University of Virginia Library

Samuel Johnson and the Translations of Jean Pierre de Crousaz'sExamen and Commentaire
by
O M Brack, Jr. [*]

Thanks in part to Alexander Pope's shrewdness in publishing his ambitious Essay on Man anonymously, so that his enemies were beguiled into praising the poem on its merits, there was a "chorus of approbation" for some years after its appearance in 1733-34.[1] On the Continent, however, after the publication in 1736 of a French prose translation by Etienne de Silhouette,[2] it aroused the suspicion of Jean Pierre de Crousaz (1663-1750), professor at Lausanne, mathematician, logician, and Protestant theologian. That Pope was a Roman Catholic may have had something to do with Crousaz's hostility, but his first attack, Examen de l'essai de monsieur Pope sur l'homme (1737), is chiefly directed at what Crousaz believed to be its Leibnitzian content. Being told that Silhouette misrepresented Pope, Crousaz, who knew no English, then turned to a new translation—more accurately, a translation-imitation—by the Abbé Jean-François du Bellay du Resnel (1737). For his poem Du Resnel rearranged the Essay on Man, omitting some sections but adding others to extend Pope's 1,300 lines to 2,000 in French Alexandrines.[3] Crousaz

reprinted the entire poem with remarks interspersed in his Commentaire sur la traduction en vers de Mr. l'abbé Du Resnel, de l'essai de M. Pope sur l'homme (1738).

Considerable confusion has surrounded Samuel Johnson's role in the translations into English of Crousaz's two attacks on Pope's Essay on Man. An Examination of Mr Pope's Essay on Man and A Commentary on Mr Pope's Principles of Morality, or Essay on Man were easily confused: both are projects of Edward Cave, publisher of the Gentleman's Magazine, and both are dated "M.DCC.XXXIX." and "Printed for A. DODD" (Anne Dodd was a mercury used by Cave as a trade publisher).[4] Once it was known that it was Elizabeth Carter who translated the Examen and Johnson who translated the Commentaire, Johnsonians ignored the Examination. J. D. Fleeman, however, in his forthcoming bibliography of the writings of Samuel Johnson, observes, "Several of the notes in the Examination have the tone and manner of SJ's comments in his own translation of the Commentary."[5] Taking as a starting point this observation, the following essay will trace the history of the confusion about Johnson's role in the Examination and Commentary, clear up problems surrounding their publication, show that both works are indebted to Charles Forman's translation of the first epistle of the Commentary, and demonstrate that Johnson had a larger role in preparing the Examination for publication than has hitherto been recognized, not only providing editorial assistance but writing two substantial footnotes.

I

Identifying Johnson's contribution to the translations and publications of Crousaz's two attacks on Pope's Essay on Man has been difficult. James Boswell reports in The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides (1786) that on 19 August 1773 when visiting St. Andrews, Johnson, in speaking of how quickly he could compose, mentioned that he had "written six sheets in a day of translation from the French."[6] Later, on 3 June 1781, Boswell records in his

journal that Johnson "Told us at night he had once written six sheets in one day: forty-eight quarto pages of translation of Crousaz on Pope, published by itself in 1740 or 1741."[7] If this is exactly what Johnson said, the confusion about the role Johnson may have had in a translation of Crousaz was introduced for Boswell by his source. One problem is the publication date for the translation: all copies of the Commentary are dated either 1739 or 1742, although the latter was issued in late 1741. A second problem is the format: the Commentary is not a quarto but a duodecimo. A third problem, although less obvious, is the amount of translation Johnson performed in one day. The text of the volume fills fourteen and a half sheets. Translating six sheets, 144 duodecimo pages of prose and verse, or about forty-two percent of the total work, would seem to be beyond the reach of even Johnson. Perhaps two sheets or forty-eight duodecimo pages is closer to the truth.[8]

