206 
Agis, founded ona portion of the Lacedz- 
monian history. He went to London with 
the manuscript, in hopes of getting it intros 
duced on the stage, but in this he was dis- 
appointed, insurmountable objections having 
been made to the plot.- Our poet, not at all 
discouraged by this failure, conceived the 
plan: of another play, laid the plot in Scot- 
Jand, and made his hero one of his own coun- 
trymen. In presenting this to the Lovidon 
manager, he had the mortification of a second 
refusal. Notwithstanding the abilities of 
Garrick, as a dramatist, his opinion of the 
merit of plays was not infallible. He re- 
jected the tragedy of Douglas as being too 
Simple in its fable, and destitute of stage ef- 
fect. Whether Garrick ever examined at 
21l into its merits, or delegated this office to 
another, on whose report he formed his de- 
cision, cannot now be ascertained. He, 
however, candidly confessed, through the 
semainder of his life, whenever the subject 
was agitated, that no circumstance, in the 
course of his management, gave him so much 
concern, as the rejection of this play. By 
such repeated discouragement, the ardour of 
Home was by no means suppressed. Being 
acquainted with the leading characters in 
Scotland, a ready reception of his play at 
Edinburgh wassecured. At the first repre- 
Sentation of Douglas, in the theatre, in Ca- 
mongate, on the 14th of December 1756, Mr, 
Home, and several of his clerical brethren 
Were present. Of this circumstance the-zea- 
Jots of the day speedily got notice. Thar, 
a clergyman should write a play, and that 
Ministers. of the gospel should witness its 
performance ; were crimes unheard of in the 
annals of the church. The hue and cry of 
bigotry was immediately raised. All that ig- 
Norance could conceive, prejudice effect or 
malice invent, was tried to suppress the play 
in its birth, It was violently decried as a 
production of immoral tendency, and fur- 
mishing, by its catastrophe, an encourage- 
ment to suicide. The clergy ordered a pas- 
toral adnionition to be delivered from their 
pulpits, on the sin and danger of attending 
the theatre. The author was summoned to 
appear before the bar of the presbytery ; his 
Friends were peremptorily dragged before their 
tribunal, some of them dismissed with cen- 
Sure, and others suspended from their office, 
While such was the state of affairs in Scot- 
fand, Dougias having been performed to 
€rowded houses during. the greater part of 
the season, and fully gratifying the mest 
sanguine hoges of the author, it was, through 
the interest of David Hume, brought for- 
ward on the London stage. Garrick having 
now discovered his mistake, made unusual 
exertions to introduce it to public notice and 
approbation. Hume had, shortly before its 
representation, published four cissertations, 
and inscribed them to our author. In his de- 
dication he. pronounced so flattering a pane-- 
gytic upon Mr. Home, and bestowed such. 
A 
Account of the late Mr. John. Home. 
[April 1, 
unqualified approbation on his play, thatthe 
publie expectation was raised too high. The 
consequence was, that the success of Doug- 
las was at first doybtful in the metropoliss 
It soon, however, became a standard tragedy 
and maintains its ground on the British stage 
to the present day. The clamours of his 
enemies having not yet subsided in Scotland, 
Mr. Home, seeing no prospect of overcoming 
their prejudices, preached his farewell ser- 
mon to his congregation, on the oth of June 
1757. The discourse was so pathetic, that 
it drew tears from most of his audience. To 
prevent further proceedings in the church 
courts against him, he gave in the resigna~ 
tion of his charge to the presbytery of Had- 
dington two days after. This body conti- 
nued to persecuté with peculiar vehemence. 
Mr. Carlyle, one of Mr. Home’s most inti- 
Mate iriends, as well for having accompanied, 
him to the theatre,-as from its being gene- 
rally understood that he assisted Home tn the 
Composition of Douglas. Although our au- 
thor himself did not appear at the presbytery, ; 
he was not negligent in defence of his friend. 
He attended the meeting of synod, and sup 
ported his cause with great firmness. In re _ 
ply to the virulent railings of a bigot, he de- 
clared, that if there was any fault, it lay 
not at the door of his friend, but at his own, 
with whom the crime originated, and con- 
cluded his observations in the words of the ~ 
unfortunate Nisus, 
Adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum, 
Tantum infelicem nimium dilexit amicam. 
This appropriate quotation made a sensible 
impression upon some of the judges, and, in 
all probability, mitigated the sentence against 
Mr. Carlyle. Instead of receiving a severe 
reprimand from the presbytery, he might 
otherwise (to such a pitch had Janaticisra ar= 
rived) have been suspended, perhaps expela 
led from his office. Before the conclusion of 
1757, Mr. Sheridan, then manager of the 
Dublin theatre, sent over to Mr. Home a 
gold medal, with a suitable inscription, ace 
knowledging his singular merit in having 
enriched the English stage with the tragedy 
of Douglas. Wi h his ‘living, Mr. Home ap- 
pears for a while to have abandoned his na- 
tive land, for he now repaired to London, 
where he produced several other tragedies, 
under the patronage of Garrick, who wrote 
prologues to some, epilogues to others, and 
warmly interested himself inthe fate of them 
all. ‘EFhey are all indeed. greatly inferior 
to his Douglas. Agis, the first of his _dra= 
matic pieces, was finely acted, and assisted 
by spectacle, otherwise, it is probable, that 
it would not have been performed a second 
night. His third tragedy ‘was founded on the 
Cruel treatment which the twa Setons, sons 
of the governor of Berwick, had experienced 
from the English. At Mr. Garrick’s suggcs- 
tion, the title was altered (and consequenily 
the sharasters, aad several local passages) 
trum 
