HOME, John, a Scottish dramatic writer of great celebrity, was born at Leith, on the 13th of September 1722. His father, Mr Alexander Home, was town-clerk of that place, and his mother was a daughter of Mr John Hay, a writer, or solicitor, in Edinburgh. He acquired the elementary branches of his classical education under Mr Hugh Millar, master of the grammar-school of Leith, and entered the University of Edinburgh in 1735, where he soon contracted an intimacy with William Robertson, William Wilkie, Alexander Carlyle, Hugh Blair, John Blair, Sir Gilbert Elliot, Sir John Dalrymple, and several others, afterwards well known in the literary world. After having attended the humanity class taught by Mr Kerr, one of the best Latin scholars of the age; mathematics, taught by the celebrated Maclaurin; logic, taught by Dr Stevenson, who contributed more than any other man in Scotland to inspire the young men of that period with a taste for good writing and rational investigation; he proceeded to the study of moral and natural philosophy, under Sir John Pringle and Sir Robert Stewart, and then passed through the usual routine of theological instruction. He was licensed by the presbytery of Edinburgh as a preacher of the gospel, on the 4th of April 1745.

Before he had enjoyed many opportunities of exercising this peaceful function, Scotland became the scene of a civil war; and the ardour of his mind, imbued as it was with a love of enterprise, and a boundless admiration of military glory, prompted him, on the first news of the approach of the rebel army, to join an armed association, formed by the inhabitants of Edinburgh, for the defence of the city. Ou the 9th of September 1745, he was enrolled in the College Company of Volunteers, a corps which was dissolved within a week, when the city was taken possession of by the Pretender’s troops. But Mr Home and a few other spirited young men again formed themselves into a more select and efficient company, in the month of November, and subsequently obtained permission from General Hawley to serve in the field. Of this company Dr William M‘Ghie was chosen captain, and Mr Home lieutenant. He had the command of the company on the 17th of January 1746, at the battle of Falkirk, where, having received no orders to act, he was an indignant witness of the disgraceful rout of the royal forces, which had fought so well at Dettingen and Fontenoy; and having been one of the last to retreat, he was taken prisoner, with five of his company. They were sent to the Castle of Doun, in Perthshire, on the 25th of January; but Mr Home, with some of his fellow prisoners, escaped on the 31st, by twisting their blankets into ropes, and dropping from the battlements, a height of seventy feet. At this time Mr Home was not less remarkable for the elegance and symmetry of his person, than for his engaging and prepossessing address. His appearance bespoke great vivacity, activity, and energy; his conversation was not merely cheerful, but uncommonly sprightly and animated; and the unceasing kindness which beamed from his countenance, and marked every action of his life, was such as to render him an universal favourite.

In the course of the year 1746, after the death of Mr Robert Blair, minister of Athelstaneford, and author of the well-known poem entitled The Grave, Mr Home obtained the presentation to the living, by the interest of Alexander Home of Eccles, afterwards solicitor-general. He was ordained to the charge of the parish in February 1747, and proved very acceptable to the parishioners. During a considerable part of his incumbency, he gave the use of his manse to Mr Hepburn of Keith, a gentleman who had been engaged in both the rebellions in 1715 and 1745, and whose insinuating manners and enticing conversation in some measure reconciled Mr Home to the character of the Jacobites. He boarded himself in the house of a grazier or butcher in the village, at the moderate rate of L.12 a year; but as he passed a great part of his time amongst his numerous friends in the neighbourhood, it is believed that his host was not inadequately remunerated. Mr Home was frequently[7:11:538] absent from his lodgings from Monday morning till Saturday night, and though he wrote a considerable number of discourses for the pulpit, he seldom left himself time to finish any one of them. After writing about two thirds of a sermon and committing it to memory, he generally trusted for the remainder to the moment of delivery. These unpremeditated perorations, occasionally eloquent, were delivered with more than his usual vehemence of action, and are said to have been not a little admired by his rustic audience.

