UC-NRLF 
 
 ^B STM 371 
 
 ■t'175't i 
 COLUMBi' 
 
 IjNlVERSUr 
 
 •Press- 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 OF THK 
 
 University of California. 
 
 GIF^T OF" 
 
 Class *"^ 
 
 y Sllh. 
 
Columbia ©ntbersitg 
 
 STUDIES INBOMANGE PHILOLOGT AND 
 LITEMATUBE 
 
 CORNEILLE AND RACINE 
 IN ENGLAND 
 
j2^^^ 
 
CORNEILLE AND RACINE 
 IN ENGLAND 
 
 A STUDY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF 
 THE TWO CORNEILLES AND RACINE, WITH 
 ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THEIR PRESEN- 
 TATION ON THE ENGLISH STAGE 
 
 BY 
 DOROTHEA FRANCES CANFIELD 
 
 Submitted in partial fulJUment of the requirements 
 for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty 
 . of Philosophy, Columbia University. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 1904 
 
 \B R A R y 
 ^ or THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY } 
 
COPTBIGHT, 1904, 
 
 By the MACMILLAN COMPANY. 
 
 Set up and electrotyped. Published September, 1904. 
 
 '^- 
 
 Norinaati ^rees 
 
 J. S. Cashing & Co. — Berwick & Smith Co. 
 
 Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. 
 
STo ilHg Parmte 
 
 A. ^C- / (/ <i>- 'it 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2008 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/corneilleracineiOOfishrich 
 
PEEFACE 
 
 In the following pages an attempt is made 
 to bring to light a forgotten movement in the 
 literary history of our own language, and a 
 forgotten phase of the renown of Racine and 
 Corneille. It is comparatively well known 
 that even during the Elizabethan period there 
 were translations of French plays, and the suc- 
 cess of Moliere and Voltaire in English dress 
 is an old story. But most Englishmen, even 
 those who know and admire Racine and Cor- 
 neille in their own tongue, would deny that 
 they ever played any part on the English stage. 
 Most Frenchmen, even those fully aware of the 
 importance of French translations in German 
 theatrical literature, would be surprised to learn 
 that there was a time when plays by Racine 
 and Corneille enjoyed the greatest popularity 
 in London. However, such are the facts. The 
 movement (it is so small an activity that it 
 scarcely deserves the name of school) has passed 
 vii 
 
viii PREFACE 
 
 completely out of sight ; but such as it was, it 
 did exist, and cannot have existed without exert- 
 ing an appreciable influence. This study of the 
 translations of Racine and the two Corneilles 
 into English is, however, held strictly within 
 the limits of its title. The influence of French 
 drama upon the English stage is both too ex- 
 tensive and too vague a matter to be set down 
 in a chronological and historical way, and too 
 well known to need emphasizing; but the 
 careful collection and study of the concrete 
 examples of English deference to French taste 
 in this one certain direction has not been 
 undertaken before, and ought to be worth the 
 doing as furnishing a reliable basis for further 
 generalization. 
 
 The translations are treated chronologically, 
 in all but a few instances, as this seems the 
 most satisfactory way of arranging them. The 
 translations of Athalie are discussed together, 
 as they are quite separated in spirit and gen- 
 eral result from the others. Comparatively 
 little space is given to them, because the life 
 of the great French tragedy writers on the 
 English stage is the real subject of this study, 
 and the religious dramas were never regarded 
 by English people as stage possibilities. The 
 reason for this is quite obvious when the dif- 
 
PREFACE ix 
 
 ference in the attitude of the two nations 
 toward religion is considered. 
 
 The collection of translations has been car- 
 ried down to the end of the first quarter of 
 the nineteenth century only, as after that time 
 all the English versions were merely literary 
 exercises. The motive prompting the work 
 had completely changed. English renderings 
 of foreign masterpieces may be said to be sin- 
 cere translations only when the motive of the 
 translator is to make it possible for the gen- 
 eral public, reading no language but English, 
 to know the foreign work in as perfect an 
 English reproduction as he can make. When 
 he produces his work with no such idea, but 
 addresses himself to a small circle who know 
 both languages and can make comparisons, 
 meaning to exhibit his dexterity in manu- 
 facturing English verse out of French, he is 
 performing a literary tour de force only, and 
 his production has nothing in common with 
 the sincere translation which forms the material 
 studied here. 
 
 There has been no attempt to collect and 
 classify small and unimportant thefts from the 
 French which abound in English theatrical 
 literature, or to set down the instances where 
 single scenes or characters are taken from Ra- 
 
X PREFACE 
 
 cine and Corneille and used in an English set- 
 ting. There is a certain interest in minute 
 investigation of this sort, but such use of the 
 French was always underhanded and as a rule 
 unrecognized. For a study which attempts to 
 ascertain the real life of these three French 
 dramatists in England such fragmentary and 
 elusive appearances have no significance. Con- 
 sequently such relations as that existing be- 
 tween Mrs. Centlivre's Love at a Venture and 
 Thomas Corneille's Le G-alant DoubU have not 
 been touched upon. The treatment of Le Men- 
 teur is, in portions, an exception to this rule, 
 admitted partly because this is a much more 
 important comedy, and partly to make complete 
 the story of its long life in England. 
 
 Foot-notes have been made as full as seemed 
 necessary, but page and volume references to 
 works arranged alphabetically have been omit- 
 ted unless the quotation given is not under its 
 natural heading in the work. Accordingly, 
 references to the Dictionary of National Biog- 
 raphy^ Baker's Biographica Bramatica^ Jacob's 
 Poetical Register^ catalogues in general, and 
 similar works, are given without stating volume 
 and page. The editions used are stated in the 
 Bibliography. 
 
 It is a pleasure as well as a duty to express 
 
PREFACE 3d 
 
 here my thanks for the courteous treatment 
 and helpful suggestions of the officials of the 
 British Museum, of the Yale University Library, 
 and of the Columbia University Library ; also 
 my gratitude to Professor Thomas R. Louns- 
 bury for valuable advice, to Professor Adolphe 
 Cohn for the suggestion of my theme and for 
 sympathetic criticism, and to Professor Henry 
 A. Todd for help in reading proofs. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. 
 
 11. 
 
 m. 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 
 XII. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XV. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 xvin. 
 
 Butter's Cid 
 
 During the Commonwealtli 
 
 The Matchless Orinda 
 
 The " Persons of Honour " 
 
 Comedies .... 
 
 The Last of the Restoration 
 
 An Interregnum 
 
 Le Menteur 
 
 Phcedra and Hippolitus 
 
 The Distressed Mother 
 
 CoUey Gibber . 
 
 John Ozell .... 
 
 Iphigenie .... 
 
 Miscellaneous Translations 
 
 The Roman Father 
 
 Esther and Athalie 
 
 The Last of the Movement 
 
 Summary .... 
 
 PAOS 
 
 1 
 
 19 
 
 28 
 
 51 
 
 70 
 
 80 
 
 102 
 
 115 
 
 129 
 
 140 
 
 167 
 
 186 
 
 198 
 
 212 
 
 229 
 
 249 
 
 256 
 
 275 
 
 zui 
 
I. RUTTER'S CID 
 
 The Restoration marks the real beginning of 
 the life of the two great French dramatists ^ in 
 English literature and on the English stage. 
 However, there is a curious and little-known 
 incident of theatrical history during the reign 
 of Charles I. which shows that the interest in 
 French plays, which is so prominent a feature 
 of his son's time, was a development sudden 
 only in appearance. In reality, the close rela- 
 tions existing between the French and English 
 courts during the reign of Charles I. was al- 
 ready preparing the way for the invasion of the 
 English stage by the numberless translations 
 and imitations from the French which fill the 
 literary annals of the Restoration. 
 
 The French queen of Charles I. was un- 
 doubtedly responsible for a great deal of the 
 interest felt in French plays at this time. As 
 
 1 Unless Thomas Comeille is specifically mentioned refer- 
 ence is always to Pierre Corneille. 
 
 B 1 
 
2 CORNEILLE AND EACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 early as 1629 there are records of a corapany of 
 French actors performing in turn at three of 
 the London theatres. The plays were pre- 
 sented in the original, and their production 
 in London may be almost surely connected 
 with the Queen's French sympathies. Her- 
 bert's Licenses of Acting Plays has this notice, 
 on the 17th of February, 1635: "French com- 
 pany being approved of by the Queen at 
 her house two nights before and commended 
 by her majesty to the King, acted Melise, a 
 French comedy. . . . " ^ This reference to the 
 Queen's interest in the theatre, and to her 
 influence with the King, is noteworthy. The 
 violent punishment of Prynne shows that the 
 Queen's taste for the theatre was a fact to be 
 reckoned with in the society of that time. It 
 will be remembered that he wrote a virulent 
 diatribe against playhouses and players as di- 
 rect agents of the devil. One of the charges 
 made against him was slandering the Queen. 
 The objectionable passage in his book was one 
 abusing all women actors or singers, in spite of 
 the well-known fact that the Queen was fond 
 
 1 Fleay's Chronicle History of London Stage, Chap. 6, 
 Sect. D. S. 339. 
 
BUTTER'S CID 3 
 
 of taking part in Court Masques. Prynne was 
 deprived of his University degree, set in the 
 pillory, and imprisoned. ^ 
 
 The most significant fact in connection with 
 this lively interest of the Queen in the theatre 
 in general, and in French plays in particular, 
 is the date of the first translation of the Cid^ 
 which is also the first translation from Corneille 
 into English. 2 
 
 It is a well-authenticated fact that this trans- 
 lation of the Cid was undertaken at the com- 
 mand of the Earl of Dorset, Lord Chamberlain 
 to the Queen. 
 
 This Earl of Dorset was a thorough French 
 scholar, as may be learned from the dedication 
 of this early translation of the Cid^ and also 
 from the fact that he was twice ambassador 
 to the court of Louis XIII. There was 
 among his dependents one Joseph Rutter, who 
 was tutor to his son. To this presumably 
 learned man, though, as the translation shows, 
 
 1 Green's History of the English People^ p. 528. Harper 
 and Brothers, New York, 1888. 
 
 2 The Melise spoken of might be identified with Cor- 
 neille's Melite, were it not that, in 1633, a Pastorale Comique 
 called La Melize was produced in Paris. Mulert conjectures 
 with much probability that this was the one given in England, 
 
4 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 lacking in poetic talent, the translation of 
 the Cid was intrusted. Of this translation, 
 Baker, in the Biographica Bramatica^ says: 
 "When executed it was so well approved by the 
 King, to whom it was shown, that at his Majesty's 
 own desire the second part of the same piece was 
 put into Mr. Rutter's hands with an injunction 
 to translate it, which he immediately obeyed." ^ 
 One might not see in this anything noteworthy 
 beyond a further proof of the interest of the 
 English Court in French tragedy were it not 
 for the date of the translation, which is given 
 clearly in the British Museum copies as Janu- 
 ary 26, 1637 (O.S.). Now the date of the 
 French privilege is given as the 21 Janvier^ 
 1637 (N.S.),2 while the play was not actually 
 printed until March 23, 1637 (N.S.). These 
 dates establish the curious and significant fact 
 that Corneille's epoch-making play was printed 
 in English as soon as in French. 
 
 It has never been possible to determine the 
 exact date of the first representation of Le Cid 
 
 1 This " Second part of the Cid " is a translation of La 
 vraie Suite du Cid, de Vabbe Desfontaines, 1637. The Eng- 
 lish translation was published in 1640, and as late as 1699 
 is still cited by Langbaine as a translation from Corneille. 
 
 2 Picot, Bibliographie Cornelienne, p. 12. 
 
RUTTER'S CID 6 
 
 in Paris. It is quite as impossible to ascertain 
 when the English translation was first acted, but 
 it must have been presented before it was 
 printed, as the title-page reads, "The Cid a 
 Tragicomedy, out of French made English: 
 and acted before their Majesties at Court and 
 on the Cockpitt Stage in Drury-lane, by the 
 servants to both their Majesties." 
 
 This early date of the English production 
 makes a different matter of the whole affair. 
 For it almost certainly presupposes the fact that 
 the Earl of Dorset obtained a manuscript copy 
 of the Oid while the play was still the very lat- 
 est novelty and sensation in Paris. This in its 
 turn indicates on his part an attention to theat- 
 rical affairs in Paris far keener than would be 
 shown by the simple translation of a printed 
 book that might be easily obtained in London 
 from any returned traveller. With all the 
 immense advance in means of communication 
 between France and England, it would have 
 been surprising if Cyrano de Bergerac had been 
 translated and played in London before it was 
 printed in Paris. 
 
 In regard to the partiality of the Queen for 
 French dramatic literature, it must be remem- 
 
6 CORNEILLE AND EAOINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 bered that at this time the English stage was 
 not in a condition to arouse any enthusiasm in 
 even the most broad-minded of French women. 
 Shakespeare was gone. Ben Jonson's pedantic 
 severity, the horrors of the tragedy of that time 
 and the grossness of the comedy, were not at- 
 tractive qualities to one fresh from Paris. It 
 can well be imagined that the Earl of Dorset 
 was heartily thanked for his prompt transfer- 
 ence of the French masterpiece to London, and 
 that the worthy Joseph Rutter went back to 
 his translation of the " Second part of the Oid " 
 with a heart warmed by the praises of his 
 patron. It must also have been a delight to 
 him (if he was aware of it) that Corneille 
 himself secured a copy of his work and val- 
 ued it highly. Jusserand says, " II (Corneille) 
 possedait toutefois une traduction anglaise du 
 Cid, et s'en faisait gloire : c'etait une grande 
 curiosite."^ 
 
 As this is the first translation from Corneille 
 made into English and as it kept its place on 
 the stage for many years, and later, almost a 
 century later, had the honor to be pirated under 
 the name of another author, it is worth while to 
 
 1 Jusserand, Shakespeare en France^ p. 91. 
 
BUTTER'S CID 7 
 
 examine it. In view of the circumstances sur- 
 rounding the inception of the translation, the 
 dedication and the preface are interesting. 
 The former is written in the usual flattering 
 style of the time. The following passage is 
 evidently a reference to the fact that the author 
 wrote for the King and Queen. "To give your 
 Lordship a testimony of my readiness to obey 
 you, I no sooner was commanded by you to 
 translate this Poem than I went about it, and 
 certainly your commands gave life to the work 
 which else despaire of performance or the con- 
 sideration to whom it must be presented would 
 have stifled in its first birth." He gives an idea 
 of the difficulty he found in accomplishing his 
 task, thus — " For how could I hope anything 
 from mine owne suficiencie being little exercised 
 in the French tongue and finding such a contu- 
 macy in their phrase to our manner of speak- 
 ing." Here Joseph Rutter speaks once for all 
 the feeling of the long line of translators of 
 Corneille of which he is the first. This " con- 
 tumacy " of the French tongue is very evident 
 to a reader of his translation, though it does not 
 seem to have diminished the admiration of his 
 contemporaries for his work. 
 
8 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 In his "Preface to the Reader" he speaks 
 again of the difficulties he has encountered, " I 
 have followed close both the sense and the words 
 of the Author, but many things are received wit 
 in one tongue which are not in another." One's 
 heart warms to the pedagogue when, later on, 
 he speaks with so much appreciation of the good 
 qualities of the original. " The Playe it selfe 
 ... I would willingly propose to be imitated 
 of our undertakers in the like kinds, I meane 
 for the conveyance and (as I may call it) the 
 Oeconomy of it : for what concerns the wit and 
 natural expressions in it I know I speak to 
 deafe people whose ears have been furr'd with 
 so many hyperboles which is the wit in fashion 
 though the same in Seneca's days were accounted 
 madness. But if they knew how dissenting 
 with a right eare any affected speech is, they 
 would rather trespasse the other way and not 
 straine nature beyond what we find it commonly 
 is." 
 
 Although his English is somewhat confusing 
 here, this comment on the literary fashion of 
 his day and on the merits of the Cid shows a 
 sound taste in Rutter which cannot have been 
 common among the men of letters of that day. 
 
RUTTER'S CID 9 
 
 In one direction at least it also promises well 
 for his translation, namely, that he will not 
 attempt, as have so many later translators, to 
 enliven the monotony of the French stage (as 
 they put it) by introducing exaggerated bom- 
 bast in the English style. 
 
 That Rutter was not merely the conscientious 
 scholar one is likely to think him, is shown by 
 his conclusion to the preface. He stops short 
 in his criticism of the lack of taste shown 
 by his countrymen, and takes himself to task : 
 " But this is no fit Porch for the Temple 
 of Love. I'le shut it up and open for you 
 the pleasant way into which you had rather 
 enter." 
 
 One is prepared for a most favorable view of 
 his translation, knowing that Rutter was a 
 serious man of learning and reading this 
 agreeably modest preface ; but an impartial 
 examination shows it to be a mediocre per- 
 formance, with flashes of excellence. It has 
 negative virtues, which recur to the mind in 
 reading some of the absurdly inelegant trans- 
 lations of later days ; but the positive literary 
 merit is slight. 
 
 An example of one of the best passages is 
 
10 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 the following translation of the famous scene 
 of the blow (Act I. Scene 3) : 
 
 Count. Take that, rash Dotard for thy impudence I 
 Don Diego. Nay, make it up and after this affront 
 
 Take my life too. 
 
 Count. What dost thou hope to do, thou feeble f oole ? 
 
 Thy sword is mine and yet I scorn to take it. 
 
 Goe now and bid the Prince read o're thy life 
 
 And let him not omit this part of it 
 
 In which hee'le finde the just revenge I take 
 
 Of this thy insolence a faire example.^ 
 
 It will be seen in this passage that Rutter 
 does not attempt a word-for-word, nor even 
 a line-for-line, translation. Any such feat of 
 linguistic agility would have been far beyond 
 his powers. When he cannot crowd into one 
 line all that Corneille has in one, he leaves out 
 
 1 Le Comte. Ton impudence 
 
 Tfim^raire vieillard, aura sa recompense. 
 
 D. Diegue. Achfeve, et prends ma vie apres un tel affront, 
 
 Le premier dont ma race ait vu rougir son front. 
 Le Comte. Et que penses-tu faire avec tant de f aiblesse ? 
 D. Diegue. O Dieu ! ma force us6e en ce besoin me laisse I 
 Le Comte. Ton ^pfie est a moi ; mais tu serais trop vain, 
 
 Si ce honteux troph^e avait charge ma main. 
 
 Adieu : fais lire au Prince, en d^pit de I'envie 
 
 Pour son instruction I'histoire de ta vie ; 
 
 D'un insolent discours ce juste chatiment 
 
 Ne lui servira pas de petit ornement. 
 
BUTTER'S CID 11 
 
 the rest or trails it into the following line. 
 But it is also evident that he has thoroughly- 
 understood his original, and that with a fair 
 degree of success in happy passages like the 
 one quoted, he has been able to reproduce the 
 spirit and fire of Corneille. 
 
 But given the problem of reproducing the 
 intricate rhythm and rhyme and the rhetorical 
 power of a passage like the celebrated mono- 
 logue of the hero at the end of the first act, poor 
 Rutter's moderate talents fail utterly. As an 
 example of his worst style, the following 
 limping prosaic blank verse stands as a pitiable 
 contrast to the polish and strength of the 
 original : 
 
 Strooke to the very heart, with a blow as f atall 
 As unforeseen : what shall I doe ? I must 
 Revenge my father and provoke my mistress. 
 
 If I revenge my father I must lose 
 My love : if not I must live infamous. 
 How can I live, having lost all I live for ? 
 
 It were unnecessary cruelty to point out all 
 the blemishes in this example of what Rutter 
 could do when he was at his worst. 
 
 Another fault of Rutter's is poetic short- 
 ness of breath. Many a passage starts out well, 
 
12 CORNEILLE AND EACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 but ends in a gasp with a line outrageously 
 false. This is especially noticeable where Cor- 
 neille's rhetoric begins to soar, which is, of 
 course, a frequent occurrence. In continued 
 narrative or in calm speeches like those of the 
 King or Elvire, this translator is safer, but in 
 a burst like the following how his powers fail 
 him ! (Act II. Scene 8.) 
 
 Chimena. My father's slaine, Sir and these eyes have 
 seene 
 His bloud gush out in bubles : that dear bloud 
 Which has so oft preserved your wals, so oft 
 Been fir'd to gaine you battailes and which yet 
 Reakes with just anger to have been spilt for any 
 But you, the King.^ 
 
 This was the translation received with such 
 pleasure by the King and Court. There is 
 no doubt about its success on the stage. As 
 shown in the title-page it was played at Court 
 
 1 Sire, mon pere est mort : mes yeux ont vu son sang 
 Couler h. gros bouillons de son gSn^reux flanc ; 
 Ce sang qui tant de fois garantit vos inurailles, 
 Ce sang qui tant de fois vous gagna des batailles, 
 Ce sang qui tout sorti fume encore de courroux 
 De se voir r^pandu pour d'autres que pour vous. 
 
 It will be noticed that this is a very faithful translation, 
 and more nearly a line-f or-line rendering than Rutter is usu- 
 ally able to accomplish. 
 
BUTTER'S CID 13 
 
 and at the Cockpit, and its popularity is attested 
 by the fact that in 1650, eight years after the 
 theatres were closed by act of Parliament, there 
 was demand enough for it to warrant the ap- 
 pearance of a second edition. It is true that 
 Langbaine,^ from the lofty eminence of fifty 
 years more of dramatic progress, says of it 
 with condescension in 1691, " To speak of the 
 translation in general, I think if the time be 
 considered when it was undertaken, it may pass 
 muster with candid readers." But we have 
 evidence that in spite of this judgment Rut- 
 ter's translation held the stage as late as 1662 ; 
 for Pepys notes under date of December 1, 
 1662, twenty-six years after the first appearance 
 of the play, "I saw The Valiant Qid acted, a 
 play which I have read with great delight, but 
 it is a most dull thing acted which I never 
 understood before : there being no pleasure in 
 it though done by Betterton and by Yanthe 
 and another fine wench." As a literary critic 
 Pepys is not very reliable, and his censure 
 probably need have little weight. But the 
 information he gives is highly interesting. 
 He had read the play many times, and had 
 
 1 Account of English Dramatic Poets, p. 431. 
 
14 COKNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 evidently heard but not understood criticisms 
 of it as a play for the stage. Betterton, the 
 greatest actor of his period, chose it as one of 
 his roles, and it was given to an audience made 
 up of the highest in English society of the time, 
 as is shown by some gossip Pepys retails 
 on the same date. Rutter's blank verse must 
 have been very much out of fashion at that 
 time, which makes the production of his play all 
 the more a proof of the enduring admiration 
 which his work had secured, and of the fact 
 that he had not been lost to sight even during 
 the Commonwealth, so dreary a time to play- 
 wrights and actors. 
 
 The distressing circumstances of the Civil 
 Wars put an end to most literary activity and 
 especially to writing for the stage. The play- 
 houses were closed, the actors went into the 
 King's army, and the playwrights were absorbed 
 in one way and another in the struggles of the 
 times. Sir John Denham, in the dedication of 
 a volume of verse and translations to Charles 
 II., says of this period, and of his own rea- 
 sons for not having written during the Civil 
 Wars, "That time was too hot and busie for 
 such idle Speculations, but after I had the good 
 
BUTTER'S CID 16 
 
 fortune to wait upon your Majesty in Holland 
 and France you were pleased sometimes to give 
 me Arguments to put off and divert the evil 
 hour of our Banishment, which now and then 
 fell not short of your Majesty's Expectation." 
 This passage may be said to sum up the influ- 
 ence of the exile of the Royalists upon the sub- 
 ject of translations from Corneille and Racine. 
 Although at first glance the period of Puri- 
 tan rule in England might be thought the last 
 epoch likely to encourage French influence, in 
 reality it probably contributed much to it. In 
 the first place, there was the reaction that was 
 bound to come after the severity and narrow- 
 ness of Puritan ways of thought. Then, the 
 people of rank and culture, very many of them, 
 were living in exile in France, Holland or 
 Flanders. Those who were still in England 
 had retired to their country houses, refused to 
 take any part in public life, and turned their 
 eyes toward France as the dwelling-place of 
 many of their friends and as the possible 
 source of aid for their party. Even during 
 the Civil War gentlemen of leisure were mak- 
 ing the grand tour as slowly as possible, to keep 
 out of the uncomfortable quarrels at home. 
 
16 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 John Evelyn and the poet Waller, with a party 
 of Englishmen, travelled together for some time. 
 Waller indeed had barely escaped from the 
 Puritans with his life. He finally returned to 
 Paris and kept open house in so brilliant a 
 manner that he soon drew about him the most 
 distinguished men and women of that capital. 
 The publisher of the Duke of Buckingham's 
 Rehearsal says in his remarks to the reader, 
 giving it as one of the literary advantages of 
 the Duke, " By travel he had the opportunity of 
 observing the Decorum of foreign Theatres ; 
 especially the French under the regulation of 
 Monsieur Corneille." The young Prince was 
 half French by birth, and certainly not inclined 
 by circumstances to have any great fondness 
 for the English. Children who were too young 
 when their parents left England to have been 
 under the influence of English taste were grow- 
 ing up in French schools and in French sur- 
 roundings. The French stage was in a position 
 of undisputed authority and in all the freshness 
 of the first glow of its golden period. Cor- 
 neille stood unapproached by any rival, and of 
 all French tragic poets he is the one most 
 calculated to inspire admiration in the English 
 
BUTTER'S CID 17 
 
 mind. His greatest plays were all written at 
 that time, and his force and power and lofty 
 dignity were eminently calculated to prevent 
 British minds from dwelling on the un-English 
 details of rhymed Alexandrines and the observ- 
 ance of the unities. 
 
 His spirit and fire and heroic strength are 
 qualities much more sympathetic to English 
 minds and much more likely to excuse the limi- 
 tations of French tragedy than Racine's melt- 
 ing passion, which seems sentimental gallantry 
 to the beef-eating type of Englishman, or his 
 constant elevation of thought and perfection of 
 style, which are monotonous and tiresome to 
 most British taste. ^ There is much in Cor- 
 neille to appeal to even conventional English 
 minds and little to repel them. To the Galli- 
 cized courtiers of Charles II. he must have 
 seemed as great a man as to the followers of 
 Louis XIV. The only notable translation 
 from Corneille made during the Restoration, 
 after the appearance of Andromaque in Paris, 
 was Charles Cotton's Horace, which appeared 
 
 1 Only La Thebaide and Andromaque had been published 
 before the height of the translation period in England was 
 
18 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 in 1671. The important part of the work of 
 Mrs. Philips, Waller, and Denham was pub- 
 lished before Racine's name was known, so that 
 the development of classic tragedy most com- 
 pletely French was unknown to the English 
 admirers of that form of composition. This 
 fact must be taken into account in explaining 
 the enthusiasm for it which existed at that time. 
 
 The French Court possessed in its stability, 
 prosperity, and clearly defined position all that 
 the scattered, impecunious Cavaliers wished for 
 their King, and they came to regard it as an 
 ideal in all respects. The great writers who 
 were its lights were looked upon as models. 
 
 The general condition, then, was that during 
 the Commonwealth the Cavaliers at home had 
 more leisure than usual to spend on such " idle 
 Speculations," as Sir John Denham put it, and 
 the Royalists abroad found themselves in an 
 atmosphere of keen and intelligent interest in 
 literary and dramatic affairs.^ All this was pre- 
 paring the ground for translations from the two 
 greatest French dramatists. 
 
 1 It is of interest in this connection to notice that Dutch 
 translations of Corneille — especially of the Cid — enjoyed 
 a considerable popularity in Holland at this time. 
 
II. DURING THE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Not only did these conditions prepare the 
 way for the translations of the Restoration, but 
 they created a feeling so strong that even in 
 those troublous times there were found admirers 
 of French taste enthusiastic enough to under- 
 take the work without waiting for more peace- 
 ful days. 
 
 The first attempt was made in 1654, at the 
 height of Puritan fanaticism. There appeared 
 that year a little book with the following title, 
 " The Extravagant SheepJierd — A Pastorall 
 Comedie Written in French hy T, Corneille 
 Englished hy T. i2." This T. R. is as com- 
 pletely hidden behind his initials now as ever. 
 Fleayi has no conjecture, and Baker (^Bio- 
 graphica Dramatical says, " There is no author 
 who wrote about that time whose name would 
 suit these initials excepting Thomas Rawlins. ^ 
 
 ^ Chronicle History of the London Stage. 
 2 This Thomas Rawlins was principal engraver to the mint 
 in the reign of both Charles I. and II. He was a friend of 
 19 
 
20 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Yet without further concomitant circumstances 
 I cannot think myself authorized to father this 
 play upon him." 
 
 There is a very quaintly worded dedication 
 to " The most virtuous Lady Mrs. Joanna 
 Thornhill" in which he begs her protection 
 for this "Innocent Stranger, who durst not 
 venture abroad without it. Such is his Inno- 
 cency that in this habit he might without Gaule 
 to the Spectator have entered the Theatre (had 
 not the Guilty Ones of this Age broken that 
 Mirror lest they should there behold their own 
 horrible shapes represented)." 
 
 The Halliwell-Phillipps Dictionary ^ says of 
 this dedication, " In it the author appears to 
 intimate that the comedy had been unsuccess- 
 fully performed in its English dress." The 
 passage above quoted is the only one which 
 speaks of anything but the virtues of Mrs. 
 Thornhill, and it would be hard to deduce from 
 this anything but indignation at the Puritan 
 
 the literary men of his day, and it seems from all the facts 
 of the case that it is not improbable that he did indeed bring 
 Thomas Corneille into English. But the cautious Baker is 
 undoubtedly right in saying that it is unsafe to attempt to 
 pierce the veil of anonymity which still covers T. R. 
 1 Dictionary of Old English Plays. 
 
DURING THE COMMONWEALTH 21 
 
 restrictions on the stage. It is true that there 
 were performances given even during the 
 period of Puritan rule, but these were done in 
 the greatest privacy and away from London. 
 Sir William D'Avenant's cautious opening at 
 Rutland House with declamation and music did 
 not come until 1656, two years later than the 
 date of the Extravagant SheepJierd^ and even 
 he did not venture to give plays complete until 
 1658. So that it seems very likely that T. R.'s 
 Pastorall Oomedie was printed before it was 
 ever acted. 
 
 The work itself is a very interesting attempt. 
 The honesty of the translator in giving so 
 clearly his original is in pleasing contrast to the 
 lack of candor — to call it by no harsher name 
 — of his immediate successor in translation. 
 T. R. has produced as exact an " Englishing," 
 to use his own term, as his capacity allowed. 
 The Dramatis Personse are exactly the same, 
 and, what is a little unusual, they are given in 
 the order of the original. Nothing is put in, 
 nothing is left out, and even the stage directions 
 are literally translated. The actual merit of 
 the work is slight, but the verses are not dis- 
 agreeable. The soliloquy of Lycis in the first 
 
22 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 scene is done in rhyme, but this seems to have 
 exhausted all the author's facility in this direc- 
 tion ; for the rest is in blank verse, of which a 
 fair sample of the best is the following passage 
 (Act IV. Scene 3): 
 
 Charita. And why should love in this our age in us 
 Be weakness and a virtue in the men ? 
 Why should we blush at our so faultless flames ? 
 Do we want eyes to see or hearts to love ? 
 
 This is not bad for second-rate versification, 
 and is infinitely better than the work of the 
 author next in chronological order, — Sir Will- 
 iam Lower, who wrote two translations of this 
 period. 
 
 Lower was a Cornishman by birth and a cousin 
 of the well-known physiologist. Dr. Lower. He 
 went to Oxford for a time, but showing no de- 
 sire for serious study he travelled abroad, espe- 
 cially in France. The Dictionary of National 
 Biography says that he had the reputation of 
 being a perfect master of the French tongue, 
 — a reputation which a reader of his transla- 
 tions will certainly consider unfounded. After 
 his return to England he became so deeply in- 
 volved in the Civil Wars (he was an ardent 
 Royalist) that he was compelled again to visit 
 
DURING THE COMMONWEALTH 23 
 
 the continent where, as Baker (^Biographica 
 Bramatica) puts it, "being strongly attached 
 to the Muses, he had an opportunity of enjoying 
 their society and pursuing his studies." His 
 cousin, Dr. Lower, made a remark about him 
 that seems to satisfy the feelings of the reader 
 of his translations more than either of the above- 
 quoted authorities. Some one asked him his 
 opinion of his literary cousin. " Sir," said the 
 doctor, "he is an ill poet and a worse man." 
 If he was a worse man than his translations of 
 Horace and Polyeuctes show him to have been 
 a poet, the Puritans certainly lost nothing by 
 his being of the opposite party. 
 
 Nowhere in either of these two plays does he 
 give any credit to Corneille. The title-page of 
 the first reads, Polyeuctes^ Or the Martyr^ a 
 Tragedy hy Sir William Lower ^ 1655 ; and the 
 second, IToratius, A Roman Tragedy hy Sir 
 William Lower ^ 1656 ; which method of an- 
 nouncing a translation is certainly lacking in 
 frankness. There might seem to be a possi- 
 bility that he thought, in the case of two such 
 well-known plays as these, that it was not neces- 
 sary to give the author's name, sure to be known 
 without explicit statement. But this charitable 
 
24 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 judgment is proved impossible by the way his 
 work was received by critics and theatrical 
 historians. Langbaine in two of his works,i the 
 Biographiea Bramatica? and even an authority 
 as late as Genest^ give Polyeuctes as an orig- 
 inal work of Lower's. This is singular, as a 
 more literal translation could scarcely be im- 
 agined. It is quite baldly faithful. 
 
 It is not necessary to examine both of 
 these plays, as they are exactly similar in lack 
 of merit. Horatius may be chosen as a little 
 the worse ; and this is an inducement to look 
 at it, for at his worst Lower is so bad as to be 
 highly entertaining. The printing is even 
 more careless than is usual in books of that 
 time, and the spelling more erratic. The lines 
 do not begin with capital letters, which detail 
 gives a singular air of illiteracy to the pages. 
 This feature is really in keeping with the 
 nature of the work, however, as the lines seem 
 in many cases to be nothing but prose cut up 
 into uncertain lengths. He is said to have 
 become a perfect master of the French tongue. 
 This may not be contradicted with absolute 
 
 1 Account, 1691, and Lives, 1699. 2 Baker, 1764. 
 
 8 Some Account^ Vol. X. p. 68. 
 
DURING THE COMMONWEALTH 25 
 
 certainty, as we possess nothing of his written 
 in French ; but he is no master of his own 
 tongue, as may be seen from translations like 
 the following. He translates milee^ referring 
 to a battle, as mixture^ which is quite deliciously 
 absurd, and he understands /ai6?g88es d'un grand 
 cceur to mean imbecility. (Act IV. Scene 2.) 
 
 Horace. When can I smother in my close embrace- 
 ments 
 The error wherewith I form'd such false sent'ments?^ 
 
 Such examples of his carelessness and lack of 
 form are innumerable and may be found on every 
 page. His style may be judged from the follow- 
 ing samples, from the last scenes of Act Second. 
 
 Father I do beseech you entertain 
 
 these passionate Women ; above all things see 
 
 they come not forth, their troublesome affection 
 
 would come with glory from their eyes and tears 
 
 to interrupt our combat and what they 
 
 do to us would with justice do ; we may be 
 
 perhaps suspected of this evil artifice.^ 
 
 1 Quand pourrai-je ^touffer dans tes embrassements 
 L'erreur dont j'ai form6 de si faux sentiments ? 
 
 2 Mon pere, retenez ces femmes qui s'emportent 
 Et de grace empechez surtout qu'elles ne sortent. 
 Leur amour importun viendrait avec 6clat 
 
 Par des cris et des pleurs troubler notre combat ; 
 Et ce qu'elles nous sont ferait qu'avec justice 
 On nous imputerait ce mauvais artifice. 
 
26 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 This is absolutely unintelligible without con- 
 sulting the French. As an example of his 
 best, his rendering of the heroic old Roman's 
 QuHl mourut! may be given : 
 
 What! I would have him dye; a brave dispaire 
 Would perhaps have assisted him had he 
 Deferred his defeat a minute longer.^ 
 
 Which tame reproduction of the fiery original 
 seems really good when compared with the rest 
 of the play. 
 
 Dr. Mulert says that it is not probable that 
 either of these plays was ever' presented on the 
 stage, because they were written five and six 
 years before the reopening of the theatres, and 
 because they are so poor as to make it unlikely 
 they could find any place on the stage where 
 Dry den's powerful heroic couplets were the ideal. 
 But when the translation of Le Menteur is ex- 
 amined, it will be seen that poor literary quality 
 was, then as now, no hindrance to the presenta- 
 tion of a play nor to its success on the stage. 
 The lack of merit in these translations, however, 
 
 1 Qu'il mourfit, 
 Ou qu'un beau dSsespoir alors le secourfit. 
 N'eut-il que d'un moment recul^ sa d6faite, 
 Borne efit €i€ du moins un peu plus tard sujette ; 
 
DURING THE COMMONWEALTH 27 
 
 and the fact that probably none of the three 
 ever attained any prominence, does not prevent 
 their appearance from having considerable sig- 
 nificance. That they found publishers and 
 readers in times when society was perturbed 
 and inimical to such productions, shows that 
 the translators of the Restoration found an 
 audience not unprepared to appreciate their 
 work. 
 
III. THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 
 
 The reign of Charles II. was the golden 
 period for translations from French tragedies. 
 The reasons for their success are so obvious as 
 to be scarcely worth repeating, although there 
 were several factors in the situation, not usually 
 recognized. The immense popularity of all 
 things French at this time has been empha- 
 sized too often to be mentioned again, were it 
 not for the fact that it is usually attributed 
 merely to the wish to flatter the King by im- 
 itating his tastes. Such passages as the fol- 
 lowing in the dedication of one translation 
 from the French have perhaps been given undue 
 weight, in estimating the influence of the Court : 
 "Though my humble respects to her Royal 
 Highness prompted me to undertake a transla- 
 tion in verse because she loves plays of that kind, 
 yet I presume not to beg her protection." 
 (Carlell's Eeraclius.^ This is undoubtedly true 
 to a great extent, but if the situation is critically 
 examined it may be seen that the most complete 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 29 
 
 literary sycophancy cannot explain all the phe- 
 nomena of the literary activity of that time. 
 
 After all, how did Charles acquire his French 
 tastes ? By living in and near France, by read- 
 ing and hearing French masterpieces, by breath- 
 ing in French influence during an impressionable 
 period of his life. And in this programme, by 
 how many exiled Englishmen he was followed I 
 There is no reason to suppose that their tastes 
 were any less sincerely and genuinely French 
 than his. Their efforts to introduce French 
 ways of thought into English literature lose an 
 element of artificiality if they are regarded as 
 spontaneous and as a result of their own taste, 
 even if this taste was an acquired one. If, as 
 seems entirely probable, in a great number of 
 cases the admiration of people of that day for 
 French models was a genuine one and not actu- 
 ated by a desire to follow Court fashions, one 
 can but have more respect for their attempts 
 to build English works with French material. 
 This view of the part that French influence 
 played in English literature during the Eesto- 
 ration serves also to explain the excellence of 
 the translations from Corneille which appeared 
 then ; for they are the best in the language — 
 
30 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 few of them poor and some of them admirable. 
 To regard them as part of a movement wholly 
 artificial, kept alive by deference to the opinions 
 of one man, could not explain the loving care 
 with which they are wrought nor the excellence 
 to which they often attain. Another factor that 
 deserves serious consideration in the analysis of 
 the situation is the fact that stories — novels — 
 were virtually unknown as early as this, and 
 consequently plays were quite as much read as 
 seen. People in all times have demanded the 
 equivalent of stories ; and before the introduction 
 of the novel they took the form of literature 
 most akin to stories, and read plays. This fact 
 is very well known, but its importance in con- 
 nection with the translations of the Restora- 
 tion is greater than appears at first sight. It 
 furnishes a key to the explanation of many phe- 
 nomena which otherwise would be perplexing. 
 The attempt of the translators of the Restora- 
 tion was not primarily to make plays out of 
 French tragedies, but English works of litera- 
 ture out of French masterpieces. It is true 
 that they were acted — these translations — but 
 the painstaking care with which they were writ- 
 ten, the conscientious attempt to follow faith- 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 31 
 
 fully the original, and the effort for felicitous 
 phrasing give evidence that the authors were 
 prepared for a closer scrutiny of their labor than 
 could be given while merely hearing their verses 
 recited. They expected their works to be well 
 and handsomely bound, to go into libraries, to be 
 read and re-read, as they undoubtedly were. 
 This is the keynote to the Restoration transla- 
 tions, and the great difference between them and 
 the eighteenth-century translations. 
 
 The first translation to appear after Charles's 
 return to England was one of the best and per- 
 haps the most noted of all ^ — the translation of 
 Pompee^ by Mrs. Katharine Philips, "the 
 matchless Orinda." Mrs. Philips is one of the 
 prominent figures in the literary world of her 
 day and one of the most interesting. Gosse 
 has devoted a chapter in his Seventeenth Century 
 Studies to her, where he makes the quaint, sen- 
 timental, industrious little lady a living being. 
 
 The facts of her biography, commonplace 
 enough, are as follows: She was the daughter 
 of a London family of no especial note, but which 
 
 1 Throughout this Study general statements of this kind 
 are to he interpreted as referring only to the works of the 
 three authors under consideration. 
 
32 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 gave her an excellent education. She was early- 
 interested in belles lettres, and when she mar- 
 ried it was a great grief that her husband's 
 means compelled them to leave London and go 
 to live on his estates in Wales, far from the 
 centre of literary activity. She paid frequent 
 visits to Dublin during the time she lived in 
 Wales, but these were her only opportunities to 
 come in contact with the world she loved till 
 1664, when she was finally enabled to make a 
 visit to London. She did this to try to ad- 
 vance her husband's interests, through the in- 
 fluence of some powerful friends whom she had 
 won through her literary successes. It was a 
 fatal journey, as, a short time after her arrival, 
 she was taken ill with smallpox and died. 
 
 This separation from all those who were in- 
 terested in the same things as she, has one good 
 aspect to a student of Mrs. Philips's life. She 
 became the most assiduous of letter- writers, and 
 as many of her letters have been preserved, they 
 form a valuable source of information about her 
 life and work, and especially about her transla- 
 tions which were perhaps the most ambitious of 
 her literary undertakings. 
 
 Dublin was at this time a brilliant edition of 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 33 
 
 London. The crowd of English people of rank 
 and fashion connected in various ways with the 
 government, whom the new order of things in 
 Ireland had sent there, set themselves to repro- 
 duce in miniature the London life they had 
 left. A fine new theatre was built, better than 
 D'Avenant's in London, and the first really 
 good one in Ireland. Society centred about 
 the castle of the Lord-Lieutenant, who was the 
 Duke of Ormond. The Earl of Orrery, a fine 
 scholar and much devoted to French models, 
 was Lord Chief Justice; and the Earl of Ros- 
 common, so much praised by Pope and Dryden 
 for his integrity and generosity, was another 
 prominent figure in the society in which Mrs. 
 Philips found herself during her visits to Dub- 
 lin. Her correspondence gives vivid pictures of 
 this world and shows it to have been one very 
 favorable to such a project as her translation of 
 PompSe. The brilliant, cultured people who 
 ruled it regarded themselves as exiles, and felt 
 that keen desire to keep in touch with the 
 movements of the great world centres which 
 characterizes exiles. They even exaggerated 
 the prevailing literary fashions. French plays 
 were received with favor in London — they were 
 
34 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 received with enthusiasm in Dublin. Elaborate 
 stage setting was coming into vogue in England; 
 in Ireland the Lord Chief Justice gave out of 
 his own pocket a hundred pounds for Roman 
 and Egyptian costumes for Mrs. Philips's 
 PompSe. 
 
