T ?3i 
 
 :i^« 
 
 ^.J^ *■ 
 
 ^v > 
 
 ^fi^^^ 
 
 J^^^ 
 
 
 *^-v*^ 
 
(locnell Intttetsity 2Itbrat}| 
 
 XaU Uiaf 
 
 V 
 
 !/n.. axcUa-'M.Q.a 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PR 3516.Z5G51 
 
 John Home, a study of his life and worl(s 
 
 3 1924 013 185 990 
 
I Cornell University 
 f Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013185990 
 
A STUDY OF 
 
 HIS LIFE AND WORKS 
 
 WITH SEECLUL REFERENCE TO HIS TRA&II)Y 
 
 OF pdtlGLAS AND TIJE CQNTR0VER:SIES 
 
 WHICH :felX0WED ITS FIRST 
 
 He^resentations 
 
 ALICE EDNA (;iPS(^N 
 
 A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE 
 
 GRADUATE SCHOOL OF YALE UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY 
 
 FOR THE DECREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
JOHN HOME 
 
 A STUDY OF 
 
 HIS LIFE AND WORKS 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO HIS TRAGEDY 
 
 OF DOUGLAS AND THE CONTROVERSIES 
 
 WHICH FOLLOWED ITS FIRST 
 
 REPRESENTATIONS 
 
 BY 
 
 ALICE EDNA GIPSON 
 
 A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF TTTP 
 
 GRADUATE SCHOOL OF YALE UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY 
 
 FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
A.3?oH3 
 
 ^Pri^ 
 
 CaldweU,Ida. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This dissertation aims to give a complete account 
 of the life of John Home and of his dramatic work, 
 with special emphasis on his tragedy, Douglas. The 
 biographical material has been assembled from var- 
 ious contemporary memoirs, autobiographies, letters, 
 magazines, and other documents, and subsequent 
 biographical accounts of Home have thus been checked 
 by examination of the original data accessible, and 
 enlarged into a more comprehensive discussion of 
 Home's life. 
 
 The stage-history of Douglas has been traced in 
 detail, especially in connection with the Edinburgh 
 and London theatres, and numerous magazines and 
 newspapers have been consulted with reference to 
 American as well as Scottish and English perform- 
 ances. The earliest printed editions of the play have 
 been collated, and the priority of the first London 
 over the first Edinburgh edition definitely established. 
 The church-controversies and the war of pamphlets 
 following the appearance of the play in Scotland have, 
 for the first time, been thoroughly investigated. Full 
 evidence as to the religious controversies have been 
 found in contemporary documents, and the literary 
 controversies have been examined in the light of the 
 extensive collection of tracts, serious and satirical, in 
 prose and in verse, in the Bodleian Library. Most 
 of this material is here presented for the first time. 
 
 Home's five other tragedies have been fully studied 
 in the light of their stage-history and of the critical 
 comment upon them. His unpublished and incomplete 
 dramatic works, together with his non-dramatic lit- 
 erary works, have also been discussed. A general 
 estimate of Home as a dramatist presents the broader 
 aspects of his dramas. An Appendix includes var- 
 ious documents bearing upon his dramatic work, 
 together with a bibliography. 
 
iv Preface 
 
 The chief sources for a biography of John Home 
 are the excellent account of his life and writings by 
 his personal friend, Henry Mackenzie, and the auto- 
 biography of Alexander Carlyle, whose association 
 with Home began when they were fellow-students 
 at the University of Edinburgh. Quotations from 
 these authors are essential to any attempt to repro- 
 duce the atmosphere in which John Home lived. How- 
 ever, Carlyle's Autobiography is carried only to the 
 year 1770, and ends, consequently, almost forty years 
 before the death of Home; and Mackenzie's Life, 
 although published in 1822, eight years after his 
 death, contains no more adequate treatment than 
 does the Autobiography of the religious and literary 
 controversies over the tragedy of Douglas. Current 
 magazines, newspapers, theatrical chronicles, and lit- 
 erary opinions have, therefore, aided in giving, it may 
 be, a more comprehensive view of a very interesting 
 period in Scottish history. 
 
 Invaluable material for the chapter on the contro- 
 versies over Douglas is found in the collection of 
 pamphlets called Tracts on Douglas in the Bodleian 
 Library at Oxford. While the libraries in this country 
 and the British Museum contain scattered tracts 
 dealing with the subject, the Bodleian collection is by 
 far the most complete. This collection consists of 
 pamphlets of every nature, from the most logical and 
 dignified of discussions to the most scurrilous of 
 street ballads. It forms, therefore, a most important 
 addition to a study of the controversies which the 
 play of Douglas produced. 
 
 In the bibliography will appear the names of the 
 more important authorities consulted in the prepara- 
 tion of this work. Among these, mention is made 
 of the monograph by Eugene Wolbe, Quellenstudien 
 zu John Home's Douglas. Here the attempt has been, 
 chiefly, to show Home's obligation to other authors, 
 in the matter of the language of his tragedy. While 
 
Preface v 
 
 the work cites, in places, passages from Home un- 
 questionably similar to those of other authors, it 
 would seem that Wolbe has, in many cases, unduly 
 stressed Home's indebtedness to earlier writers. 
 
 Information as to the stage-performances of Doug- 
 las has been obtained by consulting a large num- 
 ber of newspapers, magazines, stage-chronicles, biog- 
 raphies and letters of that time, and while no doubt 
 the accounts of many performances are lacking, a 
 sufficient number are cited, I trust, to illustrate the 
 great importance of this tragedy in the theatrical 
 world for almost a century. 
 
 I take pleasure in acknowledging my deep indebt- 
 edness to Professor George H. Nettleton of Yale 
 University for his oversight of this work, and for his 
 most helpful and kindly criticism of it. His aid has 
 been invaluable to me. I also acknowledge the gener- 
 ous assistance which I have at all times received from 
 the officials of the Yale University Library, the Bod- 
 leian Library, and the British Museum. 
 
 A. E. G. 
 New Haven, April, 1916. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. THE LIFE OF JOHN HOME - - - 1 
 
 II. STAGE-HISTORY OF DOUGLAS - - 36 
 
 (a) Garrick's Rejection of the Marni- 
 
 seript of Douglas - - - - 36 
 
 (b) Circumstances preceding the First 
 
 Edinburgh Performance - - 40 
 
 (c) First Edinburgh Performances - 42 
 
 (d) First London Performances - - 46 
 
 (e) Later History of Douglas - - - 50 
 
 III. SOURCES AND TEXTS OF DOUGLAS - 58 
 
 (a) Sources of Douglas ----- 58 
 
 (b) The First Editions of Douglas - - 62 
 
 (c) Later Editions of Douglas - - - 68 
 
 IV. THE CHURCH-CONTROVERSIES 
 
 OVER DOUGLAS - - - - 71 
 
 (a) The Edinburgh Notice - - - - 71 
 
 (b) The Glasgow Notice 74 
 
 (c) Letters to Special Presbyteries - - 76 
 
 (d) The Case against Carlyle - - - 78 
 
 (e) The Cases against the other Min- 
 
 isters, including John Home - - 83 
 
 V. THE WAR OF PAMPHLETS - - - - 87 
 
 (a) David Hume's Dedication and the 
 
 Pamphlets related to it - - - 87 
 
 (b) John Witherspoon's Pamphlet - - 96 
 
 (c) The Defense of the Theatre by 
 
 Adam Ferguson 99 
 
 (d) The Virulent Pamphlet - - - 102 
 
 (e) The Defense of Home in Lighter 
 
 Literature ------106 
 
viii Contents 
 
 (f ) The Lighter Literature Against Home 111 
 
 (g) The Burlesque Drama . . - - 117 
 
 VI. AGrS 127 
 
 VII. THE SIEGE OF AQUILEIA - - - 137 
 
 VIII. THE FATAL DISCOVERY - - - 143 
 
 IX. ALONZO 149 
 
 X. ALFRED 159 
 
 XI. THE HISTORY OF THE REBELLION 
 
 IN THE YEAR 17^.5 - - - - 168 
 
 XII. MISCELLANEOUS WORKS OF HOME 173 
 
 (a) Unpublished and Incomplete 
 
 Dramatic Works - - . - 173 
 
 (b) Non-Dramatic Works - - - 175 
 
 Xm. JOHN HOME AS A DRAMATIST - - 177 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 (a) Carlyle's Defense of Home - - 189 
 
 (b) A Contemporary Review of Douglas 200 
 
 (c) Bibliography ------ 206 
 
JOHN HOME 
 
 A STUDY OP 
 
 HIS LIFE AND WORKS 
 
THE LIFE OF JOHN HOME 
 
 Unlike Ireland, with her wealth of brilliant plays, 
 Scotland has made little contribution to British 
 drama. Hence all the more interest attaches to the 
 fact that, in the middle of the eighteenth century, 
 one of the most noteworthy figures in the dramatic 
 world was a Scotchman, and the play, by which he 
 made his reputation, of enough importance to be the 
 subject of a controversy so spirited that it stirred 
 literary and theological Scotland to its very depth, 
 and aroused no little interest in England. For not 
 only was there discussed in the theological world, with 
 the greatest intensity of feeling, the question as to 
 whether or not a clergyman was guilty of a grave 
 fault in writing a play, but the opinions of men of 
 literary distinction differed just as widely in regard 
 to the real merits of the drama in question. David 
 Hume, the historian, said of its author that he pos- 
 sessed the 'true theatric genius of Shakespear and 
 Otway, refined from the unhappy barbarism of the 
 one, and licentiousness of the other,'^ while Dr. 
 Johnson was in a rage that any one should consider 
 the drama as one worthy of notice, and declared that 
 there were not 'ten good lines in the whole play.'^ The 
 production which gave rise to such a war of words 
 was the tragedy of Douglas, and its author was the 
 Reverend John Home. 
 
 John Home was bom in September, 1722,° at Leith, 
 
 1 Dedication to the Four Dissertations, 1757. 
 
 " Boswell, Life of Johnson, Hill edition, 5. 360. 
 
 » Biographia Dramatica gives the year 1724 as the time of 
 Home's birth, and Ancrum, Roxburghshire, as the place; and 
 the New Statistical Account of Scotland, Vol. 2, Berwickshire, 
 p. 71, states that his early years were spent, and his education 
 received, at Westruther in that county. Mackenzie, however, as 
 a personal friend of Home, witih access to his private papers. 
 
2 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 the port of Edinburgh. The town had seen many a 
 stormy day during the struggles between England and 
 Scotland, but in John Home's time it was a quiet 
 place, noted chiefly for its commerce and manufac- 
 tures. His parents were Alexander Home, town 
 clerk of Leith, and Christian Hay, daughter of an 
 Edinburgh writer. John Home seems to have taken 
 the greatest pride in the fact that his ancestors on 
 his father's side were the same as those of the Earls 
 of Home. His chief regret was, in fact, that he was 
 not a closer connection of the noble branch of that 
 family. Scott, in an account of this writer, quotes 
 from memory two lines from an early poem in which 
 Home says: 
 
 Sprung from the ancient nobles of the land. 
 Upon the ladder's lowest round I stand.* 
 
 That he had a very genuine pride in his ancestry 
 is further indicated by the following passage from his 
 History of the Rebellion in the Year 17 AS'': 
 
 At Dunbar the Earl of Home joined Sir John Cope. He was 
 then an officer in the guards, and thought it his duty to offer 
 his service, when the king's troops were in the field. He came 
 to Dunbar attended by one or two servants. There were not 
 wanting persons upon this occasion to make their remarks, and 
 observe the mighty change which little more than a century 
 had produced in Scotland. 
 
 It was known to everybody, who knew anything of the 
 history of their country, that the ancestors of this noble Lord 
 (once the most powerful Peers in the south of Scotland) could, 
 at a short warning, have raised in their own territories, a body 
 
 has seemed the safest authority here. He, too, differs from the 
 Dictionary of National Biography, which gives the date of 
 Home's birth as September 21, while Mackenzie states that he 
 was born on September 22. 
 
 1 Qvjarterly Review for 1827, p. 169. 
 
 2 Edition of 1802, p. 105. 
 
Life 3 
 
 of men whose approach that Highland army, which had got 
 possession of the capital of Scotland (and was preparing to 
 fight the whole military force in that kingdom), would not 
 have dared to wait. 
 
 The dramatist always insisted upon spelling his 
 name Home, instead of Hume, although the two fam- 
 ilies were of common descent. Many a discussion on 
 this subject did he have with David Hume, to whom he 
 was only distantly related. It is said that one day, as 
 they were speaking of their ancestry, Hume proposed 
 to decide the matter once for all by casting lots. To 
 this Home replied : 'Nay, that is a most extraordinary 
 proposal indeed, Mr. Philosopher — for if you lose, you 
 take your own name, and if I lose, I take another 
 man's name.'^ Hume, who took the whole question 
 much less seriously, keenly enjoyed joking his friend 
 about it. Shortly before his death, as he was being 
 accompanied to Edinburgh by Home, after a fruitless 
 trip to Bath in search of health, he sent this note to 
 Dr. Hugh Blair, a mutual friend^' 'Mr. John Hume, 
 alias Home, alias The Home, alias the late Lord Con- 
 servator, alias the late minister of the gospel at 
 Athelstaneford, has calculated matters so as to arrive 
 infallibly with his friend [Hume himself] in St. Da- 
 vid's Street,^ on Wednesday evening. He has asked 
 several of Dr. Blair's friends to dine with him there 
 on Thursday, being the 4th of July, and begs the 
 favour of the Doctor to make one of the number.' 
 
 Another proof of Hume's propensity to joke over 
 this affair is shown in the bequest which, after his 
 death, it was found he had made to Home. It should 
 be explained that Home was very fond of claret. 
 
 1 Mackenzie, An Account of the Life and Writings of John 
 Home, Esq., p. 164. , 
 
 2 Burton, Life and Correspondence of David Hume 2. 606-7. 
 
 3 David Hume's home. 
 
4 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 while Hume was partial to port wine. This clause in 
 Hume's will reads^: 'I leave to my friend Mr. John 
 Home of Kilduff, ten dozen of my old claret, at his 
 choice; and one single bottle of that other liquor 
 called port. I also leave to him six dozen of port, pro- 
 vided that he attests under his hand, signed John 
 Hume, that he has himself alone finished that bottle 
 at two sittings. By this concession, he will at once 
 terminate the only two differences that ever arose 
 between us concerning temporal matters.' 
 
 This sensitiveness as to the spelling of his name 
 seems odd, for, according to Scott, 'the word is uni- 
 formly, in Scotland, pronounced Hume, and in ancient 
 documents we have seen it written Heume, Hewme, 
 and Hoome.' He adds that 'the principal branch of 
 the family have long used the present orthography of 
 Home."' 
 
 During his boyhood. Home attended the grammar 
 school at Leith. At the age of about fifteen years, he 
 entered the University of Edinburgh, where he began 
 those studies that would fit him for his chosen pro- 
 fession — ^that of a minister in the Presbyterian church 
 of Scotland. Here he formed the first of the series of 
 friendships, which came to include the most notable 
 names in the Scottish history of the time. William 
 Robertson, the historian, and Hugh Blair, Adam Fer- 
 guson, and Alexander Carlyle, prominent theologians 
 of their day, were among the most noteworthy of his 
 University associates. 
 
 Home seems to have been the most genial and pleas- 
 ant of companions, for Carlyle, who met him in 1737, 
 says, 'He was gay and talkative, and a great favour- 
 
 1 Mackenzie, An Account of the Life and Writings of John 
 Home, Esq., p. 163. 
 
 2 Quarterly Review for 18Z7, p. 170. 
 
Ldfe 5 
 
 ite with his companions.'^ In another part of his 
 Autobiography,^ he describes him more at length in 
 these words : 
 
 John Home was an admirable companion, and most accept- 
 able to all strangers who were not offended with the levities 
 of a young clergyman, for he was very handsome and had a 
 fine person, about 5 feet 10 Vz inches, and an agreeable catching 
 address; he had not much wit, and still less humour, but he 
 had so much sprightliness and vivacity, and such an expres- 
 sion of benevolence in his manner, and such an unceasing 
 flattery of those he liked (and he never kept company with 
 anybody else) — ^the kind commendations of a lover, not the 
 adulation of a sycophant — ^that he was truly irresistible, and 
 his entry to a company was like opening a window and 
 letting the sun into a dark room. 
 
 A more complete description of Home's character 
 and temperament is given by his friend Mackenzie, 
 and is of the greatest interest, since it, too, comes from 
 a man who had known the dramatist personally during 
 a good portion of his life. This account says : 
 
 His temper was of that warm susceptible kind which is 
 caught with the heroic and the tender, and which is more 
 fitted to delight in the world of sentiment than to succeed in 
 the bustle of ordinary life. This is a disposition of the mind 
 well suited to the poetical character, and, accordingly, all his 
 earliest companions agree that Mr. Home was from his child- 
 hood delighted with the lofty and heroic ideas which embody 
 themselves in the description or narrative of poetry. One of 
 them, nearly a coeval of Mr. Home's, our respected and vener- 
 able colleague. Dr. A. Ferguson, says, in a letter to me, that 
 Mr. Home's favourite model of a character, on which, indeed, 
 his own was formed, was that of young Nerval, in his tragedy 
 of Douglas, one endowed with chivalrous valour and romantic 
 generosity, eager for glory beyond every other object, and, in 
 the contemplation of future fame, entirely regardless of the 
 
 1 Autobiography of the Rev. Dr. Alexander Carlyle, p. 47. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 223. 
 
6 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 present objects of interest or ambition. It was upon this 
 ideal model of excellence that Mr. Home's own character was 
 formed, and the same glowing complexion of mind which gave 
 it birth, coloured the sentiments and descriptions of his ordin- 
 ary discourse; he had a very retentive memory, and was fond 
 of recalling the incidents of past times, and of dramatizing 
 his storites by introducing the names and characters of the 
 persons concerned in them. The same turn of mind threw a 
 certain degree of elevation into his language, and heightened 
 the narrative in which that language was employed; he spoke 
 of himself with a frankness which a man of that disposition 
 is apt to indulge, but with which he sometimes forgot that 
 his audience was not always inclined to sympathize, and thence 
 he was accused of more vanity than in truth belonged to his 
 character. The same warm colouring was employed in the 
 delineation of his friends, to whom, in his estimation, he 
 assigned a rank which others did not always allow. So far 
 did he carry this propensity, that, as Dr. Robertson used 
 jokingly to say, he invested them with a sort of supernatural 
 privilege above the ordinary humiliating circumstances of mor- 
 tality. 'He never (said the Doctor) would allow that a friend 
 was sick till he heard of his death.' To the same source 
 might be traced the warm eulogium which he was accustomed 
 to bestow on them. 'He delighted in bestowing as well as in 
 receiving what is generally termed flattery, (says another of 
 his intimates,) but with him it had all the openness and 
 warmth of truth. He flattered all of us from whom his 
 flattery could gain no favour, fully as much, or, indeed, more 
 willingly, than he did those men of the first consequence and 
 rank with whom the circumstances of his future life asso- 
 ciated him, and he received any praise from us with the same 
 genuine feelings of friendship and attachment.' There was 
 no false coinage in this currency which he used in his friendly 
 intercourse; whether given or received, it had with him the 
 stamp of perfect candour and sincerity.^ 
 
 Carlyle was associated with Home during most of 
 the ten years that the latter spent at Edinburgh in 
 his academic and theological studies. In his Aviohi- 
 ography, the light that Carlyle throws on life in those 
 days shows that it was not all work for the young 
 
 1 Mackenzie, Life of Home, pp. 6-8. 
 
Ufe 7 
 
 theological students. Living, however, was cheap, 
 fortunately for such students as Carlyle and Home, 
 who considered tutoring beneath them, and, therefore, 
 even with their convivial evenings at the taverns, 
 their expenses could not have been exceedingly heavy. 
 In writing of his life in Edinburgh in 1742 Carlyle 
 says: 
 
 I returned to Edinburgh in March, and attended the Divin- 
 ity Hall for a few weeks. Living at Edinburgh continued still 
 to be wonderfully cheap, as there were ordinaries for young 
 gentlemen, at fourpence a-head for a very good dinner of 
 broth and beef, and a roast and potatoes every day, with fish 
 three or four times a-week, and all the small-beer that was 
 called for till the cloth was removed. In the summer I 
 passed some time in East Lothian, where by accident at that 
 period there were no less than a dozen young scholars, preach- 
 ers, and students in divinity, who generally met there on the 
 presbytery day. For two or three times we dined with the 
 presbytery by invitation; but finding that we were not very 
 welcome guests, and that whatever number there were in 
 company they never allowed them more than two bottles of small 
 Lisbon wine, we bespoke a dinner for ourselves in another 
 tavern; and when the days were short, generally stayed all 
 night. By this time even the second tavern in Haddington 
 (where the presbjrtery dined, having quarrelled with the first) 
 had knives and forks for their table. But ten or twelve 
 years before that time, my father used to carry a shagreen 
 case, with a knife and fork and spoon, as they perhaps do 
 still on many parts of the Continent. When I attended, in 
 1742 and 1743, they had still but one glass on the table, which 
 went round with the bottle.^ 
 
 The young students of Home's set were undoubtedly 
 much more liberal and advanced in their opinions than 
 those of the previous generation. Proof of this was, 
 of course, given later in the writing of a play by a 
 minister of the gospel. For this liberality of thought 
 and speech, Carlyle gives a very amusing explanation. 
 
 1 Carlyle, Autobiography, pp. 63-4. 
 
S John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 He had been speaking of one of the professors of 
 theology, who 'though said to be learned, was dull 
 and tedious in his lectures, insomuch that at the end 
 of seven years he had only lectured half through 
 Pictet's Compend of Theology.' He goes on to say: 
 
 There was one advantage attending the lectures of a dull 
 professor — ^viz., that he could form no school, and the students 
 were left entirely to themselves, and naturally formed opinions 
 far more liberal from those they got from the Professor. 
 This was the answer I gave to Patrick Lord Elibank, one of 
 the most learned and ingenious noblemen of his time, when he 
 asked me one day, many years afterwards, what could be the 
 reason that the young clergymen of that period so far sur- 
 passed their predecessors of his early days in useful accom- 
 plishments and liberality of mind — ^viz., that the Professor of 
 Theology was dull, and Dutch, and prolix. His Lordship said 
 he perfectly understood me, and that this entirely accounted 
 for the change.i 
 
 In the spring of 1745, Home was licensed by the 
 Presbytery of Edinburgh to preach the gospel. That 
 same year there broke out the Rebellion of 1745, a 
 history of which he wrote and published almost sixty 
 years later. This was the rebellion in which Charles, 
 the Young Pretender of the House of Stuart, with a 
 Highland army, made a disastrous attempt to regain 
 for his family the throne from which his ancestor, over 
 fifty years before, had been driven. He took the 
 towTi of Edinburgh, defeated several royal armies, and 
 was marching toward London when he was decisively 
 beaten at the battle of Culloden. His army scattered, 
 and he escaped to France.^ The nature of this strug- 
 gle was suited to the patriotic turn of Home's mind, 
 and he, with several of his University friends, enlisted 
 
 1 Carlyle, Autobiography, pp. 56-7. 
 
 2 For a good brief account of the Rebellion, see Smyth, Lec- 
 tures on Modem History 2. 277 ff. 
 
Life 9 
 
 on the side of the Whigs or government party, in what 
 was called the first or college company. 
 
 The Edinburgh volunteers to which Home belonged 
 were not, apparently, of the most valiant temper, most 
 of them being absolutely unused to the" trade of arms. 
 A story is told of one of the company, who made for 
 himself a cuirass of two quires of foolscap paper, for 
 he was a writing-master by trade, and, in anticipation 
 of the worst, wrote on it in a fine, bold hand, 'This 
 is the body of Johnnie Maxwell, pray give it Christian 
 burial.' With this spirit in their ranks, it is not a 
 surprise to learn that only a feeble resistance was 
 offered to the Highlanders. Indeed, upon their 
 approach, most of the volunteers very promptly gave 
 up their arms, and Edinburgh was in possession of 
 the rebels. A few, however, of those who had armed 
 to resist them, among them John Home, were unwill- 
 ing that their military career should end so disas- 
 trously, and determined to join Sir John Cope, who 
 had just landed at Dunbar. Home, besides, in 
 order that he might have some welcome intelligence 
 to carry to this commander, succeeded in visiting the 
 camp of Prince Charlie's army, and was able to 
 report to Sir John very accurately as to its size and 
 equipment. 
 
 Home is strongly suspected of being of the party of 
 volunteers who slept all through the so-called battle 
 of Prestonpans, in which, after a few discharges of 
 cannon, the King's army, under this same Sir John, 
 betook itself to most ignominious flight. He then 
 enlisted in Glasgow as a lieutenant under General 
 Hawley, but the battle of Falkirk proved as disas- 
 trous for his cause as had that of Prestonpans, and in 
 the general retreat Home, with several of his friends, 
 was captured. They were confined in the old castle of 
 Doune, in a room about seventy feet from the ground. 
 Home and his friends, none the less, decided to at- 
 tempt an escape, and succeeded in this by making their 
 
10 John Home: A Stvdy of His Life and Works 
 
 blankets into ropes, and thus descending to the ground. 
 This event he describes in these words : 
 
 When everything was adjusted they went up to the battle- 
 ments, fastened the rope, and about one o'clock in the morning 
 began to descend. The two officers, with Robert Douglas, and 
 one of the men taken up as spies, got down very well, but the 
 fifth man, one of the spies, who was very tall and big, coming 
 down in a hurry, the rope brake with him just as his feet 
 touched the ground. The Lieutenant [Home himself] stand- 
 ing by the wall of the castle, called to the volunteer, whose 
 turn it was to come down next, not to attempt it; for that 
 twenty or thirty feet were broken off from the rope. Not- 
 withstanding this warning, which he heard distinctly, he put 
 himself upon the rope, and coming down as far as it lasted, let 
 go his hold: his friend Douglas and the Lieutenant (who 
 were both of them above the middle size) as soon as they saw 
 him upon the rope (for it was moonlight) put themselves under 
 him, to break his fall, which in part they did; but falling 
 from so great a height, he brought them both to the ground, 
 dislocated one of his ankles, and broke several of his ribs. In 
 this extremity the Lieutenant raised him from the ground, and 
 taking him upon his back, for he was slender and not very tall, 
 carried him toward the road which led to Alloa. When the 
 Lieutenant was not able to go any farther with his burthen, 
 other two of the company holding each of them one of Mr. 
 Barrow's^ arms, helped him to hop along upon one leg. In 
 this manner they went on very slowly a mile or so; but 
 thinking that, at the rate they proceeded, they would certainly 
 be overtaken, they resolved to call at the first house they 
 should come to. When they came to a house, they found a 
 friend, for the landlord, who rented a small farm was a Whig, 
 and as soon as he knew who they were, ordered one of his sons 
 to bring a horse from the stable, take the lame gentleman 
 behind him, and go as far as his assistance was necessary. 
 Thus equipped, they went on by Alloa to Tullyallan, a village 
 near the sea, where they hired a boat to carry them off to 
 the Vulture sloop of war, which was lying at anchor in the 
 
 1 The Thomas Barrow of this account is the 'cordial youth' 
 mentioned in Collins' ode. On the Popular Superstitions of the 
 Highlands. He introduced Home to Collins, who, delighted 
 with the romantic temperament of the young minister, dedi- 
 cated that poem to him. 
 
Life 11 
 
 Firth of Forth. Captain Falconer of the Vulture received them 
 very kindly, and gave them his barge to carry them to 
 Queensferry.i 
 
 With these experiences, Home's military career 
 ended, and he again took up studies and work in 
 keeping with the profession which he had chosen. 
 
 In 1746 he was ordained minister at AthelstanCf- 
 ford, in East Lothian, a living to which he was pre- 
 sented by Mr, Kinloch, afterwards Sir David Kinloch 
 of Gilmerton. Home was successor to the Reverend 
 Robert Blair, whose poem, The Grave, had been very 
 popular in its day. Although Home never lived in 
 the manse here, but kept his lodgings in the village, 
 and although it is stated that he was once reprimanded 
 by his parish for being absent from his clerical 
 duties for some months without permission,^ he seems, 
 nevertheless, to have made a very good pastor, and to 
 have been much beloved by his people. When, eventu- 
 ally, it became necessary for him to resign his 
 clerical duties, because of his activities in the dramatic 
 field, there was only grief and regret among his par- 
 ishioners because of his departure. A proof of their 
 devotion to him was definitely shown when, some 
 years later, he returned to the neighborhood to live 
 among them again. While his house was building, 
 these same members of his former parish insisted on 
 carrying the stones for it, and in helping in its 
 erection. At the same time, they refused to take any 
 pay whatever for their work,' 
 
 Home never lacked devoted friends. Comparatively 
 near Edinburgh as he was, he found himself received 
 into the most distinguished literary, theological, and 
 social circles of eighteenth-century Scotland. Among 
 
 1 Home, History of the Rebellion, 1802 edition, pp. 190-91. 
 
 2 New Statistical Account of Scotland 2. 47. 
 s Mackenzie, Life of Home, p. 34. 
 
12 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 those with whom he was most intimate at this time 
 were William Robertson, Hugh Blair, Adam Ferguson, 
 David Hume, Lord Elibank, Sir Gilbert Elliot, and 
 Mr. Wedderbum, afterwards Lord Loughborough. Of 
 these none proved a truer or more faithful friend than 
 David Hume. Differences in religious belief did not 
 mar their regard for each other. Hume usually bore 
 good-naturedly his friends' jests at his theological 
 views, but once, according to the story, he was unusu- 
 ally ruffled by a joke of this nature on the part of 
 John Home. Mackenzie tells it in these words : 
 
 The clerk of an eminent banker in Edinburgh, a young man 
 of irreproachable conduct, and much in the confidence of his 
 master, eloped with a considerable sum with which he had 
 been entrusted. The circumstance was mentioned at a dinner 
 where the two Humes, the historian and the poet, and several 
 of their usual friendly circle, were present. David Hume spoke 
 of it as a kind of moral problem, and wondered what could 
 induce a man of such character and habits as this clerk was 
 said to possess, thus to incur, for an inconsiderable sum, the 
 guilt and infamy of such a transaction. 'I can easily account 
 for it,' said his friend John Home, 'from the nature of his 
 studies, and the kind of books which he was in the habit of 
 reading.' 'What were they?' said the philosopher. 'Boston's 
 Fourfold State,' rejoined the poet, 'and Hume's Essays.'i 
 
 Home was a keen student of classical literature, and 
 especially fond of Plutarch. From the reading of this 
 author he first conceived his idea of his tragedy, Agis, 
 his first completed dramatic production. The manu- 
 script was probably completed some time during the 
 year 1747. Encouraged by his friends to believe that 
 the play might be acceptable to Garrick, then at the 
 height of his fame as actor and manager, Home 
 started for London in the winter of 1749. Garrick, 
 however, who had doubtless never heard of this 
 obscure Scotch clergyman, refused to produce the play. 
 
 1 Mackenzie, Life of Home, p. 22. 
 
Life 13 
 
 Home was much mortified over its rejection, and, in 
 one of his moody walks about London, wrote these 
 lines on the tomb of Shakespeare in Westminster 
 Abbey : 
 
 Image of Shakespeare! To this place I come 
 To ease my bursting bosom at thy tomb; 
 For neither Greek nor Roman poet fired 
 My fancy first, thee chiefly I admired; 
 And day and night revolving still thy page, 
 I hoped, like thee, to shake the British stage; 
 But cold neglect is now my only mead. 
 And heavy falls it on so proud a head. 
 If powers above now listen to thy Ijrre, 
 Charm them to grant, indulgent, my desire; 
 Let petrefaction stop this falling tear. 
 And fix my form for ever marble here.i 
 
 Home's journey to London at this time was not, 
 however, altogether fruitless, for here he met the 
 novelist Smollett, and the praise which he, with some 
 of Home's other friends, gave the play, did much to 
 soothe the feelings of a dramatist who was peculiarly 
 sensitive to criticism. At this time, also, he first be- 
 came acquainted with William Collins, who was much 
 attracted by his genial and poetical nature. 
 
 Home's unsuccessful trip to London did not make 
 him despair of success in the writing of an acting 
 drama, nor did he give up hope of having Agis 
 brought out at some future time, for David Hume, 
 writing to a friend in the early part of 1751, says: 
 'A namesake of mine has wrote a Tragedy, which he 
 expects to come on this winter. I have not seen it, 
 but some people commend it much. 'Tis very likely 
 to meet with success, and not to deserve it, for the 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 35. Carlyle, in his Autobiography, pp. 304-5, 
 speaks of these verses as having been written after the rejec- 
 tion of Douglas. 
 
14 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 author tells me, he is a great admirer of Shakspere 
 and never read Racine.'^ This tragedy was almost 
 certainly Agis, as Douglas was not completed until 
 almost four years later. Many a year, however, was 
 yet to pass before Home was to succeed in getting 
 this first play of his on the boards. 
 
 It was in 1750, apparently, that he first conceived 
 the idea of Douglas. Critics have tried to build up 
 the theory of Home's great indebtedness for his plot 
 to Voltaire's Merope. Aaron Hill's translation of this 
 play was running at Drury Lane Theatre in 1749, the 
 year in which Home first visited London.^ His friend, 
 Carlyle, however, states plainly that he owed his 
 idea solely to the old ballad, Gil Morrice, which he 
 heard sung one evening in the manse at Athelstane- 
 ford.' In any case, he began the composition of 
 Douglas soon after this, and for almost five years was 
 engaged upon it, since he was, as Carlyle says, 'but an 
 idle composer.' 
 
 During the progress of this work, there was organ- 
 ized in 1754 in Edinburgh the Select Society, which 
 had for its membership the most distinguished Scotch- 
 men of the time. It was intended partly for philo- 
 sophical inquiry, and partly for the improvement of 
 the members in public speaking, and was instituted by 
 Allan Ramsay, the painter.* Its membership included 
 all those friends of Home previously mentioned." 
 
 Home, profiting by the adverse criticism which his 
 Agis had received in some quarters,^ submitted his 
 
 1 Burton, Life of Hume 1. 316. 
 
 2 First performance, April 15, 1749. (Genest, Some Aecomnt 
 of the English Stage 4. 269) . ^ Carlyle, Autobiography, p. 233. 
 
 * Stewart, Life of Robertson, pp. 14-15. 
 
 " See Appendix, Note A, Life of Robertson, for the list of 
 members. For additions to list, see Carlyle, Autobiography, 
 p. 297. 
 
 8 For a further account of this see Mackenzie, Life of Home, 
 pp. 78 S. 
 
Life 15 
 
 play during its composition to the judgment of many 
 of these friends, and was indebted especially to Sir 
 Gilbert Elliot for help and criticism.'^ His debt to 
 there advisers, however, has perhaps been exag- 
 gerated. Against the judgment of Foote, the actor, 
 who always declared that Home was not the sole 
 author of Douglas,^ we have the statement of Mac- 
 kenzie, to whom the original manuscripts had been 
 given by one of Home's relatives. Mackenzie states 
 that the best passage of the whole play, the scene 
 between Lady Randolph and Old Norval, had not at 
 any time been radically changed from the original 
 draft.5 
 
 It was fortunate for Home that he had devoted 
 friends. He wrote such an execrable hand that it was 
 absolutely necessary for his manuscript to be copied, 
 before it could possibly be submitted to his critics with 
 any hope of success. This Carlyle undertook to do, 
 and records that he 'copied Douglas several times 
 over for him.'* 
 
 Some time during 1754 the play was finished. David 
 Hume writes on the 9th of October of that year: 'I 
 have seen John Hume's new unbaptized play, and it 
 is a very fine thing. He now discovers a great genius 
 for the theatre. '= There is no reason to doubt that it 
 is the play of Douglas to which Hume refers. On the 
 15th of the same month we have a further account 
 by Hume, and here appears his extraordinary estimate 
 of Shakespeare, which is found again in the dedication 
 of his Four Dissertations. This portion of the letter 
 reads : 
 
 As you are a lover of letters, I shall inform you of a piece 
 
 1 Carlyle, Autobiography, pp. 234, 299. 
 
 2 W. Cooke, Memoirs of Samuel Foote, Esq. 3. 71. 
 
 3 Mackenzie, Life of Home, p. 93. 
 * Carlyle, Autobiography, p. 234. 
 
 5 Burton, Life of Hume 1. 411. 
 
16 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 of news, which will be agreeable to you: We may hope to see 
 good tragedies in the English language. A young man called 
 Hume, a clergyman of this country, discovers a very fine genius 
 for that species of composition. Some years ago he wrote a 
 tragedy called Agis, which some of the best judges, such as the 
 Duke of Argyle, Sir George Littleton, Mr. Pitt, very much 
 approved of. I own, though I could perceive fine strokes in that 
 tragedy, I never could in general bring myself to like it: the 
 author, I thought, had corrupted his taste by the imitation of 
 Shakspere, whom he ought only to have admired. But the 
 same author has composed a new tragedy on a subject of 
 invention; and here he appears a true disciple of Sophocles 
 and Racine. I hope in time he will vindicate the English stage 
 from the reproach of barbarism.^ 
 
 In the early part of 1755, then, this new play was 
 declared ready to be presented to Garrick, and Home 
 prepared to set off for London. Most elaborate 
 preparations were made for the journey. Carlyle 
 says: 
 
 Were I to relate all the circumstances, serious and ludicrous, 
 which attended the outset of this journey, I am persuaded they 
 would not be exceeded by any novelist who has wrote since the 
 days of the inimitable Don Quixote.^ 
 
 The same eye-witness goes on to give a most amus- 
 ing account of the journey. Home started out on a 
 snowy morning in February, accompanie,d by several 
 of his ministerial friends. They had gone only a little 
 way when they discovered that 
 
 our bard had no mode of carrying his precious treasure, which 
 we thought enough of, but hardly foresaw that it was to be 
 pronounced a perfect tragedy by the best of judges; for when 
 David Hume gave it that praise, he spoke only the sentiment 
 of the whole republic of belles lettres. The tragedy in one 
 pocket of his great coat, and his clean shirt and night cap 
 in the other, though they balanced each other, was thought 
 
 1 Ibid, p. 392. 
 
 2 Autobiography, p. 301. 
 
Life 17 
 
 an unsafe mode of conveyance; and our friend — ^who, like most 
 of his brother poets, was unapt to foresee difficulties and pro- 
 vide against them — ^had neglected to buy a pair of leather bags 
 as he passed through Haddington.^ 
 
 They had, therefore, to turn aside from their course 
 and borrow a suitable receptacle for the play. 
 WTien at length they were prepared to continue on 
 their way, they were delayed by a conference between 
 the lender, James Landreth, and one of the escort, a 
 minister named Cupples,^ who on this occasion had 
 started out with but four shillings, and was trjdng to 
 borrow a half guinea for the further expense of the 
 journey. But as Mr. Landreth, it is recorded, 'knew 
 that Cupples never paid anything,' there was some 
 discussion over the transaction. However, this diflS- 
 culty was finally overcome, and the party continued 
 on their way to Woolerhaughhead, where they were 
 to spend the night. After an 'indifferent dinner,' 
 they retired for the night, but even that time of 
 quiet was not undisturbed, for two of the party in a 
 room adjoining the one which Home and Carlyle 
 occupied, quarreled to the point of a physical en- 
 counter, and one pushed the other out of bed. How- 
 ever, when this had been settled by the more peace- 
 ably-minded John and Alexander, the remainder of 
 the night seems to have passed quietly enough. 
 
 The next morning most of the company returned to 
 their homes, only Carlyle and Cupples continuing on 
 the way with the poet. They traveled with him for 
 another two days of the four hundred mile journey, 
 all of which was taken on horseback. They, too, then 
 retraced their way to Berwickshire, with many mis- 
 adventures on the road. 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 301-2. 
 
 2 This was the same minister who later appeared in the 
 chuTch-trials over the tragedy. 
 
18 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Meanwhile, Home proceeded to London, and ar- 
 rived there without mischance. To his huge mortifi- 
 cation, however, Garrick, after reading his much 
 lauded play, 'returned it with an opinion that it was 
 totally unfit for the stage. '^ John Home was com- 
 pelled to return over his long road again, and report 
 his journey as fruitless. Home's Scottish friends 
 were even more indignant than he at this refusal to 
 accept their opinion, though we may imagine that 
 David Hume, at least, was not greatly surprised at 
 this action on the part of a man who could delight 
 in Shakespearean parts. 
 
 Many discussions have been held over the cause of 
 Garrick's refusal of this play. His detractors have 
 insisted that it was because he, at forty years of age, 
 felt that he was scarcely fitted to shine in the part of 
 a youth of eighteen, and that consequently he would 
 be much surpassed by Mrs. Gibber, who was playing 
 the leading part at Drury Lane at that time, in the 
 role of Lady Randolph. His admirers, on the other 
 hand, assert as strongly that the play, after its repre- 
 sentation in Edinburgh, and before its printing, was 
 radically changed, and that, as Garrick saw it, the 
 play was really unfitted for production. These same 
 defenders of Garrick go so far as to declare that its 
 success at Edinburgh was due almost entirely to the 
 advertising it had received, and to Home's social 
 standing.^ 
 
 However that may be, the Scotch literati refused 
 absolutely to accept this fiat, and at the 'Diversorium' 
 
 1 Carlyle, Autobiography, p. 304; Mackenzie, Life of Home, 
 p. 37. Garrick's letter, in which he states his objections to 
 the play, will be found in the chapter, 'Stage History of Doug- 
 las.' 
 
 2 For opinions concerning this, see Fitzgerald, Life of Gar- 
 rick, pp. 188-9; Doran, Annak of the English Stage 2. 196-7; 
 Davies, Life of Garrick 1. 221-3. 
 
Life 19 
 
 where the young clergymen had ordered the landlord 
 to lay in twelve dozen of claret, in preparation for the 
 meeting of the General Assembly of that year, they 
 discussed ways and means of getting the play before 
 the public, in spite of Garrick. To these assemblages 
 David Hume, Lord Elibank, and Sir Gilbert Elliot 
 joined themselves, and their advice and aid were of 
 the greatest value to the young clergymen, many of 
 whom, no doubt, had never seen the inside of a 
 playhouse. 
 
 After numerous consultations and discussions, it 
 was decided to have the play put on in Edinburgh. 
 As Home had influential friends, there was little 
 difliculty in accomplishing this. The plans for the 
 presentation of the play were completed, therefore, 
 and it was given for the first time on December 14th, 
 1756, in the Canongate Theatre at Edinburgh, The 
 result was that John Home, an obscure Scotch cler- 
 gyman, awoke to find himself famous. 
 
 Carlyle speaks in these terms of its success: 
 
 The play had unbounded success for a great many nights in 
 Edinburgh, and was attended by all the literati and most of the 
 judges, who, except one or two, had not been in use to attend 
 the theatre. The town in general was in an uproar of exulta- 
 tion that a Scotchman had written a tragedy of the first rate, 
 and that its merit was first submitted to their judgment.i 
 
 John Jackson, wlio was one of the prominent man- 
 agers and actors of the day, and whose favorite part 
 was that of Young Norval, says, in his History of the 
 Scottish Stage: 
 
 The play, it must be observed, with all its imperfections on 
 its head, and the opposition formed against it, which did not 
 perhaps operate much in its disfavour, was received by all 
 ranks of people with the strongest marks of applause, and re- 
 
 1 Autobiography, pp. 311-12. 
 
20 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 peatedly performed several succeeding nights; its run, to make 
 use of a stage phrase, being unprecedented in that era; and 
 while a relish for theatrical entertainments shall pervade the 
 taste of a British audience, the tragedy of Dov^las shall remain 
 a standing dish at the dramatic feast.^ 
 
 With these records at hand, there is no room for 
 doubt that the play was, as its friends claimed for 
 it, a great success. However, when its run is spoken 
 of as being unprecedented, it by no means signifies 
 that it was on the boards as long a time continuously 
 as the popular London productions. It seems not to 
 have run, at most, more than seven nights at this 
 time. It unquestionably was played on the 14th, 16th, 
 17th, 18th, and 22d of December, and probably sev- 
 eral times besides. Carlyle's friendship proved of 
 value even in a run of this length. His material 
 assistance is described in these words : 
 
 Digges [the chief actor in Douglasi rode out one forenoon to 
 me, saying that he had come by Mr. Home's desire to inform 
 me that all the town had seen the play, and that it would run 
 no longer, unless some contrivance was fallen upon to make 
 the lower order of tradesmen and apprentices come to the 
 playhouse. After hearing several ways of raising the curiosity 
 of the lower orders, I desired him to take a walk for half an 
 hour, and look at the view from Inveresk churchyard, which 
 he did; and, in the mean time, I drew up what I entitled 'A 
 full and true History of the Bloody Tragedy of Douglas, as it 
 is now to be seen acting in the Theatre at the Canongate.' 
 This was cried about the streets next day, and filled the house 
 for two nights more.^ 
 
 Encouraged by this success in Edinburgh, Home 
 was emboldened to offer once again his play to a 
 London manager, and this time he was successful. 
 Rich, manager of Covent Garden Theatre, produced 
 it in March, 1757. While the tragedy, with Peg 
 
 1 Jackson, History of the Scottish Stage, p. 330. 
 
 2 Carlyle, Autobiography, pp. 313-14. 
 
Ufe 21 
 
 Woffington as Lady Randolph, was not perhaps so 
 successful as it was in later years with Mrs. Craw- 
 ford and Mrs. Siddons in the same role, unquestion- 
 ably it was well received at the time. 
 
 The Edinburgh Evening Courant for March 26th 
 prints a letter written from London, March 22d, from 
 which the following is an extract: 
 
 We have been entertained last Week with the new Tragedy 
 of Douglas. It brought greater Crowds to Covent Garden 
 Theatre than have been seen there for many Years; and has 
 had universal Applause both from People who value Perform- 
 ances of this Nature, on Account of their moral Tendency; and 
 from People who are qualified to judge of the Beauty of 
 Poetical Composition. The Royal Family have honoured it with 
 their Presence; and I am informed his R. Highness the Duke 
 on Thursday Night, which was the second Time he saw it, sent 
 by his Master of Horse, during the Representation, a handsome 
 Present to the Author, as a Mark of his Approbation and Pro- 
 tection. We are surprised to hear that it met with Opposition 
 in your Country, they say the Author has been very severely 
 treated; which has indeed interested People here the more 
 warmly in his Behalf. The Play is published, but the further 
 acting of it must be delayed till the Benefits are over, which 
 will be about the Middle of April. 
 
 While Douglas was thus winning for itself favor in 
 London, all Scotland was ringing with the clash of 
 arms that ensued after its Edinburgh presentation. 
 The church of Scotland was stirred to its foundation 
 over it; action was taken against those ministers who 
 had appeared, during its run, at the theatre, and for 
 many months the friends and enemies of Home were 
 busy contributing to the battle of pamphlets that 
 ensued.^ Home took little part in the discussion, and 
 remained in London during the greater part of the 
 year 1757 from January until June, in which month 
 he resigned his pastorate at Athelstaneford, without 
 
 1 For a full account of these discussions, see Chapters IV 
 and V. 
 
22 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 action having been taken against him by the church.^ 
 At this time began his intimacy with Lord Bute, 
 whom he had met through the latter's uncle, the Duke 
 of Argyle, and to whose friendship and interest it 
 was doubtless owing, in part at least, that Garrick 
 showed such kindness for the later plays of Home, all 
 so inferior to his Douglas. Bute, a Scotch earl, was 
 then Prime Minister of England, and he was too 
 influential in affairs social as well as political for so 
 astute a manager as Garrick to ignore his wishes. 
 To his house Home came as private secretary, and 
 through his influence became tutor to the Prince of 
 Wales, afterward George IH. Lord Bute seems to 
 have been a very exacting patron, and to have de- 
 manded the greatest part of Home's time and atten- 
 tion. It was the common belief that his regard for the 
 author was based almost entirely upon the latter's 
 genial disposition and his inclination toward flattery. 
 Carlyle says : 
 
 Besides ambition and pride to a high degree, Lord Bute had 
 an insatiable vanity, which nothing could allay but Home's 
 incessant flattery, which being ardent and sincere, and blind 
 and incessant, like that of a passionate lover, pleased the 
 jealous and supercilious mind of the Thane. He knew John to 
 be a man of honour and his friend, and though his discern- 
 ment pointed out the excess of John's praises, yet his ardour 
 and sincerity made it all take place on a temper and character 
 made accessible by vanity.^ 
 
 The following letter from Lord Bute to John Home 
 shows, however, the genuine esteem and confidence 
 with which that nobleman regarded his secretary. 
 
 iCarlyle, in his account of this in Chap. VIII of the 
 Autobiography, speaks very bitterly of what he feels was the 
 injustice in the prosecutions. Home, the author of the play, 
 had no public action taken against him, while Carlyle's trial 
 lasted for months. 
 
