Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 31.djvu/202

 married Elizabeth, daughter of Isaac Bott, merchant, of Boston.

Kippis's pastorate at Westminster continued for forty-three years. He was soon elected a trustee of the presbyterian fund; he became a member of Dr. Williams's trust in 1762; and his association with many other charitable institutions in London and Westminster enabled him to effectively promote the nonconformist cause. In 1763 he was appointed to succeed Dr. David Jennings as classical and philological tutor in the Coward Academy at Hoxton; and in June 1767 he received the degree of D.D. from the university of Edinburgh, on the unsolicited recommendation of Professor Robertson. He was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries on 19 March 1778, and a fellow of the Royal Society 17 June 1779 (, Hist. of the Royal Soc. App. iv. 57). In both these learned societies he served on the council for about two years. He withdrew from the institution at Hoxton in 1784, and the two other tutors followed his example the next year, when the seminary was dissolved ( and, Hist. of Dissenters, ii. 519). In 1786 he became one of the tutors in the new dissenting college established at Hackney, and although he retired from that office after a few years, he continued to support the college by a liberal subscription and by his interest with opulent friends. Among his pupils at Hackney were William Godwin and Samuel Rogers. Rogers subsequently apostrophised him, together with his colleagues Price and Priestley, in ‘The Pleasures of Memory’ (, Rogers and his Contemporaries, i. 418). Kippis died at his residence in Crown Street, Westminster, on 8 Oct. 1795. His funeral sermon was preached, and the oration at the grave in Bunhill Fields delivered, by the Rev. Dr. Abraham Rees.

Kippis was reverenced by dissenters, and his literary attainments secured for him the friendship and esteem of distinguished members of the established church. When about fourteen years old he renounced the principles of Calvinism, in which his relatives had brought him up (Biog. Brit. 2nd edit. iv. 3). Subsequently he inclined to Socinianism, though ‘he highly disapproved the conduct of the modern Socinians, in assuming to themselves the exclusive appellation of unitarians’ (, Hist. of Dissenting Churches, iv. 116). In his youth he was a most assiduous student. He informed Alexander Chalmers that he once read for three years at the rate of sixteen hours a day. One of the works which he read through was the ‘General Dictionary,’ in ten folio volumes, and he thus laid the foundation of his skill in biographical composition (Gent. Mag. 1795, pt. ii. p. 803).

His editorial connection with the ‘Biographia Britannica’ constitutes his chief claim to remembrance. He was employed by the booksellers to prepare the second edition of that work, ‘with corrections, enlargements, and the addition of new lives.’ When he had been engaged for some time on this task he found it too vast for him to execute alone, and Dr. Towers was appointed as his associate. The letters K. and T. affixed to the new articles, or to the additions to the old articles, distinguish their respective shares. Only five volumes were published, all at London in folio—vol. i. in 1778, vol. ii. in 1780, vol. iii. in 1784, vol. iv. in 1789, and vol. v. in 1793, when the dictionary ends abruptly with the article ‘Fastolf.’ A first part of the sixth volume (‘Featley’ to ‘Foster’) was printed in 1795. To this half-volume, after the proprietors had for some time endeavoured to find a fitting successor to Kippis, Dr. George Gregory wrote a preface, intending to come forward as continuator of the work. Delays in its publication followed, and nearly the whole impression was consumed in the fire on Nichols's premises in February 1808, only three copies having been preserved (, Lit. Anecd. ix. 184 n.). The second edition of the ‘Biographia Britannica’ hardly deserves the high praise which has been sometimes bestowed upon it. The memoirs which were imperfect or incorrect in the original edition, instead of being rewritten, were textually reproduced, with notes by the editor pointing out omissions and inaccuracies. Thus it seemed as if a literary controversy were being carried on between the editor and the author. Again, many of the new memoirs were of inordinate length, and the prominence given to nonconformists laid the editor open to a charge of partiality. Moreover, he indulged too freely in the expression of opinions instead of confining himself mainly to the narration of facts; and many of the footnotes were far too long and irrelevant. Johnson told Boswell in 1777 that he had been asked to undertake the new edition of the ‘Biographia Britannica,’ but had declined it, ‘which,’ says Boswell, ‘he afterwards said to me he regretted.’ Although Boswell admitted that Kippis had discharged the task judiciously, and with more impartiality than might have been expected from a separatist, he complained that the work was ‘too crowded with obscure dissenting teachers.’ He subsequently, however, withdrew all censure (, Johnson, ed. G. B. Hill, iii. 174, iv. 376). According to Horace Wal-