 Translations of all kinds were in great favor, 
 and there are constant references to them in 
 Mrs. Philips's letters. ^ Such paragraphs as the 
 following are of frequent occurrence : " My 
 Lord Roscommon is a very ingenious Person of 
 excellent natural parts and certainly the most 
 hopeful young nobleman in Ireland. He has 
 translated the Scene of Qare Selve Beate in 
 Pastor Fido very finely; in many places better 
 than Sir Richard Fanshaw." "Above all forget 
 not my request for your Temple of Death (a 
 translation). And now I speak of that poem, 
 what progress have you made in your translation 
 from the Spanish ? " 
 
 It was at the request of the Earl of Orrery 
 himself that she completed her translation of 
 PompSe^ and naturally he was deeply interested 
 
 1 The collection printed under the title of Letters from 
 Orinda to Poliarchus is the source of all quotations made 
 from Mrs. Philips's letters. 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 35 
 
 in its success. Mrs. Philips had many misgiv- 
 ings about her tragedy when it was completed, 
 and sent it post-haste (which was very slow 
 haste at that time) to her Mentor, Poliarchus — 
 Sir Charles Cotterell. The stir that was made 
 about it seems to have alarmed her, and she 
 could not rest till she had the opinion of her 
 chief literary adviser. " I long to have your 
 opinion of it for I fear I have murthered him 
 more barbarously here than Achilles did in 
 Egypt, and that my Lord Orrery's commands to 
 me have prov'd no less fatal to him than the 
 Orders that Ptolemy gave to that Assassin." 
 The letter in which this passage is found was 
 written the 22d of October, 1662, but not un- 
 til the end of November did she have any reply 
 from Sir Charles, owing to the bad system of 
 posts and to terrible storms which drove back 
 from the coast of Ireland all vessels attempting 
 to make the crossing. Poliarchus evidently 
 replied in the most flattering way, for her im- 
 patience at not hearing from him suddenly turns 
 into the most grateful thanks for a favorable 
 judgment. After that long delay, however, it 
 would have been impossible to make any changes 
 even if he had suggested them ; for, she says, 
 
36 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 " In spight of all I could do to prevent it many 
 copies are abroad." She speaks in another 
 letter of the rapid way her tragedy is gaining 
 publicity, being copied over and over from the 
 manuscript. The interest in it can be deter- 
 mined from this detail. 
 
 The representation must have been the great 
 event in society during that winter (1663). 
 The English gentry in Dublin had many hours 
 of leisure and ample opportunity to think of 
 every embellishment possible to add lustre to 
 the production of their beloved Orinda's play. 
 On the 10th of January, 1663, Mrs. Philips 
 writes that songs between the acts are to be 
 added, " done by the greatest Masters in Eng- 
 land." Lord Roscommon himself wrote the 
 Prologue, and Sir Edward the Epilogue. The 
 grateful Orinda says of them, "They are the 
 best writ that ever I read in anything of that 
 kind." John Ogilby, manager of the new 
 theatre, added dances to be given after the 
 songs between the acts, and a Grand Masque 
 was presented at the end. The performance 
 was to be as dazzling as talent, ingenuity and 
 money could make it. Mrs. Philips's letters run 
 in a constantly ascending scale of enthusiasm 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 37 
 
 and anticipation, and it is with real regret that 
 the expectant reader turns the page of the last 
 letter before the performance and finds a gap of 
 two months between that and the next one. 
 It is an unequalled opportunity lost for Orinda 
 to display her rhetoric, and brandish her some- 
 what aggressive modesty in the face of the 
 admiring Poliarchus. She had written before 
 that she submitted to have her play put on the 
 stage only because she was forced to do so by 
 her powerful and noble friends. Lord Orrery 
 is " resolved to have Pompey acted here which, 
 notwithstanding all my Intreaties to the con- 
 trary, he is going on with. All the other Per- 
 sons of Quality here are also very earnest to 
 bring it on the stage, and seem resolv'd to 
 endure the Penance of seeing it played." 
 
 It may be that Mrs. Philips's modesty was too 
 great to allow her to describe the success of the 
 representation, for all evidence shows that it 
 was brilliant and that she received an ovation. 
 It is not hard to imagine the glow of the occa- 
 sion or the flood of felicitations that must have 
 poured in on the happy and glorified Orinda. 
 
 Mrs. Philips's next letter is dated the 8th of 
 April. She speaks of sending a "packet of 
 
38 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 printed Pompeys " to Sir Charles Cotterell for 
 him to distribute. She wishes one bound and 
 given to the Duchess, and "if you think the 
 King would allow such a Trifle a Place in his 
 Closet, let him have another." She speaks 
 with much more confidence under her cover of 
 self-depreciation and with the air of one who 
 knows herself a personage. E vidently the trans- 
 lation has been the sensation of the day. " I 
 have had many Letters and Copies of Verses 
 sent me, some from my Acquaintances and some 
 from Strangers to compliment me upon Pom- 
 pey^ which, were I capable of vanity would 
 even surfeit me with it, for they are so full of 
 Flattery that I have not the confidence to send 
 them to you." Five hundred copies were 
 printed in Dublin and soon all sold. Herring- 
 man, the London publisher, "has written me 
 to give him leave to reprint it at London." 
 
 On the earlier pages of the large volume con- 
 taining all her works, published in London in 
 1678, there are many pieces of verse addressed 
 to Mrs. Philips. These are probably the ones 
 to which she refers, and for once they deserve 
 all that her excessive modesty feels about them 
 — flattery could go no farther. One or two 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 39 
 
 examples will show their spirit. The Earl of 
 Orrery says : 
 
 The French to learn our language now will seek 
 To hear their greatest wit more nobly speak, 
 And all those wreaths once circled Pompey's brow 
 Exalt his fame less than your verses now. 
 From these clear truths all must acknowledge this, 
 If there be Helicon in Wales it is. 
 Oh, happy country which to our Prince gives 
 His title and in which Orinda lives. 
 
 An unknown woman writes a long poem exalt- 
 ing Mrs. Philips to the skies : 
 
 Pompey, who greater than himself 's become 
 Now in your Poem than before in Rome, 
 He thanks false Egypt for its Treacherie 
 Since that his Rime is sung by thee. 
 If that all Egypt for to purge its Crime 
 Were built into one Pyramid o'er him 
 Pompey would lie less stately in that Herse 
 Than he doth now, Orinda, in thy Verse. 
 
 The absurdly exaggerated form of these trib- 
 utes is of course partly due to the taste of the 
 time ; but, making every allowance, it indicates 
 a very general and widespread admiration of 
 Mrs. Philips's Pompey ; which upon taking up 
 the translation itself is seen to be quite justi- 
 fied. 
 
40 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 After the obscure translations which had 
 preceded this effort of Mrs. Philips, one is 
 quite dazzled by the stir her Pompey made in 
 the literary world, and inclined to linger long 
 over the agreeable incidents of success which 
 form such a contrast to the silence which reigns 
 concerning the translations made during the 
 Commonwealth. All these flattering verses and 
 the tribute which by common consent was paid 
 to her, lead one to expect of her work either 
 something quite above the common order, or to 
 dread coming upon one of . those melancholy 
 wrecks which fill literary history — a favorite 
 of the hour who, honored beyond measure by 
 his contemporaries, is misled by flattery into a 
 franker and franker disclosure of his medioc- 
 rity, exaggerates his bad qualities because he 
 finds them unreproved, and leaves to posterity 
 (judging him with cool heads) a reputation 
 which would be pitiful were it not that as a 
 rule he is so completely forgotten as even to 
 escape ridicule. Mrs. Philips is neither for- 
 gotten nor ridiculous. True, she is not to us as 
 to her contemporaries " the matchless Orinda," 
 and some of her exaggerated expressions of lit- 
 erary bashfulness bring a smile to the lips of a 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 41 
 
 sceptical generation. But her two translations 
 of Pomjpee and Horace are proofs of good judg- 
 ment, taste, and real talent such as no one need 
 be ashamed to leave behind him. The con- 
 scientious, well-trained literary worker is every- 
 where apparent, and the poet of undoubted talent 
 shows herself if not on every page at least at 
 crucial points. 
 
 This is the first rhymed version of a French 
 tragedy made in English, and the ability with 
 which Mrs. Philips handles the heroic couplet 
 gives to the English a much closer resemblance 
 to the French than blank verse can ever do. 
 It would be difficult to think of Mrs. Philips's 
 using blank verse in any work of this kind, for 
 she seems to have imbued herself with the spirit 
 of the original so thoroughly that the rhyme, an 
 essential element in the French, would have 
 come inevitably to her lips in translating. She 
 was from the first a copious writer, much given 
 to inditing extremely affectionate poems to her 
 women friends, and her long practice in rhyming 
 laments for her beloved Lucasia stands her in 
 good stead in rendering the swelling Cornel- 
 lian Alexandrines. 
 
 Any passage chosen at random will show the 
 
42 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 conscientious fidelity of Orinda to her text; 
 and passages chosen with only a little care will 
 show that higher fidelity to the spirit of the 
 original and success in reproducing it which 
 make her the best of Restoration translators, 
 and perhaps the best who ever translated 
 French tragedy. (Act IV. Scene 4.) 
 
 Oh, truly Roman heart 
 And worthy Him of whom you were a part, 
 His Soul which sees from its exalted State 
 How I endeavor to revenge his Fate 
 Forgets his hate and is become so kind 
 To save my life by what he left behind. 
 Whatever Treason could to Pompey do 
 Yet he doth still subsist and act in you 
 And prompts you to a thing so brave that he 
 May vanquish me in generosity.i 
 
 There could scarcely be a translation more 
 faithful. In one of her letters to Poliarchus 
 Mrs. Philips sets up for herself the following 
 
 1 Cesar. O cceur vraiment romain 
 Et digne du h^ros qui vous donna la main ! 
 Ses mS-nes qui du ciel ont vu de quel courage 
 Je pr^parais la mienne h venger son outrage, 
 Mettant leur haine has, me sauvent aujourd'hui 
 Par la moiti6 qu'en terre 11 nous laisse de lui. 
 II vit, il vit encore en I'objet de sa flamme ; 
 n parle par sa bouche, il agit dans son S-me ; 
 II la pousse, et P oppose a cette indignity 
 Pour me vaincre par elle en g6n6rosit6. 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 43 
 
 ideal of Translation : " I think a Translation 
 ought not to be us'd as Musicians do a ground 
 with all the liberty of Descant, but as Painters 
 when they copy." This is an ideal of fidelity 
 which she has successfully realized in almost 
 every instance. In the passage just quoted 
 there is only one line where the translator has 
 deviated in the slightest from a word-for-word 
 rendering of Corneille, and yet she has repro- 
 duced his ten lines in ten of her own. An 
 example of her power to reproduce the elo- 
 quence of her original with the very same 
 shade of rhetorical grandeur is found in Act III. 
 Scene 4, in Cornelia's Roman speech: 
 
 How rude soever Fortune makes her blow, 
 1 Crassus's widow once and Pompey's now, 
 Great Scipio's daughter (and what's higher yet) 
 A Roman, have a Courage still more great. 
 And of all strokes her cruelty can give 
 Nothing can make me blush but that I live 
 And have not f ollow'd Pompey when he dy'd ; 
 For though the means to do it were deny'd 
 And cruel Pity would not let me have 
 The quick assistance of a Steel or Wave, 
 Yet I'm ashamed that after such a Woe 
 Grief had not done as much as they could do.^ 
 
 1 Cornelie. De quelque rude trait qu'il m'ose avoir 
 frapp^e 
 
44 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 This passage — line-for-line, spirited rendering 
 as it is — is not an example of Mrs. Philips's 
 best work, as the rhymes are not as pure as she 
 usually finds them. 
 
 If it did not smack too strongly of her circle 
 of adoring friends, one might almost venture to 
 say that in one or two places she has improved 
 on Corneille. (Act IV. Scene 3.) 
 
 Ccesar. But yet my passion its own harm procures, 
 For I must quit you if I will be yours 
 While there are flying foes I must pursue, 
 That I may them defeat and merit you. 
 To bear that absence therefore suffer me 
 To take such courage from the charms I see 
 That frighted Nations may at Caesar's name 
 Say, He but came and saw and overcame.^ 
 
 Veuve du jeune Crasse et veuve de Pomp^e, 
 Fille de Scipion, et pour dire encore plus, 
 Romaine, mon courage est encore au-dessus ; 
 Et de tons les assauts que sa rigeur me livre, 
 Rien ne me fait rougir que la honte de vivre. 
 J'ai vu mourir Pomp^e et ne I'ai pas suivi ; 
 Et bien que le moyen m'en ait €t6 ravi 
 Qu'une piti4 cruelle ^ mes douleurs profondes 
 M'ait 6t6 le secours et du fer et des ondes, 
 Je dois rougir pourtant, apr^s un tel malheur, 
 De n'avoir pu mourir d'un exchs de douleur. 
 1 Cesar. Mais, las ! centre mon feu mon feu me soUicite. 
 Si je veux §tre k vous, il faut que je vous quitte. 
 En quelques lieux qu'on fuie, il me faut y courir, 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 45 
 
 Corneille has lost nothing at least, in the ren- 
 dering of these last two lines. 
 
 It is not surprising that so good a piece of 
 work was very popular, and it is with real sat- 
 isfaction that one notes its continued success 
 on the Irish stage. Later on it was played to 
 delighted audiences in London. Ballard and 
 Langbaine both speak of having heard it acted 
 "with great commendation at the Duke of 
 York's theatre as late as 1678." 
 
 The embellishments which the taste of that 
 period added to it probably had something to 
 do with its remaining on the stage ; but its 
 success as a book-play, as pure literature (to- 
 gether with the rest of Mrs. Philips's work), is 
 attested by the fact that there were editions of 
 her works published in 1667, in 1669, 1678, and 
 1710, four in all, covering a period of thirty- 
 seven years after her death. 
 
 The translation of Horace^ which was the last 
 work of Mrs. Philips's life and which she left 
 unfinished, was no less admirable than her 
 
 Pour achever de vaincre et de vous conqu6rir. 
 Permettez cependant qu'k ses douces amorces 
 Je prenne un nouveau coeur et de nouvelles forces, 
 Pour faire dire encore, aux peuples pleins d'effroi, 
 Que venir, voir et vaincre, est m§me chose en moi. 
 
46 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Pompey, At the time of her death she had 
 completed all but the last act, which was after- 
 wards translated by Sir John Denham. The 
 edition of her complete works published in 1667 
 does not contain the completed tragedy, but by 
 1669 the fifth act had been added. The se- 
 quence of these events aids in determining the 
 date of the first presentation. Evelyn's inval- 
 uable testimony is another help. He writes on 
 the 4th of February, 1668, " I saw the tragedy 
 of Horace written by the virtuous Mrs. Philips 
 acted before their Majesties." If this was not 
 the first time, it must have been one of the first, 
 as Denham died in March, 1668. 
 
 Sir John Denham was one of the popular 
 poets of the Court, and the publishers of that 
 time undoubtedly thought themselves very 
 fortunate in securing his name for their edition 
 of Mrs. Philips's complete works. As a matter 
 of fact his method of translation was not 
 suitable for a continuation of Mrs. Philips's 
 work. It is smooth and flowing, but very much 
 less exact and faithful. He gives himself no 
 trouble to find a rendering of a difficult pas- 
 sage, but either omits it or uses swelling gen- 
 eralities which reproduce in no way the vigor 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 47 
 
 and precision of the original. The last edition 
 of Mrs. Philips's works (published in 1710) 
 seems to have found a very discriminating 
 publisher, for he inserted in place of Sir John 
 Denham's work the fifth act of Charles Cotton's 
 Horace, which is much more in keeping with 
 Orinda's general spirit of careful accuracy. ^ 
 Much might be written about this second of 
 Mrs. Philips's translated tragedies, but, in 
 general, all that has been said of her Pompey 
 applies equally to her Horace — it is a dignified, 
 faithful, and spirited rendering of the French; 
 in some respects better than the Pompey, for 
 she seems to have more confidence and less 
 constraint. 
 
 It was no less prosperous on the stage than 
 Pompey ; although there were no such pictu- 
 resque incidents surrounding its first represen- 
 tation. The quotation already given from 
 Evelyn, shows that it was in favor at Court. 
 Langbaine says it was repeatedly "acted at 
 Court by Persons of Quality," but he does not 
 give an exact date. If it were not for that 
 note in Evelyn's diary, an entry made by 
 
 1 This change from Denham's fifth act to Cotton's has 
 apparently passed unnoticed by most bibliographers. 
 
48 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Pepys would be misleading. He says, on 
 the 19th of January, 1669, "To the King's 
 House to see Horace this third day of its act- 
 ing." He must mean of course the third of 
 its run that year, for Evelyn's testimony is 
 unequivocal. Horace^ as well as Pompey^ was 
 enlivened by songs and dances between the 
 acts, of which diversions Evelyn gravely says, 
 " 'Twixt each act a masque and antique daunce." 
 Pepys, however, in his account makes remarks 
 on the play and the hors cfceuvre with which it 
 was served up, which are deliciously graphic 
 in their delineation of one Englishman who was 
 not under the domination of French taste. 
 The picture he presents not only of his own 
 ideas but of the concessions made to English 
 taste is amusing beyond expression. After not- 
 ing the play as quoted above, he says suc- 
 cinctly : " A silly tragedy ; but Lacy hath 
 made a farce of several dances, between each act 
 one ; his words are but silly and invention not 
 extraordinary as to the dances ; only some 
 Dutchmen came out of the mouth and tail of a 
 Hamburgh sow. Thence not much pleased 
 with play." Probably no better picture of the 
 common English audience of the period could 
 
THE MATCHLESS ORINDA 49 
 
 be drawn than is shown by these few remarks. 
 Pepys is unmistakable when he shows them thus 
 yielding to the French tastes of the gentry 
 to the extent of considering it the proper thing 
 to go to hear tragedies but welcoming gladly, 
 as a rest from the monotony of a masterpiece 
 like Horace^ the antics of clowns. 
 
 Such unworthy companions* would never 
 have been thrust upon the exalted Romans of 
 Corneille's play if Mrs. Philips had been alive 
 to defend her work. It is true that there were 
 songs and dances between the acts of Pompey^ 
 but that was a very different matter. They 
 were of Mrs. Philips's own invention, and are 
 quite dignified enough to be in harmony with 
 the general atmosphere of the play. Moreover, 
 they are linked to the action ; sometimes in 
 the most naive manner, it is true, but always 
 with an idea of unity. " After the first act the 
 King and Photin should be discovered sitting 
 and hearing to this song." This is a harmless 
 enough addition, and has nothing in common 
 with the appearance of Dutch clowns from the 
 head and tail of a sow, which so pleased the 
 honest Pepys. 
 
 In spite of what has been said of the French 
 
50 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 training of many of the nobility, during the 
 exile of Charles II., it is evident that people 
 in Pepys's station in life, except for a thin 
 veneer were no less English than the sim- 
 ilar class during the reign of Elizabeth. The 
 gentry might be, and probably were, sincere 
 in their admiration for translated French 
 tragedy, but the people of the middle class no 
 less sincerely disliked them. 
 
IV. THE "PERSONS OF HONOUR" 
 
 All through Mrs. Philips's correspondence at 
 the time of the production of her Pomjpey^ there 
 was a note of uneasiness about the reception 
 which her translation would meet. This can- 
 not be accounted for wholly by her usual 
 self -depreciation, and was not without good 
 ground. She seems to have known from the 
 beginning of her undertaking that she was not 
 the first in the field, for she writes to Cot- 
 terell on the 29th of August, 1662 (the sum- 
 mer before her translation was presented), 
 " You will wonder at my Lord's Obstinacy in 
 this desire to have me translate Pompey^ as 
 well because of my Incapacity to perform it 
 as that so many others have undertaken it." 
 She refers to a translation which appeared in 
 1664, with the title, " Pompey the Great," writ- 
 ten by a group of authors vaguely designated 
 as "certain Persons of Honour." Waller, the 
 Earl of Dorset, Sir Charles Sedley, Sidney Go- 
 dolphin, and Sir Edward Filmore are all said to 
 51 
 
(^ or THE X 
 
 UNIVERSITY ) 
 
 •*^«^=«^COfRNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 have worked together to perfect this transla- 
 tion, and they formed a brilliant company at 
 that time, who had all the advantages of 
 reputation and prestige at Court in their favor. 
 Mrs. Philips must have known very well that 
 the publication of their version of Pompee could 
 not fail to make a great stir in literary circles. 
 She seems to have been alarmed lest their 
 work appear first; for on December 23d, 1662, 
 she writes, urging the immediate presentation 
 of a copy of her Pompey to the Duchess of 
 York, "The other Translation done by so 
 many eminent hands will otherwise appear 
 first and throw this into everlasting obscu- 
 rity: unless it gets as much the start of that 
 in Time as it comes behind it in Merit." 
 On October 19th, 1662, when she had just 
 finished the first draft of her tragedy, she 
 writes, " Artaban will soon bring you my trans- 
 lation of Pompey which I fear will not be 
 deemed worthy to breathe in a place where 
 so many of the greatest Wits have so long 
 clubb'd for another of the same play." 
 
 These references show without doubt that 
 it was a well-known undertaking. It is not 
 impossible that Lord Orrery's eagerness to have 
 
THE "PERSONS OF HONOUR" 53 
 
 this tragedy translated and played in Dublin 
 may have had in it an element of rivalry with 
 London literary circles. If he had any notion 
 of outdoing the Court in its own speciality, 
 he must have derived much satisfaction from 
 the outcome of the competition, for not only 
 did his " matchless Orinda " complete her work 
 eight months before the others, but she pro- 
 duced a more creditable translation. There 
 seems to be little doubt that she realized her 
 own superiority after she had recovered from 
 the first feeling of alarm at the famous names 
 of her rivals. 
 
 There is a difference of opinion among the 
 authorities as to the complete list of collabora- 
 tors working on this version, but two names 
 at least are assured. No one doubts that 
 Waller wrote the first act, and Charles Sack- 
 ville the fourth. These were two great 
 names at the Court of Charles II. Probably 
 the critics of that year would have called 
 Waller "the most polite poet of the time," 
 and his sweet notes are still sounding faintly 
 in our own day, audible even to those who 
 make no special study of that period. In the 
 biography of Sir Charles Sedley, preceding an 
 
64 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 edition of his works published in 1722, there 
 is a list of eminent men of letters at the 
 Court, who were at the same time people of 
 high birth. "... among the Gentry, Sir John 
 Denham, Mr. Waller, Mr. Godolphin, Sir Henry 
 Saville, Sir Fleetwood Shepherd, Mr. Butler, 
 and Sir Charles Sedley." (Vol. I. p. 5.) Of 
 these seven names, three are connected with 
 the Persons of Honour translation; while Sir 
 John Denham finished Mrs. Philips's Horace 
 after her death. This is a larger proportion 
 of authors interested in serious translations 
 than would be found among a similar list of 
 literary people of the present day. 
 
 Waller, Denham, and Sedley were among 
 the bright literary lights of their day, and on 
 this account it is interesting to observe the 
 prominence given to translations in their works. 
 Not only do they make many English versions 
 of foreign poems themselves, but the titles in 
 the collections of their " occasional verse " show 
 that it was a common practice among their 
 friends. Such titles as the following are not 
 rare: "To his worthy Friend Sir Thomas 
 Higgon, upon his translation of The Venetian 
 Triumph'" ; "To his worthy friend Master Eve- 
 
THE "PERSONS OF HONOUR" 55 
 
 lyn, upon his translation of Lucretius''' ; "To 
 Mr. Creech, upon his translation of Lucretius, ''' 
 St. Evremond's well-known letter to Corneille, 
 quoted by Marty-La veaux ^ is significant in 
 this regard also: "M. Waller, un des beaux 
 esprits du siecle attend toujours vos pieces 
 nouvelles et ne manque pas d*en traduire un 
 acte ou deux en vers anglais, pour sa satisfac- 
 tion particuliere." 
 
 The admiring way in which all critics of 
 the day speak of Sir Richard Fanshawe's 
 translation of Guarini's Pastor Fido is another 
 instance of the seriousness with which such 
 efforts were regarded. It all shows that an 
 importance was attached to translation which 
 is quite incomprehensible to modern minds. 
 
 To return to the enumeration of the com- 
 posers of the particular translation under con- 
 sideration — Waller, then, was a famous per- 
 sonage, and Sackville and Sedley were no less 
 well known in their way. Sedley is noted 
 among the comedy writers of the later Res- 
 toration, and Sackville, under the name of Lord 
 Buckhurst, is a familiar figure to students of 
 that time, although not so largely through his 
 
 1 In his edition of Corneille' s works, Vol. X. p. 499. 
 
56 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 literary achievements as by his gay life. He 
 is the Lord Buckhurst who was ranked by 
 Pepys with Sedley as disgracefully riotous. In 
 his later years he became more decorous and 
 was noted for his generosity to literary folk. 
 Of the other two authors little is known. Sir 
 Edward Filmore is quite obscure, and Sidney 
 Godolphin's connection is doubtful. He is not 
 mentioned by Mrs. Philips as among the au- 
 thors, but almost all literary historians include 
 him in the list. Mulert^ excludes him on the 
 ground that a Sidney Godolphin died in 1643. 
 There is his nephew of the same name, how- 
 ever, who at this time was just entering the 
 Court as a young man, and who afterwards 
 became a noted financier. In the full study of 
 his life by the Honorable Hugh Elliot, it is 
 stated that he spent his youth on the continent 
 with Charles II. in exile, and returned with 
 him to England. There is, therefore, no reason 
 to say positively that he did not collaborate in 
 the Englishing of Pompee^ nor, on the other 
 hand, does there appear to be more than a 
 vague tradition that he did. At least, the trans- 
 lation which Mrs. Philips so much feared was 
 
 1 Pierre Corneille auf der Englischen Biihne, p. 38. 
 
THE "PERSONS OF HONOUR" 67 
 
 undoubtedly written by a very distinguisbed 
 company of "Gentry." 
 
 The number of hands at work on this trag- 
 edy did not finish it as soon as the single efforts 
 of the industrious Orinda. It was probably not 
 until October of 1663 (eight months after Mrs. 
 Philips's had appeared on the stage) that Pom- 
 pey the Gireat was acted; and the first edition 
 was not published till 1664, sometime in the 
 following year. 
 
 There are three epilogues and a prologue 
 attached to it which have a certain interest in 
 showing where the tragedy was performed. 
 The prologue and one epilogue are as given " at 
 the House." The second epilogue is " To the 
 King at Saint James's," and the third " To the 
 Dutchess at Saint James." These show that 
 the tragedy was accorded the honor of presen- 
 tation at Court. The versification of these 
 productions is not at all remarkable, although 
 they are smooth and flowing enough. There is 
 one passage in the prologue which has a certain 
 interest as showing the value accorded to 
 PompSe in English minds, and explaining the 
 curious prominence given it by these two 
 famous translations : 
 
58 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Who nothing will but what is Home-bred taste 
 Must live content with Acorns and with Mast. 
 For your Diversion we this Night present 
 A fruit which grew upon the Continent ; 
 Of all that's French 'tis ranked among the best, 
 And may prove better in our language dressed. 
 
 The three epilogues are all equally uninterest- 
 ing, composed of the usual flowery compli- 
 ments to the King and the ladies. The only 
 reference which tells anything of the transla- 
 tion's fate is made in the opening lines of the 
 Epilogue to the King : 
 
 From Vulgar Wits that haunt the Theatre 
 Pompey to you appealing (Royal Sir) 
 Hopes for more Favour, as the Subject bears 
 Better proportion to a Princes Ears. 
 
 This probably indicates that the success of the 
 tragedy had not been extraordinary. We have 
 a criticism of Pepys (written on June 23, 1666) 
 showing that he did not like this any more than 
 Mrs. Philips's tiresome Horace, He speaks of 
 " Pompey the Grreat, a play translated from the 
 French by several noble persons among others 
 my Lord Buckhurst, that to me is but a meane 
 play and the words and sense not very extraor- 
 dinary." This is not quite so laconic as his 
 
THE *'PERSONS OF HONOUR" 59 
 
 disposing of Orinda's Horace as " a silly trag- 
 edy," but its meaning is no less plain. 
 
 Mrs. Philips's comments on the work are 
 interesting not only because they come from a 
 rival, but because they are very sensible and 
 discriminating. After the purely formal recog- 
 nition of what she politely terms the superi- 
 ority of the other translation, she makes one 
 or two keen and penetrating criticisms ^ of their 
 method of work which deserve to be printed 
 in full. "I cannot but be surpriz'd at the 
 great Liberty they have taken in adding, omit- 
 ting, and altering the Original as they please 
 themselves; This I take to be a Liberty not 
 pardonable in Translators and unbecoming the 
 Modesty of that attempt. For since the differ- 
 ent ways of writing ought to be observ'd with 
 their several Proprieties, this way of garbling 
 is fitter for a Paraphrase than a Translation. 
 What chiefly disgusts me is that the Sence most 
 commonly languishes through three or four 
 lines and then ends in the middle of the fifth." 
 What this conscientious lady would have said 
 of some of the eighteenth-century treatment of 
 the French tragic poets is unimaginable. 
 
 1 September 17, 1663. 
 
60 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 In an undated letter ^ she speaks with rather 
 more severity than is warranted. "... in the 
 second and fourth Acts (which are all I have) 
 unless the Parts acted were much reformed from 
 this Copy, there are as many Faults as ever I 
 saw in a good Poem. . . . the Rule that I 
 understood of Translations till these Gentle- 
 men informed me better was to write Cor- 
 neille's sense as it is to be suppos'd Corneille 
 would have done, if he had been Englishman, 
 not confined to his Lines nor his Numbers (un- 
 less we can do it happily) but always to his 
 Meaning." That Mrs. Philips was not only 
 exacting of others but of herself is shown by 
 an extract from a letter of December 11, 1662, 
 where she refers to Poliarchus's criticism of her 
 use of "effort." "I had it once in my mind to 
 tell you that I was loth to use the Word Effort 
 but not having Language enough to find any 
 other Rtyme without losing all the Spirit and 
 Force of the next Line and knowing that it has 
 been naturalized at least these twelve years ; 
 beside that it was not us'd in that place in the 
 French I ventur'd to let it pass." Naturally a 
 translator who sets such a severe standard for 
 
 "^ Letters from Orinda to Foliarchus, pp. 81-82. 
 
THE ♦* PERSONS OF HONOUR" 61 
 
 herself may be expected to find many faults in 
 the loose and easy work of the somewhat self- 
 satisfied poets constituting the Persons of Hon- 
 our. To Mrs. Philips the translations of PompSe 
 and Horace were the great literary events of her 
 life; no exertion to make them perfect was too 
 strenuous. Waller, Sedley, and Sackville re- 
 garded their work as an incident only, and 
 were not disposed to trouble themselves too 
 much over the details. They give a picture of 
 their own attitude in the Epilogue to the King : 
 
 They that translated this but practise now 
 
 To improve their Muse and make her worthy you ; 
 
 That she may hereafter adorn the Stage 
 
 With your own story. 
 
 This frame of mind can be divined before the 
 translation itself is approached, and it is at once 
 noticeable on opening the book at random. 
 
 To one who did not know the French, one 
 tragedy would, perhaps, read as well as the other; 
 but one who is looking for a reproduction of 
 Corneille could not fail to find more satisfaction 
 in Mrs. Philips's version. No better illustration 
 of the difference between the two can be given 
 than their treatment of the passage already 
 
62 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 quoted in the discussion of Mrs. Philips's Pom- 
 pey (p. 43). 
 
 The rendering of the Persons of Honour is as 
 follows : 
 
 Expect not that their Rage should make me bow 
 To call you Lord, that Homage is below- 
 Young Crassus, Pompey's Widdow, Scipio's Blood, 
 And what's yet more a Roman born, how should 
 I stoop to that who am so much above 
 The power of Fortune in my Birth and Love ? 
 For Life, 'tis that I Blush to own, that I 
 Could stay behind when I saw Pompey dye ; 
 Though Pity with rude Force impos'd restraint 
 From Steel or Waves, it is my shame to want 
 Those borrowed helps for loss of such a Friend, 
 Excess of Grief should Lingering Torments end. 
 
 Mrs. Philips's version (g.v.) is in this passage, 
 as most places, incomparably better. 
 
 Young Crassus, Pompey's Widdow, Scipio's Blood 
 And what's yet more a Roman born, how should .... 
 
 is not only a much less intelligible translation 
 of the original than that of the "Matchless 
 Orinda," but it misses entirely the force of the 
 brief, emphatic Romaine of Corneille, placed 
 at the beginning of the line. Mrs. Philips's 
 scrupulous care results in the reproduction of 
 rhetorical devices of this sort which add very 
 
THE "PERSONS OF HONOUR" 63 
 
 greatly to the value of her translation. The 
 two lines which follow this passage in the 
 Persons of Honour translation are padding pure 
 and simple, there being no foundation for them 
 in the text. The entire force of the line trans- 
 lated " Excess of Grief should lingering torments 
 end " is lost by its conversion to a general state- 
 ment. The careless translators have been blind 
 to the beauty of pitiS cruelle so faithfully re- 
 produced by Mrs. Philips, and have turned it 
 into commonplace with "Though Pity with 
 rude Force impos'd restraint ..." The same 
 characteristics of inexact and careless rendering 
 of passages which should have received the 
 most anxious attention are to be found through- 
 out this translation. 
 
 On analysis, many of the criticisms rising to 
 one's mind in the treatment of this transla- 
 tion are found to come from a comparison with 
 Mrs. Philips's. In other words, if she had not 
 written, this work would assume a much higher 
 rank. Its smooth, flowing versification and the 
 easy mastery of form which is shown at least 
 in the first and fourth acts, make it a most 
 agreeable production. It is a little hard to be 
 sure of the fate of this Pompey on the stage, as 
 
64 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 it is sometimes impossible to distinguish in the 
 scanty theatrical records of the time between 
 this and Mrs. Philips's. But it seems probable 
 that it soon disappeared from the theatre and 
 took its place in libraries as a book-play. 
 
 A translator, who, although producing an 
 English version of Corneille during the Res- 
 toration, really belongs to an earlier period, is 
 Lodowick Carlell, an old follower of Charles I. 
 Dibdin^ speaks of him as "Carlell, who, that 
 he might resemble most of the favorites of 
 Charles, was a complete courtier and an indif- 
 ferent writer." Later he disposes of the trag- 
 edy under consideration by saying, " Heraclitus 
 was a translation from Corneille." The real 
 title reads, Heraclius^ Emperour of the East. A 
 Tragedy written in French hy Monsieur de Cor- 
 neille Englished hy Lodowick Carlell Esq. (Lon- 
 don, 1664.) In his preface, which he calls " The 
 Author's Advertisement," he makes a most con- 
 fused and confusing statement in regard to the 
 way in which his tragedy was treated: "An- 
 other Translation formerly design'd (after this 
 seem'd to be accepted of) was perfected and 
 acted, this, not returned to me until that very 
 
 1 History of the English Stage^ Vol. IV. p. 129. 
 
THE "PERSONS OF HONOUR" 66 
 
 day.'* It would be difficult to understand ex- 
 actly what he meant by this without any fur- 
 ther complication^ but there is another element 
 of confusion introduced by the fact that there 
 has been preserved no trace of any other trans- 
 lation of Heraclius. At least, if there was an- 
 other it was never printed ; and this would 
 seem improbable, as we have several notes of 
 Pepys bearing testimony to the undoubted suc- 
 cess of some Heraclius acted at about this time. 
 On the 8th of March, 1664, he writes: "The 
 play hath one very good passage well managed 
 in it about two persons pretending and yet de- 
 nying themselves, to be son to the tyrant Pho- 
 cias, and yet heir of Maronicius to the crowne. 
 The garments like Romans very well. . . . 
 But at the beginning, at the drawing up of 
 the curtain, there was the finest scene of the 
 Emperor and his people about him, standing 
 in their fixed and different postures in their 
 Roman habits, above all that I ever saw at 
 any of the theatres." Three years later (Sep- 
 tember 4, 1666) he writes, "Soon as dined 
 my wife and I out to the Duke's Playhouse 
 and there saw Heraclius^ an excellent play, 
 to my extraordinary content, and the more 
 
66 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 from the house being very full and great com- 
 pany." He speaks again of seeing it for the 
 third time. There seems to be little doubt 
 that an English Heraclius, whether it was Car- 
 lell's or not, had a success in London that seems 
 out of proportion to the welcome given in gen- 
 eral to translated French tragedy. It may be 
 that the involved and complicated plot, which 
 is usually considered a blemish in this work of 
 Corneille's, appealed to an audience which found 
 the simpler and more classic tragedy " silly," as 
 Pepys called Horace. Probably also the play 
 was elaborately staged, and every use made of 
 the opportunity for attractive costumes. What 
 is curious about the popularity of this tragedy 
 (if this was indeed not Carlell's) is that it should 
 have been kept always in manuscript, when the 
 sorriest attempts at reproduction of French 
 masterpieces received the recognition of the 
 press. There could scarcely be a translation 
 made which would not be as good as Carlell's. 
 It is possible, however, that he insisted upon the 
 publication of his effort out of pique at its 
 refusal by the stage-manager. It was evidently 
 a complete surprise to him, for he had gone so 
 far as to prepare a prologue which he publishes 
 
THE "PERSONS OF HONOUR" 67 
 
 at the head of his play. This is written with 
 the same incoherence which characterizes the 
 preface, but is interesting because, after the 
 manner of prologues, it throws some light on 
 the dramatic fashions of the time. There is a 
 contemptuous reference to the sort of foolery 
 between the acts of serious French tragedy 
 which Pepys found so diverting: 
 
 A Song, a Dance ; nay if an Ape were shown 
 
 You'd cast your Caps but lest you them should loose 
 
 Some in good husbandry their hands mis-use. 
 
 This bold digression thrust in by the Way, 
 
 Too oft the By exceeds the Main ; the Play. 
 
 What's French you like, if vain, exceed their height ; 
 
 What's solid, Worthy, too few imitate ; 
 
 But we have those, when they Things serious write 
 
 May give them Patterns, You, more just delight. 
 
 Some idea is conveyed to the reader by a 
 hasty perusal of these lines, but any attempt at 
 an analysis to discover what Carlell really 
 wished to say is fatal, involving one at once 
 in obscurity. 
 
 On taking up the translation itself, it seems 
 probable that much of the confusion in these 
 original expressions of Carlell's existed in his 
 own mind and not in his use of language. 
 For, with a few exceptions, the rhyming coup- 
 
68 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 lets into which he translated Heraclius are en- 
 tirely intelligible. With that, however, the 
 most favorable word is said. The verse is 
 prosaic to the last degree, though not absurd 
 or trivial ; quite without fire but comparatively- 
 free from inversions and obscurities. It is 
 written by rule of thumb as far as confining 
 the sentences to single couplets is concerned. 
 Carlell never allows himself the slightest flexi- 
 bility in this regard. Every line is complete 
 and every couplet ends a sentence, with a re- 
 sulting effect of dryness and jerkiness quite 
 remarkable. Faithful his translation is in the 
 most literal meaning of the word, as an extract 
 like this will show (Act III. Scene 3) : 
 
 Phocas. Et toi n'espere pas desormais me fl^chir. 
 Je tiens Heraclius, et je n'ai plus k craindre, 
 Plus lieu de te flatter, plus lieu de me contraindre, 
 Ce frere et ton espoir vont entrer au cercueil, 
 Et j'abattrai d'un coup sa tete et ton orgueil. 
 Mais ne te con trains point dans ces rudes alarmes : 
 Laisse aller tes soupirs, laisse couler tes larmes. 
 
 Pulcherie. Moi, pleurer! moi, gemir, tyran! J'aurais 
 pleure 
 Si quelques lachetes I'avaient d^shonord. 
 
 Here come several lines which Carlell has 
 omitted : 
 
THE "PERSONS OF HONOUR" 69 
 
 Et dans ce grand revers je I'ai vu haute ment 
 Digne d'etre mon f rere, et d'etre mon amant. 
 
 PJiocas. Nor canst thou hope, fond fool to alter me 
 Havhig thy Brother, there's no fear of thee. 
 No more constrain myself, for thy love plead, 
 One stroke abates thy Pride, takes off his head. 
 Do not restrain thyself, come, vent thy Gall 
 No words to ease thy heart, then tears must fall. 
 
 Pulcheria. I grieve, I weep, I well might so have done 
 Had he appeared less than our Father's Son ; 
 I am so pleased with that he did do 
 That though his Sister, I'm his Lover too. 
 
 Genest's usual laconic criticism of French 
 tragedy for once seems entirely just when he 
 says, with impressive briefness,^ " Carlell's 
 translation is not a good one." The effort of 
 the old courtier needs no more comment. 
 
 1 Some Account, Vol. X. p. 138. 
 
V. COMEDIES 
 
 There were several translations from Thomas 
 Corneille made during the Restoration, but 
 there is no special interest attaching to any of 
 them ; not only because they are so adapted and 
 changed as scarcely to be recognizable, but be- 
 cause they are, in every instance, comedies, and 
 so do not belong to the company of translated 
 tragedy which makes this period so notable to 
 the student of Racine and Corneille in England. 
 The first presentation of Thomas Corneille in 
 England of the Restoration, was a translation 
 of his I! Amour a la mode, published in 1665, 
 under title of The Amorous Orontus or The Love 
 in Fashion, and reprinted in 1675 with the name 
 of The Amorous Grallant. It seems to have 
 been printed before it was acted, as there is no 
 indication on the title-page of the first edition 
 of its having been performed, while on the 
 first page of the second edition there is, A 
 Oomedie in heroick verse, as it was acted. This 
 is the only evidence that it ever appeared on 
 70 
 
COMEDIES 71 
 
 the stage, and Genest evidently did not think 
 it conclusive, for he treats this work under 
 Plays not Acted. ^ 
 
 The comedy is a very close translation 
 (although printed without any acknowledg- 
 ment to Corneille), which reproduces in familiar, 
 careless verse not only the text of the original 
 but considerable of the atmosphere. The 
 original comedy is no masterpiece, but has the 
 brisk and crisp movement common to French 
 comedy of the time. Although it possesses no 
 purely literary merit, the English version, in 
 spite of awkwardness and occasional obscurities, 
 has a certain liveliness and bustle which must 
 have made it pass on the stage with some 
 degree of success. The play was published 
 anonymously, but is quite universally attrib- 
 uted to John Bulteel, son of a French Protes- 
 tant living in Dover. 
 
 The other one of the two comedies of Thomas 
 Corneille which were translated during the 
 Restoration is Le Feint Astrologue. This was 
 adapted twice for the English stage, once by an 
 unknown translator, and once by no less a per- 
 sonage than John Dryden. The first version is 
 
 1 Some Account, Vol. X. p. 140. 
 
72 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 contained in a quarto volume in the British 
 Museum, called, in the catalogue. The Feigned 
 Astrologer. That copy is an imperfect one, 
 the title-page having been torn away; but Kirk- 
 man's list,^ which was published in 1671, gives 
 the date of this comedy as 1668. Genest gives 
 the date of the performance as 1668, and the 
 first edition 1671. In the British Museum copy 
 there is a manuscript note, apparently very old, 
 which ascribes this work to John Dry den ; but 
 this is erroneous, as Dryden's adaptation is 
 quite a different affair. 
 