By the time Boswell came to write the Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. (1791) he was convinced that the Examination had been translated by Elizabeth Carter but apparently was unaware of the Commentary. In spite of the confused account Boswell received from Johnson, he gathers three pieces of evidence in the Life to prove that Johnson did not translate Crousaz and leaves the impression that the issue has been settled. After reprinting Johnson's letter to Cave of 21 or 22 November 1738 suggesting that "the Examen

should be pushed forward with the utmost expedition," Boswell comments, "But although he corresponded with Mr. Cave concerning a translation of Crousaz's Examen of Pope's Essay on Man, and gave advice for its success, I was long ago convinced by a perusal of the Preface, that this translation was erroneously ascribed to him."[9] As early as 12 March 1786 Boswell had written to Edmond Malone that Dr. Richard Palmer "shewed me the translation of Crousaz which has been ascribed to Dr. Johnson; But which is certainly not his. I agree with you that the translation itself is not a test. But the Preface is."[10] Boswell's statement in the Life, it should be noted, is a hit at Sir John Hawkins who, in his Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. (1787), attributes the Examination to Johnson, citing the letter of 21 or 22 November as evidence (Hawkins, Life, 66-67). As will be seen below, Boswell's attempt to keep as much distance as possible between his biography and that of Hawkins prevented him from using valuable information that Hawkins offered. In any case, Boswell's first piece of evidence, based on a recognition of Johnson's style, is also faulty, for the Preface is only a translation from Crousaz; Johnson's translation of the Commentaire would undoubtedly be rejected on the same stylistic grounds.

With his second and third pieces of evidence, Boswell is on safe ground. He first cites a manuscript in the British Museum: "Elisæ Carteræ. S.P.D. Thomas Birch. Versionem tuam Examinis Crousaziani jam perlegi. Summam styli et elegantian, et in re difficillimâ proprietatem, admiratus, Dabam Novemb. 27° 1738."[11] Then he says, "Indeed Mrs. Carter has lately acknowledged to Mr. Seward, that she was the translator of the 'Examen.'"[12] Boswell, apparently unaware of the Commentary, but aware that the Examination had been translated by Elizabeth Carter, was at a stand. When he arrived at 3 June 1781 in the Life he revised his journal account to read: "He told us, that he had in one day written six sheets of a translation from the French," bringing it into accord with his earlier published account in the Tour, in which he also omits any reference to Crousaz (Life, 4:127).

Boswell, Hawkins, and other early biographers had received no help from Johnson on his role as translator of Crousaz. In the Life of Pope there is no indication that Johnson has any connection with a work by Crousaz: "It was

first turned into French prose, and afterwards by Resnel into verse. Both translations fell into the hands of Crousaz, who first, when he had the version in prose, wrote a general censure, and afterwards reprinted Resnel's version with particular remarks upon every paragraph."[13] Nevertheless the Commentary was attributed to Johnson shortly after his death, in plenty of time to allow Hawkins and Boswell to avoid omitting the attribution.[14]

The earliest attribution in print of a translation of Crousaz to Johnson seems to be that in "An Account of the Writings of Dr. Samuel Johnson, Including Some Incidents of His Life" in the European Magazine for January 1785: "In November [1738], he is believed to have published a translation of An Examination of Mr. Pope's Essay on Man, by M. Crousaz, Professor of Philosophy and Mathematics at Lausanne, 12mo. whose Commentary on Pope's Principles of Morality, or Essay on Man, we can ascribe to him with confidence" (Early Biographies, 46). For some reason Boswell appears not to have consulted this work, or at least not this portion of it, even though it may have been written by Isaac Reed or George Steevens, or both.[15] In his haste to condemn Hawkins for attributing the Examination to Johnson, Boswell fails to note that Hawkins follows Johnson's account by mentioning a second work by Crousaz:

