[201] Sir Egerton Brydges, Bart., an author who combines a great many of the peculiarities of the two Sir Thomas Urquharts, the father and the son, and who has recorded his experiences in an _Autobiography_, lays stress in like manner upon this quality of speed in composition. Thus he says of his little novel, _Mary de Clifford_ (published in 1792), "it was written with a fervent rapidity, which no one seems to believe;--begun in October, 1791, and the sheets sent to the press by the post, as fast as they were scribbled." The passage in which he refers to the vexations to which he had been subjected is worth quoting, on account of its similarity to our Sir Thomas's story. "I have suffered," he says, "a hundred times more disappointments, and crosses, and insults, and wrongs, and deprivations, than Chatterton, yet my spirit, though bent and sunk, was never broken. I am calm and defiant, though not hopeful, in proportion as the storm presses me;--and what trials have I not undergone? I do not mean to relate all these trials; it would involve the conduct of obscure individuals, many of whom are still living" (_Autobiography_, pp. 8, 9).
[203] _I.e._ at such an extremity liable to be forfeited to the victorious soldier.
[206] "This part is written in a euphuistic, rhapsodical vein, and affords an indication of the saturation of Urquhart's mind with the style of Rabelais. It might almost be pieced together from the meeting of Pantagruel with the Limousin scholar, the discomfiture of Thaumast by Panurge, and the meeting of Pantegruel and his party with Queen Entelechia" (W. F. Smith's Introduction to _Rabelais_).
[207] 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.