Amongst the most intimate friends of Mr Home at this time were Lord Elibank, then residing at Ballancrieff, Dr Robertson, then minister of Gladsmuir, Dr Carlyle of Inveresk, and Mr George Logan of Ormiston, a young clergyman of great promise, who died soon after having been induced, by the solicitation of his ablest contemporaries,, to undertake the refutation of David Hume’s sceptical writings.

From his earliest years Mr Home had been a passionate admirer of the tragic muse, and about the time of his establishment in the church it was known to his familiar friends that he was engaged in the composition of a tragedy founded on the account of the death of Agis, as given in Plutarch’s Lives. The play, when completed, was highly approved by his friends Blair, Carlyle, and George Logan.

In 1749, he went with this play to London, having obtained strong recommendations to the attention of several leaders of the republic of letters; but his reception was very discouraging, except amongst his own countrymen. Some objected to the bloodiness of the catastrophe, and to the irregular sequence of the scenes; others to the Scoti-cisms or vulgarisms of the style. Lord Lyttleton was then reputed the chief arbiter of taste; but no importunity could prevail upon him to read the play, because he did not like to express disapprobation, and if he happened to be pleased, he did not wish to have the trouble of supporting it, as he had lately found almost insuperable difficulty in carrying through one of Thomson’s tragedies which he had warmly patronised. One Englishman of some note remarked, that the author had formed himself too much on Thomson’s Seasons and Lee’s Plays, “I could not have been more surprised,” said Mr Home to a correspondent, “if he had told me that 1 had formed myself upon Euclid’s Elements and Maclaurin’s Fluxions.” He had not a very exalted opinion of the English intellect. “I sometimes hearken to the coffee-house conversations upon poetry and politics, where there are such fellows authors, whose wigs are worth L.3 sterling, that it is ready to make a man of moderate patience curse his better angel from his side, and fall to reprobation? When Garrick refused to bring the play upon the stage, the author, after giving vent to his mortified feelings in an address to the shade of Shakspeare, composed in Westminster Abbey, returned to Scotland, and resumed the labours of his pastoral office, not without devoting a large share of his time to the society of his literary acquaintance, and to the pursuit of his favourite study.

He continued assiduously to cultivate the friendship of Mr Hepburn, from whose sister-in-law, Mrs Janet Denoon, he first heard the old song of Gil Morrice. This ballad furnished the hint on which he constructed the tragedy of Douglas, in the composition of which he amused himself occasionally the next five years, submitting the successive scenes to the revision of a few friends. His own handwriting was scarcely legible, and the play was repeatedly transcribed by Dr Carlyle. From this circumstance, and from the warm interest which that gentleman took in the success of the piece, he was commonly supposed to have had a principal share in the composition. Sir Gilbert Elliot’s criticisms were acknowledged to be particularly valuable, and he also was not unfrequently reputed the author. In February 1755, Mr Home set out for London on horseback, with his tragedy in one pocket, and some clean linen in the other; and was accompanied into Northumberland by a cavalcade of clerical friends, two of whom, Carlyle and Cupples, proceeded with him a stage or two beyond Durham. This play, as well as Agis, was rejected by Garrick, not so much, perhaps, owing to any defect in his own taste, as because it did not contain much of that pomp and circumstance which seemed to be the chief attractions of the tragedies which were at this time favourites with the public.

Whilst Mr Home was engaged in the composition of this play, he had not been inattentive to other affairs more nearly connected with the clerical profession. In 1752 he took an active part in the deliberations of the General Assembly, when Mr Gillespie was deposed. The year before, he had made the motion to suspend Mr Adams of Falkirk, for disobeying an order of the General Assembly, and was seconded by Dr Robertson, the first time either had spoken in that house. They were not members next year, but both spoke at the bar with great effect. About this time Mr Home’s support was strongly solicited by Dr Cuming, the leader of what was then called the moderate party; but he resolved to act an independent part. He had become a great favourite of Lord Milton, nephew of the famous Andrew Fletcher of Salton; and, as ĥis lordship managed the political affairs of Scotland, under the direction of Archibald duke of Argyll, he took an opportunity of introducing Mr Home to his grace, who was much delighted with his cheerful and fascinating manners, and continued to befriend him ever afterwards. Mr Home paid a visit to the duke at Inverary, in October 1756, and was most kindly received. At this time he was closely connected in friendship with the members of the Select Society, established at Edinburgh in 1754.

