next attempted a work of much larger compass, which appeared in 1769, in two quarto volumes, under the title of "The History of France during the reigns of Francis II. and Charles IX., to which is prefixed a Review of the General History of the Monarchy from its origin to that period." The success of this work was much like that of its predecessor; yet in 1775 the author published a continuation in one volume, under the title, "The History of France, from the commencement of the reign of Henry III., and the rise of the Catholic League, to the peace of Worms and the establishment of the famous edict of Nantes in the reign of Henry IV." In 1783, appeared two further volumes, embracing the history from the commencement of the reign of Louis XIII. to the general peace of Munster. But these continuous efforts were not drawn forth by the encouragement of the public; they were solely owing to the desperate cacoethes of the worthy writer, which would take no hint from the world—no refusal from fame. It is said that he was solely enabled to support the expense of his unrequited labour by a set of houses belonging to himself in Dunse, (too appropriate locality!) one of which was sold for every successive quarto, till at last something like a street of good habitable tenements in that thriving town was converted into a row of unreadable volumes in his library. "Dr Anderson," says the Gentleman's Magazine, "displays none of the essential qualities of historic writing, no research into the secret springs of action, no discrimination of character, and no industry in accumulating and examining authorities. Even as a compiler he is guided only by one set of materials which he found in the French writers, and may therefore be consulted by the English reader, as a collection of their opinions, while he is highly censurable in not having recourse to original papers and documents respecting the affairs of his own country. His style is uniformly tame, and defaced by colloquial barbarisms."
In a literary history of this deplorable character, it is gratifying to find that one effort was at length judged worthy of some praise. 'Ihis was a work subsequent to the above, entitled, "The Philosophy of Ancient Greece investigated, in its origin and progress, to the eras of its greatest celebrity, in the Ionian, Italic, and Athenian schools, with remarks on the delineated system of their founders." His principle in this work, according to the authority just quoted, appears to have been to supply the deficiencies in Mr Stanley's work, and to give place to remarks upon the meaning employed by the most eminent Grecian philosophers, in support of their physical, theological, and moral systems; and to give a fuller and more connected display of their theories and arguments, and to relieve the frigidity of their bare details by interspersing observations." In this work he displays much learning, and is in general both accurate and perspicuous, although he is still deficient in the graces of style. Perhaps it would have been more successful had it not appeared at the same time with Dr Enfield's excellent abridgment of Brucker's History of Philosophy.
One of the last attempts of Dr Anderson was a pamphlet against the principles of the French Revolution. This being not only written in his usual heavy style. but adverse to the popular sentiments, met with so little sale, that it could scarcely be said to have been ever published. However, the doctor was not discouraged; adopting rather the maxim, "contra audentior ito," he wrote a ponderous addition or appendix to the work, which he brought .with him to Edinburgh, in order to put it to the press. Calling first upon his friend Principal Robertson, he related the whole design, which, as might be expected, elicited the mirthful surprise of the venerable historian. "Really," said Dr Robertson, "this is the maddest of all your schemes—what! a small pamphlet is found heavy, and you propose to lighten it by making it ten times heavier! Never was such madness heard