 2 Autobiography, p. 360. 
 
Life 23 
 
 The open, generous nature of Home seemed instinc- 
 tively to invite confidence, affection, and cordiality. 
 Here is shown, then, little of the coldness and haughti- 
 ness of which his lordship was so often accused. The 
 letter is one of several printed by Mackenzie* from 
 the correspondence of the two men^ : 
 
 Dear Home, 
 
 As I may probably continue the next winter abroad, I send 
 this letter by George Johnson, to be delivered into your own 
 hand. I assure you I am sorry to go without you; and yet, for 
 the reason I mentioned in my. last, you will' see with me, the 
 necessity of it; besides, if you are here next winter, I know 
 your warm heart so well, that I am certain you will not suffer 
 me to be calumniated and abused in my absence, without taking 
 proper methods of answering these infamous wretches, where 
 it is necessary or expedient; and I shall also expect to know 
 the state of things from you, with more freedom than from 
 others; in short, if you are here, I know I have a warm and 
 zealous friend in this pandemonium, who will not leave me 
 in ignorance of anything material that comes to his knowledge. 
 When once I know your motions and your time, I will apprize 
 you how to direct to me, as I shall leave my name behind me, 
 for these vipers to spread their venom on; for, believe me, 
 whatever advantage to my health this odious journey may be 
 of, I know too well the turn of faction to suppose my absence 
 is to diminish the violence I have for so many years experi- 
 enced — a violence and abuse that no fear has made me too 
 sensible to; and perhaps the more, that I may think I merit 
 a distinguished treatment, of a very opposite nature, from a 
 people I have served at the risk of my head. I have tried 
 philosophy in vain, my dear Home. I cannot acquire callosity; 
 and were it not for something still nearer me — still more 
 deeply interesting — I would prefer common necessaries in Bute, 
 France, Italy, nay, Holland, to £50,000 a-year, within the 
 atmosphere of this vile place. But see it I must; so fate 
 decrees; and I am doomed, therefore, to experience, to my last 
 minute, all the consequences. Adieu, dear Home, and depend 
 upon it, if I live to return, you will have restored to you, in 
 my presence, a very cordial and affectionate friend, 
 
 Bute. 
 
 London, July 27th, 1768. 
 
 1 Pp. 148-9. 
 
24 John Home: A Stvdy of His Life and Works 
 
 As has been said, Lord Bute's patronage was valu- 
 able to Home in his dramatic endeavors, for in 1758 
 Garrick consented to put on Agis, which he had pre- 
 viously refused. He himself played the leading part. 
 The following note written to Home by Garrick after 
 the first performance suggests that the actor had 
 great hopes for the tragedy: 
 
 My dear Pb:iend, 
 
 Joy, joy, joy to you! 
 My anxiety yesterday gave me a small touch of the gravel, 
 which, with a purging, weakened me prodigiously; but our suc- 
 cess has stopped the one and cured the other. I am very 
 happy, because I think you are so. The Ode, as I foretold, is 
 certainly too long. There were other little mistakes, but all 
 shall be set right tomorrow. Ever most affectionately. 
 
 My Genius, 
 
 D. Garrick. 
 Pray, let me see you at twelve tomorrow.i 
 
 One cannot but suspect, however, that there is here 
 more or less of that flattery to which Home himself 
 was addicted. In any case, the play after a run of 
 ordinary length vanished from the stage. Gray 
 expresses his opinion of it in these words: 
 
 I cry to think that it should be by the Author of Douglas: 
 Why, it is all modem Greek; the story is an antique statue, 
 painted white and red, frized and dressed in negligee made by 
 a Yorkshire mantua-maker.^ 
 
 Characteristic of the common opinion of Garrick's 
 sudden zeal for this Scotch clergyman, is this state- 
 ment' : 
 
 I had frequent opportunities of being in company with this 
 celebrated actor, of whom Mr. Home was now in full pos- 
 session, though he had rejected his tragedy of Douglas as 
 
 1 Mackenzie, p. 57. 
 
 2 Gray's Letters, Tovey edition, 2. 25. 
 
 3 Carlyle, pp. 341 ff. 
 
Life 25 
 
 totally unfit for the stage. I am afraid it was not his own 
 more mature judgment that brought him round, but his 
 idolatry to the rising sun, for he observed what a hold Home 
 had got of Lord Bute, and, by his means, of the Prince of 
 Wales. As Garrick's vanity and interestedness had made him 
 digest the mortification of seeing Douglas already become the 
 most popular play on the stage, so John Home's facility, and 
 the hopes of getting him to play in his future tragedies, made 
 him forgive Garrick's former want of taste and judgment, 
 and they were now become the greatest friends in the world. 
 
 The same author then goes on to tell of a dinner 
 which Garrick gave for Home and his friends. One 
 of the objects of this was presumably to teach the 
 actor the game of golf, but outside of the relation of 
 a mighty stroke by Carlyle, by which he drove the ball 
 down into the Thames, the chronicle is inconclusive. 
 
 In 1760 Home's play, The Siege of Aquileia, was 
 produced, Garrick and Mrs. Gibber again playing the 
 leading roles. Although fairly well received, it had 
 none of the signal success which Douglas continued to 
 enjoy, and after a run of eleven nights, its London 
 performances, like those of Agis, came to an end. 
 
 This same year there were published in a single 
 volume the three tragedies of Home so far produced, 
 with a dedication to the Prince of Wales, under whom 
 he had received a pension of £100, and who, succeed- 
 ing that year to the Crown, increased the amount to 
 £300 a year, as an expression of his cordial feeling 
 for the dramatist. 
 
 In 1760, also, Home was instrumental in giving to 
 the world a literary contribution, destined to be the 
 source of one of the most important controversies on 
 record — ^the poems of Ossian. The account of Home's 
 meeting with Macpherson is thus related in a letter 
 written by Hume in 1760 : 
 
 Sir, — I am not surprised to find by your letter, that Mr. 
 Gray should have entertained suspicions with regard to the 
 authenticity of these fragments of our Highland poetry. The 
 
26 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 first time I was shown the copies of some of them in manu- 
 script, by our friend John Home, I was inclined to be a little 
 incredulous on that head; but Mr. Home removed my scruples, 
 by informing me of the manner in which he procured them 
 from Mr. Macpherson, the translator. 
 
 These two gentlemen were drinking the waters together at 
 Moffat last autumn, when their conversation fell upon High- 
 land poetry, which Mr. Macpherson extolled very highly. Our 
 friend, who knew him to be a good scholar, and a man of 
 taste, found his curiosity excited, and asked whether he had 
 ever translated any of them. Mr. Macpherson replied, that 
 he had never attemped any such thing; and doubted whether 
 it was possible to transfuse such beauties into our language; 
 but, for Mr. Home's satisfaction, and in order to give him 
 a general notion of the strain of that wild poetry, he would 
 endeavor to turn one of them into English. He accordingly 
 brought him one next day, which our friend was so much 
 pleased with, that he never ceased soliciting Mr. Macpherson, 
 till he insensibly produced that small volume which has been 
 published.! 
 
 So assured were both Home and Hume at this time 
 of the genuine antiquity of Macpherson's fragments, 
 that they undertook a subscription, to which both 
 generously contributed, to allow the poet to give up the 
 position of tutor which he held at the time, in order 
 that he might travel in the Highlands, where he said 
 that he hoped to discover more of the fragments. The 
 outcome of their zeal for the young poet is too well 
 known in literary history to need comment here. 
 There is no evidence at hand, however, to show that 
 Home ever lost faith in the poet whose works he felt 
 that he, in a measure, had given to the world. And 
 that Macpherson appreciated to the full the con- 
 fidence and help which he had received from Home, 
 and that for once at least this genial, kindly man, 
 whose good services to his friends could never be too 
 great for his generous nature, was materially re- 
 warded, is attested by the fact that 'Macpherson, at 
 his death, left Mr. Home £2000 as a mark of grateful 
 
 1 Burton, Life and Correspondence of David Hume 1. 462-3. 
 
Life 27 
 
 recollection of the acts of kindness he had received 
 from him in early life.'^ 
 
 In the same year, 1760, there was produced in a 
 Paris theatre Voltaire's play, L'Ecossaise, which 
 the author, in one of his fits of peculiar humor, de- 
 clared was a translation of one of Home's works. So 
 far as can be discovered. Home knew nothing of this, 
 or, if it was brought to his attention, he ignored the 
 fact. 
 
 In 1763, Home obtained the office of conservator 
 of Scots' privileges at Campvere, (the town in Hol- 
 land) , at a salary of £300 a year. Many years before, 
 this place had been of importance to Scotland in that 
 a colony of Scots had settled there, and all Scotch 
 traders were obliged by law to load and discharge 
 their cargoes at the port of that bustling commercial 
 town.^ The town had long since lost its importance 
 and the law its force, but the office of conservator 
 still survived, and it was to this that Home suc- 
 ceeded. According to Mackenzie, Home never ap- 
 proached Lord Bute for advantages on his own 
 account.' Rather positive proof to the contrary is, 
 however, gained from the following extract taken 
 from a letter written by Lord Bute in the early part 
 of 1762. He ends his letter thus: 
 
 Is Home dead? He wrote to me last year about the Conser- 
 vatorship, that I could not give him, from Parliamentary- 
 reasons. I hope he is not out of humour?* 
 
 Apparently the only duty attached to this office in 
 Home's day was that of attending the Assembly of 
 Scotland yearly as an elder of Campvere, and, as this 
 exactly suited Home's social nature, it may be imag- 
 ined that he did not find the obligations resulting 
 from his position too onerous. On these occasions he 
 
 1 Europewn Magazine for September, 1808, p. 240. 
 
 2 Havard, Heart of Holland, chaps. 9, 10. 
 
 3 P. 52. 
 
 * Caldwell Papers, Part Second, 1. 147. 
 
28 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 was a most welcome addition to the merry party 
 which used to meet every Friday at the famous Poker 
 Club.^ 
 
 Literature languished, at this time, with Home for 
 several years. He was never a prolific writer, and his 
 obligations to Lord Bute were so numerous that he 
 evidently found little opportunity for dramatic com- 
 position. In 1767, however, he resigned his position 
 with that nobleman, and took the lease of a farm in 
 Kilduff, East Lothian. Here he built a house, aided 
 by his former parishioners, and here he lived for the 
 greater part of the next twelve years. 
 
 Composition evidently moved on a little more 
 quickly now, for in 1769 his play, The Fatal Discov- 
 ery, appeared. It was an unfavorable time for 
 anything written by a Scotchman, especially by any 
 favorite of Lord Bute, who had become exceedingly 
 unpopular from his support and patronage of his 
 countrymen, and his apparent lack of desire to con- 
 ciliate the English. Johnson wrote of him: 
 
 Lord Bute shewed an undue partiality to Scotchmen. He 
 turned out Dr. Nichols, a very eminent man, from being 
 physician to the King, to make room for one of his country- 
 men, a man very low in his profession. He had Wedderburne 
 and Home to go on errands for him. He had occasion for people 
 to go on errands for him; but he should not have had Scotch- 
 men; and, certainly, he should not have suffered them to have 
 access to him before the first people in England ^ 
 
 The suggestion has also been made that the Eng- 
 lish, at this time, were jealous of the Scotch because 
 of the success they were attaining in all directions.' 
 
 Because of this bitterness of feeling, Garrick per- 
 suaded Home to change the name of his play from its 
 
 1 This club was organized in 1762 and existed until 1784. 
 
 2 Boswell, lAfe of Johnson, Hill edition, 2, 354-5. 
 
 3 Hill, Letters of David Hume, p. 60. 
 
Life 29 
 
 original title, Rivine, from one of the Ossian frag- 
 ments, to the name it thereafter held. The Fatal Dis- 
 covery. In addition, the manager had a young Oxford 
 student represent himself as its author. The play 
 seems to have gone off very well, until Home's desire 
 for recognition impelled him to declare himself. 
 Though the tragedy ran for eleven nights, the interest 
 fell off, and Garrick was urged to withdraw it, for 
 fear of violence to himself or his house. This play 
 Goldsmith is credited with planning to break up. His 
 intention was to gather a party and attend the theatre 
 with this purpose, alleging as an excuse 'that such 
 fellows ought not to be encouraged.'^ However, the 
 plan was never carried out, and in all probability was 
 never even seriously considered by the impulsive but 
 good-natured Goldsmith. 
 
 Home's marriage to a distant relation, Mary Home, 
 took place in 1770. In regard to this step on his 
 part, there is a story told which is hard to credit. It 
 runs that on one occasion Hume asked him 'how he 
 could ever think of such a woman?' To which Home 
 replied, 'Ah, David, if I had not, who else would 
 have taken her?'^ Carlyle speaks of her as a 'pretty, 
 lively girl.' The fact that she was afflicted through- 
 out her life with ill-health made her a source of great 
 solicitude to her tender-hearted husband. None the 
 less, though a childless one, the marriage seems to 
 have been thoroughly happy. 
 
 Home's fifth tragedy, Alonzo, was produced in 
 1773, It was performed at Drury Lane, with an 
 epilogue by Garrick. The acting of Mrs. Barry made 
 this play more popular than any of his others with 
 the exception of Douglas. The passion of maternal 
 love, doubtless, in this, as in Douglas, helped to give 
 the piece its appeal. And, indeed, the two plays are 
 
 1 Davies, Life of Garrick 2. 154. 
 
 2 Caldwell Papers, Part Second. 2. 179, note. 
 
30 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 very similar in plot and development. 
 
 In this same year Home sent to Garrick a comedy 
 which he had written, but the play was so unfavor- 
 ably criticized by that actor that it never appeared, 
 and there is no evidence to show that the dramatist 
 ever again tried his hand at that species of com- 
 position. 
 
 In 1776 Home, who was then in London with his 
 wife, received from his friend, Adam Ferguson, a 
 letter stating that David Hume's condition was des- 
 perate, and that he had been advised by the doctor to 
 try, as a last resort, the waters of Bath. Without 
 delay Home set out for Scotland, met Hume on the 
 way, and accompanied him to Bath, remaining with 
 him during his entire stay at that place. When Hume 
 discovered how useless his stay was, the same devoted 
 friend accompanied him to the philosopher's home in 
 Edinburgh, in which he died in August of that same 
 year. 
 
 How much Hume appreciated his friend's company, 
 the following letter shows. It was written from Bath 
 on the 13th of May, 1776. 
 
 You must have heard of the agreeable surprise which John 
 Home put upon me. We travelled up to London very cheer- 
 fully together, and thence to this place, where we found Mrs. 
 Home almost quite recovered. Never was there a more 
 friendly action, nor better placed; for what between conver- 
 sation and gaming, (not to mention sometimes squabbling) I 
 did not pass a languid moment; and his company I am cer- 
 tain was the chief cause why my journey had so good an 
 effect; of which, however, I suppose he has given too san- 
 guine accounts, as is usual with him.i 
 
 The following account tells of another very interest- 
 ing friendship made by Home at this time : 
 
 In 1775-6, among the visitors at Bath occasionally seen by 
 Mrs. Scott, was a little lame Scottish boy, between four and 
 
 1 Mackenzie, pp. 162-3. 
 
Life 31 
 
 five years old. When he had bathed in the morning, got 
 through a reading lesson at an old dame's near his lodging on 
 the Parade, and had a drive over the Downs with the author 
 of 'Douglas' and Mrs. Home, the boy was sometimes to be 
 seen in the boxes of the old theatre.^ 
 
 This little boy was Walter Scott. The friendship 
 begun at that early age continued during the whole 
 life of the dramatist. 
 
 Home's last acted tragedy, Alfred, appeared in 
 1778, and was a failure. Its run was for three nights 
 only. It was at about this time that he met the 
 author, Hannah More, who speaks in these terms of 
 Home and his play. Her own drama, Percy, had 
 appeared that year with much more success than 
 attended Home's play. The extract is from her 
 journal : 
 
 At the latter part of this evening Mr. Home came in; I was 
 quite hurt to see him. He is a worthy gentleman-like man. 
 He congratulated me on my success, and said Alfred had not 
 hurt me much. There was no replying to this: so I said 
 nothing; condolence would have been an insult.^ 
 
 In the same year in which his last tragedy appeared 
 Home met with an accident that impaired his facul- 
 ties for the remainder of his life. He had always 
 retained the fondness for a miliary career which he 
 had shown in his youth, and when, therefore, in this 
 year a commission in the regiment of the Mid-Lothian 
 Fencibles was offered him, he accepted it. He had 
 entered upon his duties with characteristic enthusi- 
 asm, when he had the misfortune to be injured so 
 severely by a fall from his horse, that for some days 
 it was thought he could not live. While these fears 
 did not prove true, his mind was so affected that he 
 
 1 Doran, A Lady of the Last Century, p. 203. 
 
 2 Roberts, Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Mrs. 
 Hanna More 1. 131. 
 
32 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 was compelled to resign his commission. Although a 
 long period of rest did a great deal for him, his mind 
 never recovered its former keenness. 
 
 In 1779 Home left Kilduflf and moved to Edinburgh 
 That place remained his home for the remainder of 
 his lif6. His was the same social nature that it had 
 always been, and he delighted in society to the very 
 last. 
 
 In 1784 Mrs. Siddons was in Edinburgh. Home 
 met her at the time, and saw her act her great role 
 of Lady Randolph. Carlyle speaks of this occasion in 
 connection with his account of the controversy over 
 Douglas, and the impossibility of restraining all of 
 the clergymen from attending the playhouse. He 
 says: 
 
 It is remarkable, that in the year 1784, when the great 
 actress Mrs. Siddons first appeared in Edinburgh, during the 
 sitting of the General Assembly, that court was obliged to fix 
 all its important business for the alternate days when she did 
 not act, as all the younger members, clergy as well as laity, 
 took their stations in the theatre on those days by three in 
 the afternoon.! 
 
 Another writer speaks of her appearance at this 
 time in these words : 
 
 The enthusiasm to see her was so great, that one day there 
 were more than 2500 applications for about 600 seats. The 
 oppression and heat were so great in the crowded and ill- 
 ventilated theatre, that an epidemic that attacked the town 
 was humorously attributed to this cause, and was called 'the 
 Siddons fever.' All that was most cultured and intellectual 
 in Edinburgh came to do her homage — Blair, Hume, Beattie, 
 Mackenzie, Home, all attended her performances.^ 
 
 1 Carlyle, pp. 322-3. 
 
 2 Kennard, Life of Mrs. Siddons, p. 124. 
 
 (Note — Presumably the author here means David Hume, 
 who had, however, died in 1776. And Carlyle states, 
 p. 323, that while Blair met the actress at this time, he 
 did not attend a public performance). 
 
Life 33 
 
 At just what time Home first conceived the idea of 
 writing his history of the Rebellion of 1745 is not 
 quite clear. Mackenzie declares that it was almost 
 immediately after the conclusion of that struggle.^ In 
 that case, the plan was evidently given up in favor of 
 dramatic composition, but shortly after the acting of 
 Home's last tragedy and its failure, he seems to have 
 reconciled himself to writing no more plays, and to 
 have taken up earnest work on the history. It ap- 
 peared in 1802, but the consensus of opinion is that, 
 since Home dedicated the work to George III, he was 
 prevented from giving the complete details of the 
 unfair advantage taken by the English of the High- 
 landers at the battle of Culloden, and their cruelty to 
 the untrained Scotch volunteers. Excuse, however, 
 has been made for him on the ground that he was at 
 this time a very old man; that a good many of the 
 events had really grown dim in his memory; and that 
 he had never, since the accident already mentioned, 
 recovered his full mental strength. With the publica- 
 tion of his history, the literary work of John Home 
 was completed. 
 
 He lived on for some six years after this, and to 
 almost the last enjoyed the old social intercourse 
 with his friends. An account is given of a dinner 
 that was given by him at which 
 
 there were seven male guests at table, of whom five were coeval 
 with the landlord — ^then upwards of eighty-four. A bachelor 
 gentleman of fifty was treated as what is called the Boots, 
 and went through the duty of ringing the bell, carving the 
 joint, and discharging the other functions usually imposed on 
 the youngest member of the company. . . . The 
 very entertainment seemed antediluvian, though excellent. 
 There were dishes of ancient renown, and liquors unknown 
 almost to the present day. A caper-caelzie, or cock of the 
 wood, which has been extinct in Scotland for more than a 
 
 1 Mackenzie, p. 67. 
 
34 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 century, was presented on the board as a homage to the 
 genius of Mr. Home, sent from the pine-forests of Norway. 
 The cup, or cold tankard, which he recommended particularly, 
 was after an ancient Scottish receipt. The claret, still the 
 favourite beverage of the poet, was excellent, and, like him- 
 self, of venerable antiquity, but preserving its spirit and 
 flavour. The subjects of their conversation might be com- 
 pared to that held by ghosts, who, sitting on their midnight 
 tombs, talk over the deeds they have done and witnessed 
 while in the body. The forty-five was a remarkable epoch, 
 and called forth remarks and anecdotes without number. The 
 former civil turmoils of 1715 and 1718 were familiar to some 
 of those present. The conversation of these hale ancients had 
 nothing of the weakness of age, though a little of its gar- 
 rulity. They seemed the Nestors of their age; men whose 
 gray hairs only served 
 
 To mark the heroes born in better days.i 
 
 Home's personal appearance in his later years is 
 described in these words: 
 
 A fine, thinking face — extremely handsome he had been in 
 his youth — a dark-gray eye, full of thought, and, at the same 
 time, full of fire — his hair highly curled and powdered — a rich 
 robe-de-chambre — pale green, if I recollect, like one John 
 Kemble used to wear — a scarlet waistcoat — a very striking 
 figure, I assure you.^ 
 
 On the fifth of September, 1808, John Home died, 
 after having fallen just previously into a state of 
 extreme mental and physical weakness. Few men 
 have a happier life, or can boast of a greater number 
 of loyal and devoted friends. 
 
 At least one of his plays did not die with him. 
 Long since the echoes of the literary and theological 
 disputes over Douglas had ceased, but, in spite of the 
 half century it had been on the boards, its popularity 
 continued on into the nineteenth century. Douglas 
 had come to hold an important place in the history of 
 the British drama. For the author had proved him- 
 
 1 Quarterly Review, 1827, pp. 189-90. 
 
 2 Noctes Ambrosianae 1. 155, New York, 1854. 
 
Life 35 
 
 self the writer of a tragedy which achieved more fame 
 for itself than has the single dramatic work of any 
 Scotch man or woman before or since his time. 
 
II. 
 
 STAGE-HISTORY OF DOUGLAS.. 
 
 (a) Garrick's Rejection of the Manuscript of 
 Douglas. 
 Douglas was completed some time in the year 1755. 
 By the advice of his Scottish friends, Home took it at 
 once to London, and offered it to Garrick. Garrick 
 refused it. The reasons for his rejection of the play 
 he gives in a letter written to Lord Bute in the summer 
 of 1756, before the first presentation of Douglas in 
 Edinburgh. Garrick has been accused by many 
 critics of an unworthy motive in this refusal of the 
 play. They contend that it was done because he 
 feared that his part would have been too far over- 
 shadowed by that of Mrs. Gibber, who, at the time, 
 was the leading lady at Drury Lane theatre. Justice 
 to him demands, therefore, that he should, at least, 
 be given a hearing in the case. This letter opens with 
 these words^: 
 
 My Lord. 
 
 It is with ye. Greatest Uneasiness that I trouble Your Lord- 
 ship with my Sentiments of Mr. Hume's Tragedy — The little 
 Knowledge I had of him, gave me the warmest inclination to 
 Serve him, which I should have done most sincerely, had the 
 Means been put into my hands — but upon my Word & Credit 
 it is not in my Power to introduce Douglas upon ye Stage 
 with ye least advantage to the Author, & the Managers — the 
 Tragedy (if possible) is in its present Situation, As unfit for 
 representation as it was before, & Your Lordship must be 
 
 wanted 
 sensible, that it A all ye requisites of ye Drama to carry it ev'n 
 through ye two first Acts. — Mr. Hume is certainly a gentleman 
 of Learning & Parts, but I am [as certain] that Either his 
 Genius is not adapted to Dramatic Compositions or that he 
 
 1 For the full text of this letter, see Baker, Some Unpub- 
 ? lished Correspondence of David Garrick, pp. 108-112. 
 
Stage-History of Douglas 37 
 
 wants the proper Exercise & Experience to shew it to advan- 
 tage. 
 
 Garrick goes on to apologize for not being able to 
 accommodate Lord Bute in regard to the tragedy, 
 and then makes the following strong statement be- 
 fore he proceeds to give in full his objections to the 
 play: 
 
 All ye Endeavors of a Patron & the Skill of a 
 Manager, will avail Nothing, if the dramatic Requisites & 
 Tragic Force are "Wanting — ^I am so strongly Convlnc'd tTiat 
 this is the case of ye Tragedy in Question, that I durst not 
 upon any Aoct. venture it upon ye Stage of Drury 
 Lane, & I would stake all my credit, that the Author would 
 sorely repent it, if Ever it should be Exhibited upon any 
 Theatre — As I ought to Second these strong Assertions with 
 some few reasons, I will Endeavor, foir Yr. Lordship's & 
 Mr. Hume's Satisfaction, to point out the (what I think) 
 insurmountable Objections to the Tragedy. 
 
 His more detailed objections now come: 
 
 The story is radically defective & most improbable in those 
 Circumstances which produce the dramatic Action — for in- 
 stance — Lady Barneti continuing Seven Years^ togeather in 
 that melancholly miserable State, just as if it had happen'd ye 
 Week before, without discovering ye real Cause; & on a 
 Sudden opening ye Whole Aifair to Anna without any 
 stronger reason, than what might have happen'd at any other 
 Time since the Day of her Misfortunes — this I think, wch. is 
 ye. foundation of ye. Whole, Weak & unaccountable — The 
 two first Acts pass in tedious Narratives, without anything of 
 Moment being plan'd or done — ^the introducing Douglas is ye 
 Chief Circumstance, & yet, as it is manag'd, it has no Effect; 
 It is romantic for want of those probable Strokes of Art, 
 wch. ye. first Poets made use of to reconcile strange Events 
 to ye Minds of an Audience — Lady Barnet's speaking to Glen- 
 alvon, imediately in behalf of Randolph,^ forgetting her own 
 
 1 Name first given to Lady Randolph. 
 
 2 In the play as printed, about eighteen years. 
 
 3 Apparently, in the manuscript. Nerval was first called 
 Randolph. 
 
38 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 indelible Sorrows, & Glenalvon's Suspicion & Jealousy upon it 
 
 violent 
 (without saying anything of feisALove for ye Lady, who 
 cannot be of a Love-inspiring Age) are premature and unnat- 
 ural — But these and many other Defects, wch. I will not 
 trouble Yr. Lordp. with, might be palliated & alter'd perhaps; 
 but the Unaffecting conduct of ye. Whole & which will always 
 be ye Case, when the Story is rather told, than represented; 
 when the Characters do not talk or behave suitably to ye 
 Passions imputed to them, & the Situation in Which they are 
 plac'd; when the Events are such as cannot naturally be 
 suppos'd to rise; & the Language too often below the most 
 familiar Dialogue; these are the insurmountable Objections, 
 which in my Opinion, will Ever make Douglas unfit for ye 
 Stage, — In short there is no one Character or Passion which 
 is strongly interesting & supported through ye five Acts — 
 
 Glenalvon is a Villain without plan or Force; He raises our 
 Expectation in a Soliloquy at ye first, but sinks Ever after — 
 Ld. Barnet is unaccountably work'd upon by Glenalvon, to 
 believe his Lady fond of Randolph, & the Youth is as unac- 
 countably attack'd by Ld. Barnet, & looses his life for a sup- 
 ix)s'd Injury which he had done to him, whose Life he just 
 
 Why 
 before preserv'd — & what is this Injury? ALove for a 
 Lady, who is old Enough to be [h]is Mother, Whom he has 
 scarcely seen, & wth. whom it was impossible to indulge any 
 Passion, there not being Time, from his Entrance to his 
 Death, ev'n to conceive one. these I think, my Lord, are ye 
 Chief objections to the Tragedy — & these I flatter Myself 
 Your Lordp. was sensible of before You sent ye Play to Me. 
 
 I have consider'd ye. Performance by Myself, I have read it 
 
 was 
 to a Friend or Two with all the Energy & Spirit I A Master 
 
 tout 
 of A without the wish'd for Effect — The Scenes are long 
 without Action, the Characters want strengrfih & Pathos, and 
 the Catastrophe is brought about without ye necessary and 
 interesting preparations for so great an Event — 
 
 Garrick then goes on to assure Lord Bute that he 
 has not been able to see how alterations of any sort 
 would make the play suitable for representation. He 
 closes with further expressions of regret, and with 
 the request that his letter be sent to Scotland, since 
 he is 'convinc'd that Mr. Hume . . . has a fatherly 
 fondness for his Douglas.' 
 
Stage-History of Douglas 39 
 
 A consideration of this letter will show that Gar- 
 rick's objections to the play are all reasonable. The 
 faults pointed out are of a nature which he, as actor 
 and stage-manager, no less than dramatist, might eas- 
 ily anticipate would be fatal to the success of any dra- 
 ma. Especially are these criticisms sound which pertain 
 to the improbability of the opening situation, and to 
 the long narrative passages. In fact. Home's stalwart 
 friend, David Hume, passed many of the same stric- 
 tures on the play.^ Garrick, therefore, may easily 
 have been honest in his criticisms, and simply have 
 made one of those mistakes in regard to the public 
 taste to which any manager is liable. And even in 
 admitting that, it must be remembered that the great 
 success of Douglas was in Edinburgh, and that its 
 much more moderate success in London only followed 
 the furor in the Scottish city. What its reception 
 would have been had its first performance taken place 
 in London, we can only guess. Home was unknown 
 in England at the time, and there was not that 
 element of national appeal which so greatly assisted 
 him in his own country. It seems probable, there- 
 fore, that its success in London would have been 
 more moderate, at least, than it was in the Scottish 
 capital. And it must also be noted that Garrick 
 refused a play which had the approval of so influen- 
 tial a patron as Lord Bute. Granting so much, how- 
 ever, it must be admitted that Garrick would have 
 been only human had he been fearful as to the 
 degree of success which he, in the role of a boy in 
 his teens, could hope to achieve against the part of 
 the mature Lady Randolph played by Mrs. Gibber, 
 who was one of the cleverest actresses of her day. 
 The rejection of the manuscript, then, was doubtless 
 due to mixed motives on the part of Garrick. But, 
 as developments showed, his refusal only paved the 
 
 1 See Hume's letter to Home (Mackenzie, Life of Home pp. 
 100-101). 
 
40 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 way for the great success of Douglas in the native 
 country of its author. 
 
 (b) Circumstances Preceding the First 
 Edinburgh Performance. 
 After this refusal by Garrick, Home returned to 
 Scotland, and succeeded in having Douglas put on in 
 Edinburgh. Its first performance took place on 
 December 14th, 1756, at the Canongate Theatre. 
 Home's friends took the greatest interest in all the 
 details connected with its representation. For this 
 reason, the following account of an unusual reheaarsal 
 is entertaining, though, as is stated, it must not be 
 accepted without some reserve. The story is given 
 in Burton's Life of Hume^ : 
 
 The following paper made its first appearaiLce in The Edin- 
 burgh Weekly Chronicle, a few years ago, when it was edited 
 by Mr. Hislop, a gentleman said to be well acquainted with 
 theatrical matters. It is here repeated, not as being believed, 
 but because having excited some attention when it first ap- 
 peared, it found its way into some books connected with 
 Scottish literature. 
 
 'It may not be generally known, that the first rehearsal 
 took place in the lodgings in the Canongate, occupied by Mrs. 
 Sarah Warde, one of Digges's Company; and that it was 
 rehearsed by, and in the presence of the most distinguished 
 literary characters Scotland ever could boast of. The follow- 
 ing was the cast of the piece on the occasion: — 
 
 DRAMATIS PERSONAE 
 
 Lord Randolph Dr. Robertson, Principal, Edinburgh 
 
 Glbnalvon David Hume, Historian 
 
 Old Norval Dr. Carlyle, Minister of Musselburgh 
 
 Douglas John Home, the Author 
 
 Lady Randolph Dr. Ferguson, Professor 
 
 Anna {the maid) Dr. Blair, Minister, High Church 
 
 The audience that day, besides Mr. Digges, and Mrs. Warde, 
 were. The Right Honourable Patrick Lord Elibank, Lord 
 Milton, Lord Karnes, Lord Monboddo, (the two last were then 
 only lawyers,) the Rev. John Steele and William Home, ministers. 
 
 1 1. 420-1, Note 2. 
 
Stage-History of Douglas 41 
 
 The company, all but Mrs. Warde, dined afterwards in the 
 Erskine Club, in the Abbey.' 
 
 The reader must take this statement at its own value, which 
 he will probably not consider high. The 'cast' has no pre- 
 tensions to be a transcript of any contemporary document; for 
 Dr. Robertson was not then Principal of the University, but 
 minister of the country parish of Gladmuir; and Ferguson 
 was not a Professor, but an army chaplain, with leave of 
 absence, spending his time chiefly in Perthshire. Lord Kames, 
 spoken of as 'only' a lawyer, had been raised to the bench 
 in 1752. 
 
 As the above article states, this account has been 
 cited by various writers on Scottish stage-history, 
 and more or less discussion has taken place as tc- 
 virhether or not the statement could possibly be true. 
 However, since all these clergymen had shown the 
 greatest interest in the play, since they all beloriged 
 to the most liberal-minded of the Scotch clergymen 
 of the time, and since most of them went to the 
 theatre to see the tragedy acted, the improbability of 
 the account does not seem so great. 
 
 The Edinburgh Evening Courant for Saturday, 
 December 4, 1756, contained the following announce- 
 ment: 
 
 A new Tragedy called Douglas, written by an ingenious 
 gentleman of this country, is now in rehearsal at the Theatre, 
 and will be performed as speedily as possible. The expecta- 
 tions of the public from the performance are in proportion to 
 the known talent and ability of the Author, whose modest 
 merit would have suppressed a Dramatic work, which we 
 think by the concurrent testimony of many gentlemen of taste 
 and literature will be an honour to this country. 
 
 The issue of the same paper for December 9th con- 
 tains this short notice: 
 
 On Tuesday the 14th inst. at the Theatre in the Canongate 
 will be performed the new Tragedy of Douglas. 
 
 This last was not, certainly, an extended notice for a 
 
42 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 new play, and for one from which so much was 
 expected as from Douglas. Commenting on its brev- 
 ity, Dibdin says: 
 
 It is very evident, however, that a more extensive publica- 
 tion of the event was unnecessary. Mr. Digges knew excel- 
 lently well the business of advertising, and while, during' the 
 same month, he inserted long announcements in the newspapers 
 of other performances, he contented himself with publishing 
 merely the shortest notices respecting Douglas. He counted, 
 and rightly, on drawing good houses from the circles of 
 polite society, in which the author was a great favourite; and 
 these, after all, were the chief supporters of the theatre.^ 
 
 (c) First Edinburgh Performances. 
 
 The first Edinburgh performance of Douglas took 
 place, as had been advertised, in the Canongate 
 Theatre,^ on December 14th, 1756. The cast of char- 
 acters was as follows: 
 
 Lady Barnets Mrs. Ward 
 
 Anna Mrs. Hopkins 
 
 Douglas Mr. Digges 
 
 Lord Barnets Mr. Younger 
 
 Glenalvon Mr. Love 
 
 NORVAL Mr. Hayman 
 
 This was an English company, the best known 
 members of which were Mrs. Ward, a very beautiful 
 woman, and an actress who had already won for 
 herself a reputation in London, and West Digges, a 
 
 1 Annals of the Edinburgh Stage, p. 85. 
 
 2 Of this theatre, which had been opened in 1747, John Jack- 
 son writes in his History of the Scottish Stage, p. 24, n. : 'The 
 Canongate theatre, at 2s. 6d., Is. 6d. and Is. held from £60 to 
 £65. At Lancashire's benefit, I remember there was upward 
 of £70; but the wings and stage were so crowded, that, when 
 I came on in the character of Hotspur, to encounter the Prince 
 of Wales, we had not room to stand at swords length.' At this 
 time the doors were opened at five o'clock, and the performance 
 commenced at six. 
 
 s Barnet, changed later to Randolph. 
 
Stage-History of Douglas 43 
 
 man apparently of the worst sort of character, but 
 very popular as an actor, and described by Carlyle 
 as a 'very handsome young man with a genteel 
 address.'^ 
 
 The Scots' Magazine for December, 1756,^ gives this 
 account of the immediate success of the play. The 
 same article also has in it the first intimation of the 
 resulting theological quarrel, which was so soon to 
 be the talk of all Scotland: 
 
 Douglas, a new tragedy, written by Mr. John Home, minister 
 of Athelstoneford, was acted in the theatre in Edinburgh on 
 the 14th of December, and several succeeding play-nights. This 
 tragedy was never acted before, and it is believed there never 
 was so great a run on a play in this country. Persons of all 
 ranks and professions crouded to it; and many had the mortifi- 
 cation to find the house so full when they came to the door, 
 that they could not get in. Though the tragedy is not yet pub- 
 lished, the critics have been exercising their wits in panegjrrics 
 and satires on the play, players, and audience. Some ministers 
 of the established church having been to see this play acted, „ 
 the presbytery of Edinburgh has taken notice of it, by letters 
 to the presbyteries of which they are members. 
 
 Characteristic of the contemporary and more per- 
 sonal comments made in the newspapers is the 
 following letter in the Edinburgh Evening Courant 
 for December 18, 1756: 
 
 Sir: 
 
 Your inserting the subsequent impartial Observations on a 
 late dramatic work will, I hope, oblige all your Readers as well 
 as your humble servant. 
 
 If the Merit of a dramatic Work could be ascertained by 
 the generous Approbation it receives during the Representa- 
 tion, and the Ardour with which all Ranks crowd to the 
 Theatre, or the irresistible Power it has of drawing Tears 
 from every Spectator, we might safely pronounce the Tragedy 
 of Douglas to be one of the most perfect Works of Genius any 
 
 1 P. 311. 
 
 2 Pp. 623-4. 
 
44 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Age has produced. — Experience, however, teaches us to be more 
 reserved in our Decisions; and an ingenius critic has justly 
 asserted that the Hour of Publication is the Hour that decides 
 the Reputation of a dramatic Performance. But tho' we must 
 defer our final judgment of the Piece till it can be calmly and 
 deliberately scanned in the Closet, now is the Time to pro- 
 nounce on the Merit and Ability of the Actors, who, during the 
 Run of this Play, have given so much Pleasure to the Public. 
 
 The Genius of the Author, and the Abilities of the chief 
 Performers, seem by good Fortune to have been formed to 
 illustrate each other in the highest Degree; for we will venture 
 to affirm, that, as there is no other part that could have so 
 fully shown Mrs. Ward's amazing Powers in Tragedy, so there 
 is but one actress in Britain who could have performed the 
 part of Lady Barnet as well, as she has done; and we are far 
 from being certain that there is any actor at all who could 
 have equall'd Mr. Digges in the Character of Young Douglas. 
 Other actors there are, perhaps, who can express violent Pas- 
 sions with more execution than that Gentleman, and oftener 
 raise Pity and Horror than he; but in copying Nature with 
 Judgment throughout a whole Piece, in preserving Attention 
 to Recital, and in that charming Simplicity of Action so long 
 banish'd the Stage, we think him inferior to no Actor in 
 Britain. In the part of Young Douglas, his excellent Taste 
 and Judgment particularly appear. Other Actors would have 
 endeavoured to dazzle an Audience by the most splendid Action, 
 and have shewn in a Scots Theatre that Douglas was at least 
 of as good Blood, and of as fiery Composition as Piercy. But 
 this judicious Actor has taken no Liberties of this Kind; for 
 he has carefully followed what seems to be the Author's Idea. 
 When Young Douglas first appears as a Peasant's son, his 
 native spirit, struggling under the Disadvantages of his Con- 
 dition and supposed Birth, produces a Bashfulness and Modesty 
 in his Manners which recommend him still more to the noble 
 Patron whose life he has saved by his Valour. And when he 
 is afterwards instructed in the Story of his Birth, tho' he 
 naturally assumes a nobler Porte, and gives freer Vent to his 
 Spirit, yet he has still Respect to the Injunctions of his Mother, 
 to bear himself in public as the Son of Randolph.^ In short, 
 this excellent Actor seems to have copied exactly that beautiful 
 Picture Lady Barnet draws of her Husband and Son, near the 
 end of the third Act, when she says to Anna of Young Douglas, 
 
 1 Evidently the name first given to Norval. 
 
Stage-History of Douglas 45 
 
 As he looks now, so look'd his noble father, 
 Array'd in nature's ease; his mien, his speech. 
 Were sweetly simple, and full oft deceiv'd 
 Those trivial mortals who seem always wise. 
 But, when the matter match'd his mighty mind. 
 Up rose the Hero; on his piercing eye 
 Sat Observation; on each glance of thought 
 Decision follow'd, as the thunderbolt 
 Pursues the flash. 
 
 While I am warmed with this young Gentleman's Theatre 
 Excellence into so public a Praise of it, I cannot avoid adjoin- 
 ing this Testimony of the great Satisfaction he has given to 
 all Ranks of people, by the apparent good Effect of these Inde- 
 fatigable Labours he hourly bestows on the Improvement and 
 Regulation of the Drama. When I assert that I never desire 
 to view the Action of any Dramatic Work more perfectly and 
 properly conducted than Douglas was, I do but common Justice 
 in saying, that every Lover of elegant Decency in Theatrical 
 Entertainment is indebted to this Gentleman for the Propriety 
 and Strict Regulation with which this, as every other Piece, 
 has been represented since his Direction of our Theatre. 
 
 Letters of this Kind are, I know, generally conjectured as 
 the Production of partial Friendship, and often imputed to 
 mean and sordid Motives; but neither the one nor the other 
 influence the honest Commendations I make use of. Applause 
 cannot be too public, where Merit is conspicuous. As a Lover 
 of Truth, and an Admirer of the most instructive Entertain- 
 ment the Mind of Man ever invented, I write this Letter, which 
 I enjoy the additional Satisfaction of believing, is the con- 
 current Sense of every Lover of polite Literature and Taste 
 in this Country. 
 
 I am, yours, etc, 
 
 Crito. 
 
 Mackenzie says in his comment upon the reception 
 of the play: 
 
 I was then a boy, but of an age to be sometimes admitted 
 as a sort of page to the tea-drinking parties of Edinburgh. I 
 have a perfect recollection of the strong sensation which Doug- 
 las excited among its inhabitants. The men talked of the 
 rehearsals; the ladies repeated what they had heard of the 
 story; some had procured, as a great favour, copies of the most 
 striking passages, which they recited at the earnest request of 
 
46 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 the company. I was present at the representation; the ap- 
 plause was enthusiastic; but a better criterion of its merits 
 was the tears of the audience, which the tender part of the 
 drama drew forth unsparingly.^ 
 
 This epigram is an example of the poetry with 
 which the papers were filled: 
 
 EPIGRAM 
 As dame Religiion, in the shade, 
 Deep musing hung her sacred head, 
 Approach'd the Muse, and thus began: 
 Since I delight, you bless the man, 
 Too long thus sep'rately we stood; 
 Come, let us mix our common good; 
 Let Sion and Parnassus join. 
 Mine be thy weight, my fire be thine. 
 Agreed: the maids together roam, 
 And both live friendly in one H0ME.2 
 
 With this testimony at hand, there is no room to 
 question the fact that Douglas was a tremendous suc- 
 cess in Edinburgh. That it was distinctly a Scotch 
 product was a source of unmeasured pride to the 
 people whom it represented. The often told story of 
 the Scotchman who, on the first night rose in his 
 seat, exclaiming in exultation, "Whaur's yer WuUy 
 Shakespeare now," illustrates excellently the feeling 
 of the Scotch theatre-goers of the time. Edinburgh 
 felt that, at last, it had achieved a national drama. 
 
 (d) First London Performances 
 
 Encouraged by the Edinburgh success of Douglas, 
 Home and his friends decided to offer it to Rich, then 
 manager of the Covent Garden Theatre in London. 
 It was accepted by him, and the first London per- 
 formance was given on March 14, 1757. It was 
 
 1 P. 38. 
 
 « Scots' Magazine, Feb., 1757, p. 76. 
 
Stage-Histof^ of Douglas 47 
 
 played, in all, nine times that season. The London 
 cast was as follows : 
 
 NOKVAL Mr. Barry 
 
 Stranger Mr. Sparks 
 
 Glenalvon Mr. Smith 
 
 Lord Randolph Mr. Ridout 
 
 Lady Randolph Mrs. Woffington 
 
 Anna Mrs. Vincent 
 
 The London Chronicle for March 14th makes the 
 following report of the play after its first representa- 
 tion: 
 
 Was presented for the first Time, a new Tragedy, intitled, 
 Douglas, to a most numerous and splendid Audience. As this 
 Author writes entirely on the Side of Morality, we cannot con- 
 ceive why an inflammatory Spirit should have arose against 
 him in his own Country. It may, however, be some Consola- 
 tion to him, that from a British Audience he has met with the 
 warmest Testimonials of Approbation, and that he has sent 
 many of them Home, if not better Men, at least very sensibly 
 alive to the Loveliness of Virtue. We cannot, at present, pre- 
 tend to give an exact critique on this Piece, but a short His- 
 tory of our own Affections while under his' Operations is in our 
 Power, and that we beg Leave to offer to the Public. Ftom 
 the opening of the Play we felt our Passions irresistibly 
 seized, and attached to the Subject. Mrs. Woffington, who 
 begins it, breaks into a beautiful Pathos, at once poetical and 
 simple: As the Story unfolds itself by degrees the Interest 
 grows stronger, and upon the Introduction of Mr. Barry our 
 Hopes and Fears were agreeably set at Variance. The Scene 
 in which Mr. Sparks makes his first Appearance seemed to us 
 admirably written, and very finely performed by the Player: 
 The Pastoral Simplicity of his Language and the Purity of 
 his Manners were highly pleasing: Our Expectation is well 
 worked up, and Terror and Pity reign in every Breast, till by 
 due Degrees, the Discovery is made, when a Tide of Joy breaks 
 in upon us. There is likeways a great deal of Tenderness 
 between Mother and Son when she discovers herself to him; 
 and Mr. Barry in the Passage, which succeeds this, entertained 
 his Auditors with some masterly Strokes of Acting. The 
 Catastrophe was likewise very affecting: Hope, Joy, Terror 
 and Pity, which are the true Tragic Passions, were here 
 
48 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 agitated to a very high Degree of Emotion. Upon the whole, 
 the Characters appeared to us well drawn, the Diction has 
 an easy Strength, no where too rich, generally expressive, often 
 impassioned, sometimes sublime. 
 
 Though the Fable bears a Resemblance to that of Merope, 
 yet the Circumstances are sufficiently varied. Mr. Barry 
 acquitted himself well in his Part; Mrs. WoflBngton convinced 
 us that she can touch the tender Passions very feelingly; and 
 Mr. Sparks rose greatly above himself, by descending, if we 
 may be allowed the Antithesis, from the Fustian of Acting 
 to the simple Workings of Nature. — To conclude, we met with a 
 very pathetic Entertainment this night, and will venture to 
 promise our Readers the same pleasing Melancholy when ever 
 they chuse to see the Tragedy of Douglas. 
 
 On the following day, March 15th, the London 
 Chronicle again commented upon the play: 
 
 Was repeated the new tragedy of Douglas mentioned in our 
 last. We have collected the opinions of the public concerning 
 this piece, and we find it generally agreed that a beautiful 
 simplicity runs through the whole composition, and that some 
 of the scenes are exquisitely tender and pathetic. We wait 
 the publication of the play before we can add anything to 
 our former remarks, and shall conclude by expressing the 
 pleasure with which we see it advertised for the author's benefit 
 on Thursday evening, the 17th, when, we make no doubt that 
 though the age in general is fond of finery, he will find feeling 
 hearts to encourage a writer who dares to imitate the ancient 
 simplicity, and who, in all his scenes of distress, speaks the 
 native accents of the passions. 
 
 But the following extract from a much longer account 
 of the play in the same paper, the London Chronicle, 
 for March 22-24, gives the opinion of the writer of 
 the account as to the cause of the lack of great con- 
 tinued enthusiasm over the play on this, its first 
 London appearance: 
 
 The dedicatory Letter, prefixed by Mr. Hume to his Four 
 Dissertations, lately published, raised an Expectation, with 
 respect to this Composition, which perhaps has not been en- 
 tirely gratified. The very elegant Author of that Address, 
 
Stage-History of Douglas 49 
 
 whose Knowledge and Taste are indisputable in Subjects of 
 Literature, has formed his Sentiments of Dramatic Poetry, 
 from the exquisite Models we have derived from Sophocles and 
 Euripides. In the masterly Productions of those Artists, Sim- 
 plicity of Design appears the Essential Beauty. One Action, 
 of sufficient Importance to command the Attention and attach 
 the Affections of the Audience, is at all Times kept in View, 
 and no Subordinate Events are introduced but what imme- 
 diately tend to the Completion of the principal Design. Prom 
 this simple Sketch of the Greek Drama it will be obvious to 
 the Reader, that a Play conducted upon this Plan, which the 
 most able Critics from Aristotle down to Brumoy have 
 established as the invariable Standard of the tragic Drama, 
 must want the principal Requisite to take hold of the Minds 
 of the English Assembly of Spectators, who have been so long 
 accustomed to be entertained with an amazing series of Inci- 
 dences, thrown together often without any Consistency, and 
 seldom with any Regularity of Design. These few observa- 
 tions will perhaps explain why Douglas has not been received 
 with the same Warmth with which the ingenious Dedication 
 deservedly speaks of it. 
 