It was resolved at last, by the friends of the author, in December 1756, to have Douglas represented on the Edinburgh stage; and the result far exceeded their most sanguine expectations. Digges performed Young Narval, and Lady Randolph was personated by Mrs Ward, The theatre was crowded night after night, and the applause of the audience was tumultuous. Not only all the literati attended, but most of the judges and other grave characters, whose presence in the theatre excited great surprise and not a little scandal. Before this time the inhabitants of Edinburgh had not been much accustomed to dramatic entertainments, as the leaders of the church had generally had sufficient influence to induce the civil power to suppress them. In the year 1727, the Presbytery of Edinburgh issued an Admonition against the Stqge ; and, in 1733, in consequence of a sermon on the Use and Abuse of Diversions, by Mr George Anderson, a minister of Edinburgh, various pamphlets were published, particularly one by Mr Anderson himself, in which he denounced the stage as an unchristian diversion, and repeated all the arguments against it produced by Prynne, Filmer, Baxter, and Collier. Following the example of their predecessors, this body issued a similar admonition and exhortation to all within their bounds, on the 5th of January 1757, and not only suspended Mr White, minister of Libberton, for having been present at the performance of Douglas, but wrote letters to the presbyteries of Haddington, Dalkeith, Ayr, Chirnside, and Dunse, informing against those of their members who had been guilty of the same indecorum. Some of the clergymen accused were allowed to escape with a gentle rebuke; but Dr Carlyle was libelled, as it is called, by his presbytery, at the instigation, as he believed, of an eminent lawyer, then lord advocate, whose conduct on that occasion was afterwards sufficiently avenged by the ridicule heaped upon him in an humorous political satire, by Dr Adam Ferguson, entitled The History of Sister [7:11:539]Peg. Several abusive pamphlets against the play and its supporters were known to proceed from the minions of this gentleman, who was then rising to a degree of consequence which soon supplanted the declining influence of Lord Milton.^[1. The following are some of the most remarkable pamphlets published on this occasion :—1. Admonition and Exhortation of the Presbytery of Edinburgh. 2∙ Witherspoon’s Serious Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Stage. 3. The Immorality of Stage Plays in general, and ôf the Tragedy called Douglas in particular, briefly illustrated. 4. The Usefulness of the Edinburgh Stage seriously considered. 5. The Tragedy of Douglas analysed. G. A Letter to Mr David Hume on the Tragedy of Douglas. 7∙ An Apology for the Writers against the Tragedy of Douglas, with Remarks on that play. 8. The Deposition, or Fatal Miscarriage, a tragedy. 9∙ Douglas, a Tragedy, weighed in the balances and found wanting. 10. The First Night’s Audience, an excellent new ballad. 11. The Stage or the Pulpit, two parts. 12. The Apostle to the Theatre his Garland. 13. The Finishing Stroke, or Nothing, a ballad. 14. The Infernal Council, an excellent new ballad. 15. A Song or a Sermon, a new ballad, Saturday, 29th January i757. 16. The Admonition, an execrable new ballad. 17∙ Advice to the Writers in Defence of Douglas. 18. An Epilogue to the Tragedy of Douglas, spoke by the Author. 19. An Argument to prove that the Tragedy of Douglas ought to be Burnt by the Hands of the Hangman [ironical, by Dr Carlyle! 20. The Moderator, Nos. 1 and 2. 21. Votes of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, 29th December 1756. 22. A Letter to the Reverend the Moderator, &c. of the Presbytery of Haddington. 23. A Letter to the Author of the Ecclesiastical Characteristics. 24. The Morality of Stage Plays seriously considered [by Dr Ferguson]. 25. Some serious Remarks on a Pamphlet, entitled the Morality of Stage Plays seriously Considered [by the Reverend Mr Harper,, an Episcopalian clergyman]. 26. The Players’ Scourge. 27∙ A Letter to the Author of the Ecclesiastical Characteristics. 28. A Second Letter to the same. 29. Unto the Right Ethereal the Siplers, the Petition of Poor Alexander Bonum Magnum. Most of these are unfavourable to the play (some of them written by Mr Maclaurin, afterwards Lord Dreghorn); others contain very indecorous strictures on the conduct of Drs Cuming, Walker, and Webster, who were active in discouraging the attendance on the theatre, and in prosecuting offending brethren. ]