 With the loss of the title-page has gone the 
 list of Dramatis Personce, and it is a little 
 difficult to reestablish this as the names are 
 completely changed or Anglicized, and there 
 are several additions. Don Fernand is called 
 Fndimion in the English piece, Lucre ce^ Clar- 
 inda; Don Juan^ Bellamy; Jacinte^ Fannie^ and 
 so on. This is the first real adaptation as dis- 
 tinguished from a translation which is found 
 among the works forming the subject of this 
 study. The scenes are shifted about and sup- 
 pressed in a way quite new among the transla- 
 tors of Corneille up to that time. 
 
 1 Published after Dancer's Nicomede, cf. Bibliography. 
 
COMEDIES 73 
 
 One of the most amusing scenes is, however, 
 lifted almost bodily ; and in spite of the absurd 
 mixture of prose and rhyme and blank verse, 
 has preserved some of the vivacity of the orig- 
 inal. It is the scene after the two girls have 
 secured from the Astrologer the promise to send 
 them the astral body of Bellamy^ who is sup- 
 posed to be far away. Unknown to them he 
 is at hand, and, by a misunderstanding, walks 
 in on them in flesh and blood. Luce, Celia's 
 servant, goes to the door, shrieks, and exclaims, 
 
 Oh, Madam, Madam, 'tis he 1 *tis Bellamy 1 
 But that he's twice as tall as he was wont to be. 
 
 (Drops candle out of her hand and runs away.^ 
 Celia. Fannie, Ay me ! Ay me ! 
 Bellamy. What means this shreeking and this running 
 
 about ? 
 Celia. JSTow am I well paid for my curiosity I have 
 my wish and it proves my undoing, 'tis Bellamy's 
 voice, but I han't the power to answer him. 
 Fannie {from under the table where she had hid herself), 
 I'm nothing mistaken in myself 
 I knew I should be afraid and my Cozen 
 For all her cracking proves as very a Coward. 
 Ma * * * ¥fi * * 
 
 If the Thing should find me under the table now 
 I'le pray hard.^ 
 
 ^Jacinte. Ah Madame, ah Madame, 
 C'est lui-mgme, sinon qu'il est beaucoup plus grand. 
 
74 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 The situation is so farcical that treated in 
 almost any manner it could scarcely fail to be 
 ludicrous. The translator has shown some in- 
 telligence in keeping reasonably close to his 
 text in the best scenes, but this is the most 
 favorable word that can be said of him. That 
 he has no idea of fidelity is apparent from a 
 selection like this, and it is equally clear that 
 he has no literary merit of his own. 
 
 The other translation of Le Feint Astrologue, 
 done by John Dryden under the title of An 
 Evening^s Love or the Mode Astrologer (pub- 
 lished in 1671), is headed with an ostentatiously 
 frank preface in which the author sets forth his 
 sources clearly, in answer to the charge of steal- 
 ing the material for his comedies. " This play 
 was first Spanish and called JEl Astrologo Fin- 
 gido, then made French by the younger Cor- 
 neille, and is now translated into English, and 
 in print under the name of The Feigned As- 
 
 Leonor. Ah Ciel, ah. . . . 
 
 Don Juan. Get accueil, Ldonor, me surprend. 
 
 Leonor. Ma curiosite ne sert qu' a me confondre; 
 C'est sa voix, je I'entends, mais je ne puis repondre. 
 
 Jacinte (cachee). Que je crains que ce spectre, ou 
 plutot ce diable, 
 Ne me vienne chercher jusque sous cette table. 
 
COMEDIES 75 
 
 trologery^ As the date of the appearance of 
 his own adaptation is 1671, it seems probable 
 that The Feigned Astrologer was earlier, and this 
 is evidence in favor of the date given by Kirk- 
 man as against the authority of Genest. In the 
 large manuscript collection of material for a 
 history of the stage in the Newspaper room of 
 the British Museum, the editor, in his notes ^ on 
 the Roscius Anglicanus, is at a loss to account 
 for the mention of The Mock Astrologer appar- 
 ently before it was written. Downes QRoscius 
 Anglicanus) gives it as one of the "Principal 
 Old Stock Plays," and puts it twice in the list 
 of "most taking plays." Smith, the editor of 
 the collection mentioned above, puts a note to 
 this effect: "These pieces are Dryden's Secret 
 Lover and An Evening's Love or the Mock 
 Astrologer, I know not how Downes came 
 to rank them with the old Stock Plays." It 
 seems not impossible that there was a confusion 
 here, and that Downes is referring to the anony- 
 mous Feigned Astrologer, 
 
 Dryden's comedy itself is scarcely worth the 
 trouble to establish the date of its first appear- 
 
 1 Scott and Saintsbury edition of Dryden, Vol. III. p. 250. 
 
 2 Vol. II. 
 
76 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 auce, although Downes's testimony (if he does 
 refer to Dryden's work) would seem to show 
 that it was one of the successful plays of the 
 time. Saintsbury quotes a number of adverse 
 criticisms from contemporaries, among others 
 a statement of Pepys that Herringman, the 
 publisher, told him that Dryden himself thought 
 it but a fifth-rate play. Scott, on the other 
 hand, in his editor's note before this comedy, 
 has a good word to say for it : " The play is 
 more lively than most of Dryden's comedies. 
 Wildblood and Jacintha are far more pleasant 
 than their prototypes Celadon and Florimel ; 
 and the Spanish bustle of the plot is well cal- 
 culated to keep up the attention." ^ 
 
 The mixture of bastard blank verse and 
 prose used by Dryden makes this comedy on 
 casual examination look very much like the 
 crude Feigned Astrologer, It is better than it 
 seems, however, and is greatly in advance of 
 the anonymous translation. Little credit for 
 this can be given to Corneille, for Dryden has 
 not used much of his play, and what he has 
 taken he has so coarsened and changed that it 
 is hard to recognize the original. Scott points 
 
 1 Scott and Saintsbury edition of Dryden, Vol. III. p. 237. 
 
COMEDIES 77 
 
 out that Dryden has imitated Moliere's Le 
 Depit Amoureux in several scenes, and that there 
 is much that is his own invention. The work is 
 chiefly interesting as showing how freely trans- 
 lations were made (two from this indifferent 
 comedy), and as linking Dryden's great name 
 with the translators of Racine and Corneille. 
 
 Corneille's most successful comedy, and the 
 one usually considered to be the best on the 
 French stage before Moliere, fared rather badly 
 in England. Le Menteur received more than 
 its share of attention as it was translated three 
 times, but it had not the good fortune to fall 
 into the hands of a translator who could make 
 its merits appear in English. 
 
 The first translation, published under the 
 name of The Mistaken Beauty^ was a most 
 lamentable affair, printed in a strange mixture 
 of bastard blank verse and prose, apparently a 
 hastily written production intended for practi- 
 cal use by actors only. At best, there is no 
 literary merit in it. The date of the first 
 edition is difficult to ascertain. The copy in 
 the British Museum is dated 1685, but Genest 
 observes,^ " We are certain it was acted before 
 
 1 8ome Account, Vol. I. p. 34. 
 
78 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 1667, as Dryden in his Essay greatly commends 
 Hart for his performance of Dorante,^' (The 
 reference is of course to the JEssay of Dramatic 
 Poetry.) Mulert hazards an interesting conjec- 
 ture which seems not improbable, that as Hart 
 was acting manager in the King's company at 
 this time, and as the epilogue and prologue 
 speak entirely from the actor's standpoint, it 
 is possible that Le Menteur was translated for 
 the actors alone and perhaps played some 
 years before it was printed. Dryden makes 
 several references to it, including one quoted 
 by Mulert which is very favorable, stating that 
 The Lyar appeared in English "to so much 
 advantage as I am confident it never received 
 in its own country." A strange statement to 
 make of so very crude a production, whose 
 average of style is shown by the following ex- 
 tract (Act I. Scene 2) : 
 
 ... it is the intention sets 
 Value on the Act and a kind of undervaluing things 
 To do them or without it, the favour then is but small, 
 To give me y'r hand, 'less you give me your Heart withal 1 ; 
 And judge how little nourishment that fire receives, 
 That amorous fire inkindled in my brest. 
 By giving me your hand and denying me the rest. 
 
 Clarissa. That fire you speak of sir 's so new to me as 
 
COMEDIES 79 
 
 now I only see the fire sparks of it ; and though your heart 
 perhaps may burn, yet know, Sir, mine requires a longer 
 time ; but now I see your flame, mine perhaps may burn 
 hereafter by simpathy; mean time you can't in justice 
 blame me not to know what I was wholly ignorant of till 
 now. 
 
 Dryden's favorable judgment and the fact 
 that The Mistaken Beauty was successful enough 
 to attain a second edition, suggest the idea that 
 perhaps the play, as we have it now, is a victim 
 of the careless printing of those times carried 
 even farther than it usually was. This may 
 have been a pirated edition, or what corre- 
 sponded to that in the seventeenth-century 
 literary world. In its present form there is no 
 trace of the polished metres of the original and 
 very little of the sparkling humor which made 
 Le Menteur so favorite a comedy in France. 
 
VI. THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 
 
 Cor]n:eille's Horace makes in one respect the 
 best showing in England of any of the French 
 tragedies under consideration. There are four 
 translations made of it, three by excellent 
 authors. The first was by Lower, Mrs. 
 Philips was the author of one, and William 
 Whitehead, a poet laureate of the eighteenth 
 century, wrote the last. Charles Cotton, the 
 well-known translator of Montaigne's Essays, 
 and a contemporary of Mrs. Philips, was one of 
 this company of poets. In 1665, two years 
 before Mrs. Philips wrote her version, he had 
 translated Horace for his sister, so he tells us in 
 the dedication dated " Beresf ord, November 7th, 
 1665." He did not intend to publish it at first, 
 and was only persuaded to do so in 1671, al- 
 though then Mrs. Philips's had appeared and met 
 with a warm welcome. He apparently thought 
 there would be no competition between the 
 two, as he meant his work to be merely a book- 
 play. It is, in fact, one of the few translations 
 80 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 81 
 
 made at this time which was never presented. 
 Genest treats it naturally under Plays Printed 
 hut not Acted; and, perhaps because it made no 
 pretence of being fit for the stage, he omits 
 his usual fling at the dulness of French 
 tragedy. He says briefly, " It seems to be a 
 good translation," which indeed it surely is. 
 In some respects it is superior to Mrs. Philips's 
 work. It is no less exact and conscientious in 
 all essentials — Cotton was a famous French 
 scholar in his day — and at times it is decidedly 
 more vigorous and moves with a freer, bolder 
 step (Act IV. Scene 5) : 
 
 Camilla. Rome I that alone does my affliction prove. 
 Rome ! to whom thou hast sacrificed my Love. 
 Rome 1 that first gave thee life ! that perfectly 
 I hate because she does so honour thee I 
 May all her neighbours in one cause conspire 
 To sack her Walls and ruine her by Fire 
 And if all Italy appear too few 
 May East and West joyn in the mischief too 1 
 Far as the frozen poles may Nations come 
 O're Hills and Seas to sack imperious Rome ! ^ 
 
 1 Camille. Rome, Tunique objet de mon ressentiment ! 
 Rome, k qui vient ton bras d'immoler mon amant I 
 Rome, qui t'a vu naitre, et que ton coeur adore I 
 Rome enfin que je hais parcequ'elle t'honore : 
 Puissent tons ses voisins ensemble conjures 
 
82 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Cotton's rendering of this is not only good 
 and stirring verse in its own right, but it is an 
 accurate reproduction of the movement of his 
 original as well as its words, and one cannot 
 read passages like this without regretting that 
 this translation was never declaimed by com- 
 petent actors. 
 
 Cotton produces his effects by broad, sweep- 
 ing lines, with a careless confidence in his own 
 instinctive and scholarly accuracy, which is 
 quite different from Mrs. Philips's anxious 
 fidelity. He does not do this, however, with- 
 out paying the penalty of being diffuse at 
 times and of using two or three lines to trans- 
 late one of Corneille's. (Act I. Scene 1.) 
 "Et qu' a nos yeux Camille agit bien autre- 
 ment," is translated by Mrs. Philips, " How 
 distant is Camilla's way from this ; " while Cot- 
 ton runs off into undeniable padding, 
 
 And in this great affair Camilla's breast 
 After another manner is possest. 
 
 Saper ses fondements encor mal assures ! 
 
 Et, si ce n'est assez de toute I'ltalie, 
 
 Que rOrient contre elle a I'Occident s'allie ; 
 
 Que cent peuples, unis des bouts de I'univers, 
 
 Passent pour la detruire et les monts et les mers I 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 83 
 
 There are many such instances where, in com- 
 parison with Orinda's never failing care, his 
 lack of minute accuracy forms an offset to his 
 superiority in other respects. But these pas- 
 sages are not often important ones. These Cot- 
 ton almost invariably renders with an apparent 
 freedom which is the highest form of fidelity. 
 
 He has followed Mrs. Philips in putting 
 songs between the acts. These are of his own 
 composition and show no great power of poetic 
 conception. They are lyrics in which he has 
 endeavored to use complicated verse-forms, and 
 apparently his mind was not nimble enough to 
 enable him to succeed in this form of composi- 
 tion. They are rather heavy and unmusical 
 although correct enough. On the whole, this 
 translation of Horace seems to the writer not 
 only the best English version of this tragedy, 
 but one of the best ever made of a play by 
 Corneille or Racine. It is greatly to be re- 
 gretted that it was never acted, for if it had 
 been performed successfully it would have 
 assumed a most important place in the com- 
 pany of translated tragedy. 
 
 In 1671 Dublin is brought into prominence 
 again as the city where another of these great 
 
84 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 plays was performed in English. In that year 
 Kirkman — the London play publisher — put 
 out Nicomede^ a Tragi- Comedy^ Translated out 
 of the French of Monsieur Corneille hy John 
 Dancer. As it was acted at the Theatre Royal 
 in Dublin. The printing license is dated 
 December 16, 1670, so that it must have been 
 acted during that year. It is dedicated by 
 the publisher " in the Author's absence " to 
 Thomas, Earl of Ossory (son of the Duke of 
 Ormond), and the first sentence begins, " This 
 piece being made English in Your Honour's 
 Service and by your Command, having already 
 passed the Suffrage of the Stage and now made 
 more publique by passing the Press. . . ." 
 Again the little circle of grands seigneurs at 
 Dublin and their interest in French literature 
 is shown as a factor to be reckoned with in 
 the treatment of the serious and conscientious 
 translations made at this time. 
 
 The Dictionary of National Biography has 
 very few facts about the John Dancer who 
 translated Nicomede. From various indications 
 it conjectures that he was in the service of 
 the Duke of Ormond, while the latter was Lord 
 Lieutenant of Ireland, and it seems certain that 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 85 
 
 personally he was very devoted to him. The 
 choice of Nicomede (it is evident from the 
 dedication that the Duke chose the play to be 
 done into English) shows the usual excellence 
 of taste of Dancer's aristocratic patron in such 
 matters. Moreover, he gave this last of Cor- 
 neille's great plays to a translator who, although 
 not gifted with an extraordinary amount of 
 poetic talent, was nevertheless a moderate ver- 
 sifier and a literary man of taste and intelli- 
 gence. His production holds its place bravely 
 among the excellent Restoration translations 
 and has many qualities in common with them. 
 In the first place it is conscientious; there is 
 no tampering with the text, no introduction of 
 songs and dances between the acts, — an ex- 
 tremely honest reproduction. The lack of 
 inspiration usually supposed to accompany 
 extreme honesty is to be noticed, but an ever 
 present good taste is an agreeable, if not a 
 sufficient, substitute. The work throughout is 
 kept to an even level of smoothness, there are 
 few lapses into lame and halting lines, while 
 there are occasional stretches of writing which 
 are excellent in a quiet, unpretentious way. 
 Genest speaks of this translation in his re- 
 
86 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 marks on the stage in Ireland : ^ " . . . the 
 translator should have called his play Nico- 
 medes, not Nichomede — in English we follow 
 the Latins and not the ' chopping French ' as 
 Shakespeare calls them. ... It is not a bad 
 play, but it has the usual coldness and declama- 
 tion of the French stage." The book is so 
 poorly printed and the spelling is so irregular 
 that it is doubtful if the author is responsible 
 for the spelling which Genest criticises. In- 
 deed, on the title-page the name is given as 
 Nicomede. An extract which gives a very fair 
 idea of the intelligent and uninspired way in 
 which Dancer renders his original is the fol- 
 lowing from Act IV. Scene 4 : 
 
 Prusias. . . . to-morrow from this hand 
 
 Atalus shall receive supream command ; 
 I'le make him King of Pontus and my heir ; 
 And for the Rebel who does so much dare 
 Rome shall be judge what his affronts deserve. 
 In Atalus' stead he shall for Hostage serve 
 And to conduct him fit means shall be found, 
 So soon as he has seen his Brother crowned. 
 
 Nichomede. And will you send me then to Rome ? 
 
 Prusias. Yes, Sir. 
 Go ask your dear Laodice from her. 
 
 Nichomede. I'le go, I'le go, Sir, and shall there appear 
 A greater Monarch than you dare be here. 
 
 1 Some Account, Vol. X. p. 271. 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 87 
 
 Flaminius. Rome on your actions will true value set. 
 
 Nichomede. Gently, Flaminius, we are not there yet, 
 The journey's long and you may be deceived ; 
 Things well begun are often ill atchieved.^ 
 
 This is extremely close translation and yet has 
 the merit of reading as though it were sponta- 
 neous. The secret of the Restoration translators 
 in writing faithful and yet flowing translations 
 belongs to Dancer as well as to the more gifted 
 members of the group. 
 
 The play seems to have attained a consid- 
 erable degree of success, but there is little 
 mention of it in the theatrical historians of the 
 
 1 Prusias. . . . et des demain Attale 
 
 Recevra de ma main la puissance royale. 
 Je le f ais roi de Pont et mon seul heritier ; 
 Et quant k ce rebelle, k ce courage fier 
 Rome entre vous et lui jugera de I'outrage ; 
 Je veux qu'au lieu d'Attale il lui serve d'otage ; 
 Et pour I'y niieux conduire il vous sera donn^, 
 Sitot qu'il aura vu son frere couronne. 
 
 Nicomede. Vous m'envoirez k Rome ! 
 
 Prusias. On t'y fera justice. 
 
 Ya, va lui demander ta chere Laodice. 
 
 Nicomede. J'irai, j'irai, Seigneur, vous le voulez ainsi; 
 Et j'y serai plus roi que vous n'etes ici. 
 
 Flaminius. Rome sait vos hauts f aits et dejk vous adore. 
 
 Nicomede. Tout beau, Flaminius ! je n'y suis pas encore : 
 La route en est mal sure, a tout considerer, 
 Et qui m'y conduira pourrait bien s'egarer. 
 
88 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 time, either favorable or otherwise. Appar- 
 ently a second edition was never called for. 
 
 The first translation from Racine is connected 
 with a well-known author of the seventeenth 
 century, but it is a sorry performance viewed 
 from any standpoint. It was printed in 1675, 
 under the auspices of John Crowne, a familiar 
 figure of that day, known as " starched Johnnie." 
 The translation was a very poor piece of work 
 and was received coldly. Chagrined by this, 
 Crowne made haste in the Epistle to the Reader 
 to disclaim the authorship, and gives the follow- 
 ing explanation of his connection with the affair. 
 After the title-page [which reads, Andromache^ 
 a Tragedy as it is acted at the Duke's Theatre 
 London^ 1675'] he addresses himself to the 
 reader thus : " This play was translated by a 
 Young Gentleman who has a great esteem of 
 all French Playes, and particularly of this ; 
 and, thinking it a pity the Town should lose so 
 excellent a Divertisement for want of a Trans- 
 lation, bestowed his pains upon it ; and, it hap- 
 pening to be in the long Vacation, a time when 
 the Playhouses are willing to catch at any Reed 
 to save themselves from Sinking, to do the 
 House a Kindness and to serve the Gentleman, 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 89 
 
 who, it seem'd was desirous to see it on the 
 Stage, I willingly perused it but found neither 
 the Play to answer to Gentleman's Commenda- 
 tion nor his Genius in Verse very fortunate, 
 and yet neither of 'em so contemptible as to be 
 wholly slighted ; but neither the Gentleman 
 nor myself having leisure enough to make those 
 Emendations which both the Play and the 
 Verse needed, I begged leave of him to turn 
 it into Prose, which I obtained, and so it is in 
 the condition you see. 
 
 " It is much esteemed in France and here, 
 too, by some English, who are admirers of the 
 French Wit, and think this suffered much in 
 the Translation ; I cannot tell in what, except 
 in not bestowing Verse upon it, which I thought 
 it did not deserve, for otherwise there is all 
 that is in the French Play, and something more, 
 as may be seen in the last Act, where what is only 
 dully recited in the French Play is there repre- 
 sented. Had it been acted in the good well- 
 meaning times when the Cid^ Heraclius^ and 
 other French Playes met such applause, this 
 would have passed very well ; but since our 
 Audiences have tasted so plentifully the firm 
 English wit, these thin Regalio's will not down. 
 
90 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 " This I thought good to say in my own be- 
 half, to clear myself of the scandal of this poor 
 translation wherewith I was slandered in spite 
 of all I could say in private, in spite of what 
 the Prologue and Epilogue affirmed on the 
 Stage in Public, that if the Play met with 
 any Success he might wholly take to himself a 
 Reputation of which I was not in the least 
 ambitious." 
 
 This preface is the most interesting part of 
 the production, as it is full of side-lights on the 
 way in which people of Crowne's standing 
 regarded the great French dramatists, and is, 
 moreover, an amusingly precise delineation of 
 some of Crowne's personal characteristics. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the translation is an 
 astonishingly bad one. Racine's melodious and 
 flowing lines are rendered in the baldest and 
 barest of prose translations, quite without grace 
 of any sort. There are sudden lapses into 
 pseudo-verse (as though Crowne had not even 
 taken the trouble to break up the original 
 rhythm), and as sudden returns to prose with 
 perfect inconsequentiality. 
 
 In Act IV. Scene 3, about the middle of the 
 scene, there is an abrupt fall into verse : 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 91 
 
 Hermione. On, now or never — who delays desires. 
 Run to the Temple now and Sacrifice 
 
 Orestes. Whom? 
 
 Hermione. Pyrrhus. 
 
 Orestes. Pyrrhus, Madame. 
 
 Hermione. What ! does your Hate languish ? run 
 And do not fear. I shall recall you, regard not you the 
 
 right which I forget — 
 I have resolved revenge and he shall dye. 
 'Tis not for you his deeds to justify.^ 
 
 The last act, as Crowne says, shows in action 
 on the stage what is related in the original. 
 This is the entering wedge for such modifica- 
 tion, which from this time on becomes more 
 and more pronounced. 
 
 There has been an attempt to make a spec- 
 tacular scene with a solemn procession of 
 Greeks, priests, and attendants. Choruses and 
 songs occupy much of the time. Pyrrhus is 
 
 1 Hermione. Tons vos retardements sont pour moi des 
 refus. 
 Courez au temple. II faut immoler. . . . 
 
 Oreste. Qui ? 
 
 Hermione. Pyrrhus. 
 
 Oreste. Pyrrhus, Madame. 
 
 Hermione. He quel ? votre haine chancelle ? 
 Ah ! courez et craignez que je ne vous rappelle. 
 N'all§guez point des droits que je veux oublier ; 
 Et ce n'est pas h. vous a le justifier. 
 
92 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 killed in sight of the audience, and his body is 
 dragged out of the temple by the Greeks. 
 
 The superlative degree of badness which is 
 attained at the beginning of this translation is 
 kept up throughout, and after reading it one 
 is not surprised at Crowne's hangdog explana- 
 tion at the beginning. It is an interesting 
 coincidence that Andromaque^ which was to be 
 so completely successful in another version, 
 should have failed so disastrously in this. 
 
 The greatest name in the list of translators of 
 classic French tragedy is that of Thomas Otway, 
 and there is a singular felicity in the choice 
 which he made. None of Corneille's plays 
 could have been so suitable for his talents as 
 one of Racine's, and none of Racine's so entirely 
 after his own heart as BerSnice^ which he made 
 the foundation of a tragedy published in 1677 
 with the title of Titus and Berenice, The 
 moving and pathetic situation is one which he 
 might have invented, and he made brilliant use 
 of it in his adapted tragedy. His success is 
 the more notable because he was only twenty- 
 six years old at the time he produced this work. 
 Considered as a translation the English tragedy 
 is a paradox, for it is freer than Mrs. Philips's 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 93 
 
 work, and even takes more liberties than the 
 Peraons of Honour ; but, as a whole, it is a faith- 
 ful rendition of the French, and in many pas- 
 sages reproduces to an astonishing degree the 
 exact atmosphere of the original, even while 
 departing in many ways from it. 
 
 From some points of view, this is the most 
 interesting of all the translations made from the 
 tragedies of Racine and Corneille. The com- 
 parison between Otway's tragedy and Racine's 
 is extremely enlightening as to the difference 
 between the taste of the two nations at that 
 time. For although Ot way's version was no 
 "mere paraphrase" (as Mrs. Philips would 
 have said), every line which he took from the 
 French he made completely English ; and not 
 only English but Restoration English. It is 
 evident at every step that he was a writer of 
 tragedy, as well as a translator, and he did, 
 unconsciously and successfully, what eighteenth- 
 century translators consciously and unsuccess- 
 fully tried to accomplish, i.e, to make an 
 English tragedy out of a French one, not 
 simply to present an English version. 
 
 Every speech of Otway's is based to a greater 
 or less degree on the French, and many of them 
 
94 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 are translated line for line ; nevertheless, there 
 is not a passage which is not English. The 
 severe simplicity of Racine's diction is often 
 replaced by what would be bombast if any one 
 but Otway had written it ; on the other hand, 
 there are passages where an unaffected and 
 poignant pathos appears, entirely English and 
 different from the tristesse majestueuse^ which 
 Racine calls the characteristic quality of classic 
 tragedy. In short, it is an English tragedy of 
 the time of Charles II. which is under discus- 
 sion, with all the faults and merits of its time. 
 
 Dibdin (Vol. IV. p. 103) has a curious com- 
 ment on this tragedy. Referring to the roman- 
 tic story of the unhappy love of Henrietta of 
 England for Louis XIV. and to her request for 
 a tragedy written about the story of Titus and 
 Berenice, which she considered similar to her 
 own, Dibdin says, " Plays written on particular 
 occasions seldom succeed beyond the moment. 
 Otway, therefore, was unfortunate in his choice, 
 and although he wisely turned to Corneille more 
 than to Racine, his success did not warrant the 
 trouble he took to obtain it." 
 
 It is singular that any one should think it a 
 merit to copy Corneille rather than Racine in 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 95 
 
 this instance ; and it is quite inexplicable that 
 Dibdin should have made the statement that 
 Otway did so, for there seems to the writer 
 no single instance where this is true. The 
 Dramatis PersoncB are exactly the same in the 
 English as in Racine's tragedy, and none of the 
 incidents of Corneille's invention are repro- 
 duced. The only possibility of an imitation ap- 
 pears to be in the last act, where a small change 
 (discussed in following pages) is introduced, 
 which, although entirely different in form, pro- 
 duces a little of the same effect as the relenting 
 of the Roman Senate in Corneille's play. But 
 this seems to be the only instance where Otway 
 had Corneille's play in mind, and this is doubt- 
 ful. (Act II. Scene 4.) 
 
 Berenice. I who shall die if but debarr'd your sight — 
 
 Titus. Madam, what is it that your griefs declare ? 
 What time do you choose? for pity's sake forbear. 
 Your bounties my ingratitude proclaim. 
 
 Berenice. You can do nothing that deserves that name : 
 No sir, you never can ungrateful prove. 
 Maybe I'm fond and tire you with my love. 
 
 Titus. No, madam, no : my heart, since I must speak, 
 Was ne'er more full of love or half so like to break 
 But . . . 
 
 Berenice. What? 
 
 Titus. Alasl 
 
96 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Berenice. Proceed. 
 
 Titus. The Empire . . . 
 
 Rome. 
 
 Berenice. Well? 
 
 Titus. Oh, the dismal secret will not come — 
 
 Away, Paulinus, ere I'm quite undone, 
 My speech forsakes me and my heart's all stone.^ 
 
 This comes very near being the ideal of trans- 
 lation, and makes Mrs. Philips's careful accuracy- 
 seem a little dry. If Otway had written the 
 whole tragedy with the fidelity which he shows 
 here and with the art which is always his, it 
 
 "^Berenice. Moi, qui mourrais le jour qu*on voudrait 
 m'interdire 
 De vous . . . 
 
 Titus. Madame, helas ! que me venez-vous dire ? 
 Quel temps choisissez-vous ? Ah ! de grace arretez : 
 C'est trop pour un ingrat prodiguer vos bontes. 
 
 Berenice. Pour un ingrat, Seigneur 1 Et le pouvez-vous 
 etre? 
 Ainsi done mes bontes vous f atiguent peut-etre ? 
 
 Titus. Non, Madame. Jamais, puisqu'il faut vous 
 parler, 
 Mon coeur de plus de f eux ne se sentit briiler. 
 Mais ... 
 
 Berenice. Achevez. 
 
 Titus. Helas I 
 
 Berenice. Parlez. 
 
 Titus. Rome . . . TEmpire . . • 
 
 Berenice. H^ bien? 
 
 Titus. Sortons, Paulin : je ne lui puis rien dire. 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 97 
 
 would have been easily the best translation 
 made. The rendering of " Mon coeur de plus 
 de feux ne se sentit bruler " by " My heart . . . 
 Was ne'er more full of love nor half so like to 
 break " is a distinct improvement, and instances 
 are not rare where the simplicity and feeling of 
 Otway are heard in phrases not in the original. 
 There are, however, not only a number of places 
 where he departs from his original in linguistic 
 details, but many where he introduces important 
 differences, not in the plot but in the conception 
 of the characters. Antiochus he makes at once 
 more prominent and more completely admirable. 
 He intensifies the sad nobility of the man and 
 makes him a very touching and dignified figure. 
 As for his treatment of Berenice, Otway has 
 done the impossible. Racine had already writ- 
 ten of her in his most artful and ardent vein, 
 and it would seem out of the question for 
 another poet to convey a still more tender feel- 
 ing for her misfortunes. But the English poet's 
 peculiar gift for expressing at once sorrow and 
 passion enables him to give a new and thrilling 
 pathos to his heroine. The final scene of leave- 
 taking between the two lovers is, if one dare to 
 say it, more moving even than the original. 
 
98 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 After threatening suicide, as in the French, 
 Titus by a final effort renounces the empire and 
 gives himself entirely to Berenice. Assured 
 by this that he is sincere in attributing their 
 separation wholly to the Roman law and that 
 his passion is as ardent as at first, she outdoes 
 him, and announces her intention to leave Rome 
 forever. From this point on the French is 
 more closely followed. This change Otway 
 has written thus : 
 
 Titxis. Best of thy sex ! and dearest ! now I see 
 How poor is empire when compared to thee. 
 Hence, ye perplexing cares that clog the brain, 
 Whilst struck with ecstasy I here fall down. 
 Thus at your feet, a happy prostrate laid, 
 Fm much more blest than if the world I swayed. 
 
 Berenice. Now the blest Berenice enough has seen, 
 I thought your love had quite extinguished been, 
 But 'twas my error,- for you still are true ; 
 E'en my worst sufferings much o'erpaid I see, 
 Nor shall the unhappy world be cursed for me. 
 Nothing, since first 'twas yours, my love would shake, 
 So absolute a conquest did you make; 
 But now I'll bring it to the utmost test, 
 And with one funeral act crown all the rest. 
 
 Titus. Ha! tell me, Berenice, what will you do? 
 
 Berenice. Far from your sight and Rome forever go, 
 I have resolved on't, and it shall be so. 
 
 Titus, Antiochus ! I'm born to be undone ; 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 99 
 
 When I the greatest conquest thought t'have won, 
 E'en in my noblest race I am outrun. 
 
 This difference in the ending is one that 
 merits some thought, for although it is seem- 
 ingly an unimportant change, the feeling which 
 caused it is concerned with a deeply rooted dif- 
 ference in the mental constitution of the two 
 nations, and one which has a great influence later 
 on the translations made from French tragedy. 
 It is the English revolt against the logic of 
 the situation which led to the many altera- 
 tions of sad to happy endings in the tragedies 
 of the eighteenth century. This is the first indi- 
 cation, and although it is slight, it is significant 
 of that sentimental incapacity to hold to the con- 
 ditions as first presented if they lead to unhappy 
 situations. Here the lack of logic is in showing 
 Titus as succumbing to the pressure of circum- 
 stance. At once the impression of the sincerity 
 of the tragic struggle between his love and duty 
 is weakened. If he could bring himself to 
 renounce the empire in the last act, he might 
 have done it in the first and saved all the agony 
 of the play, which now goes for nothing but to 
 impress on Berenice the advisability of her 
 
100 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 withdrawal. If it was impossible for him to 
 give up his high position at any time, it was 
 always impossible under the same conditions, 
 and his doing so is a concession to a senti- 
 mental idea. In Otway's work this desire for 
 a more comfortable solution of the problem 
 than is logically possible does not affect the 
 main action of the play, as he separates his 
 lovers in the end quite as tragically as Racine ; 
 but as the tendency grew on English translators 
 it brought about such absurdities as the resusci- 
 tation of Hippolyte in Phedre and of Chimene's 
 father in the Cid. Apparently the feeling was, 
 then as now, "anything for a happy ending." 
 
 It cannot be denied that probably the scene 
 as performed was more moving than Racine's 
 sombre contest of the lovers, and that Berenice's 
 resolve to leave Rome had in it an element of 
 dramatic surprise not to be found in the 
 French. That was exactly what Otway, con- 
 sciously or not, was striving for ; and it is 
 exactly this change in effect which later 
 translators endeavored to secure by more 
 obvious and less artistic shifting of values, 
 and which they so lamentably failed to achieve. 
 It is interesting to find this concession to the 
 
THE LAST OF THE RESTORATION 101 
 
 shrinking from the ultimate and logical con- 
 clusion of given conditions, so deftly arranged 
 as scarcely to be noticeable even in this period 
 of exact fidelity to the text. It seems almost 
 impossible that it is the same concession made 
 later with such sweeping disregard of sense and 
 probability. 
 
 The play was produced at Dorset Garden with 
 the Cheats of Seapin^ also translated by Otway. 
 The combination was apparently a fortunate one, 
 as it was given to the public with reasonable suc- 
 cess a number of times. Downes, in the Roscius 
 Anglicanus, says, " This Play with the Farce, 
 being perfectly well acted, had good success." 
 
 In spite of its very considerable variations 
 from the original, Titus and Berenice may, 
 perhaps, claim to be the most satisfactory 
 attempt at transplanting French tragedy to 
 the English stage. It almost attains the ideal 
 of translation, which is not a mere reproduction 
 of the words and scenes of the original. No 
 matter how well this is done, it never produces 
 an English work of art. This play of Otway's 
 seems to be, if the paradoxical wording be par- 
 doned, what French tragedy would have been if 
 it had been English. 
 
VII. AN INTERREGNUM 
 
 With the death of Charles II. begins a 
 period of inaction among the translators. In 
 the most prosperous days the business of trans- 
 lation is a growth with weak roots compared 
 to the sturdy nature of original production, 
 and it is one of the first forms of literary 
 activity to disappear in times of national dis- 
 order. The rebellions of Argyle and Mon- 
 mouth, the terrible times of the Bloody Assizes 
 and the religious troubles of James, were un- 
 favorable to any attempt to introduce a foreign 
 literature. The people who during the Resto- 
 ration had busied themselves with translations 
 had neither time nor disposition to go on with 
 the work. 
 
 The accession of William and Mary, and the 
 confusion of plots and wars and new reforms 
 which filled their reign, made no better condi- 
 tions for either the writing or acceptance of 
 translations, and it is not until toward the 
 102 
 
AN INTERREGNUM 103 
 
 end of Queen Anne's time that we come 
 again upon a proof of interest in Racine and 
 Corneille. 
 
 The character of the translators of the 
 Restoration has been shown to be aristocratic. 
 They were people connected in one way and an- 
 other with the Court. Later translators have 
 this character no longer, and the only two 
 translations made during the uneasy times 
 sketched above, show that the change was 
 already taking place. ^ One of the translators 
 is a London merchant and the other is a 
 French refugee, journalist, grammarian and 
 politician. Already there is a great change 
 from the magnificent productions at Court of 
 the Persons of Honour and of Mrs. Philips. 
 
 The fact that the two translations were 
 
 1 In Notes and Queries (2d series, Vol. IX. p. 281) there 
 is an inquiry about a translation of the Cid said to have 
 been made in 1704 by "T. H. Gent." A correspondent 
 writes to know if any one can tell him any more than this 
 bare title. No answer appears during the rest of that year 
 (1860), but in the next year {N. and Q. 2d series, Vol. XI. 
 p. 150) an exactly similar inquiry is again inserted. In 
 no other place in Notes and Queries does any other refer- 
 ence to this translation appear, and these two questions 
 are the only mention of it which the writer has been able to 
 find. 
 
104 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 actually made during the period described as 
 being so unfavorable, does not invalidate such a 
 characterization. Neither was made by a per- 
 son of high social standing : one was done by 
 a Frenchman, who is naturally excluded from 
 generalizations about the state of English 
 minds, and the other was never published, and 
 in its clear, round handwriting still lies buried 
 in the archives of the British Museum. 
 
 This translation is of the Cid^ and is the last 
 work contained in a well-preserved folio vol- 
 ume of the poetical efforts of .William Popple, 
 dated 1691. The author is an uncle of the 
 dramatist of the eighteenth century, and the 
 nephew of Andrew Marvell. The large vol- 
 ume in which are contained, all carefully in- 
 dexed and dated, his poetical works, shows him 
 to have been a poet as well as a man of affairs. 
 It is a heterogeneous collection: translations 
 from Horace^ verses for special occasions, 
 poems of advice, epitaphs, and almost every- 
 thing else that can be put into verse — the 
 literary accumulations of the leisure moments 
 of a business man. 
 
 The translation of the Cid is the most se- 
 rious production the volume holds, and its 
 
AN INTEEREGNUM 105 
 
 perusal awakens a lively regret that William 
 Popple did not find the times suitable for its 
 publication. Without any doubt it would have 
 been a success if it had appeared during the 
 earlier years of the reign of Charles II. It 
 reproduces the spirit of the original with great 
 accuracy, and is written with a considerable 
 degree of smoothness and elegance, and with 
 much more control over technical difficulties 
 than his predecessor, Rutter, can show at any 
 place in his work. It is true that Popple, like 
 Rutter, found the translation of Rodrigue's 
 lyric monologue beyond his powers to reproduce 
 exactly, but even here he is very much better 
 than his predecessor. 
 
 Popple has not tried to make a faithful line- 
 for-line translation. He has had, apparently, 
 rather the ideal of the Persons of Honour before 
 him than Mrs. Philips's more severe rule. But 
 the fidelity to the spirit is remarkable, when 
 this is taken into account. A very good ex- 
 ample of this looseness of form and close- 
 ness of meaning is the following (Act II. 
 Scene 8): 
 
 I saw him dead, by Death bereft of speech ; 
 But on the Ground in Characters of Blood 
 
106 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 I read my duty, and his open wound 
 Call'd loud for vengeance on his Murderer.^ 
 
 It is undeniable that Popple has here taken 
 the sense of Corneille and put it into verse as 
 he thought best and could best manage; but 
 the smoothness and fire of such a passage con- 
 trast favorably with much of the work of trans- 
 lations called more faithful. Popple could be 
 more literal, as is shown in several passages, and 
 he seems to have used very judiciously the 
 license that his system of translation leaves to 
 the writer — not taking advantage of it to 
 make free renderings except where it seemed 
 necessary for smoothness. In Act I. Scene 4, 
 he has Englished the first passage of Don 
 Diegue's monologue with the use of only one 
 more line than Corneille : 
 
 Oh Fury, Oh Despaire! Oh curst Old Age ! 
 
 Is't to receive this Infamy at last 
 
 That I have lived thus long ? Have I gone through 
 
 1 Je vous I'ai d^j^ dit, je I'ai trouvd sans vie ; 
 Son flanc 6tait ouvert ; et pour mieux m'^mouvoir 
 Son sang sur la poussi^re 6crivait men devoir ; 
 Ou plutOt sa valeur en cet ^tat rSduite 
 Me parlait par sa plaie, et hatait ma poursuite. 
 
AN INTERREGNUM 107 
 
 So many Martial toils, to see my Lawr'ls 
 At last all withered in one day ? ^ 
 
 This is not inspired translation ; but Popple's 
 smooth blank verse, the evident accuracy of his 
 understanding of the French, his good taste and 
 true ear, make this a most interesting and valu- 
 able contribution to the translation literature 
 of that period. 
 
 This was written in 1691, and Popple did 
 not die till 1708, but apparently at no time 
 during those seventeen years did he deem it 
 advisable to publish or circulate this work in 
 any form. At least, a diligent search shows no 
 reference to it among his contemporaries. 
 
 The second translation of this intermediary 
 time is a play called Achilles^ a translation of 
 Iphigenie. Its author is the French Huguenot 
 refugee already referred to, Abel Boyer by 
 name, a man of considerable prominence in 
 English life. He left France when still a very 
 young man, and plunged with great zeal into 
 English politics, becoming a staunch advocate 
 
 1 rage ! 6 d6sespoir ! 6 vieillesse ennemie ! 
 N'ai-je done tant v^cu que pour cette infamie ? 
 Et ne suis-je blanchi dans les travaux guerriers 
 Que pour voir en un jour flStrir tant de lauriers ? 
 
108 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 of Whig principles. This stood in the way of 
 his advancement on one occasion, and in his 
 resentment at this check to his ambition he left 
 the life of a professor, which he had adopted, 
 and gave himself up to literature and politics. 
 His very first work was his Achilles, Boyer is 
 the author of a grammar and dictionary which 
 were excellent productions. His dictionary 
 first appeared at the Hague in 1702, and its 
 popularity may be judged from the fact that in 
 1860 an edition — said to be the forty-first — 
 was published in Paris. .It was, of course, 
 infinitely superior to any French-English dic- 
 tionary that had appeared before it. The num- 
 ber of political pamphlets, essays, monthly 
 journals, annals, etc., which are due to Boyer's 
 pen is immense. And it was he who had the 
 principal management of the celebrated news- 
 paper, the Post-Boy. 
 
 His life is a very picturesque one, and not 
 the least picturesque part of it is the number 
 of quarrels in which he was interminably en- 
 gaged. It does not matter now whether he was 
 an eighteenth-century Whistler or a much-abused 
 man, the fact remains that he almost never 
 undertook anything without a quarrel, and the 
 
AN INTERREGNUM 109 
 
 history of his Achilles is no exception to the 
 rule. 
 
 There were two editions of this work, and in 
 both cases Boyer had trouble connected with 
 its appearance. The first time it came out 
 directly on the heels of a tragedy performed 
 at Lincoln's Inn Fields with little or no suc- 
 cess, which was unfortunately so named as to 
 give the idea to the public that it was on the 
 same subject as Boyer's piece. John Dennis, 
 the bitter, was the author of the first Iphigenia 
 tragedy, and he founded his play on the story 
 of Iphigenia in Tauris, while of course Boyer's 
 work was of Iphigenia in Aulis. Dennis's play 
 was a failure. Downes says of it that it did 
 not "answer the expense of the dresses." So 
 that not only had the public some reason to 
 fear a play on the same subject from Boyer, 
 but they had the lively recollection of having 
 been bored at the performance of the first one. 
 At least such is Boyer's attitude, as may be 
 gathered from a passage in his preface. 
 