 The Memoirs of Tate Wilkinson, written some 
 years after the first London performances, is interest- 
 ing testimony, in that the author expresses the same 
 opinions, in some respects, as those found in the 
 notices immediately following the first presentations. 
 He says: 
 
 Douglas was first presented dn Pebruaryi 1757, and was well, 
 but not greatly received or followed. Mr. Barry's performance 
 Was good, but his figure too much for that of the stripling; 
 and he looked worse for the youth by having decorated the 
 simple shepherd in a rich puckered white satin shape breeches, 
 &c. Mrs. Woffington, in tragedy, certainly had great merit — ^in 
 Hermione, Jane Shore, &c.— but the woe-felt grief of Lady 
 Randolph, neither her fine person nor accomplishments, aided by 
 novelty, could reach as Mrs. Crawford has done. The play 
 pleased, but no more. Mr. Sparks was approved in Old Nerval, 
 but was not more than tolerable. At that time I did not expect 
 to see what has turned out so contrary that Douglas is and 
 will be, for the credit of the stage, a lasting ornament. The story is 
 
 1 The play was first given in March, not February. 
 
50 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 simple, natural, and affecting, its language elegant and beauti- 
 ful; and the lessons that niay be observed from many passages 
 are worthy the attention and retention of the learned, the gay, 
 the giddy, and the wise.i 
 
 There were not lacking, however. Englishmen, as 
 well as Scotchmen of real literary taste, who gave 
 Douglas the highest praise, and who, therefore, in a 
 measure confirmed the opinions of David Hume. 
 After the play had been printed, and the opportunity 
 had been given him of reading it at his leisure, 
 Thomas Gray wrote in a letter dated August 10, 1757 : 
 
 I am greatly struck with the 'Tragedy of Douglas,' though 
 it has infinite faults: The Author seems to me to have 
 retrieved the true Language of the stage, which has been lost 
 for these hundred years: and there is one scene (between 
 Matilda and the old Peasant) so masterly, that it strikes me 
 blind to all the defects ,in the world.^ 
 
 (e) Later History of Douglas. 
 
 From the time of its triumph in Edinburgh and 
 its considerable success in London, Douglas continued 
 to be one of the most popular plays, not merely in 
 England and Scotland, but in all the provinces as 
 well. There is an interesting story in connection 
 with its first days in Dublin. Thomas Sheridan was 
 not the man to be backward in bringing out plays 
 which had stood the test of a critical London audi- 
 ence, and he therefore made all preparations to put 
 the play on his stage at the Smock-Alley Theatre in 
 the early summer of 1757, after its first run in 
 London. We find this announcement in the Dublin 
 Journal for May 3, 1857 : 
 
 Never Acted Here. 
 On Thursday, May 12, will be presented a Tragedy called 
 Douglas. The part of Young Nerval to be performed by Mr. 
 
 1 Memoirs 4. 240-241. 
 
 2 Letters of Thomas Gray, Tovey edition, 1. 335, note. 
 
Stage-History of Douglas 51 
 
 Sheridan; Old Nerval by Mr. Lee; Lord Nerval Isicl by Mr. 
 Lee; Lord Randolph by Mr. Dexter; Glenalvon by Mr. Stayley; 
 Anna by Miss G. R. Phillips; and Lady Randolph by Mrs. 
 Kennedy. With dancing by Signor Maranesi and Signora 
 Bugiani. To which will be added the last new Pantomime 
 entertainment called 'Harlequin Captive in Spain.' The char- 
 acter of Harlequin by Signor Maranesi. 
 
 The same notice is published in the Dublin Journal 
 for May 7th, with an additional notice about the 
 afterpiece. This paper for May 10th announces that 
 on the following Wednesday a performance is to be 
 given for the benefit of the author. The true history 
 of that benefit performance of Douglas seemed not to 
 be generally known. All that was announced was 
 that the play was given in Dublin, and that shortly 
 after that a handsome medal was presented to Home 
 by Sheridan. This was commonly considered merely 
 as a token of the manager's appreciation of the play, 
 and even Johnson seems to have had no knowledge 
 that there was anything else back of it, for we find 
 the following recorded by Boswell: 
 
 Tuesday, October 26. As we sat over tea, Mr. Home's tragedy 
 of Douglas was mentioned. I put Dr. Johnson in mind that 
 once, in a coffee house at Oxford, he called to old Mr. Sheri- 
 dan, 'How came you, sir, to give Home a gold medal for 
 writing that foolish play?' and defied Mr. Sheridan to shew ten 
 good lines in it. He did not insist they should be together; 
 but that there were not ten good lines in the whole play.i 
 
 However, the true story of the medal is told in the 
 following words:'' 
 
 When the Tragedy of Douglas first came out, Mr. Sheridan, 
 then Manager of the Dublin Theatre, received a printed copy 
 of it from London, which having, according to custom, pre- 
 
 1 Boswell, Life of Johnson, Hill edition, 5. 360, and 2. 320. 
 
 2 S. Whyte, and his son, E. A. Whyte, Miscellanea Nova, 
 Dublin, 1801, pp. 45-47. 
 
52 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 viously read to his company, he cast for representation; for it 
 is true he highly admired it, and apprized the performers, it 
 was his intention to give the author his third nights, as if the 
 play had originally been brought out at his own house; an 
 unprecedented act of liberality in the Manager, which, it was 
 thought, would be wonderfully productive to the Author. The 
 first night, as the play had received the sanction of a British 
 audience, the house was crammed, and the second night kept 
 pace with the first. The printers meanwhile were not idle; it 
 now issued from the Irish press, and unfortunately for the 
 poor Author, a dissenting Clerg3rman, with an ecclesiastical 
 anathema against him annexed. Things instantly took a new 
 turn; the play was reprobated, and considered as a profanation 
 of the clerical character; a faction was raised against it, and 
 the third night, which was expected to be an overflow, fell 
 miserably short of Expences. The Manager was in an awkward 
 predicament; he was the cause of raising expectations, at least 
 innocently, that could not be answered; and stood committed 
 to the Author and his friends in a business, which unf orseen 
 accidents had utterly defeated. . . . An unfeeling 
 mind might have let it rest there; but it was not an unfeeling 
 mind that dictated the measure. Something must be done; 
 and though the Writer of this account was at the time a very 
 young man, Mr. Sheridan was pleased to communicate to him 
 his difficulties on the occasion. The first idea was to write a 
 friendly letter to the Rev. Author, and accompany it with a 
 handsome piece of plate. To this I took the liberty to object; 
 for, as I understood he was not a family man, it might run 
 him to expence in showing it, which in such a case was a very 
 natural piece of vaJiity, and surely in itself no way repre- 
 hensible. I rather thought something he could conveniently 
 carry about with him would answer better; suppose a piece 
 of Gold in the way of a Medal. Mr. Sheridan thanked me for 
 the hint, and advising with Mr. Robert Calderwood, a silver- 
 smith of the first eminence, a man of letters also and good 
 taste, he threw out the very same idea, influenced by pretty 
 much the same reasons: It was executed accordingly; the 
 intrinsic value somewhere about twenty guineas. On one side 
 was engraved a Laurel Wreath, and on the reverse, as nearly 
 as I rememember, {.sici at the distance of almost forty years, the 
 following Inscription: 
 
 Thomas Sheridan, Manager of the Theatre Royal, 
 Smockalley, Dublin, presents this small token of 
 his gratitude to the Author of Douglas, for his 
 having enriched the Stage with a Perfect Tragedy. 
 
Stage-History of Douglas 53 
 
 Soon after I carried it with me to London, and through the 
 favour of Lord Macartney, it was delivered to the Minister, 
 Lord Bute, for his countryman the Author of Douglas. But 
 even this also he was near being deprived of; for on the road, 
 a few miles from London, I was stopped by highwaymen, and 
 preserved the well-meant offering, by the sacrifice of my purse, 
 at the imminent peril of my life. It was considered merely 
 as a sort of compensation for the disappointment in regard of 
 the third nights' profits, and certainly no proof of ostentation 
 in the Manager: on what principle of decency then could Dr. 
 Johnson treat his old Friend with that wanton insolence which 
 he boasts he thought proper to indulge on the occasion? 
 
 However, this Dublin occurrence had no effect upon 
 the continued popularity of the play. A testimony to 
 this effect, and to the pride which the Scotch took in 
 it as a national production, is found in the journal of 
 Hannah More. The date is May 10, 1786. It v/as 
 written, therefore, thirty years after the first produc- 
 tion of Douglas. She says^ : 
 
 I believe I have not mentioned Lord Monboddo this winter. 
 I had a memorable quarrel with him one night lately; it was 
 about Shakspeare and John Home. He said Douglas was a 
 better play than Shakspeare could have written. He was 
 angry and I was pert. I called in Mrs. Montagu to my aid, 
 and very saucy things we did say, which provoked him highly. 
 Lord Mulgrave sat spiriting me up, but kept out of the scrape 
 himself, and Lord Stormont seemed to enjoy the debate, but 
 was shabby enough not to help me out. With his fine dry 
 humour, he would have had the advantage of us all. I was 
 really very much diverted, though I was angry too; for the 
 prejudiced Scotch critic, by rating Douglas so much above its 
 real merit, made me appear unjust, by seeming to undervalue 
 it; but when he said that Shakspeare had no conception of 
 drawing a king or a hero — that there was not so interesting a 
 discovery in the whole of his works as that of Lady Randolph 
 and her son, and that the passions were always vulgarly 
 delineated; it was impossible to be temperate, and diflBcult to 
 be just. I suppose when, on a former occasion, he declared 
 
 1 Roberts, Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Mrs. 
 Hannah More 2. 22-23. 
 
54 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 that no modem could turn a period finely, he meant to make 
 an exception in favour of Scotch authors. 
 
 Practically every actress of any note at that time 
 attempted the role of Lady Randolph, and several 
 owed much of their success to it. Mrs. Powell was 
 one of those who made a great success in the acting 
 of this part, and in an account of her representation 
 of that character, the following statement is made: 
 
 She seems indeed throughout this character inspired by the 
 very same genius that dictated to the author while he com- 
 posed one of the most perfect tragedies in the English 
 language.! 
 
 Mrs. Crawford and Mrs. Siddons, however, were the 
 two actresses who helped largely to keep Douglas 
 alive for so many years. It has been said of Mrs. 
 Crawford that she acted her part with so much 
 feeling that, in the scene between Lady Randolph 
 and Old Norval where the question 'Was he alive?' is 
 asked, half of the pit would start to its feet.^ So 
 popular, indeed, was this actress in the role of Lady 
 Randolph, that Mrs. Siddons probably never did a 
 more daring thing in her life than when she under- 
 took to compete with her in the character. Though 
 her interpretation was more subdued than that of 
 Mrs. Crawford, this became one of her most popular, 
 as well as one of her favorite parts. One of her last 
 appearances was in the play of Douglas. It was on 
 June 9, 1819, when she was past sixty, that she acted 
 at Covent Garden as Lady Randolph, for the benefit 
 of her brother, Charles Kemble. It seems to have 
 been rather an injudicious choice, for though, as a 
 tribute to her past powers, she received hearty ap- 
 plause, as one writer says : 'This was a poor substi- 
 
 1 Gilliland, A Dramatic Synopsis, p. 105. 
 
 2 Doran, AnTials of the English Stage 2. 351. 
 
Stage-History of Douglas 55 
 
 tute for the breathless thrill, the agony of emotion, 
 with which she shook her audience in the old days.^' 
 
 Among the most prominent actors who took the 
 part of Young Norval were Spranger Barry, West 
 Digges, Charles Kean, Thomas Sheridan, Charles 
 Kemble, Stephen Kemble, John Jackson, Tate Wilkin- 
 son, and the child-wonder, 'Master Betty." As Doug- 
 las was a favorite stock-play, it is not necessary to add 
 that the speeches of the hero were ranted through by 
 hundreds of actors of little or no ability.^ 
 
 Any list of performances of Douglas would unques- 
 tionably be incomplete, and yet by consulting those 
 playbills, newspapers, and stage-chronicles to which 
 access is possible, some idea is given of the hundreds 
 of performances of this play. Until well along in the 
 nineteenth century, comparatively few years passed 
 ip which Douglas was not seen in London at the 
 Haymarket, Drury Lane, or Covent Garden Theatre, 
 and in many cases it had runs of several nights. For 
 years it was a favorite play in benefit performances. 
 
 Chronicles record re-appearances of the play in 
 Edinburgh up to the year 1857. It was also very 
 popular in Dublin, Bath, Glasgow, and in all of the 
 English provinces, as strolling players chose it for 
 one of their stock-pieces. 
 
 Nor was it any less a favorite here in America. Its 
 first performance seems to have been in New York 
 in January, 1759, and for close to a century it 
 appeared on the boards in this country. One of its 
 last performances was in Albany in 1853. There 
 were comparatively few theatrical centres in America 
 in the middle and late eighteenth century, but appar- 
 ently in all of the cities where the theatre had any 
 
 1 Kennard, Mrs. Siddons, p. 345. 
 
 2 For an amusing account of one youth, who had the temer- 
 ity to aspire to this part, with Mrs. Siddons as Lady Randolph, 
 see Dunlap, History of the American Theatre, pp. 178-9. 
 
56 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 standing, Douglas was one of the favorite plays. 
 New York, Philadelphia, Annapolis, Newport, Wil- 
 liamsburg, Charleston, Baltimore, Harrisburg, Bos- 
 ton, Alexandria, Hartford, Savannah, and Albany are 
 all included among those towns which welcomed it. 
 We read that in 1792, when it was given at Boston, 
 it was disguised under the title of Moral Lectures. 
 As a result, the players were arrested, and a riot 
 followed. Unquestionably, then, Douglas had sev- 
 eral hundred performances in this country, during 
 the long years in which it ranked as a favorite among 
 English tragedies. 
 
 However, popular though it long continued to be, 
 it is surprising to read that the play had a hearing 
 of any kind as late in the twentieth century as 1914. 
 An interesting entertainment entitled 'As It Used to 
 Be,' is reported in the London papers for June, 1914. 
 There was included an act from Douglas among the 
 other events of the evening, and the endeavor was 
 made to reproduce as nearly as possible the scenery, 
 customs, manners, and speech of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury. In this connection the writer speaks of 
 'eighteenth century clothes and frozen eighteenth 
 century manner.' The account of the affair, taken 
 from the London Daily Telegraph for Wednesday, 
 June 10, 1914, reads in part as follows : 
 
 As It Used to Be. 
 
 This is a quaint affair. If you call it a pageant of the 
 stage of the eighteenth century you come as near a precise 
 description as is necessary. But pageants suggest splendour, 
 and the chief object of this odd little entertainment ds fun. 
 First of all there was a harpsichord, and thereupon 'the young 
 Mozart' (impersonated by Ivor Novello) played an overture. 
 A stage manager pretended to light candles for footlights, and 
 grinned in a knowing manner at the embarrassed modern 
 stalls. Then 'the leading actor of the theatre,' bearing a 
 candelabrum of many lights, escorted 'A Royal personage' 
 through the auditorium. There was also a Prologfue. 
 
 After all this we came to drama. John Home's 'Douglas' 
 
Stage-History of Douglas hi 
 
 was the play, and in it we had Master Betty, 'the infant 
 Roscius' to say nothing of Mrs. Siddons and John Kemble. 
 If you know anything at all about 'Douglas' it is probably 
 from Thackeray's jibes, and the scene we had last night in- 
 cluded the aspiration about the 'gigantic Dane' which amused 
 his good people in 'the Virginians.' Probably 'Douglas' always 
 seemed an absurd play to people with a keen sense of the 
 ludicrous. Still you remember that Burns believed the Rev. 
 Mr. Home had 'methodized wild Shakespeare' into much 
 superior tragedy, and perhaps it was not quite so absurd to 
 our forefathers as in the Adelphi last night. The effect there 
 was in the manner of earnest parody and quite amusing 
 parody. But one could not help wondering what the great 
 Siddons really made of such sad stuff as Mr. Home's verse. 
 
III. 
 
 SOURCES AND TEXTS OF DOUGLAS 
 (a) Sources of Douglas. 
 
 Briefly, the story of Douglas is this: The play 
 opens with a long expository speech by Lady Ran- 
 dolph to her confidante, Anna. In this she tells her of 
 a secret marriage made years before with Douglas, 
 whose family and hers are bitter enemies. Soon 
 after the marriage Douglas went to war, and was 
 killed. Lady Randolph, fearing her father's anger, 
 sends her child away when he is born. He and the 
 servant who had charge of him were never heard of 
 again. Some years after that she had been married 
 by her father to Lord Randolph, but during all of this 
 time has never ceased to grieve for her husband 
 and child. At the conclusion of this disclosure of her 
 secret. Lord Randolph enters, bringing with him a 
 youth who has just saved him from a band of mur- 
 derers. To this youth, a shepherd, in whom Lady 
 Randolph feels the deepest interest. Lord Randolph 
 in gratitude promises his protection. 
 
 The villain of the play is Glenalvon. He is in love 
 with Lady Randolph, and has resolved to destroy her 
 husband on the first occasion that offers. He has, in 
 fact, hired the band of murderers from whom Lord 
 Randolph has just been saved. Several soliloquies in 
 the play give us insight into his plans. 
 
 Shortly after these characters have been intro- 
 duced, and Lord Randolph and the youth, Young 
 Norval, have left for the camp, an old shepherd is 
 found lurking in the vicinity. He is brought to Lady 
 Randolph, while, at the same time, there are given to 
 her valuable jewels which have been found on him. 
 These she recognizes as the ones which she had put in 
 
Sources and Texts of Douglas 59 
 
 the basket with her infant. It develops that old Nerval 
 rescued the baby in a storm, and has brought him up 
 as his son. 
 
 Lady Randolph novi^ makes arrangements for a 
 secret interview with her son. One is held, and 
 another is arranged for. Glenalvon hears of this, 
 and arouses the jealousy pf Lord Randolph by telling 
 him of it. They go to the secret meeting-place, and 
 Lord Randolph and the youth fight. Glenalvon comes 
 up in the rear, and stabs Young Norval. The latter 
 kills Glenalvon before his own death. When Lady 
 Randolph hears of this, distracted, she leaps off a 
 cliff. Lord Randolph, in the deepest remorse when 
 he learns how he has been duped, leaves for the wars 
 from which he hopes 'he never shall return.' 
 
 The story of Gil Morrice, the chief source of 
 Douglas, is this. Gil Morrice is hunting in the wood. 
 He calls to him a page, and sends him with tokens of 
 his identity to the wife of Lord Barnard. He asks 
 from her a meeting in the wood. The page goes to the 
 lady, and gives his message to her while she sits with 
 her husband at dinner. The baron rides at once to 
 the wood, meets Gil Morrice, and kills the boy. Lord 
 Barnard then takes his head, and rides home with it 
 to his wife. Then he learns that the youth was her 
 son. On hearing this, he expresses the deepest 
 remorse for his deed. With this the ballad closes. 
 The points in common are apparent here. 
 
 The plot of Merope, which Home is said to have 
 adopted to some extent, may now be examined. 
 Aaron Hill's Merope, which closely follows Voltaire's 
 tragedy of that name, was playing in London at 
 Drury Lane in 1749, the year in which Home went 
 to that city to submit his Agis to Garrick. It seems 
 highly probable that he saw the play at that time, 
 and that Douglas may owe certain of its points of 
 resemblance to it. 
 
 Merope opens with the queen of that name bemoan- 
 
60 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 ing to her confidante the loss of her son. About 
 fourteen years before, he had been taken away from 
 Mycene by a faithful servant, to escape the death that 
 had already overtaken his father and two brothers 
 through a rebellion in the state. Merope in this con- 
 versation expresses her fear of Polyphontes, general 
 of Mycene, whom she knows to be a very ambitious 
 and unscrupulous man. He has so gained the con- 
 fidence of the people that they are demanding that 
 Merope shall marry him, and thus provide a consort 
 for the throne. She rejects the proposal with scorn, 
 both because she will not stoop to marry a subject, 
 and because she wishes to keep the succession open 
 for her son, when he shall return. 
 
 A conversation between Polyphontes and his favor- 
 ite, Erox, reveals that he has news of the coming ot 
 Elumenes, Merope's son, and has placed his hired 
 assassins on all of the roads to waylay him. Eumenes, 
 apparently a young shepherd, is attacked by two men 
 as he comes from a temple, kills one of them, and 
 puts the other to fiight. He is captured and brought 
 before Merope for examination. She is much moved 
 on seeing him, and questions him closely about his 
 birth, but he declares that he is the son of a shepherd, 
 and was born far from Mycene. 
 
 Polyphones endeavors to persuade the queen that 
 the youth's victim was her own son, and she is about 
 to take vengeance upon him with her own hands, 
 when her confidante, who has discovered his identity, 
 stops her. This same discovery is made known to 
 Polyphontes, and he has the boy thrown into prison. 
 From there he is to be released to meet instant death, 
 unless he consents to adoption by Polyphontes, who 
 will reign during his lifetime. For, in the meantime, 
 that general has persuaded Merope, through her love 
 for Eumenes, to consent to the marriage with him. 
 She plans to kill herself immediately after, as she has 
 learned that Polyphontes was responsible for the mur- 
 
Sources and Texts of Douglas 61 
 
 der of her sons and husband years before. Eumenes, 
 however, comes to the altar, where he is supposed to 
 be about to make his oath to Polyphontes. He kills 
 the latter, and the people, believing that he has been 
 aided directly by the gods, proclaim him king. 
 
 The chief points of resemblance and contrast be- 
 tween Douglas and Merope are these. 
 
 Each play opens with a scene between the heroine and 
 her confidante in which an account is given of events 
 which had happened years before. Most important of 
 these were the death of the heroine's husband and the 
 loss of her son. In the case of Merope, however, she 
 had been the reigning queen for some years, and had 
 had other children. In both plays the villain has 
 designs upon the heroine, but in the one it is chiefly 
 desire for the woman herself, while in the other, 
 ambition for the position which marriage with her 
 will bring is the prevailing motive. In both plays 
 the effectiveness of the heroine's role depends upon 
 her portrayal of the most passionate maternal affec- 
 tion and grief. Merope, however, has not married 
 again, as has Lady Randolph. Lord Randolph is not 
 the villain of the play, as is Polyphontes, the would-be 
 husband of Merope. In each play the hero believes 
 himself to be the son of a shepherd, and still longs for 
 a life of activity in arms rather than for a rural life. 
 Both perform prodigious deeds of valor. In both 
 cases the villain plots against the life of the heroine's 
 son. In Merope, this results in the death of the 
 villain, while in Douglas, not only is Glenalvon killed, 
 but Douglas too falls, at which his mother destroys 
 herself. The outcome of the two tragedies is therefore 
 quite different. 
 
 There are some other minor similarities and dif- 
 ferences which might be pointed out, but these will 
 
62 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 show the extent of Home's indebtedness to Merope.^ 
 
 The truth probably is, then, that Home owed some- 
 thing to both the ballad and the play. It is not felt, 
 however, in studying the three productions that his 
 debt was more than a legitimate one. As most other 
 dramatists have done, he took his first idea of a plot 
 from sources not original with himself. Around these 
 he wove a story different enough in details and lan- 
 guage to entitle him to the credit of having written 
 an original drama. 
 
 (b) The First Editions of Douglas. 
 
 We can but guess at the changes that were made in 
 the play of Douglas, after its first representation, and 
 before its printing. The name Barnet was changed to 
 Randolph, and that of Forman or Randolph to Ner- 
 val. In addition, some of the prayers and adjurations 
 to which most exception was taken were done away 
 with. As a whole, however, the play seems to have 
 been revised very little in the significant details of 
 the plot. Reference to Garrick's letter of criti<.'ism,= 
 and a comparison of that with the published play, v/ill 
 prove this. 
 
 Although the first Edinburgh edition of Douglas 
 was in the press at the same time as the first London 
 edition, the English copy appeared a few days earlier. 
 The London Evening Post for March 17 to March 19, 
 1757, announces that 
 
 This Day was publish'd — Price One Shilling and Sixpence — 
 The Tragedy of Douglas — as it is acting at the Theatre Royal 
 in Co vent Garden. 
 
 1 For an account of the sources of Douglas with reference 
 chiefly to its indebtedness to other plays for its language, see 
 Eugene Wolbe, Quellenstudien zu John Home's 'Douglas.' 
 
 2 Pp. 36-38. 
 
Sources and Texts of Douglas 63 
 
 The Edinburgh Evening Courant for Thursday, 
 March 24, 1757, announces the publication of Douglas 
 for the next Tuesday, and the Scottish papers during 
 the early part of April advertise it as being on sale 
 at the book shops. While both editions announce the 
 text as being of the play 'As it is acted at the Theatre 
 Royal in Covent Garden,' there are some variations 
 to be found between them. The Prologue of the Lon- 
 don version is different from that of the Edinburgh 
 edition. The London edition holds less strictly to the 
 eighteenth-century capitalization of the nouns than 
 does the Edinburgh version, and keeps perhaps a little 
 more strictly to the old spelling, using such forms as 
 clifts, liklyhood, it's, glynn, cloaths, compleated. The 
 London edition also has scene-divisions to Acts II and 
 III, whereas in the Edinburgh edition each act is 
 printed as a single scene. 
 
 In citing the variations between these two texts, 
 punctuation, where it does not in any way change the 
 meaning, and variations in spelling in such words as 
 'distrest' and 'distress'd' have not been given. The 
 differences mentioned are those of words or of 
 omitted passages. Both the London and the Edin- 
 burgh prologue are given in full to show the different 
 appeal made by each. 
 
 PROLOGUE 
 Spoken at Edinburgh. 
 
 In days of classic fame, when Persia's Lord 
 Oppos'd his millions to the Grecian sword, 
 Flourlsh'd the state of Athens, small her store, 
 Rugged her soil, and rocky was her shore, 
 Like Caledonia's: yet she gain'd a name 
 That stands unrlvall'd in the rolls of fame. 
 
 Such proud pre-eminence not valour gave, 
 (For who than Sparta's dauntless sons more brave?) 
 But learning, and the love of every art. 
 That Virgin Pallas and the Muse impart. 
 
 Above the rest the Tragic Muse admir'd 
 
64 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Each Attic breast, with noblest passions fir'd. 
 In peace their poets with their heroes shar'd 
 Glory, the hero's, and the bard's reward. 
 The Tragic Muse each glorious record kept, 
 And, o'er the kings she conquer'd, Athens wept.* 
 
 Here let me cease, impatient for the scene, 
 To you I need not praise the Tragic Queen: 
 Oft has this audience soft compassion shown 
 To woes of heroes, heroes not their own. 
 This night our scenes no common tear demand, 
 He comes, the hero of your native land! 
 DOUGLAS, a name thro' all the world renown'd, 
 A name that rouses like the trumpet's sound! 
 Oft have your fathers, prodigal of life, 
 A DOUGLAS foUow'd through the bloody strife; 
 Hosts have been known at that dread name to yield, 
 And, DOUGLAS dead, his name hath won the iield. 
 
 Listen attentive to the various tale, 
 Mark if the author's kindred feelings fail; 
 Sway'd by alternate hopes, alternate fears. 
 He waits the test of your congenial tears. 
 If they shall flow, back to the M^use he flies. 
 And bids your heroes in succession rise; 
 Collects the wand'ring warriors as they roam, 
 DOUGLAS assures them of a welcome-home. 
 
 PROLOGUE OF LONDON EDITION 
 Spoken by Mr. Sparks 
 
 In antient times, when Britain's trade was arms. 
 And the lov'd musick of her youth, alarms, 
 A god-like race sustain'd fair England's fame: 
 Who has not heard of gallant PIERCY'S name? 
 Ay, and of DOUGLAS? Such illustrious foes 
 In rival Rome and Carthage never rose! 
 From age to age bright shone the British fire. 
 And every hero was a hero's sire. 
 When powerful fate decreed one warrior's doom. 
 Up sprung the Phoenix from his parent's tomb. 
 But whilst these generous rivals fought and fell, 
 These generous rivals lov'd each other well: 
 
 See the Persae of Aeschylus. 
 
Sources and Texts of Douglas 65 
 
 Tho' many a bloody field was lost and won, 
 
 Nothing in hate, in honour all was done. 
 
 When PIERCY wrong'd defy'd his prince or peers, 
 
 Fast came the DOUGLAS, with his Scottish spears; 
 
 And, when proud DOUGLAS made his King his foe. 
 
 For DOUGLAS, PIERCY bent his English bow. 
 
 Expell'd their native homes by adverse fate. 
 
 They knock'd alternate at each other's gate: 
 
 Then blaz'd the castle, at the midnight hour, 
 
 For him whose arms had shook its firmest tower. 
 
 This night a DOUGLAS your protection claims; 
 
 A wife! A mother! pity's softest names: 
 
 The story of her woes indulgent hear, 
 
 And grant your suppliant all she begs, a tear. 
 
 In confidence she begs; and hopes to find 
 
 Each English breast, like noble PIERCY'S kind. 
 
 In the London edition the speech of Lady Randolph, 
 Act I, p. 2, ends at line 22 : 
 
 He only now in my remembrance lives. 
 
 The Edinburgh edition, Act. I, pp. 8 and 9, has two 
 additional lines in this speech, and the following pas- 
 sages which do not appear in the London text. The 
 last lines in Lady Randolph's speech are : 
 
 Lady R. This fatal day stirs my time-settled sorrow. 
 Troubles afresh the fountain of my heart. 
 
 The Edinburgh text then continues : 
 
 Lord R. When was it pure of sadness! These black weeds 
 Express the wonted colour of thy mind. 
 For ever dark and dismal. Seven long years 
 Are pass'd, since we were join'd by sacred ties: 
 Clouds, all the while have hung upon thy brow. 
 Nor broke, nor parted by one gleam of joy. 
 Time, that wears out the trace of deepest anguish. 
 As the sea smooths the prints made in the sand, 
 Has past o'er thee in vain.i 
 
 1 London ed.. Act I, p. 2, line 23, Lord Randolph: 
 'Time that wears out the trace of deepest anguish 
 Has past o'er thee in vain.' 
 
66 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Lady R. If time to come 
 Should prove as ineffectual, yet, my Lord 
 Thou canst not blame me. When our Scottish youth 
 Vy'd with each other for my luckless love, 
 Oft I besought them, I implor'd them all 
 Not to assail me with my father's aid. 
 Nor blend their better destiny with mine. 
 For melancholy had congeal'd my blood, 
 And froze affection in my chilly breast. 
 At last my Sire, rous'd with the base attempt 
 To force me from him, which thou rend'red'st vain. 
 To his own daughter bow'd his hoary head. 
 Besought me to commiserate his age. 
 And vow'd he should not, could not die in peace. 
 Unless he saw me wedded, and secur'd 
 Ftom violence and outrage. Then, my Lord! 
 In my extreme distress I call'd on thee. 
 Thee I bespake, profess'd my strong desire 
 To lead a single, solitary life. 
 And begg'd thy Nobleness, not to demand 
 Her for a wife whose heart was dead to love. 
 How thou persisted'st after this, thou know'st. 
 And must confess that I am not unjust. 
 Nor more to thee than to myself injurious. 
 
 Lord R. That I confess; yet ever must regret 
 The grief I cannot cure. Would thou wert not 
 Compos'd of grief and tenderness alone,i 
 But hadst a spark of other passions in thee. 
 Pride, anger, vanity, the strong desire 
 Of admiration, dear to woman kind; 
 These might contend with, and allay thy grief. 
 As meeting tides and currents smooth our firth. 
 
 Lady R. To such a cause the human mind oft owes 
 Its transient calm, a calm I envy not. 
 
 Both editions then continue with the line 'Sure thou 
 art not the daughter of Sir Malcolm,' (London ed,, 
 p. 2, 1. 25; Edinburgh ed., p. 9, 1. 28). 
 
 1 See p. 2, lines 24-25, Act I, London ed., for this line and 
 the half-line preceding. 
 
Sources and Texts of Douglas 67 
 
 Further variations are: 
 
 London edition, Act II, p. 15, 1. 7 : 
 
 I joy that thou art safe; and admire- 
 
 Edinburgh edition, Act II, p. 22, 1. 6: 
 
 I joy that thou art safe; and I admire- 
 
 London edition, Act II, p. 15, 1. 8, in Lady Randolph's 
 speech, which reads: 
 
 Him and his fortunes who hath wrought thy safety 
 
 and which is followed in the Edinburgh edition, Act 
 II, p. 22, 1. 8, by this line, lacking in the London text : 
 
 Yea, as my mind predicts, with thine his own. 
 London edition. Act II, p. 19, 1. 16 of Glenalvon's 
 speech reads: 
 
 You much amaze me. No created thing 
 Edinburgh edition, Act 2, p. 26, 1. 12 : 
 
 You much amaze me. No created being 
 London edition. Act III, p. 30, 1. 6 : 
 
 The fastest friend, the best and kindest master. 
 Edinburgh edition, Act III, p. 36, 1. 4: 
 
 The fastest friend, the best, the kindest master. 
 London edition. Act IV, p. 37, 1. 13 : 
 
 In well-girt towers and castles, whilst the men 
 Edinburgh edition. Act IV, p. 43, 1. 13 : 
 
 In wall-girt towers and castles, whilst the men 
 London edition. Act IV, p. 41, 1. 4 : 
 
 Their valiant leader hails the noble Randolph. 
 Edinburgh edition. Act IV, p. 47, 1. 2 : 
 
 The valiant leader hails the noble Randolph. 
 London edition. Act V, p. 60, 1. 21 : 
 
 And they will be reveng'd. Perhaps even now 
 
 Edinburgh edition. Act V, p. 65, 1. 19 : 
 
 And he will be reveng'd. Perhaps even now 
 
 London edition. Act V, p. 65, 1. 6 : 
 
 Hear justice! hear! are these the fruits of virtue? 
 Edinburgh edition, Act V, p. 69, 1. 21 : 
 
 Hear justice! hear! stretch thine avenging arm. 
 London edition, Act V, p. 65, 1. 14 : 
 
 Grow dim apace! my mother 
 
 Edinburgh edition. Act V, p. 70, 1. 5 : 
 
 Grow dim apace! my mother — Oh! my mother. 
 
68 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 London edition. Act V, p. 68, after speech of Old Ner- 
 val, stage-directions: 
 
 Tears his hair, and throws himself upon the ground. 
 Edinburgh edition, Act V, p, 72, stage-directions : 
 
 Tears his hair, and throws himself upon the body of 
 Douglas. 
 
 (c) Later Editions of Douglas, 
 
 There were many editions of Douglas printed dur- 
 ing the half-century or more in which it continued 
 to be one of the most popular tragedies on the stage. 
 The later ones are of interest chiefly because they 
 show the changes that came in the text with the later 
 representations. As the nineteenth century ap- 
 proached, there was more and more disinclination for 
 the long declamatory speeches, and we find therefore 
 that many of these are shortened in the later editions. 
 Typical of these texts is one published in 1798, which 
 has the appearance of being a very carefully edited 
 version of the tragedy. It contains a portrait of the 
 author and numerous illustrations, and has about ten 
 pages of names of those who subscribed for copies of 
 the play. This edition, printed at Edinburgh, is 
 lacking in scene-divisions, as was the first Scottish 
 edition. 
 
 Of the differences in language between these two 
 editions, only a few of the most significant lines are 
 cited. For the most part, these changes are unim- 
 portant, but those given will illustrate the tendency of 
 the revisions. The text shows that this edition fol- 
 lowed closely the first Edinburgh edition. 
 London edition. Act II, p. 19, 1. 16 : 
 
 You much amaze me. No created thing. 
 1798 edition. Act II, p. 40, 1. 5 : 
 
 You much amaze me. No created being. 
 London edition, Act IV, p. 39, 1. 20 : 
 
 The cross of Christ, and won the Holy Land. 
 
Sources and Texts of Douglas 69 
 
 1798 edition, Act IV, p. 72, 1. 12 : 
 
 The blessed cross, and won the Holy Land. 
 
 London edition. Act IV, p. 40, 1. 8: 
 
 Declar'd his name and lineage. Mighty God! 
 
 1798 edition. Act IV, p. 73, 1. 9 : 
 
 Declar'd his name and lineage. Mighty pow'rs! 
 
 London edition. Act V, p. 65, 1. 6 : 
 
 Hear justice! hear! are these the fruits of virtue? 
 
 1798 edition, Act V, p. 116, 1. 13 : 
 
 Hear justice! hear! stretch thine avenging arm. 
 
 London edition, Act V, p. 67, 1. 13 : 
 
 And such a husband make a woman bold. 
 1798 edition. Act V, p. 120, 1. 15 : 
 
 And such a husband drive me to my fate. 
 
 While in this copy there are numerous variations 
 in single words or lines, these are unimportant for the 
 most part. The most significant fact brought out, 
 however, in a careful comparison of this edition with 
 the first London edition is, as has been said, that of 
 the shortening of a great many of the long speeches 
 of the play. The attempt is evidently to have more 
 of action, and less of declamation. In this way, 
 actors of Douglas were able to keep more in touch 
 with the trend of early nineteenth-century drama, for 
 the play continued to be acted frequently through the 
 first quarter of that century. 
 
 The importance of this play is shown by the list 
 of editions which follows. Although this is, in all 
 probability, incomplete, it will none the less give 
 some idea of the importance for many years of 
 Douglas among English tragedies. 
 
 Editions of Douglas 
 
 London 1757 
 
 Edinburgh 1757 
 
 Belfast 175S 
 
 Home's Dramatic Works 
 
 (Douglas, Agis, and Siege of 
 
 Aquileia 1760 
 
 Dublin 1761 
 
 Perth 1775 
 
70 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 New English Theatre, London 1776 
 
 London 1777 
 
 Bell's British Theatre 1778 
 
 London , 1780 
 
 Edinburgh 1783 
 
 London (marked with variations in the 
 
 manager's book) 1784 
 
 Bell's British Theatre 1791 
 
 Perth 1795 
 
 Edinburgh 1798 
 
 Home's Dramatic Works 2 vols., Edinburgh 1798 
 
 London 1800 (?) 
 
 London 1801 
 
 London 1805 
 
 Mrs. Inchbald's Edition 1808 
 
 The British Theatre, London 1808 
 
 New York Drama - 
 
 French's Standard Drama, New York 
 
 Glasgow 1809 
 
 London (Mason) .'. 
 
 Edinburgh 1810 
 
 New York 1811 
 
 British Drama 1811 
 
 London 1814 
 
 Dibdin's Plants 1815 
 
 The New English Drama 1818 
 
 Oxberry Edition 1821 
 
 Douglas translated into French prose, 
 
 Paris 1822 
 
 Works — Now first collected (with Henry 
 
 Mackenzie's Account of the Life and 
 
 Writings of John Home) 
 
 3 vols., Edinburgh 1822 
 
 British Drama 1824 
 
 Cumberland's British Theatre 1829 
 
 Penny National Library 1830 (?) 
 
 Acting Drama 1834 
 
 Lacy's Acting Edition of Pla/ys 1857 
 
 British Drama 1864 
 
 Glasgow 1883 
 
 Dick's Standard Plays 
 
 Douglas, A Tragedy. (Reduced to Scot- 
 tish rhyme) by G. Smith, Aberdeen 1826 (?) 
 
 (A travesty) British Museum 
 
IV. 
 
 THE CHURCH CONTROVERSIES 
 OVER DOUGLAS 
 
 At the time that Douglas was written, there were 
 in Scotland two church-parties. One was the high 
 Calvinistic, headed by men ultra conservative, with 
 very extreme ideas as to their clerical obligations, 
 and with very little toleration of any degree of social 
 intercourse between the clergy and the laity. Among 
 the most prominent leaders of this party were Dr. 
 Alexander Webster and Rev. Patrick Cuming, both 
 men of more than ordinary ability. To the other and 
 more liberal church-party belonged such men as 
 Adam Ferguson, Alexander Carlyle, and John Home, 
 who ordered their lives on the assumption that they 
 were none the worse as clergymen for indulging 
 themselves in what they sincerely believed to be 
 innocent social diversions, and for admitting to their 
 society lay members from whose company they 
 might gain both pleasure and profit. It is, therefore, 
 not difficult to perceive that there were many oppor- 
 tunities for differences of opinion between the two 
 factions. 
 
 As soon as it was learned by the followers of the 
 Reverend Alexander Webster that a play written by 
 a minister in their church had actually been repre- 
 sented in Edinburgh, and that several other ministers 
 had witnessed the performance, the storm broke. 
 
 (a) The Edinburgh Notice 
 
 The first move was made on January 5, 1757, by 
 the Presbytery of Edinburgh, which sent the follow- 
 ing notice, with the order that it was 'to be read from* 
 all the Pulpits within their Bounds, on the last Sab- 
 bath, being the thirtieth day of this Month, imme- 
 
72 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 diately after divine Service Before Noon.' The 
 announcement is called the 'copy of the Admonition 
 and Exhortation by the Reverend Presbjrtery of 
 Edinburgh, dated the 5th Day of January, 1757.' It 
 reads as follows: 
 
 The Presbytery taking into their serious Consideration, the 
 declining State of Religion, the open Profanation of the Lord's 
 Day, the Contempt of Public Worship, the growing Luxury 
 and Levity of the present Age; in which so many seem Lovers 
 of Pleasure, more than Lovers of God: and being particularly 
 affected with the unprecedented Countenance given of late 
 to the Playhouse in this Place, when the State of the Nation, 
 and the Circumstances of the Poor, make such hurtful Enter- 
 tainments still more pernicious; judged it their indispensable 
 Duty to express in the most open and solemn Manner, the 
 deep Concern they feel on this Occasion. 
 
 The opinion which the Christian Church has always enter- 
 tained of Stage Plays and Players, as prejudicial to the 
 Interests of Religion and Morality, is well known; and the 
 fatal Influence which they commonly have on the far greater 
 Part of Mankind, particularly the younger Sort, is too obvious 
 to be called in Question. 
 
 To enumerate how many Servants, Apprentices, and Stu- 
 dents in different Branches of Literature, in the City and 
 Suburbs, have been seduced from their proper Business, by 
 attending the Stage, would be a painful disagreeable Task. 
 
 The Presbytery in the Year 1727, when consisting of many 
 pious, prudent, and learned Ministers, whose Praise is in all 
 the Churches, being aware of these Evils, did prepare a 
 Paper, which was read from the several Pulpits within their 
 Bounds, warning their People against the dangerous Infection 
 of the Theatre then erected there. 
 
 In the Year 1737, the Legislature, in their great Wisdom, 
 did by an Act of the 10th of George II enact and declare, 
 'That every Person who should, for Hire or Reward, act, or 
 cause to be acted, any Play, or other Entertainment of the 
 Stage, without the special License and Authority mentioned in 
 the said Act, should be deemed a Rogue and a Vagabond, and 
 for every such offence should forfeit the sum of £50 sterling.' 
 
 At that time a Project was set on Foot to obtain a licensed 
 Theatre in this City; but the Masters and Professors of the 
 University, supported by the Magistrates, having prepared a 
 Petition, setting forth the dangerous Tendency of a Playhouse 
 
Church Controversies over 'Douglas' 73 
 
 here, with respect to the important Interests of Virtue and 
 Learning, the Project was laid aside. 
 
 The Players, however, being so audacious as to continue to 
 act in Defiance of the Law, the Presbytery did, at their own 
 Charge, prosecute them before the Court of Session; and 
 prevailed in the Process. The players were fined in Terms of 
 Law; and Warrants . being issued for apprehending them, they 
 fled from Justice. But others came in their Place; who since 
 that Time have attempted to elude the Law, by changing the 
 Name of the Playhouse into that of the Concert-Hall. 
 
 As such a slight evasion, the mere Change of a Name, could 
 not make the smallest Variation in the Nature of the Thing, 
 the Presbytery continued to do all in their Power, and in 
 their Sphere, to prevent the growing Evil; and think them- 
 selves at this Time loudly called upon, in one Body, and with 
 one Voice, to expostulate, dn the Bowels of Love and Compas- 
 sion, with all under their Care and Inspection. 
 
 When our gracious Sovereign, attentive to the Voice of 
 Providence, is calling from the Throne to Humiliation and 
 Prayer, how unseemly it is for his Subjects to give them- 
 selves up to Mirth and Jollity? When the War in which we 
 are engaged, and many awful tokens of the Divine Displeasure, 
 bespeak us, in the Language of an inspired Writer, to redeem 
 the Time because the Days are evil, should that Time be 
 squandered away in running the constant Round of foolish, 
 not to say sinful Amusements? When the Wants and Cries 
 of the numerous Poor require extraordinary Supplies, how 
 unaccountable is it to lavish away vast Sums for such vain and 
 idle Purposes? When the Wisdom of the Nation has guarded 
 the Inhabitants of this City and Suburbs from the Infection 
 of the Stage, by a plain and express Statute; is it not a 
 high instance of Folly to break down that Barrier, and open 
 a Door with their own Hands for theatrical Representations? 
 which are in many Respects no less inconsistent with good 
 Policy, than unfriendly to Religion; and will be found sooner 
 or later, to affect their temporal as well as spiritual Interests. 
 
 On these Accounts, and for many other obvious and weighty 
 Considerations, the Presbytery, warmed with just Concern for 
 the Good of Souls, do in the Fear of God, warn, exhort, and 
 obtest, all within their Bounds, as they regard the Glory of 
 God, the Credit of our holy Religion, and their own Welfare, 
 to walk worthy of the Vocation wherewith they are called, by 
 shewing a sacred Regard to the Lord's Day, and all the Ordin- 
 ances of divine Institution; and by discouraging, in their 
 respective Spheres, the illegal and dangerous Entertainments ■ 
 of the Stage. 
 
74 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 The Presbytery would plead with all in Authority, with 
 Teachers of Youth, Parents, and Masters of Families, to 
 restrain by every habile Method, such as are under their 
 Influence, from frequenting these Seminaries of Folly and 
 Vice. They would particularly beseech the younger Part of 
 their Flock, to beware, lest by Example, or from a foolish De- 
 sire of appearing in the fashionable World, they be misled 
 into such pernicious Snares; Snares which must necessarily 
 retard, if not entirely mar, that Progress in the respective 
 Parts of their Education, on which their future Usefulness and 
 Success depend. And, lastly, they would entreat and obtest 
 Persons of all Ranks and Conditions, that, instead of con- 
 tributing to the growing Licentiousness of the Age, they may 
 distinguish themselves by shining as Lights dn the World, 
 being blameless and harmless, the Sons of God, without 
 Rebuke, in the Midst of a crooked and perverse Nation; occu- 
 pying, for the great Purposes of the Honour of God and the 
 good of Mankind, that Time, that Substance, and those other 
 Talents which they have received from their Lord and Master. 
 
 On the whole, the Presbytery, in the most earnest Manner, 
 call upon all who have the Interest of Religion at Heart, to 
 plead fervently at the Throne of Grace, in the prevailing 
 name of the great Mediator, until the Spirit be poured upon 
 us from on high, and the Wilderness be a fruitful Field, and 
 the fruitful Field be counted for a Forest: Then Judgment 
 shall dwell in the Wilderness, and Righteousness remain in 
 the fruitful Field; and the Work of Righteousness shall be 
 Peace, and the Effect of Righteousness, Quietness and As- 
 surance for ever.^ 
 
 (b) The Glasgow Notice^ 
 This notice was no sooner given out and duly read 
 as ordered, than the Glasgow Presbytery, actuated by 
 the same feeling toward the clergy over which it had 
 jurisdiction, had, on the 14th of February, 1757, the 
 following notice read from the pulpits which it con- 
 trolled : 
 
 The Presbjrtery of Glasgow having seen a printed paper, 
 intitled. An Admonition and Exhortation of the Reverend 
 
 1 For a copy of this, see the collection of tracts on Douglas 
 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 
 
Church Controversies over 'Douglas' 75 
 
 Presbytery of Edinburgh, which among other Evils prevail- 
 ing, laments the extraordinary and unprecedented Countenance 
 given of late to the Playhouse in that City; and having good 
 Reason to believe, that this refers to the following melancholy 
 but notorious Facts, that one who is a Minister of the Church 
 of Scotland, did himself write and compose a Stage-Play, 
 intitled, the tragedy of Douglas, and got it to be acted in the 
 Theatre of Edinburgh; and that he, with several other Min- 
 isters of the Church, were present, and some of them oftener 
 than once, at the acting of the said Play, before a numerous 
 Audience; the Presbytery, deeply affected with this new and 
 strange Appearance, do think it their Duty to declare, as they 
 hereby do, that they agree with the Presbytery of Edinburgh, 
 in the Sentiments published by them in respect to Stage- Plays; 
 and particularly that such Entertainments, from what has 
 usually been exhibited in them, and also from the dissolute 
 Lives (for most part) and infamous Characters of the Players, 
 have been looked upon, by the Christian Church, in all Ages, 
 and of all different Communions, as extremely prejudicial to 
 Religion and Morality, as well as hurtful to the other valu- 
 able Interests of Human Society, by the wasteful Expence of 
 Money and Time they have occasioned; and being convinced by 
 long Experience, a sure Test of the Tendency of any Action 
 or Practice, how vain it is to expect such a reformation of the 
 Stage, as inconsistent with the ends aforesaid; and therefore 
 such Entertainments should be discouraged and laid aside. 
 And the Presbytery farther considering that the unprecedented 
 Countenance given the Play-house, in the Instance mentioned, 
 is greatly aggravated by a late Act of the Parliament, render- 
 ing the Stage (because not licensed) unlawful in Scotland; and 
 also from the present Circumstances of the Nation with regard 
 to the War we are engaged in, the Dearth of Provisions, and 
 the awful Tokens of the Anger of just Heaven against us; 
 they therefore hereby appoint and intrust such of their Mem- 
 bers as shall represent them in the ensuing General Assembly 
 of this Church, to move and insist, in a regular manner, that 
 the venerable Assembly do declare, by a public act, their 
 Judgment, and that of this National Church, against the 
 Entertainments of the Theatre, as of very hurtful Tendency 
 to the Interests of Religion and Society. Secondly, That the 
 Assembly do strictly enquire of the facts above mentioned, ' 
 viz. that a Minister of this Church has composed and pro- 
 cured to be acted, on the Theatre in the Canongate of Edin- 
 burgh, the Tragedy called Douglas; and that the representa- 
 tion of the said Tragedy was attended by him and several 
 
76 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 other Ministers, having been under the consideration of the 
 Presbjrteries respectively concerned; and whether their Min- 
 isters, being found guilty, have been censured as their faults 
 deserved; and to give such directions, as they in their Wisdom 
 shall find necessary, that such Ministers, and all others, may 
 be sensible, that the Church of Scotland will never protect 
 her Members in a Practice so unbecoming their Character, and 
 of such pernicious Tendency to the great Interests of Relig- 
 ion, Industry, and Virtue. And, lastly, that the Assembly 
 would use their best Endeavours to obtain such an Explication 
 and enforcement of the Act of the 17th George the II. anent 
 the Play-house, as may not be liable to the pitiful evasions by 
 which it is now eluded. 
 
