one scholar, he once more returned to town. Having acquired some notions of elocution at a debating club which he had been in the habit of attending, he next thought of going on the stage, and obtained an engagement from the manager of the Dublin theatre, at a poor salary, which was very ill paid. He was so ill treated, indeed, in this situation, that he was obliged to leave it in about half a year. He then joined a strolling company in the north of England, and wandered about as an itinerant actor for seven years, during which time he suffered a great deal of misery, and was often reduced almost to starving. In the midst of all his sufferings, however, he retained his love of books, and had made himself extensively conversant with English literature. At last, in the end of the year 1777, he came up to London, and by means of an introduction to Mr. Sheridan obtained an engagement in a subordinate capacity at Drury Lane. He had just before this, as a desperate resource, sat down to compose a farce, which he called The Crisis; and this turned out the commencement of a busy and extended literary career. The farce, although only acted once, was well received; and it soon encouraged him to new efforts

He

of the same kind. Yet he continued for many years involved in difficulties, from which it required all his exertions to extricate himself. The remainder of Mr. Holcroft's history, with the exception of a short but stormy period, during which he was subjected to very severe usage on account of certain political opinions which he was supposed to hold, is merely that of a life of authorship. never became a good actor, and after some time dedicated himself entirely to literary occupation. His industry in his new profession is abundantly evidenced by the long list of his works, which comprise several of high talent and popularity. In his maturer years, besides many other acquirements, he made himself master of the French and German languages, from both of which he executed several well-known translations.

Holcroft died in 1809. His life is in many respects admirably calculated to answer the design which he had in view, he tells us, in writing the account of the early part of it, namely, to excite an ardent emulation in the breasts of youthful readers, by showing them how difficulties may be endured, how they may be overcome, and how they may at last contribute, as a school of instruction, to bring forth hidden talent.'

IT is certainly apparent, from what we have already stated, that the moral habits which the Pursuit of Knowledge has a tendency to create and foster, form one of its chief recommendations. Knowledge is, essentially and directly, power; but it is also, indirectly, virtue. And this it is in two ways. It can hardly be acquired without the exertion of several moral qualities of high value; and, having been acquired, it nurtures tastes, and supplies sources of enjoyment, admirably adapted to withdraw the mind from unprofitable and corrupting pleasures. Some distinguished scholars, no doubt, have been bad men; but we do not know how much worse they might have been, but for their love of learning, which, to the extent it did operate upon their characters, could not have been otherwise than beneficial.

A

genuine relish for intellectual enjoyments is naturally as inconsistent with a devotion to the coarser gratifications of sense, as the habit of assiduous study is with that dissipation of time, of thought, and of faculty which a life of vicious pleasure implies.

But knowledge is also happiness, as well as power and virtue-happiness both in the acquisition and in the possession. And were the pursuit of it nothing better than a mere amusement, it would deserve the preference over all other amusements, on many accounts. Of these, indeed, the chief is, that it must almost of necessity become something better than an amusement, must invigorate the mind as well as entertain it, and refine and elevate the character, while it gives to listlessness and weariness their most agreeable excitement and

extent than others. He has, if he chooses, a degree of leisure and freedom from interruption greatly exceeding what the generality of men enjoy. Others have seldom more than the mere fragments of the day to give to study, after the bulk of it has been consumed in procuring merely the bread that perisheth; he may make literature and philosophy the vocation of his life. To be enabled to do this, or to do it only in small part, many have willingly embraced comparative poverty in preference to riches. Among the philosophers of the ancient world, some are said to have spontaneously disencumbered themselves of their inheritances, that the cares of managing their property might not interrupt their philosophic pursuits. Crates, Thales, Democritus, Anaxagoras, are particularly mentioned as having made this sacrifice. But in those days, it is to be remembered, knowledge was only to be obtained by travelling into foreign countries, and those who sought it were therefore obliged, before setting out on the search, either to relinquish altogether the possessions they had at home, or to leave them in charge of trustees, who generally took advantage of their stewardship to embezzle or squander them. Doubtless no one of the celebrated persons we have enumerated would have thrown away his patrimony, if he could have retained it with as little

inconvenience as such an encumbrance can occasion a philosopher in our own times. The only worldly imprudence, even, of which they can be fairly accused, is that of having preferred knowledge to wealth when it was necessary to make a choice between the two, or that of having allowed themselves to be too easily cheated of the latter in their enthusiastic devotion to the former. Bayle, who had himself a strong sympathy with this love of a quiet in preference to a splendid life, states the matter correctly in the case of Democritus, when he says, in his article on that great father of natural philosophy, "The spirit of a great traveller reigned in him; he journeyed to the heart of India, in quest of the riches of learning, and bestowed but little thought on those other treasures which he had almost at his door.' Anaxagoras, in like manner, although he did not travel so far from home as Democritus, still owed the loss of his property to his being obliged to leave it in the hands of others. This ingenious but somewhat fanciful speculator, the master of Socrates and Euripides, and the honoured friend of Pericles, was a native of Clazomena in Ionia, and the descendant of noble and wealthy ancestors, whose lands he inherited. determining to devote his life to philosophy, he did not hesitate, when only about twenty years of age, to bid adieu to

But,