Further clues in Johnson's own writings suggested the existence of not one but two attacks by Crousaz on Pope's Essay on Man. The most important

hint is Johnson's letter of 21 or 22 November to Cave. The letter begins: "I am pretty much of your Opinion, that the Commentary cannot be prosecuted with any appearance of success," and after suggesting to Cave an advertisement for the Examen to forestall a rival, Johnson adds: "It will above all be necessary to take notice that it is a thing distinct from the Commentary." Hawkins, even though he misses the full significance of the sentence, recognizes that there are two works, whereas Boswell apparently does not. Had Boswell, for example, looked carefully at the Examination when he read the Preface, he would have noticed on the verso of the last leaf a full-page advertisement for the forthcoming Commentary. Had he actually read carefully the two-part essay in the 1743 Gentleman's Magazine that he attributed to Johnson on the basis of internal evidence, "'Considerations on the Dispute between Crousaz and Warburton, on Pope's Essay on Man,' in which, while he defends Crousaz, he shews an admirable metaphysical acuteness and temperance in controversy," Boswell would have discovered that the English translation of the Commentaire is mentioned explicitly and nearly half of the essay consists of quotations from it. In fact, the second installment has as its title: "Specimens of M. Crousaz's Sentiments from the English Translation of his Commentary on Mr Pope's Essay on Man, continued from p. 152." The running head reads "Sentiments from M. Crousaz's Commentary, &c."[16] Hawkins, who first attributed the essay to Johnson, had he been taken more seriously by Boswell, would have alerted Boswell to the real nature of the essay, although not to Johnson's role in the Commentary. Johnson, Hawkins suggests, decided to become a moderator between Crousaz's attacks on the Essay on Man in his Examination and Commentary on one side and William Warburton's defence in his Vindication, as it has come to be known,[17] on the other, "but proceeded no farther than to state the sentiments of Mr. Crousaz respecting the poem, from a seeming conviction that he was discussing an uninteresting question."[18] Another clue, admittedly difficult to locate, is a quotation from Johnson's Commentary in his Dictionary under "Consoler."

John Wilson Croker and other editors of Boswell's Life made ingenious attempts to explain the 21 or 22 November 1738 letter, but it was not until L. F. Powell undertook his massive revision of G. B. Hill's edition of the Life that the attribution to Johnson of the Commentary was finally resolved. True, Whitwell Elwin in his 1871 introduction to the Essay on Man in The Works of Alexander Pope quoted a sentence from Johnson's long footnote on the ruling passion: "'Every Observer,' says Johnson, 'has remarked, that in many men the love of pleasure is the ruling passion of their youth, and the love of money that of their advanced years.'" Elwin's footnote reads: "Crousaz's Commentary on Pope's Essay, translated by Johnson, p. 109."[19] But this reference, and an earlier footnote identifying Johnson as the translator, were overlooked by Johnsonians. Also ignored was a reference in William John Courthope's 1889 The Life of Alexander Pope, included as part of the same edition of The Works of Alexander Pope, that "Johnson was himself engaged with Crousaz' Commentary on the Abbé du Resnel's translation of the 'Essay on Man,' but he temporarily abandoned it in deference to the opinion of his publisher, Cave."[20] Powell, then, unaware of the earlier attributions of the Commentary to Johnson by Pope scholars, made an independent attribution in 1934.[21] Powell had seen only the 1742 issue of the Commentary and gave a quasi-facsimile description of the title page. Allen T. Hazen, while preparing an exhibition of Johnson books and manuscripts, which opened at Yale University on 8 November 1935, identified what to date is the unique copy of the 1739 issue. The discovery was reported initially by Hazen in the Times Literary Supplement for 2 November 1935 with a fuller account and a reproduction of the title page the following January in an essay co-authored with E. L. McAdam, Jr., in the Yale University Library Gazette.[22]

II

Identifying the various components of the controversy surrounding Johnson's role in the translation of the Commentary has been the first step; sorting out the chronological and textual relationships of the various translations of Crousaz is the next. Confusion surrounds the dates of publication of both the Examination and the Commentary. As Johnson points out in his letter

of 21 or 22 November 1738, in a controversy such as that surrounding Pope's Essay on Man "the names of the Authours concerned are of more weight in the performance than its own intrinsick merit," thus "the Publick will be soon satisfied with it." To make a profit from the controversy it was necessary for Cave to publish the two works in a timely fashion and forestall any rivals, neither of which he managed to do.