 (c) Letters to Special Presbyteries 
 
 In addition to the general notices from the Edin- 
 burgh and Glasgow presbyteries, the following letter 
 was sent by the Edinburgh presbytery to those pres- 
 byteries whose ministers and members had attended 
 the playhouse.^ 
 
 Rev. Sir,— 
 
 We need not inform your Rev. presbytery of the opinion 
 which the Christian church has always entertained of stage 
 plays and players, nor of the fatal influence these entertain- 
 ments commonly have upon the far greater part of mankind, 
 especially the younger sort. Of this the presbytery of Edin- 
 burg was so sensible, that, in the year 1727, they appointed 
 Mess. Hamilton, Smith, Craig, etc. to draw up an admonition 
 and exhortation, warning and obtesting those under their 
 charge not to countenance the playhouse then erected in this 
 place; which admonition was unanimously approved of, and 
 read from the several pulpits within our bounds. 
 
 The unhappy effects of the playhouse were more and more 
 sensibly felt by all ranks: servants, apprentices, and students, 
 were seduced. 
 
 In the year 1737, the legislature did, in their great wisdom, 
 prohibit, by an express law, the acting of plays for hire or 
 reward within this city and suburbs, and other places, as the 
 law more fully bears. 
 
 1 Scots' Magazine, April, 1757, p. 214. 
 
Church Controversies over 'Douglas' 77 
 
 The players being so audacious as to continue to act in de- 
 fiance of the law, the masters and professors of the university 
 here petitioned the parliament to take some effectual method 
 for enforcing the same: and the presbytery did, at their own 
 charge, prosecute the players before the court of session. In 
 this process they prevailed, and obtained a decree against 
 eight players, finding each of them liable to the penalty of 
 £50 Sterling. Warrants, pursuant to the above decreet, for 
 apprehending them, being issued, they dispersed. But others 
 came in their place: and since that time they have attempted 
 to elude the law by a vain and unworthy evasion. 
 
 As such thin pretexts could not make the smallest variation 
 in the nature of the thing, the ministers in our bounds have 
 continued to do everything in their power and their sphere 
 to put a stop to entertainments so hurtful and illegal. But 
 we are sorry to inform your Rev. presbsrtery, that when the 
 state of the nation, and the distressed circumstances of the 
 poor, make such diversions, in themselves pernicious, still 
 more criminal; our endeavours for suppressing them have been 
 
 much interrupted, and in some measure defeated, by 
 
 of your members, minister at who, we 
 
 are credibly informed, present in the playhouse at the 
 
 head of the Canongate, within the bounds of your presbytery, 
 while a tragedy called Douglas was acted. 
 
 As this conduct is extremely offensive, we are persuaded your 
 Rev. Presbytery will take this matter into their consideration, 
 and follow out such measures as to them shall seem meet for 
 discountenancing such unwarrantable conduct, for vindicating 
 the credit and promoting the usefulness of the holy ministry, 
 and supporting the interests of religion. — 
 
 This, in name, presence, and by appointment of the pres- 
 bytery of Edinburgh, is signified to you, by. 
 
 Rev. Sir, Your most humble and obedient servant, 
 Edinburgh, 
 
 Dec. 29 John Warden, Modr p. t. 
 
 1756. JA. Craig, Pby-Clk. 
 
 The first report of the church-trials of the ministers 
 concerned appeared in the Scots' Magazine for Janu- 
 ary, 1757,^ with an account of the 'proceedings of the 
 Presbytery of Edinburgh,' in the matter of the play 
 
 1 Pp. 47-48. 
 
78 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Douglas and the ministers who attended it. These 
 ministers were Carlyle of Inveresk, Home of Polwarth, 
 Scott of Westruther, Dysart of Eccles, Cupples of 
 Swinton, and Steele of Stair. John Home's presbytery 
 was, of course, also included. After commenting on the 
 letter sent by the presbytery to the various parishes, 
 the paper states that up to the time of publication only 
 two of the presbyteries, Haddington and Dalkeith, had 
 been heard from. These, which had control over John 
 Home and Carlyle, had promised to take up the mat- 
 ter seriously at their next meeting. 
 
 (d) The Case Against Carlyle. 
 
 When the trials opened, it was by Alexander Car- 
 lyle that the strongest defense was made. He ap- 
 peared before the presbytery of Dalkeith, and, far 
 from exhibiting that compunction for his act, which 
 most of the other ministers showed, he prepared to 
 defend himself in the most positive manner. His 
 opinion as to the righteousness of his cause is given 
 in these Avords: 
 
 I had attended the playhouse, not on the first or second, 
 but on the third night of the performance, being well aware 
 that all the fanatics and some other enemies would be on the 
 watch, and make all the advantage they possibly could against 
 me. But six or seven friends of the author, clergyman from 
 the Merse, having attended, reproached me for my cowardice; 
 and above all, the author himself and some female friends of 
 his having heated me by their upbraidings, I went on the third 
 night, and having taken charge of the ladies, I drew on myself 
 all the clamours of tongues and violence of prosecution which 
 I afterwards underwent. I believe I have already mentioned 
 that Dr. Patrick Cuming having become jealous of William 
 Robertson and John Home and myself on account of our 
 intimacy with Lord Milton, and observing his active zeal about 
 the tragedy of Douglas, took it into his head that he could 
 blow us up and destroy our popularity, and consequently dis- 
 gust Lord Milton with us. Very warmly, with all the friends 
 he could get to follow him — ^particularly Hyndman his second — 
 
Church Controversies over 'Douglas' 79 
 
 he joined with Webster and his party in doing everything they 
 could to depreciate the tragedy of Douglas, and disgrace its 
 partisans. With this view, besides the Act of the Presbytery 
 of Edinburgh, which was read in all the churches, and that of 
 the Presbytery of Glasgow, who followed them, they had 
 decoyed Mr. Thomas Whyte, minister of Liberton, an honest 
 but a quiet man, to submit to a six-weeks' suspension for his 
 having attended the tragedy of Douglas, which he had con- 
 fessed he had done.i This they had contrived as an example 
 for prosecuting me, and at least getting a similar sentence 
 pronounced against me by the Presbytery of Dalkeith. On 
 returning from Dumfries, in the second week of February, 
 1757, I was surprised not only to find the amazing hue and 
 cry that had been raised against Douglas, but all the train 
 that had been laid agaiiist me, and a summons to attend the 
 Presbytery, to answer for my conduct, on the 1st day of 
 March. 
 
 On deliberating about this affair with all the knowledge I had 
 of the laws of the Church, and the confidence I had in the 
 good-will of my parish, I took a firm resolution not to submit 
 to what I saw the Presbytery intended, but to stand my ground 
 on a firm opinion that my offence was not a foundation for a 
 libel, but, if anything at all, a mere impropriety or offence 
 against decorum, which ought to be done at privy censures by 
 an admonition. This ground I took, and never departed from 
 it; but I, at the same time, resolved to mount my horse, and 
 visit every member of Presbytery, especially my opponents, 
 and, by a free confession, endeavour to bring them over to my 
 opinion. They received me differently— some with a con- 
 temptible dissimulation, and others with a provoking reserve 
 and haughtiness. I saw that they had the majority of the 
 Presbytery on their side, and that the cabal was firm, and 
 that no submission on my part would turn them aside from 
 their purpose. This confirmed my resolution not to yield, but 
 to run every risk rather than furnish an example of tame 
 submission, not merely to a fanatical, but an illegal exertion 
 of power, which would have stamped disgrace on the Church 
 of Scotland, kept the younger clergy for half a century longer 
 in the trammels of bigotry or hypocrisy, and debarred every 
 generous spirit from entering into orders.^ 
 
 Carlyle was definitely aided in this stand by the 
 
 1 See account of the action against Whyte, p. 83. 
 
 2 Autobiography, pp. 314-16. 
 
80 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 action of the members of his parish, who warmly 
 commended him for the work which he had at all 
 times done among them, and who sent representatives 
 to ask that the affair be settled privately. This was 
 refused, and a libel was prepared against him which 
 contained three charges. These were: 
 
 1. His associating himself or familiarly keeping company 
 with the players, persons who by their profession, and in the 
 eye of the law, are of bad fame. 2. His attending the re- 
 hearsal of the tragedy of Douglas, and assisting or directing 
 the players on that occasion. 3. His appearing openly in the 
 playhouse in the Canongate, within a few miles of his own 
 parish, near to an university-seat, and hard by the city of 
 Edinburgh, where he was well known, having often preached, 
 and assisted at the administration of the Lord's supper in that 
 city.i 
 
 The account given in the Scots' Magazine, which pub- 
 lished this libel, goes on to say: 
 
 This article further charges him with having taken pos- 
 session of a box in the play house in a disorderly way, or 
 forcibly turning some gentlemen out of it, and there witnessing 
 the representation of the tragedy of Douglas: A tragedy 
 which tended to encourage the monstrous crime of suicide, and 
 contained such dreadful oaths or expressions, and mock 
 prayers, as were so offensive to the audience who countenance 
 the stage, that they were struck out or varied in future repre- 
 sentations.2 'AH which oaths, expressions, and mock prayers, 
 he,' says the libel, 'knew to be contained in that tragedy, 
 having perused it in manuscript, or witnessed the rehearsal 
 of it.' The libel then shows the bad tendency of such a prac- 
 tice; and concludes, that all, or any part of the charge being 
 proved, he ought to be censured according to the demerit of 
 
 1 Scots' Magazine, March, 1757, p. 159. 
 
 2 There are many of these prayers still in the play, and of 
 course the suicide of Lady Randolph remains. In the earlier 
 productions, however, Glenalvon seems to have died within 
 sight or hearing of the audience, and to have use some such 
 expression as this: 'No priest, no priest! I'll risk eternal 
 fire.' This was later changed. 
 
Church Controversies over 'Douglas' 81 
 
 the crime or offence. This libel, with a list of witnesses 
 annexed, was put into Mr. Carlyle's hand; and he was sum- 
 moned apvd acta to give in his defences on the 5th of April. 
 
 Carlyle appeared at that time before the court in 
 due form and his reply is reported as follows : 
 
 On the 5th of April, Mr. Carlyle gave in a paper, bearing, 
 That he thought himself bound to take this first opportunity 
 of answering to the whole charge, and not put the presbjrtery 
 to the trouble of leading a proof: and therefore acknowledges. 
 That he had been once or twice, with some gentlemen of good 
 reputation, and Mr. Digges [manager of the theatre, and the 
 principal actor] in a tavern; that he had heard read or re- 
 peated great part of the tragedy of Douglas at Mr. Digges's 
 house, where Mrs. Ward and some others of the actors were 
 present; that he had been sometimes in Mr. Digges's house 
 along with the author, and had some conversation about the 
 tragedy, but that he had never ate or drunk with Mrs. Ward, 
 or conversed with her, further than in agreeing or disagreeing 
 to what was said about the play; that he had been present, 
 with several gentlemen, at one rehearsal of it; and that he 
 was afterwards present when it was acted publicly, and 
 the house being crouded, he was admitted to a seat with some 
 difficulty and pressing. The paper proceeds to apologize for 
 his conduct, from his apprehension of the good tendency of the 
 play, and, the play being now published, submits it, how far 
 his apprehension was just. He expresses his extreme sorrow 
 for having given offence; and declares, that if he had thought 
 such conduct would have been offensive, he would have taken 
 care, as he resolved to do hereafter, to avoid it. He pleads, 
 nevertheless, that the charge brought against bim, is not, 
 according to the Form of Process, a proper ground for a libel 
 and a public trial, but of that kind for correcting which privy 
 censures were established; and therefore prays that the libel 
 may be thrown out. — The presbytery, after reasoning, were of 
 opinion not to drop the libel; but in regard Mr. Carlyle was 
 not prepared to make his defences, they delayed considering 
 the relevancy till the 19th of ApriH 
 
 The affair was then taken up by the synod. That 
 1 Scot^ Magazine, March, 1757, p. 160. 
 
82 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 body seems to have had the desire of censuring both 
 sides in the disagreement. The record reads : 
 
 The synod finds, That the grounds of proceeding in this 
 affair in the way of a libel, are not sufficiently clear and uncon- 
 trovertible; and that it had been better, and more expedient 
 for the presbytery, to have endeavoured to bring the same to 
 an issue, either in the way of privy censure, or of brotherly 
 conference, with proper admonition following thereon. And 
 further, the synod does, by this sentence, declare their high 
 displeasure with Mr. Carlyle, for the step he has taken in 
 going to the theatre; and strictly injoin him to abstain there- 
 from in time coming.^ 
 
 Many long discussions took place as to whether or not 
 the affair should be carried on to the General Assem- 
 bly. It was finally sent to that body by the sjoiod 
 with this statement : 
 
 The synod being deeply affected with the countenance given 
 of late to the entertainments of the stage, particularly by sev- 
 eral ministers, which entertainments have from long experi- 
 ence been found prejudicial to the great interests of religion 
 and virtue; and considering that it has been alledged, that 
 there is no express law or statute of this church which pro- 
 hibits her members alid ministers to witness theatrical repre- 
 sentations, they do humbly overture to the Venerable Assembly 
 that they would be pleased to take this matter under their 
 serious consideration, and lay down such rules as shall obviate 
 that pretext, and may effectually prevent such unwarrantable 
 practices for the future.^ 
 
 The May number of Scots' Magazine^ states that the 
 General Assembly, after some discussion, approved 
 the conduct of the affair by the synod. There the 
 affair rested, and with that action the case against 
 Carlyle ended. 
 
 The following recommendation was made by the 
 
 1 Ibid., April, p. 217. 
 
 2 Scots' Magazine, April, 1757, p. 218. 
 
 3 Pp. 263-4. 
 
Church Controversies over 'Douglas' 83 
 
 General Assembly at this same meeting in regard to 
 the attendance of ministers at the theatre: 
 
 The general assembly considering how much the success of 
 the gospel depends on the regular and inoffensive behaviour of 
 the ministers of this church, do earnestly recommend to the 
 several presbyteries, to take such wise and effectual measures 
 as may promote the spirit of our holy religion, and preserve 
 the purity and decorum of the ministerial character; and that 
 they take care that none of the ministers of this church do 
 upon any occasion attend the theatre.^ 
 
 (e) The Cases Against the Other Ministers, Including 
 John Home 
 
 This interesting and amusing account is given of 
 the action of the Presbytery of Edinburgh in regard 
 to one Mr. Whyte, who was under the jurisdiction of 
 that presbytery: 
 
 On the 12th of January, Mr. White, minister of Liberton 
 was called before the presbytery of Edinburgh, of which he is 
 a member, accused likewise of having been in the playhouse. 
 He owned the charge; but pleaded, by way of alleviation, 
 that he had gone to the playhouse only once, and endeavoured 
 to conceal himself in a corner, to avoid giving offence; 
 expressing his deep sorrow for what he had done, and firm 
 resolution to be more circumspect for the future. Some mem- 
 bers moved, that the presbytery, in respect of these allevi- 
 ating circumstances, should go no further than a solemn 
 rebuke, to be given in open presbytery. But others being of 
 opinion, that these circumstances notwithstanding, it was 
 necessary, for supporting the credit and promoting the useful- 
 ness of the holy ministry, and to deter others from such prac- 
 tices, to suspend Mr. White; a vote was stated. Rebuke or 
 Suspend? and carried Suspend by a great majority. Mr. 
 White acquiesced, but requested that the suspension might be 
 limited to a certain time. Agreeable to which request, the 
 presbytery suspended him only till the 2d of February. The 
 sentence was intimated from Liberton pulpit by Mr. Warden, 
 the moderator of the presbytery; and it has been obtem- 
 perated.2 
 
 1 Scots' Magazine, May, 1757, p. 264. 
 
 2 Scots' Magazine, January, 1757, p. 47. 
 
84 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 The March number of the Scots' Magazine^ opens 
 its account of the church-trials with this sentence : 
 
 We have received accounts of the following proceedings 
 had in consequence of the letters wrote by the presbytery of 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 From these it is found that Mr. Steel, minister of 
 Stair, had pleaded that he was so far from home that 
 there seemed no reason to fear that he would be 
 recognized in the play-house. He was therefore ex- 
 cused by his presbytery, after he had expressed deep 
 repentance for his fault, and had promised that there 
 should be no repetition of it. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Westruther and Mr. Cupples of Swin- 
 ton were likewise excused after a proper rebuke had 
 been given them. As regards Mr. Home of Polwarth 
 and Mr. Dysart of Eccles, their presbytery, far from 
 being grateful to the Edinburgh presbytery, seemed 
 to think that that body had been interesting itself in 
 affairs which did not concern it. The April numbei; of 
 the Scots' Magazine, which continues the accounts of 
 the church trials, contains an interesting letter from 
 the presbytery at Dunse which had jurisdiction 
 over these ministers. It resented so greatly the action 
 of the presbytery of Edinburgh in the affair that it 
 rather roundly reproved that body. After going at 
 great length into the reasons why it felt that their 
 action was unwarranted as to cause, and inconsiderate 
 as to the ministers involved, the letter to the Edin- 
 burgh presbytery closes with these words : 
 
 You must however excuse us, when we say, that your inter- 
 meddling in the manner you have done with the conduct of our 
 brethren, who have hitherto been eminently useful in our 
 bounds, hath a natural tendency, and will undoubtedly, unless 
 guarded against by the utmost prudence and caution on our 
 
 1 P. 158. 
 
Church Controversies over 'Douglas' 85 
 
 part, greatly mar and obstruct those valuable ends you seem 
 to have in view.i 
 
 The affair of these ministers was dismissed after they 
 had 'expressed their sorrow for having given of- 
 fence.' 
 
 John Home had not appeared at the April or at the 
 first May meeting of the presbytery of Haddington. 
 He was, at the time, in London as the first presenta- 
 tion of Douglas had taken place there in March. His 
 affair was then referred to the synod which met in 
 May, and it was likewise taken up by his own presby- 
 tery at a later meeting in the same month. Though 
 Home was present at that time, no minutes of the 
 meeting were kept. This was commonly considered 
 as due to some of his loyal friends who desired to 
 save him from any public censure, the more so, since 
 he had decided to resign his charge. The synod 
 refused to take action on the case, since Home's own 
 presbytery had never acted upon it. The affair was 
 then dropped. Home, therefore, in the matter of 
 public rebuke, came off much more easily than any of 
 the other ministers concerned in the affair. 
 
 The accounts of the church trials as reported by 
 the Scots' Magazine close, then, with this notice :2 
 
 Mr. John Home minister of Athelstonford, author of the 
 tragedy of Douglas, preached his farewel-sermon to bis con- 
 gregation on Sunday June 5. which drew tears from many of 
 the people, and gave in a demission of his charge to the presby- 
 tery of Haddington on the 7th. 
 
 Thus ended this difference of opinion between the 
 two parties in the Scottish church. It had proved to 
 be one of the most serious that had arisen for many 
 a year, and, according to Carlyle, resulted in very 
 
 1 Scots' Magazine, April, 1757, p. 216. 
 
 2 Scots' Magazine, May, 1757, p. 274. 
 
86 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 little good, either at this time or at a later day. An 
 Act was passed, to be sure, forbidding the clergy to 
 countenance the theatre. Carlyle speaks of it, how- 
 ever, as being 'totally neglected' and proceeds to 
 comment thus : 
 
 Although the clergy in Edinburgh and its neighborhood had 
 abstained from the theatre because it gave offence, yet the 
 more remote clergymen, when occasionally in town had almost 
 universally attended the playhouse; and now that the subject 
 had been solemnly discussed, and all men were convinced that 
 the violent proceedings they had witnessed were the effects of 
 bigotry or jealousy, mixed with party-spirit and cabal, the 
 more distant clergy returned to their usual amusement in the 
 theatre when occasionally in town.i 
 
 That Carlyle, however, would be naturally prejudiced 
 in this matter, may easily be believed, and there is 
 little reason to doubt that the publicity given to the 
 affair prevented many a clergyman from attending the 
 theatre who would otherwise have gone. In any case, 
 John Home's tragedy of Douglas had brought on a 
 storm which its kindly author could in no way have 
 anticipated, when he planned with West Digges to put 
 the play on the Edinburgh stage, 
 
 1 Autobiography, p. 322. 
 
THE WAR OF PAMPHLETS 
 
 The discussion over Douglas was by no means con- 
 fined to the Church of Scotland. The laity took it up, 
 and for several months there lasted a controversy 
 which, at times, assumed great bitterness. There 
 were discussions among those who were for or against 
 a minister of the gospel indulging in that form of 
 literary composition, and among those who differed 
 in their opinions as to the intrinsic merits of the 
 play. So numerous were the publications on this 
 subject that, during some months while the contest 
 was waging, the Scottish magazines were full of 
 advertisements of pamphlets relating to the affair.' 
 In the January number of the Scots' Magazine, after 
 mentioning several pamphlets pertaining to the dis- 
 cussions, the magazine goes on to say:^ 
 
 Besides these, there have appeared a great many other 
 pieces occasioned by the tragedy of Douglas, and the admon- 
 itions of the presbytery of Edinburgh, mostly satirical; poems, 
 advertisements, &c, at a penny price or under, and some given 
 gratis. 
 
 Unquestionably, many of these pamphlets have per- 
 ished, but enough of them have been preserved to 
 show how seriously the whole subject was taken, and 
 what real virulence at times was shown. 
 
 (a) David Hume's Dedication and the Pamphlets Re^ 
 lated to It. 
 
 Different in its nature from most of these compo- 
 
 1 For an example of this, see the book list of the Scots' Maga- 
 zine for March, 1757. 
 
 2 P. 56. 
 
88 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 sitions, but of importance from the prominence of the 
 author, the extravagance of the praise given, and the 
 comments which that praise aroused, is David Hume's 
 dedication of- his Four Dissertations to John Home. 
 It was written by him on January 3, 1757, less than a 
 month after the first representation of Douglas in 
 Edinburgh. The dedication reads as follows :^ 
 
 To 
 
 The Reverend Mr. Hume, 
 Author of Douglas, a Tragedy. 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 It was the practice of the antients to address their com- 
 positions only to friends and equals, and to render their 
 dedications monuments of regard and affection, not of ser- 
 vility and flattery. In those days of ingenuous and candid 
 liberty, a dedication did honour to the person to whom it was 
 addressed, without degrading the author. If any partiality 
 appeared toward the patron, it was at least the partiality of 
 friendship and affection. 
 
 Another instance of true liberty, of which antient times 
 can alone afford us an example, is the liberty of thought, which 
 engaged men of letters, however different in their abstract 
 opinions, to maintain a mutual friendship and regard; and 
 never to quarrel about principles, while they agreed in inclina- 
 tions and manners. Science was often the subject of disputa- 
 tion, never of animosity. Cicero, an academic, addressed his 
 philosophical treatises, sometimes to Brutus, a stoic; some- 
 times to Atticus, an epicurean. 
 
 I have been seized with a strong desire of renewing these 
 laudable practices of antiquity, by addressing the following 
 dissertations to you, my good friend; For such I will ever call 
 and esteem you, nothwithstanding the opposition, which pre- 
 vails between us, with regard to many of our speculative 
 tenets. These differences of opinion I have only found to 
 enliven our conversation; while our common passion for 
 science and letters served as a cement to our friendship. I 
 still admired your genius, even when I imagined, that you 
 lay under the influence of prejudice; and you sometimes told 
 me, that you excused my errors, on account of the candor 
 and sincerity, which, you thought, accompanied them. 
 
 1 Edition of 1757. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 89 
 
 But to tell the truth, it is less my admiration of your fine 
 genius, which has engaged me to make this address to you, 
 than my esteem of your character and my affection to your 
 person. That generosity of mind which ever accompanies 
 you; that cordiality of friendship, that spirited honour and 
 integrity, have long interested me strongly in your behalf, and 
 have made me desirous, that a monument of our mutual 
 amity should be publicly erected, and, if possible, be preserved 
 to posterity. 
 
 I own too, that I have the ambition to be the first who shall 
 in public express his admiration of your noble tragedy of 
 Douglas, one of the most interesting and pathetic pieces, that 
 was ever exhibited on any theatre. Should I give it the 
 preference to the Merope of Maffei, and to that of Voltaire, 
 which it resembles in its subject; should I affirm, that it 
 contained more fire and spirit than the former, more tender- 
 ness and simplicity than the latter; I might be accused of par- 
 tiality: And how could I entirely acquit myself, after the 
 professions of friendship, which I have made you? But the 
 unfeigned tears which flowed from every eye, in the numerous 
 representations which were made of it in this theatre; the 
 unparalleled command, which you appeared to have over every 
 affection of the human breast: These are incontestable proofs, 
 that you possess the true theatric genius of Shakespear and 
 Otway, refined from the unhappy barbarism of the one, and 
 licentiousness of the other. 
 
 My enemies, you know, and, I own, even sometimes my 
 friends, have reproached me with the love of paradoxes and 
 singular opinions; and I expect to be exposed to the same 
 imputation, on account of the character, which I have here 
 given of your Douglas. I shall be told, no doubt, that I had 
 artfully chosen the only time, when this high esteem of that 
 piece could be regarded as a paradox, to wit, before its publi- 
 cation; and that not being able to contradict in this particular 
 the sentiments of the public, I have, at least, resolved to go 
 before them. But I shall be amply compensated for all these 
 pleasantries, if you accept this testimony of my regard, and 
 believe me to be, with the greatest sincerity. Dear Sir, Your 
 most affectionate Friend and humble Servant, 
 Edinburgh, 3, David Hume. 
 
 Jan. 1757. 
 
 Apparently Hume was aghast at the storm which, 
 very shortly after, he found raging over this tribute 
 to his friend, for before his edition of the Four Disser- 
 
90 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 tations^ was sent out, although the dedication had 
 been printed with them, Hume had it suppressed, 
 fearing that in Home's struggle with the church he 
 would find David Hume's support rather a hindrance 
 than an aid to him. Later on, however, when Home's 
 intention of leaving the church was known to Hume, 
 the dedication was restored.'' In a letter from Hume, 
 undated, but undoubtedly written in 1757, we read 
 his statement concerning this: 
 
 Pray, whether do you pity or blame me most with regard 
 to this Dedication of my Dissertations to my friend the Poet? 
 I am sure I never executed anything which was either more 
 elegant in the composition or more generous in the intention: 
 yet such an alarm seiz'd some fools here, (men of very good 
 sense, but fools in that particular,) that they assail'd both him 
 and me with the utmost violence, and engag'd us to change our 
 intention. I wrote to Millar to suppress that Dedication: two 
 posts after, I retracted that order. Can anything be more 
 unlucky than that, in the interval of these few days, he 
 shou'd have open'd his sale and dispos'd of 800 copies, with- 
 out that Dedication, whence, I imagin'd, my friend would reap 
 some advantage and myself so much honor? I have not been 
 so heartily vex'd at any accident of a long time. However, 
 I have insisted that the Dedication shall still be publish'd.^ 
 
 Again, in a letter to Adam Smith, undated, but 
 written undoubtedly at about this time, Hume speaks 
 still further of his dedication: 
 
 Dear Smith, — The dedication to John Home, you have prob- 
 ably seen; for I find it has been inserted in some of the 
 weekly papers, both here and in London. Some of my friends 
 thought it was indiscreet in me to make myself responsible to 
 the public, for the productions of another. But the author has 
 lain under such singular and unaccountable obstructions in 
 
 1 The Natural History of Religion; Of the Passions; Of 
 Tragedy; of the Standard of Taste. 
 
 2 Burton, Life and Correspondence of David Hume 2. 16. 
 
 3 Caldwell Papers, Part Second 1. 113-114. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 91 
 
 his road to fame, that I thought it incumbent on his well- 
 wishers to go as much out of the common road to assist him. 
 I believe the composition of the dedication will be esteemed 
 very prudent, and not inelegant.^ 
 
 The excessive praise of Douglas, in the dedication, 
 coming as it did from a man of David Hume's prom- 
 inence, was so far from passing unnoticed, that a 
 large number of the pamphlets and articles written 
 during the controversy were either directly based 
 upon this, or made some mention of it. Characteristic 
 of these is one which has for its title page :^ 
 
 THE TRAGEDY OP DOUGLAS ANALYSED. 
 
 Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis arnica Veritas. 
 
 ENGLISHED, 
 
 I honour Mr. David Hume; but Truth more! 
 
 The author of this tract is in entire accord with 
 Hume's opinion of the play, and tries to show wherein 
 the historian was justified in his estimate of it.* The 
 warm interest which he feels in the matter is evi- 
 denced by these words near the beginning of his tract : 
 
 This virtuous glow of friendship, by whose intensity each 
 squinting Zoilus affects to be offended, and turn aside from, 
 shall be made appear not to have stretched beyond the bounds 
 of truth; nay, receive additional lustre from a candid exam- 
 ination; in writing which, there is an unspeakable pleasure to 
 herald undoubted merit, and at the same time, silence all 
 malignant dissenters from the respecfable authority of Mr. 
 David Hume; whose sanction (had any modesty been left 
 among our stage smatterers) ought to have awe-struck unlet- 
 tered jabberers, and injudicious criticlings, who are ever 
 
 1 Burton, Life aiid Correspondence of David Hume 2. 16-17. 
 
 2 The source for the quotations from these pamphlets is the 
 collection of tracts on Douglas in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 
 (shelf -mark: Malone B 301). 
 
 3 See Critical Review 3. 287, for adverse criticism of this 
 pamphlet. 
 
92 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 guiltless of the praise-worthy foible, 'T'admire superior sense, 
 and doubt their own.' 
 
 The writer then proceeds to relate the plot of the 
 story, which is given the highest praise for its sim- 
 plicity and originality. The various characters are 
 next taken up, one by one, and unqualified approval 
 is expressed of the skill with which the author has 
 drawn them. The manners, sentiments, and diction 
 also come in for their share of praise, and these are 
 illustrated by numerous quotations from the play to 
 prove the points made. The pamphlet then continues 
 with these more general comments : 
 
 In the performance Mr. Barry figured, and acted well the 
 affectionate noble-minded Douglas. Mrs. Woffington's deport- 
 ment was fine throughout; but particularly where she ques- 
 tions the shepherd, recognizes her son, and weeps over his 
 body; the sentimental part she delivered with intelligence, 
 dignity, and spirit. Mr. Sparks was so excellent in his part, 
 that he henceforward deserves to be called the good shepherd 
 Nerval. To point out where this piece suffered in the repre- 
 sentation is an invidious task I chuse not to enter on. 
 
 The Prologue is a fine picture of the heroic hospitality prac- 
 tised between the chieftains of the contending realms of Eng- 
 land and Scotland, in days of yore. 
 
 The Epilogue is an ingenious and laudable attempt to banish 
 all immoral and obscene ones off the stage; which chaste 
 example, it is hoped, will be followed.^ 
 
 The rules of the Drama observed, as appears by this tragedy, 
 are not enemies, but rather auxiliaries, to genius. There is 
 not a beauty in Shakespear but what is reducible under them; 
 all his faults they disclaim. 
 
 This gentleman hath been gloriously anathematised by an 
 otherwise respectable body of gentlemen, from a pious par- 
 tiality to themselves, and not having sufficiently considered, 
 that the heart and passions militating in the service of virtue, 
 advance her interest infinitely more than the cold, dry, and 
 unaffecting precepts from the pulpit. 
 
 1 See p. 95, n. 1. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 93 
 
 The criticism that there is not enough action in 
 Douglas is indignantly repudiated, and the pamphlet 
 ends with the dramatic remark: 'Against which, and 
 aU other attacks, 'The blood of DOUGLAS wW defend 
 itself:^ 
 
 Of the critics on the other side who took suflScient 
 exception to the dedication to publish pamphlets on 
 the subject, an example is found in the author of this 
 one. The pamphlet is entitled : 
 
 'A LETTER TO Mr. DAVID HUME ON THE TRAGEDY OF 
 
 DOUGLAS; 
 Its ANALYSIS: AND THE CHARGE against Mr. GARRICK. 
 By an ENGLISH CRITIC. 
 Sic dis, ast ego contra. 
 So thou sayest; but I am of a contrary Opinion.' 
 
 Here a view of the play is taken quite different 
 from the one expressed in the previous pamphlet. 
 With this critic, Hume's reputation as a judge of lit- 
 erature seems to have suffered severely. The pamph- 
 let, in the form of a letter to Hume, opens with these 
 words: 
 
 SIR, 
 
 HAVING for a long time conceived the highest esteem for 
 the variety of your literary merit, a recommendation from you 
 was almost a sanction to pre-engage my implicit approbation. 
 How high were my expectations raised by your dedicatory 
 conmiendation of the tragedy of Douglas; but, alas! how 
 fallen, from seeing its representation: nor has a perusal since 
 won me over as an admirer of it. 
 
 Had the tragedy of Douglas been ushered into the world as 
 the promise of a dramatic genius, as such it ought to have 
 been received with applause; but its having been forced upon 
 us authoritatively, in competition with all antiquity and the 
 modems, two obvious eflFects were produced in the minds of 
 men: to wit, curiosity was excited in some, jealousy provoked 
 
 1 See Act IV of Douglas. 'Protect' instead of 'defend' is in 
 some editions. 
 
94 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 in others. I am sorry to anform you, Sir, that in consequence, 
 your national judgment has been greatly run upon here, and 
 your critical stocks reduced almost to bankruptcy. 
 
 Hume's comparison of Home with the great writers 
 is referred to in this way; 
 
 The four great and revered names, Maffei, Voltaire, Otway, 
 Shakespear, which you have employed as supporters of 
 Douglas, put me in mind of the statue of Lewis XIV. in Paris, 
 where the four nations, Germany, Spain, Holland and Eng- 
 land, are chained round him as vanquished, and lavishly ac- 
 companied with all the tokens of subjection. However this 
 may please the national vanity of the French, all foreigners 
 with reason laugh at the folly of the design, and unpardon- 
 able foppery of the execution. 
 
 This dark future is then predicted for Douglas, 
 should it be judged by any high standard of taste and 
 beauty. 'What is likely to be the fate of the tragedy 
 of Douglas?' asks the author. And answers, 'Neglect 
 and oblivion; however illumined for the present by 
 the flambeau, you (forgive the expression,) too par- 
 tially, or in the mildest terms, too sanguinely, hold 
 before it' Numerous passages from the play follow 
 to prove this inferiority in taste and beauty to the 
 production of earlier poets. 
 
 The faults of the plot are then taken up. Among 
 other comments the writer says: 
 
 The sentiments of djnng Douglas are not amiss; nor is the 
 mother's affliction ill drawn; nay, somewhat aifecting. But 
 why she should plunge from a precipice head-foremost into 
 the sea, I cannot see any reason, nor for her, or her son's 
 deaths. He might have killed Glenalvon, tho' previously 
 wounded by him in the back, but, not mortally; and lord Ran- 
 dolph, in expiation of his groundless jealousy and rash attempt 
 resign to victorious Douglas his rightful inheritance . . . 
 
 The protracted monotony of lady Randolph's grief is irk- 
 some. One character often exhibited in the same piece, must 
 be agitated by variety of passions, otherwise we grow tired 
 of the sameness. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 95 
 
 After the discovery of Douglas, he is not thrown into any 
 interesting situation, nor is there any dramatic anxiety 
 throughout, arising from the intricacy of the plot; for from 
 the beginning to the end, it is an uninterrupted down-hill 
 green-sword course, entirely against the revolutionary spirit 
 of the scenic laws . . . We had, however, a right to expect 
 at least, unexceptionable correctness of stile, in a work by you 
 so immoderately praised, not to say profanely. 
 
 The prologue and epilogue are both severely criti- 
 cised, the epilogue being spoken of as 'a priggish 
 affectation' and one which the author hopes 'will 
 never be relished by a genuine British audience.'^ The 
 pamphlet then ends with this defense of Garrick : 
 
 I now take leave of Douglas, this aurora borealis of tragedy, 
 that had so long corruscated over us from the North, to 
 execute the last part of my task, to wit, to defend Mr. Garrick, 
 by disculpating him from a heavy charge, disseminated every- 
 where from the drawing-room in St. James's to the night-cel- 
 lars; which is, that he had the impudence to refuse The 
 Tragedy of Douglas, the best play ever acted, not only on the 
 English stage, but on any other, ancient or modern. 
 
 The author not only absolves, but apologizes for Mr. Garrick 
 by his motto. 
 
 'Non ego sum vates, sed prisci conscious aevi. 
 I am not a poet; but well read in old ballads.'^ 
 Mr. Garrick acquiesced to the former part of his confession; 
 and told him that but poor material could be derived from the 
 latter. This is the upshot of his crime. Has he then deserved 
 all the foul-mouthed abuse that has been lavished upon him? 
 I think not, who am not partial to him. 
 
 This is only one of many serious pamphlets in which 
 Hume was severely criticised for his championship of 
 Douglas. And of the lighter literature, as many of 
 the flings appear to have been directed against him as 
 against Home. 
 
 1 This refers to Home's objection to the adding of a comic 
 or ribald epilogue to a tragedy, as was so often done. See 
 Epilogue to Douglas for statement to this effect. 
 
 2 See title page of Douglas. 
 
96 Jbhn Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 (b) John Witherspoon's Pamphlet. 
 
 By far the greater number of the pamphlets were 
 
 published anonymously, and there are, in many cases, 
 
 no means of establishing their authorship. Some, 
 
 however, especially the more serious of them, were 
 
 signed. One of the most noteworthy was entitled, 
 
 A Serious Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Stage, 
 
 being an attempt to show that contributing to the Support 
 
 of a Public Theatre is inconsistent with the Character of 
 
 a Christian. 
 
 It is signed 'John Witherspoon,' This account was 
 considered of enough importance to warrant a dedi- 
 cation, and was inscribed to the Earl of Gifford. 
 
 John Witherspoon was a man of more than ordin- 
 ary note in his day. He was one of those taken captive 
 with Home in the rebellion of 1745. Later, he became 
 a Scotch divine of great authority, and wrote many 
 pamphlets and articles on religious subjects. In 1768, 
 he was offered the 'principalship' of Princeton Col- 
 lege, and accepted the position. In that year, there- 
 fore, he came to America. He became prominent as 
 a lecturer, and attracted to himself many students, 
 among the most famous of whom was James Madison. 
 At the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, Wither- 
 spoon strongly supported the cause of the colonies, 
 and, as he had great influence as a preacher, debater, 
 politician, and man of affairs generally, he did much 
 for the nation in its early years. His name appears 
 among the signers of the Declaration of Independence. 
 Toward the close of his life he was given an LL.D. by 
 Yale College. He died in 1794, and is buried at 
 Princeton. His writings were noteworthy for their 
 temperance and moderation, and his opinion on the 
 subject of the tragedy of Douglas is, therefore, of more 
 than ordinary interest. 
 
 His pamphlet, as will be seen from its title, ap- 
 
The War of Pamphlets 97 
 
 preaches the subject in a way quite different from that 
 of the tracts previously mentioned. "With him, it is 
 not a question of the literary merits of the play, but 
 of the moral and religious principle involved in the 
 question of theatre going. In his tract, which consists 
 of about seventy-two pages of very fine print, he first 
 tries to prove the harmfulness of plays, by citing nu- 
 merous passages from the Scriptures, previous church 
 councils, and Pagan writers. He appreciates the diffi- 
 culty of making his appeal read by any great number 
 of people, and says, rather justly, when the length of 
 his article is considered: 
 
 It is some discouragement in this attempt that it is very 
 uncertain, whether many of those, for whose sakes it is 
 chiefly intended, and who stand most in need of information 
 upon the subject, will take the pains to look into it. Such a 
 levity of spirit prevails in this age, that very few persons of 
 fashion will read or consider anything that is written in a 
 grave or serious stile. 
 
 He argues further that 
 
 A writer on this subject is actually reduced to the necessity 
 of fighting with a shadow, of maintaining a combat with an 
 ideal or imaginary form of drama, which never yet existed, 
 but which the defenders of the cause form by way of sup- 
 position . . . It is very plain that were men but seriously 
 disposed, and without prejudice desiring the knowledge of their 
 duty, it would not be necessary, in order to shew the unlaw- 
 fulness of the stage as it now is, to combat it in its imaginary 
 reformed state. Such a reformation, were not men, by the 
 prevalence of vitious and corrupt affections, in love with it, 
 even in its present condition, would have been long ago given 
 up as a hopeless and visionary project, and the whole trade or 
 employment detested, on account of the abuses that had always 
 adhered to it . . . 
 
 I will endeavor to shew, that PUBLIC THEATRICAL 
 REPRESENTATIONS, either tragedy or comedy, are, in their 
 general nature, or in their best possible state unlawful, and 
 contrary to the purity of our religion, and that writing, acting, 
 or attending them, is inconsistent with the character of a 
 Christian. 
 
98 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 His exception is taken to the stage under these 
 heads: That it is improper amusement because it 
 takes too much time and rouses the passions too vio- 
 lently; that it is a hurtful and pernicious method of 
 instruction because it is 'uncommanded and unauthor- 
 ized in the Word of God,' whereas it should have a 
 definite warrant ; that since there will 'be a very great 
 majority of persons under the dominion of vice among 
 those who attend the theatre,' the greater number of 
 plays will be of a vicious nature; that as the 'stage 
 is a picture of human life, therefore a great plurality 
 of the characters there represented must be bad, and 
 the impression they make, hurtful to the spectators;' 
 that the presence of good men at plays 'contributes to 
 the sins of others,' that by this they encourage, 'by 
 their example, those to attend all plays indiscrimin- 
 ately, who are in most danger of infection'; that the 
 tendency of plays is wrong because of the profligate 
 lives so many actors lead. Under this head he says: 
 
 They [the actors] are almost universally vltious and of such 
 abandoned characters, as might justly make those who defend 
 the stage ashamed to speak of learning virtue under such 
 masters. 
 
 The stand is taken by him that even a good play is 
 an undesirable thing, for 'the better the play is, or 
 the better the characters of those who attend it, the 
 greater the mischief, because the stronger the temp- 
 tation to others who observe it.' Douglas is mentioned 
 as a specific example along this line, and the charge 
 gone into at some length. The author speaks in the 
 severest terms of those who have defended this play 
 and attacked the presbytery of Edinburgh for the 
 action it had tal^en against those ministers who at- 
 tended its representation. These are his words : 
 
 The truth is, a serious person can scarce have a stronger 
 evidence of the immorality of the stage, than the perusal of 
 
The War of Pamphlets 99 
 
 these little pieces of satyr, which have been published in so 
 great a variety, against the presbytery of Edinburgh, within 
 these few weeks, because of their public admonition against 
 it. IDouglasl. They offer no other defence, but deriding the 
 preaching of the gospel, blasphemously comparing the pulpit 
 with the stage and recrimination upon some who are sup- 
 posed to live inconsistently with their character. It is not 
 worth while to spend three words in determining: whether 
 drunkenness, deceit and hypocrisy! are worse than the stage 
 or not, but if that is the strongest argument that can be 
 offered in its support, wo to all those who attend it. The 
 new reformed tragedy has, indeed, been very unlucky in its 
 advocates. There is an old saying that a man is known by 
 his company. If this be true also of a play, which one would 
 think it should, as it must be chiefiy to the taste of congenial 
 minds, by those who have appeared in defence of Douglas, it 
 is a work of very little merit. 
 
 He adds a few words in closing on 'the aggravated sin 
 of ministers writing plays or attending the stage' if 
 it is wrong for ordinary Christians. 
 
 This pamphlet is noteworthy for the moderation of 
 tone and the logical reasoning displayed throughout. 
 It was reprinted in 1842 and 1876. 
 
 (c) The Defense of the Theatre by Adam Ferguson. 
 
 Another example of the more thoughtful and mod- 
 erate view is found in Adam Ferguson's defence of 
 his friend in the pamphlet entitled 'The Morality of 
 Stage Plays Seriously Considered.' The pamphlet 
 opens with an appeal to professors of true religion 
 not to trifle with honest zeal or make the people of 
 Scotland 'waste against objects of a harmless or in- 
 different nature, that opposition which should be 
 employed against real vices and corruptions.' The 
 statement is made that the stage has existed in Britain 
 for about two hundred years, and it is hard to deter- 
 
 1 Charges made against some of the ministers opposed to 
 Home. 
 
100 John Home: A Stvdy of His Life and Works 
 
 mine that it has 'corrupted our people to any degree.' 
 Later on the same idea is stressed in the claim that 'if 
 Plays are a Poison, it is at least slow in its operation.' 
 The great improvement in the tone of the drama of 
 the writer's time over that of a previous generation 
 is then mentioned. 
 
 The question of the approval by the Scriptures of 
 plays is next argued, and the writer asks why 'the 
 opinion remains, that the very name and form of a 
 Play is offensive and pernicious?' 'It is not derived 
 from Scripture,' he says, 'for I cannot recollect any- 
 thing like a warning against the Stage, either in the 
 Old or New Testament.' He contends that all things 
 may be corrupted — ^that even Religion often is, but 
 that no proof is derived from that fact as to Religion 
 being all wrong. 
 
 Plays are classified by him as Comedy and Tragedy, 
 and the statement is made that the excuse for the 
 existence of either is only when the effect produced 
 from the play is good. Douglas is cited as an example 
 of the play with a good effect. In this connection, 
 Ferguson writes : 
 
 The designs of one person are painted in such colours of 
 hateful depravity, as to become a necessary object of detes- 
 tation. The mistakes of another awaken our caution, and 
 become a lesson in prudence. The generous and elevated mind 
 of a third, warm and exalt our sentiments; and that person, on 
 whom the chief distress of this story falls, moves to compassion, 
 and proves at last a warning against rash and fatal despair. 
 . . . The performance has found a favourable reception with 
 the public, and given proof how grave and serious compo- 
 sitions may engage the minds of men, and convey instruction 
 under the shew of amusement. 
 
 His discussion of good plays and their effects is con- 
 tinued at some length, and more than this the claim 
 is made that 'it is the duty of grave and respectable 
 men to watch over an entertainment of this kind, that 
 it may not deviate from the good purposes which it is 
 
The War of Pamphlets 101 
 
 calculated to serve. It is therefore urged as the duty 
 of respectable people to support plays whose tendency 
 is declaredly moral by attending the play-housfe at 
 their representation. 
 
 The pamphlet closes with the following criticism of 
 the action taken in regard to the play by the pres- 
 bytery of Edinburgh: 
 
 After all I must confess that one consideration remains, 
 which must renew my diffidence on this point. A body of men 
 respectable for their learning and gravity, who constitute a 
 judicature in this city, have, without any exception, declared 
 their disapprobation of the Theatre in general; and, to show 
 that no exception could be admited, have taken the alarm, 
 just when the Tragedy, which I have had occasion to mention, 
 was introduced. I cannot pretend to speak of their reasons 
 for so doing, until they are pleased to publish them; but must 
 entertain great expectations of their force, since they are 
 sufficient to overpower what has appeared on the opposite 
 side. Men of gravity are above trifling with the mistakes and 
 misapprehensions of a people, and certainly cannot long ly 
 under any such imputation. Men of learning need not be 
 told, that part of every liberal education consists in learning 
 to distinguish between Theatrical performances which are 
 faulty, and those which have a moral dignity and a good 
 tendency; th^ know that a good Tragedy has been in all ages 
 esteemed amongst the chief productions of human ability; that 
 the authors of such work become more renowned with posterity 
 than the princes and monarchs of the earth. The names of 
 BiichaTum and Milton are more respected than those of Henry 
 and James; and the names of Cyrus and Xerxes are less cele- 
 brated than those of Sophocles and Euripides. I am, from 
 these considerations, the more inclined to believe, that reasons 
 have occurred against the Stage which will appear very urgent 
 when they are produced; and cannot imagine, that objections 
 which ly against bad Plays only are now all the objections they 
 have to plead against a good one, which may be considered as 
 an attempt to make the Stage truly useful and instructive. 
 
 This respectable body of men have passed a severe sentence 
 against one of their number, for being present at this repre- 
 sentation we are speaking of.i This likewise seems to proceed 
 
 1 See action against Mr. Whyte, p. 83 of previous chapter. 
 
102 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 from some powerful motive not sufficiently known: For they 
 were not led to this act of severity, in execution of any law or 
 statute of this Church. It must have been one of those extra- 
 ordinary cases where a discretionary power is necessary. Such 
 a power indeed is not assumed by any court of judicature in 
 Europe, except one, which I will not name on this occasion. It 
 is happy for us, that the law of our Church has expressly for- 
 bid the exercise of any such arbitrary and dangerous power. 
 See Form of Process, cap. 1 and 84. where it is expressly en- 
 acted, 'That nothing be admitted by any Church-judicature as 
 the ground of a process for censure but what has been declared 
 censurable by the Word of God, or by some act or universal 
 custom of this National Church.' — They were perhaps led to a 
 proceeding, in appearance so little agreeable to the funda- 
 mental laws of their own society, by a zeal to support the laws 
 of the State. People indeed are often more fond of work which 
 they devise for themselves, than they are of any business 
 assigned them by others. It does not however appear, that 
 they have done much honour to the legislature by their inter- 
 position on this occasion. They have cast an imputation of 
 impiety upon an amusement which the law formally authorizes 
 in the Metropolis; which Our GRACIOUS ■ Sovereign honours 
 with his presence, and which the most respectable persons in 
 the legislature of Great Britain support by their countenance.^ 
 
 It is not necessary to say that Ferguson was fiercely 
 attacked for his criticism of the presbytery of Edin- 
 burgh. One of the most extreme of these criticisms 
 will be found in the pamphlet entitled, 'The Players 
 Scourge.' 
 
