Page:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 1.djvu/94

 Dr Anderson died of dropsy in the chest, February 20, 1830, in his eighty-first year.  , D.D. The era of this gentleman's birth is unknown; he died at an advanced age, July, 1800, after having been minister of the parish of Chirnside for fifty years. He is a remarkable specimen of that class of authors, who, without the least power of entertaining or instructing their fellow-creatures, yet persist in writing and publishing books, which nobody ever reads, and still, like the man crazed by the lottery, expect that the next, and the next, and the next will be attended with success. Perhaps Anderson's cacoethes scribendi received its first impulse from the following ludicrous circumstance. His parish comprehending the house of Ninewells, he was often entertained there, in company with the brother of the proprietor—the celebrated David Hume The conversation having turned one day on the successes of Mr Hume as an author, Anderson said, "Mr David, I dare say other people might write books too; but you clever fellows have taken up all the good subjects. When I look about me, I cannot find one unoccupied." Hume, who liked a joke upon an unsuspecting clergyman, said, "what would you think, Mr Anderson, of a history of Crœsus, king of Lydia? that has never yet been written." Mr Anderson was delighted with the idea, and, in short, "upon that hint he wrote." In 1755 was published, "The History of Crœsus, king of Lydia, in four parts; containing observations on the ancient notion of destiny, or dreams, on the origin and credit of the oracles, and the principles upon which their oracles were defended against any attack." What is perhaps the best part of the jest, the work was honoured with the following serio-burlesque notice in the Edinburgh Review, then just started by Hume, Smith, Carlyle, and other wits the article being written, we have no doubt, by the very man who incited the unhappy author to his task:—

"Crœsus king of Lydia is a prince whom we never expected to have met with, as the hero of a serious history. Mankind seem at last to feel the necessity of contracting rather than enlarging that period of history, which ought to be the object of their study and attention. If this sentiment be just, how unfortunate and ill-timed is our author's attempt to recall from oblivion the name and adventures of a monarch of such distant and dubious fame. He himself seems aware of this objection to his work; and it is but just to hear what he can plead in his own defence. 'The enthusiastic principles of ages long past, and the artificial devices then used to work upon the passions of men, may appear to some a subject of history not enough interesting in these times. But if the most essential part of knowledge, derived from history, be that of mankind, it surely cannot well be learned, without thoroughly considering the various sentiments and opinions embraced by them in different ages of the world. Our views of human nature must be partial and confined, if they be only directed to some of its late and present appearances. By carrying our thoughts back into ancient times, we may see reason for abating much of the amazement or dislike which is apt to arise in our minds, when we read the religious or political violences marked out in modern history.'

"If the reader shall sustain this apology for the subject, (which we by no means require him to do,) we can assure him that he will find our author neither destitute of skill in composition, nor a stranger to propriety and neatness of language. He has treated his subjects with abundance of erudition, and by his manner of relating it, renders an old tale somewhat tolerable.

"We cannot, however, imagine our readers to be so much interested in the Lydian monarch, as to make it necessary for us to enter into any detail of his actions. We approve of our author's choice of Herodotus rather than Xeno-