It is not known when Cave and Johnson decided to publish translations of Crousaz's two attacks on the Essay on Man, but Carter apparently began work on the translation of the Examen by late summer 1738, as it is difficult to imagine Cave making a preliminary announcement of its publication without some copy in hand. The translation of the Examen was announced in the Daily Advertiser for 9 September 1738 and in the London Evening Post for 7-9 September as in the press; a similar advertisement appeared at the end of the "Register of Books" in the Gentleman's Magazine for September 1738 (8:496):

Perhaps a preliminary announcement was deemed necessary because a rumor of a rival publication had reached St. John's Gate but, if so, a search of the newspapers and magazines has not uncovered an advertisement for any publication Cave might have felt the need to preempt. In any case, what occurred during the next ten weeks is something of a mystery. In a letter of 26 September 1738 to his daughter, Nicholas Carter suggests one explanation. He expresses satisfaction with Johnson's praise of the translation but frustration with Cave's lack of progress in printing the work: "That will, I suppose, please Cave; but is not sufficient it seems, to make him hasten the Press. . . . Dilatoriness is an inseparable Part of his Constitution."[24] This letter suggests that Elizabeth Carter had completed her share of the work on the translation before 26 September and was only awaiting its appearance in print.

But before Cave could publish Carter's translation of the Examen, Edmund Curll advertised on 21 November a translation by Charles Forman of Crousaz's Commentaire:

The news of Curll's publication caused a flurry at St. John's Gate. Cave apparently wrote to Johnson seeking his advice and the letter of 21 or 22 November is his response:

Cave followed Johnson's advice and on 23 November in the Daily Advertiser appeared the following advertisement, perhaps written by Johnson:

Before proceeding it is necessary to know something of the makeup of the book, which may be described as follows:

• AN | EXAMINATION | OF | Mr POPE's Essay ON MAN. | Translated from the French of | M. CROUSAZ, | Member of the Royal Academies of | Sciences at Paris and Bourdeaux; and Pro-|fessor of Philosophy and Mathematics at | Lausanne. | [single rule] | [printers' ornament] | [single rule] | LONDON: | Printed for A. Dodd, at the Peacock, without | Temple-Bar. M.DCC.XXXIX.
• Collation: 12° in 6s (160 x 95 mm.): A6 (-A2; A3 as 'A2') B6 (±B5) C6 (±C1) D6 (±D3) E-F6 G6 (±G4, G6) H-U6. Title page, i-viii Preface, 1-227 text, 228 In the Press, Translated likewise from the French of Mr Crousaz. A COMMENTARY. . . .
• Typography: Catchwords ii them∧] ˜. 24 the] as 59 Sounds∧] ˜, 61 short∧] ˜, 63 duction] tion 78 ∧IT] "˜ 98 [catchword NERO below footnote rather than above] 114 HE] He 148 lead] ead 180 does∧] ˜: 211 pos-] their 212 be] lose 214 for∧] or,
• Press figures: None.
• Paper: Crown with "WB" and fleur-de-lys with "IV." Like Heawood nos. 1073 and 1706.[27]
• Notes: The chain line patterns reveal that, in the five-leaf gathering A, leaf 2 has been deleted and leaf 3 signed 'A2'. That the signing is right for the gathering as it finally appears seems to indicate that the cancellation was planned. One replacement for a leaf cancelled elsewhere in the volume, therefore, may originally have been printed as leaf A2, with the remaining four cancel leaves printed as a unit.[28] The copy at Yale is Elizabeth Carter's own, with the inscription in her hand "E Libris Eliza Carter." It descended to her nephew, executor, and biographer, the Reverend Montagu Pennington, who has written his name on the flyleaf and added an ascription to E. Carter on the title page.
• Copies: CSmH, CSt, CtY, ICU, IU, MeB, MiU, NbU, NjP, NIC, PPL, TxU, ViU, David L. Vander Meulen; L (2), LeU, O