 (d) The Virulent Pamphlet, 
 
 That there was the most frightful virulence shown 
 
 1 Of a different nature in its defence, but of interest, is 
 Alexander Carlyle's pamphlet entitled 'An Argument to prove 
 that the Tragedy of Douglas ought to be Publickly burnt by the 
 hands of the Hangman.' For full text of this, see Appendix. 
 It was written as a satire, but was taken seriously at first by 
 several churchmen, and it seems probable that the zeal against 
 Carlyle in the church-trials was fanned by the wrath of ssoms 
 of the clergy at discerning that the pamphlet was not a bitter 
 arraignment of Home, but was directed against them as per- 
 secutors of the author of Douglas. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 103 
 
 in this controversy is seen from this pamphlet en- 
 titled 
 
 'THE PLAYERS SCOURGE 
 
 Or a detection of the horrid prophanity and impiety of stage- 
 plays, and their wicked supporters; and especially of the 
 nine prophane Pagan Priests, falsely called ministers of 
 the gospel, who were present at acting the tragedy of 
 Douglas. 
 
 To which is subjoined, A brief but true account of the part 
 acted by Satan's agents in the pretended synod of Lothian 
 and Tweedale, in May 1757.' 
 
 This tract is said to have been written by John 
 Haldane, an upholsterer in Edinburgh, and a staunch 
 Cameronian. Extracts from this will be quite suffi- 
 cient to show the intensity of the upholsterer's feelings 
 on the subject. One of the first statements made is 
 that it is the duty of ministers 'to be a terror to these 
 imps of Satan, and actors of his devices, the players.' 
 After some account of the actions of various church 
 councils and synods against plays and players, the 
 author launches into this tirade : 
 
 Many famous councils, states and republics, as well Popish 
 as Protestant, have accounted the stage Satan's school, the 
 seminary of the devil, and a nursery for hell, which Beelzebub 
 hath ever claimed as his own chief residence and rendezvous in 
 the world, over which he superintends, and in which the actions 
 practised are by his special command and suggestion. In like 
 manner it is agreed on by sober Pagans themselves, that play- 
 actors are the most proiligate wretches, and the vilest vermine, 
 that hell ever vomited out; that they are the filth and garbage 
 of the earth, the scum and stain of human nature, the excre- 
 ments and refuse of all mankind, the pests and plagues of 
 human society, the debauchers of mens minds and morals, 
 unclean beasts, idolatrous Papists or atheists, and the most 
 horrid and abandoned villains that ever the sun shone upon. 
 . . . Would these so-called rulers act up ... to their 
 own laws . . . they would order the play-house in the 
 Canongate, which hath not even the pretense of human author- 
 ity, to be forthwith demolished, and razed to the foundation, 
 and the very place where it is built to be salted with brimstone 
 
104 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 in abhorrence of the abominations that have been committed 
 there: and as for these vile miscreants, Diggs, Heyman, Youn- 
 ger, Lewis, Love, Ryder, Holland ... it were a great mercy to 
 themselves, and a favour to the society among whom they are, 
 to cut the tongues out of their heads, . . . that they may 
 henceforth not have it in their power to blaspheme their Maker; 
 . . . and, that they may forever be distinguished from honest 
 men, their faces should be marked with a burning iron, and 
 they sent back to their native lands of England and Ireland, 
 whence the most of our wickedness proceeds. 
 
 The writer then proceeds to attack the author of 
 Douglas and the ministers who saw it acted. He pre- 
 faces this attack with: 'But alas! the far worst is 
 yet to come.' His respects are paid to Home in these 
 words : 
 
 The chief ringleader in all this black work is 
 J k H e, remarkable for his lightness, madness, impu- 
 dence, prophanity, impiety, sabbath-breaking, contempt of his 
 superiors, neglecting and oft deserting, his poor people, and 
 infecting them with the husks of error and prophanity, which 
 has made most of them as wicked as himself, oppressing and 
 calumniating of ministers and others who retain any measure 
 of integrity; wenching, dancing, gaming, drinking, wastery and 
 that, like his master Satan, he may involve others in the same 
 misery with himself, he hath wrote, and caused to be acted and 
 published, his cursed play Called DOUGLAS, which for its 
 prayers to and for the dead, swearing by the most blessed 
 Cross, by the heavens, yea, as is lately proven, (though the 
 printed copy conceals it) by him who died on the accursed tree 
 to save mankind, etc. its imprecations, appeals, self-murdering 
 principles, his doctrine of a necessity of sinning, and so making 
 God the author of sin, and other blasphemies, exceeds the wick- 
 edness, of idolatrous Papists and Pagans. 
 
 Of Carlyle he says : 
 
 -le deserves the next place being an ignorant, empty. 
 
 frothy, foolish, light mountebank, who scarce acknowledges 
 God out of the pulpit, either in his family or elsewhere, enter- 
 tains his people with reading a ballad of other mens composing, 
 which is the more intolerable that he culls out such sermons 
 as are stuffed with Arminianism, and therewith intermixes 
 
The War of Pamphlets 105 
 
 passages from plays. He scarce hath the form of visiting and 
 catechising his parish; or if at any time he does it, he makes 
 use of a catechism. He is quite remiss in discipline, admits all 
 to the sacrament who will but claim that privilege, connives at 
 adultery in his own parish, and keeps company with the per- 
 sons reputed guilty, and lets baudy language pass without a 
 check, spends the whole sabbath, except the short time he is in 
 the kirk, with visiting the gentry, or gallanting the ladies; is a 
 great frequenter of routs and other public entertainments, at 
 which he drinks excessively, dances unweariedly, and calls for 
 prophane songs, as De'il stick the minister, and the like; plays 
 at cards both for money and pleasure, is an open resorter to 
 rehearsals and plays, a consorter with that vile meretrix Sarah 
 Ward, and the other comedians, and a great daubler with, and 
 encourager of, those who write and set forth cursed stage- 
 plays; on all which accounts he is the darling of the whole 
 malignants in the place, many of whom appear openly in his 
 defence, while yet they abhor those with whom he holds com- 
 munion, being themselves of the Episcopal, or none. 
 
 So each minister involved is taken up, and most 
 scandalous imputations are made against some of 
 them. Dr. Ferguson, the last one, is characterized in 
 these words : 
 
 P n is left to bring up the rear, though he rather deserves 
 
 the van, being a more avowed deist, play-hunter, and compan- 
 ion to the wicked than any of the former, a bold defender of, 
 and champion for the stage, and a vile blasphemer- and 
 maligner of our Lord and his apostles in his pasquil called 
 The morality of the stage, as hath been clearly proved against 
 him in several pamphlets lately published. 
 
 The rage of this temperate gentleman over the 
 failure of the presbyteries to take immediate and 
 violent measures against these ministers is perhaps 
 better left to the imagination. He pays his respects 
 to all those who dared to speak in behalf of the min- 
 isters and for the stage. One is a 'profane deist and 
 advocate for the devil,' another, 'an unclean animal,' 
 another, 'a debauched, drunken, ravelling songster 
 who spends more time and pains on his flowers than 
 on his flock.' 
 
106 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 He concludes with tempered praise for those who 
 have advocated the most extreme measures but urges 
 them to still greater zeal, and 'to come out from the 
 tents of these wicked men, and so save themselves, 
 and leave the others, to the just judgments of God. 
 Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered; let them 
 also that hate him fly before him; as smoke is driven 
 away, so drive them away; as wax melteth before the 
 fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.' 
 
 With these excerpts from his pamphlet in mind, it 
 is not difficult to believe the truth of the statement 
 which says that John Haldane was accounted 'a con- 
 tentious man all his life.'^ 
 
 (e) The Defense of Home in Lighter Literature. 
 
 As an example of the lighter weapons of ridicule 
 used, we have these remarks, directed mainly against 
 Dr. Webster, whose chief weakness seems to have 
 been a fondness for the pleasures of the table, and 
 who is called 'Bonum Magnum.' Carlyle^ speaks of 
 him as a 'five-bottle man' who 'could lay them all 
 under the table.' Dr. Patrick Cumings also receives 
 due attention here. 
 
 ( 1 ) Advertisement. 
 
 On S y next, being the SOth.^ will be acted in all of the 
 
 of this city, a new FARCE, called Old Mother P y 
 
 run mad; or, Much ado about nothing: Written by Dr. Alex- 
 ander Bonum magnum, and Dr. Patrick Turnstile, who have 
 lately entered into Copartnery for carrying on a Manufactory 
 of Small Wares. 
 
 This next is likewise a satire on the action of the 
 presbytery. The 'great Powell' mentioned here re- 
 
 1 See introduction to his pamphlet in Tracts on Douglas. 
 
 2 Autobiography, p. 240. 
 
 3 The day for reading the notice from the Presbytery of 
 Edinburgh. See pp. 71-72. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 107 
 
 fers undoubtedly to Martin Powell, the famous puppet 
 showman who, in the early part of the eighteenth 
 century, traveled through Europe exhibiting his mar- 
 ionettes. Dr. Webster is again satirized here, 
 
 (2) ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THAT there is lately come to town, A new set of curious 
 PUPPETS, commissioned by the R d P ^y of Edin- 
 burgh, in order to afford a proper innocent entertainment for 
 the remaining part of the winter-season; as no person of any 
 religious principle whatever, can think himself at liberty to 
 countenance the impious proceedings at the Theatre in the 
 Canongate, after the 30th of January current. 
 
 A, neat stage is fitted up in Allan's close, near the New Ex- 
 change; and on Monday next, the 31st current, will be per- 
 formed, by particular desire of the M d r, a new farce, 
 
 called. The Deposition. . . . The following PROLOGUE, 
 
 wrote upon the occasion of the P ^y cl ^k, to be spoke 
 
 by a puppet dressed in black. 
 
 IN a dark dismal corner long had stood 
 Poor Punchinello in a pensive mood, 
 Sadly bemoaning his disastrous fate. 
 Who for sev'n years had not been heard to prate. 
 
 Unhappy Punch, unhappy friends, he cries. 
 Shall we no more attempt the long'd-for prize? 
 Shall Caledonia's nymphs for ever be 
 Barr'd from that pleasure they receiv'd from me? 
 Shall they no more my witless squeaks approve? 
 Shall I no more their thoughtless laughter move? 
 
 THUS spoke the hero, ending with a groan. 
 While meaner puppets echo'd to his moan. 
 When, lo! an airy messenger appear'd. 
 And crav'd an audience quickly to be heard. 
 
 I come, he says, with wings of haste to chear 
 Your drooping hearts, and hence to banish fear. 
 Great Powell sent me, whom you all revere, 
 The god of puppets, now he dwells in air; 
 And thus thro' me he speaks, attention give. 
 And learn henceforth more patiently to live. 
 Soon shall fair Scotia's capital again 
 Receive great Punch, and all his puppet train; 
 
108 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Soon shall her belles thy witless squeaks approve; 
 Soon shall thy barren jests their laughter move; 
 No more shall you by Douglas rival'd be, 
 
 W r's your friend, and the whole P y. 
 
 They long have mourn'd in silence your disgrace, 
 
 (P ts themselves when in their proper place). 
 
 And griev'd to find that such respect was shown. 
 
 To wit and taste so different from their own; 
 
 Fretted to see the town so much admire 
 
 The tragfic muse, and the poetic fire 
 
 Of Athelstaneford's bard, their rage increas'd; 
 
 And thus great W r the k ^k — c 1 address'd. 
 
 "The pulpit and the puppets only can 
 "Proper instruction give to sinful man. 
 "The stage is impious, 'cause there vice is shown 
 "Horrid from reason, not from fear alone: 
 "And should it gain the pow'r men to persuade, 
 "Virtue to court by patterns, then our trade 
 "Useless may prove; for we must aU allow, 
 "Our precepts more than our examples show 
 "The paths of virtue: therefore let us join 
 "Our heads, and with united force combine 
 "In this grand scheme, to persecute the stage, 
 "And all its followers, with the keenest rage 
 
 "Of c ^h-rebuke, and make the croud believe, 
 
 "(Whom by strain'd sc — p — re-texts we oft deceive), 
 "That nought but vice from stage-plays can be learn'd, 
 "And sure damnation by their lovers earn'd" 
 
 Thus spoke the p ^n with becoming grace. 
 
 While chearful assent shone in ev'ry face. 
 Charm'd with the grateful plan they all agreed, 
 A solemn warning 'gainst the stage to read. 
 
 In ev'ry c h, that ev'ry flock might see. 
 
 How, good, how meek, how wise the P try. 
 
 So spoke the herald to the puppet crew. 
 And quick as lightning back to Powell flew. 
 But lest he should be deem'd an imposition. 
 
 He left a copy of the A n tion. 
 
 Punch read with joy, and bade us all make haste. 
 
 Hither to come, and shew the cl gy's taste. 
 
 We straight obey'd; and here to night is shown 
 A scene entirely new, but which you'll own. 
 Points c chm — s actions in their proper view, 
 
The War of Pamphlets 109 
 
 And shows what zealous c gy ^n will do. 
 
 If the plot please you, I content shall be; 
 
 If not, d n all your pr ts, but d ^n not me. 
 
 (3) Votes of the P y of E- 
 
 A pamphlet called 'VOTES OF THE P ^y of 
 
 E h,' is of the same tenor as the previous one. 
 
 It reads in part as follows : 
 
 RESOLVED, That Learning, Genius and Merit are the 
 Bane of Society, and ought to be discouraged. 
 
 RESOLVED, That Ignorance, Dulness and Demerit are 
 the Glory of this covenanted Church, and ought, therefore, to 
 be encouraged. 
 
 RESOLVED, That every proposition, which silly People 
 alone maintain, is true. 
 
 ORDERED, That the Crowd of wise Heads, who fill the 
 
 Areas of the T th K k, be henceforth sovereign arbiters 
 
 of Taste, Composition, and Merit. 
 
 RESOLVED, That none but ignorant, superstitious, bar- 
 barous Nations have admired those Representations of human 
 Life, which are exhibited upon the Stage. 
 
 ORDERED, That they be forthwith abolished, and that 
 Tarn Thumb, Blind Hary, Totum, Punch, and Dishy Loof be 
 immediately substituted an their Place. 
 
 RESOLVED, That Improvements of all Sorts are hurtful 
 to Society. 
 
 ORDERED, That no Alteration be ever attempted to be 
 made of the Principles, the Customs, and the Manners of 
 Men. 
 
 ORDERED, That the Method of improving Land by in- 
 closing and fallowing be immediately laid aside, because 
 
 it is offensive to the People. 
 
 RESOLVED, That the Poets are publick Nusances, and 
 ought, like noxious Weeds, to be extirpated. 
 
 RESOLVED, That Homer, Virgil, Milton, Shakespear, 
 Corneille, and Addison were Dunces, and that their Memories 
 ought to be stigmatised. 
 
 RESOLVED, That the Authori of the Revenge, of Bu- 
 siris, and of the Brothers is an impious Fellow, because he 
 wrote Night Thoughts and the Centaur. 
 
 Edward Young. 
 
110 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 RESOLVED, That the Author^ of Athelstane and of 
 Barbarossa is an Infidel, because he made an Answer to the 
 Characteristicks of the Earl of Shaftesbury. 
 
 RESOLVED, That Drunkenness, Deceit, and Hypocrisy 
 are not Christian Vices. 
 
 RESOLVED, That notorious Drunkards, Idiots, and 
 Villains BE the most zealous Christians. 
 
 RESOLVED, That a Man, who makes it the Business of 
 his Life to hunt after Feasts and a good Bit, who guzzles more 
 Liquor than some Parishes, and delights not only in drinking 
 himself, but in encouraging others to get themselves drunk; 
 lead Isicl a sober exemplary Life, and has a mortal Aversion 
 
 at Claret, because ^he thunders once a-Week against 
 
 GOOD WORKS. 
 
 ■"^RESOLVED, That the present Time is the same with 
 
 that of the Covenant. 
 
 ORDERED, That the People of Scotland remain for ever 
 in Barbarity. 
 
 The following advertisement, as it also is called, 
 is a direct attack on Dr. Webster for his reputed love 
 of eating and drinking. It reads as follows : 
 (4) Advertisement. 
 
 This is to acquaint the PUBLIC, 
 
 THAT a certain Person, of eminent and jovial sanctity, has 
 conceived a mortal aversion to tragedy, having felt melancholy 
 and severe effects from it during the run of DOUGLAS. That 
 entertainment, engrossed the town so much, that he could 
 get no body to drink with him, except a certain set of people, 
 whose favor he courts much more than their company; and we 
 are informed, that he now intends to take some effectual 
 methods to prevent any such interruption to future potations. 
 
 (5) This mock petition from the same ministers fol- 
 lows the line of the pamphlet above. 
 
 14th February, 1757. 
 Unto the Right AEtheeial the Siplers. 
 
 THE 
 
 PETITION 
 
 OP 
 
 Poor Alexander Bonum Magnum, 
 Humbly sheweth, 
 
 THAT your petitioner hath, tho' during a very cold season, 
 
 1 John Brown. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 111 
 
 been laid under the disagreeable necessity of abstaining from 
 the use of his favourite catholicon. 
 
 That by repeated admonitions, which have lately been given 
 him, in the most acrimonious stile, and in the most public 
 manner, he hath, in particular, been obliged to absent himself 
 from several occasions of mirth and jollity, of which your 
 siplerships have had the happiness to partake. 
 
 That he hath been thereby reduced to the most melancholy, 
 and almost to a starving condition. 
 
 That being certainly informed, Tuesday next, the 15th in- 
 stant is an anniversary, on which your siplerships use to make 
 good chear, he hath presumed, in those his piteous circum- 
 stances, to apply to you, for immediate relief. 
 
 May it therefore please your sipler- 
 ships to grant warrant to 3 n 
 
 D — c — n,i to remit to your petitioner, 
 by any, the most private hand, his 
 five bottles, and your petitioner 
 shall ever pray. 
 ALEXANDER BONUM MAGNUM. 
 
 (f) The Lighter Literature Against Home. 
 
 That Dr. Webster, mentioned in the previous pamph- 
 lets, was not assailed without a champion rushing to 
 his defence is shown by the following poem entitled, 
 
 THE INFERNAL COUNCIL. 
 
 An excellent new ballad. 
 
 To the Tune of, 
 
 The Devils were brawling, &c." 
 
 It was said to be by Mrs. Webster herself who was 
 the aunt of Mr. Boswell of Johnsonian fame.^ This is 
 directed against David Hume on account of his sup- 
 posed opinions in regard to suicide. 
 
 "Grim BELZEBUB'S council assembled of late. 
 Where matters important were weigh'd in debate: — 
 
 1 Probably John Duncan, (1721-1808) a famous theologian 
 of his time. 
 
 2 See pamphlet for this statement of authorship. 
 
112 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Thus spoke the Arch-Fiend — ^What bold irwp will ascend, 
 "Our empire on earth to secure, and extend? 
 With a fal, lal, lal, laddie lal, &c. 
 
 "For Hervey and Young, and some more, in strange style, 
 "Woo the ears of the great and their hearts may beguile: 
 "This attempt on our rights — such bold treason, we own, 
 "Hath chill'd us with dread, as it shook our firm throne. 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 "Our friends, Hohhes, Spinosa, and Bolingbroke great, 
 "Who triumph'd in our cause, have now sounded Retreat: 
 "Wou'd to hell! our dread arm, had yet spar'd them a while, 
 "Since our foes thus exult — and our powers dare revile" 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 Amazement and terror suspended each tongue, 
 Till proud Lucifer rose, and address'd the wild throng: 
 "Great Leader, why dread? — Our worst fate is assign'd! 
 "What! Devils know terror"! Leave that to manlcind! 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 "Tho' these champions of Hell have from earth all retir'd, 
 "H — me aloft bears our standard, whose breast I've linspir'd: 
 "Of talents so rare, so acute, so profound, 
 "Of such depth, in your realms, there are none to be found. 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 "His mind I have swell'd with vain-glory and pride; 
 "Faint emblem his paunch! — tho' so vast, and so wide: 
 "Tho' wealth he despises, yet, fond of a name, 
 "He soars in new tracts, to high glory and fame. 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 "The laws of that Ruler, whose realms are on High, 
 "He boldly subverts, and has dar'd to defy: 
 "In his flights how sublime! — I am charm'd to behold 
 "Our hero, surpassing all heroes of old. 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 "This maxim he wisely resounds on the ear — 
 "Men have nothing to hope, so have nothing to fear — 
 "Hence dagger, ball, poison, or cord — ^which you please,^ 
 "Each fool may practise on himself — and find ease" 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 1 See Hume, Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the 
 Soul. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 113 
 
 He ceas'd — when in transport cry'd Belzie, "I find 
 "This DAVID indeed is a man to my mind: 
 "Shallow politic fiends might for ages have try'd 
 "To devise such a plan — and their art been defy'd. 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 "Directed by H — me to the regions of 
 "What troops of pale spirits shall rush on our sight'. 
 "To him then assign we our delegate sway, 
 "Who hath taught men the path, and will soon lead the way." 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 All hell then resounded with shouts of applause 
 To H — me, who hath nobly supported its cause: 
 lo paean to H — ^me now their transports loud tell, 
 While Echo responsive — "Amen, cries all hell." 
 With a fal, lal, &c. 
 
 Another partisan of the anti-Douglas controversy 
 wrote the following entitled 'The First Night's Audi- 
 ence.' This ran in part as follows: 
 
 THE FIRST NIGHT'S AUDIENCE : 
 
 An excellent new ballad. 
 
 To the Tune of A Cobler there was, &c. 
 
 Humbly inscribed to the author of DOUGLAS, a tragedy. 
 
 YOur success, dear JACKY, was great as my wish, 
 The critics may snarl, and GARRICK cry — Pish! 
 Though Agis they murder'd with envious rage, 
 Yet x:ould they not hinder you GlL*i from the stage. 
 Derry down, down, down, derry down. 
 
 Supported by ****** 2 old Belzie himself 
 Could not have prevented your gaining the pelf; 
 The ladies commanded, to playhouse all ran, 
 All happy to follow while these led the van. 
 Derry down, &c. 
 
 1 Notes indicated by asterisks belong to the original poems 
 or pamphlets. * 
 
 2 Clergy (?). 
 
 *The critics observe, though others can not find it out, that 
 Gil Morice, an old Scottish song, is the foundation of the 
 tragedy, from whence the author has taken his fable. 
 
114 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Glitt'ring beaux ne'er beheld such a precious treasure 
 Of ladies of honour, and ladies of pleasure: 
 Even j — dg — s of law^ turn'd to judges of wit, 
 Laugh'd at acts and decisions, and rush'd to the pit.** 
 Derry down, &c. 
 
 "This night," cries the scriv'ner, "there's no consultation, 
 "Could it save you from death, or, what's worse, from dam- 
 nation ; 
 "Our lawyers this night are all gone to the play, 
 "The Devil and Douglas have snatch'd them away." 
 Derry down, &c. 
 
 Hid close in the green-room some clergymen lay, 
 Good actors themselves too, their whole life a play; 
 
 C LYLE with a cudgel and genius rare, 
 
 With aspect as stern as a Hessian hussar; 
 Derry down, &c. 
 
 Grave St l and sage C ples, two parsons of note, 
 
 And others as dear to the muse, though forgot. 
 Learn here, dearest friends of my JACKY, I say, 
 Politely to preach, and, if needful, to pray.*** 
 Derry down, &c. 
 
 When the populace dull you to sermon must call, 
 Let Douglas be quoted instead of St, Paul. 
 I leave to 'Squire DAVID to paint, as he ought. 
 The poet's sweet art, and th' effect which it wrought; 
 Derry down, &c. 
 
 How greatly it tickled his fancy to find 
 The priest and essayist were much of a mind: 
 However our Bible-believers may rave. 
 Self-murder's the dernier resort of the brave — 
 Derry down, &c. 
 
 1 Since the theatre in Edinburgh had not had authority in 
 law for its existence, a great deal was made of the action of 
 the judges who attended the play. 
 
 * * Here our sonnetteer is mistaken. It should have been the 
 boxes; but this would have spoiled the metre. 
 ***The unfortunate author of this excellent new song has not 
 seen the tragedy; but being assured that it was a perfect piece, 
 and contained specimens of the different kinds of oratory, he 
 could not but conclude, that there must be in it a pattern for 
 prayer. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 115 
 
 Now, JACKY, one word — Had you swore in plain prose, 
 Angry zealots might sometime have voted Depose; 
 'Twas prudent to pour forth your vollies in verse, 
 And leave to the players your oaths to rehearse. 
 Derry down, &c. 
 
 Well have you deserved the two hundred pounds; 
 Like the devil in Milton you have leap'd o'er all bounds.**** 
 No more can I write, for my paper is done; 
 You'll live in my numbers, if not in your own. 
 Derry down, &c. 
 
 An example of the Burlesque is found in the fol- 
 lowing mock Prologue and Epilogue to the Play, pub- 
 lished, apparently, the day that the play was to be first 
 acted. 
 
 1756, December 14. 
 A 
 PROLOGUE 
 TO THE LONG EXPECTED 
 TRAGEDY of DOUGLAS. 
 As it is to be ax;ted this evening 
 at the theatre in the head of the Canongate, Edinburgh. 
 
 FORETOLD by* C le, now the time is come, 
 
 When Scotia bears the palm from Greece and Rome; 
 When the learned youth, wits of the present age, 
 No more need form their taste on the translated page; 
 When Beaux and Belles old Shakespear shall deride, 
 And Bucks and Bloods cast Rochester aside; 
 When Levi's sprightly sons shall quit the chair. 
 And on the more instructive stage appear; 
 Successful preachers to the youthful croud. 
 That all that pleasure is is also good. 
 
 To thee, great H — me, these happy days we owe. 
 And such the gifts thy DOUGLAS will bestow; 
 DOUGLAS! Who comes a thousand hearts to chear. 
 Who wept for Agis'** death and fate severe. 
 
 Now shall the English curse their Garrick's name, 
 
 **** Paradise Lost, hook 4, line 181. 
 
 * The production referred to will be found in the prologue to 
 Herminius and Espasia, supposed to be wrote by the Reverend 
 
 Mr. C LB. 
 
 ** Great were the expectations of the public from this per- 
 formance of the author, which we are told in the Ecclesiastical 
 
116 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Who banish'd DOUGLAS far from Drury-Lane, 
 Nor would thy humble earnest pray'r regard. 
 But void of merit the great work declar'd. 
 
 Not so fair Ward, she well to churchmen known, 
 This night in public will thy merit own; 
 And if some modest friends the favour claim, 
 Place is prepar'd for these behind the scene. 
 
 AN 
 
 EPILOGUE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 TRAGEDY of DOUGLAS. 
 
 Spoke by the AUTHOR. 
 
 SHROUDED in glory, and with praise full blown, 
 
 Permit your Bard his gratitude to own. 
 
 To mine iw/mortal genius first I bow; 
 
 And next, great squire, my thanks are paid to you; 
 
 By your example and kind percept warn'd, 
 
 No* heavy moral has my plot deform'd: 
 
 Thy signal too did teach the thoughtless croud, 
 
 When fit to weep, and when to clap aloud. 
 
 C LE and C ^ples, all the favourite tribe 
 
 Who on our Zion's top triumphant ride. 
 
 Characteristics, carried dramatic poetry to the summit of per- 
 fection; so that, had it been published, it was believed that 
 never one would have presumed to have wrote a tragedy after 
 it. But, as that ingenious writer imagined, the knowledge of 
 this effect, and the compassion thence arising to future authors, 
 determined the humble and benevolent theatric divine to sup- 
 press its publication: — and we are told by the advertisement 
 in the Edinburgh Evening Courant, that the same humble and 
 self-denied temper had almost smothered the present produc- 
 tion, even after the two journeys the author made to London, 
 and solicitations to Mr. Garrick to receive it. [Refers to re- 
 jection of Agis. See notice preliminary to presentation of 
 Douglas']. 
 
 * This ought for ever to silence those shallow critics, who 
 have stated it as an objection against this play, that one is at 
 a loss to know what moral sentiment it is designed to inspire. — 
 According to the true sense of the word moral, as accurately 
 defined by some late writers, many highly moral sentences 
 might be quoted from it; such as the beautiful adjuration used 
 
The War of Pamphlets 117 
 
 My thanks receive; nor fear the** bigot's frown; 
 Persist, and Edin's stipends are your own. 
 O happy Edin! who ere long shall see 
 Each pulpit fill'd by such bright wits as we. 
 
 Permit me next, great J G — S of the land. 
 
 Who grace my audience, and respect command. 
 To bow obeisance: What tho' the laws controul 
 The stage? You scorn the antiquated rule. 
 
 To yonder box, where sits a humble throng, 
 Some gratitude and thanks must sure belong; 
 
 They are my flock, from ***A NF — D they come. 
 
 And stand around their pastor as a crown. 
 
 How warm my heart to every bean and heUe, 
 Ere long my muse to the dull world shall tell 
 
 To thank thee, Ward,^ surpasses all my art, 
 
 W N and J N, bear a friendly part; 
 
 For though she lately died Lord Barnard's wife. 
 Your presence soon will quicken her to life. 
 
 And now in fame's loud horn each name shall rise. 
 Who owns your Bard, and joins his works to prize. 
 
 (g) The Burlesque Drama. 
 
 Numerous burlesque dramas were, of course, writ- 
 ten on Douglas during the controversy. Their wit 
 and humor were generally of a very questionable sort. 
 
 by one of the speakers, who is introduced, swearing, hy him 
 that died on the accursed tree to save mankind; — and the de- 
 vout exclamation put in the mouth of another when just ex- 
 piring, 'I'll risk eternal fire.' [Both omitted when the play was 
 printed]. 
 
 ** This refers to that horrid insult offered by the presbytery 
 of Edinburgh last Wednesday to wit and genius, by ordering 
 letters to be writ to the different presbyteries to whix;h those 
 ministers belong, who honoured the playhouse with their com- 
 pany on this occasion. 
 
 ***The author sent a number of tickets to his parishioners, 
 who came in a body to the house, and entered so much into the 
 spirit of the tragedy, that when met in the evening they could 
 scarce part without blows. 
 
 1 This is a reference to Mrs. Ward's reputation, which was 
 none too good. 
 
118 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 One of these is called The Deposition. There Is no 
 clue to its authorship. The characters include a 
 poetaster, Shakespear's ghost and Otway's ghost. The 
 production is filled with quotations from Douglas 
 worked into a meaning which, it is not necessary to 
 say, Home had no iritention of giving them. The most 
 talked of scenes of the tragedy are parodied, and the 
 play, as well as its author, is ridiculed all the way 
 through. 
 
 Another of these burlesques is called The Philo- 
 sopher's Opera. It was published anonymously at the 
 time, but its title page now bears the name in ms. of 
 Mr. John MacLaurin, afterwards Lord Dreghorn. He 
 opens with an address 'to the Reader,' part of which 
 follows. 
 
 TO THE READER. 
 
 In the Dramatis Personse of this opera, there are two char- 
 acters, and but two, which are not imaginary.^ Before you 
 pronounce it wrong to point out two men now living, you would 
 do well to consider the scurrilous terms in which they have 
 pointed out two m,en long since dead and gone. Remember the 
 barbarism of Shakespear, the licentiousness of Otway, and 
 that the author of DOUGLAS has been preferred to both . . . 
 As this tragedy was written by a Scotch clergyman; and as it 
 was the first play he ever had made public, one would have 
 expected, that he and his friend would have ushered it into the 
 world, either with a real or affected modesty; but, on the corir- 
 trary, they declared the play to be perfect, and the author to be 
 endowed with a genius superior to that of Shakespear and 
 Otway. The comparison which this extravagant ecothium 
 obliged people to make, has opened the eyes of many who were 
 at first prevailed upon to be partial to the play; and induced 
 them to join the impartial men of sense in both kingdoms, who 
 all agree in thinking it a very insipid performance: so that 
 the author of this tragedy does not a little resemhle the frog 
 in the fable, who, ambitious to become big as an ox, blew and 
 puffed himself up till he burst. 
 
 1 Genius, who is Hume, and Jaoky, who represents Home. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 119 
 
 The author of the few following pages can't agree with 
 some, who think the little time spent on such compositions as 
 this very Ul bestowed. He can't help numbering the tragedy of 
 DOUGLAS, and the circumstances attending it, amongst the 
 most remarkable occurrences that have ever happened in this 
 country. If Scotch clergyman may, with impunity, not only 
 write plays, but go to see them acted here, and absent them^ 
 selves for months together from their parishes, in order to 
 solicit their representation at London, the religion and man- 
 ners of this country are entirely changed. If Shakespear and 
 Otway are to be cried down, and the author of DOUGLAS set 
 up in their stead, the taste of this country is at an end. Re- 
 ligion vnll (it is hoped) be the care of those who are paid to 
 support it. But the taste of the country seems to be in a deplor- 
 able situation, being abandoned to a club of gentlemen, who are 
 as unable as they are willing to direct it.^ As some men of 
 learning and character are amongst them, many people are 
 misled by their authority; and more, though they detest their 
 innovations, yet are afraid to contradict them: hence it was 
 that DOUGLAS was acted here last viinter thirteen times to 
 a numerous audience; but Othello (which had not been played 
 here for seven years) brought no house at all. This shews, 
 that the run DOUGLAS had here, was owing to the influence 
 of a party; or else, that the people who generally compose the 
 audience in our theatre, are no more judges of the merit of a 
 play, than the chairmen who carry them to see it. It is cer- 
 tainly the duty of every man who regards the honour of his 
 country, to wake a stamd against that unhappy barbarism which 
 the cabal I have already mentioned is endeavoring to estab- 
 lish; and as certainly every man who has felt exquisite pleas- 
 ure in reading the works of Shakespear and Otway, makes 
 them but a very ungrateful return, if he tamely looks on while 
 they are hunted down by a set of men who owe their title of 
 geniuses to the courtesy of Scotland alone. 
 
 The following suggestive list of dramatis personse is 
 given. Digges, who was very dissolute, plays the part 
 of Satan; Mrs. Ward, who had no very good reputa- 
 
 '^ This probably refers to the Select Society, a literary club 
 organized in Edinburgh in 1754. 
 
120 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 tion, is called Moll Kitchen. All of the actors and 
 actresses mentioned were well known at the time. 
 
 DRAMATIS PERSONAE. 
 
 As it ought to be represented at Edinburgh. 
 
 SATAN Mr Digges 
 
 SULPHURED,] ., JMr Ryder 
 
 APOLLYO, J IMr Duncomb 
 
 Mr GENIUS Mr Love 
 
 Mr MORAL SENSE Mr Lancashire 
 
 The Rev. Mr MASK Mr Heyman 
 
 JACKY - „ Mr Younger 
 
 WOMEN 
 
 Mrs SARAH PRESBYTERY, a 
 
 relict of Mr John Calvin Mr Stamper 
 
 ANNE, her waiting-woman Mrs Davenport 
 
 Miss SPRIGHTLY Miss Ryder 
 
 Miss WEEPWELL Mrs Love 
 
 Miss SOB Mrs Stamper 
 
 Miss PITY Mrs Hopkins 
 
 Miss BLUBBER Mrs Salmon 
 
 MOLL KITCHEN Mrs Ward 
 
 General extracts from this pamphlet will show the 
 nature of the writer's objections to Home's tragedy 
 and its popularity, and to David Hume's Dedication. 
 
 Act I. 
 
 The play opens with a conversation between Mrs. 
 Presbytery and Anne^ when the latter states that Mr. 
 Genius has declared to her his love for Mrs. Presby- 
 tery.2 Mrs. Presbytery cannot understand this, and 
 thinks it a joke. She says : 
 
 Mrs. Pr. — Alas! Annie, I am not young now. 
 An. Young! Madam, what then? he is not young himself. 
 Young! why, there was Lady Randolph; I'm sure she was not 
 
 1 Compare opening scene of Douglas where Lady Randolph 
 and her confidante are talking. 
 
 2 The idea of a union between David Hume and the presby- 
 tery must have aroused no little amusement at the time. 
 
■ The War of Pamphlets 121 
 
 young; and yet you see how the men teased her, poor lady! 
 
 Mrs Pr. Alas, Annie, I am now about 200 years of age; but 
 Lady Ramdolph broke her neck before she had lived half a 
 century. Go, thou flatterer, thou knowest he has captivated 
 my heart; this, this only, makes you speak so, and give the 
 name of love to what you know to be waggery. 
 
 Anne insists upon her statement, whereupon Mrs. 
 Presbytery bursts into passionate praise of him, say- 
 ing: 'every limb of him is bristled with the darts of 
 love ; and would to God I had never seen the too ami- 
 able porcupine.' 
 
 AIR I. Can love be controul'd by advice? 
 
 Mr. Genius now comes in and makes an ardent 
 statement of his passion. Mrs. Presbytery remon- 
 strates, for 'To use my son Jacky's words: — 'In me 
 thou dost behold — 'the poor remains of beauty once 
 admir'd.'^ He persists in his suit and is accepted by 
 her. 
 
 AIR II. Woe's my heart that we should sunder. 
 
 At his statement that he must go soon, Mrs. Pres- 
 bytery asks him: 'Do you go to see my son's play 
 tonight?' He expresses himself as hoping to see her 
 there ; and she rejoins by telling him how 'Many of my 
 sons have been greatly obliged to you; but Ja^ky 
 infinitely.' At which Mr. Genius replies, '0 dear 
 Madam!' 
 
 Mrs Pr. Mr John Calvin, my first husband, was a very good 
 man; but he had his oddities; and notwithstanding the affec- 
 tion which a woman must retain for the husband of her youth, 
 I cannot help thinking you the better reformer of the two. 
 Many of my sons, some time ago, before they had the honour of 
 your acquaintance, were the most unlicked cubs ever were 
 whelped: how stiff was their style! how starch their man- 
 
 1 See Act IV of Douglas. 
 
122 John Home: A Stvdy of His Life and Works 
 
 ner! how ridiculously grave the whole man! But since they 
 got into your good company, they have put oflf the old man 
 entirely: they have acquired a jaunty air, a military swagger, 
 and a G — d-d — n-me look; they swear, they drink, they whore 
 so handsomely; — ^in short, they are metamorphosed so very 
 much to the better, that I scarce know them to be my own 
 children. 
 
 Mr Gen. Your goodness, madam, greatly magnifies my poor 
 services. 
 
 Mrs Pr. How judicious was that fancy of yours to make 
 J achy write a play! and how inimitable the dedication with 
 which you introduced it into the world! To it Jaeky owes 
 both his fame and his fortune, and ought to thank you on his 
 knees for both. 
 
 They part here, as Mr. Genius says: ' I must now 
 leave you. Madam, and join several of your sons who 
 are to be at the playhouse tonight.' Mrs. Presbytery 
 promises to be there and to bring Lady Prelacy to the 
 same place. 
 
 AIR III. A free and accepted Mason. 
 Scene changes to Arthur's seat. 
 
 Sulphureo waiting for Apollyo, of whom he says : 
 
 He is not Garrick, the player, nor am I a young Scotch 
 clergyman came a-beseeching him to act my tragedy . . . 
 No! we are two devils: and having said so much, I need not 
 add, that we are honester fellows than most clergymen. 
 
 AIR IV. 'Twas when the seas were roaring. 
 
 This begins. They constantly are roaring, " 
 
 and the first verse ends : 
 
 Think not . . . 
 
 That parsons are the practisers 
 
 Of what their sermons teach. 
 
 Apollyo and Satan come in delayed because 'such a 
 croud of people from this country [Scotland] came 
 upon us this morning, that Satan could not get away 
 
The War of Pamphlets 123 
 
 from hell till a few minutes ago.' Here follows a 
 conversation in which Satan says that he is busier in 
 Scotland now than he has been for a long time; and 
 has not come now on business, but 'as this is the third 
 night of the first play ever was written by a Scotch 
 clergyman, I thought the least I could do was to give 
 my countenance to such a bold attempt to serve me.' 
 
 AIR VII. Susannah. 
 Satan: Good mannere would not let me frown 
 On the young tragic priest; 
 My company and half a crown 
 Wae all he did request. 
 Sulph:] "The youthful parson to refuse, 
 Ap:J Sure you had not done well; 
 
 And to procure him a full house 
 You shou'd have emptied hell. 
 Sat. There are to be nine clergjmien in the playhouse to- 
 night. Curiosity to see people of their character in such a 
 place, would of itself secure the poet of a good third night; but 
 my emissari'ss have taken care that he shall have a full house 
 every night his play is acted. 
 
 They then set off for Moll Kitchen's, disguising 
 themselves, the two devils as footmen to Satan, a 
 country gentleman. 
 
 End of Act I. 
 
 Act II opens at a tavern, and a conversation is held 
 at some length between Mask, Satan and Genius, in 
 which Satan warmly praises Genius for the assistance 
 his writings are to him in filling hell. Moll Kitchen 
 also appears as a bar maid. They all start off to play 
 except Mr. Mask who says to Satan when he asks 
 why he does not come : 
 
 Why, because your enemies will lay hold of the proceedings 
 that are to be this night in the playhouse, and endeavour to 
 stir up a rebellion against you. They will soon prepare over- 
 tures and libels against the author of this play, and every 
 other minister who saw it represented. This determines me 
 not to go. I will seem to be rather against the author of this 
 
124 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 play, and his followers; by these means, I shall gain the good 
 graces of the opposite party, which will enable me to quash 
 any violent measure against him. 
 
 ACT III. 
 
 A drawing-room. [After the play]. 
 Enter Mrs Presbytery, Miss Weepwell, Miss Pity, Miss Sob, 
 
 Miss Blubber. 
 
 I 
 
 Mrs, Presbytery asks for their opinions on her 
 'son Jacky's play.' All praise it highly until Miss 
 Sprightly comes in. She is soundly rated because her 
 eyes are not red from weeping, but declares that she 
 has seen nothing to weep over. When Miss Weepwell 
 petitions her to own that 'upon the whole, it is the 
 best play ever was written,' Miss Sprightly to the 
 question, 'Pray, who has written a better?' rejoins, 
 
 'Shakespear, Otway ' Miss Weepwell: 'Hold! 
 
 the very naming of those two fellows is enough to 
 make one sick. Sure, child, you have not read Mr. 
 Genius' dedication.' 
 
 Song by Miss Sprightly ending : 
 
 But yet, for all great Genius says, 
 
 I really can't help wishing. 
 That Shakespear, Otway, and their plays. 
 May ne'er go ortt of fashion. 
 
 Miss Weepwell: Miss Sprightly, I am not a little sur- 
 prised to hear you talk at this rate. Sure neither you nor I 
 can pretend to be such good judges as Mr Jacky and Mr Gen- 
 ius; and you know very well, what contempt they have for 
 Shakespear and Otwa/y. 
 
 Miss Spri. Jacky and Genius, very pretty fellows truly! 
 
 AIR XV. Gill Morris. 
 
 By the remains of Scottish youth, 
 
 Who taste untainted boast, 
 Let all the paltry works of both 
 
 To raging flames be tost. 
 This holocoMst alone can sooth 
 
 Great Shakespear's injur'd ghost. 
 
The War of Pamphlets 125 
 
 Here enters Mr. Genius, to whom complaint is made 
 of Miss Sprightly's speeches. He rejoins by censuring 
 her taste but praising her lips and her voice. 
 
 Mrs. Pr. (aside) So, so: this young Jackanapes will not 
 only rob the son of his glory, but the mother of her gallant. 
 
 Enter Mr. Jacky. All salute him. Speech of con- 
 gratulation by Miss Weepwell on the success of the 
 'best play ever was written,' ending: 'You, S^r, 
 possess the true theatric genius of Shakespear " 
 
 Miss Sob. And Otway 
 
 Miss Pity. Refined from the unhappy barbarism of the 
 
 one " 
 
 Miss Blub. And licentiousness of the other.i 
 
 Mrs. Presbytery rejoins with a song thanking Genius 
 and the ladies because to them it was owed that men 
 had filled 'his pockets with half-crowns so white.' 
 Jacky thanks his mother and insists on her giving Mr. 
 Genius her hand saying: 'Your marriage to-night 
 will consummate my happiness,' Mrs. Presbytery 
 presents her hand, saying: 'You long have had my 
 heart.' 
 
 Mr. Gen. Madam, I am so sensible of the honour you do 
 me, that I here vow and swear never more to write essays, 
 discourses, histories, dissertations; but to make your entertain- 
 ment the sole study of my life. 
 
 AIR XVII. Logan Water. 
 
 Miss Weep. This is the only farce I could have endured to 
 see after the tragedy of DOUGLAS. Let us have fiddles, and 
 a dance. 
 
 (Dance — enter Satan, Sulphureo, and Apollyo in true shape — 
 offer to dance with them, but all run off) . 
 
 Satan says he will not trouble to pursue them then, 
 for he 'is pretty certain to meet with all of you time 
 and place more convenient.' 
 
 1 See Hume's Dedication of his Four Dissertations to Home, 
 pp. 88-89. 
 
126 John Home: A Study of Hia Life and Works 
 
 Sulphureo and ApoUyo call Douglas a 'very moving 
 tragedy' and say their eyes are yet wet with tears. All 
 go off to Moll Kitchen's to meet Mask, and make 
 merry. Satan agrees with Mr. Genius 'In thinking 
 it the best play ever written.' Song in which they 
 are to drink to the clergy 'Who or write or see a 
 play.' (Curtain). 
 
 These are some of the pamphlets, then, which were 
 printed for and against Douglas and its author. They 
 were by no means confined to Scotland, but were al- 
 most as numerous in England as in Home's native 
 country. That most of them were characterized by 
 deep feeling, and many of them by real bitterness, is 
 readily seen. All during the early months of 1757 
 this battle continued. Gradually, however, the strug- 
 gle ceased, and by the summer of that year only the 
 echoes of it were to be heard. But Douglas finished 
 its run in Edinburgh, was taken to London, returned 
 to Edinburgh, had a hearing in Dublin, and was well 
 launched on that wave of popularity, which was to 
 carry it on for many years, after its defenders and 
 detractors had been forgotten. 
 
VL 
 AGIS. 
 
 The first representation of the tragedy of Agis was 
 at Drury Lane theatre on Feb. 21, 1758. It had been 
 refused by Garrick before the writing of DouglcLS, 
 but after the success of that play he seems to have 
 been quite willing to put on Agis.^ No doubt the inter- 
 cession of some of Home's friends, Lord Bute in par- 
 ticular, had its share in influencing the actor-manager, 
 as did also the fact that John Home was no longer an 
 obscure Scotch clergyman, but the author of one of the 
 most popular tragedies on the stage at that time. In 
 any case, the play was staged by Garrick, and he 
 took the leading part in it. 
 
 The following extract from contemporary corres- 
 pondence gives a suggestion of the commonly reported 
 cause for this relenting on the part of Garrick : 
 
 Never did I read a tragedy with much less merit, than this 
 last of Mr. Home's. His very friends are half ashamed of it, 
 all bat Sir Harry Ersldne and Lord Bute; the former of whom 
 wrote the Prologue, and a pamphlet in praise of it, as the 
 latter dragged the Prince of Wales twice to its representa- 
 tion. The author, in the mean while, if he has not mnch 
 praise, has got mnch pndding, and that, yon know, to a North 
 Country Bard, is no small consolation. You ought, however, to 
 be informed that Agis was sent to Garrick so recommended 
 as that he could not refuse it; for I am right well assured his 
 opinion of that play and mine is the same. He refused it three 
 or four years ago, but then Lord Bute was not omnipotent at 
 the Prince's Court* 
 
 Before the first production of Agis, the Reverend 
 
 1 For account of this refusal by Garrick, see pp. 12-13. 
 
 * Nichols, J. B., Illustrations of the Literary History of the 
 Eighteenth Century 7. 251. Letter of Grainger to Rev. T. 
 Percy. 
 
128 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Doctor Warburton wrote to Mr. Garrick, under date 
 of Jan. 21, 1758: 
 
 I hope and make no question, but that 'Agis,' under your 
 direction, will better deserve the applause of the public than 
 'Douglas.'i 
 
 His expectations were not realized, however, as its 
 run lasted only eleven nights altogether. 
 
 The source of Home's play was the Agis of Plutarch, 
 of which writer he was a great admirer. He wrote a 
 long prose essay on the comparative merits of Agis 
 and Cleomenes,^ and, apparently, during the writing 
 of this, he first had the idea of dramatizing the part 
 of the life of Agis with which he was dealing. A 
 comparison of Home's conception of the character of 
 Agis with that of Plutarch shows that he followed 
 that author very closely. The Agis of Plutarch is 
 spoken of in these words: 
 
 Agis, being now at the point to die, perceived one of the 
 officers bitterly bewailing his misfortune; 'Weep not, friend,' 
 said he, 'for me, who die innocent, by the lawless act of wicked 
 men. My condition is much better than theirs.' As soon as 
 he had spoken these words, not showing the least sign of fear, 
 he offered his neck to the noose.^ 
 
 The Agis of Home speaks these words* to one of the 
 officers who have refused to do the bidding of Am- 
 phares to kill Agis: 
 
 Weep not for me, 
 0! thou whose nature suits not thy employment. 
 Weep not for me! I would not change conditions 
 With these bad men. I shall not feel the woes 
 
 1 The Private Correspondence of David Garrick, London, 
 1831, 1. 82. 
 
 2 Mackenzie, Life of Home, pp. 32, 75-76. 
 8 Plutarch's Lives, Clough Edition 4. 464. 
 * Act V, Scene I. 
 
Agis 129 
 
 That thou and all must feel, the woes of Sparta! 
 O! might my death avail my much-lov'd country, 
 I'd die as joyful then, as fearless now. 
 