 In his first paragraph he speaks about the 
 kindly reception of the play in England, and 
 then continues, " Some of my friends have 
 wondered that a Play which was acted with 
 
110 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 SO much applause should stop so soon in its 
 career. The reason of it is obvious. This 
 tragedy came out upon the Neck of another 
 of the same name, which, being the product of 
 a Giant- Wit and a Giant-Critick, like Horace's 
 Mountain in Labour had miserably baulked the 
 World's Expectations : and most People having 
 been tir'd at Lincolns-Inn-Fields did not care 
 to venture their Patience at Drury-Lane, upon 
 a false supposition that the two Iphigenias were 
 much alike : Whereas they differ no less than 
 a young airy Virgin from a stale antiquated 
 Maid." Boyer's irritation on the subject is 
 probably not without just cause, for the acrid 
 Mr. Dennis must have been an especially dis- 
 agreeable rival. Moreover, at this time Boyer 
 was not in the same secure financial position 
 in which his later journalistic and political 
 activities placed him, and the lack of success 
 of his play must have been a disappointment to 
 more than his pride. Genest says it was acted 
 four times at this its first appearance. This, 
 while no proof of brilliant success, was also not 
 the complete failure that we would judge it 
 from a modern standpoint. It was fair luck, 
 and by no means entirely discouraging to an 
 
AN INTERREGNUM 111 
 
 unknown author. In addition to the rivalry 
 with Dennis, Boyer, in the second edition of his 
 play (which will be taken up in its order), 
 claims that the first appearance of his tragedy 
 was robbed of much of the brilliancy which 
 might have been its fate by the incompetence 
 of one of the actresses. " It received no small 
 Prejudice from the Person that acted Eriphile, 
 who sunk under the weight of so great a part." 
 He adds, as final excuse for his lack of brilliant 
 success, that "The Duchess of Marlborough, 
 who at that time bore an irresistible Sway, 
 bespoke the Comedy then in Vogue during the 
 run of IpJiigenia in Aulis,^^ 
 
 One is naturally inclined to regard all these 
 excuses on Boyer's part with suspicion, and to 
 lay his lack of success to faults in his work. 
 But an examination of the tragedy shows no 
 inherent reason why it should not have suc- 
 ceeded. As Baker says, it is surprisingly free 
 from Gallicisms,^ and it is evident that it was 
 
 1 The BiograpMca Dramatica praises very highly Boyer's 
 complete mastery of English, and says that he and Motteux 
 (another Huguenot refugee) were the only foreigners ever 
 known to acquire an absolutely perfect knowledge of Eng- 
 lish. It does indeed seem remarkable that Boyer, in only 
 ten years' time, could have acquired such command of a 
 
112 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 written by a man who understood all the shades 
 of meaning of his original, though he does not 
 always reproduce them in another tongue. The 
 reader has a feeling in Boyer's case that he has 
 at least recognized the vigorous and eloquent 
 passages and made the attempt to give them 
 with the same force in English. This, of 
 course, puts him far beyond any such author 
 as Lower. His work gives one the impression 
 of being that of a thoroughly intelligent man, 
 and if he had had no other good qualities 
 at all — which is far from . being the case — 
 this would have made his attempt an ac- 
 ceptable one. Let the translation speak for 
 itself in a passage like the following from 
 Act III. Scene 6: 
 
 Achilles. 'Twere little to protect, I will revenge you 
 And punish all at once th' ignoble cheat 
 That dar'd abuse my Name for your undoing. 
 
 Iphigenia. My Lord, if ever you did truly love me 
 Let now my prayers and Tears disarm your Anger. 
 Consider that Barbarian whom you dare 
 That cruel bloudy treacherous Enemy 
 Is still my Father — 
 
 tongue so difficult as ours, for he landed in England in 
 1689, only ten years before the appearance of Achilles. 
 
AN INTERREGNUM 113 
 
 Achilles. Your Father, Madam? No — his black 
 Design 
 Leaves him no other than a Murtherer's name ! ^ 
 
 It is really smooth, spirited, and a close copy 
 of the French. 
 
 It seems curious that it should be a French- 
 man who is the first to introduce successfully 
 the pernicious custom of anglicizing French 
 tragedy in a way up to this time not encoun- 
 tered (except in the AtidromacJie of Crowne, 
 which was so entirely obscure as to have no 
 influence). From Rutter's Cid to Popple's, no 
 one had ever thought of altering the text more 
 than possibly could be helped. The ideal had 
 always been to put the play on the English 
 stage as it had been on the French. Boyer 
 introduced the system of heightening the color 
 and action to fit the less refined English tastes, 
 
 1 Achille. n faut que le cruel qui m'a pu m^priser 
 Apprenne de quel nom il osait abuser. 
 
 Iphigenie. Helas ! si vous m'aimez, si pour grace dernifere 
 Vous daignez d'une amante dcouter la pri^re, 
 C'est maintenant, Seigneur, qu'il faut me le prouver. 
 Car enfin, ce cruel que vous allez braver, 
 Get ennemi barbare, injuste, sanguinaire, 
 Songez, quoi qu'il ait fait, songez qu'il est mon pfere. 
 
 Achille. Lui, votre p6re ! Apr6s son horrible dessein, 
 Je ne le connais plus que pour votre assassin. 
 I 
 
114 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 and put in practice a principle whose worst 
 result is reached in Gibber's absurd change in 
 the ending of the Qid. Boyer had studied the 
 English carefully, with a mind sharpened by 
 the necessity of making his living among them, 
 and he conceived the idea of changing the last 
 act of IphigSnie into an elaborate spectacle. 
 Ulysses' account of the rescue of the heroine is 
 too tame to suit the English, he thinks, and 
 accordingly he has the rescue performed on the 
 stage. There are minute stage directions for 
 the sacrificial scene : bands of priests singing 
 invocations to Diana, choruses, an eclipse of the 
 sun, thunder and lightning, " Diana in a Machine 
 crosses the stage," Eriphile kills herself in the 
 full glare of the footlights ; and in general the 
 author endeavors to give his audience something 
 to pay them for having waited through four 
 long acts of nothing but dialogue. That this 
 curious mixture of classic tragedy and melo- 
 drama did not repel the audiences of that day 
 is seen from the fact that this blood-and-thunder 
 ending is exactly what the next translator of 
 IphigSnie takes from Boyer, and what the latter 
 resents most bitterly is this theft of his changed 
 ending. But that quarrel belongs in another 
 chapter. 
 
VIII. LE MENTEUR 
 
 The advent of Queen Anne to the throne 
 marks a new epoch in translation-making, which 
 is, perhaps, the most interesting in its history. 
 This is the period when translations from 
 Racine and Corneille may reasonably be 
 supposed to have had more real influence and 
 to have lived more nearly a spontaneous life 
 than either before or since. 
 
 The Restoration translations were regarded 
 with respect, it is true, and enjoyed great favor 
 with cultured and fashionable readers. But 
 they were afar off from the everyday literary 
 life of their day. Not many attempts were 
 made to imitate them in native English trage- 
 dies — they were neither attacked nor defended 
 with any great fervor. A certain class of 
 society — the most influential in England — had 
 a genuine liking for them, and the rest of Eng- 
 land went to see them under protest, and read 
 them because they were the fashion. The best 
 men of letters of the realm translated the works 
 
 115 
 
116 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 of the two great French tragedians, and having 
 done so, made no words about it — made no 
 boast that their taste was French and superior. 
 
 With the advent of Queen Anne the scene 
 was completely changed. Literary activity of 
 every description became infinitely more lively 
 and less dignified in its character. A flood of 
 pamphlets and other ephemeral writings of con- 
 troversy showed that, for the first time, the 
 power and cheapness of the printing-press was 
 fully realized by the literary fraternity. The 
 first newspaper with any pretence to literary 
 quality was printed. The restless demand for 
 continual change and for quick reply in argu- 
 mentative dialogue made itself felt. 
 
 To this general change in the world of 
 writers, translations quickly responded. No 
 longer solid monuments, 'they became stones of 
 argument which opposing parties threw at each 
 other's heads. They were no longer taken as 
 a matter of course and accepted without ques- 
 tion, as in the " good old well-meaning days," 
 as Crowne put it. They were both advocated 
 and scorned with much vigor. On the one 
 hand the people who admired them spoke in 
 aggressively emphatic terms, and on the other, 
 
LE MENTEUR 117 
 
 people who were bored by them retorted by a 
 studious neglect — not docilely led by fashion 
 as were audiences in Pepys's time. They were 
 no longer apart in a mildly distinguished atmos- 
 phere of their own, but were dragged into one 
 of the fiercest literary battles ever waged on 
 English soil; which ended in a complete victory 
 for the side opposing translations, Shakespeare 
 and the romantic drama having triumphed so 
 absolutely that one is obliged to dig vigor- 
 ously beneath the surface of the battle ground 
 to discover any traces of their opponents. In 
 a period so alive with literary activity it is to 
 be expected that the translations of Racine and 
 Corneille will be much more numerous than 
 ever before. Whereas during the Restoration 
 there were published but eight plays translated 
 from these two authors in the whole of the twenty- 
 five years of Charles's reign, in the ten years of 
 Anne's period there are ten published, and in 
 the fourteen years after the appearance of the 
 first translation in the eighteenth century there 
 were printed fourteen translated tragedies. 
 
 It is natural that the period when most of 
 these translations appeared is about the time 
 when Addison in Cato made the most worthy 
 
118 COENEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 and serious attempt known to make classic 
 tragedy at home behind English footlights. 
 Cato was played for the first time in 1712, the 
 same year that Ambrose Philips presented his 
 adaptation of Andromaque (the Distrest Mother'), 
 which was the most successful English adapta- 
 tion from a French tragedy ever made. Be- 
 fore three years had passed after these two 
 successes no less than ten translations had 
 been made from Racine and Corneille, of 
 which six were actually performed on the 
 stage. This time was the most agitated 
 period of the struggle between English and 
 French taste, and it is not surprising to see the 
 translations most plentiful. 
 
 It would be neither necessary nor profitable 
 to attempt to draw a picture of those exciting 
 times. That has been done too well by others 
 to need repeating. On the other hand, it is 
 very difficult to pick out from the tangled 
 heap of literary complications just the trans- 
 lations with which this study deals, and the 
 facts immediately concerning them; for, radi- 
 cally unlike the Restoration translations, they 
 are connected by innumerable threads to each 
 other and to the quarrels of the day. 
 
LE MENTEUR 119 
 
 Take, for instance, the tangled history of 
 Le Menteur. Although not a tragedy, this is 
 a very good example of the chequered career 
 of many adaptations. It is doubtful if any 
 play has ever had a longer life of borrowings. 
 Foote, he of the many literary larcenies, took 
 it from Steele, who took it from the anonymous 
 translation already treated ; the author of that 
 work borrowed it from Corneille, and Corneille, 
 as he at first supposed, from Lope de Vega, who 
 did not write it. It can be traced back no 
 farther than Ruiz de Alarcon, who was born in 
 America ; but after such a history, it would not 
 be surprising to find that the plot is in reality 
 an Aztec one. This long line of reincarnations 
 which the comedy has undergone is the more 
 singular because, in England at least, none of 
 the adaptations had any signal success. The 
 Mistaken Beauty has already been shown as a 
 far from popular comedy, and according to 
 Steele's own account his Lying Lover fared not 
 much better. He says frankly in his Apology 
 for Ms Life : " This play was damned for its 
 piety." It is true this is one of the first 
 comedies to show the effect of the virtuous 
 Mr. Collier's crusade against the vice of the 
 
120 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Restoration comedy. It is undoubtedly pious 
 — in spots ! But an impartial examination 
 into the merits of the comedy leads one to 
 think that its piety was not the only reason 
 for its lack of success. The plot is too compli- 
 cated for Steele to handle dexterously, and 
 he has not been satisfied with the intrigue 
 as he found it. Into the gay and dazzling 
 Spanish comedy he introduces a sentimental 
 moral incident which is oddly out of keeping 
 with the rest of his play, which follows the 
 French closely. He makes the hero kill a 
 man while intoxicated, and very properly find 
 himself in prison. Steele's own comment on 
 this addition, given in his preface, shows better 
 than can any mocking commentator the lachry- 
 mose sentiment displayed by the hero who up 
 to that point had been the jaunty, unscrupulous 
 liar of the French text : " The anguish he 
 there expresses and the mutual sorrow between 
 an only child and a tender father in that dis- 
 tress are perhaps an injury to rule of comedy, 
 but I am sure they are a justice to those of 
 morality ; and passages of such a nature being 
 so frequently applauded on the stage, it is high 
 time we should no longer draw occasions of 
 
LE MENTEUR 121 
 
 mirtli from those images which the religion of 
 our country tells us we ought to tremble at 
 with horror." The man who wrote those lines 
 was not the one to reproduce the sparkle of a 
 comedy whose success depends wholly upon 
 the lightness of touch with which the twisted 
 threads of the story are knotted and untied. 
 He is evidently not aware of this lack of 
 dexterity on his part, for he says, " The Spark 
 of this story is introduced with as much agility 
 and life as He brought with him from France 
 and as much Humour as I could bestow upon 
 him in England." 
 
 In the first three acts Steele does his best 
 work. There are a number of scenes where the 
 fun of the original is preserved with consider- 
 able skill, but he fails to appreciate the value 
 of terseness and crispness in a dialogue like the 
 comical one of misunderstanding about the river 
 f^te. (Act II. Scene 3.) Corneille had the 
 wisdom to lift this almost bodily from the lively 
 and vivacious scene in the Spanish, and the 
 anonymous translator of the Mistaken Beauty 
 showed more judgment than Steele by following 
 his text very closely. Steele weighs down the 
 brisk movement by elaborations and amplifica- 
 
122 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 tions which make the scene heavy, tiresome, and 
 obvious. 
 
 In addition, he followed the seventeenth-cen- 
 tury fashion of writing the serious scenes of his 
 comedy in blank verse. This is a great blem- 
 ish, as his blank verse is execrable. The senti- 
 mental scene between Geronte and Dorante 
 (who figure in his adaptation as young and old 
 Mr. Bookwit) is written part in prose and part 
 in an odd sort of halting verse, the quality of 
 which may be imagined from this sample : 
 
 Ages and generations pass away, 
 
 And with resistless force like Waves o'er Waves 
 
 Roul down the irrevocable Stream of Time 
 
 Into the insatiate Ocean for ever. Thus we are gone ; 
 
 But the erroneous sense of man — 'tis the lamented 
 
 that's at 
 Rest but the survivor mourns. 
 
 The tone of this part of the comedy is really 
 chronologically ahead of Steele's time. It is 
 quite in the style of sentimentality which was 
 to become the vogue in the middle of the cen- 
 tury. It is curious to find so perfect a specimen 
 of the comedie larmoyante set into the body of a 
 work so entirely opposed to it in spirit. Cor- 
 neille even suppressed some of the more serious 
 
LE MENTEUR 123 
 
 elements of the Spanish — the first act where the 
 worthy, dignified character of the father is devel- 
 oped — partly, it is true, to bring the more bulky 
 Spanish play within the limit of the French five 
 acts, but partly, it cannot be doubted, to better 
 preserve the unity of feeling throughout the 
 play. If we are to feel any real sympathetic 
 interest in the father, the pranks of the son are 
 no longer comical. "We are taken at once from 
 the gay atmosphere of farcical comedy, where 
 an underlying consciousness of the unreality 
 of the story keeps the perplexities of the father 
 from being painful to us. 
 
 With all these faults, however, and in spite 
 of Steele's assertion as to the effect of the piety 
 of his comedy,^ it cannot be said to have been a 
 complete failure. With Nance Oldfield's lively 
 tongue speaking Victoria's part (Lucrece), and 
 with CoUey Gibber in one of his good parts as 
 gracioso — the comic servant of the hero — it 
 must have been amusing. It was performed six 
 times, according to Genest, which is not bad luck. 
 
 1 Steele's own idea of the significance of the Liar in con- 
 nection with Collier's crusade may be seen from the motto 
 he puts on the title-page, " Haec nosse salus est adoles- 
 centulis." 
 
124 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 The reference in the preface to bringing his 
 hero from France would seem to indicate that 
 Steele wished his readers to think that he drew 
 his material entirely from Corneille. There are 
 several indications, however, that he knew and 
 had read carefully the Mistaken Beauty. In 
 the first act in the description of the river fete, 
 he suddenly breaks from his familiar chatty 
 prose into the same sort of pseudo-verse with 
 which the author of the Mistaken Beauty treats 
 the same theme. As there is no reason what- 
 ever for this sudden change of treatment in 
 either the French or Spanish, the coincidence can 
 scarcely mean anything but that Steele drew 
 some of his ideas from the seventeenth-century 
 translator. 
 
 In this desire to conceal the real source of his 
 comedy, Steele is like the next adapter of Le 
 Menteur, who treats both Steele and Corneille as 
 Steele treated the Mistaken Beauty. It is a long 
 interval to the next translation of Le Menteur, 
 but to make the chronology of this play com- 
 plete it may be reported at this time. Samuel 
 Foote, of dubious reputation and undoubted 
 comic talent, nearly sixty years after Steele's 
 Liar had not succeeded, thought he could bet- 
 
LE MENTEUR 125 
 
 ter it. He accordingly produced The Lyar^ in 
 which he took the title role on January 12, 
 1762, at Covent Garden. In his prologue he 
 claims to have taken his hero from Spain : 
 
 We bring to-night a stranger on the stage, 
 His sire De Vega ; we confess the truth 
 Lest you mistake him for a British youth. 
 
 And after a comical defence of his habit of 
 ridiculing living persons, he forbids any one to 
 see a caricature in this play in the following 
 words : 
 
 But in the following group let no man dare, 
 To claim a limb, nay, not a single hair ; 
 What gallant Briton can be such a sot 
 To own the child a Spaniard has begot? 
 
 If Foote intended by this to draw attention 
 away from his indebtedness to his more imme- 
 diate predecessors, he succeeded only partially. 
 The 3Ionthly Review (Vol. XXXI. p. 153) does 
 seem to be deceived, for it gives a long and 
 very favorable criticism of the " new comedy," 
 reprinting a whole scene as a sample, praising 
 the vivacity and humor which Foote always 
 displays, and nowhere making any mention of a 
 source other than the original Spanish. Doran 
 speaks of it as original, but this must be an 
 
126 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 oversight. The Lying Lover was after all a work 
 of the same century, and Steele was a well- 
 known figure. All the authorities of a later 
 date recognize his sources with perfect ease. 
 Genest^ indeed shows remarkable penetration. 
 He read, it is to be supposed, neither the 
 French nor Spanish originals, yet he chooses for 
 his proofs of Foote's cribbing from Steele two 
 passages, which are precisely the ones most 
 completely detached from either of the foreign 
 versions. It is true that he had the Mistaken 
 Beauty as a sort of guide, but that is not a 
 very trustworthy witness. A fact further cor- 
 roborating Genest's contemptuous refusal to 
 believe Foote's claim to an exclusively Spanish 
 source, and one which he probably could not 
 know, is that although Foote worked over the 
 comedy, in many ways altering the story and 
 differing from all three of his models in some 
 points, he never by any chance hits upon a 
 variant which even faintly recalls the Spanish 
 comedy which he insists is his original. On 
 the other hand, he evidently did not limit his 
 attentions to Steele, for there are a few indica- 
 tions here and there of a knowledge on his part 
 
 1 Some Account^ Vol. IV, p. 649. 
 
LE MENTEUR 127 
 
 of either the Mistaken Beauty or Le Menteur. 
 In the scene at the end of the second act of the 
 French there is a joke about the rapidity with 
 which Dorante gets into the thick of fashionable 
 city life : 
 
 Vienne encore un proces, et je suis achev^. 
 D'aujourd'hui seulement je produis mon visage 
 Et j'ai dejk querelle, amour et mariage. 
 
 This reference to the lawsuit is faithfully 
 reproduced in the Mistaken Beauty^ omitted in 
 Steele's Lying Lover^ and inserted in Foote's 
 Lyar^ copied almost verbatim. 
 
 But after all, the question of where Foote got 
 his material is a minor one, compared to the 
 all-important one of what he did with it. He 
 at once excuses his lack of candor by making 
 really excellent use of the main outlines of the 
 story. He simplifies the action somewhat, re- 
 ducing the comedy to three acts, rejects wisely 
 Steele's absurd and hysterical ending, and car- 
 ries the lively story to a lively conclusion, with 
 an invention of his own which savors of farce 
 but which is infinitely more suited to the brisk 
 and unsentimental tone of the comedy as a 
 whole. 
 
128 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 The Biographica Dramatica takes especial 
 pains to record " the incomparable acting of the 
 late Mr. John Palmer in this piece. Human 
 nature was never, perhaps, more perfectly rep- 
 resented on the stage than by his performance 
 of the principal character in this piece." As 
 Foote himself played Young Wilding (Dor ante) 
 in the first performances, this note would seem 
 to show that the play held its place on the 
 stage after its author's day. Unless, indeed. 
 Palmer played in the farce which the Bio- 
 graphica Dramatica mentions in its notice of 
 the comedy : " It has since been reduced to a 
 farce, and in that state is frequently acted." 
 (This in 1812.) Foote's three-act comedy has 
 already many of the elements of a farce, and it 
 is not surprising to find that some one carried it 
 the one step farther. This farce is the sixth 
 generation from La Verdad Sospechosa ; but it 
 is so much changed that it can scarcely be 
 counted as a member of the family. 
 
IX. PH^DRA AND HIPPOLITUS 
 
 With the next tragedy translated we are on 
 the outskirts of the battle, and the classical 
 party begin the action by their attitude 
 towards the Phcedra and Hippolitus of Ed- 
 mund Smith. 
 
 It is not necessary to go into the details of 
 Smith's somewhat irregular life. It is enough 
 to say that he matriculated at Oxford in 1688, 
 was a thorough scholar, knew well Greek and 
 Latin and several modern languages, was 
 highly unscholastic in his behavior. In 1700 
 his place was declared "void, he having been 
 convicted of riotous behaviour in the house of 
 Mr. Cole, an apothecary," and in December of 
 1705, at the age of thirty-three, he was expelled. 
 He came up to London and became an enthusi- 
 astic Whig. Addison and a number of other 
 influential literary men were at once attracted 
 by the winning ne'er-do-weel, and he soon had 
 a company of powerful friends. Johnson says 
 
 K 129 
 
130 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 neatly of him, "He was one of those lucky 
 writers who are mentioned with reverence 
 rather for the possession than the exertion of 
 uncommon abilities." He is said to have been 
 unusually handsome, and as careless in his 
 dress as in matters of conduct, so that he was 
 called the "Handsome Sloven" or "Captain 
 Rag." This personal charm of Smith's is men- 
 tioned because it is probably partly due to it 
 that he obtained such warm support for his far 
 from valuable translation of Phedre, 
 
 Another reason for the warmth of his recep- 
 tion by the critics was the bitter antipathy 
 felt by English men of letters of that day for 
 the Italian opera. They seem to have feared 
 honestly lest the immense popularity of this 
 comparatively new form of entertainment 
 threaten the legitimate English stage. It seems 
 from this distance as though almost anything 
 would have formed a better counter-attraction 
 to opera than Smith's tragedy; but its lack of 
 success was evidently a complete surprise and 
 an unexpected disappointment to Addison and 
 his circle of adherents. They had done their 
 best for the new play in every way. 
 
 It was presented under what must have been 
 
PHiEDRA AND HIPPOLITUS 131 
 
 very favorable circumstances. The best of the 
 Haymarket company appeared, Theseus being 
 taken by Betterton, Hippolitus by Booth, 
 Phgedra by Mrs. Barry, and Ismena by Mrs. 
 Oldfield — what would be called now a star 
 cast. Addison himself wrote the prologue, 
 which was spoken by Mr. Wilkes. It is com- 
 posed almost exclusively of an attack on the 
 Italian opera and on music in general. He 
 ends by saying that the intelligibility of the 
 play will doubtless be a detriment to it, and 
 that the audience would probably be more 
 satisfied to have Hippolitus sing his speeches in 
 Greek : 
 
 But he, a stranger to your modish way, 
 By your old Rules must stand or fall to-day ; 
 And hopes you will your foreign Taste command 
 To bear, for once, with what you understand. 
 
 In the consideration of the play itself it is a 
 little hard to tell how much comes from Smith's 
 Latin and Greek sources, and how much directly 
 from the French ; but a careful comparison of 
 his text with that of Euripides, Seneca, and 
 Racine inclines one to think that a great deal 
 more comes from Racine than is usually granted. 
 
 It would be too long a matter to give here 
 
132 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 all the passages corroborating this conclusion, 
 but a few may be chosen. Genest says: 
 " When Phi3edra enters in the first act several 
 speeches are taken from Euripides. They are 
 the best in the play." This is one of the pas- 
 sages where Racine has most closely followed 
 Euripides ; but even here it may be seen that 
 Smith has followed rather Racine's amplifica- 
 tion of these speeches than the terse original 
 (Act I. Scene 3) : 
 
 Stay, Virgins, stay, I'll rest my weary Steps ; 
 My strength forsakes me, and my dazzled eyes 
 Ake with the flashing light, my loosened knees 
 Sink under their dull Weight ; support me, Lycon. 
 Alas ! I f aint.^ 
 
 There are many such instances where, to one 
 not knowing the French, Smith would seem to 
 follow the Greek. 
 
 But there is still more conclusive evidence in 
 
 1 (Euripides.) Support me, hold up my head, all the 
 strength of my limbs is gone. Women, support my fair 
 arms. 
 Phedre. N'allons point plus avant. Demeurons, ch6re 
 CEnone 
 Je ne me soutiens plus ; ma force m'abandonne : 
 Mes yeux sont (^blouis du jour que je revoi ; 
 Et mes genoux tremblants se d^robent sous moi. '^ 
 
 Hdlas! 
 
PHiEDRA AND HIPPOLITUS 133 
 
 various passages where expressions of Racine 
 are used that are not in the Greek at all. 
 
 (Racine.) (Enone. Dieux tout-puissants que nos 
 pleurs. . . . 
 
 (Smith.) Lycon. AfEord her ease, Kind Heaven. 
 
 (Racine.) Quand pourrai-je au travers d'une nolle 
 poussiere. . . . 
 
 (Smith.) And in the noble Dust the chariot's lost. 
 
 This peculiar expression translated literally 
 is very noticeable. 
 
 (Racine.) CEnone. Ah s'il faut rougir, rougissez d'un 
 silence. . . . 
 
 (Smith.) Lycon. Blush then, but blush for your de- 
 structive silence. 
 
 It is perfectly true that Smith has not made 
 a translation of Racine, as will be only too 
 evident when his ending is recounted, but the 
 main body of his plot and very many speeches 
 are lifted bodily. He introduces Ismena and 
 makes Hippolitus in love. This certainly can 
 be referred to nothing but an imitation of 
 Racine. 
 
 From about the middle of the fourth act 
 Smith abandons all guides, Greek, Latin and 
 French, and strikes out for himself a truly 
 British ending. He follows the tactics adopted 
 
134 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 later by CoUey Gibber in his Seroick Daughter^ 
 and makes his tragedy end happily. Hippoli- 
 tus is led off by guards after Phaedra denounces 
 him, and a little later a messenger announces 
 that he has stabbed himself. The intervention 
 of Neptune is wholly omitted. Phsedra, upon 
 hearing that Hippolitus is dead, kills herself 
 after a long burst of conventional fifth-act rav- 
 ings — wholly of Smith's inventions : 
 
 See, Hell sets wide its Adamantine Gates, 
 
 See, thro' the sable gates the black Cocytus 
 
 In smoaky Circles rolls its Firey Waves, 
 
 Hear, hear the stunning Harmonies of Woe, 
 
 The Din of rattling Chains, of clashing whips, etc. 
 
 Ismena " offers to stab herself," but at this 
 point Hippolitus enters safe and sound, having 
 had too much British good sense to stab himself. 
 Theseus gives Ismena to him with the follow- 
 ing blessing : 
 
 Be this thy Doom 
 To live forever in Ismena's arms. 
 Go, heavenly Pair and with your dazzling Virtues, 
 Your courage. Truth, your Innocence and Love 
 Amaze and charm Mankind. 
 
 To which Ismena answers, " O killing Joy! " 
 and Hippolitus, " Oh Extasy of Bliss ! " This 
 
PHiEDRA AND HIPPOLITUS 135 
 
 absurd variation from the well-known legend 
 is defended at the end of the play by a speech 
 from Hippolitus: 
 
 The righteous Gods that Innocence require 
 Protect the Goodness which themselves inspire. 
 Unguarded Virtue human Arts defies 
 Th' Accused is happy while th' Accuser dies. 
 
 l^Exeunt omnes. 
 
 It must have been a grievous surprise to 
 Smith and his friends to find that a tragedy so 
 thoughtfully arranged for the benefit of the 
 sensibilities of the British public, should meet 
 with so little favor at its hands. This change 
 in the ending seems incredibly ludicrous now, 
 and it is difficult to conceive how Addison 
 could have been sincere in his praises of it. 
 
 It can easily be seen from these extracts that 
 the style is by no means excellent, and this is 
 especially true as soon as Smith leaves the guid- 
 ance of Racine and goes his own way. Before 
 that, and especially in the passages where he fol- 
 lows more closely his great original, he produces 
 some lines that are fair examples of the swell- 
 ing grandiose style in which he chose to write. 
 There is no doubt that part of the admiration 
 of the critics of that day is due to the fact that 
 
136 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 the bare story of Phsedra, in whatever form it 
 be embodied, is a moving and a tragic one — a 
 tribute indeed when Smith's pompous style is 
 taken into account. 
 
 Certainly no effort was spared to make this 
 tragedy acceptable to the British audiences of 
 that period. In addition to the happy ending 
 and the sentimentality of Hippolitus's last scene 
 with Ismena, there was an epilogue written by 
 the popular Matt Prior, which balances on the 
 very edge of coarseness and occasionally tips 
 the wrong way. This merry mockery of Phae- 
 dra's plight and treatment of her as though she 
 were a London merchant's wife, lost nothing of 
 its salt by issuing from the spicy lips of Nance 
 Oldfield. 
 
 In a fourth edition in 1729 (it seems to have 
 been read eagerly enough by the public if it 
 was not witnessed with any enthusiasm) there 
 is a " Character of Mr. Smith" prefixed by two 
 of his Oxford friends. They speak of him 
 with great admiration, as was natural, and that 
 the idea that Phoedra was a great work was 
 still prevalent, this passage will testify : 
 
 " His Phcedra is a consummate Tragedy and 
 the Success of it was as great as the most 
 
PH^DRA AND HIPPOLITUS 137 
 
 sanguine Expectations of his Friends could 
 promise or foresee. The Number of Nights and 
 the common Method of filling the House are 
 not always the surest Marks of judging what 
 Encouragement a Play meets with." (Addison 
 says the play was hardly heard the second 
 night and was taken from the stage after the 
 fourth. ) " But the Generosity of all Persons of 
 a refined taste about Town was remarkable on 
 this Occasion. . . . and it must not be for- 
 gotten how zealously Mr. Addison espoused 
 his Interest with all the elegant Judgment and 
 diffusive Good-Nature for which that distin- 
 guished Gentleman and Author is so justly 
 valued by Mankind. But as to Phaedra, she 
 has certainly made a finer Figure upon the 
 English Stage than either in Rome or Athens ; 
 and if she excells the Greek and Latin Phaedra, 
 I need not say she surpasses the French one." 
 This was not an isolated opinion. The 
 Dictionary of National Biography gives several 
 proofs of a general feeling among people of 
 letters that the play was a great one, and 
 Addison expresses himself most vigorously in 
 Number 18 of the Spectator upon the degen- 
 eracy of the times. " Would one think it was 
 
138 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 possible at a time when an Author lived who 
 was able to write the Phcedra and Hippolitus for 
 a People to be so stupidly fond of the Italian 
 Opera as scarce to give a third Day's Hearing 
 to that admirable Tragedy ? " 
 
 This was one of the first of the translations, 
 and it found only a small audience of cultured 
 people ready to admire it for its classical tone. 
 The great throng of theatre-goers scoffed at it. 
 Later on, after long series of translations from 
 classic tragedy were imposed upon them, they 
 grew more accustomed to the new fashion, and 
 Genest records eight revivals of Phcedra and 
 Hippolitus. Baker says, "It is an admirable 
 play and still continued on the list of acting 
 tragedies ; yet it met at first with scant en- 
 couragement from audiences." In 1723 it was 
 revived for the first time at Lincoln's Inn Fields 
 and played three times, in 1754 at Drury Lane 
 it was acted three times, and in November of 
 the same year twice at Co vent Garden. This 
 occasion is interesting because Peg Woffington 
 played Phaedra, a singular role for the light- 
 hearted Irish actress. She must have liked the 
 role and have been successful in it, for two years 
 later she acted it again, and later in that same 
 
PH^DRA AND HIPPOLITUS 139 
 
 year once more. Hitchcock^ reports that in 
 1758 it was played in Dublin, but on that even- 
 ing and the one when Tancred was played, the 
 box-office receipts were lower than on any 
 other evenings of the season, the receipts for 
 Phaedra being only X44 when the average 
 was <£77. It was presented in 1774 and in 
 1775, and this is the end of a long record and 
 one more successful than almost any other of 
 the translations made from Racine and Cor- 
 neille. It seems that Addison and his followers 
 were only a little ahead of their time in pre- 
 dicting, in so confident a manner, success for 
 the tragedy. The difficulty about its first 
 representation was that it was a pioneer and 
 suffered the hard fate of most pioneers. 
 
 1 History of the Irish Stage. 
 
X. THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 
 
 After the Phcedra and Hippolitus of Ed- 
 mund Smith had met with such an extremely 
 moderate success, six years passed before another 
 author was brave enough to risk another at- 
 tempt. But in 1712, on March 17th, there ap- 
 peared what was to be by all odds the most 
 popular and successful translation of a French 
 tragedy ever produced, — the Distrest Mother 
 of Ambrose Philips, translated and slightly 
 adapted from Andromaque. 
 
 On the 1st of February, 1712, Steele wrote a 
 very complimentary announcement of the new 
 play. Nearly that entire number of the Spec- 
 tator is given up to a tantalizing account of the 
 excellences of the tragedy, calculated to arouse 
 the curiosity of the public. Steele says : " I 
 must confess, though some days are passed 
 since I enjoyed that entertainment (i.e. read- 
 ing the Mss. of the Distrest Mother), the pas- 
 sions of the several characters dwell strongly 
 upon my imagination; I congratulate the age 
 140 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 141 
 
 that they are at last to see truth and human 
 life represented in the incidents which concern 
 heroes and heroines. It was a most exquisite 
 pleasure to observe real tears drop from the 
 eyes of those who had long made it their pro- 
 fession to dissemble affliction; and the player 
 who read frequently threw down the book until 
 he had given vent to the humanity which rose 
 in him at some irresistible touches of the imag- 
 ined sorrow. . . . My friend Will Honeycomb 
 commended several things that were said and 
 told me they were very genteel ; but whispered 
 me that he feared the piece was not busy enough 
 for the present taste. To supply this he recom- 
 mended to the players to be very careful in 
 their scenes ; and above all things that every 
 part should be perfectly new dressed." 
 
 He forestalls the objection which many Brit- 
 ish critics of that time made to the story — i.e. 
 that there is no real reason why Andromache 
 should not marry Pyrrhus, by saying that had 
 she done so, "she might still be an honest woman 
 but no heroine." " The town has an opportu- 
 nity of doing itself justice in supporting the 
 representation of passion, sorrow, indignation, 
 and even despair itself within the rules of 
 
142 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 decency, honour, and good breeding." In this 
 last sentence is heard the note of the classical 
 side of the struggle against the license of the 
 Shakespearian tragedy. 
 
 As in the case of Smith, no effort was spared 
 by the Addison-Steele coterie to launch tri- 
 umphantly a man who had written a classical 
 tragedy which they were trying to introduce 
 on the English stage, and who was, moreover, 
 a zealous Whig. But there were a number of 
 differences between the two attempts. In the 
 six years since Smith's failure they had grown 
 greatly in influence and fame, and the Spectator 
 was a power of great note. They had, more- 
 over, a very different person from the slovenly 
 Bohemian, " Captain Rag " of the Phcedra^ in 
 decent Ambrose Philips, already known for 
 his Epistle to the Earl of Dorset and his famous 
 Pastorals, Further than this, their man had 
 chosen for translation the tragedy above all 
 others calculated to appeal to English tastes. 
 An unhappy widow struggling to remain faith- 
 ful to her husband and to protect her child — 
 what theme could be more welcome to the sen- 
 timental audiences of the eighteenth century ? 
 Jeremy Collier's fierce attack on the dirty com- 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 143 
 
 edies of the Restoration had produced a wave 
 of reaction against immoral plays — what could 
 be more moral than this weeping mother ? The 
 very subject of Phoedra and Hippolitus was un- 
 pleasant to the newly quickened consciences of 
 that period. This difference between the two 
 tragedies was consciously felt by the public, 
 and is alluded to in a pamphlet ^ written about 
 the great success of the Distrest Mother in 1712. 
 The author speaks of the reproaches which were 
 heaped upon the tastelessness of the English 
 audience by the Spectator when the Phcedra 
 failed, and claims that it was a wholesome 
 instinct which made that tragedy unpopular 
 and not at all the fact that it was written in 
 the classical style. "The whole Fabrick of 
 the play was built upon a rotten foundation 
 . . . a Subject so rank as (notwithstanding 
 the wondrous performance of Mrs. Barry) 
 even nauseated the whole or at least the sober 
 part of the Audience." 
 
 A play like Cinna^ where Roman politics and 
 a woman's fierce desire for revenge form the 
 theme, could not in the nature of things interest 
 
 1 A Modest Survey of that Celebrated Tragedy ^ the Dis- 
 trest Mother^ London, 1712. 
 
144 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 a public which knew almost nothing of Roman 
 politics and which demanded what modern 
 American playwrights call a "heart interest." 
 The Cid had more points of sympathy, but the 
 Spanish point of honor was foreign to Eng- 
 land ; and as for Pompey^ that was again Roman 
 politics. No one needed any knowledge of 
 history to feel for a heroine placed in the situa- 
 tion of Andromache. 
 
 The benevolent efforts of Philips's friends did 
 not stop with preliminary laudatory announce- 
 ments. The audience of the .first night was 
 filled with adherents of the author, and every 
 attempt was made to have the first representa- 
 tion the great night of the season. This time 
 the little clique had developed into a powerful 
 assembly of literary people who were all eager- 
 ness to introduce classical tragedy into English 
 letters, and they were strong enough to carry 
 their point. It was the great night of the 
 season. All witnesses confirm this, although 
 many attempt to belittle the significance by 
 insisting that it was a wholly artificial success 
 due entirely to the support of Addison and 
 Steele. Ward himself says bluntly, " The 
 efforts of Steele and Addison to buoy up its 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 145 
 
 theatrical success have succeeded in securing to 
 it a place among the remembered productions 
 of our dramatic literature." Doran ^ says, " The 
 English piece is even duller than the French 
 one but there is good scope for declamatory 
 actors." Genest^ assigns the same reason for 
 its popularity : " No circumstance to recom- 
 mend it but affords good scope of acting." 
 Genest is very much annoyed by the fact that 
 "the word 'Madam' occurs fifty-four times." 
 Dr. Johnson's sole comment on the merits of the 
 Dtstrest Mother are, " Of the Distrest Mother not 
 much is pretended to be his own and therefore 
 it is no subject of criticism. Such a work re- 
 quires no uncommon power." ^ 
 
 These extracts show that the critics of later 
 days are by no means enthusiastic about the 
 tragedy, and regard it as one of the purely 
 ephemeral triumphs assured by the ill-con- 
 sidered partiality of contemporary critics. But 
 there is more in the continued success of the 
 tragedy than can be accounted for in this way. 
 The sure mark of an artificial success is its 
 
 1 Annals of the English Stage^ Vol. I. p. 321. 
 
 2 Some Account, Vol. II. p. 496. 
 
 8 See preface and life of A. Philips in British Poets. 
 
146 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 lack of permanency. Now the Distrest Mother 
 had not only large audiences and a long run 
 when it first appeared, but it continued during 
 the whole of the eighteenth century to hold 
 the stage with only infrequent intervals of 
 absence. Every great actress of the century 
 played the title role of Hermione many times, 
 and it was continually represented by the best 
 companies in the kingdom. It was one of the 
 favorites in the provinces as well as in Lon- 
 don, was played by the London troupes in their 
 visits to Liverpool, Manchester, Bath, and other 
 provincial " stands " ; and was especially liked 
 in Dublin, which seems always to have been 
 partial to French masterpieces. 
 
 Hitchcock (^History of the Irish Stage') says 
 that in January of 1732 it was decided to give 
 a play by amateurs at the Castle of the Lord 
 Lieutenant. The Distrest Mother was chosen 
 for its great fame and decorous character, and 
 "was acted at the council chamber, in the 
 Castle of Dublin. Lord Viscount Mountjoy, 
 Lord Viscount Kingsland, and other persons of 
 quality of both sexes supported the different 
 characters. The room was fitted oat in the 
 most elegant stile. All the chambers and 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 147 
 
 passages were illuminated with wax. There 
 was a crowded audience of persons of the 
 first rank in the kingdom, and the whole was 
 conducted with the greatest regularity and 
 decorum." 
 
 We hear again and again all through the 
 annals of the stage in that century that the 
 Distrest Mother was selected by some famous 
 actor or actress for a farewell appearance or 
 for some other important performance. Hitch- 
 cock tells us that Mrs. Gibber bade adieu to 
 Ireland in the character of Andromache, and 
 that Peg Woffington, in 1751, almost forty 
 years after the first representation of the 
 tragedy, chose for her debut in Ireland one 
 tragic role and one comic one, Andromache 
 being the tragic one. The same historian 
 writes that, in 1759, "Mr. Barry (the great 
 star of the company then visiting Dublin) 
 judiciously reserved himself till the season was 
 somewhat advanced. On Saturday, November 
 17, he came out with the utmost force and eclat 
 in Orestes in the Distrest Mother. The play 
 was commanded by the Lord Lieutenant. The 
 characters were new dressed. No expense was 
 spared and every circumstance concurred to 
 
148 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 render the house uncommonly fashionable and 
 brilliant." This sounds like a reminiscence of 
 the cordial welcome by Dublin to Mrs. Philips's 
 Pompey. Five years later, in 1764, Barry and 
 a strong company presented the play in Cork. 
 
 But it must not be supposed that the Distrest 
 Mother was like those dry works supposed to be 
 improving and played only in the provinces, 
 while the capital passes them by as out-of-date. 
 A long list of performances given through each 
 winter at Covent Garden and Drury Lane 
 shows that London still admired Philips's 
 work as a masterpiece, and the very consider- 
 able number of times it was chosen for benefit 
 nights and first appearances gives proof that 
 actors and managers of the best theatres in 
 the country were convinced of its popularity 
 with the theatre-going public. 
 
