of a man, whom they saw, with regret, every way so far their 

 superior," 



Disraeli^ speaks of Hill as the " Cain of Literature," and, 

 whilst being fully alive to his " egregious egotism " and other 

 defects of character, he appreciates his worth and recognizes 

 that Hill was born fifty years too soon. Also he gives him 

 credit for his moral courage in enduring " with undiminished 

 spirit the most biting satires, the most wounding epigrams, and 

 more palpable castigations." 



The general concensus of opinion, much of which does not 

 appear to have been independently arrived at, is that Hill's 

 nature contained little that was commendable. At the same 

 time his remarkable industry and versatility were recognised. 

 His independent and quarrelsome nature, coupled with his mode 

 of attack and fearlessness in expressing his opinions, made him 

 cordially hated, and caused much that he did to be viewed with 

 a prejudiced eye ; for instance, it is generally stated that he 

 obtained his degree of Doctor of Medicine (St Andrews, 1750) 

 by dishonourable means. Mr Anderson, Librarian and Keeper 

 of the Records of St Andrews University, has kindly looked the 

 matter up and informs me that there is nothing whatever to 

 warrant such a statement ; the degree was granted according to 

 the practice of the time. 



It is important to remember that Hill in his earlier days 

 suffered much from penury, which, to a certain extent, may 

 have embittered his nature. However this may be, he learnt 

 subsequently the advantages conferred by a good income, and 

 was not desirous of becoming reacquainted with his earlier 

 experiences. This may explain much of his peculiar behaviour. 



1 Edinburgh, 1779, loc. cit, 

 "^ Loc. cit. 