 The likeness shown here between the two drawings 
 of Agis is typical of the closeness with which in all 
 important details Home held to his original. 
 
 Very briefly, the story of Agis is this : Agis, a man 
 of noble character, is ruling in Sparta. Leonidas, the 
 king, has been expelled from the country on account of 
 his wickedness, but his wife remains in Sparta and 
 plots against Agis. In this she is aided by Amphares, 
 one of the chief magistrates. The bravest defender 
 and most loyal friend of Agis is Lysander. As Am- 
 phares is in love with Euanthe, the betrothed of Lys- 
 ander, his object is to destroy both Agis and Lysander. 
 The play turns upon the schemes of Amphares and the 
 queen, and ends with the death of the chief magis- 
 trate at the hands of Lysander. Agis, too, by a strata- 
 gem, is killed, and his funeral honours close the play. 
 It will be seen that there are two definite plots here, — 
 the political one pertaining to Agis, and the love affair 
 of Lysander and Euanthe. In reading the play, in- 
 deed, one is struck with the fact that the two plots 
 seem very nearly of the same importance, though cer- 
 tainly the political one was intended definitely to take 
 first place. Mackenzie gives this interesting explana- 
 tion of the reason for the introduction by Home of a 
 secondary plot: 
 
 The original plan of the tragedy, I have understood, was 
 to have constructed the fable solely on the distresses and death 
 of Agis, as a patriot king; but fearing that this subject was 
 too barren of incident and passion to suit the prevailing dra- 
 matic taste, he afterwards added the love part of the plot, by 
 the introduction of the Athenian maid Euanthe, betrothed to 
 the hero of the piece, Lysander, the friend and avenger of 
 Agis.i 
 
 1 Account of the Life and Writings of John Home, p. 34. 
 
130 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 The comment by the Critical Review for March, 
 1758, is typical of the current opinions of the time as 
 to Home's justification for the two plots. It says^ : 
 
 The chief defect of this play, we are of opinion, lies in the 
 fable. The subject itself is not so interesting as could have 
 been wished. Stories of domestic distress affect the hearts of 
 all mankind, although the persons concerned should be obscure 
 and unknown. But the struggle of patriots for laws and insti- 
 tutions that bear little similitude to our own; and with which 
 the bulk of an audience is entirely unacquainted, cannot be 
 supposed to rouze or interest them to any g^eat degree. And, 
 on account of this defect in his subject, we are of opinion, that 
 our author has, not unartfuUy, left it in greater obscurity in 
 his first act than is usual, according to the rules of the drama. 
 It was probably owing to the same fault in his subject, that 
 our author has overcharged his fable with a secondary plot; 
 thinking perhaps, that the love-story would enliven his play, 
 and relieve his audience from constant attention to the senti- 
 ments of publick virtue and magnanimity. But such experi- 
 ments, though justified by great examples, are dangerous: and 
 two plots can very seldom be so intimately wrought into each 
 other, as to produce but one interest and one passion. 
 
 Here may be perhaps found, then, reason for this 
 play's lack of popularity. The political plot was, of 
 course, intended to be the more prominent, but belong- 
 ing as it did in theme to a by-gone age, it would have 
 required more skill than Home possessed to make it 
 appealing. The parts of Lysander and Euanthe, 
 while making a strong secondary plot, did not contain 
 the chief interest of the play, though they had to do 
 with a more popular subject. The attention, then, is 
 not centered upon a development along one line, but is 
 constantly changed to suit the events in the drama. 
 The characters, for the most part, are lacking in 
 strength. Lysander, who has many of the qualities 
 of young Norval, is the most pleasing, and rather out- 
 
 1 Page 237. 
 
Agis 131 
 
 strips in his appeal that of the hero. He is described 
 in these terms by a contemporary critic : 
 
 No character more sublime, if we may be allowed the ex- 
 pression, than that of Lysander, has ever appeared on the 
 stage.i 
 
 The same writer then comments in these terms upon 
 the other personages in the play : 
 
 Agis himself is the Agis of Plutarch, with whom no lib- 
 erties were to be taken: and it cannot be denied, that our 
 author has given us a very beautiful and highly finished copy. 
 Euanthe is tenderness itself, wound up almost to frenzy by 
 fear. Her seeming inconsistencies and changes of sentiment 
 make necessary parts of her character; and are as natural as 
 beautiful in such a state of the passions. Whatever resem- 
 blance Amphares may have to Glenalvon^ at first sight, a 
 closer view will discover a very great difference: and our 
 author has with propriety diversified their conduct and man- 
 ners. The character of Euxus is finely drawn: and his motive 
 for changing sides is striking and natural. 
 
 A later writer, however, has no such favorable com- 
 ment to make of the characters, and calls that of 
 Euanthe 'a vile botch — introduced for the sake of 
 some uninteresting love scenes.'^ 
 
 While the language of this play may appear to us 
 today stilted and pretentious, it compares favorably 
 with that of many eighteenth century dramas. For 
 it was an age of declamation. And although the 
 language of Agis is perhaps less poetical than that of 
 Dotiglas, there were not lacking critics who gave it 
 high praise. Scott, in a review of Home's works.* 
 speaks of the language of Agis as having 'ease of 
 dialogue' and 'beauty of declamation,' and the foUow- 
 
 1 Critical Review, March, 1758, p. 238. 
 
 2 The villain in Douglas. 
 
 2 Genest, Some Account of the English Stage 4. 514. 
 
 * Quarterly Review for 1827, p. 204. 
 
132 John Home: A Study of His lAfe and Works 
 
 ing quotation is typical of much of the contemporary 
 criticism of it : 
 
 In point of stile, we shall only observe, that our author 
 seems to improve: for the stile of Agis is more uniform and 
 classical, and is better supported than that of Douglas, which 
 inclines us to believe, that tho' the fable be now what it was 
 when the tragedy was wrote, yet some material alterations have 
 lately been made in the stile and diction. One peculiar excel- 
 lence, on this head, must be allowed to belong to our author: 
 that is, the stile and language of character. One would imagine 
 that this were no uncommon talent, and that whoever could 
 draw characters, could likewise make them speak their own 
 language. But to whatever cause it is owing, no tragic poet 
 for many years, our author excepted, has made his charac- 
 ters speak any more than one and the same language.^ 
 
 In Agis, Home fell a victim to one of the other ten- 
 dencies of the age — that of the writing of odes. There 
 are several introduced into this tragedy, of which the 
 following is characteristic. It closes the play : 
 
 Chorus. 
 Mourn, ye sons of Sparta, mourn, 
 Pour the sad lamenting strain. 
 Wretched people! Land forlorn! 
 Mourn the best of princes slain. 
 
 Priest of Jupiter. 
 He fell not as the warrior falls. 
 Whose breast defends his native walls. 
 To treason Agis bowed his head. 
 And by his guilty subjects bled: 
 Betray'd by those his mercy spar'd; 
 Ingratitude was his reward. 
 
 Chorus. 
 Shame is mix'd with Sparta's woe, 
 Blood of kings the city stains. 
 Ever let our sorrows flow. 
 Shame indelible remains. 
 
 1 Critical Review, March, 1758, p. 242. 
 
Agis 133 
 
 Priest of Jupiter. 
 Yet Agis triumph'd in his fall; 
 For Virtue triumphs over all: 
 Great, superior to his fate, 
 He only griev'd for Sparta's state. 
 When Jove decrees a nation's doom, 
 He calls their heroes to the tomb. 
 Fearless they fall, immortal rise, 
 And claim the freedom of the skies. 
 
 Chorus. 
 Agis triumph'tf in his fall, 
 Virtue triumphs over all! 
 Such a king shall ne'er return: 
 Our country and ourselves we mourn. 
 
 Priest of Hercules. 
 Agis fell, by fraud o'ercome; 
 Alike was great Alcides' doom. 
 Yet then most worthy of his sire. 
 The son of Jove, when wrapt in fire. 
 Victorious crown'd his labours past: 
 His noblest labour was the last. 
 
 Chorus of All. 
 Now in peace our hero lies, 
 Ceas'd his toil, his race is run; 
 Freedom is the glorious prize 
 Agis for his people won. 
 
 The comments upon the odes show^the attitude of 
 the eighteenth century toward this form of poetry. 
 A characteristic criticism is this one : 
 
 As this is an age wherein odes abound, we must take some 
 notice of the odes of our author. What induced him to intro- 
 duce them into his play, or what effect they have there, we 
 shall not pretend to determine; but we must admit that they 
 are very beautiful compositions. If obscurity and sudden trans- 
 itions, involved constructions, and an affectation of the sur- 
 prising, are necessary ingredients in this kind of ode, the 
 author of Ag^is must stand far back in the list of lyric poets.i 
 
 A certain amount of interest attached itself to the 
 play because of the fancy that there was a political 
 
 1 Critical Review, March, 1758, p. 242. 
 
134 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 aspect to it, and numerous passages, among them 
 this one, were cited to prove this : 
 
 The laws have been neglected, not annuU'd 
 
 And corrupt rulers have corrupted manners, 
 
 Authority will soon revive the laws, 
 
 And great example yet restore the manners, 
 
 In spite of those who have oppress'd their country 
 
 Depriv'd the people of their antient rights 
 
 And while the nation, sunk beneath their sway. 
 
 Still strove for power in a declining kingdom, 
 
 Still sought for wealth in an imjwverish'd land.i 
 
 This insistence upon the political history of the 
 play is found in the account given of it in the Bio- 
 graphia Dramatica written many years after its pre- 
 sentation. The criticism reads^: 
 
 This play is founded on a story in the Spartan history. 
 Whether the author was only warmed by the spirit of a par- 
 ticular party, or that he chose in this piece to give vent to his 
 resentments against his countrymen for the rigour wherewith 
 they had persecuted him on account of his former tragedy of 
 Douglas,^ it is difficult to determine; but it is at least appar- 
 ent, that throughout the whole of the piece he has kept up a 
 figurative retrospect of the conduct of the Scots in regard to 
 King Charles I and that, in the character of his Agis, he has 
 never lost sight of the idea of that unfortunate prince. 
 
 Far from agreeing, however, with the opinion of 
 Biographia Dramatica that the political aspect of Agis 
 helped to make it successful, Scott, in a review of 
 Home's works, gives this criticism of it:* 
 
 'Agis' was a tragedy the interest of which turned, at first, 
 exclusively upon politics, a subject which men are fiercely in- 
 terested in, if connected with the party questions agitating 
 their own country at the time; but which, when the same refers 
 
 1 See Agis, Act I, Scene 1. 
 
 2 3. 8-9. 
 
 8 Agis, however, was written before Douglas. 
 * Quarterly Review for 1827, p. 204. 
 
Agis 135 
 
 to the forgotten revolutions of a distant country and a remote 
 period, are always caviare to the million. Addison, indeed, 
 succeeded in his splendid poem of Cato; but both the name and 
 history were so generally known as to facilitate greatly its 
 interest with the public. Besides, the author was at the head 
 of the literature of his day, and not unskilled in the art of 
 indoctrinating the readers of the Spectator in the knowledge 
 necessary to understand Cato. But the history of Agis and the 
 fortunes of Sparta were familiar only to scholars; and it was 
 difficult to interest the public at large in the revolutions of a 
 country which they knew only by name. The Ephori and the 
 double kings of Lacedaemon must have been puzzling to a 
 common audience, even at the outset. 
 
 The cast of characters on the first representation of 
 Agis was : 
 
 Lysander Garrick 
 
 Agis Mossop 
 
 Amphares Havard 
 
 Rhesus Holland 
 
 Euxus Davies 
 
 EuANTHB Mrs. Gibber 
 
 Agesistkata Mrs. Pritchard 
 
 Sandane Mrs. Yates 
 
 There seems little doubt that this exceptional cast 
 helped the play to run as long as it did. It must have 
 been, indeed, a poor play that Garrick and Mrs. 
 Gibber could make nothing of. In addition, Home had 
 powerful friends in London at this time who supported 
 him and his play loyally. 
 
 Often the opinion of individuals is worth more than 
 that of publications. In any case, and rather queerly, 
 considering the fairly good report that was made of 
 Agis in most of the current magazines, few of Home's 
 friends seemed to have a very high opinion of it. 
 Hume's opinion has already been quoted.^ Gray had 
 only unfavorable criticism for it,^ and even the loyal 
 
 1 See Chapter I, p. 16, 
 Ibid., p. 24. 
 
136 John Home: A Study of His Life and Works 
 Carlyle has few words of praise for it. He says: 
 
 John Home's tragedy of Agis had been acted this season 
 with tolerably good success, for it ran the nine nights, and the 
 author made some hundreds by it.i 
 
 This play, then, as has already been suggested in the 
 criticisms cited, did nothing for Home's reputation 
 as a dramatist. It only made him somewhat richer 
 in pocket. In human interest, it is far below Douglas, 
 which was keeping its place on the stage and growing 
 in popularity with the coming of every new theatrical 
 season. In fact, on consideration of the great popu- 
 larity of Douglas, it is quite apparent that Agis must 
 have been far inferior to it to have so short a run. 
 This is the more true as Garrick did everything in his 
 power to make a second Douglas of it. That he 
 failed was no fault of his. 
 
 1 Autobiography, p. 358. 
 
VII. 
 
 THE SIEGE OF AQUILEIA. 
 
 Apparently, Home prospered sufficiently, from a 
 financial standpoint, on his Agis to compensate him 
 for any unfavorable criticism that was made of it, and 
 to encourage him to continue his dramatic writing. 
 His Siege of Aquileia, also a tragedy, was accepted by 
 Garrick and put on at Drury Lane on February 21, 
 1760. In all, it was acted eleven times that season. 
 As regards the origin of the plot, it seems generally 
 to be conceded that Home had in mind the Siege of 
 Berwick. In fact, an edition of his plays published 
 in 1798 expressly states that the 'Siege of Aquileia 
 was originally called the Siege of Berwick.' In a 
 letter dated November 10, 1788, the following account 
 is given of this. It also contains, in brief, the general 
 plot of the play: 
 
 And it was from some old songs and traditional stories that 
 he [Home] took the siege of Berwick, where Lord Winton 
 commanded the garrison, and two of his sons in a sally are 
 taken by Percy, who erects a gallows, and threatens Lord 
 Winton to hang up his sons, if he does uot Isic'i immediately 
 surrender. In the struggle between paternal feelings, and 
 what was due to his country, his wife, called Black Bess of 
 Pinton bids him preserve his honour, they are young enough 
 to have more children, and Percy hangs the two sons.i For 
 fear of disobliging the late Duchess of Northumberland, Mr. 
 Home was advised to alter this Tragedy, and make it the 
 siege of some place at a distance, Aquileia, I think.2 
 
 Contrary to this opinion, this current magazine 
 took the stand that Home by no means owed every- 
 
 1 In Home's play only one of the sons dies, and that after 
 the death of Maximin, and the mother takes a much more 
 tender part than does Black Bess. 
 
 2 Nichols, Literary History 1. 436. 
 
138 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 thing to the tradition concerning the siege of Ber- 
 wick. It says : 
 
 The fable of this play we owe chiefly to the author's inven- 
 tion; for, though Maximin and his son were actually massa- 
 cred by their own soldiers at the siege of Aquileia, there is not 
 any foundation for the circumstances of private distress, which 
 Mr. Home has worked up into a tragedy. A similar disaster 
 if we may believe the Scottish historians, happened to Seton 
 governor of Berwick, when it was besieged by Edward III. of 
 England. But the author had very siufiicient reasons for not 
 allowing his piece to appear under such a title on the English 
 stage.i 
 
 Biographia Dramatica, which has, as a rule, little 
 good to say of Home's plays, makes these comments on 
 The Siege of Aquileia : 
 
 The unities are well preserved, and some of the sentimental 
 parts of the language are fine. But on the whole, the incidents 
 are too few, the distress is too much the same from beginning 
 to end, and the catastrophe too early pointed out to the 
 audience. Besides which, it may be added, that the character 
 of Aemilius bears too strong a resemblance to that of the Old 
 Horatius in Whitehead's ROMAN FATHER; though it would 
 be paying the last named character a bad compliment to set 
 this, in point of execution, in any degree of competition 
 with it.2 
 
 A reading of The Roman Father',^ however, shows 
 that Home probably owes little to it in his portrait of 
 Aemelius. Both the character of Horatius and that 
 of Aemelius have the traditional attitude of the 
 Roman parent, — ^that the sacrifice of his children is 
 not merely a duty but a pleasure, if it be for his 
 country; and that death is infinitely preferable to 
 dishonor. That idea was no more original with 
 Whitehead than with Home. And Aemelius, who was 
 
 1 Critical Review, March, 1760; p. 206. 
 
 2 Biographia Dramatica 4. 270. 
 
 s First acted at Drury Lane theatre, February 24, 1750. 
 
The Siege of Aquileia 139 
 
 so tortured by the entreaties of the mother of his 
 sons, is a much softer portrait of the old Roman than 
 is that Horatius, who could finally rejoice in the valor 
 of his son, who stabbed his sister because she spoke 
 against the honor of Rome. This seems only another 
 case, then, of that untrustworthy form of criticism 
 which is so ready to attribute an original work to 
 unproved sources. 
 
 The cast of characters on the first presentation of 
 The Siege of Aquileia was as follows ; 
 
 Aemilius, Consul of Rome and 
 
 Governor of Aquileia Garrick 
 
 Titus .... ) His Sons JHolland 
 
 Paulus .. J /Austin 
 
 Varus, Officer in the Army 
 
 of Maximin Davies 
 
 Priest of Jupiter Burton 
 
 Cornelia, wife of Aemelius .' Mrs. Gibber 
 
 The play must have been at least fairly well re- 
 ceived, for David Hume writes in March, 1760 : 
 
 You gave me a very sensible pleasure in informing me so 
 early of the success of 'The Siege of Aquileia' on its first 
 representation. I hope it sustained its reputation after it 
 came into print.i 
 
 However, the following from the Critical Review would 
 suggest that the play was not as warmly received as 
 was hoped for. This may have been in comparison 
 with Douglas, which continued its unusual success. 
 The paper says^ : 
 
 A great writer of the last age, observed, that how bad 
 soever the authors wrote, the critics generally judged worse: 
 and the same apothegm will probably hold eternally true in 
 all ages. These general reflections we throw out, because we 
 
 1 Burton, Life of Hume 2. 81. 
 
 2 March, 1760, p. 206. 
 
140 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 have heard it whispered, that the performance, now before us, 
 had fallen short of the public expectation. This is generally 
 the fate of all authors, and we are apt to believe, proceeds not 
 so much from a falling off in the poet, as from the caprice of 
 mankind, who are not only fickle and inconstant in their 
 taste, rejecting often an author like a toy out of fashion; but 
 are also apt to wind up their opinions to an enthusiasm of 
 hope, which will be disappointed by everything short of per- 
 fection. It must likewise be observed, that a poet, in his 
 third exhibition, is divested of that novelty which always 
 operates in favour of a virgin muse. There are many vapid 
 valetudinarians in taste, who can no more preserve their 
 attachment to one author, beyond one season, than they can 
 maintain their affection for one mistress after the first winter 
 of possession. 
 
 Mr. Home had already entertained the town with uncommon 
 success as a dramatic writer, and, perhaps, it begins to make 
 wry faces, like a wayward child, which has been too much 
 fondled and indulged with sweetmeats. 
 
 As regards the language of this play, it is, in 
 places, as inspired as anything that was ever written 
 by Home. The following extract from the poem 
 which has been highly praised as a beautiful piece of 
 poetry,^ will show this. It is the account of her dream 
 by Cornelia, the mother of the two ill-fated boys : 
 
 Aemilius. What evil omens has Cornelia seen? 
 
 Cornelia. Tis strange to tell; but as I slumb'ring lay. 
 About that hour when glad Aurora springs, 
 To chase the lagging shades, methought I was 
 In Rome, and full of peace the city seem'd; 
 My mind, oblivious, too, had lost its care. 
 Serene I step'd along the lofty hall, 
 Imbellish'd with the statues of our fathers. 
 When suddenly an universal groan 
 Issued at once from every marble breast. 
 Aghast I gaz'd around! when slowly down 
 From their high pedestals I saw descend 
 The murder'd GRACCHI. Hand in hand, the 
 brothers 
 
 1 Quarterly Review, 1827, p. 205. 
 
The Siege of Aquileia 141 
 
 Stalk'd toward me. As they approach'd more near, 
 They were no more the GRACCHI, but my sons 
 PAULUS and TITUS. At that dreadful change 
 I shriek'd and wak'd. But never from my mind 
 The spectacle shall part. Their rueful eyes! 
 Their cheeks of stone! the look of death and woe! 
 So strange a vision ne'er from fancy rose. 
 The rest, my lord! this holy Priest can telU: 
 
 Even Biographia Dramatica has praise for it in this 
 respect, and says that 'some of the sentimental parts 
 of the language are fine'^ Much more extravagant 
 is the following florid account of the piece given in a 
 contemporary review of it: 
 
 On the whole, this performance will afford elegant and 
 rational entertainment, whether exhibited on the stage, or 
 perused in the closet; and is marked with some touches of what 
 we may call originality, by which Mr. Home's other pieces 
 are also happily distinguished. He is not one of those writers, 
 who, like holiday prentices, amble through the turnpike-road 
 of dramatic poetry, smoothed with the gravel of insipid versi- 
 fication, winding through a labyrinth of cross purposes, embel- 
 lished with apothegms, and similes like nosegays of flowers 
 in Covent-Garden market, and allies of evergreens cut in fan- 
 tastic forms. He deviates into the wilderness of nature, where 
 he culls the blossoms, as they blow spontaneous, and joins 
 the warbling choir, whose artless song, inspired by the divin- 
 ity, resounds from every grove.^ 
 
 Taken as a whole, then, it strikes one that the play 
 has been rather underestimated. The plot is a most 
 appealing one, — ^that of a father face to face with the 
 alternative of betraying his country or of sacrificing 
 his sons. The situations are well handled by Home, 
 and the pathos of the parents' grief, in which this 
 dramatist is always at his best, is well brought out. 
 
 The language reaches real beauty at times, especi- 
 
 i Siege of Aquileia, Act I, Scene I. 
 
 2 Biographia Dramatica 4. 270. 
 
 3 Critical Review for March, 1760, p. 214. 
 
142 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 ally in such scenes as that when the mother pleads 
 with the father for her sons. Garrick seems to have 
 entertained a high opinion of the play, and to have 
 hoped great things from it. 
 
 A thoughtful reading of it, however, will reveal 
 wherein its great fault lies as a drama. It is made to 
 be read, not acted. The sentiment rings true, but it is 
 put in too many words. The action is often inter- 
 rupted by speeches too lengthy even for the eighteenth 
 century. The catastrophe, too, is forseen as early as 
 the second act, and when it comes, there is serious 
 doubt as to its necessity. In addition, a great part 
 of the action takes place off the stage. Like so many 
 other plays, it is a closet rather than an acting drama. 
 
VIII. 
 
 THE FATAL DISCOVERY 
 
 Home's tragedy of The Fatal Discovery first appear- 
 ed at Drury Lane theatre on Feb. 23, 1769. It was 
 acted eleven times. That Garrick, before its presenta- 
 tion, had no unfavorable opinion of the play is shown 
 by the following extract from a letter written by him 
 in June, 1768, the summer before its presentation. 
 He says:^ 
 
 But to return to our precious Rivine. How happy I am 
 that I did not give you the copy till I had considered it with all 
 my wits about me! It is a most interesting, original, noble 
 performance; and whenever it is exhibited, will do the author 
 great, very great honour. If your fifth act (as a, fifth act,) 
 is equal to the rest, sublimi feries, &c. The construction of 
 your fable is excellent; you leave the audience, at the end of 
 every act, with a certain glow, and in the most eager expecta- 
 tion of knowing what is to follow. I drew the tears last night 
 in great plenty from my wife, and a very intimate friend of 
 ours, who is now with us at Hampstead. I read it with all my 
 powers, and produced that effect which I would always wish to 
 do in reading a work of genius, and more particularly a work 
 of yours. 
 
 Garrick then makes the statement that, so far as he 
 can see, any alterations that are necessary in the play 
 may be made in a morning, and urges upon Home the 
 completion of his fifth act. 
 
 There is an interesting story in connection with the 
 rehearsals and first performances of this play. It 
 shows the height to which, in England, the feeling 
 against the Scots had risen. Carlyle tells it in these 
 words : 
 
 On the 23rd of this month I went with John Home to the 
 first night of his tragedy of the Fatal Discovery, which went 
 
 1 Mackenzie, Life of Home, pp. 109-110. 
 
144 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 off better than we expected. This was and is to my taste the 
 second-best of Home's tragedies. Garrick had been justly- 
 alarmed at the jealousy and dislike which prevailed at that 
 time against Lord Bute and the Scotch, and had advised him 
 to change the title of Bivine into that of the Fatal Discovery, 
 and had provided a student of Oxford, who had appeared at 
 the rehearsals as the author, and wished Home of all things 
 to remain concealed till the play had its run. But John, whose 
 vanity was too sanguine to admit of any fear or caution, and 
 whose appetite for praise rebelled against the counsel that 
 would deprive him for a moment of his fame, too soon dis- 
 covered the secret, and though the play survived its nine 
 nights, yet the house evidently slackened after the town heard 
 that John was the author.^ 
 
 This play, according to Mackenzie,^ was founded on 
 one of the fragments of Ossian. It will be remem- 
 bered that Home was rather closely connected with 
 the literary career of MacPherson, and he was always 
 partial to his productions. In Ossian as published 
 there is no story containing these names, and we can 
 therefore only assume that if this is true, Home took 
 the plot from a fragment which MacPherson never 
 published. The published story of 'Conlach and 
 Gudona' has, however, some similarities to Home's 
 play. 
 
 The story of The Fatal Discovery is this. Rivine, 
 daughter of Kathul, King of the Isles, is betrothed to 
 Ronan, prince of Morven. Ronan is called away to 
 fight, and in his absence Durstan, king of the Picts, 
 corrupts Ronon's messenger, who reports to Rivine 
 that her lover has married Erin's queen. She in 
 despair yields to her father's importunities and 
 marries Durstan. Shortly after this, she learns of the 
 treachery that has been used toward her. Ronan 
 returns, the inevitable meeting with Durstan takes 
 
 1 Autobiography, p. 509. 
 
 2 Life of Home, p. 109. 
 
The Fatal Discovery 145 
 
 place, they fight, are both killed, and Rivine, who in 
 the meantime has stabbed herself, also dies. 
 
 In its construction, this play has been very highly 
 praised. A contemporary account^ closes a long 
 critique with these words : 
 
 These are the outlines of this beautiful tragedy, as nearly 
 as we could trace them in the first representation. In striking 
 incidents, and in the elegance and simplicity of its language, 
 it is not inferior to any in the modem drama; and a strict 
 adherence to the correct rules of the antients, shews that the 
 author is a man of learning as well as genius. 
 
 The Critical Review for March, 1769, continues this 
 approving comment. It says^: 
 
 The Fatal Discovery may be considered as an original piece, 
 and is at the same time, confined to the strict rules of the 
 drama. The fable is simple and natural, the incidents rise 
 out of the story, and are happily contrived; the principal 
 characters are strongly marked and well supported. The suite 
 of the scenes is theatrical, and the author has fallen on the 
 art of leaving the audience in suspense at the end of every 
 act. The distress is of that kind which interests all mankind, 
 as it arises from the private passion, and the evils of domestic 
 life; and though the misconduct of the heroine brings it on, 
 still she is left the just object of admiration, of love, and of 
 pity. 
 
 Critics of the time as a rule based their objections 
 to the play on its language. The claim was either that 
 this was not historically accurate or else that it was 
 too much lacking in the poetical element. The Critical 
 Review took exception in these words : 
 
 Yet we cannot excuse the author for a negligence, that 
 leads him into flat and prosaic expressions, and makes him 
 leave some of the verses flat and unharmonious.^ 
 
 1 Whitehall Evening Post, Feb. 25, 1769. 
 
 2 p. 221. 
 
 3 Critical Review, March, 1769, p. 222. 
 
146 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 The Gentleman's Magazine voices the same com- 
 plaint in these words^ : 
 
 The lan^age of this piece is by no means adapted to the 
 drama; it is the same as the translator's of Ossian, only re- 
 duced to measure; it wants nature, elegance, harmony and 
 ease, and without genuine poetry, there is the appearance of 
 much labour to produce it; upon the whole, it produces no 
 forcible or pleasing effect, either upon the passions or the 
 imagination, the audience rather suffered than enjoyed it, and 
 probably it will never be represented again. 
 
 And Scott in a review of Home's works says^: 
 
 The play is written in the false gallop of Ossianic compo- 
 sition, to which we must avow ourselves by no means partial. 
 
 The hermit Orellan's speech at the close of Act III, 
 as he laments over Rivine's grief, is typical of the 
 poetry of this tragedy. He says : 
 
 Bright star! that hastes to set. child of youth. 
 Like the green oak, before its head is bare. 
 Untimely torn from some high mountain's brow. 
 So shalt thou fall, but not without thy praise. 
 This cave, a while the mansion of thy woes. 
 Those hoary cliffs, and yon resounding bay. 
 Shall often echo thy lamented name. 
 My voice shall pierce the stillness of the morning. 
 And evening's milder calm, bewailing thee, 
 Namora's gentle shade will love the song 
 That joins her sister-memory to thine. 
 
 This is the cast of characters, — a strong one, it will 
 be noted, — ^which first presented The Fatal Discovery. 
 
 EONAN Barry 
 
 Orellan Reddish 
 
 CoNNAN Aickin 
 
 DuESTAN Palmer 
 
 1 For April, 1769, p. 200. 
 
 2 Quarterly Review for 1827, p. 20©. 
 
The Fatal Discovery 147 
 
 Kathul Jefferson 
 
 EUBAN J. Aickln 
 
 RiviNE Mrs. Barry 
 
 The play was also acted for Mrs. Barry's benefit at 
 Covent Garden, March 18, 1776, when the dramatis 
 person ae were as follows : 
 
 RONAN Webster 
 
 Oeellan Barry 
 
 DUESTAN (First Time) Aickin 
 
 Kathul Hull 
 
 CONNAN Wroughton 
 
 RiviNE Mrs. Barry 
 
 Acted with Comus. 
 
 That the usual cheerful disregard of the eighteenth 
 century for fitting scenery and costuming was in 
 evidence in this play, we gather from these statements : 
 
 Ridiculous improprieties were displayed in its representa- 
 tion. On the stage, we saw the youthful Ronan bounding with 
 all the vigor and alacrity that age, gout, and rheumatism 
 usually inspire.! The heroes of this truly Erse performance, 
 — who never yet had being. 
 Or, being, wore no breeches, 
 
 were invested in gold and purple, while a Grecian palace waj 
 allotted to the monarch of a rock.^ 
 
 The following very pertinent criticism then follows : 
 
 These circumstances suflSciently prove, that a manager 
 ought to be conversant with the customs, habits, arms, and 
 architecture, peculiar to various countries; that, when he 
 supplies theatrical decorations, he may avoid anacronisms and 
 absurdities. 
 
 On reading The Fatal Discovery, the criticism that 
 the language is scarcely suited to the age which it sup- 
 
 1 Barry at this time was about fifty years of age. 
 
 2 Biographia Dramatica 3. 227. 
 
148 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 posedly represents seems just. The speeches, typical 
 of eighteenth century dramatic writing, are too long 
 and declamatory. Especially is this true of the weari- 
 some conversation carried on by the chief characters 
 when at the point of death. In this play, for a page 
 and a half, Rivine and Ronan, both mortally wounded, 
 make their farewells to each other. 
 
 Then, too, there is a sameness about all of Home's 
 women and about his plots which makes them pall on 
 one. Rivine is in type another Lady Randolph or 
 Ormisinda. One has the feeling, therefore, that this 
 part may have added to the adverse criticisms of the 
 fourth play of Home. 
 
 On the other hand, there are many fine sentiments 
 in the play, they are naturally expressed, and the 
 action moves on very well. The Fatal Discovery is 
 certainly not a great play, but it is an interesting one. 
 
IX. 
 
 A L N Z 0. 
 
 Alonzo, a tragedy like Home's other plays, was 
 first presented at Drury Lane theatre, on February 27, 
 1773. It was acted eleven times. Garrick staged it 
 and wrote the epilogue for it. The source of Alonzo 
 seems to have been chiefly Douglas, so far as can be 
 learned. At least, the most striking thing about this 
 play is its very great similarity to Home's first acted 
 tragedy. About seventeen years had passed since the 
 first presentation of that by far the most successful 
 of the author's works, and it would seem that, 
 although Douglas kept the stage in as great popularity 
 as ever. Home must have forgotten how very similar 
 the story of Alonzo is to the story of Douglas. In both 
 of the plays, there is a secret marriage, the disappear- 
 ance of the husband, the subsequent birth of a son, 
 the disappearance of the son and his reappearance at 
 the age of about sixteen or seventeen years, his great 
 deeds of bravery, the melancholy of the wife and 
 mother, her communications to her confidante. And 
 not only is the action very much the same, but the 
 similarity between many of the speeches is most 
 noticeable. For example. Young Douglas in his speech 
 says: 
 
 My name is Nerval: on the Grampian fields 
 My father feeds his flocks. 
 
 Young Alberto begins his as follows: 
 
 Alberto is my name, I draw my birth 
 Prom Catalonia; in the mountains there 
 My father dwells, and for his own domains 
 Pays tribute to the Moor.i 
 
 1 For comparison of many similar passages in the two plays, 
 see Mackenzie, Life of Home, pp. 112-116. 
 
150 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 It is evident, however, that Home, in playing for 
 the second time on these chords of maternal and 
 filial love, was not nearly so successful. His later 
 play is less probable in plot, and less carefully worked 
 out in execution than was Douglas. The following 
 comment is characteristic of the criticisms made as to 
 the similarity in the plots of the two tragedies : 
 
 Alonzo was produced in 1773, and was received with a de- 
 gree of favour which, in some respects, it certainly scarce 
 deserved. Home had, in this instance, forgotten a story 
 belonging to his former profession, which we have heard 
 himself narrate. It respected a country clergyman in Scotland, 
 who, having received much applause for a sermon preached 
 before the Synod, could never afterwards get through the 
 service of the day without introducing some part of the dis- 
 course on which he reposed his fame, with the quotation: as I 
 said in my Synod sermon! In plain words, 'Alonzo' was almost 
 a transcript of the situation, incidents, and plot of Douglas, 
 and every author should especially beware of repeating the 
 theme which has formerly been successful, or presenting a da 
 capo rotta of the banquet which he has previously been for- 
 tunate enough to render aoceptable.i 
 
 The suggestion has been made, however, that Home 
 took his idea for the plot of Alonzo not from Douglas, 
 but from Massinger's play, The Unnatural Combat. 
 Dr. J, Hoadly in a letter to Garrick says : 
 
 Good now, why does not Mr. Home say whence he takes his 
 main plot of 'Alonzo?' for surely Massinger's play of 'The Un- 
 natural Combat' is the basis, and that is too lately printed in 
 his Works, and in Dodsley's Collection, to be concealed. I think 
 it worthy of Mr. H .2 
 
 A reading of The Unnatural Combat, however, makes 
 the statement seem absurd. The single important in- 
 cident which is akin to any event in Home's play is 
 
 1 Quarterly Review for 1827, p. 206. 
 
 2 The Private Correspondence of David Garrick, London, 
 1831, 1. 506. 
 
Alonzo 151 
 
 that of the combat between father and son. In Alonzo 
 they are about to fight, ignorant of the fact that there 
 is a relationship between them. In The Unnatural 
 Combat they fight because of their bitter hatred for 
 each other. Home's play has no horrors in it, — only 
 a pathetic situation brought about by the separation 
 of two noble characters through a misplaced suspicion, 
 while Massinger's is one of those dreadful plays of 
 unlawful love and unnatural deeds in which the 
 later Elizabethans gloried. This source, then, may be 
 absolutely ignored. 
 
 The story of the later tragedy will be given at 
 length that this striking resemblance to Douglas may 
 be seen. It is as follows: 
 
 Some years before the opening of the play, Alonzo 
 had been a favorite of Pelagio, king of Spain. Un- 
 luckily, however, he quarreled with Ramerez, the 
 king's son; they fought, and the prince was killed. 
 For this, Alonzo had to leave the country at once. 
 
 Previous to this he had fallen in love with Ormis- 
 inda, the daughter of the king, and they had been 
 married. The marriage was a secret one, and took 
 place only five days before he killed Ramerez. The 
 night before his flight, while he was watching for the 
 return of Ormisinda from the city, he saw her, by 
 moonlight, go through a grove with a young man, 
 whose affectionate attitude toward her left in Alonzo's 
 mind no doubt that she was false to him. With- 
 out further proof, he set off immediately from Astur- 
 ias (where the court was at that time, and the scene 
 of the tragedy) and retired into the woods of Asia, 
 resolved to think no more of the woman who had 
 betrayed his honor. This sudden departure over- 
 whelmed Ormisinda with grief, as she could not 
 account for it in any way. In due time, a son was 
 bom and, to screen the secret of her marriage, she 
 gave him to Costolla to take into a remote part of the 
 
152 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 country to be educated. She called the child Alberto, 
 instead of his real name Alonzo. 
 
 Sixteen years pass, and nothing has happened. 
 Here the play opens. Spain is at war with the Moors. 
 After various contests between the two sides, the fate 
 of the war is to be determined by two champions, one 
 on each side. The Moorish champion is so formidable 
 in strength and stature, that it is universally agreed 
 there is not a Spaniard living who can overcome him, 
 except Alonzo. At this time, Alberto, tired of leading 
 a retired life, and ambitious for glory, has arrived at 
 the court, after performing a feat of great prowess 
 on his journey. While he is relating to the king this 
 adventure, and giving an account of himself, he is 
 known by his mother, who, upon his offering' to attack 
 the Moorish champion, is beside herself with anxiety 
 for his safety. She is relieved, however, by the 
 arrival of a messenger, who says that Alonzo, alarmed 
 for the fate of his country, has sent the Persian 
 prince, Abdallah, to contend with the Moor. This 
 prince, greatly celebrated for his victories in war, 
 delights everyone with his arrival except young Al- 
 berto, who regrets the loss of so good an occasion to 
 distinguish himself. 
 
 Alonzo now appears under the name and dress of 
 Abdallah. The king thanks him, and informs him 
 that his daughter Ormisinda will be his prize if he 
 conquers. The prince tells him that he cannot accept 
 that, but that he will ask another favor of him. The 
 champions enter the lists, Abdallah conquers, and 
 returns to court amid the shouts of the people. He 
 now asks of the king, as his only reward, to do justice 
 to his friend, Alonzo. The king promises. Abdallah 
 then publicly charges Ormisinda, who is present, with 
 adultery, and insists that she be put to death. This 
 charge creates universal astonishment; and Pelagio 
 replies that he never knew she was married. The 
 princess then confesses her marriage with Alonzo, 
 
Alonzo 153 
 
 but denies the charge of adultery. Alberto, as if 
 conscious of her innocence, offers to assert it against 
 Abdallah, who treats the youthful adventurer with 
 great contempt. The princess is alarmed for her son ; 
 and to save him from a contention with the more 
 powerful Abdallah, declares that she will not submit 
 to have her reputation cleared by combat, but wishes 
 rather to be confronted with Alonzo himself. Abdal- 
 lah now retires, soon enters as Alonzo, and continues 
 his accusations. Alberto suddenly draws upon him, 
 and the princess, shocked by the idea of a combat 
 between father and son, rushes in between them and 
 stabs herself. While she is dying, she reveals to 
 Alonzo that Alberto is her son; and it is also learned 
 that the young man whom Alonzo had seen with his 
 wife in the grove, was no other than her maid 
 Teresa, who had put on the dress of a man, the better 
 to conduct her mistress in the night-time. Alonzo, 
 distracted by the information, stabs himself and dies. 
 Here the play ends. 
 
 In general, it will be seen, that the situations here 
 are similar to many in those of Douglas. The improb- 
 abilities of this plot, however, are greater. The first 
 one is the failure of Ormisinda to recognize her 
 husband. The next and the greatest fault of the 
 whole play is the absurdity of its tragic ending. Just 
 why, when the moment arrives that everything can 
 be explained and happiness seems waiting for all, the 
 heroine should feel it necessary to kill herself, is not 
 at all clear from a reading of the play, and Mrs. Barry 
 must certainly have done most creditable acting to 
 make it convincing to an audience. Therefore, the 
 tragic ending is not only not inevitable, but even 
 unnecessary. 
 
 Needless to say, these improbabilities in plot con- 
 struction did not escape criticism at the time. The 
 Whitehall Evening Post comments upon them in 
 these words : 
 
154 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 This plot is so extremely simple, that it may be said to have 
 but one incident. The ground-work is, one of the events aris- 
 ing from the war carried on between the Spaniards and the 
 Moors; and on this circumstance the episode which forms the 
 Grand Plot is constructed. This fable, however, simple as it 
 is, is not without some faults worthy of reprehension. One 
 probability seems to be of that kind which we find in Alzuma;^ 
 for as, in the latter, an absence of ten years obscures all the 
 features of a mother's face, so as to make them not recognos- 
 tfible even by her son; so in the former, an absence of sixteen 
 renders the husband unknown to the wife. We do not deny 
 that such a thing might be possible; but to charge such a wife 
 as Ormisinda was — ^who never forgot the absent husband for a 
 moment, who loved him so well, and wept for him so much — to 
 charge her with a treacherous memory is unpardonable. 
 
 Nor can we assent to the general turn of the fable. The 
 foundation of the Catastrophe is certainly trifling — only the 
 mistaking of a woman in man's cloaths: yet for this two 
 virtuous people die; the one for suspecting, and the other for 
 being suspected. The manner in which Alonzo dies is equally 
 reprehensible. Here Alzuma again is recalled to our memory. 
 Alzuma, in the midst of his guards and attendants, was suf- 
 fered to slay Pizarro: In this tragedy, Alonzo, surrounded by 
 a very numerous body, draws his sword very deliberately, 
 makes his dying speech, and stabs himself, no one making the 
 least attempt to interrupt him.^ 
 
 The characters are as similar to those in Douglas as 
 are the situations. Ormisinda is another Lady Ran- 
 dolph, Alberto is Young Norval, and Alonzo in his 
 martial ability another Douglas. The following is a 
 contemporary comment upon this fact: 
 
 In this tragedy the author has not displayed any variety of 
 character. Indeed, the only striking characters with which 
 
 1 Alzuma, a play by Murphy running at Covent Garden 
 theatre at the same time that Alonzo was on the boards at 
 Drury Lane. Here a brother absent for ten years, during 
 which time his sister is constantly mourning for him, neither 
 recognizes her nor her mother, nor is recognized by them, 
 until his mother sees a certain scar on his breast. 
 
 2 Whitehall Evening Post, February 27, 1773. 
 
Alonzo 155 
 
 he has presented us are merely transcripts of the dramatis 
 personae of his own Douglas.^ 
 
 The Whitehall Evening Post for February 27, 1773, 
 voices much the same sentiments. It says : 
 
 In the Characters, there seem to be three who tower above 
 the rest: — the husband, the wife, and the son. Alonzo is 
 drawn brave and powerful in the extreme; indeed, we hardly 
 ever heard of his equal. We know that there is an article in 
 the charter of Tragedy, which grants to the Poet the license of 
 painting extraordinary figures upon extraordinary occasions. 
 Where the action is of an uncommon kind, the principal agent 
 of the scene must be elevated above common mortals; and the 
 rules of Tragedy will snatch the error beyond the reach of 
 criticism. All this is true when such an extraordinary per- 
 sonage is necessary to the business of the Piece; but here no 
 such extraordinary personage is necessary. We may be told 
 that Alonzo has slain the champion of the Moors. True; but 
 what is this to the Piece? The Author stole the character of 
 Alberto from himself. It is a transcription of Young Norval. 
 
 As regards the language of the play, it must be 
 confessed that it is rather indifferent in its poetry, and 
 is in its tone at times so violent as to be distasteful. 
 There is an example of this in Alonzo's denunciation 
 of his wife, which is made in unmeasured terms. He 
 has seen nothing more than his wife walking with a 
 young man who he has assumed must be her lover, 
 and he uses these words of her : 
 
 I swear, Velasco, she's the vilest woman 
 That e'er disgraced her sex. The most abandoned. 
 The hardiest, most determin'd in her vice, 
 That ever wrong'd a fond, believing heart.^ 
 
 The speeches are much too long and there is far too 
 little action. The whole of the first act is taken up 
 with the story of Ormisinda, except for the brief ap- 
 
 1 London Magazine, March, 1773, p. 142. 
 
 2 Alonzo, Act. Ill, Scene I. 
 
156 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 pearance in one place of the king on the stage. This 
 is true largely of the whole play, for a great part of 
 the action is simply related. The Whitehall Evening 
 Post^ takes exception to the language of Alonzo in 
 these words : 
 
 The sentiments in this piece are not very numerous, nor are 
 they so aptly introduced as we ought to expect. 
 
 The language is a strange mixture of the poetical and the 
 vulgar. The author split himself upon this rock by aiming at 
 simplicity; which will ever be the fate of the man who 
 requires to aiTti at simplicity, for it is one of those beauties 
 which are peculiar to nature, and can never be copied. As the 
 instances in which the language has deviated into lowness are 
 extremely numerous, we shall probably take a future occasion 
 to point out some of them; and we doubt not that we shall 
 perceive, in our enquiry, many passages replete with excellent 
 imagery and good expression, which will deserve to be 
 mentioned. 
 
 The London Magazine, after its generally unfavor- 
 able criticism of the plot, ends with this comment 
 upon the language of Alonzo. Apparently the same 
 critic is responsible for this as for the criticism in 
 the Whitehall Evening Post : 
 
 The sentiments are not numerous, though the descriptions 
 are: the impropriety of which will strike every reader who is 
 possessed of any little share of taste. In the diction, the author 
 has descended to a vulgarity which tragedy ought not to stoop 
 to. He has split upon this rock by his usual attempts at 
 simplicity of style. Our author has frequently experienced 
 how dangerous attempts of this kind are! 
 
 On the whole, this tragedy is not worthy of the British 
 stage.2 
 
 Mackenzie, however, speaks of it as the 'most 
 popular of all Mr. Home's tragedies, Douglas ex- 
 cepted,' and says that it 'met with great success in the 
 
 1 For February 27, 1773. 
 
 2 London Magazine, March, 1773, pp. 140-2. 
 
Alonzo 157 
 
 representation^.' There seems little doubt that, if 
 true, this fact was largely due to the splendid acting 
 of Mrs. Barry, for whom it is said Home wrote the 
 part of Ormisinda, and to whose acting in several of 
 his plays Home owed a great debt. 
 
 The Gentleman's Magazine for March, 1773,'' also, 
 in defending the play from the adverse comments that 
 had been made of it, ends its article thus : 
 
 The heart, however, which does not so forcibly feel these 
 scenes in the representation, as to forget every violation of the 
 laws of Criticism in producing them, must be at once 
 unworthy and incapable of that divine pleasure which the 
 tears of Virtue only can bestow. 
 
 The dramatis personse on the first presentation of 
 Alonzo were these: 
 
 AiONZo Reddish 
 
 Alberto (his son) Clinch 
 
 King _ Aickin 
 
 CosTOLLO J. AicMn 
 
 Sebastian Palmer 
 
 Hamet Wright 
 
 Velasco Jeflferson 
 
 Messenger j. Bannister 
 
 Oemisinda Mrs. Barry 
 
 Teeesa Miss Hansen 
 
 Genest gives the following interesting account of 
 an event at one of the performances, which must have 
 done much to bring the play to the attention of the 
 public : 
 
 March 9 — ^Alonzo — in this T. Alonzo does not enter till the 
 3d act — ^when that act was to begin F. Aikin came forward and 
 informed the audience that Reddish was not come to the 
 theatre and begged that his brother J. Aikin* might read the 
 
 1 Ldfe of Home, p. 63. 
 
 2 Page 140. 
 
 * It is odd that J. Aikin should have been selected to read the 
 
158 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 part — B. general confusion ensued and the cry was for Garrick 
 — at last King stepped forward and said that the managers 
 had sent every where for Reddish where there was any proba- 
 bility of finding him; and that tho' 2 acts of the play were 
 over, yet those who did not choose to stay should have their 
 money returned — ^this satisfied the audience and the play went 
 on — J. Aikin reading the part — ^before it was finished, Reddish 
 came in to the theatre, and declared he had forgotten the play 
 was to be performed, and had thought it was an Oratorio 
 night — ^this most of the performers believed to be true, tho' it 
 was an absence of mind probably not to be equalled in the 
 annals of the theatre — on the 11th Reddish published an affi- 
 davit in confirmation of his statement and begged pardon for 
 disappointing the public.'^ 
 
 That this play, like most of Home's, owed much to 
 the skill with which the main roles were taken is 
 enlarged upon in the following criticism : 
 
 We shall now remark upon the whole, that this play is 
 much too languid in the first three acts — a truth which oper- 
 ated so powerfully on the Audience, that it was on the point 
 of proving fatal to it; till Mrs. Barry, like the Author's guar- 
 dian angel, roused herself in the fourth act, and snatched it 
 from destruction. This Lady exerted herself wonderfully, and 
 it is pity that her voice cannot accompany her action through- 
 out the whole piece. Never was passion expressed with more 
 truth than in her face, though she was far from being liberal 
 of her tears. 
 
 The Alonzo of Mr. Reddish was a good character, though it 
 wanted the dignity which Mr. Barry could have given it. 
 