After the play had been so amazingly successful in Edinburgh, it was eagerly admitted on the stage of Covent-Garden early in 1757; but Garrick still excluded it from Drury-Lane. The triumph of the author was, however, in no small degree abated by the prosecution of his friends in the church courts, and by his own threatened deposition. The subject was brought before the General Assembly by Dr Carlyle in the form of an appeal from a sentence of the Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale; and a decision favourable to the appellant was carried by a great majority of 117 to 37. The result of this vote checked the introduction of a very severe Overture, which was intended to have been enacted into a law; and next day another motion was substituted, so lenient as to be seconded by Mr Dempster of Dunnichen, the friend of Home and Carlyle, in consequence of which the assembly passed a declaratory law, prohibiting the clergy from attending the theatre, but not discharging them from writing plays. Immediately afterwards, Mr Home thought it expedient to resign his charge; and having preached a most pathetic sermon, which deeply affected his congregation, he took leave of them in the beginning of June 1757, without having incurred any ecclesiastical censure. He then retired for three months to private lodgings at Braid, near Edinburgh, where he gave the finishing hand to the play of Agis.

From the moment when Mr Home resigned his living, the prospects of his worldly prosperity began to brighten. The people of England, ever alive to sentiments of compassion, regarded him as a victim to the rigour of Presbyterian bigotry; and though their critics decried the merits of Douglas, as being a faulty and languid composition, not sufficiently relieved by either pathos or elegance of expression, they admitted that it exhibited unquestionable indications of true poetical genius, and a power of awakening the most elevated as well as the most tender emotions. Men of the highest rank and influence expected to gain popularity by patronising the author, who, after being known to possess the good graces of the Dukes of Cumberland and Argyll, was warmly recommended by his friend, Sir Gilbert Elliot, to the Earl of Bute, who then superintended the education of the Prince of Wales, afterwards George III. The Princess Dowager of Wales granted him a pension of L.100 a year, an allowance equal to the value of the living which he had resigned; and assurances were given him of a more ample provision at no distant period.

In one respect, the partiality of his literary friends, and the favour of the great, had an injurious effect on his future fame, not only by producing an impression that he had gained by flattering assiduities what merit alone was seldom known to procure, but by exciting expectations in the minds of numbers that his more mature exertions would far surpass the earliest specimen of his powers as a dramatic writer. The warm encomiums of David Hume were naturally ascribed to the partiality of friendship; but the opinion expressed by Gray the poet, that the tragedy of Douglas had “retrieved the true language of the stage, lost for three hundred years,” seemed to imply a preference of the muse of Home even to that of Shakspeare himself. The objections of Garrick to the tragedy of Agis were no longer urged; and though this was in fact the earliest effort of an unpractised writer, it appeared under the disadvantage of being considered as a work of higher pretensions than that which had already been so well received by the public. It is also to be presumed, that though in its finished state it retained many lofty sentiments of freedom and patriotism, yet, as the author began to breathe the atmosphere of a court, he was tempted to soften some of his boldest images, so that the piece may have lost in spirit more than it gained in polish. It was brought out at Drury-Lane in 1758, and, partly owing to the admirable acting of Garrick in the character of Lysander, had a successful run of nine nights. The author cleared several hundred pounds, but the anticipations of the public were not fulfilled. “I cry,” said Gray, “to think it should have been by the author of Douglas. Why, it is all modern Greek. The story is an antique statue, painted white and red, frizzed and dressed in a negligee made by a Yorkshire mantua-maker.”

In 1759, the Siege of Aquileia \nũs> first performed at Drury-Lane, but was by no means so successful as Garrick had expected. Garrick and Home were now on the most intimate footing; and as Home listened with much deference to the criticisms of this great actor, and generally followed his advice, the latter, on the other hand, courted the good graces of Home, by consulting him in his difficulties, and soliciting him to act as his friend, or second, in certain quarrels, which threatened to terminate in duels. Early in 1760, Mr Home’s first three plays were published in one volume, which was dedicated to the Prince of Wales.