 In 1726 Booth made his first appearance 
 after a serious illness, in the character of 
 Pyrrhus, and was rapturously received, so 
 Theophilus Gibber tells us. In 1736 Gibber 
 chose the play for his benefit. In 1744 the 
 Distrest Mother was chosen, as the playbills of 
 the time announce, "At the Desire of several 
 Persons of Distinction," for the reappearance 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 149 
 
 of Mrs. Roberts, after an absence of twelve 
 years from the stage, and for the first appear- 
 ance of Miss Jenny Gibber in the tragic role of 
 Hermione. In 1750 Mrs. Woffington played 
 Hermione at Covent Garden " for the first time 
 of her attempting that role," while Mrs. Gibber 
 played Andromache, — a combination which 
 must have been well-nigh irresistible. In 
 1755 Mrs. Graham chose this play for her 
 first appearance. But as a climax to this 
 series of benefits and first appearances there 
 came what must have been a most notable per- 
 formance of the play in 1782 (seventy years 
 after it was written), when Mrs. Siddons chose 
 it for her benefit and made it a special occasion 
 by announcing that at the end of the play 
 Mrs. Siddons "will deliver a poetical address 
 written by herself in the course of which she 
 will produce to the audience three reasons for 
 her quitting the stage." ^ Mrs. Summers, a 
 fellow-actress, says that her three children were 
 the three reasons, and that they were kept in 
 her dressing room till they were wanted on the 
 stage : not even the actors knowing what she 
 
 1 This only refers to her leaving Bath to go up to London 
 for her permanent engagement. 
 
160 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 meant to do. Andromache was one of Mrs. 
 Siddons's most favored roles and was very fre- 
 quently chosen for her benefits. In 1786 she 
 acted Hermione for the first time, also at a 
 benefit. 
 
 Baker (^Biographica Bramatica, 1st ed.), writ- 
 ing in 1764, says of the Distrest Mother, " It is 
 at this time a Standard of Entertainment at 
 both Theatres, being generally repeated several 
 times in the course of every season, and will 
 perhaps ever continue to be a stock Play on the 
 lists of the Theatres." Genest,^ speaking with 
 his usual grudging recognition of anything 
 French, says in 1820, " This is an indifferent 
 Tragedy, and yet it has continued on the acting 
 list till the present times." 
 
 The reproach of artificiality in the first suc- 
 cess of this piece and the claim that it owed its 
 fame entirely to the efforts of a small literary 
 clique must be largely modified when this 
 record is surveyed. It may be true that the 
 first-night audience was packed with friends of 
 the author and was predisposed in his favor by 
 the Spectator. But could this have exerted any 
 infiuence on Kemble, when in 1803 he selected 
 1 Some Account, Vol. IX. p. 566. 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 151 
 
 the play for a special performance in Bath? 
 It cannot be denied that the Spectator was 
 a great power when the tragedy first appeared, 
 and that the public may have been urged by 
 this influence to simulate an admiration not 
 wholly genuine. But could this have forced 
 Mrs. Siddons to choose the tragedy for her 
 benefits, as she did again and again ? It is im- 
 possible to deny the conclusion brought out by 
 a study of the facts. A tragedy does not live 
 for a century on borrowed vitality. Inflated 
 and unnatural as it may seem to us now, 
 Ambrose Philips's play must have appealed 
 to a well-defined and sincere taste of the 
 eighteenth century, and its popularity was a 
 solid one. 
 
 To go back to the first of this long series of 
 representations — it occurred at the most favor- 
 able time for such a production, when the enthu- 
 siasm for classic tragedy was in all the strength 
 of its first vigor — only the year before Cato was 
 given. The cast of actors presenting the play 
 was the best that could be gathered together. 
 George Powell (the Spectator's favorite) played 
 Orestes, and Booth was Pyrrhus. Of his inter- 
 pretation of this character the Spectator (March 
 
152 COENEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 24, 1712) says, " Whoever has seen Booth in the, 
 character of Pyrrhus march to his throne to 
 receive Orestes is convinced that Majesty and 
 great Conceptions are expressed in the very 
 step. . . . No other man could perform that 
 Incident as well as he does." Pylades was played 
 by Mill, a utility actor of considerable reputa- 
 tion. Andromache was created by Mrs. Old- 
 field, who needs no introduction, and Hermione 
 was taken by Mrs. Porter, the tragedy queen 
 who for many years enjoyed so well-deserved 
 an admiration. A more competent company 
 could scarcely be found, and the applause which 
 followed their work is not surprising. 
 
 We have a detailed account of how the play 
 was presented by this first company, in the 
 Spectator for March 25, 1712 ; in a pamphlet 
 — A Modest survey of that Celebrated Tragedy^ 
 the Distrest Mother^ so often and so highly ap- 
 plauded by the Ingenious Spectator; — and in 
 various stage histories and biographies. We 
 learn that Mrs. Porter was immensely admired 
 as Hermione, and that Mill's Pylades became 
 one of his favorite characters. The Spectator 
 takes Sir Roger de Coverley to the theatre " for 
 the first time these twenty years," drawn thither 
 
THE DISTKESSED MOTHER 153 
 
 by the great fame of the new tragedy. His 
 comments are reported by Addison, and are 
 most entertaining. "Upon the entering of 
 Pyrrhus the knight told me he did not be- 
 lieve the king of France himself had a better 
 strut : " another tribute to the majesty of 
 Booth. Sir Roger was sure "Andromache 
 would never have Pyrrhus, and added, ' You 
 can't imagine, sir, what it is to have to do with 
 a widow.' " He is very much surprised at the 
 clear and simple language, which was of course 
 one of the features of classic tragedy which 
 Addison was most eager to emphasize. " Should 
 your people in tragedy always talk to be under- 
 stood ? Why, there is not a single sentence in 
 this play that I do not know the meaning of ! " 
 He was sorry that Astyanax had not appeared; 
 " he should have been very glad to see the little 
 boy, who must needs have been a very fine child 
 by the account that is given of him." But he 
 was relieved that Pyrrhus was not killed in 
 sight of the audience ; another element of classic 
 tragedy which the classicists were anxious to 
 introduce. " He told me it was such a bloody 
 piece of work that he was glad it was not done 
 on the stage." Of the mad scene of Orestes 
 
154 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 he remarks, " Orestes in his madness looks 
 as if he saw something." He found Pylades 
 "a very sensible man," and he says of him, 
 " though he speaks little, I like the old fellow 
 in whiskers as well as any of them ! " The 
 whole account is a very artfully contrived 
 piece of special pleading on Addison's part, 
 calculated to forestall all of the objections 
 which the average Englishman would raise to 
 tragedy so formal and Gallic in its spirit. 
 
 As a proof of success, a very harsh criticism 
 is almost as valuable as a favorable one. No 
 one takes the pains to attack a failure. The 
 Distrest Mother received this tribute, as it was 
 bitterly attacked by the pamphlet mentioned 
 before, — a Modest Survey^ etc., — which fur- 
 nished the necessary shadow to the picture of 
 the tragedy's prosperity. In fifty-two pages oc- 
 tavo an anonymous author, alarmed by what he 
 evidently considers an overwhelming tendency 
 to Gallicize the English stage, attacks the Dis- 
 trest Mother and all that it stands for. He 
 says that the eminently moral character of the 
 play has undoubtedly much to do with its 
 success as compared with the failure of the 
 Phoedra. But with that observation any ap- 
 proach to praise ends. 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 155 
 
 He refuses all merit to Philips's share in the 
 work, saying that his diction is bald, mean, and 
 poor. It is curious to see what they term the 
 " simplicity " of the style praised by Addison 
 and attacked by others, when it seems to mod- 
 ern readers the reverse of either simplicity or 
 clarity. The author of the pamphlet regrets 
 also the absence of ornaments to the style in 
 the way of high-flown and lengthy metaphors 
 and sharp turns of wit. He complains that the 
 author of the play has been niggardly with his 
 store of good things and has "beaten his wit 
 thin " to make the quantity of it seem more. 
 But it is against the play itself that he launches 
 his sharpest shafts. Andromache seems to him 
 the most absurd and illogical of characters. 
 " Why," he inquires, " should she not marry 
 Pyrrhus ? " He was a good man, very much in 
 love with her, and willing to do well by her 
 son. He for his part, if he had been Hector, 
 would have been very much provoked by this 
 foolish sentimentality. What better could she 
 expect than to be well taken care of all her life, 
 and see her son refounding the Trojan line ? 
 As for Andromache's plan of marrying Pyrrhus 
 and killing herself at once, he denounces it as 
 
156 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 the most shameless of cheats. His British com- 
 mercial sense of honor revolts against Pyrrhus, 
 paying so high a price for what he doesn't get. 
 " Andromache is a romantic, vaporing fool, as 
 well as a heartless cheat and jilt." As to 
 Pyrrhus, he was a fool who deserved no better 
 fate, for so exposing himself on his wedding 
 day that Orestes could kill him and get safely 
 away. The pamphleteer proposes a modifica- 
 tion in the plot, i.e. that Andromache should 
 have a visit from Hector's ghost, commanding 
 her to stop her high-flown hysterics, to marry 
 Pyrrhus like a sensible woman, and thank her 
 fate for the chance. At the close the pam- 
 phleteer disclaims any pique or personal feeling 
 as the motive of this attack : " An honest and 
 hearty Warmth for the Honour of the British 
 Poetry in Discouragement of all French impor- 
 tations of this kind unless better refined and 
 cleaned from their original Dross and Rubbish; 
 as justly disclaiming that everything that 
 glistered in France should pass for current in 
 England. " The warmth of this attack is a strong 
 tribute to the success of the play. The fear of 
 a French invasion of the English stage is only 
 shown when adaptations are receiving consider- 
 able popular favor. 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 157 
 
 One of the most interesting things in the 
 history of this play is the immense popularity 
 of the epilogue, which is said to be one of the 
 most successful ever written in English. It 
 was ostensibly written by Eustace Budgell, but 
 probably by Addison himself, and was the occa- 
 sion of a war of words in the Spectator which 
 lasted through several numbers. First came a 
 letter criticising very severely the light tone 
 of the epilogue, and saying that the effect of 
 the whole tragedy, " which had gradually worked 
 my soul up to the highest pitch," was totally 
 destroyed by the mockery of Mrs. Oldfield as 
 she recited the epilogue. Three days later 
 came another letter (ostensibly from another 
 correspondent) from Addison himself, defend- 
 ing his work with the utmost warmth. It 
 begins, "I am amazed to find an epilogue at- 
 tacked in your last Friday's paper which has 
 been so generally applauded by the town and 
 received such honor as was never before given 
 to any in an English theatre. The audience 
 would not permit Mrs. Oldfield to go off the 
 stage the first night till she had repeated it 
 twice ; the second night the noise of encoring 
 was as loud as before, and she was again 
 
158 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 obliged to speak it twice; the third night it 
 was still called for a second time, and, in short, 
 contrary to all other epilogues, which are dropped 
 after the first representation, this has already- 
 been repeated nine times." He goes on to say 
 that all tradition is on his side, and quotes the 
 far too gay epilogues of Dryden and other 
 Restoration poets ; also the epilogue to Phcedra 
 and Hippolitus^ where he had the authority of 
 Matt Prior back of him. More than this, he 
 cites the French custom of having a merry 
 little farce after a tragedy, and says that for his 
 part he is not ill pleased to be sent home in a 
 good humor instead of weeping over the fatal 
 tangle of passions presented to him. It will 
 perhaps be easier to form an accurate judgment 
 on this epilogue so much discussed if it is 
 reproduced. 
 
 I hope you'll own that with becoming art 
 I've played my game and topped the widow's part. 
 My spouse, poor man, could not live out the play, 
 But died commodiously on his wedding day ; 
 While T, his relict, made at one bold fling, 
 Myself a princess, and young Sty a king. 
 
 You, ladies, who protract a lover's pain, 
 And hear your servants sigh whole years in vain; 
 Which of you all would not on marriage venture, 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 169 
 
 Might she so soon upon her jointure enter? 
 
 'Twas a strange 'scape ! Had Pyrrhus lived till now, 
 I had been finely hampered in my vow. 
 To die by one's own hand and fly the charms 
 Of love and life in a young monarch's arms. 
 'Twere a hard fate — ere I had undergone it, 
 I might have took one night — to think upon it. 
 But why, you'll say, was all this grief expressed 
 For a first husband long since laid to rest? 
 Why so much coldness to my kind protector ? 
 Ah, ladies, had you known the good man Hector I 
 Homer will tell you, (or I'm misinformed) 
 That, when enrag'd, the Grecian camp he stormed, 
 To break the tenfold barriers of the gate 
 He threw a stone of such prodigious weight 
 As no two men could lift, not even of those 
 Who in that age of thundering mortals rose; 
 It would have sprain'd a dozen modern beaus. 
 
 At length, howe'er, I laid my weeds aside. 
 And sunk the widow in the well-dressed bride. 
 In you it still remains to grace the play, 
 And bless with joy my coronation day ; 
 Take, then, ye circles of the brave and fair, 
 The fatherless and widow to your care. 
 
 It seems probable that the enthusiasm which 
 greeted this somewhat heavy-handed joking 
 after seeing a version of Andromaque was of 
 the same variety as Pepys's joy at the Dutch 
 clowns, after Horace. However that may be, 
 the epilogue continued famous almost as long 
 
160 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 as the play did, and as late as 1770 playbills 
 announce that after the representation of the 
 Distrest Mother the " famous original epilogue " 
 would be given. 
 
 After all these evidences of unusual success 
 which the tragedy obtained, one turns with a 
 lively interest to the consideration of the work 
 of Mr. Philips itself to see what sort of a transla- 
 tion it was which aroused such enthusiasm and 
 held it so long. (Act I. Scene 2.) 
 
 Orestes. Before I speak the message of the Greeks 
 Permit me, sir, to glory in the Title 
 Of their Ambassador : since I behold 
 Troy's vanquisher and great Achilles' son. 
 Nor does the Son rise short of such a Father. 
 If Hector fell by him Troy fell by you. 
 But what your Father never would have done, 
 You do. You cherish the Remains of Troy 
 And, by an ill-timed Pity, keep alive 
 The dying embers of a ten-years War.^ 
 
 ^ Orestes. Avant que tous les Grecs vous parlent par 
 ma voix, 
 Souffrez que j'ose ici me flatter de leur choix 
 Et qu' a vos yeux. Seigneur, je montre quelque joie 
 De voir le fils d'Achille et le vainqueur de Troie. 
 Oui, comme ses exploits, nous admirons vos coups : 
 Hector tomba sous lui, Troie expira sous vous ; 
 Et vous avez montre par une heureuse audace, 
 Que le fils seul d'Achille a pu remplir sa place. 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 161 
 
 This is a very good example of Philips's 
 style, correct, dignified, quite close to the 
 French yet losing almost entirely the lift and 
 emphasis of the original. It can almost never 
 be said that he has failed to render the mean- 
 ing of a phrase of Racine's, and almost as 
 seldom that he has really secured the same 
 quality, or even one of his own which is of the 
 same nature as Racine's elegant and polished 
 perfection of wording. (Same scene.) 
 
 Pyrrhus. No! Let them come; since I was born to 
 wage 
 Eternal Wars. Let them now turn their Arms 
 On him who conquered for them ; Let them come 
 And in Epirus seek another Troy 
 'Twas thus they recompens'd my Godlike Sire ; 
 Thus was Achilles thank'd ; But, Prince, remember 
 Their black Ingratitude then cost them dear. 
 
 Orestes. Shall Greece then find a Rebel Son in Pyr- 
 rhus? 
 
 Pyrrhus. Have I then conquered to depend on Greece ? 
 
 Orestes. Hermione will sway your Soul to Peace 
 And mediate 'twixt her Father and yourself.^ 
 
 Mais ce qu'il n'eut point fait, la Grece avec douleur 
 Vous voit du sang troyen relever le malheur, 
 Et vous laissant toucher d'une pitie funeste, 
 D'une guerre si longue entretenir le reste. 
 
 ^ Pyrrhus. Non, non. J'y consens avec joie : 
 Qu'il s cherchent dans I'Epire une seconde Troie ; 
 
 M 
 
or 
 
 162 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 In shorter speeches like these, Philips is 
 closer to the French than in the long declam- 
 atory ones where he picks and chooses, from 
 perhaps forty lines, twenty-five for reproduc- 
 tion. This shortening of speeches is really the 
 most serious change which he introduces, and is 
 a very sensible one for a play which is to be 
 actually performed. Many very long speeches 
 are cut in presenting them at the Theatre 
 Frangais to-day. As far as adapting in the 
 usual English sense, there is very little of it. 
 The scenes and acts are arranged in very much 
 the same order and with very much the same 
 contents as in the original except for the abbre- 
 viating already referred to. It could scarcely 
 be expected that an eighteenth-century trans- 
 
 Qu'ils confondent leur haine et ne distinguent plus 
 Le sang qui les fit vaincre et celui des vaincus. 
 Aussi bien ce n'est pas la premiere injustice 
 Dont la Grece d'Achille a paye le service. 
 Hector en profita, seigneur ; et quelque jour 
 Son fils en pourrait bien profiter k son tour. 
 
 Oreste. Ainsi la Grece en vous trouve un enfant 
 rebelle ? 
 
 Pyrrhus. Et je n'ai done vaincu que pour dependre 
 d'elle? 
 
 Oreste. Hermione, Seigneur, arretera vos coups ; 
 Ses yeux s'opposeront entre son pere et vous. 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 163 
 
 lator, however, could keep the ending exactly as 
 he found it. Philips yielded to temptation to 
 make as much of a happy ending as could 
 be possible after Pyrrhus' death, by bringing 
 Andromache once more on the scene to take 
 possession, visibly, of her new power as queen 
 and to be reunited to her son. She is overcome 
 with grief for the death of Pyrrhus, which is 
 inconsistent but spectacular, and proclaims that 
 she will mourn for him till her death. The 
 arrival of the young prince, her son, is an- 
 nounced, and the play ends with a moralizing 
 rhymed sextet in which the author of the 
 Pastorals is clearly discerned : 
 
 Though plunged in Ills and exercised in Care 
 Yet never let the noble mind despair 
 . When prest by dangers and beset with Foes 
 The Gods their timely Succour interpose ; 
 And when our Vertue sinks, o'erwhelmed with Grief 
 By unforeseen Expedients bring relief. 
 
 This adds one more confusion to her grief for 
 the death of Pyrrhus. 
 
 Philips is a little too complacent in his 
 treatment of the really stirring scenes of this 
 tragedy. He has no idea of faithfully repro- 
 
164 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 ducing every detail as does Mrs. Philips with 
 PompSe. He is a poet on his own account, and 
 has great confidence in his power to treat a 
 situation quite as well as Racine. Take, for 
 example, the scene after the murder of Pyrrhus 
 by Orestes and the Greeks. Here, if anywhere, 
 a really faithful and judicious translator would 
 have clung to his text as closely as he could, 
 in an effort to render the matchless perfection 
 of his author. This is what Philips does : 
 
 Hermione. Peace, Monster, Peace ! — Go tell thy horrid 
 tale 
 To Savages and howl it out in Desarts. 
 Wouldst thou impute to me thy monstrous Guilt ? 
 Me wouldst thou make the Accomplice of thy Crimes? 
 Hence to thy Greeks ! and boast thy foul exploits ! 
 My Soul abhors them! I disclaim the deed ! 
 Be gone ! I know thee not ! Thou fell Barbarian ! 
 What had he done? What could provoke thy Mad- 
 ness 
 To assassinate so great, so brave a Man, 
 Who set thee on ? 
 
 Orestes. Grant me Patience, heaven ! 
 
 With your own lips did you not curse the Tyrant, 
 Pronounce his Death and urge me to destroy him ? 
 
 Hermione. What if transported by my boundless Pas- 
 sion 
 I could not bear to see him wed another ? 
 Were you to obey a jealous Woman's Phrenzy? 
 You should have dived into my most inmost thoughts ; 
 
THE DISTRESSED MOTHER 165 
 
 My Heart though full of Rage was free from Malice ; 
 And all my anger was excess of Love.^ 
 
 This is very energetic and not without real 
 fire, but it is unfortunate that it did not occur 
 to Philips that Racine had regulated all the de- 
 tails of the scene better than he could. The 
 situation itself is so stirring that a well-written 
 version of it like this must have made a deep 
 impression even if it is not a faithful render- 
 ing of the original. It can be seen all through 
 
 ^ Hermione. Tais-toi, perfide, 
 
 Et n'impute q'k toi ton ISche parricide. 
 Va f aire chez tes Grecs admirer ta fureur, 
 Va, je la desavoue, et tu me fais horreur. 
 Barbare, qu'as tu fait ? Avec quelle f urie 
 As-tu tranche le cours d'une si belle vie ! 
 Avez-vous pu, cruels, I'immoler aujourd'hui 
 Sans que tout votre sang se soulevat pour lui? 
 Mais, parle ; de son sort qui t'a rendu I'arbitre ? 
 Pourquoi Tassassiner? Qu'a-t-il f ait ? Aqueltitre? 
 Quitel'adit? 
 
 Oreste. Oh Dieux ! Quoi ! ne m'avez vous pas 
 
 Vous-meme, ici, tantdt, ordonne son trepas? 
 
 Hermione. Ah ! f allait-il en croire une amante insensde ? 
 Ne devais-tu pas lire au fond de ma pensee? 
 Et ne voyais-tu pas, dans mes emportements 
 Que mon cceur dementait ma bouche k tons moments ? 
 Quand je I'aurais voulu, f allait-il y souscrire ? 
 
166 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 the tragedy that a trained hand and a real 
 talent are at work even if there be no spark 
 of genius which would have fired the whole 
 into a production worthy in all respects of the 
 great original. 
 
XI. COLLEY GIBBER 
 
 The success of Ambrose Philips seems to 
 have encouraged Gibber to try his hand at 
 translating and adapting a French play. As 
 the author of the Distrest Mother had chosen 
 the most popular work of Racine, Gibber, 
 nothing daunted, selected Gorneille's master- 
 piece. He brought on the stage, on November 
 28, 1712, an adaptation of the Cid under the title 
 of The Heroieh Daughter or Ximena. Gon- 
 trary to the usual custom of the day this play 
 was not printed till nine years after its first 
 appearance. It was revived with considerable 
 success in 1718, with an admirable cast. Mrs. 
 Oldfield played the title role then, and prob- 
 ably created it in 1712. The year after its first 
 appearance she chose it for her benefit. This 
 would seem to indicate that she liked the role, 
 and that the play had been received with con- 
 siderable favor at its first representation. In- 
 deed it was played eight times, what was con- 
 sidered then a run of some length. 
 167 
 
168 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 The first edition of The Heroich Daughter at- 
 tracted a vast deal of attention from a cause in 
 no wise connected with the adaptation itself, but 
 with a most indiscreet remark which the heed- 
 less Gibber introduced into his Epistle of Dedi- 
 cation^ addressed to Sir Richard Steele. As 
 the stir which this preface made brought The 
 Heroich Daughter much more prominently to the 
 attention of the public than its merits alone 
 could have done, it may be well to note 
 briefly the main points of the controversy. 
 They will serve, moreover, as examples of the 
 sort of strife into which the translations of this 
 time were ushered. 
 
 Gibber, in the course of his compliments to 
 Steele, spoke with much gratitude of the favor 
 which the Spectator and the Tatler had shown 
 the stage. This passage is interesting as show- 
 ing the real practical influence of the literary 
 men of that day, and as bringing out the fact 
 that the admiration of Mr. Addison for a 
 tragedy like the Distrest Mother meant more 
 actually to the managers of that day than the 
 admiration of a man of letters of similar stand- 
 ing would mean now. This difference ought 
 not to be forgotten in attempting to under- 
 
COLLEY GIBBER 169 
 
 stand the situation. " How often have we 
 known the most elegant Audiences drawn 
 together at a Day's warning by the Influence 
 or Warrant of a single Tatler in a season where 
 our best Endeavors without it could not defray 
 the charge of the Performance." Not willing 
 to leave the compliment as it was, he wished to 
 sharpen it by showing that to Steele alone was 
 due the credit of those papers, and put Addi- 
 son completely out of the question by saying 
 that, when he is spoken of as part editor of the 
 Spectator^ Steele might well exclaim with Mark 
 Antony : 
 
 Fool that I was ! upon my eagle wings 
 
 I bore this Wren 'till I was tired with soaring 
 
 And now he mounts above me ! 
 
 Any one who is familiar with the feeling of 
 that period can imagine the burst of indignant 
 protest with which this comparison was re- 
 ceived by the readers of The Heroich Daughter. 
 Squibs and cuts at both Gibber and Steele 
 appeared in various forms. One coming out 
 in Misfs Journal for October 31, 1719, will 
 serve as a good example of what poor CoUey 
 was forced to endure : 
 
 " Mr. Gibber the player, having newly dedi- 
 
170 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 cated to Sir Richard Steele a translation of the 
 Oid^ a Tragedy written by the famous Mr. Cor- 
 neille, wherein he very modestly confesses that 
 he hath infinitely outdone the French orig- 
 inal ; and that the late celebrated Mr. Addison 
 owed all his reputation to Steele, the former of 
 whom he compares to a Wren and the latter to 
 an Eagle ; the following lines were written off 
 Hand by one who has an odd Fancy that Gibber 
 and Steele are inferior to Corneille and Addi- 
 son ; which you may if you are of the same 
 Opinion insert in your next Journal. 
 
 " Written in Gibber's Heroic Daughter dedi- 
 cated to Sir R. Steele : 
 
 " Thus Colley Gibber greets his Partner Steele 
 See here, Sir Knight, how I've outdone Corneille I 
 See here how I my Patron to inveigle 
 Make Addison a Wren and you an Eagle 1 
 Safe to their silent Shades we bid defiance 
 For living Dogs are better than dead Lions ! ** 
 
 This sort of running fire was kept up for 
 months, until Steele took a step which must 
 have hurt Gibber more than anything else. On 
 January 2, 1720, there appeared the first num- 
 ber of The Theatre^ — to he continued every 
 Tuesday and Saturday hy Sir John Edgar, 
 
COLLEY GIBBER 171 
 
 "Sir John Edgar" was a transparent nom 
 de plume behind which Steele hid himself 
 to conduct an elaborate defence against the 
 storm of abuse which had burst on him as 
 well as on Gibber, as a result of the latter's 
 unhappy compliment. " Sir John Edgar " 
 asseverates with the greatest solemnity that 
 he has reason to be absolutely sure that 
 Steele had no idea what was in the preface 
 until the play actually appeared, irrevocably 
 printed, and so was not in the least to blame 
 for it. This attempt to shift all the blame 
 upon Colley's irresponsible shoulders was by no 
 means a success. Steele's incognito was pene- 
 trated almost at once by all who knew any- 
 thing of the matter, and he was so heartily 
 berated for this new move that he was forced to 
 turn his Theatre to a consideration of the South 
 Sea Bubble^ and finally after only three months' 
 existence to discontinue the paper altogether. 
 He did not take this step, however, till the 
 attention of the virulent Mr. Dennis was 
 turned to the affair; and when Dennis began 
 to express his mind, all that had gone before 
 seemed like a war of compliments. He insti- 
 tuted at once the Anti-Theatre (Dennis was 
 
172 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 nothing if not direct in his attacks), and in this 
 periodical, which only ran during fifteen num- 
 bers, proceeded in all leisure to flay poor CoUey 
 and Steele. He says they stole everything 
 they wrote for the stage from the French with- 
 out giving credit to their originals. Of Steele's 
 Lying Lover he remarks, after the severest 
 blame, " I shall say no more of it than that it 
 is a very wretched copy of a very indifferent 
 original, — for Comedy was not the talent of 
 Corneille." He says Gibber (of whom he speaks 
 as Steele's Champion and Deputy Governor) 
 " has made as bold with the French as you, and 
 to as good a purpose ; he has bravely turned 
 the Tartuffe of Moliere out of ridicule. But 
 then, to commute for that offence, he has with 
 equal bravery burlesqued the Cid of Corneille. 
 We may guess at your future conduct from 
 your past. You and your Deputy Governor 
 will go on to borrow from the French, and con- 
 tinue to rail at them. It is not enough for some 
 people to rob unless they likewise murder." 
 
 He quotes from The Theatre : " You say, ' In 
 France they are delighted either with low and 
 fantastical farces or tedious declamatory Trag- 
 edies.' How rarely this sounds from one who 
 
COLLEY GIBBER 173 
 
 has himself brought their plays upon the Eng- 
 lish Stage and set his name to them ; from one 
 of whose Poetical works they make up the 
 better half ; and lastly, from one who in his 
 Speculations has so often and so fulsomely 
 commended the bare translations of those Orig- 
 inals which he here decries. How angry were 
 you once with the Town for not liking that 
 wretched rhapsody, the 'Phsedra' of Captain 
 Rag ! " He speaks of a number of unpleasant 
 qualities which he accuses Steele and Gibber of 
 having in common ; and " There is a third ex- 
 traordinary quality, Sir John, which is com- 
 mon, to you and your Viceroy, which is, that 
 for several years together, both of you have 
 been the celebrated Authors of other people's 
 works ! " 
 
 One can imagine that the two good-natured 
 adapters must have winced under this virulence. 
 
 The noise of this quarrel was still resounding 
 as late as 1792, when John Bell, the publisher, 
 put before an edition of The Heroick Daughter 
 the following note : " In a strange dedication 
 which we shall not suffer now to sully the fame 
 of our comic Colley, he was weak enough to 
 treat Steele as an Eagle and Addison as a Wren 
 
174 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 — Such Proplianation he was afterwards wise 
 enough to retrench (in later editions of the 
 play). We spare his memory the opprobrium 
 of seeing it here." 
 
 Enough has been said about this wretched 
 dispute. The play itself is so curious a pro- 
 duction that it well deserves examination for 
 the sake of its peculiarities. Gibber devotes 
 twelve pages to explanation of the changes he 
 has made in the play and it would be difficult, 
 without taking almost as much space, to con- 
 sider fully all his alterations. The most impor- 
 tant may be broadly indicated here. The role 
 of the Infanta is suppressed. Gibber remarks 
 judiciously, apropos of this change, "She is 
 always dropping in like cold water upon the 
 Heat of the Main Action." And then hav- 
 ing shown such shrewd managerial instinct, he 
 proceeds at once to nullify the good effect of it 
 by introducing an absurd secondary character 
 and plot — one Belzara, formerly betrothed 
 to Don Sanchez, who after many tribulations, due 
 to her lover's fondness for Ghimena, receives him 
 from the hand of the King at the end of the 
 play. 
 
 A whole new first act is added to acquaint 
 
COLLEY GIBBER 176 
 
 the audience with the situation of Ximena and 
 Carlos (Chimene and Rodrigue). He thinks 
 " Corneille is very defective in this point," and 
 does not hesitate to express his opinion in the 
 most familiar and even slangy of terms. Indeed 
 the predominant note in this preface is the 
 unbounded complacence and self-assurance, deli- 
 ciously absurd when one considers whom he is 
 criticising so freely. He objects to Chim^ne's 
 first appearance on the stage in the original, 
 thus, "After Chimene is informed that her 
 Father has allowed Rodrigue the Person most 
 worthy of her, she thinks the news too good to 
 be true and is still, (though she can't tell why) 
 afraid it will come to nothing, and so quaintly 
 walks off to as little purpose as she came on ; " 
 and further on he condemns Corneille for 
 using what he calls an undignified device, as 
 follows : " The King cunningly tells her that 
 Rodrigue is dead of his Wounds, at which Chi- 
 mene fainting. His Majesty fairly bites her, owns 
 he is alive, etc." The use of this antiquated 
 piece of eighteenth-century slang seems curiously 
 appropriate in a reproof directed against undue 
 familiarity. 
 
 The prologue is interesting in its reference 
 
176 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 to Gibber's satisfaction with his work and to 
 the new interest in classic tragedy : 
 
 As France improved it from the Spanish Pen 
 We hope, now British, 'tis improved again ; 
 And though lost Tragedy has long seemed dead, 
 Yet, having lately raised her awful Head, 
 To-night with Pains and Cost we humbly strive 
 To keep the spirit of that taste alive. 
 
 How awful a head Corneille's tragedy is made 
 to rear may be judged when Gibber's ending 
 is considered ; for like Edmund Smith he 
 thought the French ending too sad a one, and 
 like him adopted the most childlike method of 
 making it cheerful — that is, the resuscitation of 
 a character supposed to be dead. Ximena's 
 father reappears at the end of the play, not 
 killed at all by Garlos, but wounded enough to 
 chasten his spirit and remove the only obstacle 
 between his daughter and Garlos ; who forthwith 
 rush into each other's arms with exclamations 
 of joy very like those of the earlier Ismena and 
 Hippolitus, rescued, like them, from the unkind 
 fate which had separated them for so many 
 years till a British playwright came upon them. 
 The epilogue, spoken by Mrs. Oldfield as 
 Ximena, says of this extraordinary change: 
 
COLLEY GIBBER 177 
 
 Well, Sirs ! 
 
 I've come to tell you that my Fears are over, 
 
 I've seen Papa and have secured my lover. 
 
 And, troth, I'm wholly on our Author's side. 
 
 For had (as Corneille made him) Gormez died, 
 
 My Part had ended as it first begun. 
 
 And left me still unmarryed and undone. 
 
 In spite of all these violent changes, there 
 still remain many passages where Gibber admits 
 that Corneille has value, and follows him closely. 
 His translation is of the very free variety that 
 is characteristic of this period and this kind of 
 writing. The conscientious literary translators 
 of the Restoration are far away from these 
 practical playwrights who adapt their work to 
 the actual stage, to the English stage, and to 
 the English stage of that period with all its tra- 
 ditions and conventions. It is not fair to judge 
 the work of a man like Gibber by the same 
 standard as that applicable to Mrs. Philips. 
 He was no literary man by profession, in spite 
 of his Laureateship ; he was an actor, and above 
 all a manager — a Henry Irving or David 
 Belasco of the eighteenth century. He had no 
 idea of adding to the knowledge or broadening 
 the taste of the British public, like Smith or 
 Philips, both University men. He wished 
 
178 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 simply to produce something which would 
 please the public and give good roles to the 
 leading members of his company. It is true, he 
 was sincerely convinced that he had actually 
 bettered Corneille, but that was looking at the 
 play from a purely practical standpoint. Gib- 
 ber's own view of his practice of altering plays 
 may be seen from his Letter to Mr. Pope (1742) 
 when at last, stung by the torrent of abuse 
 which Pope had been directing at him, he breaks 
 his good-natured silence and defends himself. 
 Referring to Pope's 
 
 A past vamp'd future, old reviv'd new piece, 
 'Twixt Plautus, Fletcher, Shakespear, and Corneille 
 Can make a Gibber, Tibbold, or Ozell ; 
 
 Gibber says in the first place that several of 
 his plays are original, and then, of his transla- 
 tions, " Is a Tailor that can make a new Goat 
 well, the worse Workman because he can mend 
 an old one ? " It is a simple practical matter 
 to him, quite like making an old garment fit 
 a new wearer. 
 
 The quality of Gibber's versification when he 
 is avowedly translating may be seen from a 
 passage like this (Act II. Scene 8) : 
 
COLLEY GIBBER 179 
 
 Is he not dead ? Is not my Father kill'd ? 
 Have not these Eyes beheld his ghastly Wound 
 And mixt with Fruitless Tears his streaming Blood ? 
 That Blood which in his Royal Master^s Cause 
 So oft has sprung him thro' your Foes victorious^ 
 That Blood which all the raging Swords of War 
 Could never reach, a young presumptious arm 
 Has dar'd within your View to sacrifice.^ 
 
 Gibber has evidently found the famous obscure 
 darts too paradoxical to be intelligible to ordi- 
 nary minds, for he translates it 
 
 At length the Brightness of the Moon presents . . . 
 
 which is certainly sufficiently matter-of-fact. 
 
 With this example of verse The Heroich 
 Daughter of the worthy Gibber may be left, 
 to take up a tragedy which has been attributed 
 to him by nearly all the authorities, but which 
 seems from internal evidence to be the work of 
 an unknown translator. This appeared in 1713, 
 and is a translation of Cinna^ entitled anna's 
 Qonspiracy^ which is one of the reasons why 
 
 1 Sire, mon p6re est mort ; mes yeux ont vu son sang 
 Couler a gros bouillons de son g6n6reux flanc ; 
 Ce sang qui tant de fois garantit vos murailles, 
 Ce sang qui tant de fois vous gagna des batailles, 
 Ce sang qui tout sorti fume encore de courroux 
 De se voir r^pandu pour d'autres que pour vous. 
 
180 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 it seems scarcely probable that it is a work of 
 Gibber's. With his keen instinct for what would 
 suit the public, and his eye to the main chance, 
 he would not have been likely to select a play 
 where there is no action of any kind, where the 
 speeches are even longer than is usual in French 
 tragedy, where the elevation and dignity of the 
 dialogue is unvarying, and where there is no 
 opportunity for spectacular effects. It is true 
 that the prologue, spoken by Gibber and possi- 
 bly written by him, speaks with great contempt 
 of the prevalent English taste for enlivening 
 extras on the stage, — funny clowns, gorgeous 
 stage pictures, tableaux, and crowds of actors, 
 — but the prologue was written for the play 
 alone, and means simply a justification of its 
 anti-British qualities. 
 
 We of the French their Stage Decorum prize, 
 And justly such absurdities despise, 
 Approve their unity of Place and Time, 
 But shun their trivial Points and gaudy Rhime. 
 
 This last line is quite in character with 
 Gibber's attitude toward the plays he adopted, 
 but with the very first lines of the tragedy it- 
 self it seems almost certain that another spirit 
 is dominant. 
 
COLLEY GIBBER 181 
 
 The work under consideration might with 
 equal justice be called a free translation or a 
 very close adaptation. A speech here and 
 there is shortened, and a few scenes changed, 
 but only a few. The second scene of Act I 
 shows " Cinna and Maximus at the Head of 
 the Conspirators," and after a few introductory 
 remarks Cinna delivers to them in person the 
 speech which in the French he tells at second 
 hand to Emilie. A few speeches are added to 
 fill up the scene, which is not a long one. This 
 is the most important change in the whole 
 translation, and is of course a change which in 
 no wise affects the conduct of the story. This 
 follows as closely as possible the French, both 
 the text and spirit of the original. A few rhymed 
 tags are put in at the end of scenes which, while 
 entirely mediocre are not disagreeable or absurd, 
 and do not seem too much out of place in the 
 atmosphere of the play. This is an example : 
 
 With soothing Baths and the smooth suppling Oyl 
 The Body is refreshed, o'ercharged with Toil. 
 And from a Friend's Advice, Relief we find 
 From Doubts and Terrors that torment the Mind. 
 
 This fidelity to the text, except in the few 
 instances just mentioned, is unusual for an 
 
182 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 eighteenth-century translation, and is not at all 
 characteristic of Gibber, who prided himself on 
 his skill in making over foreign pieces so that 
 they would suit the English stage. He would 
 have seen somewhere in this story of imperial 
 Rome an opportunity for a great mustering of 
 stage soldiery or populace or courtiers, and he 
 would have been almost certain to emphasize 
 the love story at the expense of the political 
 one. Genest says,^ " This play has been ascribed 
 to Gibber but with little probability, as no 
 reason is assigned why he should conceal his 
 name." This is perhaps the most cogent of all 
 reasons for thinking that the author of anna's 
 Conspiracy was not Gibber, but a translator 
 with more taste for good literature than he, 
 and less instinct for what would succeed in 
 England. Gibber was not given to concealing 
 his authorship under any circumstances, and 
 he certainly could not have hesitated to put 
 his name to a production which is on the whole 
 more creditable than most of his own. 
 
 This translation of Oinna is rather remark- 
 able from some points of view. It is through- 
 out dignified, with few of the lapses into 
 
 1 Some Account, Vol. H. p. 510. 
 
COLLEY GIBBER 183 
 
 triviality which mar the work of so many 
 translators of the same century. But on the 
 other hand at no place does it rise to the 
 height of genuine feeling which is shown in 
 occasional bursts in the work of contempora- 
 ries. It is correct, at times elegant, and always 
 worthy, but there is not much glow to it. An 
 extract will show the pleasing quality and also 
 the lack of fire (Act V. Scene 2) : 
 
 Emilia. With the same tenderness he cherished thine. 
 He was your Tutor and you his Assassin. 
 Csesar from you I learned the Way to Guilt. 
 This difference there is 'Twixt yours and mine, 
 You to Ambition sacrificed my Father, 
 And a just fury of Revenge in Me 
 Would for his guiltless Blood your Blood have shed. 
 
 Livia. Emilia, it is too much ; consider 
 Caesar has well repay'd thy Father's care. 
 His Death, with which thy Memory inflames 
 Thy Fury, was the error of Augustus.^ 
 
 1 Emilie. II 61eva la v6tre avec mgme tendresse, 
 II fut votre tuteur, et vous son assassin, 
 Et vous ra'avez au crime enseignfi le chemin, 
 Le mien d'avec le v6tre en ce point seul difffere, 
 Que votre ambition s'est immol6 mon pere, 
 Et qu'un juste courroux dont je me sens bruler 
 A son sang innocent voulait vous immoler. 
 
 Livie. C'est trop, Emilie, arr§te et consid^re 
 Qu'il t'a trop bien pay6 les bienfaits de ton p6re. 
 Sa mort, dont la ra^moire allume ta fureur 
 Fut un crime d' Octave et non de I'Empereur. 
 
184 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 It is very difficult to know at what point of 
 view to place one's self in order . to form a 
 just estimate of the value of these eighteenth- 
 century adaptations, which have so distinct an 
 atmosphere of their own. It is obviously not 
 fair to judge them from the standpoint of the 
 particular literary fashion of our own day. By 
 such a standard this anna's Conspiracy/ would 
 be at once condemned as a tiresome, prosy pro- 
 duction. Yet compared with Gibber's Heroich 
 Daughter^ which was quite a success in its day, 
 this tragedy is a dignified and worthy render- 
 ing of a noble original. Justice probably lies 
 between the two extremes. 
 
 The epilogue (spoken by Mrs. Porter) shows 
 that the writer was quite aware of the unusual 
 quality of the tragedy and the faithfulness with 
 which the tragic dignity of the French was 
 reproduced. 
 
 I laugh to think now, How those Wags are bit 
 Who gape agog for wanton turns of wit, 
 
 is the beginning. Further on there is the usual 
 mocking of the serious character of the play, 
 which sounds so odd after these translations 
 from the French: 
 
COLLEY GIBBER 185 
 
 Livia well knew her Husband's cause was evil 
 And told him that a tyrant, like the Devil, 
 To make mankind his Vassals must be civil. 
 
 The tragedy met with no success, as might be 
 expected when all the conditions are taken into 
 consideration. It was played only three times, 
 to small houses, and apparently never revived. 
 It was published, but a second edition was never 
 issued. 
 
XII. JOHN OZELL 
 
 The year after anna's Conspiracy had made 
 its unsuccessful appearance, two translations 
 from Racine and one from Corneille were 
 published, made by John Ozell. He was the 
 author of no less than thirty-seven translations, 
 and apparently had no other claim than this 
 to the title of literary man. Thirty-seven 
 translations are quite enough to be called 
 a life-work when they are all, as in this in- 
 stance, translations of plays — and it is not 
 surprising to find that their author never found 
 time for original work. His seems to have 
 been a conventional, well-ordered life, very 
 different from the exciting careers of violent 
 contrasts that fell to the lot of most men of 
 letters of that day. Indeed, the free lances of 
 that period spare no jokes at him because on 
 completing his education he went into a 
 counting house where he was sure of making 
 a living and where he continued contentedly 
 behind a desk all his life. This businesslike 
 186 
 
JOHN OZELL 187 
 
 turn of mind they condemned in most unquali- 
 fied terms as denoting a spirit wholly without 
 fire and a certain " meanness of mind " as 
 one of his critics puts it. There must in- 
 deed have been something very exasperating 
 in this quiet prosperous life, with no care for 
 the future, when viewed from the standpoint 
 of the impecunious scribbler and coffee-house 
 haunter of that day. 
 
