252 
II O 
not long furvive, dying in December 1781. at the age of 
eighty-fix. Lord Kames was as much diftinguilhed by 
his Vivacity in converfation, as by the extent of his lite¬ 
rary labours; and to a very advanced age he was the life 
of all companies, in which no topic could be ftarted above 
or below his power of difcuffion. In all his works he 
affidtioufly traces final caufes, and adduces them as proofs 
of the. wii'dbm and goodnefs of the Creator. 
HOME (John), a minifter in the Scots church, was 
defcended of a rel'peCtable, and formerly iliuftrious, family. 
He was born in the vicinity of Ancrum, in Roxburgh- 
Ihire, in 1724, and.received the firft rudiments of educa¬ 
tion at the parochial fchool, where the late Dr. Buchan, 
author of Domeftic Medicine, was the companion of his 
iludies. It was Mr. Home’s inclination, and the defire 
of his parents, that he Ihould enter the church : he there¬ 
fore attended the philofophical and theological clalfes of 
the uiiiverfity of Edinburgh for feveral years. But his. 
Iludies were for a while fhfpe'nded by the public commo¬ 
tions of the year 1745. ’ On the approach of the infur- 
gents, the citizens of Edinburgh affembled, formed them- 
felves into an alfociation for the fupport of their fovereign, 
and the defence of their city. Mr. Home was one of about 
twenty ftudents of the univeriity who offered their fer- 
vices as volunteers, to act againlt the common enemy. 
But intimidated by the number of their opponents, or 
sdverfe to the hardlhips of a military life, the college com¬ 
pany foon dilbanded. Mr. Home, however, retained his 
arms, and marched with a detachment of the royal army 
to Falkirk; where, in the battle fought in its neighbour¬ 
hood, in which the rebels vanquifhed the king’s troops, 
he was taken prifoner, and confined for fome time in the 
caftle of Doune. From this place of captivity he effeCted 
his efcape; and, the battle of Culloaen having Malted all 
the hopes of the pretender’s adherents, tranquillity and 
order were foon reltored. Mr. Home relumed his Itudies, 
and was licenfed to preach the gofpel in 1747. About the 
year 1750, he was fettled minilter of the parifh of Athel- 
llaneford, in Eaft Lothian, and Was the immediate fuc- 
ceffor of Robert Blair, author of The Grave. Accuftomed 
to the buftle of a city, and the fociety of men of letters, 
Mr. Home found hinifelf rather difagreeably fituated, in 
an obfcure village, where he had no opportunity of diltifi- 
guifhing himlelf. From the vicinity of his refidence to 
Edinburgh, he was in the pradiice of frequently rd’orting 
to the capital, to enjoy the company of men of talents. 
Several of thefe had inftituted a fociety for literary and 
philofophical difquifition, of which Mr. Home was an 
original and diftinguifhed member. This inltitutiori com¬ 
prehended feveral of the molt eminent characters of the 
day. Among others, were Alexander Wedderburn, after- 
terwards earl of Rofslyn, and lord high chancellor of 
Great Britain; Fergulon, the philofopher; Hume and 
Robertfon, the hiltofians; and Blair, the rhetorician and 
divine; men whom it would be fuperfluous here to pa- 
negyril'e. It Was about this period that Mr. Home, in his 
retirement, began feriouliy to court the dramatic mule. 
The firft tragedy he wrote was Agis, founded on a por¬ 
tion of the Lacedaemonian hiftory. He went to London 
with the mariufcript, in hopes of getting it introduced on 
the ftage, but in this he was diiappoinfed, infurmountable 
objections having been made to the plot. Our poet, not 
at all difcouraged by this failure, conceived the plan of 
another play, laid the plot in Scotland, and made his hero 
one of his own countrymen. In prefenting- this to the 
London manager, he had the mortification of a fecond 
refufal. Notwithftanding the abilities of Garrick as a 
dramatift, his opinion of the merit of plays was not infal¬ 
lible. He rejected the tragedy of Douglas, as being too 
fimple in its fable, and deltitute of .ftage effect. By fuch 
repeated difcouragement, the ardour of Home was by no 
means fuppreffed. Being acquainted with the leading cha¬ 
racters in Scotland, a ready reception of his play at Edin¬ 
burgh was lecured. At the firft repreferitafion of Douglas, 
at the theatre in Canongate, on the 14th of December 
M E. 