After the accession of the prince to the throne, the Earl of Bute became prime minister; and from this period Mr Home for many years lived constantly with his lordship, at least from October to May, and was well known to possess the first place in his confidence and favour. Mr Home was always most active in promoting the interest of those who called themselves his friends, and conferred the most valuable obligations upon many individuals, who [7:11:540]were more forward to solicit his services than to testify their gratitude. But it is well known that he never teased his patron with applications in his own behalf; and it is believed that he might have been overlooked altogether, if Lord Bute had not been prompted by another friend to bestow upon him some honourable and lucrative appointment. A pension of L.300 a year was granted to him in July 1762, and another of equal amount was at the same time conferred on Dr Johnson. In the course of the following year, the place of Conservator of Scots Privileges at Campvere was bestowed upon him, the value of which appointment was also L.300 a year; and from this period his name appears annually in the list of members of the General Assembly, as elder for the church of Campvere, under the title of Lord Conservator. He regularly attended the meetings of the assembly, and took a lively interest in the proceedings. He had little turn for business, but he occasionally spoke with much energy and effect. He was ambitious to have a seat in the House of Commons, and repeatedly signified his wishes, which at one period might have been easily fulfilled, if he had not been dissuaded by Sir Gilbert Elliot and Sir William Pulteney, not only because they knew that he would be considered as disqualified, by having been in orders, but because they were convinced that, even if that objection were not started, he would make no great figure as a debater. When in London he lived on terms of great cordiality with Armstrong, Smollett, Dr Pitcairn, Dr William Hunter, Mr Wedderburn, afterwards chancellor, and the Honourable Charles Townshend. He had a particular pleasure in fostering rising merit. In the year 1759, he stimulated James Macpherson to collect what were called the Poems of Ossian; and he afterwards accompanied him on one of his tours, partly with the hope of sharing in the pleasure of discovering the poetical remains of distant ages, but chiefly with the view of searching for materials which might throw light on the history of the rebellion in 1745.

In 1769, his tragedy of the Fatal Discovery, the fable of which is borrowed from one of the fragments ascribed to Ossian, was performed at Drury-Lane, with indifferent success. At this time the prejudice against Scotchmen was so strong in London that Garrick apprehended a total failure of the play if the author were known. At his suggestion, therefore, the title was altered from Rivine to the Fatal Discovery ; and for some nights the representation was greeted with loud applause, the play being ascribed either to Gray or to Smith. Mr Home’s love of praise, however, betrayed the secret, and from that moment the audience sensibly diminished every night. In February 1773, Alonzo was brought out, and was well received. This play is recommended by the simplicity of the plot, the harmony of the versification, and the dignity of the sentiments; but some of the incidents are improbable, the language occasionally too mean, the apostrophes too frequent, and it has more eloquent declamation than natural feeling, more graceful description than pathetic effect. The acting of Mrs Barry affected the feelings of the audience so powerfully as to disarm the severity of criticism. To this tragedy, as well as the Fatal Discovery, Garrick furnished an epilogue. The theatrical career of Mr Home was closed with the play of Alfred, which was represented at Drury-Lane in January 1778. It was listened to the first evening; but a less crowded house was never known than on the second, and after the third performance the author withdrew it.

For many years Mr Home lived chiefly in London. In 1767 he obtained from Sir David Kinloch a long lease of Kilduff, a farm in East Lothian, on which he built a house. In 1770 he married Miss Home (daughter of Mr Home, minister of Fogo, formerly of Polwarth), a lady of very delicate constitution, who, however, survived him several years.

In 1778, when the Duke of Buccleuch raised the regiment of Smith Fencibles i Mr Home’s military ardour induced him to accept a commission as lieutenant, the same rank which he had held more than thirty years before ∙ and he gave occasion to some sneers from his graver brethren, by sitting in the General Assembly in his scarlet regimentals. After being nearly two years an officer he was disabled for military service by a fall from his horse, which, though it did not permanently affect his health, continued through life to impair the vigour of his faculties, and to diminish tfie flow of his spirits. About this time he left Kilduff, and took up his residence in Edinburgh for the remainder of his life. Till within five years of his death, he was accustomed to pay an annual visit to London; and such was the force of habit, that his friends experienced great difficulty in prevailing with him to desist from these expensive and unnecessary journeys.