 This distaste for Ozell, though not based on 
 the same grounds, is aroused in the mind of 
 the modern acquaintance of Ozell. A certain 
 degree of respect must be granted to a trans- 
 lator of Racine and Corneille, who in those days 
 of " adaptations " of anything and everything 
 from Shakespeare to a pantomime followed so 
 closely the lines of his original. His are almost 
 the only real translations made in the eigh- 
 teenth century. This may be partly due to 
 the fact that his translations were never acted, 
 nor apparently did he ever expect them to be. 
 They were literary works, pure and simple, and 
 stand alone among the efforts of his contempo- 
 raries. There was on this account much less 
 temptation for him to " heighten the color," as 
 a later translator calls his own dubious process 
 
188 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 of alteration. Still, with this granted, his con- 
 sistent fidelity to his text deserves much praise. 
 
 Whatever respect may be due him on this 
 score, however, must be forfeited on another — 
 his shameless theft of Rutter's Old and reprint 
 of it under his own name. The quiet account- 
 ant was not so upright as his respectable and 
 conventional life seemed to indicate. 
 
 The prominence which was given to Racine 
 by the acting of the plays already mentioned, 
 and particularly the Distrest Mother, can be 
 seen by the fact that in 1714 Ozell had already 
 prepared a translation of Alexandre and of 
 Britannicus, and had formulated his scheme 
 for stealing Rutter's Cid. The " English Book- 
 sellers Advertisement " ^ contains a very inter- 
 esting account of how these two plays came 
 to be printed, and gives proof of the prevalent 
 taste for translated tragedy. " We have had 
 of late Years so few new plays published 
 in England especially Tragedies, that ... a 
 Man who frequents the Playhouse has got 
 'em all by Heart. My Purpose is therefore to 
 present the World once a month with a couple 
 
 1 A sort of preface to the volume in which Alexander and 
 JBritannicus appeared. 
 
JOHN OZELL 189 
 
 of translated Tragedies stitcht up together. 
 They shall be such as are in greatest favor in 
 France, where 'tis allowed they excel in that 
 sort of Poem. 
 
 " The Reception which some of their tragedies 
 have met with upon our stage with little or 
 no Alteration but of Language is my encour- 
 agement to get such of 'em put into English 
 as are not yet done." 
 
 This is a businesslike plan on the part of the 
 publisher, and he found the proper person for 
 such a scheme in the steady John Ozell, who 
 makes as close and faithful line-for-line, almost 
 word-for-word, translation as his abilities allow. 
 
 The first speech of the play reads thus : 
 
 What's this? Whilst Nero does to sleep indulge, 
 Must Agrippa his Uprising wait ! 
 Wandering i' the court, unguarded, unattended, 
 Must Caesar's Mother watch the door of Caesar. 
 Madam, I pray, turn back to your Apart ment.^ 
 
 " Whilst Nero does to sleep indulge " is cer- 
 tainly not a very elegant rendering of " tandis 
 
 1 Quel ? tandis que N6ron s'abondonne au sommeil, 
 Faut-il que vous veniez attendre son r6veil ? 
 Qu' errant dans le palais sans suite et sans escorte 
 La m6re de C6sar veille seule k sa porte ? 
 Madame, retournez dans votre appartement. 
 
190 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 que NSron s'dbondonne au sommeil^^'* but Ozell 
 has succeeded in restricting himself to the same 
 number of words as Corneille, and this literal 
 method of translation has some things in its 
 favor when adopted by a man like Ozell. For 
 he had no poetic talent, and if he had allowed 
 himself more latitude it is not probable that 
 he would have hit upon a phrase good enough 
 to make up for his expansion. Judging from 
 his character, it does not seem probable that 
 he chose this system out of any consciousness 
 of his limitations; but from whatever motive 
 he used it, it is certainly the best for him. 
 Conscientiousness is the keynote of Ozell's trans- 
 lations, and it constitutes their value, such as 
 it is. In Act I. Scene 3, a speech of Britannicus 
 has all Ozell's qualities and his faults exem- 
 plified in small space : 
 
 What do I seek ? Ah ! Heavens 1 
 All, all that I in Life held dear is lost. 
 Lost here ! My Junia, by a frightful band 
 Of men in Arms was hither dragged by Night. 
 Ah 1 Think what Dread must seize her tender Soul 
 At that new sight ! In short, she's taken from me. 
 
 1 Ce que je cherche ? Ah Dieux ! 
 Tout ce que j'ai perdu, Madame, est en ces lieux. 
 De mille affreux soldats Junie environn^e 
 
JOHN OZELL 191 
 
 " New sight " for nouveau spectacle is actually- 
 misleading in its literalness, but it is the best 
 he could do at a close rendering ; and even the 
 pathos of the commonplace "in short" after 
 the strong feeling of the rest of the passage 
 has a certain justification in the enfin of the 
 French. Ozell's worst absurdities have always 
 the slight excuse that they are drawn in some 
 way from the French. He never invents a 
 ridiculous expression of his own, and in all his 
 translations it is to be doubted whether one 
 such phrase as Gibber's "blood that has so 
 often sprung him through the walls," could be 
 found. Even so bad a passage as this (Act II. 
 Scene 3) — 
 
 Heav'n knows, my Lord, the bottom of my Thoughts 
 
 I don't indulge myself to empty Glory 
 
 I know to rate the Greatness of your Presents,^ — 
 
 has its basis in the original. 
 
 S'est vue en ce palals indignement trainee. 
 H61as ! de quelle horreur ses timides esprits 
 A ce nouveau spectacle auront 6t6 surpris ? 
 Enfin on me I'enl^ve ! 
 1 Le del connait, Seigneur, le fond de ma pens6e, 
 Je ne me flatte point d'une gloire insens6e ; 
 Je sais de vos presents mesurer la grandeur. 
 
192 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 It is not fair to choose so bad an example of 
 Ozell's verse as the last to show what he could 
 do ; for, as a rule, it is entirely inoffensive and 
 must have served the purpose of the practical 
 bookseller very well. 
 
 The situation was this. A number of people 
 wished to read French tragedy who could not 
 read French, and Ozell gives them the nearest 
 approach to what they consider the essentials of 
 the style — long declamatory speeches (for he 
 never leaves out a line), unity of time and place, 
 and a certain stilted way of expression that had 
 become associated in their minds with the then 
 fashionable tragedy. Ozell's very fidelity, to 
 whatever absurdities his lack of talent may ex- 
 pose him in practising it, stands him in good 
 stead in many instances. He does not trust his 
 judgment to improve upon the general methods 
 of his author, and rhetorical devices are reflected 
 in his pages to the best of his ability. In Act 
 III. Scene 8, where the action comes to a crisis 
 and the dialogue between Nero and Britannicus 
 passes from the oratorical, lengthy speeches of 
 most of the scenes to a rapid angry exchange 
 of single lines or couplets, Ozell copies as well 
 as he can this change of atmosphere : 
 
JOHN OZELL 193 
 
 Britannicus. I ill know Junia or such Sentiments 
 Will never win applause from her. 
 
 Nero. At least 
 If I can ne'er attain the art to please her, 
 I know the Art to punish a rash Rival. 
 
 Britannicus. For me whatever HI Fate has in store 
 Nothing can shake my soul but Junia's hate. 
 
 Nero. Wish it ! I say no more — 
 
 Britannicus. The Happiness 
 Of pleasing Her is all my Soul aspires to.^ 
 
 This is not at all bad for an unpretending 
 translator and there are many such passages 
 (Act IV. Scene 3): 
 
 To his past Glory still a Slave must Nero 
 
 Forever have before his Eyes the Love, 
 
 Which Chance in one day gives and snatches from us? 
 
 Must I indulge their Wills and cross my own? 
 
 Am I their Emperor only to please them ! * 
 
 1 Brit. Je connais mal Junie ou de tels sentiments 
 Ne mgriteront pas ses applaudissements. 
 
 Neron. Du moins si je ne sals le secret de lui plaire 
 Je sals I'art de punir un rival t6m6raire. 
 
 Brit. Pour moi, quelque p6ril qui me puisse accabler 
 Sa seule inimiti6 peut me faire trembler. 
 
 Neron. Souhaitez-la ; c'est tout ce que je puis vous dire. 
 
 Brit. Le bonheur de lui plaire est le seul ou j'aspire, 
 
 2 Quoi ? toujours enchain^ de ma gloire pass6e, 
 J'aurai devant les yeux je ne sais quel amour 
 Que le hasard nous donne et nous 6te en un jour ? 
 Soumis k tons leur voeux, k mes d^sirs contraire, 
 Suis-je leur empereur seulement pour leur plaire ? 
 
194 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 This is not only more energetic, but much 
 clearer than a translation of the same passage 
 made by a litterateur of much greater preten- 
 sions than Ozell a hundred years later — Sir 
 Brook Boothby, who attempted to add a literary 
 tone of his own to his work, making it smoother 
 and more rhetorical than Ozell's bald transla- 
 tion, but losing by that very effort a certain 
 primitive strength that his predecessor gained 
 by his homely fidelity (Act V. Scene 1) : 
 
 Britannicus. Amazing Goodness! Nero, filled with 
 splendour 
 Thinks to reduce you with his Grandeur's Witchcraft. 
 Yet here, where I am shunn'd and he ador'd 
 My Misr'y you prefer to Nero's pomp. 
 Heavens ! 'Tis too much ! In the same Day and Place 
 To scorn his Sceptre and to weep for me 1 ^ 
 
 It is not too much to call a man who could 
 write these lines competent, even while deny- 
 ing him any claim to talent. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to speak of the com- 
 
 1 Quoi ? Madame, en un jour oti plein de sa grandeur, 
 N6ron croit 6blouir vos yeux de sa splendeur, 
 Dans des lieux ou chacun me fuit et le r6v6re 
 Aux pompes de sa cour pr6f 6rer ma mis6re I 
 Quoi ? dans ce meme jour et dans ces mgmes lieux 
 Refuser un empire et pleurer h mes yeux ! 
 
JOHN OZELL 195 
 
 panion translation to this, the one which was 
 " stitched up together " with it — Alexander the 
 Grreat. The same characteristics are to be found 
 in it as in the Britannicus^ and whatever may 
 have been the influence of one must have been 
 that of the other as they were issued together. 
 What that influence or career was, is a little 
 difficult to determine. The date, 1715, is before 
 the days of regular book reviews in the press 
 of the day, and there are almost no means of 
 discovering how these two were received by 
 a world which " the Bookseller " apparently 
 thought was so very eager to obtain them. 
 
 In the same year with these two tragedies ap- 
 peared the Cid^ translated from the French of 
 Pierre Corneille hy J, Ozell. This has the 
 curious eminence of being at the same time one 
 of the most impudent of literary cheats and one 
 of the most successful. To this day, in all 
 biographies (the Dictionary of National Biogra- 
 phy included), historical works on the drama, 
 and literary histories of the eighteenth century, 
 Ozell receives credit for this work. At least a 
 careful search fails to show any proof that he 
 was detected. Dr. Mulert^ alone seems to have 
 
 ^ Pierre Corneille auf der Englischen Buhne. 
 
196 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 noticed a plagiary almost unique in its boldness; 
 for this translation is nothing more or less 
 than a reprint of the Cid of good old Rutter of 
 the time of Charles I. To print in parallel 
 columns selections from Ozell and Rutter or to 
 give first a line from one and then from the 
 other for comparison, would be a waste of en- 
 ergy; for the two texts are identical. It seems 
 really extraordinary that none of the critics of 
 the day, so keen at searching out weaknesses in 
 even the most popular authors and so united in 
 their dislike of Ozell, should have discovered 
 this fraud. For almost two hundred years the 
 respectable accountant has imposed on the 
 world, and that in a way so open and obvious as 
 to make his success amazing. As far as his 
 contemporaries go, there seems no reasonable 
 explanation of their blindness. Ozell's source 
 was not a work which had lain forgotten for 
 centuries in a corner of a library. It was a 
 play which had been performed as late as 1662 
 at one of the leading theatres in London; so 
 that men of sixty-five, who read Ozell's work, 
 were old enough to have seen the original 
 acted in their youth. And as to the dramatic 
 historians since that time, this oversight of 
 
JOHN OZELL 197 
 
 Ozell's theft is quite as extraordinary. Rut- 
 ter's translation is a reasonably well-known one, 
 and a volume not particularly rare. Ozell's re- 
 print also is by no means hard to procure, and 
 yet for two centuries no one thought to put the 
 two together. 
 
xiii. iphig:6nie 
 
 The plagiarist Ozell went unmolested on his 
 way, but an innocent imitator who wrote in the 
 same year found himself set upon most fiercely 
 by the irascible Boyer. 
 
 Charles Johnson, the author of The Victim 
 (JIpTiigSnie)^ a tragedy produced in 1714, seems to 
 have been an amiable character, and a man who 
 lived the most tranquil and prosperous of liter- 
 ary lives. He was a friend of the manager of 
 Drury Lane, the noted Mr. Wilks ; and Baker 
 QBiographica Dramatical says that it was 
 through this connection that he had his plays 
 presented on the stage without any difficulty. 
 The partiality of Wilks for Johnson was bit- 
 terly resented by Boyer, who had been forced 
 to make his own way unaided. The French- 
 man regarded Johnson's choice of IphigSnie^ 
 which he himself had already translated, as 
 an insult, and his ill-humor was not improved 
 by the fact that Johnson's version was success- 
 fully produced and met with favor at the hands 
 198 
 
iphigI:nie 199 
 
 of the public. He insisted that Johnson stole 
 his translation of 1700, and was successfully 
 concealing this fact. He published at once a 
 second edition of his own Iphigenia in Aulis, 
 with an indignant preface giving an account of 
 what he considered an attack on his honor. 
 *' My Tragedy, having long lain dormant, was 
 lately revived in the most Irregular Manner 
 that was ever known or practised either on 
 Parnassus by Poets, or on the Stage by Actors. 
 The town has already done Mr. Boyer justice 
 by discovering the Imposition, and by finding 
 out that the Victim was no other than Achilles 
 and Iphigenia in Aulis. . . . But the manner 
 in which his Performance and Himself have 
 been abused is so flagrant and injurious that 
 he designs in a few days to publish a short Dis- 
 sertation on the Present Management of the 
 Stage, addressed to My Lord Chamberlain, 
 wherein he shall set forth in a true light the 
 pernicious Consequences of such unfair Prac- 
 tices, both of Writers and Players ; and in par- 
 ticular, inquire into the reason Whg Mr. Wilks 
 declined to revive this very tragedy for the 
 entertainment of the Duke D'Aumont, who, by 
 his Secretary, M. I'Abb^ Nadal, had intimated 
 
200 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 to Mr. Boyer His Desire to see it represented ; 
 whicli Mr. Boyer signified to Mr. Wilks." 
 There is a whole story to be read between 
 the lines here which explains why, later on in 
 the preface, Boyer is so savage against the 
 quality of Johnson's verse ; which certainly 
 is nothing extraordinary, but does not deserve 
 the cuts which the disappointed Frenchman 
 showers on it. The relation between the two 
 translators was the same as that between the 
 persons of honor, Mrs. Philips and Cotton, of 
 Restoration days. Johnson had simply taken 
 the same play as Boyer, and translated it 
 almost as well, in his own way. There are 
 occasional reminiscences of the earlier work 
 to be found in Johnson's Victim ; but it would 
 be surprising if there were not, under the cir- 
 cumstances, and they prove no direct imitation. 
 Johnson did use the same sort of ending as 
 Boyer, it must be confessed, with the same 
 processions of priests and soldiers, and it is 
 probable that the idea was partly suggested by 
 Boyer's unfortunate ingenuity in this direction ; 
 but even here there is no plagiarism in the real 
 sense of the word ; no speeches are lifted bodily. 
 Moreover, Johnson introduces a new character 
 
iphigI:nie 201 
 
 in the Dramatis Personce^ Menelaus, and he does 
 not have Diana actually appear in the last act. 
 
 Lanson in speaking of Voltaire's hostility to 
 English influence on the French stage lets fall 
 an interesting remark : " II se moquait de la 
 malencontreuse idee que la Comedie eut un 
 jour de mettre en action le denouement d'lphi- 
 gSnie,^'' It would be interesting to investigate 
 this and discover if either of these two English 
 versions had any influence in bringing about 
 so radical a departure from the traditions of the 
 Theatre Frangais.^ 
 
 The situation in England was probably this. 
 There was a demand for French tragedy which 
 Wilks, as shrewd stage-manager, was bound to 
 supply. IphigSnie seemed deserving of more 
 success than it had obtained in Boyer's version 
 fifteen years before, and it seemed a good oppor- 
 tunity to throw a chance for profit in the path 
 of his friend Charles Johnson, professional 
 translator. 
 
 The tragedy is translated with reasonable 
 closeness, though with some heightening of 
 effects and a little doctoring of roles to make 
 them suit the actors who were to play them. 
 
 1 Histoire de la LiUerature frangaisei p. 641, 
 
202 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 The cast at Drury Lane was better than the 
 one which had produced Boyer's Achilles^ as 
 Mrs. Porter and Mrs. Oldfield took the two 
 principal parts. There are a few changes, but 
 none of any importance. The versification is 
 smooth though not free from Gallicisms. It 
 is altogether a very uninteresting work, al- 
 though it had more success than Boyer's 
 attempt. It was played to good houses at its 
 first representation and had several revivals 
 afterwards. 
 
 The difference between them seems to be 
 that Johnson is smoother but much less vigor- 
 ous than Boyer. They render in quite differ- 
 ent ways almost every strong expression of 
 feeling in the original (Act II. Scene 7) : 
 
 Achille. Quelle entreprise ici pourroit etre form^e? 
 Suis-je sans le savoir la fable de I'arinee ? 
 Entrons. Cast un secret qu'il leur faut arracher! 
 
 (Johnson.) I'll know this secret ; instantly I'll know it 
 I'll force it from 'em. My distracted Soul 
 Burns in suspense between my Love and 
 Glory. 
 
 (Boyer.) What can their Counsels mean ? Am I abus'd 
 And made a tale to entertain the Army ? 
 I'll in — And wrench this secret from their 
 souls. 
 
IPHIG^NIE 203 
 
 This passage illustrates very well the difference 
 between the methods of the two translators. 
 Boyer is still the conscientious seventeenth- 
 century worker who really aims to reproduce 
 the details of his original as well as the plot. 
 Johnson is the type of the later translator 
 who finds it easier to fill out a line with some 
 bombastic invention of his own than to seek 
 to reproduce the French in details whose 
 rendering does not at once occur to him. 
 Platitudinous padding like "My distracted 
 Soul, burns in suspense between my love and 
 glory " is a characteristic mark of the careless 
 eighteenth-century translators. And that they 
 were justified, as far as material success is 
 concerned, in doing this sort of hit-or-miss 
 work is shown by the fact that Johnson's Vic- 
 tim succeeded and Boyer's Achilles failed. 
 
 The quarrel between these two rivals was 
 still being carried on in the next year, 1715, 
 while the indefatigable Ozell was bringing out 
 another of his faithful, uninspired book trans- 
 lations; choosing a comedy, Les Plaideurs, 
 which he published with the title of the Liti- 
 gants, For the first time this patient plodder 
 appears to doubt his ability to reproduce what- 
 
204 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 ever he wishes. The light and tripping verse 
 of the French comedy seems to daunt him, and 
 he writes his translation in prose. As a con- 
 sequence, he does much better work than in 
 most of his translations. There are no features 
 to be remarked upon, as he simply makes a 
 faithful, almost a literal, translation with no 
 change of any kind ; but he has preserved much 
 better than usual the humor of the original, 
 which is really astonishingly vivid in the re- 
 production. 
 
 It is a much more satisfactory production 
 than any of his tragedies, and the fact that it 
 is in prose seems to help it. It would appear 
 that humor is a growth of sturdier nature than 
 tragic elevation, and better able to endure the 
 rough handling of this unskilful replanter. 
 It reads very well, and the gay good humor 
 of the irony exhales from the English as well 
 as from the French and Greek plays. 
 
 In 1715 was also published the first of the 
 long list of Translations from Racine's two 
 tragedies drawn from the Old Testament. 
 Mr. Thomas Brereton, of Brazenose College, 
 Oxford, wrote a translation of Esther^ appar- 
 ently the first which had been made in English. 
 
IPHIGENIE 205 
 
 In studying Brereton's life one is again con- 
 fronted, with the influence of French refugees. 
 Indeed, persecutions of various kinds seem to 
 have been a great factor in the knowledge of 
 each other which France and England gained 
 at this time. In the middle of the seven- 
 teenth century there was a rush of Royalist 
 refugees to France, and later on in the same 
 century, and during the first part of the 
 eighteenth, there was a current of French 
 Huguenots coming to England. Both of these 
 movements seem to have helped on the desire 
 for translation of French tragedy. Mr. Brere- 
 ton's education before he went to Oxford 
 was received in a boarding school in Chester 
 kept by a Mr. Dennis, a French refugee. As 
 the greater part of his literary work consists of 
 translations from the French, it can easily 
 be imagined that he was deeply influenced 
 by this early acquaintance with the French 
 language. 
 
 Brereton's life is a very different one from 
 the tranquil, prosperous careers of Ozell and 
 Johnson. Stormy and uncertain, with a tragic 
 ending, his history is more characteristic of 
 the literary people of his time. He inherited a 
 
206 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 considerable fortune, but very soon wasted it all, 
 and became so poor that his family was obliged 
 to return to his wife's home in Wales. The 
 year after this, having taken to political writ- 
 ings after all other means of gaining a liveli- 
 hood had failed, he was drowned while attempt- 
 ing to escape prosecution for a libellous attack 
 on a political enemy. 
 
 His translation of Esther seems to have been 
 the first of his not numerous literary produc- 
 tions which was published with his consent. It 
 has a certain importance, more than is deserved 
 by its own merits, due to the fact that it is the 
 first English translation of a play which must 
 have appealed strongly to English tastes. 
 This is certainly the most important of Brere- 
 ton's works, though Jacob (^Poetical Register)^ 
 writing about the time of his death, says, 
 "This author has also begun a Translation of 
 the other sacred Tragedy of Racine call'd 
 Athalidh.^^ His tragic death put an end to 
 this plan. 
 
 All the biographers of Brereton mention as 
 second among his works. Sir John Oldcastle, 
 founded on the Polyeucte of Oorneille^ pub- 
 lished in 1717, but a faithful search fails to 
 
IPHIG^NIE 207 
 
 reveal any trace of this work's ever having seen 
 the light. Moreover, the remarks of the various 
 cataloguers and biographers about this play- 
 seem upon inspection to be copied one from 
 the other. Not one of them speaks as though 
 he had actually seen the work, and although 
 Esther^ A Day^8 Journey^ and other of his efforts 
 are described accurately and evidently from a 
 first-hand knowledge, no direct information is 
 given about Sir John Oldcastle beyond the 
 fact that it was supposed to be drawn from 
 Corneille, and was printed in 1717. The 
 British Museum does not possess it, nor any of 
 the other great libraries of England — at least 
 as far as the writer has been able to determine. 
 Further than this, the lists of books printed at 
 this time, publishers' catalogues and the like, 
 have no record of it. It is a plausible theory 
 that it was actually written and prepared for 
 publication, that a publisher accepted it and 
 announced that it was about to appear but for 
 some reason it was never actually put in book 
 form, and that the early biographers, noting the 
 announcement, took for granted that the book 
 had appeared. 
 
 It is rather a pity that Brereton's Sir John 
 
208 COENEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Oldcastle cannot be found and that his Athaliah 
 was never finished, for they would have formed 
 a trilogy of French religious plays in English, 
 the first of their kind, and all done by the same 
 author. It is only for the sake of completeness, 
 however, that one wishes for the other two, as 
 the slightness of Esther's literary value does 
 not fill the reader with any very keen regret at 
 their loss for their own sake. 
 
 Brereton begins his work by a very long 
 argumentative Dedication to the Lord Arch- 
 bishop of York, containing, besides the usual 
 fulsome compliments to his patron, an arraign- 
 ment of the English stage for continually pre- 
 senting "The abominations of the Pagan 
 World," a defence of the stage against attacks 
 on its immorality, a hint that his work would 
 be suitable for use at Court (" The Maids of 
 the Retinue of Our Queen might emulate the 
 Virgins of Saint Cyr "), and a vigorously 
 expressed hope that " those chearfully virtuous 
 Families which are sometimes pleased to so 
 recreate themselves will not be apt to pro- 
 nounce the Hours I have spent on this Essay to 
 be wholly in vain." In short, it is Esther pre- 
 sented as a Sunday-school book, and the level of 
 
IPHIGifeNIE 209 
 
 skill displayed in the translation justifies his 
 own classification of it. He has the merit, how- 
 ever, of following his original with considerable 
 accuracy. A soliloquy by Mordecai and a 
 superfluous scene in the first act are the only 
 changes, except a curiously significant one in 
 Act V. Scene 7, when a speech oddly out of 
 character by Esther is inserted. As Haman is 
 dragged off by the guards, Esther's consistent. 
 Old Testament, hard silence toward her con- 
 quered enemy was evidently regarded as vin- 
 dictive by the sentimental eighteenth-century 
 translator who was preparing a work for 
 " chearf ully virtuous English Families," for he 
 makes Esther say. 
 
 In this warm Mood I nothing cou'd obtain, 
 And all the Mercy I design'd is vain. 
 
 The translation is in verse throughout, and 
 very bad rhyme much of it is. Inversions are 
 frequent and forced (Act II. Scene 1) : 
 
 Doubtless, my Lord, yon not my Trust conceive, 
 None can surprize us here without my leave. 
 ******* 
 Strait I attended — Wild was his discourse. 
 He plain'd some danger that his life would force. 
 
210 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Fierce Mordecai not bowed — what needed more 
 To Haman he not kneeled as others do. 
 
 Of his choruses the less said the better. He 
 apologizes for them himself, saying they " were 
 fitted to the French music on which account 
 the Verses could rarely be reduced to the Meas- 
 ure of any of the common English Stanzas." 
 With this self-arrogated license, he allows him- 
 self all sorts of irregularities : 
 
 This God so high — this jealous God I 
 
 Ye Nations, tremble at His Name 1 
 
 Is he alone whose awful Nod 
 
 Commands the universal Frame ; 
 
 Nor hope so for his People to subdue 
 
 But he can yet confound your Gods and You ! ^ 
 
 This is below even the average hymn level of 
 sense and sound. 
 
 The first impulse upon reading this transla- 
 tion is to throw it one side as rubbish and to 
 rejoice that the other two of the series are lost. 
 
 1 Ce Dieu jaloux — ce Dieu victorieux, 
 Fr^missez, peuples de la terre, 
 Ce Dieu jaloux — ce Dieu victorieux, 
 Est le seul qui commande aux cieux ; 
 * Ni les Eclairs ni le tonnerre 
 N'ob^issent point k vos dieux. 
 
rPHIGtolE 211 
 
 But that it found a public not insensible to its 
 attractions (whatever they are) is shown in 
 quite elaborate notices of the author which the 
 Poetical Register and other biographical works 
 of the time insert, almost without exception ; 
 and in the fact that a second edition was issued 
 four years later. On those who did not know 
 his great original, Brereton must have made 
 some sort of a favorable impression to account 
 for this amount of success. 
 
XIV. MISCELLANEOUS TRANSLATIONS 
 
 The next translation, presented in 1717 by 
 the mild and pacific Mr. Johnson (author of the 
 Victim^ which was so attacked by Boyer in 1714), 
 was again the centre of a lively literary skir- 
 mish. A short time before the appearance of 
 The Sultaness^ as Johnson's adaptation of Bajazet 
 was called, a comedy named Three Hours after 
 Marriage was played with little success. Pope 
 was one of the authors of this piece, although 
 his name did not appear in the matter, and it is 
 the popular theory that his dislike of actors 
 dates from the cool reception of this comedy. 
 
 Johnson was injudicious enough to insert in 
 the prologue to his new tragedy. The Sultaness, 
 a hit at the three authors of the unsuccessful 
 Three Hours after Marriage^ which Pope never 
 forgave and which immortalized Johnson by 
 securing for him a place in the Dunciad. The 
 whole prologue is singularly ungracious and 
 tactless, and will perhaps be interesting on 
 account of the stir made about it. After about 
 212 
 
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSLATIONS 213 
 
 eighteen lines of the usual hackneyed prologue 
 verse : 
 
 Our honest Author frankly bade me say 
 *Tis to the great Racine he owes his Play. 
 When Rome in Arms had gained immortal Fame 
 And proudly triumphed o'er the Grecian name, 
 Her Poets copied what Athenians writ, 
 And boasted in the Spoils of foreign wit. 
 Why then should Britons, who so oft have broke 
 The Pride of Gaul, and bow'd her to the Yoke, 
 Be blamed if they enrich their native tongue 
 With what the Gallick Muse has greatly sung. 
 At least 'tis hoped he'll meet a kinder Fate 
 Who strives some standard Author to translate. 
 Than they who give you, without once repenting. 
 Long laboured Nonsense of their own inventing. 
 Such Wags have been who boldly did adventure 
 To club a Farce by Tripartite Indenture. 
 But, let 'em share the Dividend of Praise 
 And wear their own Fool's Cap instead of Bays. 
 
 This cut at the not too popular Mr. Pope was 
 received with enthusiasm and was chosen for the 
 motto of The Confederates^ an elaborate parody 
 of Three Hours after Marriage. 
 
 The Sultaness, far more than most Angliciz- 
 ings of French tragedy in the eighteenth century, 
 is really a translation and not an adaptation, and 
 is by no means a bad one. Johnson had had 
 much practice in writing dramatic blank verse 
 
214 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 in translations from the French, and this shows 
 itself in a production agreeably free from Galli- 
 cisms and absurdities of style. The Dramatis 
 PersoncB are the same as in the original and 
 printed in the same order. It is interesting to 
 note that as early as this Zaire is incorrectly 
 rendered Zara, a fault that was to become very 
 prominent in the later translations of Voltaire. 
 The disposition of the scenes is exactly the 
 same, and the tragic ending is for once allowed 
 to stand as it was designed by the author, with- 
 out bringing to life the defunct. Johnson shows 
 more conscience and more ability in this work 
 than in almost any other. 
 
 Baker and Genest each has a bad word for 
 it, however, and report with surprise that it was 
 by no means a failure. Baker (^Biographica 
 Dramatica) says, " The SultanesB is little more 
 than a translation of the Bajazet of Racine, a 
 Piece which of itself is esteemed the very worst 
 of that author's writings ; and as Mr. John- 
 son's talent seem'd to consist more in Comedy 
 than in Tragedy, it is not to be wondered at if 
 this Play thus served up at second Hand by 
 so indifferent cook should form rather an in- 
 sipid and distasteful Dish ; yet it was per- 
 
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSLATIONS 215 
 
 formed at Drury Lane with no bad success." 
 Genest has his usual laconic fling at French 
 tragedy. "It is a dull play," he says, and 
 finds less interest in the consideration of the 
 play itself than in the fact that it was the first 
 drama in English to be printed in octavo. 
 
 On the whole it seems to deserve a more 
 favorable judgment than is usually given. It 
 is quite free from strained inversions, the beset- 
 ting sin of mediocre translators, and is smooth 
 and intelligible. It is true it is lacking some- 
 what in fire and spirit, both qualities rather 
 essential in reproducing the portrait of a char- 
 acter like Roxane, but its lucidity and work- 
 manlike technique make it very pleasant reading 
 after work like Brereton's, or like the translation 
 next to be considered. A good example of John- 
 son's style follows (Act II. Scene 1) : 
 
 Bajazet. How Madam ! 
 
 Roxana. Wherefore do you start, my Lord? 
 Is there a bar between us and our Joys ? 
 
 Bajazet. You know our Empire jealous of its Pow'r. 
 Yet let me not repeat the ungrateful Law. 
 
 Roxana. I know when barb'rous Bajazet dethroned 
 Young Ibrahim ; the captive Emperor 
 Beheld his Spouse chained to the Victor's Car 
 And drag'd through Asia to adorn his Triumph. 
 
216 COKNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Bajazet. Madam the Choice is easie ; Either raise 
 Your Prisoner — and conduct him to the Throne 
 Or (I await the Word) receive your Victim. 
 
 Roxana. Enough, 'tis done ! You shall be satisfied ! 
 A Guard there ! i 
 
 It is probable that Boyer could have done better 
 than this and that he would have avoided the 
 many entirely unnecessary departures from the 
 French. But with all its faults this is on 
 the whole a very fair rendition, and deserves 
 much praise for its fidelity to the construction 
 of the French play. 
 
 The next translation is one of La Thehdide^ 
 written by a Miss J. Robe and published in 
 1723 with the title The Fatal Legacy. The 
 dedication shows that the disfavor which was 
 to fall upon later translations was already 
 
 ^ Bajazet. O ciel ! que ne puis-je parler ? 
 Roxane. Quoi done ? que dites-vous ? et que viens-je 
 d'entendre ? 
 Vous avez des secrets que je ne puis apprendre ! 
 Quoi! de vos sentiments je ne puis m'eclaircir? 
 Bajazet. Madame, encore un coup, c'est k vous de 
 choisir; 
 Daignez m'ouvrir au trone un chemin legitime ; 
 Ou bien, me voila pret, prenez votre victime. 
 
 Roxane. Ah ! e'en est trop enfin, tu seras satisfait. 
 Hoik ! gardes, qu'on vienne. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSLATIONS 217 
 
 casting its shadow before. The publisher 
 says, speaking for the authoress who was 
 apparently too timid to speak for herself, 
 " This tragedy was writ by a young Lady and 
 entrusted to my management. I introduced 
 it into the Playhouse for her Interest and take 
 the freedom of making choice of you as a 
 Patron for her Reputation. Whatever cold 
 Encouragement it met with upon the Stage 
 I am induced, from the Opinion of several 
 good Judges who perused it before it came 
 there, to believe it might very reasonably be 
 attributed to the Season of the Year which 
 was a little too far advanced to afford much 
 Success to any Entertainment of this kind. 
 It may probably, the next winter, when the 
 Manager of the Theatre has agreed to let it 
 try its fortune again, appear to a greater 
 Advantage. The four first acts are taken 
 chiefly from Racine, but the Last is, excepting 
 a few lines, entirely new." 
 
 In spite of the hope expressed here the 
 play seems never to have seen the footlights 
 after its first unfortunate experience. It also 
 never reached the honor of a second edition. 
 From all indications it was a very great fail- 
 
218 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 ure ; but, such is the levelling power of two cen- 
 turies, it seems no worse to the modern reader 
 than many other such productions which never- 
 theless enjoyed a moderate success. There 
 are perhaps more Gallicisms and more pro- 
 nounced ones in the style than were common, 
 as in Act IV. Scene 3, where a very noticeable 
 one is encountered in the translation of the 
 line, '•''L' injustice me plait, pourvu que je fen 
 chasse,^^ which is rendered " Injustice pleases 
 if I but you chase." This is indeed impres- 
 sively bad, but no worse than passages which 
 might be chosen from other plays which en- 
 joyed a little more favor. To the indifferent 
 and disinterested modern reader there seems 
 no reason why Gibber's Ximena should have 
 succeeded while Miss Robe's Fatal Legacy 
 failed. It is not in rhyme, for one thing, 
 which removes a fruitful source of absurdity 
 to the unskilful translator. A passage like 
 this from the last scene in the first act : 
 
 And oh I ye Gods if an unspotted flame 
 Meets with regards above, restore, restore 
 My Life, my Soul, my Phocias to my Love ^ — 
 
 1 Et si tu prends piti6 d'une flamme innocente 
 O ciel, en ramenant H6mon ^ son amante 
 
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSLATIONS 219 
 
 is certainly not inspired, but even " unspotted 
 Flame " is no worse than some of Gibber's 
 idiosyncrasies or Brereton's clumsy paraphrases. 
 Miss Robe follows the fashion introduced by 
 Smith and continued by Gibber in altering the 
 last scene by bringing in Phocias alive, though 
 Racine had killed him. La ThShaide was too 
 sad for Englishmen. The English adapters 
 of French tragedy seem to have been genuinely 
 convinced of the success of this naive method 
 of eating their tragic cake and keeping it too ; 
 for they kill off just as many characters as 
 do the French, but make a happy ending by 
 simply bringing them again upon the stage. 
 Miss Robe's contention that the last act is not 
 copied from La Thebdide is not founded on fact, 
 for it follows Racine quite as closely as the 
 rest wherever her change of plot does not make 
 it impossible. She makes no attempt to trans- 
 late accurately, and most of the work is vague 
 paraphrase. 
 
 The I'atal Legacy was presented to the public 
 on April 23, 1723, at Lincoln's Inn Fields, four 
 months after a successful revival of the Phoedra 
 
 Ramfene-le fiddle ; et permets, en ce jour 
 Qu*en retrouvant Pamant je retrouve PamouP. 
 
220 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 of Edmund Smith, at the same theatre. It was 
 played only once, apparently, and then dis- 
 appeared. The inflated and bombastic style 
 is highly characteristic of dramatic writings 
 of the period, but it is not without the 
 merit of a certain academic correctness which 
 makes it always intelligible at least (Act II. 
 Scene 3) : 
 
 That Love his happy Sister once could boast 
 
 Is lost, translated to another aim. 
 
 He's charmed with Blood — the scarlet object takes ; 
 
 And fiery Polynices is no more 
 
 Th' affectionate, the soft endearing Brother, 
 
 He eyes us both with a disdaining air. 
 
 It is quite evident that this translation of 
 Les Freres Ennemis was one of the most 
 obscure, and had neither importance nor repu- 
 tation in the history of translations. Lowe's 
 bibliography mentions a pamphlet appearing 
 in 1723, " Abstract of the lives of Etiocles and 
 Polynices necessary to be read by the Spec- 
 tators of the Fatal Legacy. J. Robe." The 
 British Museum does not possess this, but its 
 disappearance is little to be regretted. 
 
 In 1725 (two years after the failure of the 
 Fatal Legacy) CoUey Gibber performed what 
 
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSLATIONS 221 
 
 is perhaps his most remarkable feat in the way 
 of using other people's materials. Taking 
 Beaumont and Fletcher's False One^ Corneille's 
 PompSe^ and one or two ideas of his own, he 
 stirred them all together with such vigor, and 
 so disguised them with his own wonderful 
 versification, that it is an almost impossible 
 task to distinguish the different elements in 
 the dish which he served up to the public at 
 Drury Lane under the title of Coesar in Egypt. 
 As final flavor he refrains from giving any 
 indication that the entire tragedy is not of his 
 own invention. Whether this is disingenuous, 
 as would appear at first, or whether, as late in 
 Colley's life as this, it went without saying that 
 he borrowed his material is hard to decide. 
 
 The prologue contains two rather neatly 
 witty lines. Mr. Wilkes, speaking of the 
 great rage for French farce. Harlequin panto- 
 mime, and the like, says. 
 
 Far be it from us to question your Delight 
 To be at Pleasure wrong is English right. 
 
 The general plan and construction of the 
 play is undoubtedly Corneille's, many of the 
 best speeches are literally translated, especially 
 
222 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 some of the famous ones between Cornelia and 
 Csesar ; and the description of Pompey's death 
 is taken verbatim from the French : 
 
 When from his ships he saw the spacious Beach 
 Covered with gazing crowds and at their front 
 Our shining Troops in stately order ranged 
 
 ****** 
 Concluding that our grateful King designed 
 In Person and with Honours to receive him. 
 But when at length he found but one poor Boat 
 Sent forth, fill'd only with a chosen guard, 
 And those without the King to grace his Welcome, 
 His Fate he saw, yet would not seem to see. 
 Silent he stood, with Eyes resigned and dauntless, 
 Or anxious only for Cornelia's fears.^ 
 
 This is not absolutely literal, but it is as much 
 so as Gibber's avowed translations. 
 
 It is curious in this connection to note that 
 a German doctor's dissertation has been written ^ 
 
 1 Achoree. Et voyant dans le port preparer nos galferes, 
 B croyait que le roi touchy de ses mis6res, 
 Par un beau sentiment d'honneur et de devoir, 
 Avec toute sa cour le venait recevoir ; 
 Mais voyant que ce prince, ingrat h, ses mSrites, 
 N' envoy ait qu'un esquif rempli de satellites, 
 II soupQonne aussitCt son manquement de foi, 
 
 ^ ^F ▼ 9!c ^ 'p 
 
 Et r6duit tons les soins d'un si pressant ennui 
 
 A ne hasarder pas CornSlie avec lui. 
 
 2 Das Verhdltnis von Gibber's Tragodie Csesar in Egypt 
 
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSLATIONS 223 
 
 which, although tracing the sources of Gib- 
 ber's work, wholly ignores the large part which 
 PompSe plays in the construction of the tragedy, 
 drawing all of the material from Beaumont and 
 Fletcher. As if to make up for this, Baker 
 (^BiograpMca Dramatioa) gives no credit to 
 Beaumont and Fletcher, saying that it is all 
 taken from Corneille. Genest ^ acknowledges 
 that the character of Cornelia is Corneille's, 
 but then proceeds to criticise most severely the 
 very parts which originated with the French. 
 
 As this play is not one of Gibber's successes 
 it is scarcely worth mentioning, except for the 
 fact that it is a very interesting symbol of the 
 average attempt of that period to put French 
 tragedy on the English stage. A play of the 
 Elizabethan school is forced into unnatural 
 coalescence with one of the most classical of 
 seventeenth-century French tragedies, and the 
 result is performed before an audience of the 
 early Georgian period — a monstrous effort 
 whose failure is assured from the beginning. 
 
 Gibber's adaptation is almost the last of this 
 
 zu Fletcher's The False One : Max Stoye, Friedrichs-Univer- 
 sitat, Halle, 1897. 
 
 1 Some Account f Vol. III. p. 161. 
 
224 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 series of translated plays. The group which 
 has just been surveyed and of which the one 
 about to be considered is the last, was the direct 
 result of the success of the Distrest Mother — all 
 being attempts to reproduce the popular ele- 
 ments in that play. In the eighteen years fol- 
 lowing Ambrose Philips's triumph, fourteen 
 translations of classic tragedy had appeared; 
 but between the Rival Father of Hatchett played 
 at the Haymarket in 1730 and the next ren- 
 dition, lies a gap of twenty years without the 
 appearance of a single new translation. The 
 Distrest Mother was acted steadily all through 
 this period, and once or twice some of the 
 other translations were revived; but in general 
 the movement started by Philips and the Addi- 
 son circle died down completely until another 
 great success in 1750 turned attention in that 
 way again. 
 
 The play now under consideration — the 
 adaptation from La Mort d'Achille of Thomas 
 Corneille, made by the actor Hatchett, and 
 played by his own company, is interesting 
 because it is the last tragedy translated by an 
 actor for his own use. It is indeed one of the 
 last tragedies translated for the stage. The 
 
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSLATIONS 225 
 
 period of the literary translation pure and simple 
 is almost at hand. 
 
 Nothing, however, could be farther from 
 a literary translation than this adaptation of 
 Hatchett's. It is not only put together solely 
 for actual use on the stage, but also largely with 
 a view to furnish good parts to the actor himself 
 and to his favorite actress. The play is cut to 
 pieces and made over in order to make Achilles 
 a more important part than Corneille had con- 
 ceived it, as the actor-author had chosen that 
 r61e for himself. This is not a matter of con- 
 jecture, nor a conclusion drawn from a study of 
 the play, but from a preface of Hatchett himself, 
 where he sets forth with rare naivete the reason 
 for his changes. Pyrrhus (a part taken by a 
 rival actor) is kept on the stage so constantly 
 by Corneille in the first act " as to become tedi- 
 ous to the audience." "In the third act Cor- 
 neille is guilty of the same error with the two 
 former acts — Pyrrhus never leaving the stage 
 — which I have rectified as before. In the fifth 
 act of Corneille, Achilles does not appear at all, 
 which I have avoided, he making the second 
 scene of this act proceeding to the temple, not 
 being willing that the Audience should lose 
 
226 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 sight of the Hero so long as near an act and a 
 half." Nothing could be a plainer concession 
 to the " star " system. 
 
