Note 207 — Chapter VI

Dr Kippis, the editor of the Biographia Britannica, or Lives of the Most Eminent Persons who have Flourished in Great Britain and Ireland (1789), had a bad time in writing the notice of Crichton that appears in it. He says that he entered upon the task with diffidence, and even with anxiety. On the one hand, he was desirous not to detract from Crichton's real merit, and, on the other, he wished to form a just estimate of the truth of the facts which are recorded concerning him. Part of his perturbation of mind was due to the indignation which he felt towards our author, whose narrative of Crichton's adventures he regarded as utterly untrustworthy. At an early stage in the article he remarks: "And here it must be observed that no credit can be granted to any facts which depend upon the sole authority of Sir Thomas Urquhart.... I must declare my full persuasion that Sir Thomas Urquhart is an author whose testimony to facts is totally unworthy of regard; and it is surprising that a perusal of his works does not strike every mind with this conviction. His productions are so inexpressibly absurd and extravagant, that the only rational judgment which can be pronounced concerning him is, that he was little, if at all, better than a madman. To the character of his having been a madman must be added that of his being a liar. Severe as this term may be thought, I apprehend that a diligent examination of the treatise which contains the memorials concerning Crichton would show that it is strictly true." The censure uttered by Dr Kippis is very severe, but some excuse for him is easily found. He was anxious to make his dictionary of biography a mine of facts on which the public could rely with absolute confidence; and he saw before him the danger of quoting as an authority a writer like Urquhart, who so palpably elongated facts and embroidered them with fancies. His opinion with regard to the Pedigree of the Urquharts is given on p. 144.