In 1798 an edition of his plays was published, in two volumes, now rarely to be procured.

His last work, the History of the Rebellion in 1745, was published at London in 1802, in a quarto volume. It had long been understood to be in a state of perfect preparation, but it was not expected to appear in the author’s lifetime, as there was reason to apprehend that much of the matter which it contained would prove offensive to some distinguished individuals, whose hostility it was not desirable to encounter. In the first sketches of it, the author is said to have ardently applauded the disinterested motives and gallant conduct of the adherents of the house of Stuart, to whom he had been opposed in the field; and whilst he did ample justice to their devoted attachment and heroic efforts, he was not sparing of the indignation due to the barbarities perpetrated by the pervailing party after the victory of Culloden. Some influence, however, was exerted to hasten the publication, and the author had not the courage to resist the temptation to suppress and qualify many of his first statements. As a composition, it was certainly not improved by what were intended as the finishing emendations; but, if its interest has been weakened, its impartiality has probably been more effectually secured than if it had retained its original form; and, though the book gave much less satisfaction than if it had not been so anxiously expected, its merit has certainly been unduly depreciated. The style, indeed, is negligent, and the reflections not profound; but if the comments of the author are few and obvious, the detail is generally so full as to enable the reader to draw just conclusions; the battles are graphically described, and, as far as the narrative extends, it is entitled to unreserved credit. Perhaps the chief cause why the work was never highly applauded has been, that it is not written so as to gratify the prejudices either of one party or another.

Mr Home died at Merchiston, in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, on the 5th of September 1808, when he had nearly completed his eighty-sixth year. In private life no man was ever more entirely beloved. His affections were equally warm and stedfast; and much as he had moved in the highest circles, not without pluming himself sufficiently on his intimacy with the great, he never forsook the interest of his friends in humbler stations, or betrayed any expectation of deference from those who were dependent on his good offices. His temper was placid, and though there were occasions on which he manifested some warmth of feeling, he was neither apt to resent injuries nor to inflict pain. He was never known to grudge any exertion which tended to benefit or gratify his friends; and long after the activity of his mind had begun to languish, he continued as eager as ever to confer unsolicited favours, and to use all the influence which he possessed to reward [7:11:541]neglected merit. He was alleged to be rather apt to flatter; but the fact was, that he appeared never to discover any defects in the character of those whom he esteemed; and, with all the blindness of a lover to the objects of a first attachment, the overflowing benevolence of his heart disposed him to invest his early friends with every perfection of which human nature is susceptible, and to spread the veil of charity over blemishes and offences. If he had not been early enticed into the vortex of fashion and politics, he might have attained higher eminence as an author; but, in spite of all the temptations of vanity, and the petulant and persevering attacks of envy, he could scarcely, under any circumstances, have proved more amiable as a man. (p. ,p. p.)

Home, Sir Everard, an eminent surgeon, was born about the year 1755. He was of Scottish extraction, and his connection with the Hunters brought him into notice at an early period of life. At one time he was held in high estimation as a surgical practitioner, and obtained the more substantial advantage of an extensive practice. He had the good fortune to be appointed one of the surgeons to St George’s Hospital; and this circumstance, added to the publication of various works which attained a considerable share of celebrity, contributed to extend his reputation, the advantages of which he lived nearly half a century to enjoy. In 1813 he was created a baronet, and was also appointed serjeant-surgeon to the king. For several years before his death, which took place on the 31st of August 1832, in the seventy-seventh year of his age, Sir Everard Home had retired from practice, and sought in private life the repose which his increasing age and infirmities required. Sir Evcrard was the author of Practical Observations on Stricture, of Lectures on Comparative Anatomy, and of various papers in the Philosophical Transactions; but none of his productions discovers much depth of research, or any great originality of speculation.