 The fact that this, like all the other similar 
 works of this period, was inspired by the Dis- 
 trest Mother is shown by a passage later: "It 
 may possibly be objected that in the chief 
 characters of the piece I have only imitated Mr. 
 Philips's Distrest Mother^ but I must desire such 
 Gentlemen to remember that La Mort d^AchiUe 
 by M. Corneille was wrote some time before 
 the Andromaque of Racine, tho' I shall not dis- 
 own that my admiration and the just success of 
 that play encouraged me to attempt this per- 
 formance." A little farther he suggests airily 
 that Corneille received various embellishments 
 from his own pen, in the way of improved dic- 
 tion, flowers of metaphor, and the like. 
 
 His translation is in reality a very poor one. 
 The changes in construction are very ineptly 
 planned, and the versification insignificant, al- 
 though at times attaining the interest of being 
 really bad (Act I. Scene 1) : 
 
 Aprfes avoir forcd sa colore k se rendre 
 L'iUustre Briseis a droit de tout pretendre. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSLATIONS 227 
 
 After such proofs how much his soul is yours 
 What can't the illustrious Briseis do ? 
 
 It is not worth while analyzing the changes in 
 the plot, as they are numerous and almost with- 
 out exception actuated by the same small actor- 
 vanity which is indicated in the preface. The 
 scene interpolated in the fifth act to bring 
 Achilles on the stage is an especially unfortu- 
 nate change, as it is not only wholly unnecessary 
 but delays the action. 
 
 The workmanship is poor throughout and 
 the production deserves no attention. Genest 
 does not fail in his usual severe judgment of a 
 play drawn from the French, but the weight 
 of his displeasure in this case falls on what is 
 left of the plan of the original. " The plot is 
 contemptible to the last degree; mythological 
 stories even when judiciously treated rarely 
 please; but when the principal personage is 
 represented contrary to received notions, they 
 disgust." 1 
 
 Baker (BiograpMca Dramaticd) has a rather 
 more tolerant attitude toward the Rival Father, 
 and says moderately, "Yet on the whole 
 
 1 Some Account, Vol. III. p. 281. 
 
228 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 there is some merit in it, and it will not be 
 saying too much to confess that there have 
 been many pieces since its appearance which 
 have not been so deserving of approbation, that 
 have met with good success," — a charitable 
 statement which it is difficult to believe. 
 
XV. THE ROMAN FATHER 
 
 The first translated tragedy to appear after 
 Hatcliett's Rival Father was one performed in 
 1750, another adaptation from Horace; under the 
 title of The Roman Father, This was another 
 great success, almost as complete as the Dis- 
 trest Mother, and with almost as great an 
 influence in starting up an interest in Racine 
 and Corneille. 
 
 The author, William Whitehead, was at that 
 time a rising young poet of thirty-five, a Cam- 
 bridge graduate, who although the son of a 
 baker moved in the most aristocratic circles, 
 and who seven years after the production of 
 his Roman Father was to become Poet Lau- 
 reate. Garrick was a friend of his, and it was 
 at Drury Lane under Garrick's management that 
 his tragedy was presented. Success was imme- 
 diate and continuous. The Gentleman's Maga- 
 zine for March, 1750 — the issue following the 
 play — reprinted in full the prologue and 
 epilogue and gave an account of the history 
 229 
 
230 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 which was the basis of the plot. The Monthly 
 Review for the same month gave ten full pages 
 to elaborate criticism and comment. Three 
 pamphlets were published directly, criticising 
 and commending the play — a sure sign of the 
 prominence attained by the tragedy. There is 
 every indication that the performance was con- 
 sidered one of the notable ones of the time. 
 And this was not merely a temporary success. 
 It was played for a very long run at first, and 
 then, as a stock play, it was presented at inter- 
 vals of rarely more than two years until 1809. 
 This and the Bistrest Mother are by far the 
 most popular of the English adaptations of 
 Racine and Corneille, and it is a compliment 
 to English taste that they are taken from the 
 masterpieces of their respective authors. 
 
 The cast at Drury Lane on the evening of 
 February 24, 1750, was almost as distinguished 
 as that at the same theatre thirty-eight years 
 before, at the premiere of Ambrose Philips's 
 tragedy. Horatius was played by Garrick, a 
 role which was among his most admired crea- 
 tions, and which was commented upon in most 
 eulogistic terms by contemporary critics. The 
 dramatic critic for the Monthly Review carried 
 
THE ROMAN FATHER 231 
 
 his admiration for Garrick's acting in this part 
 so far as to attribute the success of the play 
 almost entirely to it. Criticising severely 
 Whitehead's rendering of the famous Qu'il 
 mourUt! by the more lengthy He might have 
 died! he says, "It is true, indeed, the senti- 
 ment could not but call forth a thunder of 
 applause when we heard * He might have 
 dyed ! ' pronounced with all the energy that 
 the best player of the present or perhaps of any 
 age could give it." 
 
 The younger Horatius ^ was played by Barry, 
 and Horatia by Mrs. Pritchard. The perform- 
 ance must have been characterized by all of 
 Garrick's skill, not only as an actor but as a 
 manager. 
 
 The translation is singularly faithful to the 
 spirit of its original, inasmuch as the keynote 
 of the whole production in English as in 
 French is fiery patriotism. The prologue and 
 epilogue dwell upon the lesson of devotion to 
 one's country which is inculcated in the play. 
 While neither prologue nor epilogue have any 
 special literary value, they are interesting as 
 
 1 Contrary to the Erench usage in regard to this tragedy, 
 the title rCle is that of the elder of the two Horaces. 
 
232 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 being the rare examples of their kind, written 
 for these severe French masterpieces, without 
 coarseness or vulgarity. 
 
 The play is " addressed to the Honourable 
 Thomas Villiers," one of Whitehead's aristo- 
 cratic patrons. There is an " Advertisement " 
 in which the author explains the relation of his 
 play to Corneille's in the following terms: 
 " The Author of the Roman Father thinks it 
 proper to acquaint the public that he never 
 should have thought of writing a play on the 
 following subject had he not read first the 
 celebrated Horace of M. Corneille and admired 
 his management of some capital parts of the 
 story. They will accordingly find him tracing 
 his original very closely, with some few altera- 
 tions in the latter end of the third act and the 
 beginning of the fourth. In the other acts he 
 could only introduce occasional imitations. 
 The difference of his plan and characters would 
 not admit of a strict adherence, and often re- 
 quired a total deviation. He can only add that 
 it was his endeavor to make the Father the 
 principal personage and to show him in every 
 light his peculiar situation and variety of dis- 
 tress would allow of." The changes, as he 
 
THE ROMAN FATHER 233 
 
 indicates, are considerable, the most important 
 being the omission of the family of the Curiace 
 altogether. The list of characters in the 
 Roman Father is as follows : 
 
 Tullus Hostilius : King of Rome. 
 Horatius: A Roman Senator. 
 Publius Horatius : His Son. 
 Valerius : A young Patrician. 
 Horatia : Daughter to Horatius. 
 Valeria : Sister to Valerius. 
 
 Sabine and Curiace are omitted, and Valeria 
 takes the r61e of Julie. Horatia is Camille. 
 Otherwise the relations are just as they are 
 in the French original. In the criticisms of 
 the play there are various opinions as to the 
 advisability of thus omitting two of the chief 
 characters, and confining the interest to Rome 
 and to one family. Genest says, " Whitehead 
 has been criticised for omitting this circumstance 
 as being a great exaggeration of the distress ; 
 he has, however, acted judiciously, as the thing 
 is a mere poetical fiction and as the character of 
 Publius Horatius is sufficiently savage as it now 
 stands." ^ 
 
 The BiograpMca Dramatica^ on the other 
 
 1 Some Account, Vol. IV. p. 296. 
 
234 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 hand, remarks, " It must be confessed we can- 
 not help wishing he had followed even more 
 closely the plan of that very capital writer in 
 the conduct of the piece, since ... he has de- 
 prived himself of the opportunity of throwing 
 in that variety of incident and contrast of 
 character which Corneille's play is possessed 
 of." The critic of the Monthly Review says 
 that Whitehead is indebted to Corneille for 
 every good passage in the play. " The audience, 
 when we saw it acted, never gave one signal of 
 their approbation (except when the masterly 
 manner of the performance de'serv'd it), but on 
 passages that were translated from the French 
 writer." After its criticism, the Biographica 
 Dramatica adds gravely, " In some respects 
 the play before us has the advantage of the 
 French play, the declamatory parts in the 
 latter being too long and diffuse for giving 
 pleasure in a theatrical representation. There 
 are also more poetical beauties in the language 
 of Mr. Whitehead than in that of Corneille's 
 tragedy, and indeed it may be ranked amongst 
 the best of the dramatic pieces of this some- 
 what unprolific age." Genest reaches what is 
 for him almost enthusiasm in speaking of a 
 
THE ROMAN FATHER 235 
 
 translation of this kind. He says, "It is a 
 moderate tragedy." 
 
 The great success of this play seems to have 
 been that it furnished an extraordinarily good 
 role for Garrick and actors of his school. Like 
 The Rival Father of Hatchett, it was so twisted 
 from its original plan by this idea that it 
 can scarcely be called a translation at all ; 
 it is more a rewriting of the same story as 
 Corneille's. 
 
 The great popularity of The Roman Father 
 aroused again the enthusiasm of translators, 
 and for the third time a little cycle of English 
 renderings of Corneille and Racine ran its 
 course. This impulse was much feebler than 
 that communicated by Mrs. Philips's success 
 with Pompey^ or by Ambrose Philips's Distrest 
 Mother. With each recurrence the force of 
 the impetus was weaker and ended in more 
 complete stagnation. 
 
 Whitehead's adaptation was presented in 
 1750. Three years later Dr. Young (he of 
 the Night Thoughts^ drew out of its obscurity 
 a translation of Thomas Corneille's Persee et 
 Demetrius, which he had made almost thirty 
 years before, and, encouraged by Whitehead's 
 
236 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 success, presented it to Garrick. It had been 
 written before he took orders in 1728 (at the 
 beginning of his friendship with Voltaire), so 
 that it is really one of the translations belong- 
 ing in the company of the Distrest Mother; 
 but the conscientious clergyman thought play- 
 writing — even tragedy writing — was not a 
 suitable occupation for one of his profession, 
 and stowed The Brothers away in a dark 
 corner until he was seventy years old, when 
 he decided to produce it for the benefit of the 
 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. 
 
 Nothing could be more quaintly amusing, 
 although almost pathetic, than the figure of the 
 venerable and respected Dr. Young plunged 
 at once by this decision into acrid green-room 
 quarrels and into troublesome contact with 
 the widely known George Anne Bellamy, who 
 was certainly the strangest companion and 
 associate possible for the elderly clergyman. 
 There are a number of piquant anecdotes, well 
 known in theatrical gossip, relative to the in- 
 corrigible madcap's irreverent attitude toward 
 the author of The Brothers. She objected to 
 a line she was to speak — "I will speak to you 
 in thunder ! " — as too swelling a metaphor for 
 
THE ROMAN FATHER 237 
 
 a woman to employ. Upon being impres- 
 sively informed by the dignified author that 
 what she took for roughness was strength, 
 she asked pertly if it would not be stronger 
 if " and lightning " were added. By this and 
 similar impertinent flings she vastly incensed 
 the old Doctor, and her famous fascinating per- 
 sonality has no better proof of its power than 
 the fact that, in spite of these passages at 
 arms, she prevailed upon him to force Garrick 
 to allow her to read the play to the company 
 and to assume the role of heroine. This last 
 Garrick did with ill grace, as it was a part he 
 thought particularly suitable to his favorite 
 Mrs. Pritchard. It is not necessary to go into 
 more of the disagreeable incidents which pre- 
 ceded the appearance of the tragedy, and which 
 formed the uncomfortable prelude to what must 
 have been a very disheartening experience for 
 the old clergyman. In the first place, the play 
 was not a success. Garrick kept it running 
 for eight nights, but the audiences were small. 
 Only X400 were cleared for the Society for the 
 Propagation of the Gospel, whose evangelical 
 name sounds so oddly out of place among the 
 somewhat unsavory incidents connected with 
 
238 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 this attempt to benefit it. Dr. Young, hurt at 
 the smallness of this result, added X600 out of 
 his own pocket, so that the Society received 
 jeiOOO from him. 
 
 What must have been a final touch of humil- 
 iation to the refined author was the substitution 
 by Garrick of a coarse, indelicate epilogue for 
 the dignified, historical one written by Young 
 himself. Doran says, speaking of the lack of 
 success of The Brothers^ " Garrick substituted 
 a coarse epilogue which was spoken by the 
 sprightly Kitty Clive who loved to give coarse- 
 ness all its point, but it could not save the 
 piece ! "^ (This last clause is delicious.) 
 
 Dr. Young himself does not seem to be wholly 
 blameless in this episode. It must be consid- 
 ered distinctly disingenuous for the author of 
 the Night Thoughts not to make any acknowl- 
 edgment of the source of his tragedy. His 
 title-page gives no hint of it, and the prologue, in 
 which, on similar occasions, grudging reference 
 is sometimes made to a French source, seems to 
 imply that history was the sole source of the 
 author's plot. This is not an omission of a fact 
 
 1 8ee life of Young, Toung^s Complete Works^ edited by 
 John Doran, London, 1854. 
 
THE ROMAN FATHER 239 
 
 that would be self-evident to every one, for at 
 least two magazines of the time (the Monthly 
 Review and the Grentleman'' s Magazine^ appar- 
 ently do not know that the play is not original 
 with Dr. Young, and Genest himself says that 
 the addition of the character of Erixene is a 
 good invention of Dr. Young's.^ 
 
 For what the good Doctor actually did — 
 namely, adapt Per see et Demetrius — he de- 
 serves a great deal of credit. It is one of the 
 best revamped French tragedies of the cen- 
 tury. After the halting efforts of the very 
 mediocre men of letters whose translations come 
 before The Brothers, it is a satisfaction to find 
 one's self dealing with a versifier of real talent 
 and taste. 
 
 Dr. Young does not make a close translation, 
 although he follows the story with commendable 
 fidelity. He uses his original with great free- 
 dom and he made a tragedy so far from the 
 French in many instances that it almost de- 
 serves the title of an original traged}^ and per- 
 haps is as good a one as Thomas Corneille's. 
 It has some passages of very solid worth, in its 
 own fashion of rhetoric, and it cannot be said of 
 1 Some Account, Vol. IV. p. 360. 
 
240 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 this as of Whitehead's production, that all the 
 good speeches are taken from the French. 
 There are, however, a number of translated 
 passages (Act II. Scene 1): 
 
 Think you he'll wed her ? N'o, the princess' eye 
 Makes no such short-lived conquest. He'll refuse, 
 And thus effect what I have sought in vain. 
 Yes, he'll refuse, and Dymas in his wrath, 
 Will list for us and vengeance.^ 
 
 The disposition of scenes is often quite dif- 
 ferent, and the individual passages are shuffled 
 about in a confusing way, so that it is difficult 
 to know exactly how much or what Dr. Young 
 took literally from Corneille. 
 
 It is a very unusual case. A man of about 
 the caliber of the author whom he copies, adapts 
 one of the latter's most ordinary works and pro- 
 duces one of his own which (as nearly as may 
 be accurately decided) has exactly the same 
 
 Seigneur k cet hymen vous croyez qu'il consente ? 
 Lui qui pour la Princesse ardemment inflaram^ 
 Pretend n'aimer qu'autant qu'il se connait aim^ ? 
 Non, non, je n'en mets point le refus en balance. 
 II saura de Didas rejetter I'alliance 
 Et d'un pareil mepris Didas, trop indigne, 
 Contre lui par nos soins sera bientdt gagn^. 
 
THE ROMAN FATHER 241 
 
 value as the original ; which, in turn, is not very- 
 great. 
 
 The Brothers has a special interest as one of 
 the last translations to be performed. Although 
 it was a very creditable piece of work, well 
 acted, and with a great name back of it, its 
 lack of success shows the decided character of 
 the movement away from classic tragedy. The 
 public would have none of it in spite of these 
 advantages, and treated in like manner the next 
 aspirant for stage honors. 
 
 Oddly enough this attempt, following Dr. 
 Young's, is again concerned with a play- writing 
 clergyman and the lively Miss Bellamy. Dr. 
 Philip Francis was an ambitious Irishman, 
 ordained in the Irish branch of the English 
 church, and determined to make his way in 
 London social life. He tried school teaching 
 for a time, and Gibbon was one of his pupils. 
 But this did not succeed, and he turned his 
 attention to adapting plays from the French. 
 In 1752 he turned a French comedy into a 
 tragedy, managed to get it presented at Drury 
 Lane, and was astonished at its complete fail- 
 ure. In 1754 he tried again, taking the Max- 
 imian of Thomas Corneille and making it over 
 
 B 
 
242 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 into a tragedy which he called Constantine, 
 This also was a failure, and the second rebuff 
 disheartened Dr. Francis completely. But of 
 this experience came the best fortune of his 
 life — his acquaintance with George Anne Bel- 
 lamy, kind-hearted as she was capricious, who 
 took pity on the unsuccessful, middle-aged 
 clergyman, and secured for him the position 
 of private chaplain to Lady Caroline Fox; a 
 position where he made powerful friends, and 
 where he was soon so happily prosperous as to 
 think no more of preparing French tragedy for 
 the English stage : a state of mind which occa- 
 sioned no great loss to the latter. 
 
 Constantine is so free an adaptation as scarcely 
 to come under the head of translation at all, 
 but it is by no means so good as Dr. Young's 
 Brothers, For one thing, there are various 
 inconsistencies in the action, which are caused 
 by deviating from the plot of the original and 
 by carelessly preserving entire, in the transla- 
 tion, speeches which refer to facts unknown to 
 the English auditor. The style is confused and 
 bombastic, even more than was the fashion, 
 although technically correct enough. 
 
 The Grentleman's Magazine says that it failed 
 
THE ROMAN FATHER 243 
 
 from lack of action, which is of course not Dr. 
 Francis's fault. The Monthly Review attributes 
 its failure to poor acting. Mr. Barry as Con- 
 stantine was excellent and Miss Bellamy as 
 Fulvia outshone herself, but the rest "were 
 quite unequal to their task." It is intimated 
 that some underhand wire-pulling behind the 
 scenes was responsible for this deplorable state 
 of things, and that the failure would not have 
 been so marked had not Garrick, Mrs. Gibber, 
 and Mossop chosen that time to appear in a new 
 tragedy, Virginia^ which quite eclipsed Con- 
 stantine. However that may be, Constantine 
 was a very great failure, and closed the presen- 
 tations from Gorneille and Racine in anything 
 but a burst of glory. 
 
 After Dr. Francis, the next writer to try 
 tragedy was one S. Aspinwall, of whom no 
 more seems to be known than that he wrote 
 and published in 1765 a translation of Rodo- 
 gune^ under the same title. While his re- 
 production of this great tragedy is by no 
 means a masterpiece, his preface to it is unique 
 and deserves reproduction in full. " Having 
 seen the Distrest Mother so finely translated 
 and so well received on our stage, tho' Done 
 
^ ^ K r ^ 
 
 i24l CORNEILLE AND EACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 almost verbatim from the French of Racine 
 by Mr. Philips, I had a mind to try how 
 Rodogune might appear in an English dress 
 from Mons. Corneille. My friends tell me 
 in some parts the translation is stronger 
 than the original. If so, I will impute it 
 merely to our language being more nervous 
 than the French and to the translator's being 
 unconfined by the fetters of Rhyme in which 
 the original is written ; If it should be found 
 to have equal spirit with it, I shall be satisfied 
 and so perhaps will the reader. So fine a 
 tragedy I at first thought shou'd be tried at 
 both Theatres ; but whether that, as some say, 
 nothing now goes down but singsong, and that 
 there are more temples open to sound than 
 sense ; or whether (as I was told by some) 
 they were really pre-engaged ; or (as by others) 
 there were too long speeches in it or too much 
 sentiment ; too much talking and too little 
 doing or bustle in it ; or not so much of the 
 latter as is required on the English stage ; I 
 here give it however to the public, and I may 
 say almost gratis. If there be not in it so 
 much show and bustle as some of our English 
 pieces, of guards, trumpets, processions, illu- 
 
THE ROMAN FATHER 246 
 
 minated temples etc., there is the most height- 
 en'd distress throughout ; each act rising 
 above another and gradually increasing in dis- 
 tress . . . and if the eyes and ears are not 
 entertained so much with shews and shouts, 
 the heart is everywhere almost continually 
 struck with horror and pity." 
 
 This condescending air of the literary ama- 
 teur is a new note in translations from Racine 
 and Corneille, but it is one which is assumed 
 more or less continually in all the translations 
 made from this time on. The reign of the 
 gentleman of leisure with a fad has come in, 
 and the hard-working, practical actors or man- 
 agers occupy themselves no more with work of 
 this kind. 
 
 Mr. A spin wall's translation, while not at all 
 a good one, is diverting in the extreme by the 
 curious way in which he puts Corneille's 
 swelling seventeenth-century verse in terms 
 of mincing eighteenth-century sentiment 
 (Act I. Scene 1) : 
 
 The nuptial torch shall blaze instead of war. 
 Soft bands of love tye up the arm of Mars.^ 
 
 1 The translator's complete lack of fidelity is seen by the 
 
246 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 The verse is written with smoothness, but is 
 entirely insignificant. The Monthly Review ^ 
 devotes two lines to the appearance of this 
 publication, in which the following laconic 
 judgment is passed : " This is a very indifferent 
 translation of a very excellent tragedy. The 
 translator's name, it appears from the preface, 
 is Aspinwall." In spite of the grandiloquent 
 preface, this notice is all that the translation 
 ever deserved. 
 
 Eleven years after Rodogune appeared there 
 was published by one T. Bell, printer, two 
 translations, Phedra^ and Melite, which are 
 unique from some points of view. It is hard 
 to believe that more absurd examples of book- 
 making were ever produced. They are so bad 
 as to be very entertaining, although it per- 
 plexes the reader to conceive any reason why 
 they should have ever been issued. 
 
 In the newspaper room of the British Museum 
 there are twelve quarto tomes of material, gath- 
 
 fact that the lines which seem most closely comiected to 
 
 this passage are : 
 
 Ce grand jour oh I'hymen, ^touffant la vengeance, 
 Entre le Parthe et nous remet 1' intelligence. 
 
 1 Old series, Vol. XXXIII. p. 85, July, 1765. 
 
THE KOMAN FATHER 247 
 
 ered for a history of the English stage, the story 
 of whose origin may possibly furnish a clew to 
 this mystery. On the first page of the first of 
 these mighty volumes the patient collector ex- 
 plains the beginning of his enterprise. A pub- 
 lisher, having picked up at auction some plates 
 for engravings relative to the stage, had asked 
 him to prepare a hastily written history of the 
 English stage to go around the engravings. 
 
 No one can read this account without think- 
 ing at once of the wonderful frontispiece of this 
 edition of Phedra^ which is as unintelligible as 
 the text, and feeling sure that the translation was 
 written around it. The only difference in the 
 two cases is that apparently T. Bell desired 
 that his matter supplementary to the illustra- 
 tion should be prepared over night, and gave it 
 to the printer's devil to do. Nothing else will 
 explain such lines as these (Act I. Scene 3) : 
 
 Phaedra. Stop, dear (Enone. My strength forsakes me, 
 My eyes grow dim, and my trembling knees totter under 
 Their wretched burden, Alas ! 
 
 (Enone. All Powerful Gods! Let our tears appease 
 
 you! 
 Phaedra. How these vain and gaudy ornaments en- 
 cumber me ; 
 They may adorn the external part, but cannot compose 
 
248 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 The afflicted mind ! All, all disturb and conspires to 
 wound your unhappy queen. 
 
 Later on the grammar gives way entirely, 
 
 Thrice has the shades of night spread o'er the heavens 
 Without thy wonted rest, and thrice the sun has 
 Took his diurnal course, yet thou takest no 
 Nutriment to preserve your precious life. 
 
 Every effort to discover more about these 
 extraordinary productions has proved fruitless. 
 Apparently no reference to them exists in any 
 of the contemporary periodicals. Even the 
 London Review^ edited by that malicious Ken- 
 rick to whom Macaulay applied the ugly 
 name, loses this opportunity for a scathing 
 review. They seem to have passed absolutely 
 unnoticed, which was certainly a most fortu- 
 nate thing for their publisher. 
 
XVI. ESTHER AND ATHALIE 
 
 As might be expected, the life of Athalie and 
 Esther in English was quite different from 
 that of other French tragedies. It was sur- 
 rounded by an atmosphere other than that of 
 the dramas translated for the stage. From the 
 beginning there is a distinctly clerical air about 
 the translators of Athalie^ even when they are 
 not clergymen. It is the religious element 
 in Racine's great masterpiece which attracts 
 them. 
 
 This is true of the first ^ of the line as well as 
 of his successors. In 1722 there was published 
 in London, Athaliah, A tragedy translated from 
 the French of Mo7isieur Racine by Mr, William 
 Buncombe, In the dedication the author says 
 
 1 Strictly speaking this was not the first, as several years 
 earlier than this the Countess of Winchilsea had prepared a 
 translation of part of the fifth scene in the second act — the 
 famous dream of Athalie. This was published with her 
 other poems in 1713. The author is the same who was 
 so cruelly satirized by Pope in the comedy Three Hours 
 after Marriage^ mentioned on page 212. 
 249 
 
250 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 that he had completed the translation eight 
 years before he published it, which would make 
 it the work of quite a young man — twenty- 
 four or five. He died in 1769, and the G-entle- 
 man's Magazine for the same year (page 333) 
 has this notice : " Died, Wm. Buncombe, Esq., 
 in the eightieth year of his age, universally 
 known, respected, and admired for his amiable 
 temper and many ingenious publications." It 
 is already shown that Athaliah was one of the 
 earliest of these "ingenious publications," al- 
 though before that he had translated parts of 
 Horace. His best-known work is a translation 
 and adaptation of Voltaire's Brutus, 
 
 The English dress which he gives to Athalie 
 is carefully and intelligently wrought, with 
 occasional touches which suggest the original. 
 It deserves no great commendation as a work 
 of art, but as a faithful, close, and intelligible 
 rendering it is excellent. His translation of 
 the famous dream of Athalie is a good example 
 of the conscientious fidelity of Buncombe (Act 
 II. Scene 5): 
 
 'Twas in the dead of Night when Horror reigns 
 My Mother Jezebel appeared before me, 
 Richly adorned, as on the day she died. 
 
ESTHER AND ATHALIE 251 
 
 Her sorrows had not damped her noble Pride. 
 
 She even still retained that borrowed Lustre 
 
 Which she was wont to spread upon her cheeks 
 
 To make Amends for the Decays of Time. 
 
 " Tremble, said she, O Daughter worthy of me, 
 
 The Hebrews* cruel God prevails against thee, 
 
 I grieve that into his tremendous Hands, 
 
 My Daughter, thou must fall." As she concluded 
 
 These words so full of Horror, her Shadow seemed 
 
 Forward to bend and bow upon my Bed ; 
 
 I stretched out hastily my Arms to meet her. 
 
 But Nothing caught beside a dreadful Heap 
 
 Of Bones, and Mangled Flesh, bedaubed with Mire, 
 
 Garments all dyed with Blood and shattered Limbs 
 
 Which greedy Dogs did eagerly contend for.^ 
 
 1 C'etait pendant I'horreur d'une prof on de nuit. 
 Ma mere J6zabel devant moi s'est montree, 
 Comme au jour de sa mort pompeusement parde, 
 Ses malheurs n'avaient point abattu sa fierte; 
 Meme elle avait encor cet eclat emprunte 
 Dont elle eut soin de peindre et d'orner son visage. 
 Pour reparer des ans I'iri'eparable outrage ; 
 " Tremble, m'a-t-elle dit, fille digne de moi ; 
 " Le cruel Dieu des Juif s I'emporte aussi sur toi. 
 " Je te plains de tomber dans ses mains redoutables, 
 " Ma fille." En achevant ces mots epouvantables, 
 Son ombre vers mon lit a paru se baisser ; 
 Et moi je lui tendais les mains pour I'embrasser, 
 Mais je n'ai plus trouve qu'un horrible melange 
 D'os et de chairs meurtris, et train es dans la fange, 
 Des lambeaux pleins de sang, et des membres affreux 
 Que des chiens devorants se disputaient entre eux. 
 
252 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 It is difficult to form an independent judg- 
 ment of the intrinsic merit of Buncombe's work, 
 because of the wonder of the reader at the scru- 
 pulous accuracy of a rendering like this. 
 
 With the beginning of the nineteenth century- 
 there appear a number of translations of the 
 two religious dramas of Racine, which can be 
 advantageously treated in a group, without 
 going into detail. In 1803 an Edinburgh firm 
 printed The Sacred Dramas of Esther and 
 Athalie. The name of the translator is not 
 given, but whoever he was he was a much 
 better literary craftsman than Brereton, for 
 his Esther far surpasses that of the eighteenth- 
 century translator. It is close and faithful, 
 and yet reasonably smooth. By this time, 
 however, modern ideas had begun to come in, 
 and faithfulness is not a quality to be so much 
 remarked upon, as denoting an unusual quality 
 in the aim of the author. The Athalie^ pub- 
 lished with this, is also a creditable piece of 
 work and a very fair if by no means powerful 
 rendering of the original. 
 
 In 1815, again in Edinburgh, there appeared 
 another translation of Athalie done by John 
 Sheppard, who seems to have been a nineteenth- 
 
ESTHER AND ATHALIE 253 
 
 century Duncombe. He was a rigid Baptist, 
 devoting his time (as the Dictionary of National 
 Biography puts it) to " religious authorship, lay- 
 preaching, and foreign travel." His Thoughts 
 Preparatory to Private Devotion was a very 
 popular book, going through five editions in 
 five years. The very title of such a book 
 shows what element in Athalie was the one 
 inducing him to translate it. 
 
 In his preface he says that he was not aware 
 of a previous translation of Athalie in English 
 until he had almost completed his own. Then 
 a friend showed him Buncombe's, of which he 
 speaks in the following terms : " This piece 
 (although it had reached a third edition in 
 1740) did not appear at all to supersede the 
 present attempt. I may venture to pronounce 
 it a servile rendering of the original with very 
 disputable claims in any instance to the title of 
 English poetry." After this it is to be ex- 
 pected that he should write a much poorer 
 translation of Duncombe, which indeed he does. 
 The Monthly Review (Vol. LXXX. p. 319), in 
 reviewing the work, says, "The Spirit of 
 Racine's Composition has been more success- 
 fully imitated than its harmony." It is a little 
 
254 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 difficult to conceive Athalie without its har- 
 mony, so that it must be allowed that it is a 
 rather faulty copy which John Sheppard pre- 
 sented to the religious world of his day. 
 
 In 1822 there appeared a translation of 
 Athalie^ chiefly interesting for its delicious pref- 
 ace, which is worth quoting. The title-page 
 gives no idea as to the character of the author 
 beyond the colorless, " Translated from the 
 French of J. Racine with Notes by J. C. 
 Knight." But with the first lines of the pref- 
 ace he stands revealed with the utmost clear- 
 ness. " It will be necessarily expected that a 
 youth of seventeen should state his motives for 
 thus obtruding himself upon the Public. Being 
 greatly desirous to enter the Church, he has 
 undertaken the translation of Racine's Athaliah 
 in order to defray a part of the expenses of an 
 education ... it is this motive alone which has 
 actuated him to translate this tragedy ; for 
 rather, far rather, would he devote his youth to 
 the acquirement of that knowledge which will 
 enable him to discharge the duties of a clergy- 
 man with propriety, and qualify him for further 
 usefulness. The writer has alluded to his age, 
 not with the desire of exalting this publication 
 
ESTHER AND ATHALIE 255 
 
 in the opinion of its reader, but with a view of 
 obtaining for all its imperfections and impro- 
 prieties those allowances which he hopes will be 
 granted to his youth and his motives." A little 
 further on he speaks of his pious intention to 
 devote no time to the attempt to reproduce the 
 mere beauties of the tragedy, but to emphasiz- 
 ing the points of Jewish history involved. 
 
 This preface has been reproduced at such 
 length because it seems to sum up, although in 
 an exaggerated way, the feeling of the worthy 
 translators of the nineteenth century, who be- 
 stowed their labors upon Athalie, About this 
 particular translation there is little to be said, 
 except that it is not quite so bad as one would 
 naturally think it, from this introduction. 
 
 From this time on there are many translations 
 of Athalie^ but almost without exception the 
 work of clergymen or school-teachers with more 
 zeal than literary ability. It seems improbable 
 that any of these works, except perhaps Dun- 
 combe's, ever had any name or influence, and it 
 is quite certain that none of them ever came 
 within hailing distance of the theatre. Con- 
 sequently they have little significance as far as 
 the real life of Racine in England is concerned. 
 
XVII. THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 
 
 During the last quarter of the eighteenth 
 century, the history of the translations of 
 Racine and Corneille is uneventful. The 
 movement is at an end. The attempt of the 
 Restoration translators to establish French 
 tragedy in English literature had failed, and 
 the attempt of the early eighteenth-century 
 dramatist to put it on the English stage had 
 fared no better. 
 
 In addition to the obvious reasons for this 
 failure, such as the difference in taste between 
 the two nations and the fact that translations 
 rarely, under any conditions, become a real part 
 of a national literature, there is a new reason 
 which, in itself, would have been sufficient to 
 put an end to the movement. That is the 
 decline of the art of reciting verses on the 
 stage. Garrick's wonderful talent as a panto- 
 mimist, and the school of actors who followed 
 him, had put out of fashion the measured and 
 harmonious reading of noble verses. As the en- 
 266 
 
THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 257 
 
 tire strength of the French classic tragedy lay- 
 in just such verses and in the opportunity they 
 gave for fine declamation, they became com- 
 pletely foreign to the sympathies of even the 
 cultured people who had admired them before. 
 This change in dramatic ideals was by no means 
 confined to England, as it was already recog- 
 nized by many of the leading French actors 
 and actresses of the later eighteenth century; 
 but it was a change naturally more in accord 
 with English taste than with French, and as 
 a consequence was carried out to its fullest ex- 
 tent more rapidly in British theatres. It may 
 seem a strange statement that the generation 
 which heard John Kemble's stately declama- 
 tion and that of his school, should have drifted 
 away from an admiration for dramatic verse. 
 But it must be remembered that a statement 
 of this kind is always relative. In these days 
 of colloquial, free-and-easy delivery of Shake- 
 spearian verse, the records of Kemble's meas- 
 ured reading sound classic. But proofs are 
 not wanting that the older and more conserva- 
 tive people at the beginning of the nine- 
 teenth century looked upon the school of actors 
 of that time as lacking in dignity. Some 
 
258 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 remarks from the preface to a translation from 
 the French, written by a man of taste and 
 discrimination, show clearly this tendency 
 (Sir Brooke Boothby, page 272). 
 
 The iron rule of the hemistich was broken, 
 verses were no longer recited by rule but ac- 
 cording to the sense — carrying the voice over 
 the caesura if the sense demanded it. This 
 again is a relative statement, and must be 
 taken as such. The actors of that time un- 
 doubtedly made it appear that they were recit- 
 ing poetry and not prose, which is more than 
 can be said of present-day Thespians; but in 
 comparison with the Bettertons, Booths, and 
 Mrs. Bracegirdles of an earlier period they 
 probably sounded very conversational. 
 
 From 1776 on there are no famous names 
 among the translators, and very few names 
 of any kind. The virtuous Hannah Brand 
 takes time from her school-teaching in 1798 to 
 tincture Corneille's Bon Sanche IfArragon with 
 British sentimentality, and in 1802 an anony- 
 mous translator produces a fair rendering of 
 the Qid. These two works represent all that 
 was done with the elder Corneille. 
 
 In 1813 Britannicus attracts the attention of 
 
THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 259 
 
 a country gentleman of mildly literary taste, 
 and Esther is translated the same year ; and 
 there is an end of the appearances of Racine 
 in English — with the very notable exception 
 of Athalie. 
 
 Of the eight translations from Thomas Cor- 
 neille, three were done after 1777, two from 
 Ariane alone. In 1793 one of these adaptions 
 appeared under the title of The Rival Sisters., 
 fathered by Arthur Murphy. This was pub- 
 lished in a seven- volume edition of Murphy's 
 works in 1786, but was not played till March 
 18, 1793. This is the last of the translations 
 produced on the stage, and in this partakes of 
 the nature of the preceding period. It bears 
 the stamp of the eighteenth century in another 
 way; it alters the original to suit English taste. 
 Murphy speaks of this with delicious frank- 
 ness, in the preface. He begins by saying that 
 Madame de Sevigne, by her account of the re- 
 ception of the original in Paris and of the great 
 part Mile, de Champsmesle played in the suc- 
 cess of that flat performance, inspired him to 
 reproduce it in English for Mrs. Siddons's 
 benefit. He continues ; " Shall the present 
 writer flatter himself that he has removed the 
 
260 CORNEILLE AND RACIN^ IN ENGLAND 
 
 vices of the first concoction and substituted 
 what is better? He certainly has endeavored 
 to do it. For this Purpose a New Fable was 
 required. The progress of the business re- 
 quired to be conducted in a different manner, 
 with more rapidity and without those languid 
 scenes which weaken the interest. . . . The 
 Author does not scruple to say that he entered 
 into competition with the original, that he has 
 aimed at a better tragedy." 
 
 He has "conducted the business with more 
 rapidity" by introducing a new minor char- 
 acter, by adding political complications to the 
 love story, and by many other devices of a con- 
 fusing nature. In general, however, the con- 
 duct of the play is very much the same as in 
 the original, and it has the same ending except 
 that it is very much more long drawn out. 
 
 Genest ^ is very severe on this tragedy, calling 
 it " dull and uninteresting," " subject badly 
 chosen," " Shakespeare himself could hardly 
 have written a good tragedy on so fabulous a 
 story." Genest's constitutional dislike to any- 
 thing resembling French tragedy may account 
 for some of the harshness of this judgment; but 
 
 1 Some Account, Vol. VII. pp. 90-91. 
 
THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 261 
 
 Murphy's changes in the story, his mediocre 
 versification and management of the plot, were 
 in reality anything but successful. The trag- 
 edy obtained some public favor, however, Mrs. 
 Siddons playing Ariane and Kemble Pirithous. 
 The very length of Genest's severe notice is a 
 witness to the fact that it did not pass entirely 
 unnoticed. 
 
 Whatever the degree of success which 
 Murphy's arrangement of Ariane secured, it 
 was enough to induce another author to make 
 a translation of the same tragedy. ^ In 1795, 
 the Rev. Mr. Stratford, Rector of Gallstow, 
 County Westmeath, Ireland, was brought to 
 the attention of the public by the publication 
 of a volume containing an original tragedy. 
 Lord Mussel^ and a translation of Ariane under 
 the title of The Labyrinth. In all probability 
 neither was ever performed, unless perhaps by 
 friendly amateurs in Ireland. An anecdote 
 told by The Mirror about Mr. Stratford, makes 
 it almost certain that they never received any 
 encouragement in England. In 1784 he had 
 written his heavy tragedy Lord Bussel^ which 
 he was sure would make a great success, and 
 gathering together all his literary baggage. 
 
262 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 which then consisted of five tragedies and five 
 comedies, he went to London to have his works 
 performed at Covent Garden and Drury Lane. 
 Harris was manager, and to him Stratford ap- 
 plied. There were no possibilities in any of the 
 plays, and the manager's trained eye saw that 
 at once ; but the reverend gentleman was so 
 persistent, that at last he prevailed on Harris 
 to listen, while he read aloud one of his pro- 
 ductions. Harris composed himself, and listened 
 patiently through four acts of a comedy. At 
 this point he inquired gravely, " Don't you 
 think it time to bring in Lord Russel ? " 
 
 " Lord Russel ! " cried the astounded play- 
 wright, " Sir, this is a comedy I " 
 
 "Ah?" said Harris, "I thought you were 
 reading me the tragedy." 
 
 This incident is said to have dampened Mr. 
 Stratford's ardor effectually, and he went back 
 to Ireland, much depressed by the low condi-^ 
 tion of the English stage. 
 
 His works seem to have been printed for the 
 first time after his death, when they appeared 
 for the benefit of his sister, printed by subscrip- 
 tion. There were ostensibly two editions made 
 at the same time, one English and one Irish, 
 
THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 263 
 
 but there seems no doubt but that they are 
 the same with a different title-page and list of 
 subscribers. 
 
 The play itself is a most commonplace produc- 
 tion. Stratford says with a self-satisfied smirk 
 in the preface, " Whilst the translator has en- 
 deavored to preserve inviolate the reputation 
 of so eminent a French writer, he has likewise 
 been ambitious to assert the superiority of the 
 British Drama." 
 
 The following extract, which on the whole is 
 the best speech in the translation, may bear its 
 own testimony to the capacity of Mr. Stratford 
 to assert this superiority (Act IV. Scene 3) : 
 
 Ariadne. Before that happens be assured, my Phaedra, 
 The world shall know what Ariadne dares, 
 Who would be made the scorn of public rumour? 
 'Tis fit I should disguise my indignation, 
 Theseus for once shall teach me to dissemble, 
 I'll make him think I approve his marriage ; 
 The stroke delayed, shall fall with greater ruin.^ 
 
 1 It is almost impossible to select the French lines which 
 may have served as model for this outburst, but diligent 
 search throughout the whole of this scene has resulted in 
 the selection of the following detached lines : 
 
 Entre les bras d'une autre ! Avant ce coup, ma soeur, 
 J'aime, je suis trahie, on connaitra mon coeur. 
 
264 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 This is not only weak in itself, but is a most 
 mutilated and garbled reproduction of the 
 original, and shows that the clergyman had 
 no idea of faithfulness in his translation and 
 no appreciation of the task he had set himself. 
 The play itself has no significance beyond show- 
 ing into what hands translations had fallen. 
 
 The translator of the play next in chrono- 
 logical order is a very quaint and picturesque 
 figure in English life of that time. The worthy 
 Hannah Brand, schoolmistress and actress, prude 
 and tragedy queen, authoress and reformer of 
 stage morals, gave occupation to many of the 
 anecdote writers of those gossipy days. She 
 kept a school for young ladies in Norwich, but 
 abandoned this for the stage. She acted the 
 leading part in a play of her own composition, 
 but her stiffness and self-conceit, lack of expe- 
 rience and of flexibility, made her failure as an 
 actress only a matter of time. Genest gives 
 some quaint reasons for her lack of success. 
 "Her stage dresses were elegant, but the 
 
 Moins I'amour outrage fait voir d'emportement, 
 Plus quand le coup approche, il frappe sftrement. 
 C'est par 1^ qu'affectant une douleur aisee 
 Je feins de consentir ^ I'hymen de Thes6e. 
 
THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 265 
 
 effect of them was spoiled by her wearing of 
 stays in the old fashion." ^ Her objection to 
 low-cut dresses was unalterable. The Bio- 
 graphica Dramatica^ however, says that her 
 acting was marked by discrimination; and 
 Wilkinson says that apart from her high-flown 
 melodramatic airs she was a woman of really 
 sound understanding. Genest^ characterizes 
 her admirably, "a sensible woman with great 
 oddities." 
 