 Mr. Clinch played the fool with Alberto. This young man 
 smells rankly of the spouting club. He talks very loud, and 
 always without judgment. He carried this rant so far that he 
 once damned the piece almost as effectually as Mrs. Barry 
 afterwards saved it.^ 
 
 part, as he played CostoUo, and in the 4th act Costollo and 
 Alonzo are on the stage together. 
 
 1 Some Account of the English Stage S. 353-4. 
 
 2 Whitehall Evening Post, February 27, 1773. 
 
X. 
 
 ALFRED. 
 
 The tragedy of Alfred was first presented at Covent 
 Garden theatre on January 21, 1778. It was the least 
 successful of Home's plays, and ran for three nights 
 only. The source of the play is historical and deals 
 with that period of Alfred's life during which he was 
 in hiding from the Danes. Home was very unfavor- 
 ably criticised for the way in which he had made use 
 of his historical material, the statement being common 
 that he had pictured Alfred too much as the lover and 
 too little as the hero. In the published play he has a 
 long preface in which he excuses himself in these 
 words : 
 
 Alfred was a young man, when he fought the battle of 
 Ethendune. The victory, which gave him possession of the 
 kingdom, must have been gained before he begun to model the 
 state. Is it improbable to suppose, that a young hero was in 
 love? Is it inconsistent to represent the person, who was a 
 Legislator, when advanced in years, as a lover in his youth! 
 Does it degrade the character of a hero to suppose, that he 
 was in love with the princess, whom he afterwards married? 
 Is it not rather injurious to his heroism to conclude, that he 
 chose a consort whom he could not love? If this reasoning is 
 just, there will be no difficulty in vindicating the subsequent 
 conduct of the hero. The dramatic and the real Alfred are 
 both involved in the charge of imposture; both enter the Danish 
 camp in disguise; the previous events, as narrated in the 
 tragedy, are nearly the same with those mentioned in history. 
 Alfred, for almost two years, had wandered thro' England, 
 concealing himself under feigned names and characters. He 
 lived in the midst of his enemies, by being supposed to be 
 dead. Emerging from this obscurity, he appears in the 
 tragedy, and is informed of the alarming, ambiguous situation 
 of Ethelawida [his betrothed, who has been taken captive by 
 the Danish king] ; his usual stratagems present themselves, one 
 would think, naturally to his mind, extremely agitated, and 
 
160 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 prone both by temper and habit, to the most daring and ro- 
 mantic enterprizes. He resolves to enter the Danish camip, to 
 learn the fate of Ethelswida, and to observe the strength and 
 order of the enemy's army, before he ventures a decisive 
 engagement. 
 
 The story of Alfred is this : Before the opening of 
 the play, Ethelswida, the betrothed of Alfred, is taken 
 prisoner by Hinguar, king of the Danes. He falls in 
 love with her, and to save herself she feigns madness. 
 
 The play opens with this information brought to 
 Alfred by Surrey, one of his nobles who has gained the 
 confidence of Hinguar under the name of Erix. Al- 
 fred at once decides to enter the Danish camp dis- 
 guised as a bard, and, if possible, to aid Ethelswida 
 to escape. He gains entrance to the camp under the 
 pretence of telling of the death of Alfred, and so 
 charms Hinguar by his songs and his knowledge of 
 the harp, that the Danish king conceives the idea, that 
 by his music, he may be able to cure Ethelswida of her 
 madness. He is brought to her and is recognized by 
 her. However, his plan for their escape is overheard 
 by one of her attendants, who at once tells the king 
 that the bard is an impostor. Hinguar at once ac- 
 cuses him and Alfred confesses that he is not the 
 bard that he pretended to be, but declares that he is 
 Surrey, and that Ethelswida is his sister Emma. At 
 this the Danish king proposes a marriage between 
 himself and Emma, and Alfred and a sister of Hin- 
 guar. Alfred asks for time. The king's suspicions 
 are further aroused by this; he sends for Ethelswida 
 and declares to her that her brother is to be put to 
 death. She at once forgets her assumed madness, and 
 reveals the fact that the bard is Alfred. The Danish 
 king then proposes to Alfred that he should resign 
 Ethelswida, and that Alfred should marry Hinguar's 
 sister, as he had formerly suggested. They would 
 then divide the kingdom between them and bring the 
 wars to a close. Alfred at once rejects this, and it 
 appears that he will be put to death, when Eonix, the 
 
Alfred 161 
 
 wife of Hinguar, comes to his rescue. She is con- 
 sumed with jealousy of Ethelswida, and promises 
 Alfred that she will help to set him free, and will 
 enlarge his English forces by a body of Danes of her 
 own. Meanwhile, she herself will protect Ethelswida 
 from the Danish king. The English king is released, 
 goes to his forces, and wins a victory. In the mean- 
 time, Ronix has ordered Ethelswida to be killed. 
 Alfred returns, challenges Hinguar to single combat, 
 and kills him. At that moment he is informed that 
 his bride has been killed. He has determined to kill 
 himself when Ethelswida herself comes in. She has 
 changed costumes with her attendant and by that 
 means has escaped. This scene closes the play. 
 
 As has been stated, the criticism of the plot was for 
 the most part unfavorable. The English could not 
 forgive this portraiture of the character of their great 
 hero. The Critical Review for February, 1778, says^: 
 
 This play, we learn from the preface, has not been received 
 with the warmest applause upon the stage. Interdum vulgus 
 rectum videt. We should have conjectured as much from the 
 languid effect which it has in the closet. Yet there are in it 
 incidents which strike, and passages which please; and the 
 language, in many places, well becomes the mouth of tragedy. 
 The objections which the preface endeavours to remove still 
 remain in full force. What we have remarked of the Battle 
 of Hastings^ is equally applicable to Alfred. Love is too much 
 the business of both. We are sorry to find that gentlemen 
 who write tragedies are of opinion nothing will do with an 
 English audience but what pleases green girls and beardless 
 boys. 
 
 Much more in keeping, apparently, would it have 
 been with the English ideal of Alfred, had he, instead 
 of creeping disguised into the enemy's camp, followed 
 the advice given by one of his officers when he hears 
 
 1 P. 155. 
 
 2 By Cumberland. 
 
162 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 that Ethelswida is a prisoner, and as he believes, a 
 dishonored one, in the camp of Hinguar. The offi- 
 cer says: 
 
 Raise not thine eyes. 
 Nor lift thy hands to heaven; Far other looks 
 Far other actions, heaven of thee requires. 
 Thou art a king, a soldier, and a lover; 
 Fight for thy crown, thy country, and thy bride. 
 Go forth, this instant, animate thy troops. 
 And lead them to revenge their wrongs and thine.'^ 
 
 Here, too, is an extract from a contemporary letter 
 which is even more frank than the criticism above. 
 Mr. R. Jephson writes to David Garrick: 
 
 I have seen with a kind of invidious regret an excellent 
 Epilogue of yours to the tragedy of 'Alfred'; as to the tragedy 
 itself, it is so contemptible, that I should not have thought the 
 author of 'Douglas'' would have tarnished his fame by suffer- 
 ing it to appear, (a few passages excepted) .2 
 
 Even Mackenzie, the valiant champion of Home, 
 finds little to commend in this play. He says : 
 
 In the beginning of the year 1778, the tragedy of Alfred 
 was performed at Drury-Lane, but did not succeed. I do not 
 mean in this place to enter into any critical discussion of Mr. 
 Home's works; but I may just say, that this tragedy is un- 
 doubtedly the weakest of his productions, and it is not sur- 
 prising that it did not please the public. Indeed, had it 
 possessed more merit than it did, an English audience could 
 have hardly been pleased to see their Alfred, the pride of their 
 country in its earliest age, the patriot and the lawgiver, melted 
 down to the weakness of love, like the commonplace hero of an 
 ordinary drama.^ 
 
 Dr. Adam Ferguson, while doing his best to con- 
 sole his friend, accounts for its failure in much the 
 
 1 Alfred, Act I, Scene I. 
 
 2 The Private Correspondence of David Garrick 1. 528. This 
 is published under the date of March 2, 177 S, undoubtedly a 
 misprint for 1778. 
 
 * Mackenzie, lAfe of Home, pp. 65-66. 
 
Alfred 163 
 
 same terms as in the previous criticism. He writes: 
 
 Edinburgh, February 7, 1778. 
 My Dear John, 
 
 DAMN the actors that have damned the play, and think no 
 more of it till you have time to do what may be necessary for 
 the press, and then consider what is to be done with it. Be- 
 sides the accidents you mention, I can conceive that the substi- 
 tution of a love-interest for an interest of state, which the 
 audience expected from the name of Alfred, may have baulked 
 them; when they appeared to languish, you certainly did right 
 to withdraw it. . . . 
 
 I am. 
 
 Dear John, 
 
 Most affectionately yours, 
 Adam Ferguson.^ 
 
 The Whitehall Evening Post, which gave one of the 
 most favorable criticisms of the play to be found, felt 
 bound to criticise the plot, as had the other reports of 
 the time, though at the same time it suggests that the 
 play was at least fairly well received. It says^ : 
 
 It must be confessed that Alfred has not that strong in- 
 terest in it to be found in many Tragedies, infinitely worse 
 written. There is also some intricacy in the management of 
 the plot, and the business of the 5th Act seems to have been 
 very hastily and inaccurately settled. The Audience last night 
 heard Alfred with great candour, and received it with great 
 applause. Mr. Home will doubtless, consult his friends, and, 
 in pursuance of their advice, make such alterations as will 
 render it less liable to objection. The greatest defect that we 
 observed was the conduct of the catastrophe which was vio- 
 lently awkward, but which may be easily amended. 
 
 And yet, though the great hero of the English peo- 
 ple had not been drawn in what seemed to them an 
 unworthy light, it is hard to see how even Home's 
 reputation as the author of Douglas could have made 
 Alfred successful. It is a drama of speech rather than 
 of action, and there are practically only two scenes 
 in the entire play which call for anything like im- 
 
 1 IMd., p. 117. 2 January 24, 1778. 
 
164 John Home : A Study of His Ldfe and Works 
 
 pressive acting. The first of these is on the occasion 
 when Ethelswida, having been betrayed into revealing 
 the secret of Alfred's identity, pleads for his life, and 
 makes the ultimate sacrifice of promising to marry the 
 hated Hinguar if her lover's life be spared. The other 
 scene is where Hinguar attempts to force Alfred to a 
 marriage with the Dane's sister with the promise that 
 in that case, Alfred's own kingdom shall be given to 
 him. The defiance of Alfred here is the strongest 
 scene in which he has a part. 
 
 The story becomes somewhat wearisome from the 
 number of quarels which it contains, with very little 
 resulting or attending action from them. Alfred is 
 discovered and quarrels with Hinguar; Hinguar and 
 Ethelswida have a stormy scene; Hinguar's wife 
 learns of his supposed unfaithfulness and pours the 
 vials of her wrath upon him; Ronix becames infatu- 
 ated with Alfred, and much unpleasantness ensues 
 because he will not yield to her. These constant 
 threats and bickerings lend an element of rant to the 
 drama, and proportionately detract from its dignity. 
 
 The play, too, has the rather cheap motive of the 
 surprise element. The tragedy all turns upon the 
 wearing of the heroine's cloak by her attendant, and 
 in no place was an attempt made to show us just why 
 the exchange of garments was made. The attendant 
 who was leading Ethelswida into a trap certainly had 
 no such fondness for her that she consciously would 
 have risked danger for her sake. Hence, this escape 
 of the princess leaves us with a question in our minds 
 which is never answered. 
 
 This drama is written in blank verse — indifferent 
 for the most part. Only occasionally does it rise 
 above mediocrity, as in such a line as this where 
 Hinguar describes his sister as being : 'straight as the 
 pine that grows on Norway's hills.'^ Yet in the fol- 
 
 1 Alfred, Act. III. 
 
Alfred 165 
 
 lowing general criticism there are very favorable 
 words for the language of Alfred : 
 
 This tragedy is the production of the Author of Douglas, 
 the Siege of Aquileia, Alonzo, and The Fatal Discovery, all of 
 which were well received; and the first, from the beauty of its 
 language, the truth of its characters, and the simplicity of its 
 fable, now is, and in all probability will long continue a 
 favourite with the Public, at least while there remains on the 
 stage an Actress capable of doing so much justice to the char- 
 acter of Lady Randolph as Mrs. Barry. The present Piece 
 is of a very different nature from the Tragedy of Douglas, and 
 although it does not interest the heart in any thing like the 
 same proportion, it is by no means destitute of merit. 
 
 As a Poet, Mr. Home has abundant merit; his language is 
 remarkably easy and tmaffected; his images are generally cor- 
 rect, for the most boldly conceived, often beautifully, and some 
 times sublimely expressed; indeed he occasionally admits a 
 vulgarism into his composition, a fault evidently arising from 
 his disdain to imitate that fustian stUe of versification, which 
 too many of the present race of Dramatic Writers run into, 
 and than which nothing can be more opposite to nature. 
 
 The Tragedy of Alfred has many poetical gems in it. The 
 assumed phrenzy of Ethelswida is finely imagined, and fanci- 
 fully sustained. The description given by Surry to his Royal 
 Master upon their first interview is clear, concise, and pic- 
 turesque. Various other passages equally speak the superior- 
 ity of Mr. Home over many of his contemporaries. ^ 
 
 Mackenzie, less favorable, speaks in these terms of 
 the language of Alfred' : 
 
 But in truth, its own want of interest in the plot, and of 
 poetry in the dialogue, are quite suflBcient, without any other 
 cause, to account for the unfavourable reception it met with. 
 There is an uniform mediocrity in the language, an uniform 
 tameness and want of discrimination in the characters, suflS- 
 cient, without the national feeling of the debasement of the 
 great Alfred into the hero of a love-plot, to tire, if not to 
 disgust an audience. 
 
 1 Whitehall Evening Post, January 24, 1778. 
 
 2 Life of Home, pp. 117-118. 
 
Officers, English and Danish 
 
 166 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 The dramatis personae were as follows on the first 
 representation : 
 
 Alfred, King of England Lewis 
 
 Edwin, Earl of Devonshire (Odar) Hull 
 
 Eabl of Surrey (Erix) Whitefleld 
 
 HiNGUAE, King of the Danes Aickin 
 
 EOLLO, a Danish Chief L'Estrange 
 
 rSooth 
 
 Thompson 
 
 L'Estrange 
 
 Robinson 
 
 Ethelswida, betrothed to Alfred ... Mrs. Barry 
 
 RONEX, mfe of Hinguar Mrs. Jackson 
 
 Edda .... ) , , „ , , . , f Miss Ambrose 
 
 Elisa __\Attendants on EthelswidAx}^-^^^^ ^^^^^ 
 
 The account of the acting on the first night is given 
 by the London Chronicle for January 20, 1778. Evi- 
 dently in this, as in other of his plays, Home owed a 
 great deal to Mrs. Barry for any success at all that 
 Alfred achieved. This paper says : 
 
 The performers exerted themselves to please. Mrs. Barry 
 did everything the part would admit — but there was not a 
 single passage in the whole \.sic'\ for the full exertion of her 
 powers. Mr. Aickin had a good deal of bustle given him by 
 the poet in Hinguar, which he executed with an energy and 
 spirit which gave a principal support to the play. Mr. Lewis' 
 Alfred originally gave no impression of our great lawgiver and 
 hero; and in his hands it still came out a fainter copy. White- 
 fleld shewed some merit in Surry, and to do Mr. Hull and Mrs. 
 Jackson justice, they strained as much as possible in Odar 
 and Ronix. 
 
 The Prologue was spoken by Mr. Wroughton, which, after 
 mentioning the difficulty of varying the matter of Prologue, 
 turned upon the name of Alfred supporting itself. The Epi- 
 logue had much merit, and is said to be the production of Mr. 
 Garrick. It was spoken by Mrs. Barry, and turned upon the 
 variety of deaths, which, as an actress, she, both by steel, and 
 the poisoned bowl, is supposed to have suffered upon the green 
 cloth, and hoping the audience for once would let her live. 
 One line, in particular, was remarkably happy, the thought of 
 which was, 'That she certainly must be in a good way, as no 
 saint had studied more to die.' 
 
Alfred 167 
 
 Alterations, apparently, were made in this tragedy 
 before its second night. What they were is suggested 
 by this account from the London Chronicle for Janu- 
 ary 22, 1778 : 
 
 The new tragedy of Alfred was last night very favourably 
 received. The author has attended to the admonitions of his 
 private friends, and has altered the conduct of the last act 
 materially. The catastrophe, in consequence, is brought much 
 nearer to probability, and the whole business of it is managed 
 more smoothly. As the play now stands, the unnecessary 
 death of Surry is not seen. Other improvements have been 
 also made, and, in fact, the several alterations have been so 
 judiciously effected, that the tragedy is brought forwarder on 
 the score of merit, and is therefore better entitled to the 
 public favour than it was on the night of its first representa- 
 tion. 
 
 A review already quoted from^ closes its criticism 
 with these words : 
 
 Were we to presage the fate of this Play, we should say, it 
 will linger out its nine nights, and then die of a disorder com- 
 mon to modem Tragedies — Obliviousness. 
 
 That so unfavorable a prospect even as this was not 
 realized is history. As has been said, Alfred was 
 acted only three times. With all its faults considered, 
 it cannot be regretted that this was the last of Home's 
 dramas. In none of them did he rise to anything like 
 the success or excellence which he achieved in Douglas, 
 and it is a pity that, since his reputation as a drama- 
 tist so undeniably and so justly declined after that 
 play, he might not, with its success, have brought his 
 dramatic career to a close. 
 
 1 Whitehall Evening Post, January 24, 1778. 
 
XI. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE REBEL- 
 LION IN THE YEAR 174 5. 
 
 In 1802, Home published his single historical work. 
 He had taken an active part in the Rebellion of 1745, 
 and therefore was able to write an account, trust- 
 worthy in most respects, at least. The fact that he 
 delayed so long in the writing seemed, in the estima- 
 tion of contemporary critics, to account for some of 
 the faults which this work showed. Then, too, the 
 work was dedicated to the king, and this fact will 
 easily explain why some of the cruelties of the royal 
 troops, especially those at the battle of CuUoden, are 
 either ignored or only touched upon. The Critical 
 Review for 1802 in a long article^ comments upon the 
 general merits of the work, and opens its account in 
 these words: 
 
 This work has been in preparation for a long course of 
 years; and ia mentioned by Boswell, in his anecdotes of Dr. 
 Johnson, as an historical production on the Salustian plan.- 
 Having no such work in English Literature, we began the 
 perusal with great expectation, and with no small reverence for 
 the talents of the author of Douglas, though we remembered 
 no ancient example of a poet who had shone in history. Our 
 expectations were probably too high, for they were not satis- 
 fied — especially with regard to the language, which we fre- 
 quently found mean and colloquial, instead of exhibiting the 
 elevated dignity and rapid force of Sallust: yet, upon the 
 whole, the work is very respectable; and seems particularly 
 entitled to the praise of great veracity and exactness, which 
 are, after all, the chief requisites of history, considered in its 
 main view — that of instruction. 
 
 Mackenzie, who was Home's companion occasionally 
 
 1 XXXV, 142-153. 
 
 2 Boswell, Ldfe of Dr. Johnson, Ed. Hill 3. 162, note 5. 
 
History of the Rebellion in the Year 17 A5 169 
 
 on the journeys which that author took to the High- 
 lands in order to gain materials for his history, has 
 this to say of it^: 
 
 In one or two of these journeys, I happened to travel for two 
 or three days along with him, and had occasion to hear his 
 ideas on the subject. They were such as a man of his char- 
 acter and tone would entertain, full of the mistaken zeal and 
 ill-fated gallantry of the Highlanders, the self-devoted heroism 
 of some of their chiefs, and the ill-judged severity, carried (by 
 some subordinate officers,) the length of great inhumanity, of 
 the conquering party. A specimen of this original style of his 
 composition, still remains in his Account of the Gallant 
 Lochiel. But the complexion of his history was materially 
 changed before its publication, which, at one time, he had 
 very frequently and positively determined should not be made 
 till after his death, but which he was tempted, by that fond- 
 ness for our literary offspring which the weakness of age 
 produces, while it leaves less power of appreciating their 
 merits, to hasten; and accordingly published the work at 
 London in 1802. It was dedicated to the King, as a mark of 
 his gratitude for his Majesty's former gracious attention to 
 him; a circumstance which perhaps contributes to weaken and 
 soften down the original composition, in compliment to the 
 monarch whose uncle's memory was somewhat implicated in 
 the impolitic, as well as ungenerous use which Mr. Home 
 conceived had been made of the victory of CuUoden. 
 
 Scott, who, like other Scotchmen, felt very deeply 
 on this subject, criticises Home severely for the inef- 
 fectiveness of his work. He says^ : 
 
 Mr. Home ought either never to have written his history, or 
 to have written it without clogging himself with the dedication 
 to the sovereign. There was no obligation on John Home to 
 inscribe that particular book to his Majesty, and, had that 
 ceremony been omitted, his Majesty was too just and candid 
 a man to have resented the truth; though there might have 
 been some affront in addressing a work, in which his uncle's 
 memory suffered rough usage, directly to his own royal 
 person. 
 
 1 Pp. 68-69. 
 
 2 Quarterly Review for 1827, pp. 207-8. 
 
170 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Scott then goes on to tell of the way in which the 
 history was received in Scotland. He declares that 
 
 the disappointed public of Scotland, to -which the history should 
 have been most interesting, was clamorous in its disapproba- 
 tion. They complained of suppressed information and servile 
 corrections; but reflections induced critics to pardon the good 
 old man, who had been influenced in his latter years by doubts 
 and apprehensions, which could not have assailed him in his 
 term of active manhood. The work was, indeed, strangely 
 mutilated, and breaks off abruptly at the battle of CuUoden, 
 without giving us any account of the manner in which that 
 victory was used. Other faults might be pointed out, chiefly 
 such as are indicative of advanced years. The part which the 
 author himself played in the drama'is perhaps a little too much 
 detailed and too long dwelt upon. 
 
 What he considers the virtue of the work, Scott states 
 in these words : 
 
 The history is, nevertheless, so far as it goes, a fair and 
 candid one; for the writer, though by the manner in which he 
 had fettered himself he was debarred from speaking the whole 
 truth, yet was incapable of speaking anything but the truth. 
 The narrative is fair and honourable to both sides, nor does 
 the author join with the sordid spirits, who cannot fight their 
 enemies without abusing them at the same time, like the 
 bailiff in Goldsmith's 'Goodnatured Man.' 
 
 Another writer of Scotland has much more severe 
 criticism for this work of Home's, and he seems to ex- 
 press the extreme view in Scotland over the work 
 when he uses these words: 
 
 The only production of his later years was a History of the 
 Rebellion of 1745; a transaction of which he was entitled to 
 say, pars fui. He had projected something of the kind soon 
 after the event but did not proceed with it till after he had 
 given up dramatic writing. If there was any literary man of 
 the day from whom, rather than from any other, a good work 
 upon this subject might have been confidently expected, it was 
 Mr. Home, who had not only taken a strong personal interest 
 in the affair, but possessed that generous and chivalrous colour 
 of mind which was most apt to do it justice in narration. 
 
History of the Rebellion in the Year 174-5 171 
 
 Unfortunately, before setting about this work, he had met 
 with an accident by a fall from his horse, in consequence of 
 which his intellect was permanently aifected. As a pensioner 
 of King George III., he was also prevented from giving that 
 full expression to his sentiments which was so necessary in the 
 historian of such an event. The work, therefore, when it 
 appeared in 1802, was found to be a miserable sketchy outline 
 of the transaction, rather than a complete narrative — ^here and 
 there, indeed, as copious as was to be wished, and also showing 
 occasional glimpses of the poetical genius of the author, but 
 in general 'stale, flat, and unprofitable.' The imperfections of 
 the work have been partly accounted for, without contradic- 
 tion, by the circumstance of its having been submitted to the 
 inspection of the reigning family, with the understanding that 
 they were at liberty to erase such passages as they did not 
 wish to be made public.^ 
 
 But that the history, in spite of its imperfections 
 and the adverse comments made upon it, has at least 
 some reputation among modem historians may be 
 gathered from the following account of it : 
 
 As another object deserving your attention, may be men- 
 tioned the rebellion of 1745. You will see the history of it in 
 Smollett. It has been professedly treated by Home, the author 
 of the beautiful tragedy of Douglas. It is also noticed by 
 Lacretelle; and it is always amusing to observe what foreigners 
 say of us. Smollett, himself a Scotchman, was deeply affected 
 by the cruelties that are generally understood to have followed 
 the defeat of the Highlanders at Culloden. This seems the 
 most material point of difference between his account and that 
 of Home, who passes over this part of his subject in silence, 
 very improperly; for it is on occasions like these, that history 
 should exercise its awful censure, if blame has been incurred, 
 and as the charge has been made, it should have been either 
 confirmed or refuted. It is not very promising to see a history 
 of the rebellion of 1745, dedicated to the reigning sovereign; 
 and the silence of Home must be considered as an indirect 
 acknowledgement, that the severities exercised on this occasion 
 were more than necessary, and therefore such as deserved 
 
 '■ Chambers, A Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scots- 
 men 3. 77-8. 
 
172 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 reprobation. . . . The work of Home was not 
 
 entirely such as might have been expected from one, 
 who was not only an actor in the scene, but the author of a 
 tragedy like Douglas, elegant enough to have pleased on the 
 French stage, and yet affecting enough to succeed on ours. 
 The History of the Rebellion was a work which had been 
 meditated so long that it was delivered to the world too late, — 
 when the writer was no longer what he once was. But I 
 recommend it to your perusal, because it has all the marks of 
 authenticity; possesses, I think, more merit than is generally 
 supposed; treats of a very remarkable event in our history; 
 and is, after all, entertaining and not long.^ 
 
 These accounts are sufficient to show that this last 
 work of Home's added nothing at all to his reputation 
 as a writer. Indeed, considering the consensus of 
 opinion as to its imperfections, one wonders whether 
 that reputation might not have been greater had the 
 work never been written. The modem reader is 
 probably less interested in it than in any of Home's 
 other works. It deals with a rather obscure event in 
 history — one lasting only a few months — and, as has 
 been suggested, the style is not pleasing enough to 
 lend a great deal of interest to the reader. However, 
 it is perhaps not strange that this should be so when 
 it is considered that at the publication of the work the 
 author was in his eightieth year. 
 
 With this history, the literary career of John Home 
 closes. He lived for about six years after, but toward 
 the last his mind failed rapidly, and it is, no doubt, 
 fortunate that he attempted nothing further. 
 
 1 Smyth, Lectures on Modern History 2. 275. 
 
XII. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS WORKS OF HOME. 
 
 How many works Home projected or half finished, 
 we cannot tell. For much of the information in re- 
 gard to this we are indebted to Mackenzie who had, 
 after Home's death, access to his papers, and who 
 found enough fragments of plays to show that the 
 dramatist had completed or planned several works 
 which were never published. 
 
 (a) Unpublished and Incomplete Dramatic Works. 
 
 In the year 1773, Home wrote a comedy and sent it 
 to Garrick. The following letters will show, perhaps, 
 why he did not persevere in this form of compo- 
 sition. Home replies as follows to a letter written by 
 Garrick on receipt of the comedy : 
 
 My dear Sir, Aug. 31, 1773. 
 
 If Shakspeare's statue at Hampton had pulled oflf one of his 
 marble slippers, and hit me a slap in the face, I could not have 
 been more astonished than with your letter. It would not have 
 surprised me to hear that you did not like the comedy, that 
 you did not think it was fit for the stage; but such a total 
 reprobation conveyed in the harshest terms, I did not expect 
 from you. You tell me that I have been mistaken in the plot, 
 the characters, and the dialogue; that I sent you a parcel of 
 long detailed scenes, without force, humour or wit; and 
 finally, that the piece is absolutely incorrigible, and admits of 
 no remedy, by alteration, addition, or omission. You say that 
 you intend to read it a second time: if you entertain more 
 favourable sentiments then, I shall be glad to hear from you; 
 if you do not, spare me the mortification of reading a second 
 invective: send the play sealed up, and directed for me, to 
 Becket's; let the comedy and your opinion of it be forgot by 
 you and me: this is better than a correspondence of contention 
 
174 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 ujwn a subject so nice as this. I prefer friendship to author- 
 ship. I beg leave to present my best and most affectionate 
 compliments to Mrs. Garrick. 
 
 I am, my dear Sir, as much as ever, yours, 
 
 J. Home.i 
 
 Endorsed: 'From my friend Home.' 
 
 Garrick's reply may be judged from the following 
 later communication from Home: 
 
 My dear Garrick, Sept. 16, 1773. 
 
 I received your letter, and am touched with the kind and 
 affectionate concern you express from the apprehension of 
 having given me uneasiness. I am still of the same mind to 
 show the play to nobody but you. I do not wish to appeal to 
 any person from you, nor to have a verdict put to question, or 
 prevail against your judgment. I wait with patience now for 
 your second thoughts, which they say are best: I appeal only 
 from your hasty and sudden tp your more deliberate judgment. 
 If you then think, as I hope you will, that it is worth the trial, 
 that you can suggest what may make it so, I am ready, you 
 know, to execute with alacrity what you propose. Nobody 
 here knows of the play but Ferguson, and he does not know, 
 nor shall, as long as I can help it, that you dislike it, till this 
 matter be conducted to its end, whatever that end may be, by 
 ourselves alone: we need no mediators. If any, there is but 
 one whom I would allow, I mean Mrs. Garrick, to whom I will 
 submit; for in her infallibility I believe, and am, with my best 
 and kindest compliments to her, my dear friend. 
 
 Ever most affectionately, yours, 
 
 J. Home. 
 
 P. S. 'How long shall you keep the play?' As long as you 
 please. Do you think I intend to offer it to any body else?^ 
 
 Endorsed: 'Letter from my friend Home.' 
 
 Mackenzie speaks of finding a comedy among 
 Home's papers called, The Surprise, or Who Would 
 Have Thought It. There seems no reason to doubt 
 that this is the same one about which Garrick ex- 
 
 1 Private Correspondence of David Garrick 1. 569-70. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 570. 
 
MiscellaneoKs Works 175 
 
 pressed so unfavorable an opinion. Mackenzie's is 
 much the same. He says^ : 
 
 It is indeed of so inferior a kind, and so utterly unworthy of 
 Mr. Home, that I should not have mentioned it at all, but for 
 that obligation which biographical truth imposes on me. 
 
 He describes it further as 
 
 a tame and spiritless dialogue, without any wit, or even senti- 
 ment, to give pleasure to the reader, or any incident in the 
 scenes to give amusement on the stage. 
 
 Home had little humor, and apparently comedy was 
 a kind of literary effort for which he was absolutely 
 unfitted. In any case, he seems to have been effec- 
 tually discouraged from attempting any further writ- 
 ing of this nature. 
 
 Mackenzie mentions further^ the finding of two 
 tragedies among Home's papers. One was called 
 Alina, or The Maid of Yarrow, and was founded on 
 incidents at the time of the Crusade of St. Louis, with 
 the scene laid on the Scottish Borders. The other 
 play had no title, but was an East Indian story, of 
 which only two acts were written. Neither of these 
 appealed to Mackenzie as having the least literary 
 merit, and it seems fortunate that Home, after his 
 Alfred, ceased to attempt further dramatic successes. 
 
 (b) Non-Dramatic Works. 
 
 There has been ascribed to Home an anonymous 
 pamphlet signed 'A. T. Blacksmith,' and written 'to 
 the Ministers and Elders On the public worship of the 
 Church of Scotland.' It was written at Inverary in 
 1758, and published in 1759 in London. By others, 
 it is ascribed to Rev. John Witherspoon, and not 
 
 i Life of Home, p. 120. 
 2 Ibid., pp. 118-119. 
 
176 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 merely from its style does it seem probable that the 
 article was written by him, but at the time Home had 
 withdrawn from active church work, and was devot- 
 ing the greater part of his time to literature of a dif- 
 ferent nature from this. It therefore seems somewhat 
 unlikely that he should undertake a work of this 
 kind, which has to do with the reformation of the 
 services of the Scottish Church. 
 
 Of his published but little known works, he is cred- 
 ited with the authorship of the following poems in a 
 volume published in 1762, and called Original Poems 
 by Scottish Gentlemen: 'The Fate of Caesar,' 
 'Verses Upon Inverary,' 'Epistle to the Earl of 
 Eglintown,' 'Prologue on the Birthday of the Prince 
 of Wales, 1759,' and several 'Epigrams' Mackenzie 
 does not mention these. 
 
 Mackenzie speaks^ of a long prose essay, of which 
 he said he had seen 'considerable detached pieces, on 
 the Character of Cornelius and Sempronius Grsecus, 
 of Cleomenes and Agis, and the Republican Form of 
 Government.' This evidently was never printed, but 
 it was as the result of his studies on this subject that 
 Home composed his tragedy, Agis. 
 
 1 Ibid., pp. 32, 75-76. 
 
XIII. 
 JOHN HOME AS A DRAMATIST. 
 
 The dramatist, John Home, has been almost for- 
 gotten in the last fifty years. To few besides special- 
 ists is his name familiar as that of the author of the 
 tragedy called Douglas. Many, however, who do not 
 know of him as the once famous Scottish playwright, 
 do recall his name when there is mentioned the most 
 famous speech in that tragedy, the one beginning 'My 
 name is Norval,' an old time declamation which few 
 early school readers were without. Nor is it unfitting 
 that John Home should be longest remembered for a 
 speech of this nature, since, in common with most 
 tragedies of the eighteenth century, it is the typical 
 language of his dramas. 
 
 In his own day, John Home was a writer of more 
 than a little note. His wide reputation was due to 
 several causes. Of importance among these were the 
 very bitter religious and literary controversies which 
 followed close upon the first Edinburgh production of 
 Douglas. They had a great share in drawing atten- 
 tion to the play, and were unquestionably an aid in its 
 early runs. For a time all of Scotland was divided 
 into two camps over this tragedy, and to many the 
 support of its author was a matter of conscience. 
 
 Another factor which added to his fame was the 
 element of national pride to which Home appealed. 
 He was the first Scotchman to achieve anything like 
 success in the dramatic world, and, in exultation, his 
 people hailed him as the Scottish Shakespeare. More- 
 over, his successful tragedy has for the name of its 
 hero that of a family whom loyal Scotchmen revere, 
 and this very fact would attract the attention of that 
 people to the drama. It was felt, then, by those who 
 were not trammeled by any religious scruples as to 
 
178 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 the propriety of a minister of the church entering the 
 dramatic world, that it was a matter of honor, from 
 a patriotic point of view, to support this young coun- 
 tryman who had relieved their country from the re- 
 proach of having produced no great drama. 
 
 It was the age, too, of moral dramas, and in this 
 respect Home stood for the highest ideal of his time. 
 It is a far cry, indeed, in point of morality, from the 
 plays of the Restoration Days to those of the time of 
 Home. In this later dramatist there is not a line 
 which, from the moral standpoint, is open to objection. 
 Therefore, since many believed that he stood for the 
 best of his day in the dramatic world, they felt an 
 obligation to uphold him. In his pamphlet entitled 
 'The Morality of Stage Plays Seriously Considered.' 
 Home's friend, Adam Ferguson, made it one of his 
 chief points that it is the duty of Christian men and 
 women to support the moral drama, so great is its 
 value to the people. 
 
 Again, in an artificial and conventional age. Home 
 struck a note of absolute sincerity, and, with his very 
 definite and universal human appeal, he won many to 
 an admiration of his play who saw clearly its faults. 
 It will be remembered what high praise Thomas Gray 
 gave him.'^ Mrs. Frances Sheridan had Douglas in 
 mind in choosing the theme of her novel, Sidney Bid- 
 dulph,^ and Cumberland in his Carmelite seems 
 unquestionably to have owed a debt to Home. Smol- 
 lett makes Mr. Bramble in Humphrey Clinker^ link 
 John Home's name with that of David Hume, and he 
 speaks of them as 'authors of the first distinction.' 
 
 The testimony, then, of the writers of his day shows 
 that Home was looked upon with the greatest respect 
 by many of those most distinguished in the literary 
 
 1 P. 50. 
 
 2 See her introduction to the book. 
 
 3 Mr. Bramble's letter of August 8. 
 
John Home as a Dramatist 179 
 
 world. There were only a few, such as Richard 
 Sheridan, to whom the faults of Home loomed larger 
 than his virtues and who came in their day to share 
 the opinion of a later generation. For example, to this 
 younger dramatist Home's long declamatory speeches 
 seemed fit targets for his arrows of satire, and in his 
 Critic, among others, he probably satirizes the famous 
 'My name is Norval' speech when he says : 
 
 My name's John Wilkins — 
 Alias have I none — i 
 
 However, as has been said, this attitude is not typical 
 of the eighteenth century view of Home. 
 
 Again, Home had the instincts of the classic writers 
 of the eighteenth century, and his dramas for the 
 most part hold very carefully to the unities. For this 
 observance of the dramatic laws he was unduly 
 praised by David Hume in his dedication to his Four 
 Dissertations, and it was largely the lack of this ob- 
 servance which caused that writer to speak of the 
 'unhappy barbarism' of Shakespeare. When it is 
 remembered that many of Shakespeare's plays were 
 adapted at this time to comply with the demands of 
 the unities, John Home's appeal to his contemporaries 
 will be readily understood. 
 
 Nor did Home's reputation die away with the end 
 of the eighteenth century. Douglas still lived, and 
 Christopher North, with the reputation of being one 
 of the soundest critics of his day, wrote of that play 
 in 1822, almost seventy years after its first appear- 
 ance: 
 
 I think nobody can bestow too much praise on Douglas. 
 There has been no English tragedy worthy of its name since 
 it appeared." 
 
 Scott, too, had the greatest admiration for the 
 
 1 The Critic, Act III, Scene I. 
 
 2 Nodes Ambrosianae 1. 157. 
 
180 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 humanity in Home and for his skill in writing appeal- 
 ingly on such phases of the human affections as 
 maternal and filial love. Time after time he gave the 
 highest praise to Home's ability in this respect. He 
 speaks, in one place, in these terms : 
 
 We agree with Mr. Mackenzie,^ that the chief scene between 
 Lady Randolph and Old Norval,^ in which the preservation and 
 existence of Douglas is discovered, has no equal in modern and 
 scarcely a superior in ancient drama. It is certainly one of 
 the most effective which the English stage has to boast; and 
 we learn with pleasure, but without surprise, that, though 
 many other parts of the play were altered before its represen- 
 tation, we have this masterpiece exactly as it was thrown off 
 in the original sketch.^ 
 
 Again, he speaks of Douglas — and he is writing the 
 article in 1827, be it remembered — as a tragedy 'which 
 not only retains the indisputable possession of the 
 stage, but produces a stronger effect on the feelings 
 of the audience, when the parts of Douglas and Lady 
 Randolph are well filled, than almost any tragedy 
 since the days of Otway.'* Finally, in his Essay on 
 the Drama, while commenting upon the eighteenth 
 century plays in England, Scott says : 
 
 Home displayed the success of a more natural current of pas- 
 sion ... In diction and character it [Douglas'i does not 
 rise above other productions of that period. But the interest 
 turns upon a passion which finds a response in every bosom; for 
 those who are too old for love, and too young for ambition, are 
 all alike awake to the warmth and purity of maternal and filial 
 affection. The scene of the recognition of Douglas' birth pos- 
 sesses a power over the affections, which, when supported by 
 adequate representation, is scarce equalled in the circle of our 
 Drama. It is remarkable that the ingenious author was so par- 
 
 1 Mackenzie, Ldfe and Writings of John Home, p. 93. 
 
 2 See Act III of Douglas. 
 
 8 Quarterly Review, 1827, Life and Works of John Home, 
 Esq., p. 202. 
 ♦ Ibid., p. 167. 
 
John Home as a Dramatist 181 
 
 tial to this theatrical situation as to introduce it in several of 
 his other tragedies.^ 
 
 As proof of the continued popularity of Douglas as 
 an acting play, it is interesting to note that in 1827, 
 the year in which the criticism just quoted was writ- 
 ten, there were six representations of the play in 
 London at Drury Lane theatre. This is no inconsid- 
 erable number when the length of time this tragedy 
 had been on the stage is recalled. 
 
 However, as the nineteenth century progressed, the 
 faults of eighteenth century tragedy became more and 
 more apparent, and when Thackeray in The Vir- 
 ginians^ directs his wit against Home and Douglas 
 for the greater part of a chapter, he takes the typical 
 Victorian view of this drama. He speaks in these 
 words : 
 
 At this time a star of genius has arisen, and was blazing 
 with quite a dazzling brilliancy. The great Mr. John Home, of 
 Scotland, had produced a tragedy, than which since the days 
 of the ancients, there had been nothing more classic and 
 elegant. What had Mr. Garrixik meant by refusing such a 
 masterpiece for his theatre? Say what you will about 
 Shakspeare; in the works of that undoubted great poet (who 
 had begun to grow vastly more popular in England since 
 Monsieur Voltaire attacked him) , there were many barbarisms 
 that could not but shock a polite auditory; whereas, Mr. Home, 
 the modern author, knew how to be refined in the very midst 
 of grief and passion; to represent death, not merely as awful, 
 but graceful and pathetic; and never condescended to degrade 
 the majesty of the Tragic Muse by the ludicrous apposition of 
 buffoonery and familiar punning, such as the elder play- 
 wright certainly had resort to. 
 
 Thackeray then goes on to ridicule the acting of the 
 play, the forms of declamation used, and the costum- 
 
 i Essay on the Drama, Miscellaneous Prose Works, p. 451. 
 Note — For other tragedies mentioned by him in this connection 
 compare Home's Siege of Aquileia and his Alonzo, in both of 
 which the appeal is made in much the same way. 
 
 2 Chapter LIX, In Which We are Treated to a Play. 
 
182 John Home : A Study of His Ldfe and Works 
 
 ing of that time. It must be allowed, therefore, that 
 his shafts were as much directed toward eighteenth 
 century acting as toward the eighteenth century dra- 
 matist. 
 
 Today, in spite of the neglect into which Home's 
 dramas have fallen, the ridicule that he has received, 
 and the apparent faults of his plays, one cannot read 
 them without feeling his deep note of sincerity. This 
 quality often produced poetry which, if not inspired, 
 is at least far above the tone of much of the stilted 
 and conventional eighteenth century drama. In this 
 genuine humanity and in his poetry of nature there is 
 an interest in that these are felt to be the stirrings 
 of that romantic spirit which was soon to be abroad 
 in the land. An example of his appreciation of na- 
 ture is found in such speeches as this one of Lady 
 Randolph's. It opens the play, Douglas : 
 
 Ye woods and wilds, whose melancholy gloom 
 Accords with my soul's sadness, and draws forth 
 The voix:e of sorrow from my bursting heart, 
 Parewel a while! I will not leave you long; 
 For in your shades I deem some spirit dwells. 
 Who from the chiding stream, or groaning oak, 
 Still hears, and answers to Matilda's moan. 
 
 Again, young Norval, awaiting his mother, muses in 
 these words^ : 
 
 This is the place, the centre of the grove. 
 Here stands the oak, the monarch of the wood. 
 How sweet and solemn is this mid-night scene! 
 The silver moon, unclouded, holds her way 
 Thro' skies where I could count each little star. 
 The fanning west wind scarcely stirs the leaves; 
 The river, rushing o'er its pebbled bed, 
 Imposes silence with a stilly sound. 
 In such a place as this, at such an hour, 
 If ancestry can be in ought believ'd. 
 Descending spirits have convers'd with man. 
 And told the secrets of the world unknown. 
 
 1 Act V, Douglas. 
 
John Home as a Dramatist 183 
 
 Hinguar describes to Alfred his sister as being 
 'Straight as the pine, that grows on Norway's hills.'' 
 And in The Fatal Discovery^ Kathul says that a fleet 
 from Norway is so immense that it seemed 'as if the 
 firs, From their eternal mountains had come down. 
 To grow amidst the waves.' There is unquestionably 
 real appreciation of nature here, and it is typical of 
 Home's language. 
 
 To what then is owing the absolute neglect into 
 which all of these dramas of Home's, even his much 
 lauded Douglas, have fallen? For there is not one of 
 them but what has in it not merely genuine feeling 
 but, in places, genuine poetry. These qualities raise 
 them above complete ridicule. Therefore, when one 
 reads such a statement as the following, one wonders 
 whether or not the critic had ever read Douglas. He 
 says^ : 
 
 Probably 'Douglas' always seemed an absurd play to people 
 with a keen sense of the ludicrous. 
 
 He at least knew little of eighteenth century tragedy, 
 or such an opinion would not have been voiced. Few 
 of them had less mock sentiment, few more genuine 
 feeling, than has Douglas. The taste of the century 
 was for the sentimental drama, for declamatory 
 speeches, rather than for action by other means, and 
 Douglas in its comparative moderation along these 
 lines rises infinitely above the average eighteenth 
 century tragedy. 
 
 The present day neglect, then, of the drama of that 
 
 1 Act III, Alfred. 
 
 " Act I. 
 
 » London Daily Telegraph, Wednesday, June 10, 1914. 
 
184 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 time is not perhaps due so much to the great inferior- 
 ity of those plays to our own as to the law of 'other 
 faces, other minds.' It is merely that 'the old order 
 changeth, yielding place to new.' Each succeeding 
 generation takes upon itself the privilege of being 
 the arbiter of the taste of every other age. So we 
 have done with John Home. His plays, unread prob- 
 ably by critics of our day, are passed by with the 
 stereotyped comments usually given to eighteenth 
 century drama, and there these writers leave him. 
 The faults are mentioned, the virtues ignored. 
 
 True, Home's faults are definite enough to prevent 
 him from living as a great dramatist, but where there 
 is genuine feeling there cannot be utter absurdity. It is 
 granted that there are many improbable situations in 
 his plays. In Douglas, it seems incredible that Lady 
 Randolph should have grieved steadily for the seven- 
 teen or eighteen years which elapsed between the 
 supposed death of her son and his return. And if 
 she had had the confidence in her husband to which 
 she pretended, it seems unlikely that she would have 
 suspected him of the baseness which she feared. In 
 Alonzo, the failure of Ormisinda to recognize her hus- 
 band and his readiness to believe her false, in The 
 Fatal Discovery, the easy readiness with which Rivine 
 accepts the report of her lover's faithlessness, in 
 Alfred, the unexplained cause for the change of gar- 
 ments, — ^these and many others are all admittedly 
 unlikely situations. But what dramatist is free from 
 them ? Certainly not those writers whom David Hume 
 considered inferior to Home, — Shakespeare and 
 Otway. 
 
 Again, Home labors under the disadvantage of 
 being the writer of but a single play that succeeded. 
 All of the others, with the exception of Alfred, which 
 failed, had very fair runs, but they were not revived 
 any number of times after their first representations. 
 And so, upon this single play, the entire reputation 
 
John Home as a Dramatist 185 
 
 of Home rested. The fame of such an author is sure 
 to be precarious. 
 
 Then, too, there are the long monologues and ex- 
 pository speeches in Home's dramas which so discour- 
 age the reader of today! He cannot, however, be 
 blamed for these. It was the custom of the time for 
 the plays to contain them, and as a rule the actors and 
 actresses considered that more scope was afforded for 
 a display of their powers when they were given 
 speeches of some length to declaim. It was the day of 
 acting with the voice, rather than with movement and 
 expression. 
 
 In another respect, Home would have little appeal 
 to us today. In all of his tragedies he deals, as did 
 much of eighteenth century drama, with scenes too 
 far away in point of time to be of interest to us now. 
 In the twentieth century, the demand is that our plays 
 shall deal with essentially vital and present day 
 conditions. Why, then, should there be any note of 
 appeal to us in a drama dealing with the Danish 
 invasion or in one on the period of Spartan suprem- 
 acy? 
 
 Probably, however, the greatest fault of all in 
 Home's dramas seems to a twentieth century reader 
 their inadequacy as to action. Today we make the 
 demand constantly for acts, not words, and therefore 
 it is patently impossible to imagine a present day 
 audience listening with enthusiasm to plays, whole 
 acts of which are for the most part • made up of 
 long expository speeches. It would matter not at all 
 how well those speeches were delivered. No wonder, 
 then, that by the middle of the nineteenth century 
 even Douglas, with its very human note, had lost its 
 appeal for the theatre-goers of the time. 
 
 The modern critic can see clearly the faults of 
 John Home as a writer. What he too often ignores, 
 however, is the fact that, in an age of artificial and 
 
186 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 conventional drama, Home succeeded in writing trag- 
 edies far above most of those of his time in sincerity 
 of emotion, lack of conventionality, and true poetic 
 feeling and language. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 CARLYLE'S DEFENSE OF HOME. 
 
 The following pamphlet by Alexander Carlyle, one 
 of Home's most loyal friends, entitled 'An Argument 
 To prove that the Tragedy of Douglas Ought to be 
 Publickly burnt by the hands of the Hangman,' is 
 here given in full. It is but one of the scores with 
 which England and Scotland were deluged during the 
 Douglas controversy. This pamphlet has special 
 interest not merely because it is among the best of 
 those published, but for the added reason that al- 
 though satirical, it was at first taken seriously. The 
 suggestion has been made that the prosecution by the 
 church against Carlyle was pursued so bitterly in 
 order to assuage in a measure the wrath of those 
 clergymen who had been for the time being deceived. 
 The pamphlet reads : 
 
 An Ar^ment To prove that the Tragedy of Douglas Ought 
 to be Publickly burnt by the hands of the Hangman. 
 
 A sect whose chief devotion lies 
 In odd perverse antipathies; 
 Who falling out with that, or this, 
 And finding somewhat still amiss, — 
 Compound for sins they are inclin'd to, 
 By damning those they have no mind to. 
 
 Hud. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 printed in the year M,DCC,LVII. (Price Threepence). 
 