1756, Mr. Home and feveral of his clerical brethren were 
prefent. Of this circumftarice the zealots of the day fpee- 
dily got notice. That a clergyman lliould write a play, 
and that miniiters of the golpel Ihould witnels its per¬ 
formance, were crimes unheard of in the annals of the 
church. The hue and ciy of bigotry was immediately 
railed. All that ignorance could conceive, prejudice ef- 
feCt, or malice invent, was tried to fupprefs the play iq 
its birth. It v/as violently decried as a production of im¬ 
moral tendency, and fu mi filing, by its cataftrophe, an en¬ 
couragement to filicide. The clergy ordered a paftoral 
admonition to be delivered from their pulpits, on the fin 
and danger of attending the theatre. The author was 
fummoned to appear before the bar of the prelbytery; his 
friends were peremptorily dragged before their tribunal, 
fome of them difmiffed with cenfure, and others fufpended 
from their office. While fuch was the ftate of affairs in 
Scotland, Douglas having been performed to crowded 
houfes during the greater part of the feafon, and fully 
gratifying the moil languine hopes of the author, it was, 
through the intereft of David Hume, brought forward on 
the London ftage. Garrick having now difcovered his 
miftake, made unufual exertions to introduce it to public 
notice and approbation. It foon became a ftandard tra¬ 
gedy, and maintains its ground on the Britilh ftage to the 
prelent day. The clamours of his enemies having not 
yet fubfided in Scotland, Mr. Home, feeing no profpeCt 
of overcoming their prejudices, preached his farewell fer- 
mon to his congregation, on the 5th of June 1757. The 
difcourfe was lo pathetic, that it drew tears from moll of 
his audience. To prevent further proceedings in the 
church courts againlt him, he gave in the refignation of 
his charge to the prelbytery of Haddington two days af¬ 
ter. Before the concluiion of 1757, Mr. Sheridan, then 
manager of the Dublin theatre, fent over to Mr. Home a 
gold medal, with a fiiitable infcription, acknowledging 
his Lingular merit in having enriched the Englifh ltage 
with the tragedy of Douglas. With his living, Mr. Home 
appears for a while to have abandoned his native land ; 
for he now repaired to London, where he produced leve- 
ral other tragedies, under the. patronage of Garrick, who 
wrote prologues to fome, epilogues to others, and warmly 
interefted liimfelf in the fate of them all. But they are 
all greatly inferior to his Douglas. Agis, the firft of his 
dramatic pieces, was finely aCted, and allifted by fpeCtacle, 
otherwil'e it is probable that it would not have been per¬ 
formed a fecond night. His third tragedy was founded 
on the cruel treatment which the two Setons, fons of the 
governor of Berwick, had experienced from the Englilh. 
At Garrick’s fuggeftion, the title was altered (and con- 
fequently the characters, and feveral local paffages) from 
the Siege of Berwick, to the Siege of Aquileia; for he 
very naturally conceived, that any national allulions might 
tend to foment the jealoufy which then unfortunately fub- 
fifted between the Scots and Englifh. It was aCted in 
1759. Some of the paffages are very fine, but upon the 
whole, it is a tame performance. The Fatal Difcovery 
was produced in 1769, and reluClantly permitted during 
nine nights. Though Alonzo had the advantage of Mrs. 
Barry’s admirable acting, it ihared the fame fate; the au¬ 
thor mentions in his preface, that fhe received applaul'e 
greater than ever fhook a theatre. Mr. Home’s lalt pro¬ 
duction, Alfred, lived only three nights. Lord Bute 
having reprefented Mr. Home to his majefty as a man of 
talents, his name was placed on the penfioii-!ilt, nearly 
at the fame time with that of Dr. Johnfon. He lived in 
a ftate of retirement from this period to the time of his 
death. Nearly half a century after Douglas had been 
written, when the author had returned to, and was fettled 
in, his native country, Mailer Betty, better known by the 
name of the Young Rofcius, commenced his theatrical 
labours at Edinburgh, in the character of Young Norval. 
The author attended the reprefentation, and declared, that 
that was the firft time he had ever feen the part of Douglas 
played according to his ideas of the character when lie 
conceived 