 These peculiarities of her person make not 
 only highly entertaining reading, but throw a 
 light on some characteristics of her translation 
 of Don Sanche, which she published in a volume 
 called Brand's Plays and Poems in 1798. 
 
 The play itself she calls The Conflict^ or Love, 
 Honour, and Pride, a title which strikes at 
 once the note of the whole performance. She 
 makes no words about "heightening the 
 colour," as does Murphy, but evidently she 
 had the same end in view. Her methods 
 differ from his, however, and consist of inter- 
 polating English sentimentality whenever it is 
 possible. No more curious contrast could be 
 found than the leading characteristics of the 
 1 Some Account, Vol. VII. p. 49. 2 n^i^^^ p. 402. 
 
266 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 original and those which Miss Brand saw fit 
 to add. The story which Corneille has to tell, 
 by reason of its Spanish nature, lends itself 
 easily to an exaggerated development of the 
 peculiar qualities of Corneille. Exaltation, the 
 loftiest sense of personal dignity, the most 
 extravagant ideas of the divine right of kings, 
 the most punctilious delicacy in matters of 
 honor — all the traits most characteristic of 
 Corneille and of the whole French seven- 
 teenth century — are present. In the inter- 
 val of a century and three-quarters that 
 had elapsed before Miss Brand arrived on the 
 scene and turned her attention to Corneille, 
 literary and emotional fashions had completely 
 changed. It was no longer the mode to have 
 the emotions under strict control, it was a 
 reproach. Rousseau and Sterne had made 
 yielding to every sensation to be a virtue. 
 Personal dignity and reserve were synonymous 
 with insensibility, and that was a crime. 
 
 In addition, the British public has always 
 been one to be deeply moved by banalities 
 about the domestic affections. In the story of 
 Bon Sanche d'Arragon, which turns largely 
 on the recognition of a long-lost son by a 
 
THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 267 
 
 mother and his noble refusal to disown a 
 lowly but virtuous foster-father, Miss Brand 
 saw great opportunities, and the play as 
 she printed it presents the most curious mix- 
 ture of the two opposing schools of emotion. 
 Where she actually translates she does it well, 
 in flowing blank verse of considerable spirit and 
 fidelity, and she reproduces in no slight degree 
 the somewhat florid dignity of the original. 
 But where she amplifies and adds speeches and 
 scenes of her own, they are of a weakly emo- 
 tional character, startling to find in a work 
 supposedly by Corneille. The second scene 
 in her fourth act is of her own invention. It 
 begins with a stage direction as out of charac- 
 ter as possible for a queen, for a Spanish queen, 
 and for a Corneille Spanish queen : 
 
 (^Queen flies to Carlos with open arms. He retreats /) 
 Am l&o blessed to have a son like Thee ! 
 
 The rest of the scene is continued in a most 
 unreservedly emotional style. Later, in Act V. 
 Scene 5, there are to be found examples of her 
 amplification, and also of how closely and well 
 she could at times follow her model : 
 
268 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 I am this shepherd's Son. He is no cheat, 
 No infamous impostor, though mean of blood, 
 He is not vile or foul. And I renounce 
 More willingly the names of Count and Marquis 
 Than a son's sentiments of love and duty. 
 Naught can efface the sacred character 
 Of Nature's ties within an honest breast. 
 I left my parents, I disclaimed my name ; 
 My soul for honour sighed, for glory panted 
 E'en in that cottage where my fate had cast me. 
 Your courtly maxims warred against my hopes ; 
 The road of Honour and the course of Glory 
 Were open but to Lords. I had no means 
 To rise but to conceal my birth. ^ 
 
 On the whole, the translation is a very credit- 
 able performance for a person of the literary 
 attainments of Hannah Brand. It was proba- 
 bly never played. 
 
 Miss Brand's translation of Don Sanche^ in 
 spite of its faults, has one distinction — that 
 of being the last attempt made in all serious- 
 ness to manufacture a piece of English litera- 
 
 1 Carlos. Je suis fils d'un pgcheur, mais non pas d'un inf S,me ; 
 La bassesse du sang ne va pas jusqu'a I'ame, 
 Et je renonce aux noms de comte et de marquis 
 Avec bien plus d'honneur qu'aux sentiments de fils ; 
 Rien n'en peut effacer le sacr6 caract^re. 
 
 The lines which follow in the English are original with 
 Miss Brand. 
 
THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 269 
 
 ture out of a translated French tragedy. The 
 next three (the last made) bear distinctly the 
 mark of dilettantism, of being the pastime of 
 idle people. 
 
 The first, published in 1800, was written by 
 Lady Sophia Burrel, a very wealthy woman 
 who lived the prosperous life of country aris- 
 tocracy in England. Her poetic output consists 
 of two octavo volumes of verse, and the freely 
 translated Maximian from the tragedy of the 
 same name by T. Corneille. This is scarcely 
 more than an adaptation, with many additions 
 of dances, festivities, spectacles, and the like. 
 It is written in smoothly flowing and absolutely 
 commonplace blank verse. That the author 
 approached her work in no serious mood may 
 be gathered with certainty from the Dedica- 
 tion, where she speaks of having undertaken 
 the translation to amuse herself during a tire- 
 some period of convalescence. The Monthly Re- 
 view (Vol. XXXIII. new series, page 221) gives 
 a moderately lengthy report of this work, in- 
 duced to this action, apparently, by the social 
 standing of the author. Lady Burrel's ele- 
 gant trifling receives the usual faint praise 
 accorded to recognized amateurs, but the 
 
270 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Review says that it would take more than the 
 pen of a lady of leisure to make French trag- 
 edy acceptable in England at that time. 
 
 The last translation of the Cid appeared in 
 1802, written by "A Gentleman formerly a 
 Captain in the Army." This nom de plume is 
 as complete a disguise for the author now 
 as then, and no one seems ever to have taken 
 any trouble to pierce it. This translation, 
 like that of Lady Burrel, might well have 
 been undertaken as a pastime of a conva- 
 lescent. It certainly shows not the slightest 
 trace of any real effort to make a good repro- 
 duction of the original. The versification is 
 almost uniformly bad, and at times the diction 
 is absurd. 
 
 The following selection is the attempt at 
 
 translation of Don Rodrigue's soliloquy in the 
 
 first act : 
 
 When on the point of gaining all I wish 
 How dismal 'tis to think of such a talk. 
 He who begat me is the injur'd man 
 And the offender is Chimena's sire. 
 This horrid struggle causes shocking pain, 
 It quite deranges all my mental powers ! ^ 
 
 1 There are no lines in the original which can he selected 
 as the basis of this effusion. " The Gentleman " apparently 
 
THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 271 
 
 If one take the trouble to compare this with 
 the artfully wrought, melodious, and ardent 
 complaint in the original, it almost passes the 
 bounds of credibility that such stuff could have 
 been put out as an attempt at translation, so 
 late as 1802. 
 
 The last translation made (always excepting 
 Athalie) has a character curiously appropriate 
 to its position as finale of this movement. Sir 
 Brooke Boothby published in 1803 an English 
 version of Britannicus, of which the preface is 
 by far the most interesting part. This consists 
 of twenty-five octavo pages of discussion about 
 the differences between the English and French 
 stage, about the introduction, new at that time, 
 of German plays into England, and about the 
 general state of the English theatre. Sir Brooke 
 does all this in a very interesting and discrimi- 
 nating manner. His judgments as to the 
 then prevalent tendencies of the stage are very 
 shrewd, and have been proved correct by time. 
 His remarks on the use of poetry as a dra- 
 matic medium are particularly good, and while 
 they may sound platitudinous now, their real 
 
 had no wish to do more than attempt to reproduce the 
 general idea of the celebrated monologue. 
 
272 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 discrimination is remarkable when it is remem- 
 bered that they were written a hundred years 
 ago, while public taste was still strongly under 
 the influence of the eighteenth century. 
 
 " Melodious versification is rather an impedi- 
 ment to success. The art of reciting verses 
 which appears formerly to have been felt as 
 one of the chief excellences in acting, is in a 
 great measure lost. Neither the actor nor the 
 audience have any ear for the modulations of 
 verse, and the measure is broken off or pre- 
 served just as it happens . . . measured recita- 
 tions and tragic deportment fell into neglect 
 and even disrepute, and there is scarcely an 
 actor on the stage that can repeat a dozen 
 lines, not only with proper rhythm and cadence 
 but without breaking the measure." 
 
 The importance of this change of public feel- 
 ing with regard to recitation has already been 
 pointed out, but it is interesting to note that 
 at least one contemporary saw the meaning of 
 it as clearly as it now appears to us. The 
 translator speaks later with great disgust of the 
 extravagant adaptations of German Sturm und 
 Drang tragedies, which were then very popular. 
 " That so chaste and simple a tragedy as the 
 
THE LAST OF THE MOVEMENT 273 
 
 Britannicus of Racine should succeed on the 
 English stage is less to be expected than ever ; 
 to succeed at present, a piece must comprise in 
 one incoherent jumble every manner at once, 
 except that which is simple and natural — 
 tragedy, farce, opera, pantomime, without sense, 
 or feeling, or conduct, or interest, resembling a 
 sick man's dreams rather than the representa- 
 tion of any rational action." This complaining 
 paragraph shows no especial penetration on the 
 part of Sir Brooke, as it is safe to say that not 
 a decade in the history of the theatre has 
 passed without the appearance of some such 
 sweeping condemnation of the contemporary 
 state of the stage. 
 
 It is evident, moreover, upon an examination 
 of the piece itself, that Sir Brooke, like many 
 other severe critics, could not produce much 
 better things than those he condemned. The 
 translation is smooth and dignified, but without 
 force. He has produced a Britannicus better 
 than that of Ozell, for he has the negative 
 quality of avoiding the faults of taste that dis- 
 figure the latter's work. But a man who ex- 
 hibits the cultivation and training shown by 
 Boothby in his preface should have been able to 
 
274 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 avoid the frequently obscure lines and the 
 occasional trivialities of diction such as 
 
 Such sentiments, unless I much mistake, 
 Will never find the way to Junia's heart.^ 
 
 As a rule it is only just to say that there are 
 few positive faults to be found with this pro- 
 duction. It is simply the work of a man with- 
 out a spark of inspiration. 
 
 It is interesting on one account : it almost 
 seems that Sir Brooke knew, or felt, that he was 
 the last of his line, and as though he were half 
 consciously giving in a very lucid way the rea- 
 sons for the abandonment of the movement 
 which has been traced in these pages. It is 
 the swan-song of the translators of Racine and 
 Corneille, and is strictly in keeping with the 
 character of most of its predecessors in that it 
 is the work of an intelligent man but not of a 
 poet. 
 
 1 Je coDnais mal Junie, ou de tels sentiments 
 Ne m^riteront pas ses applaudissements. 
 
XVIII. SUMMARY 
 
 This brief and almost forgotten chapter in 
 dramatic history may be adequately summarized 
 as follows : 
 
 A prefatory movement and three important 
 periods may be distinguished. A few scatter- 
 ing translations were the precursors of the first 
 period. This began definitely with the restora- 
 tion of Charles II. to the throne, and continued 
 throughout his reign. It was a serious, earnest 
 and dignified effort to transplant the master- 
 pieces of French dramatic literature to Eng- 
 land, and to make them of native growth. 
 
 Then follows an interregnum, from the death 
 of Charles until the accession of Queen Anne. 
 During her reign, and the ten years following 
 her death, numbers of translations appeared. 
 This is the most prolific epoch of the whole 
 movement. Encouraged by the success of Am- 
 brose Philips's Distrest Mother, and by the 
 famous discussion over Addison's Oato, many of 
 the lesser lights of the literary world, more 
 276 
 
276 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 especially of the theatrical world, devoted them- 
 selves to bringing Racine and Corneille to the 
 English stage. 
 
 After this period of activity, interest in these 
 two authors gradually died down; and from 
 1730 to 1750 there is another blank, when no 
 more new translations are attempted. Again 
 another success (William Whitehead's Roman 
 Father) started anew the fashion for translated 
 tragedy, and again this gradually disappeared. 
 This closes the significant part of the whole 
 movement. From the end of the eighteenth 
 century the translations were purely scholarly 
 attempts, and as such have no more real mean- 
 ing for the dramatic world than have similar 
 efforts of our own day. 
 
 The result of this investigation clearly illus- 
 trates the futility of attempts to establish, per- 
 manently, artificial standards of beauty. Any 
 taste which is not a natural growth from within 
 cannot become truly national. Most sincere 
 effort was put forth during two centuries, by 
 various authors and with various methods, to 
 give to the literary world of one nation the 
 beauties of the literary world of the other. 
 This effort practically failed in spite of the 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 277 
 
 many advantages which it possessed over other 
 similar movements. It is a striking exemplifi- 
 cation of the truth that national taste is a 
 natural organic growth and that no efforts, 
 however competent and strenuous, can radically 
 change its inherent nature. 
 
CHRONOLOGY 
 
 PIERRE CORNEILLE 
 
 The Cid. A Tragicomedy out of French made English, 
 and acted before their Majesties at Court and on the 
 Cockpit Stage in Drury Lane. London. 1637. 
 
 Polyeuctes, or The Martyr. A Tragedy, by Sir William 
 Lower. London. 1655. 
 
 Horatius. A Roman Tragedy, by Sir William Lower, 
 Knight. London. 1656. 
 
 Pompey. A Tragedy (Translated from the French of 
 Pierre Corneille with the Additions of Songs) by 
 Katharine Philips. London. 1663. 
 
 Pompeius, Called the Great. Translated out of French 
 by Certain Persons of Honour. London. 1664. 
 
 Heraclius, Emperour of the East. Englished by L. Car- 
 lell. London. 1664. 
 
 Poems. By the most deservedly Admired Mrs. K. Phil- 
 ips, The Matchless Orinda. To which is added 
 Monsieur Corneille's Pompey and Horace. Trag- 
 edies. London. 1667. 
 The same with John Denham's completion of the 
 translation of the Horace. London. 1669. An- 
 other edition of same in 1678. 
 The same but with Cotton's fifth act of the Horace 
 substituted for Denham's. London. 1710. 
 
 Horace. A French Tragedy. Englished by Charles 
 Cotton. London. 1671. 
 279 
 
280 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Nicomede. A Tragicomedy. Translated out of French 
 by J. Dancer. London. 1671. This is published 
 by Francis Kirkman who printed with it " an exact 
 catalogue of all English Stage plays presented till 
 this present year, 1671." 
 
 The Mistaken Beauty, or The Lyar. A Comedy. Acted 
 ... at the Royal Theatre. London. 1685. 
 
 The Cid. A Tragedy. Translated from the French of 
 Corneille. 1691. Unpublished. In the British 
 Museum Manuscript Room. Mss. Addit. 8888. 
 
 The Lying Lover, or The Ladies Friendship. London. 
 1704. (There was a 6th ed. in 1760.) 
 
 Cinna's Conspiracy. A Tragedy. London. 1713. 
 
 The Cid. Translated from the French of Pierre Cor- 
 neille by J. Ozell. London. 1714. 
 
 The Heroick Daughter, or Ximena, by CoUey Cibber. 
 London. 1718. 
 
 Caesar in iEgypt. A Tragedy as it is acted at the Thea- 
 tre Royal. . . . Written by Mr. Cibber. London. 
 1725. 
 
 The Roman Father. A Tragedy by William White- 
 head. London. 1750. 
 
 The Lyar. A Comedy by Samuel Foote. London. 
 1764. 
 
 Rodogune. A Tragedy. Translated from the French 
 by Stanhope Aspinwall. London. 1765. 
 
 Melite. Translated from the French of M. Corneille. 
 London. 1776. 
 
 Brand's Plays and Poems. (Containing the ConjBlict of 
 Love, Honour, and Pride.) 1798. 
 
 The Cid. A Tragedy taken from the French of Cor- 
 neille by a Gentleman, formerly a Captain in the 
 Army. London. 1802. 
 
CHRONOLOGY 281 
 
 THOMAS CORNEILLE 
 
 The Extravagant Sheepherd. A Pastorall Comedie. 
 
 Written in French by T. Corneille. Englished by 
 
 T. R. London. 1654. 
 The Amorous Orontus, or The Love in Fashion. A Com- 
 edy. London. 1665. 
 The Astrologer. London. 1668. (Title-page missing.) 
 An Evening's Love, or The Mock Astrologer. London. 
 
 1671. (By John Dryden.) 
 The Rival Father, or The Death of Achilles. A Tragedy 
 
 as it is acted. . . . London. 1730. 
 Constantine. A tragedy by Dr. Philip Francis. London. 
 
 1754. 
 The Brothers. A Tragedy. Written by Dr. Edward 
 
 Young, as performed at the Theatre Royal in Drury 
 
 Lane. London. 1776. 
 The Rival Sisters. A Tragedy by A. Murphy Esq. 
 
 adapted for theatrical representation, as performed 
 
 at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. London. 1793. 
 The Labyrinth, or Fatal Embarrassment. A Tragedy 
 
 ... for the benefit of Agnes Stratford, sister of the 
 
 late Rev. Thomas Stratford. London. 1795. 
 Maximian. A Tragedy taken from Corneille ... by 
 
 Lady Sophia Burrel. London. 1800. 
 
 RACINE 
 
 Andromache. A Tragedy as it is acted at the Duke*s 
 
 Theatre. London. 1675. 
 Titus and Berenice. A Tragedy as it is acted. ... By 
 
 Thomas Otway. London. 1677. 
 Achilles or Iphigenia in Aulis. A Tragedy as it is 
 
 acted. . . . Written by Mr. Boyer. London. 1700. 
 
282 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Phaedra and Hippolitus. A Tragedy as it is acted. . . . 
 
 By Mr. Edmund Smith. London. 1706. 
 The Distrest Mother. A Tragedy by Ambrose Philips. 
 
 London. 1712. (Very many later editions.) 
 The Victim, or Achilles and Iphigenia in Aulis. A 
 
 Tragedy. Written by Mr. Boyer. London. 1714. 
 The Victim. A Tragedy. Written by Charles Johnson. 
 
 London. 1714. 
 Two Tragedies, viz., Britannicns and Alexander, now 
 
 first translated from the French of M. Racine by Mr. 
 
 Ozell. London. 1714. 
 Esther, or Faith Triumphant. A Sacred Tragedy by 
 
 Mr. Brereton. London. 1715. 
 The Litigants. A Comedy translated from the French 
 
 of M. Racine by Mr. Ozell. London. 1715. 
 The Sultaness. A Tragedy. Written by Charles John- 
 son. London. 1717. (There were two editions 
 
 issued in the same year, 1717.) 
 The Fatal Legacy. A Tragedy as it is acted. . . . 
 
 London. 1723. 
 Athaliah. A Tragedy. Translated from the French of 
 
 Monsieur Racine by Mr. William Duncombe. Lon- 
 don. 1722. 
 Phedra. A Tragedy. Translated from the French of 
 
 M. de Racine. London. 1776. 
 Britannicus. A Tragedy. Translated from the French of 
 
 Racine by Sir Brooke Boothby Bart. London. 1803. 
 The Sacred Dramas of Esther and Athalie. Translated 
 
 from the French of Racine. Edinburgh. 1803. 
 Athaliah. A Sacred Drama. Translated from the French 
 
 of Racine. Edinburgh. 1815. 
 Athaliah. A Tragedy. Translated from the French by 
 
 J. C. Knight. London. 1822. 
 
CHRONOLOGY 283 
 
 Athaliah. A Sacred Drama. Translated from the 
 
 Athalie of Racine by Charles Randolph. London. 
 
 1829. 
 Athaliah. A Sacred Drama. Translated from Racine 
 
 and Original Poems by the late Thomas Fry of 
 
 Tunbridge Wells. London. 1841. 
 The Death of Athaliah. A Scriptural Drama. Founded 
 
 on the Athalie of Racine by the Rev. W. TroUope. 
 
 London. 184:4. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Baker, David Erskine. Biographica Dramatica. Orig- 
 inally compiled to the year 1764. London, 1812. 
 
 Ballard, G. Memoirs of Several Ladies of Great Britain. 
 London, 1774. 
 
 Biographica Britannica. Anonymous. 5 vols. London, 
 1778-1793. 
 
 Chalmers, The English Poets. 
 
 Chetwood, W. R. General History of the Stage. Lon- 
 don, 1749. 
 
 Cibber, CoUey. Apology for the Life of Colley Gibber. 
 London, 1740. 
 A brief supplement to Colley Cibber, Esq., by Tony 
 Aston, 1747. 
 
 Collection of material towards a history of the English 
 stage made by Richard John Smith. Unpublished. 
 In Newspaper Room of British Museum. 25 vols. 4°. 
 
 Collier, Jeremy. A Short View of the Immorality and 
 Profaneness of the English Stage. London, 1699. 
 
 Collier, John Payne. History of English Dramatic 
 Poetry. 3 vols. London, 1831. 
 
 Comparison between the Two Stages. (In dialogue. 
 Familiar contemporary criticism.) London, 1702. 
 
 Corneille. (Euvres. Marty-Leveaux edition. Paris, 1862- 
 1868. 12 vols. New edition, 1887. 
 
 Corneille. Six Tragedies de Pierre Corneille retouchdes 
 pour le Theatre. Paris, 1802. 
 
286 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Critical Review; or Annals of Literature. London, 
 
 1756-1790. Later series, up to 1817. 
 Crowne, John. Dramatic Works. 4 vols. London, 1873. 
 Dibdin, Charles. History of the English Stage. 5 vols. 
 
 London, 1800. 
 Dodsley, Robert. Old Plays. 15 vols. London, 1874- 
 
 1876. 
 Dodsley. Theatrical Records. London, 1756. 
 Doran, John. Annals of the English Stage. 2 vols. 
 
 London, 1864. 
 Downes, John. Roscius Anglicanus. London, 1708. 
 Dramatic Timepiece; or. Perpetual Monitor. London, 
 
 1767. 
 Dryden, John. Scott and Saintsbury. 18 vols. Edin- 
 burgh, 1882. 
 Egerton, John. Theatrical Remembrancer. London, 
 
 1788. 
 Elliot, Hugh. The Life of the Earl of Godolphin. 
 
 London, 1888. 
 Evelyn, John. Diary and Correspondence. 4 vols. 
 
 London, 1879. 
 Fincke, G. Le Menteur de Corneille et La Verdad So- 
 
 spechosa de Don Juan de Alarcon. 
 Fitzgerald, Percy. New History of the English Stage. 
 
 London, 1882. 
 Fleay, F. G. A Chronicle History of the London Stage 
 
 (1559-1642). London, 1890. 
 Gamett, Richard. The Age of Dryden. London, 1897. 
 Genest, John. Some Account of the English Stage. 
 
 •10 vols. London, 1832. 
 Gosse, E. W. Seventeenth Century Studies. London, 
 
 1883. 
 From Shakespeare to Pope. Cambridge, 1885. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 287 
 
 History of Eighteenth Century Literature. London, 
 
 1889. 
 Halliwell-Phillipps, James. A Dictionary of Old English 
 
 Plays. London, 1860. 
 Hazlitt, W. C. Handbook to the Popular, Poetical, 
 
 Dramatic Literature of England. London, 1867. 
 
 Collections and Notes. London, 1867 and 1882. 
 
 The English Drama and Stage under the Tudor and 
 
 Stuart princes. Printed for the Roxburghe Library, 
 
 1869. 
 Hitchcock, Robert. Historical View of the Irish Stage. 
 
 2 vols. Dublin, 1794. 
 Hobohm, M. Das Verhaltnis von Susannah Centlivre's 
 
 Love at a Venture zu Thomas Corneille's Le Galant 
 
 Double. Halle, 1900. 
 Jacob, Giles. Poetical Register. London, 1723. 
 Jusserand, J. J. Shakespeare en France sous I'ancien 
 
 regime. Paris, 1898. 
 Langbaine, Gerard. Momus Triumphans. London, 1688. 
 Lives and Characters of English Dramatic Poets. 
 
 London, 1699. 
 
 Account of English Dramatic Poets. Oxford, 1691. 
 
 Lanson, Gustave. Histoire de la Littdrature fran9aise. 
 
 Hachette et Cie. Paris, 1903. 
 Le Petit, J. Bibliographie des principales editions 
 
 origin ales d'ecrivains fran^ais du XVe au XVIIIe 
 
 siecle. Paris, 1888. 
 Lowe, R. W. English Catalogue of Books. 3 vols. Lon- 
 don, 1873. 
 Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical 
 
 Literature. London, 1888. 
 Mears, W. True and Exact Catalogue of all Plays ever 
 
 printed in English. London, 1726. 
 
288 CORNEILLE AND RACINE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Molloy, J. F. Romance of the Irish stage. 2 vols. Lon- 
 don, 1897. 
 
 Mulert, Alfred. Pierre Corneille auf der Englischen 
 Buhne und in der Englischen Uebersetzungs-Liter- 
 atur des Siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. MUnchener 
 Beitrage zur Romanischen und Englischen Philo- 
 logie. XVIII. 1900. 
 
 Nichols, John. Literary Anecdotes of the 18th century. 
 9 vols. London, 1812. 
 
 Pepys, S. Diary and Correspondence. 4 vols. London, 
 1890. 
 
 Philips, Ambrose. A Modest Survey of that celebrated 
 tragedy the Distrest Mother. London, 1712. 
 
 Philips, Katharine. Letters from Orinda to Poliarchus. 
 London, 1705. 
 
 Picot, Emile. Bibliographie Corndlienne. Paris, 1876. 
 
 Playhouse Pocket Companion. London, 1779. 
 
 Prompter, The. London, 1734-1736. (Theatrical Maga- 
 zine.) 
 
 Racine. (Euvres. Mesnard edition. Paris, 1865-1873. 
 8 vols., octavo. 2 vols., quarto. 
 
 Schmidt, E. Corneille als Lustspieldichter. Archiv 
 f. d. Studium der neuern Sprachen. Vol. 50. 
 
 Sedley, Sir Charles. Works. London, 1722. 
 
 Spies, Joseph. Otway's Titus and Berenice and Racine*s 
 Berenice, a parallel. Program des Kbniglichen Gym- 
 nasiums zu Wetzlar. 
 
 Steele, Sir Richard, Epistolatory Correspondence of. Lon- 
 don, 1787. 
 
 Stoye, Max. Das Verhaltnis von Gibber's Tragbdie Ccesar 
 in Egypt zu Fletcher's, The False One. Halle, 1897. 
 
 Study of the Epilogue and Prologue on the English Stage. 
 London, 1884. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 289 
 
 Theatrical Review. London, 1763. 
 
 Thespian Dictionary. London, 1805. 
 
 Waller, Edmund. Works. Cooke's edition. London, 
 
 1796. 
 Poetical Works of Edmund Waller and Sir John 
 
 Denham. Edinburgh, 1856. 
 Ward, A. W. History of English Dramatic Literature to 
 
 death of Queen Anne. 3 vols. London, 1899. 
 Whincop, Thomas. Compleat list of all the plays ever 
 
 yet printed in English. London, 1747. 
 Whitehead. The story on which the new tragedy call'd 
 
 The Roman Father is founded. London, 1750. 
 Remarks on the new tragedy call'd The Roman 
 
 Father. London, 1750. 
 A comparison between the Horace of Corneille and 
 
 The Roman Father of Mr. Whitehead. London, 1750. 
 The Poems of Anne, Countess of Winchilsea. Edited 
 by Myra Reynolds. University of Chicago Press, 1903. 
 
 The usual standard sources for biographical informa- 
 tion have been consulted — the Dictionary of National 
 Biography, etc. Also the best-known periodicals of the 
 eighteenth century — The Spectator, Gentleman's Magazine, 
 Monthly Review, London Review, The Scots, etc., in Eng- 
 lish: the Journal des S^avans (Paris, 1665 ff.), Nouvelles 
 de la Republique des Lettres (Amsterdam, 1684-1718), 
 Bibliotheque universelle et historique (Amsterdam, 1686 ff.), 
 CEuvres des Savans, Basnage (Rotterdam, 1695 ff.), etc., 
 in French. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Achilles; translation of Iphi- 
 g^nie, by Boyer, 107 ff . 
 
 Addison's Cato, 117. 
 
 Amorous Orontus, or the Amo- 
 rous Gallant (Bulteel), 70. 
 
 Andromache (Crowne), 88. 
 Change in ending, 91. 
 
 Anti-Theatre, The; published 
 by Dennis, 171. 
 
 Aspinwall, Stanhope; transla- 
 tor of Eodogune, 243. 
 
 Boothby, Sir Brooke; transla- 
 tor of Britannicus, 271. 
 Remarks on Declamation, 
 272. 
 
 Boyer, Abel ; translator of Iphi- 
 g€nie, 107 ff . 
 Dispute with Dennis, 109; 
 with Johnson, 198. 
 
 Brand, Hannah; translator of 
 Don Sanche d'Arragon, 
 264. 
 
 Brereton, Thomas; translator 
 of Esther, 20^S. 
 
 Brothers, The; translation of 
 Pers^e et Demetrius, by 
 Young, 235 ff. 
 
 Bulteel, John; translator of 
 U Amour a la Mode, 70. 
 
 Burrel, Lady Sophia; transla- 
 tor of Mhximian, 269. 
 
 Caesar in Egypt ; adaptation of 
 Fompee, by Gibber, 221. 
 
 Carlell, Lodowick ; translator 
 
 of Heraclius, 64. 
 Cato, Addison, 117. 
 Centlivre, Susanna ; Love at a 
 
 Venture (preface), 10. 
 Charles II., Influence of, 28. 
 Cibber, Colley; translator of 
 
 Le Cid, 167; of Cinna, 
 
 180 ; of Pomp^e, 221. 
 Cinna's Conspiracy ; transla- 
 tion of Cinna; anon., 
 
 179 ff. 
 Civil Wars close playhouses, 
 
 14. 
 Conflict, The; translation of 
 
 Don Sanche d' Arragon, 
 
 by Brand, 265. 
 Constantine ; translation of 
 
 Maximian, by Francis, 
 
 241. 
 Corneille, Pierre. Works — 
 Cinna; anon., 179. 
 Don Sanche d'Arragon ; 
 
 Brand, 265. 
 Heraclius ; Carlell, 64. 
 Horace; Lower, 23; Mrs. 
 
 Philips, 45; Cotton, 80; 
 
 Whitehead, 229. 
 LeCid; Rutter, 3; Popple, 
 
 104; Ozell, 195; Cibber, 
 
 167; Gentleman (anon.), 
 
 270. 
 Le Menteur; anon., 77 ; 
 
 Steele, 119 ; Foote, 124. 
 M^lite; anon., 246. 
 
 291 
 
292 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Nicomede ; Dancer, 84. 
 Pomp^e; Mrs. Philips, 33; 
 
 " Persons of Honour," 
 
 51 ; Gibber, 221. 
 Rodogune ; Aspinwall, 243. 
 Corneille, Thomas. Works — 
 Ariane; Murphy, 259 ; Strat- 
 ford, 261. 
 Lw Mort d'Achille ; Hatch- 
 
 ett, 224. 
 U Amour a la Mode; Bul- 
 
 teel, 70. 
 Le Berg er Extravagant ; T. 
 
 R., 19. 
 Le Feint Astrologue ; anon., 
 
 71 ; Dryden, 74. 
 Le Galant DouhU ; Mrs. 
 
 Centlivre (preface), 10. 
 Maximian ; Francis, 241 ; 
 
 Lady Burrel, 269. 
 Pers^e et Demetrius ; 
 
 Young, 235. 
 Cotterell, Sir Charles; Cor- 
 respondence with Mrs. 
 
 Philips, 35, 51, 52, 59, 60. 
 Cotton, Charles ; translator of 
 
 Horace, 80. 
 Crowne, John; translator of 
 
 Andromaque, 88. 
 
 Dancer, John; translator of 
 Nicomede, Ml. 
 
 Declamation, Decline in the 
 Art of, 256. 
 Sir Brooke Boothby's re- 
 marks on, 272. 
 
 Denham, Sir John, 14, 46. 
 
 Dennis, John ; Anti-Theatre, 
 171 ; dispute with Boyer, 
 109. 
 
 Distrest Mother, The ; transla- 
 tion of Andromaque, by 
 Philips, 140. 
 
 Remarks of Spectator on, 
 
 140, 152-4. 
 Success of, 144 ff . ; attacks 
 
 on, 154; epilogue, 157; 
 
 change in ending, 163. 
 Dryden, John; translator of 
 
 Le Feint Astrologue, 71, 
 
 74 fe. 
 
 Dublin in Early Restoration, 
 32, 33 ; interest in 
 French, 84. 
 
 Duncombe, William; transla- 
 tor of Athalie, 249. 
 
 Earl of Dorset and Le Cid, 3, 
 5,6. 
 
 Evening's Love, An; transla- 
 tion of Le Feint Astro- 
 logue by Dryden, 74. 
 Scott's judgment on it, 76. 
 
 Extravagant Sheepherd, The; 
 translation of Le Berger 
 Extravagant, 19 ff . 
 
 Fatal Legacy, The ; translation 
 of La Thebaide by Miss 
 Robe, 216. 
 Change in ending, 219. 
 
 Feigned Astrologer ; transla- 
 tion of Le Feint Astro- 
 logue, anon., 72. 
 
 Foote, Samuel; translator of 
 Le Menteur, 124. 
 
 Francis, Philip; translator of 
 Maximian, 241. 
 
 French plays in London, 2. 
 
 Gallant, The Amorous; trans- 
 lation of L' Amour a la 
 Mode, 70. 
 
 Hatchett; translator of La 
 Mort d'Achille, 224. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Henrietta Maria, influence of, 
 2,3. 
 
 Heroick Daughter, The ; trans- 
 lation of Le Cid by Gib- 
 ber, 167. 
 Changes in plot, 174-6. 
 Dispute over, 168. 
 
 Horace; translation of Horace 
 by Mrs. Philips, 45. 
 
 Horatius; translation of Hor- 
 ace by Lower, 23. 
 
 Johnson, Charles ; translator 
 of Iphig^nie, 198; of 
 Bajazet, 212. 
 Quarrel with Boyer, 199. 
 
 Knight, J. C. ; translator of 
 Athalie, 254. 
 
 Labyrinth, The; translation of 
 
 Ariane by Stratford, 
 
 261. 
 Liar, The; translation of Le 
 
 Menteur by Foote, 124. 
 Litigants, The; translation of 
 
 Les Plaideurs by Ozell, 
 
 203. 
 Love, Honour, and Pride; 
 
 translation of Don 
 
 Sanche d^Arragon by 
 
 Miss Brand, 265. 
 Love at a Venture, Mrs. Cent- 
 
 livre (preface), 10. 
 Lower, Sir William; translator 
 
 of Horace and Polyeuc- 
 
 tes, 22. 
 Lying Lover, The ; translation 
 
 of Le Menteur by Steele, 
 
 119. 
 Lyrical additions to Mrs. 
 
 Philips's translations, 
 
 49; to Cotton's, 83. 
 
 Melite, anon., 246. 
 
 Mistaken Beauty, The; trans- 
 lation of Le Menteur, 
 anon., 77. 
 
 Murphy, Arthur ; translator of 
 Ariane, 259. 
 
 Oldfield, Nance, 123, 157, 167. 
 
 Opera, Italian, opposition to, 
 130. 
 
 Orinda, The Matchless, 31. 
 
 Otway, Thomas ; translator of 
 B^r^nice, 92. 
 
 Ozell, John; translator of 
 Alexandre, 188; of Bri- 
 tannicus, 189 fF. ; of Le 
 Cid, 195; of Les Plai- 
 deurs, 203. 
 His translations not acted, 
 
 187. 
 His translations unusually 
 faithful, 188 ff. 
 
 Pepys's judgment of The Cid, 
 13; of Mrs. Philips's 
 Horace, 48 ; of the Pom- 
 pey of "The Persons of 
 Honour," 58; of Car- 
 lell's Heraclius, 65. 
 *! Persons of Honour " ; trans- 
 lators of Pompie, 51. 
 
 (Waller, the Earl of Dorset, 
 Sir Charles Sedley, Sid- 
 ney Godolphin, Sir Ed- 
 ward Filmore.) 
 
 Comparison with Mrs. 
 Philips's Pompey, 61. 
 
 Epilogues, 57. 
 Phaedra and Hippolitus ; trans- 
 lation of Phedre by 
 Smith, 129. 
 
 Epilogue, 136. 
 
 Failure, 135. 
 
294 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Greek and Latin sources, 
 
 131. 
 Success though tardy, 138-9. 
 Phedra ; translation of Fhedre, 
 
 anon,, 246. 
 Philips, Ambrose ; translator 
 
 of Andromaque, 140. 
 Philips, Mrs. Katharine ; trans- 
 lator of Pomp^e and 
 Horace, 31 if. 
 Pompey; translation of Pom- 
 pee by Mrs. Philips, 31 ff. 
 Commendatory verse upon, 
 
 38. 
 Comparison with the Pom- 
 pey of *' Persons of Hon- 
 our," 61 ff. 
 Correspondence with Sir 
 Charles Cotterell, 35, 51, 
 52,60. 
 Success in Dublin, 36. 
 Popple, William ; translator of 
 
 Le Cid, 104. 
 Prynne, punishment of, 2, 3. 
 
 Racine, Jean. Works — 
 
 Alexandre; Ozell, 188. 
 
 Andromaque; Crowne, 88; 
 Philips, 140. 
 
 Athalie ; anon., 252 ; Dun- 
 combe, 249 ; Knight, 
 254; Sheppard, 252. 
 
 Bajazet; Johnson, 212. 
 
 B€r€nice ; Otway, 92. 
 
 Britannicus ; Boothby, 271 ; 
 Ozell, 189. 
 
 Esther; Brereton, 204; 
 anon., 252. 
 
 Iphigenie; Boyer, 107 ; John- 
 son, 198. 
 
 La TMbaide; Miss Robe, 
 216. 
 
 Les Plaideurs ; Ozell, 203. 
 
 Phedre; Smith, 129; anon., 
 246. 
 
 Rival Father, The ; translation 
 of La Mort d'Achille by 
 Hatchett, 224. 
 
 Rival Sisters, The ; translation 
 of Ariane by Murphy, 
 259. 
 
 Robe, Miss J.; translator of 
 La Thdbaide, 216. 
 
 Rodogune ; by Aspinwall, 243. 
 
 Roman Father, The; transla- 
 tion of Horace by White- 
 head, 229. 
 
 "Russell, Lord, "261. 
 
 Rutter, Joseph; translator of 
 Le Cid, 3. 
 Continuation on the stage, 
 
 13. 
 " Second part of The Cid," 
 
 note, 4. 
 Theft by Ozell, 196. 
 
 Scott's judgment on Dryden's 
 
 translation of Le Feint 
 
 Astrologue, 76. 
 Sheppard, John; translator of 
 
 Athalie, 252. 
 Siddons, Mrs., 149. 
 Sisters, The Rival ; translation 
 
 of Ariane by Murphy, 
 
 259. 
 Smith, Edmund; translator of 
 
 Phedre, 129 ff. 
 Spectator, The; remarks on 
 
 The Distrest Mother, 140, 
 
 152-4. 
 On Phaedra and Hippolitus, 
 
 137. 
 Steele, Richard; translator of 
 
 Le Menteur, 119. 
 Stratford, Thomas; translator 
 
 of Ariane, 261. 
 
INDEX 
 
 295 
 
 Sultaness, The; translation of 
 Bajazet by Johnson, 212, 
 prologue, 213. 
 
 Theatre, The; periodical pub- 
 lished by Steele, 170. 
 Thefts from French stage 
 
 (preface) , 9. 
 
 The Victim; translation of 
 
 Iphigenie by Boyer, 107. 
 
 The Victim ; translation of 
 
 Iphigenie by Johnson, 
 
 198. 
 
 Three Hours after Marriage, 
 
 212. 
 Titus and Berenice ; translation 
 of B^r^nice by Otway, 
 92 fE. 
 Changes in plot, 97. 
 Dibdin's comment, 94. 
 Difference in ending, 99. 
 Translation — 
 
 Importance in literary 
 
 world, 54. 
 Influenced by Henrietta 
 Maria, 2, 3; by Charles 
 II., 28 ff. 
 Influence of Puritan rule, 15. 
 Made to be read, 30. 
 
 Mrs. Philips's ideal of, 43. 
 
 New spirit in later eigh- 
 teenth century, 245. 
 
 Popularity during the Resto- 
 ration, 28. 
 
 Queen Anne ; changes in the 
 character of translations 
 in her reign, 115. 
 
 Relegated to amateurs, 258. 
 
 Spirit prompting them 
 (preface), 9. 
 T. R. ; translator of Le Berger 
 Extravagant, 19. 
 
 Waller, Edmund ; one of " Per- 
 sons of Honour," 51. 
 
 Whitehead, William; trans- 
 lator of Horace, 229. 
 Changes in plot, 231. 
 
 Winchilsea, Countess of; par- 
 tial translator of Athalie, 
 249 (note). 
 
 Woffington, Peg, 138, 147, 149. 
 
 Ximena ; translation of Le Cid 
 by Cibber, 167. 
 
 Young, Edward ; translator of 
 Fers^e et Bemetriiis, 235. 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ROMANCE 
 PHILOLOGY AND LITERATURE 
 
 Frederic Mistral, Poet and Leader in Provence 
 
 BY CHARLES ALFRED DOWNER, Ph.D. 
 
 ^rofessor of the French Language and Literature in tht 
 College of the City o/ New York 
 
 Cloth J2mo %\^^mt 
 
 Corneille and the Spanish Drama 
 
 BY J. B. SEGALL, Ph.D. 
 Sometime Fellow in Romance Languages in Columbia University 
 
 Qoth J2mo $1,50 mi 
 
 Dante and the Animal Kingdom 
 
 BY RICHARD THAYER HOLBROOK, Ph.D. 
 Tutor in Romance Languages and Literatures in Columbia University 
 
 Cloth J2mo $2.00 mt 
 
 The Indebtedness of Chaucer's "Troilus and 
 Criseyde" to Quido Delle Colonne's 
 " Historia Trojana " 
 
 BY GEORGE L. HAMILTON, A.M. 
 
 Sometime Fellow in Columbia University 
 
 Qoth J2mo $J^ net 
 
 The Anglo=Norman Dialect 
 
 BY LOUIS EMIL MENGER, Ph.D. 
 
 Late Professor in Bryn Mawr College 
 
 Qoth J2mo $JJ5 net 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
 
VITA 
 
 The writer was born in Lawrence, Kansas, February 
 17, 1879. Was graduated from the State University of 
 Ohio, 1899, degree Ph.B. Studied in the Sorbonne, and 
 in the iiJcole de Chartes under the personal direction of 
 Professor Paul Meyer, 1899-1900. Graduate student, 
 Columbia University, 1900-1904. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 WUOKftft h"'"!! 
 
 KtCKIveO 
 
 toy IV '68 -8 PM 
 
 N0>/ 8 '66 -12 M 
 
 UOAN PEPT- 
 
 DEC 1 6 1968 9 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 ?.&1974 
 
 LuiSt 
 
 tw 
 
 JAN 6B63 
 
 1968 6 
 
 f?g:cc 
 
 NOV 8 1969 1 » 
 
 f^^r^B 
 
 -im-s-s8~- 
 
 tt^f?^ 
 
 ^^i^ 
 
 fi;^^'% 
 
 .<>,9^ 
 
 DEC 1 - 1968 
 
 1t^ 
 
 ^^m 
 
 : 
 
 '^^^^lJLN2 0j;.4,£M20 
 
i:V 
 
 
yJHilif