1799-] 
prefixes a feanty one of his own, juft enough 
to puff his own work; and fubjoins his 
fkeletons, expreiiing his hopes that the 
eflay, being now fent forth in its zative 
dre/s (forgetting, as it fhould feem, that 
the work was a trenjlation, 2nd another 
man’s tranflation) zt will become an objet 
of more general regard: and then, to lift 
his flimfy work into coniequence, he makes 
fome obfervations on Robinfon’s notes, 
charging themas incumbrances to the effay. 
What the followers of this fkeleton- 
maker may think of the performance, I 
know not! But methinks, in a perion 
qualified to * preach before the Univerfity 
of Cambridge”’ it would have looked more 
creditable to have tranflated the eflay 
himfelf. But to take another man’s tran{- 
Jation, and, then,—I have too much re- 
{pect for your Magazine, than to propor- 
tion the feverity or my language to the 
meauneis of this gentleman’s condu&. 
I fhould not have troubled you, Sir, 
with obfervations on this fubje&, had 
there not appeared in your Magazine a 
Jetter degrading Robinfon’s notes + (writ- 
ten, no doubs, by the writer of the fkeletons 
himielf, or fome friend, profeffor of the 
art of puffing) in order to make the fkele- 
tons an objeét of more general regard. But 
fuch writers fhould be informed, that they 
reflect no honour on their own c2ufe, and 
that it requires but little penetration to 
{fee they had other ends in view than the 
credit of your Mifcellany : and fo much 
gor this makef of fkeletons. 
~ nother inftance of ill-timed criticifm 
appeared, in applying to one fpecies of 
writing obfervations which rather belong- 
ed to another. 
I do not recolle&, that the writers who” 
have criticited tranflations. lately, diftin- 
guifhed fufficiently between tranflations and 
foreign plays adapted to the English ftage. 
Mr. &. Cottle has lately made the 
readers of Englith poetry a valuable pre- 
fent, by tranflating the Icelandic poetry, 
or the Edda of Semund, into Englith verfe ; 
as Dr. Sayers had done’ before by iome 
dramatic fketches of northern poetry : 
as the performances differ in their charac- 
ter, itis evident, though both works ate 
meant-to illuftrate the Icelandic poetry, 
that their pretenfions fhould be examined 
by different rules. 
Shakefpeare wrote the tragedy of Julius 

+ Robinfon is the author of the two moft 
elaborate pieces of church hiftory in the Eng- 
lith language, entitled the Fiftory of Battifm, 
and Keclefiaftical Refearches. 
The ftrictures in this letter are fuch as I 
thought it incumbent on me to make, as the 
biographer of Robinfon. 
Dramatic Tranflations, Se. - 
623 
Cefar; Voltaire did not tranflate Shake- 
{peare’s, but wrote, on the Englith tafte, 
another Julius Caefar. Merope, alfo, the 
ftory cf which had been dramatized by 
numerous writers, more particularly by an 
Italian, the Marquis Scipio Maffei, Vol- 
taire adapted to the French ftage: many of 
our Englifh plays, feveral even of Shake- 
{peare’s, both for fable and incident ave in- 
debted to other nations, and none, if I re- 
colleét, are mere tranflations. 
Now, Sir, independently of the difficulties 
arifmg from the different idioms of two 
languages, and, commonly, froin the for-: 
malities of literal tranflations, other difhi- 
culties lie in the way of prefenting mere 
tranilations to an Englifh audience, arifing 
from the different ways of dividing a play, 
in different nations; the different ways of 
exprefiing the paflions s the different modes 
of reprefentation ; the winding-up of the 
plot, and particularly the length of the 
drama. An eiiential part of the Greek 
drama was the chorus ; it has beenthought © 
inconfiftent with the character of the Eng - 
lifh ftages The public endured it twice, 
once in Caractacus, and again in Elfrida. 
But though /Eichylus, Sophocles, and 
Euripides, have been fince-tranflated, not 
one of them is admitted on the Englifh ~ 
fiage. The French drama has a freedom 
of gallantry which would not be endured - 
in an Englifh: play; and to fit out the: 
whole length of Don Carlos, or Pizarro, 
Jobn Buil fhould bring his night-cap im_ 
his pocket, and take a nap between the 
acts. I do but juftdrop an hint; fuih- 
cient, however, to fhew the difference be-_ 
tween a tranflation, and adapting a fo- 
reign play to the Englifh theatre. EF {peak 
not with contempt of any tranflation, 
and I leave others to fettle their merits. 
As to Mrs. Inchbald’s Lovers’ Vows, 
and Mr. Sheridan’s Pizarro, I inquire not 
into their re{peétive merits ; but the cri- 
tiques in your Magazine did not, as I re. ~ 
colle&, obiferve this diftinétion. 
I cannot forbear adding, that I have fe- 
leéted the cafe of the maker of {keletons, 
not merely for-the fake of doing juttice to 
Robinfon’s talents. 1 wifhed al{o to hint 
ina general way the impropriety of making 
io powerful a machine as the Monthly 
Magazine an inftrument of injuftice, and, 
of warning fuch writers againft that ufual 
refort of vulgar minds, availing them- 
felves of the literary labours of men of 
. genius, and then injuring their reputation ; 
againit forcing themfelves into fituations, 
where fome people, even from motives of 
delicacy, will be unwilling to follow them. 
With refpest to Mr. Hume and Mr, 
44 z ‘ : 
Wakefield, proper refpect is due to them 
’] I I 
HM Be) as 