 AN ARGUMENT, &c. 
 
 Joseph Addison, Esq; was certainly drunk, when he laid it 
 
 down as a maxim, in one of his Spectators, 'that a perfect 
 
 tragedy is the noblest production of human nature.' His 
 
 opinion, I know, but too universally prevails; and I am aware 
 
 of the dangers that attend writing against received maxims. 
 
 The voice of the people, is justly held to be the voice of God; 
 
 and the author escapes well, who suffers no greater loss than 
 
190 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 his reputation, for having openly contradicted the notions of 
 the venerable multitude. Yet, from I don't know what motive, 
 whether it be the love of truth, or a regard to the welfare 
 of my fellow citizens, I feel an irresistible inclination to write 
 against the favourite tragedy of Douglas, and endeavour to 
 prove, by reasons that seem unanswerable to me, that the 
 author of that much extoll'd piece deserves to be stigmatized, 
 and his performance to be publickly burnt by the hands of 
 the hangman. 
 
 And perhaps it may be found, after I have executed my 
 charitable design, that the majority are not on the side the 
 world imagines. The greatest part of the rich and gay, indeed, 
 will always have a pride in supporting what they believe to be 
 the most rational, elegant, and refined of all entertainments. 
 But in this country of freedom, where every man has a right 
 to chuse his opinion in all matters, sacred and prophane; and 
 where the bulk of the people are silent, rather because they 
 do not know what to say, than thro' any defect in the 
 passions; I am next to certain, that I shall be able to open 
 such an universal cry against this minion of persons of rank 
 and taste, as shall forever condemn him and all his works, 
 past, present and future, not to oblivion, but to perpetual 
 infamy and disgrace. 
 
 And having the trumpet to sound, as it were, to so great a 
 body as the vulgar of my native country, I must be allowed 
 the liberty of using a considerable variety of notes, that, if 
 it be possible, I may hit the tone of every puppy in the pack; that 
 is to say, (to descend from the poetical stile, which I abhor) I 
 will muster up such a number of arguments, as cannot fail, 
 one or other of them, to reach conviction to every true presby- 
 terian in Scotland: Nor shall I trouble myself much about 
 their consistency with each other; for I expect that every 
 candid reader will be contented with that argument that hits 
 his own fancy, and leave the rest to his neighbours; always 
 remembering, that my work is sanctified by the sincere design 
 of opening the eyes of my deluded countrymen, and warning 
 them to shun the paths that lead to perdition. 
 
 And here I shall omit all general declamations against the 
 stage, for I aim only at particulars. I do indeed believe it to 
 be an invention of the devil, and I cannot deny that it has 
 always been supported by his agents: I know it is pernicious 
 to the morals of men, and altogether inconsistent with true 
 religion. But as I likewise believe, that puppet-shews, ballads 
 in dialogue, romances, fictions of poets, not to mention musiek, 
 and painting, and whatever else imitates the passions and 
 
Appendix 191 
 
 manners of men, absolutely unlawful, and tend to make us in 
 love with lying vanities; and yet am not fully instructed in the 
 several tastes of my fellow-citizens; I do not chuse to cut down 
 all the courts of Europe in a box, and Sir William Wallace 
 Wight, and the Pilgrim's progress, and Jack the giant-killer, 
 together with the whole works of Henry Overton, at a single 
 blow; lest I should disoblige many good and worthy friends, 
 and provoke them to a dislike of the whole of my following 
 arguments. Besides, I am justified in this prudent measure 
 by some great and reverend examples; for as the learned and 
 pious clergy of this city, of whatever party or faction, (for fear 
 of giving offence I suppose) have winked for many years at the 
 diversions of the theatre, and permitted the most virtuous 
 matrons, and tender virgins, to repair to that shop of iniquity 
 unreprov'd, reserving the fire of their zeal till it should be 
 blown up by motives purely ecclesiastical. In like manner, it 
 is wise in me, their humble disciple and imitator, to wave the 
 general argument, and apply my whole force in one direction 
 against the celebrated tragedy of Douglas. 
 
 In the first place, there is hardly a single word in this 
 admir'd piece true, from the beginning to the end of it; for 
 tho' there was a paper printed under the title of the full and 
 true history, I can easily prove that it is all an invention, and 
 perfectly inconsistent with the thread of Scottish history. As 
 for instance, he makes the landing of the Danes to have been 
 in East Lothian ; whereas, in reality, it was in the shire of Air, 
 and at the very town call'd by that name. Our author, I pre- 
 sume, has falsified this important fact, to fiatter the gentlemen 
 and farmers of that rich country to support his play. In 
 chronology too he has made a palpable error, when he repre- 
 sents his hermit as alive at the time of this invasion of the 
 Danes; and yet says, that in his youth he was a soldier under 
 that warlike prince Godfrey of Boulogne. One would have 
 imagined that after the just and severe censures that have 
 been past on the Latin poet Virgil, for such an error in chron- 
 oiogy, our author might have taken warning. But the pre- 
 sumption and folly of poets is infinite. — Thus it appears, that 
 our boasted poet, is either entirely ignorant of the history of 
 his own country, or has wilfully falsified many important facts, 
 so that he must be consider'd as a disgrace to his profession, 
 and country, either by his ignorance, or want of veracity. 
 
 I have only touch'd upon the points that are material, and 
 can easiest be disproved; for every other circumstance of the 
 story is the fiction of his own idle brain, and contriv'd on 
 purpose to deceive. And what a gross immorality is implied 
 
192 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 in such an action, I need not explain to any person who is 
 acquainted with the first principles of religion. Nor is it any 
 excuse for, but a high agg^ravation of his crime, that the whole 
 story is wrought up in such artful language, and made to 
 have so much similitude to truth, that many persons of judg- 
 ment and solidity, and otherwise of resi>ectable characters, have 
 been seen to weep bitterly at the representation of it! wasting 
 those precious tears, that ought not to be shed but on the 
 serious contemplation of human vanity, or occasions of real 
 distress. And indeed, I think it can be imputed to nothing but 
 diabolical art, and the influence of that spirit, who lies in 
 wait to subvert human reason, that men of sound minds can be 
 brought to weep at events that never happened, and bewail 
 the misfortunes of persons who never existed. 
 
 Another reason is, that the tragedy of Douglas is reported 
 to be what they call a good tragedy. Now, (not to dwell on the 
 contradiction in terms, for one may as well say, a good hypo- 
 crite, or a good atheist, as a good tragedy) supposing the 
 tragedy of Douglas to contain nothing but good sentiments to 
 represent good characters, to have a good moral tendency, to 
 paint virtues as amiable, and vice as odious; in short to have 
 a good effect upon the minds of the whole audience, which is 
 granting as much as ever was ask'd; yet, for the sake of these 
 excellencies, if there was no other reason, ought this piece to 
 be publickly burnt by the hands of the hangman. 
 
 And here I must be allowed to use a figure, not uncommon 
 with authors of eminent fame; the assuming of that to be 
 true, which I formerly declin'd to prove, from reasons of 
 prudence: for it is necessary for me now, to have it taken for 
 granted, that stage plays, and all dramatic entertainments are 
 absolutely unlawful, and directly contrary to the word of God: 
 or at least, it must be admitted me, that they do infinitely 
 more evil than good; for altho' matters of this kind are said 
 to depend on very nice calculations, yet I see clearly, that the 
 bad consequences of constant attendance at the theatre, are 
 many and various; whereas I perceive not one single advantage 
 to be gain'd by frequenting that temple of vanity. Now since 
 it would be for the benefit of mankind that the stage was 
 abolished, he who attempts to reform it, by writing within the 
 rules of decency and virtue, is to be consider'd as a public 
 enemy, who takes pains to gild a poisonous pill, in order to 
 allure you to your ruin; and deserves equal praise with those 
 conquerors of the earth, who by mild and equitable laws, have 
 reconciled the conquer'd to the loss of their liberty. Whereas 
 it is to be wish'd, that no piece were ever perform'd in the 
 
Appendix 193 
 
 theatre, but what is shocking to humanity, and altogether 
 abominable and detestable, that the people at last might be 
 provok'd to drive it and all its cursed contents to hell, from 
 whence it came. And for this reason I suppose it was, that 
 the Church of Scotland in ancient times made a law, prohibit- 
 ing any of its members to form the plot of a play upon any 
 part of scripture history, lest the people should have been 
 insensibly led to favour the plays themselves, for the sake of 
 that good book from which they were taken. 
 
 My next reason, which is level to the capacity of infinite 
 numbers, and which I am certain will do great execution, is, 
 that the suppos'd author of Douglas is a clergyman: and what 
 must be carefully observ'd, is said to have some peculiar quali- 
 ties, such as learning, eloquence and wit, insomuch, that his 
 company has been very much sought after by persons of 
 superior station; and what is worst of all, he is young. Now, 
 as it is a thing perfectly new in this country, for a clergyman 
 to write a tragedy, I do not see what title this rash young man 
 had to go out of the common road. In our neighbouring 
 country, a Dr. Young, or a Dr. Brown, may pass uncensur'd, 
 after having written tragedies of some little reputation; for 
 they are dignified clergymen, and have good right to shew 
 talents superior to most other eoclesiasticks ; but in this church, 
 which is founded on presbyterian parity, he is a bold man 
 indeed, who ventures to distinguish himself above his brethren. 
 
 Besides in the exercise of his poetical gifts, he must have 
 gone through a course of study altogether foreign to his duty 
 as a clergyman; he must have wasted a great deal of precious 
 time, in making himself master of the Greek and Roman poets, 
 and other heathen authors of pernicious tendency; and indeed 
 if he is a true poet, must have been guilty of the heinous sin 
 of idolatry, in paying little less than divine honours to his 
 muse: And if our author possesses the superior talents 
 ascrib'd to him, so much the more deserving of punishment has 
 he made himself by prostituting his genius to prophane uses, 
 and employing the parts bestowed on him for important pur- 
 poses, in the service of Melpomene a goddess of heathen 
 extraction. 
 
 Had this youth of genius followed the true theological track, 
 and devoted himself to smoaking tobacco, to drinking of ale, 
 and the study of controversy, which has been so beneficial to 
 the Christian church, he might have made his name immortal, 
 by some valuable treatise, like the late account of the present 
 state of Judas Iscariot; or, the candid and impartial estimate 
 of the profit and loss of religion. Had he employed himself in 
 
194 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 the study of city politics, and human nature, he would cer- 
 tainly have become a master in experimental preaching, and 
 one day might have produc'd some such searching piece ol 
 eloquence, as, the rise and fall of Haman; or, the other char- 
 acteristical discourse of an eminent author. Had he followed 
 the useful occupation of farming, or sent the savings of his 
 stipend as a venture to sea, or dealt in the gentlemanly trade 
 of horse-couping, he might have been tolerated; for such 
 things are not without precedent among the brethren. Much 
 more would he have been accounted blameless, or praise-worthy, 
 had he spent his time in managing a burgh, or in sauntering 
 about booksellers shops, or in diverting himself with his chil- 
 dren by the flre-side, or in inclosing his glebe with his own 
 hands, or in attending all the burial and christening feasts, or 
 in digging his own garden, or any other inoffensive and 
 profitable method of making the lazy hours pass lightly away, 
 practis'd in city or country. 
 
 Besides, this gentleman, as I am informed, within the com- 
 pass of nine or ten years, has made no less than two trips to 
 London, for two or three months at a time, and thereby 
 deserted his charge, and exposed himself to the high censure 
 due for non-residence. It is very true, that many other min- 
 isters in Scotland, have been frequently absent from their 
 charges for a longer space; and it is particularly the custom 
 in this city, (where no man can say that ministerial duty is 
 not carefully performed in all its parts) for the ministers 
 annually to make a journey to the country, especially during 
 the harvest vacation, insomuch, that were it not for the 
 uncommon strength and benevolence of one b r, the inhabi- 
 tants behoved to call in the neighbouring ministers, to join 
 them in wedlock, and christen their children. But then it 
 might be noticed, that as the town is totally deserted by people 
 of condition at that season of the year, any body is thought 
 good enough to preach to the vulgar citizens; so likewise there 
 is a very wide difference betwixt the employments of our 
 young author, and those of the pious and diligent pastors of 
 Edinburgh: for they, good men, are either travelling for their 
 healths, or paying court to their patrons, or relaxing their 
 minds, worn out with spiritual cares, at mineral waters, or 
 shewing the world to their gentle spouses, and their gentle 
 spouses to the world, or strengthening their parties in distant 
 presbyteries, or seeking ecclesiastical preferment; whilst this 
 extravagant author, against all order, regularity and custom, 
 is endeavouring to obtain for himself a place in the annals of 
 taste and literature, by this detested tragedy of Douglas, 
 
Appendix 195 
 
 •which is the cause of all my perplexity and trouble. Thanks 
 to the watchful guardian of this church, and the power wor- 
 shipped by the uncontroulable ruler of the English stage! he 
 has not yet been able to gratify the better half of his wishes; 
 and in them I trust with joy, for the full disappointment of 
 all his future endeavours. 
 
 There is one circumstance I cannot reflect upon, without the 
 utmost surprize, grief and indignation. It is, that, according 
 to the best information I can receive, this same audacious 
 theatrical divine is extremely popular in his own parish; and 
 not only popular, (for I have known pious ministers much 
 admired for their preaching, and yet, thro' the malice of Satan, 
 brought into contempt in other respects) but entirely esteemed 
 and beloved by every single person there. Now, this circum- 
 stance concerning our young author, I the rather believe to be 
 true, because it consists with my own observation, that many 
 young brethren, much of the, same stamp with himself, in spite 
 
 of all the secret artifices, or open attacks of the g ly, have 
 
 some how or other preserved the esteem and aflfections of their 
 parishioners. There is nothing that relates to the present 
 state of the church that hath given me more real affliction, or 
 occasioned more perplexing thoughts in my hours of desertion. 
 The wiles of Satan are as endless as his malig^nity is great; 
 and most successfully of all, he attacks religion in the shape 
 of human virtue: by enduing those fine modern ministers 
 with candor, openess, humanity, and an affectionate concern 
 for the welfare of their parishioners, he blinds the carnal 
 minds of the people, so that they cannot perceive how deficient 
 they are in true grace: whereas, by infusing cunning, envy, 
 covetousness and spiritual pride, into the hearts of many godly 
 and orthodox brethren, he weakens their hands, and destroys 
 the effects of all their zeal and labour. 
 
 My fourth reason is, that the tragedy of Douglas is said by 
 some sanguine friends of the author, to be an honour to our 
 country. It is true, that some great men of antiquity have 
 thought it very honourable to be able to compose a tragedy; 
 and having acquired all other kinds, of fame, have repined when 
 that could not be added to compleat their glory. But these 
 men have been generally heathens, and can in no respect become 
 examples to us. Neither do I think it is very likely, that in 
 this cold, barren, and remote country, in which there is so 
 little encouragement for the industrious manufacturer, and 
 adventurous merchant, much less for such useless members of 
 society, as the composers of idle poems; or that out of the 
 bosom of the poorest and most despised, tho' the best church 
 
196 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 in the world, there can possibly have arisen a tragic poet to 
 rival Sophocles and Euripides, Corneille and Racine, Shakes- 
 pear and Otway. For my part, I will not believe that he 
 resembles any of these great prophane men but one, and that 
 only in one single circumstance, viz. his having mistaken his 
 employment. For Euripides was at first bred to be a wrestler; 
 but he was soon found unfit for that manly and laborious pro- 
 fession, and therefore, like our author, obliged to turn a maker 
 of tragedies. 
 
 But if it were really true that the tragedy of Douglas 
 conduc'd so much to the honour of our country, it ought to be 
 kept as dead a secret as the flourishing state of any of our 
 manufactures and no person who has the least regard for his 
 native land, will be ever brought to own a truth so dangerous 
 to our prosperity. Have we not the greatest reason in the 
 world to fear that the English ministry, with whom we do not 
 stand in a very favourable light since the rebellion, will take 
 it very much amiss, that any body here should have the pre- 
 sumption to think he can write the English language as well 
 as they can do in London? Is it not highly probable, that if 
 such an insult should ever reach their ears, they will load us 
 with some new tax, to keep down our ambitious spirit? I have 
 often heard it affirmed, that the French duty would not have 
 been demanded for claret, but things allow'd to go on as they 
 have done since the union, had it not been for that superb and 
 magnificent building call'd the New-Exchange, which no doubt 
 will surpass all the exchanges in the world, when once it is 
 finished. 
 
 As it is therefore of the utmost importance to the welfare 
 of our country, to prevent any jealousy from arising in the 
 minds of the English, let us industriously suppress every ap- 
 pearance of genius and spirit; and I am persuaded no good 
 Scotsman, however prejudic'd he may be, will grudge to sacri- 
 fice our single tragedy of Douglas to the interest and prosperity 
 of his country. What would David Garrick Esq. say, were it 
 posible Isic'i for him to hear, thatatragedy he rejected, as cold 
 and unaffecting, made the whole city of Edinburgh almost mad 
 for a fortnight, and drew endless tears and lamentations from 
 every spectator? Let us, by one bold stroke, deliver ourselves 
 from all future apprehensions. I am persuaded that a season- 
 able example of this kind, will deter other enterprizing young 
 men, from turning their talents to the service of the stage; for, 
 tho' it be true, that one precedent like Douglas, is enough to 
 bring us an hundred tragedies in a year ; yet I am very hopeful, 
 that after this necessary severity shewn to that piece, thers 
 
Appendix 197 
 
 will be but very few hardy enough to trouble us for a long 
 time with compositions of that nature: Next Wednesday then, 
 let it be publickly burnt by the hands of the hangman, and I 
 shall exceedingly rejoice, that I have been instrumental (tho' 
 unworthy) to save my country from ruin, and prevent the 
 downfall of true religion. 
 
 My fifth reason is, that the tragedy of Douglas has cer- 
 tainly given great offence to the nobility and gentry of Scot- 
 land. For since it is accounted, however falsely, a proof of 
 learning and genius to have written a successful tragedy, were 
 not the laity entitled to lead in a matter of so much impor- 
 tance? and is it not the height of folly and presumption, for 
 this rash young man to step in before his betters, and take 
 upon him, forsooth, to raise the reputation of his country 
 higher than ever it was before, for fine writing, which is the 
 first and most excellent of the fine arts? Have not the gentry 
 in Scotland been always jealous of the increasing power, and 
 abilities of the clergy? What else could have induc'd them, 
 against their own interest, to favour presentations, of which 
 more than two thirds are in the hands of the crown? Besides, 
 from the success of Douglas, and the boasted merit of that 
 performance, the laity have good g:round to fear, that the next 
 application to parliament for an augmentation of stipends, will 
 be more successful than the former; for the English lords and 
 commons will no doubt think it great pity, that men of so 
 much learning and ability should be confin'd all their days to 
 offices not so lucrative, tho' a little more honourable, than 
 those they easily procure for a favourite footman. 
 
 And here it is but just to own, that relig^ion has gained one 
 considerable advantage by the tragedy of Douglas. For sev- 
 eral persons, not remarkable heretofore for their zeal and 
 piety, have been lately observ'd to express themselves with a 
 proper degree of warmth, in behalf of religion, and the sanctity 
 of the ministerial character. Thus it was likewise during the 
 dependence of the augmentation scheme; for there was then a 
 manifest increase of zealous professors. I hope our new con- 
 verts will persevere, and bring forth fruit, longer than they did. 
 
 I have many other reasons to add, but understand I am 
 happily prevented by the- zeal and vigilance of the presbytery 
 of Edinburgh, who by their wise conduct have already rais'd 
 such a cry, as the general assembly itself will hardly be able to 
 silence. They have long been the leading presbytery in the 
 church, and after this master-stroke of ingenious zeal, I soon 
 hope to see them dictate to every other presbytery in Scotland. 
 For observe their admirable conduct; they scom'd to attack 
 
198 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 the stage on its weak side of comedy, or even on that of 
 exceptionable tragedies; but have waited many years with the 
 utmost coolness and patience, till a tragedy appear'd with 
 which every mortal was highly delighted, and which the best 
 judges pronounced to be one of the most moral poems that ever 
 was compos'd; and that strongest part of the stage, to shew 
 their undaunted courage and zeal, they have manfully attack'd 
 with all their forces. But further, to shew the world the 
 goodness of their cause, they have broke through all the 
 barriers of the sacred character, and overturn'd the independent 
 jurisdiction of presbyteries by a single letter. 
 ' In this wonderful letter, they have taken an effectual course 
 with those brethren, who had the assurance to go and see the 
 tragedy of Douglas, in the presence of many of the judges of 
 thie land, the greatest part of the ruling elders of the church, 
 and the best and worthiest persons of every parish in town; 
 and who have been frequently heard to say, that they did not 
 think tragedy unlawful, that it might often do good, and was 
 by no means contrary to scripture, or the laws of the church. 
 But these priests of Baal shall soon be made sensible how 
 indecent it is for them to partake of the favourite amusement 
 of persons of rank, and how dangerous to taste of pleasures, 
 otherwise innocent, that their brethren do not care for. 
 
 I am informed too, that the reverend presbjrtery have pre- 
 pared a warning and admonition, and are soon to volley the 
 thunders of the church, against the supporters of the tragedy 
 of Douglas. The storm no doubt will be very great, for it has 
 been long in gathering. And as they permit you to sin on 
 for two weeks longer, (for the paper is not to be read till the 
 last Sunday of the month) you may firmly believe, my fellow- 
 citizens, they will make you smart the more severely for all. 
 You are well acquainted with the clear and regular, and 
 impartial conduct of the presb3rtery as a court, as well as with 
 the decency, sobriety, and purity of a great many of the 
 leading members in this aifair. Be not therefore so headstrong, 
 as to judge for yourselves in time to come; but be so wise as 
 to use the advantages you possess, and surrender yourselves 
 implicitly to the direction of your pastors. What tho' you have 
 ground to believe, they do not act .in this manner precisely 
 according to their sentiments, remember that religion is at 
 stake, and you must forgive them. Have but patience for a 
 little while, and they will soon slacken their discipline. Wo is 
 me, that the nature of man cannot be altered! When this 
 personal attack is once over, what reason have I to hope, that 
 they will take any more notice of plays, than they did hereto- 
 
Appendix 199 
 
 fore! Some of these devout father-confessors have articled 
 with their fair young penitents for two plays a week the rest 
 of the winter, if they would abstain from the tragedy of 
 Douglas. What a key this private anecdote is to a great part 
 of their conduct! 
 
 I cannot conclude this work without congratulating the 
 reverend presbytery upon their zeal and courage, and the suc- 
 cess of their laudable endeavours ; and admiring that wonderful 
 concurrence of circumstances, that has produc'd such .an 
 unusual harmony of sentiments among them. If it should long 
 continue, blest be the day that brought to light the tragedy 
 of Douglas! for union and peace among brethren, are to be 
 purchas'd at any expence. ;, 
 
 But let not the chosen and faithful few be too confident j in 
 this temporary union, occasion'd perhaps by passions the 
 simple reader is little aware of. Proceed. ye, you sacred band! 
 with vigour and resolution, before the children of this world 
 recover their wisdom again; if you do not strike the blow now, 
 never more hope to find them at your mercy; and as the 
 first step to a full victory over this vile tragedy, move the 
 presbytery to come in a body next Wednesday, to the place 
 where the cross once stood, precisely at one o'clock, and you 
 shall behold that abomination of abominations devour'd by 
 flames hotter than your hottest zeal. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 A CONTEMPORARY REVIEW 
 OF DOUGLAS. 
 
 The following account of Douglas is found in the 
 Critical Review for March, 1757,* the time of the 
 first representation of that play in London. The 
 article is typical of the great numbers of accounts of 
 the play which filled the papers and magazines of 
 the day, but is especially interesting because of the 
 just estimate which is gives of the tragedy. The 
 article is, therefore, freely quoted from. It begins: 
 
 'The noble tragedy of Douglas {says the celebrated Mr. 
 David Hume) is one of the most interesting and pathetic pieces 
 that was ever exhibited on any theatre: should I give it the 
 preference to the Merope of Maffei, and to that of Voltaire, 
 which it resembles in dts subject, should I affirm, that it con- 
 tained more fire and spirit than the former, more tenderness 
 and simplicity than the latter, I might be accused of partiality.'^ 
 
 And so indeed, in our opinion, he might with great justice: 
 for though we are ready to allow much to the bias of friend- 
 ship and affection, yet would we beg leave to put this author in 
 mind, that there is also something due to truth, taste, and 
 judg^nent, which we cannot think any man hath a right to 
 sacrifice, even to the most intimate private connections. We 
 would gladly admit with Mr. David Hum^, that there is a great 
 degree of merit in his friend's performance, which we shall 
 point out by and by; but at the same time will venture to assert 
 in opposition to him, that the author of Douglas is as far from 
 Shakespear and Otway as London is from Edinburgh, or the 
 banks of Avon from the river Tweed, as will sufficiently appear 
 to any impartial reader, who shall attentively consider the in- 
 trinsic merit of this piece, unseduced by the glare of dress, the 
 force of action, and every other ornament merely theatrical. 
 
 To form a proper judgment of the whole it is necessary to 
 
 1 Pp. 258-268. 
 
 2 See Hume's Dedication, pp. 88-89. 
 
Appendix 201 
 
 examine separately the several distinct parts of it, viz. the 
 fable, characters, sentiment, and diction. 
 
 But before we enter into this discussion, we shall take the 
 liberty to make an observation or two on that well-known line 
 in Horace. 
 
 Neve minor, neu sit quinto productior actu; 
 which though adopted by modem critics as an incontestable 
 maxim, has, in our opinion, spoiled many more good plays than 
 it has made: it is indeed, only an arbitrary decision without 
 any good reasons, as we ever heard, to support it: besides 
 that it is a law utterly unknown to the masters of the Grecian 
 theatre, those approved models of perfection, whose tragedies 
 we know consisted of one continued act * longer or shorter, 
 according to the subject, together with the occasional inter- 
 ruption of the chorus. The leng:th of the play and the number 
 of acts, therefore, we imagine, should be proportioned to the 
 fable, in the same manner as everything made to contain 
 should be suited to the size of that which is to be contained in 
 it. There are many plots able to furnish out three good acts, 
 which could not extend themselves to five, without the fash- 
 ionable method of wire-drawing every circumstance and senti- 
 ment, till the whole matter is spread as thin as leaf gold, and 
 as void of substance and spirit as a French poem. Upon the 
 whole, we cannot see any reason why there should be more 
 impropriety in a tragedy of three acts, than in a comedy of 
 two, many of which we have lately seen: whether the piece 
 before us would not on these principles, admit of some con- 
 traction, we will not pretend to determine, though perhaps the 
 universal opinion, concerning the small merit of the two first 
 acts might justify such a conclusion. 
 
 Here there follows the story of the play, given at 
 great length and with numerous quotations. 
 
 At the conclusion of its account of the story of the 
 play, the Critical Review gives the following general 
 comments : 
 
 Such is the fable of Mr. Hume's tragedy. The construction 
 of it lies open to many objections, which, if the nature of this 
 work permitted us, might easily be pointed out to our readers, 
 to whom we shall only submit the following observations. 
 
 * The Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles contains 1862 lines, the 
 Philoctetes only 1517. 
 
202 John Home : A Stvdy of His Life and Works 
 
 The striking resemblance of this plot in its principal features 
 to others,* which have been so lately treated by our modern 
 tragic poets, were it ever so interesting, would greatly diminish 
 our pleasure in the representation. , 
 
 The discovery is, perhaps made too early, and, as we observed, 
 casts a disagreeable shade over all the other scenes. 
 
 The catastrophe is awkwardly brought about, the jealousy of 
 Randolph too precipitately caught, and without foundation. 
 Besides, that it does not sufficiently appear what advantages 
 Glenalvon would reap from the effects of this discord, as it 
 might possibly have ended not only in the destruction of Nor- 
 val, (or Douglas) but also in the death of Matilda, the woman 
 he loved. 
 
 To this we may add, that the fate of Douglas and Matilda, 
 who are both innocent, is scarce reconcUeable with poetical 
 justice, which seems to have been violated by their deaths, so 
 that the audience has reason to cry out with Lady Randolph, 
 
 'Hear, justice, hear, are these the fruits of virtue?' 
 
 As to the characters, there is scarce one in it, except Douglas; 
 which indeed is tolerably well supported. 
 
 The sentiments which we meet with in this tragedy, though 
 but thinly sown, are for the most part adapted to the charac- 
 ters, and make their appearance with some degree of propriety, 
 and to them it is, in our opinion, that Douglas is principally 
 indebted for its success. 
 
 When lady Randolph tells us in the first act, that she took 
 an equivocal oath she never would marry (because at that time 
 she was already married) one of Douglas' name, she adds the 
 following reflection which naturally arises on the occasion. 
 
 ' Sincerity 
 Thou first of virtues, let no mortal leave 
 Thy onward path! altho' the earth should gape 
 And from the gulf of hell destruction cry. 
 To take dissimulation's winding way.' 
 
 * It is so like Merope, especially in the beginning, that it is 
 impossible not to feel the similitude; the sentiments must be 
 consequently alike in many places. Lady Randolph on sight of 
 Norval reflects upon her lost child, and says: 
 
 'He might have been like this young gallant stranger. 
 And pair'd with him in features and in shape.' 
 Merope we may remember talks of Dorilas exactly in the same 
 manner. 
 
Appendix 203 
 
 What Anna says on the pleasure lady Randolph took in 
 looking on young Nerval, before she knew him to be her son, 
 is extremely pretty. 
 
 'How fondly did your eyes devour the boy! 
 Mysterious nature with the unseen cord 
 Of pow'rful instinct drew you to your own.' 
 
 Matilda in describing her husband says, 
 
 ' On his piercing eye 
 Sat observation;* on each glance of thought, 
 Decision follow'd, as the thunderbolt 
 Pursues the flash.' 
 
 When she hears the news of the landing of the Danes, she 
 cries out 
 
 'How many mothers shall bewail their sons! 
 How many widows weep their husbands slain! 
 Ye dames of Denmarkl ev'n for you I feel, 
 Who, sadly sitting on the sea-beat shore, 
 Look long for lords that never shall return.' 
 
 These, with some other strokes of nature equally pleasing 
 and just, pleaded, strongly with the audience in favour of 
 Douglas. 
 
 In regard to the diction of this tragedy, we shall only observe, 
 that tho' it is the part in which its most sanguine admirers 
 have placed its greatest merit, we cannot agree with them in 
 this determination. With superficial judges, as ranting will 
 pass for passion, and bombast for sublimity, low and vulgar 
 expression may also be mistaken for simplicity. From a stu- 
 dious affectation of this, an author may ofter deviate into very 
 mean and servile language. For instance, when lady Randolph 
 tells us, that war with foreign foes is not so hateful 
 
 'As that which with our neighbors oft we wage;' 
 
 When by way of informing us she was with child, she 
 says, she was 
 
 'As women wish to be that love their lords:' 
 
 * This seems to have been borrowed from Milton. 
 on his brow 
 Deliberation sat, and public care. — Paradise Lost. 
 
204 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 'The hand (says Anna) 
 
 'that spins th' uneven thread of life, 
 May smooth the length that's yet to come of yours'; 
 
 'When I had seized the Dane, [sic] hy chance he came, 
 Rescu'd, and had the lady for his labour; * 
 
 'The blest above upon their** golden beds.' 
 
 When the prisoner is brought in, in the beginning of the 
 third act, he cries out 
 
 'I know no more than does the child unborn 
 Of what you charge me with ' 
 As I hope for mercy, etc.' 
 
 'Honey'd flattery! 
 
 How pleasing art thou to the taste of man, 
 And woman also? \.8ic'\ 
 
 (He might as well have gone on, and said, ay, and of children 
 too). 
 
 *A rude and boisterous captain of the sea 
 Fastened a quarrel on him;' 
 
 'Having no lacquey but pale poverty';' 
 
 'Let no man after me, a woman wed. 
 
 Whose heart he knows he has not, tho' she brings*** 
 
 A mine of gold;' 
 
 'You look (says Glenalvon to Norval) 
 As if you took the measure of their minds. 
 And said in secret, you're no match for me;' 
 
 'Imposes silence with a stilly sound.'**** 
 
 The lines above quoted may for ought we know be much 
 extoll'd by some critics, and Mr. David Hume may if he pleases 
 
 * The first of these verses rimes like the old monkish tales, 
 and in the second is a vulgar expression. 
 
 ** What ideas can we form of ease and pleasure in lying on 
 a golden hedl which we may suppose was accompany'd with a 
 bolster of adamant and marble pillows for softness? 
 
 ***Here ten long words do creep in one dull line. 
 ****We meet also with timeless death, the tip-toe of expecta- 
 
Appendix 205 
 
 call them, a close imitation of nature, and a pattern of true 
 simplicity. We should notwithstanding rather be inclined to 
 rank them in the number of vulgarisms, and much beneath the 
 dignity of tragical expression. 
 
 Douglas, upon the whole, with all its imperfections, (and 
 what piece is without some?) is infinitely superior to Barbar- 
 ossa,^ Athelstan,^ and the rest of those flimsy performances 
 with which we have been visited for some years past: And if 
 the author is careful to improve that genius for dramatic 
 writing, which is visible in this essay, we have reason to 
 expect something that may do still more honour to the English 
 stage. We should not indeed have dwelt so long on the little 
 obvious faults to be found in this tragedy, had not Mr. David 
 Hume, whose name is certainly respectable in the republic of 
 letters, made it absolutely necessary. — Every addition of praise 
 to any work beyond its real and intrinsic merit, will always be 
 found in the end prejudicial to it, as the same moisture which 
 feeds and nourishes the plant, if poured on it in too great 
 abundance may overwhelm and destroy it. 
 
 We shall conclude this article by quoting the following lines 
 from the epilogue which, though very short, is one of the 
 best which we remember to have heard on the stage. After 
 briefly observing that there is nothing so absurd as a ludicrous 
 epilog^ue, our author 
 
 ' sadly says, that pity is the best, 
 The noblest passion in the human breast: 
 For when its sacred streams the heart o'erflow, 
 In gushes pleasure with the tide of woe; 
 And when its waves retire, like those of Nile, 
 They leave behind them such a golden soil, 
 That there the virtues without culture grow. 
 There the sweet blossoms of affection blow'. 
 
 This surely is infinitely more rational after a tragedy, than 
 the pert jokes, witticisms, and loose conceits, which an un- 
 feeling audience generally meets with, to help them to wash 
 away the little tincture of virtue which they may possibly 
 have received from a serious performance. 
 
 tion, array'd in nature's ease, water-wasted armies, the imcket 
 of the heart, etc, which we cannot greatly admire. 
 I John Brown, author. 
 
APPENDIX C. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 Unless otherwise stated, the place of publication of the 
 works listed here is London. 
 
 Adams, W. Davenport — ^A Dictionary of the Drama, 
 A— G, Vol. I. 1904. 
 
 Allibone, Samuel Austin — A Critical Dictionary of 
 English Literature. Supplement by John Fors- 
 ter Kirk. 5 vols. Philadelphia, 1859-91. 
 
 Annual Register for 1758, The. N. D. 
 
 Annual Register for 1778, The. 1786. 
 
 Annual Register for 1760, The. 1811. 
 
 Arnot, Hugo — The History of Edinburgh. Edin- 
 burgh, 1779. 
 
 Autobiography: A Collection. 32 vols. 1826-31. 
 
 Baker, D. E. — Theatrical Remembrancer. 1801. 
 
 Baker, George Pierce — Some Unpublished Corres- 
 pondence of David Garrick. Boston, 1907. 
 
 Baker, H. Barton — History of the London Stage and 
 its Famous Players (1576-1903). London and 
 New York, 1904. 
 
 Beers, H. A. — A History of English Romanticism in 
 the Eighteenth Century. New York, 1899. 
 
 BiOGRAPHiA Dramatica, or A Companion to the Play- 
 house. Originally compiled, to the year 1764, by 
 David Erskine Baker. Continued thence to 1782 
 by Isaac Reed, F.A.S., and brought down to the 
 
 end of November, 1811 by Stephen Jones. 
 
 3 vols. 1812. 
 
 BOADEN, James — Memoirs of Mrs. Siddons. 1827. 
 
 BoswELL's Life of Johnson — Edited by George Birk- 
 beck Hill. 6 vols. Oxford, 1887. 
 
 Burton, John Hill — Life and Correspondence of 
 David Hume. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1846. 
 
Appendix 207 
 
 Caldwell Papers — Selections from the Family Pa- 
 pers Preserved at Caldwell 1496-1853. William 
 Mure of Caldwell, editor. Two parts in 3 vols. 
 Glasgow, 1854; Paisley, 1883-85. 
 
 Cambridge History of English Literature, The. Edit- 
 ed by A. W. Ward and A. R. Waller. 12 vols. 
 Cambridge and New York, 1907-15. 
 
 Carlyle, Autobiography of the Rev. Dr. Alexander. 
 With a supplementary chapter by J. H. Burton. 
 Edinburgh and London, 1860. 
 
 Chambers, Robert — A Biographical Dictionary of 
 Eminent Scotsmen. 4 vols. Glasgow, 1835. 
 
 Cooke, William — Memoirs of Charles Macklin 
 
 forming an History of the Stage during almost 
 the Whole of the Last Century. 2nd ed., 1806. 
 
 Cooke, William — Memoirs of Samuel Foote, Esq. 
 With a Collection of His genuine Bon-Mots, Anec- 
 dotes, Opinions, &c. mostly original. And three 
 of his Dramatic Pieces, not published in his 
 Works. 3 vols. 1805. 
 
 Critical Review, The, for 1757, 1758, 1760, 1769, 
 1773, 1778, 1802, 1808. 
 
 Davies, Thos. — Memoirs of the Life of David Gar- 
 rick, Esq. 2 vols. 1781. 
 
 Davies, Thos. — Dramatic Miscellanies. 3 vols. 
 1783-4. 
 
 DiBDiN, James C. — The Annals of the Edinburgh 
 Stage, with an account of the Rise and Progress 
 of Dramatic Writing in Scotland. Edinburgh, 
 1888. 
 
 Dictionary of National Biography — Edited by Leslie 
 Stephen and Sidney Lee. Revised edition, 22 
 vols. London and New York, 1908-9. 
 
 DOBSON, Austin — Eighteenth Century Vignettes. 
 1896. 
 
 DORAN, Dr. John — "Their Majesties' Servants." An- 
 nals of the English Stage from Thomas Better- 
 
208 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 ton to Edmund Kean. Edited and revised by 
 Robert W. Lowe. 3 vols. 1888. 
 
 DORAN, Dr. John — A Lady of the Last Century. 1873. 
 
 Dublin Journal, The. 1757. 
 
 Dublin University Magazine, The — 1868. 
 
 DUNLAP, Wm. — History of the American Theatre. 
 New York, 1832. 
 
 Edinburgh Evening Courant, The, for 1756, 1757. 
 Dec. 4, Dec. 9, 1756; Dec. 18, 1756; Feb. 8, 1757; 
 March 22, 1757; March 24, 1757; March 26, 1757; 
 April 5, 1757; April 26, 1757; April 28, 1757; 
 May 10, 1757; May 12, 1757. 
 
 Edinburgh Magazine, The. 
 
 Elliott, Life & Letters of Sir Gilbert — Edited by his 
 Great-niece, Countess of Minto. 1874. 
 
 Elwin, Whitwell — Some Eighteenth Century Men 
 of Letters. Edited by his son, Warwick Elwin. 2 
 vols. 1902. 
 
 Encyclopaedia Britannica, The. 29 vols. Cam- 
 bridge, 1911. 
 
 Essay on Theatres. 1760. 
 
 European Magazine, The. 1804. 
 
 European Magazine, The. 1808. 
 
 European Magazine and London Review, The. 1808. 
 
 Fitzgerald, Percy — A New History of the English 
 Stage from the Restoration to the Liberty of the 
 Theatres in connection with the Patent Houses. 
 2 vols. 1882. 
 
 Fitzgerald, Percy — Samuel Foote, a biography. 1910. 
 
 Fitzgerald, Percy — The Life of David Garrick. Re- 
 vised ed., 1899. 
 
 Fitzgerald, Percy — The Lives of the Kembles. 1871. 
 
 FORSTER, John — The Life and Times of Oliver Gold- 
 smith. 1855. 
 
 Gardenstone, Lord — Miscellanies in Prose and Verse. 
 Edinburgh, 1792. 
 
 Garrick, David— The Private Correspondence of. — 2 
 vols. 1831-1832. 
 
Appendix 209 
 
 Gentleman, Francis — The Dramatic Censor; or, 
 Critical Companion. 2 vols. 1770. 
 
 Gentleman's Magazine, The. 1757, 1758, 1769, 1773, 
 1778, 1808. 
 
 Genest, John — Some Account of the English Stage, 
 from the Restoration in 1660 to 1830. 10 vols. 
 Bath, 1832. 
 
 Gibbon, F. N. — Memoirs of my Life and Writings. 
 Edited by G. Birkbeck Hill. 1900. 
 
 Gilbert, J. T.^A History of the City of Dublin. Dub- 
 lin, 1861. 
 
 GiLLiLAND, Thomas — ^A Dramatic Synopsis. 1804. 
 
 GossE, Edmund — ^A History of Eighteenth Century 
 Literature (1660-1780). 1889. 
 
 Gray, Thomas — The Letters of Thomas Gray includ- 
 ing the correspondence of Gray and Mason. Edit- 
 ed by Duncan D. Tovey. 3 vols. 1900-1912. 
 
 Graham, H. C. — Scottish Men of Letters in the 18th 
 Century. 1908. 
 
 Havard, Henry — The Heart of Holland. Translated 
 by Mrs. Cashel Hoey. 1880. 
 
 Hows, John W. S. — Golden Leaves from the British 
 and American Dramatic Poets. New York, 1865. 
 
 Hume, David — Four Dissertations. 1757. 
 
 Hume, David — Letters of David Hume to William 
 Strahan. Edited by G. Birkbeck Hill. Ox- 
 ford, 1888. 
 
 Jackson, John (ten years manager of the Theatre 
 Royal of Edinburgh) — The History of the Scot- 
 tish Stage from its First Establishment to the 
 Present Time. Edinburgh, 1793. 
 
 Kelly, Michael, Reminiscences of. New York, 1826. 
 
 Kennard, Nina H. — Mrs. Siddons. Boston, 1887. 
 
 Knight, Joseph — David Garrick, 1894. 
 
 Landor, W. S. — Imaginary Conversations of literary 
 men and statesmen. 5 vols. 1826-29. 
 
 Letter by "A. T. Blacksmith" on the public worship 
 of the Church of Scotland. 1759. 
 
210 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Literary Magazine, The. 1757. 
 
 LocKHART, John Gibson — Memoirs of the Life of 
 Sir Walter Scott. 5 vols. Boston and New York, 
 1901. 
 
 London Chronicle, The. Feb. 18-25, 1758; April, 
 1758. Dublin. 
 
 London Chronicle, The. 1757, 1758, 1760, 1769, 
 1773, 1778. 
 
 London Evening Post, 1757. 
 
 London Magazine, The. 1747, 1757, 1758, 1760, 
 1769, 1773, 1778. 
 
 London Quarterly Review. Vol. 71. 
 
 Lowe, Robert W. — ^A Bibliographical Account of Eng- 
 lish Theatrical Literature from the earliest times 
 to the present day. New York, 1888. 
 
 Mackenzie, Henry — An Account of the Life and 
 Writings of John Home. Edinburgh, 1822, 
 
 Macready, William Charles — The diaries of Wil- 
 liam Charles Macready, 1833-1851. Edited by 
 William Toynbee. 2 vols. 1912. 
 
 Matthews, Brander — The Development of the 
 Drama. New York, 1904. 
 
 Martin, Sir Theodore — Monographs. Garrick, Mac- 
 ready, Rachel and Baron Stockmar. New York, 
 1906. 
 
 MOLLOY, J. F. — The Romance of the Irish Stage. 2 
 vols. 1897. 
 
 Monthly Review, The. 1757. 
 
 New Monthly Magazine. 1839. 
 
 New Statistical Account op Scotland, The. By the 
 ministers of the respective parishes, under the 
 superintendence of a committee of the Society for 
 the benefit of the sons and daughters of the 
 clergy. 15 vols. Edinburgh and London, 1845. 
 
 Nichols, John, and John Bowyer — Illustrations of the 
 Literary History of the Eighteenth Century. 8 
 vols. 1817-58. 
 
Appendix 211 
 
 Nicholson, Watson — The Struggle for a Free Stage 
 in London. Boston and New York, 1906. 
 
 O'Keefe, John — Recollections of the Life of. Written 
 by Himself. 1826. 
 
 OuLTON, Wally Chamberlain — The History of the 
 Theatres of London .... from the year 1771- 
 1795. 2 vols. 1796. 
 
 Paesons, Mrs. Clement — Garrick and His Circle. 
 (With bibliography, pp. xvii-xx.) New York 
 and London, 1906. 
 
 Percy, Thomas — Reliques of Ancient English Poetry. 
 3 vols. Edinburgh, 1858. 
 
 Playhouse Pocket Companion, or Theatrical Vade- 
 Mecum, The. To which is prefixed, A Critical 
 History of the English Stage from the Origin to 
 the present time. 1779. 
 
 Quarterly Review, The. 1827. 
 
 Quarterly Review, The. 1868. 
 
 Roberts, Wm. — Memoirs of the Life and Correspond- 
 ence of Mrs. Hannah More. 4 vols. 1834. 
 
 Russell, W. Clark — Representative Actors. 1872. 
 
 Ryan, Richard — Dramatic Table Talk, or Scenes, Sit- 
 uations, & Adventures, Serious and Comic, in the 
 Theatrical History & Biography. 3 vols. 1825. 
 
 Scott, Clement — The Drama of Yesterday and To- 
 day. 1899. 
 
 Scott, Sir Walter — The Journal of Sir Walter Scott, 
 from the original manuscript at Abbotsford. 2 
 vols. New York, 1890. 
 
 Scott, Sir Walter — The Miscellaneous prose works 
 of Sir Walter Scott. 6 vols. Edinburgh. 1827. 
 
 Scots' Magazine, The. 1756, 1757, 1758. 
 
 Schelling, F. E. — English Drama. London and 
 New York, 1914. 
 
 Seilhamer, Geo. 0. — History of the American Thea- 
 tre before the Revolution. Philadelphia, 1888. 
 
 Sheridan, Richard Brinsley — The Major Dramas of 
 
212 John Home : A Study of His Life and Works 
 
 Richard Brinsley Sheridan. Edited by G. H. Net- 
 
 tleton. London and New York, 1906. 
 St. James Chronicle, The. March, 1769. 
 Sharp, R. Farquharson — A "Short History of the 
 
 English Stage from its beginning to the summer 
 
 of the year 1908. London and New York, 1909. 
 Smyth, William — Lectures on Modern History. 2 
 
 vols. Cambridge, 1841. 
 Stage Censor, The: an historical sketch: 1544- 
 
 1907 : bj G. M. G. 1908. 
 Stage Cyclopedia, The. 1909. 
 Stephen, Sir Leslie — History of English Thought in 
 
 the Nineteenth Century. New York, 1876. 
 Stephen, Sir Leslie — English Literature and Society 
 
 in the Eighteenth Century. 1904. 
 Stewart, Dugald — Account of the Life and Writings 
 
 of William Robertson. 1802. 
 The Theatre, or Letters of Candidus. Edinburgh, 
 
 1802. 
 Theatrical Review for 1757, The. 
 Thespian Dictionary; or Dramatic Biography of the 
 
 Eighteenth Century — forming a concise History 
 
 of the English Stage, The. 1802. 
 Thorndike, Ashley H. — Tragedy. Boston and New 
 
 York, 1908. 
 TOMLINS, F. G. — ^A Brief View of the English Drama 
 
 from the Earliest Period to the Present Time. 
 
 1840. 
 Tracts on Douglas. Bodleian Library. 
 View op the Stage, A General. By Mr. Wilkes 
 
 (pseud, of Samuel Derrick). 1759. 
 Victor, Benjamin— The History of the Theatres of 
 
 London and Dublin, from the Year 1730, to the 
 
 present Time. To which is added, An Annual 
 
 Register of all the Plays &c. performed at the 
 
 Theatres-Royal in London, from the Year 1712. 
 
 With Occasional Notes and Anecdotes. 2 vols. 
 
 1761. 
 
Appendix 213 
 
 Walpole, Horace — The Letters of Horace Walpole, 
 earl of Oxford. Edited by Peter Cunningham. 
 9 vols. 1877. 
 
 Wemyss, Francis Courtney — Chronology of the 
 American Stage, 1752-1852. New York, 1852. 
 
 Whitehall Evening Post. Feb. & March, 1769; 
 Feb., 1773; Jan., 1778; Feb., 1778; March, 1778. 
 
 Wilkinson, Tate — Memoirs of his Own Life. 4 vols. 
 York, 1790. 
 
 Wilson, John — Noctes Ambrosianse, by the late John 
 Wilson — and Wm. Maginn. LL. D., by J. G. Lock- 
 hart, James Hogg, etc. with memoirs and notes 
 by R. Shelton Mackenzie. 5 vols. New York, 
 1854. 
 
 Wilson, John — The Recreations of Christopher 
 North. Philadelphia, 1845. 
 
 Wyndham, H. Saxe — The Annals of Covent Garden 
 Theatre from 1732 to 1897. 2 vols., 1906. 
 
 Whyte, S., & his son, E. A. Whyte — Miscellanea 
 Nova. Dublin, 1801. 
 
 Wolbe, Eugene — Quellenstudien zu John Home's 
 Douglas. Berlin, 1901. 
 
<.*A\ 
 
 
 
 .rvi 
 
 
 ^ ^^