Because Johnson's letter of 21 or 22 November suggests that Cave's Commentary had little chance of appearing soon, the announcement of 23 November in the Daily Advertiser seems an attempt to ward off the competition by arguing a prior claim, at least for the Commentary: "Where may speedily be had, having been some Weeks in the Press." Johnson himself used a similar ploy a month earlier for the History of the Council of Trent when he wrote on 20 October 1738 to the Daily Advertiser, "It is generally agreed, that when any person has inform'd the world by advertisements, that he is engag'd in a design of this kind, to snatch the hint and supplant the first undertaker, is mean and disingenuous."[29] When Cave reprinted the advertisement of 23 November for the Examination and the Commentary in the 24 November Daily Advertiser, he inserted as the second line the description "Beautifully printed, Price Two Shillings sew'd", and he tried to ward off the threat from Curll by noting: "N.B. The Commentary of Mr. Pope's four Epistles publish'd by Mr. Curll, Price 1 s. 6 d. goes no further than the first Epistle."[30] Curll countered in the Daily Advertiser of 25 November by revising the opening of his advertisement and adding a note of his own: "This Day is publish'd, (With The Essay on Man inserted) Price but 1 s. 6 d. MR. FORMAN's Translation of A Commentary. . . . N.B. We shall pursue M. Crousaz in his Attacks upon Mr. Pope regularly, but not precipitately, without regarding whatever comes from Mrs. Dodd, who is only a Screen for anonymous Persons and Performances. E. Curll." Mrs. Dodd, it is curious to note, is among the booksellers and publishers listed in Curll's advertisement of 21 November.[31] In the Daily Advertiser for 27 November, Cave's advertisement appears as the second item and Curll's as the third item from the top of a left-hand column, allowing the reader to compare conveniently the two offerings.

As will be argued below, it is unlikely that Cave was able to ready the Examination for publication on 23 November, two days after Curll announced his publication of the Commentary on 21 November. Thomas Birch, because of his close relationship with Carter at the time, must have received one of the first complete copies of the Examination, and likely wrote his note of praise to her immediately. Therefore, Monday, 27 November, the date of Birch's note, would very probably be the first day the book was available.[32]

The Examination was now published, but what was the status of Johnson's Commentary? There is no evidence that Cave thought of abandoning the Commentary; instead he continued to spar with Curll. The advertisement for the Commentary on the verso of the last leaf of the Examination, taken from the announcement in the Daily Advertiser of 23 November—"In the Press, Translated likewise from the French of Mr Crousaz. A COMMENTARY. . . . French, for the Use of those who do not understand that Language, or are newly engaged in it"—argues for the superiority of Cave's publication. Cave needed to establish both that he was the first to have the idea of publishing Crousaz's two attacks on the Essay on Man and that he alone was making available not only the Examination but also the complete Commentary. Curll's initial announcement in the Daily Advertiser and his general threat to continue to pursue Crousaz was serious enough, but on acquiring a copy of Curll's publication Cave and Johnson discovered from the end of his Preface that Curll was proceeding with his translation: "The Commentary of Monsieur De Crousaz upon Mr Pope's Second Epistle is in the Press; and in the Conclusion of this Work will be subjoined the various Readings of its several Editions, with Remarks thereon" (x). This volume never appeared and Forman died 28 April 1739.[33] In fact, unknown apparently to Cave and Johnson, Forman's translation of the first epistle was not selling well; it was reissued by Curll, without the title page and Preface, in Miscellanies In Prose and Verse, By the Honourable Lady Margaret Penny-man in December 1740.[34]

Johnson, then, in spite of threats from Curll, continued to press on with his translation of Crousaz's Commentaire, even though for all Cave and Johnson knew Curll and Forman were hard at work preparing the second epistle of their Commentary for publication. It must have been in late November or early December 1738 that Johnson made his heroic effort to complete the Commentary and translated "six sheets," or at least a substantial amount, in one day. Exactly when he completed his translation is unknown. He presumably finished it in the winter of 1738-39, but certainly in time to have it printed with 1739 on the title page. No announcement of its publication has been discovered, suggesting that it was never published. It appears to have been withdrawn in order to privilege Elizabeth Carter's Examination, and the only known copy of the Commentary with "Printed for A. Dodd" and

"M.dcc.xxxix" in the imprint once belonged to Carter.[35] Cave, for reasons now obscure, stored the work for three years. Then in November 1741, the 1739 title page was cancelled and replaced by a bifolium containing the 1742 title page with Cave's name in the imprint and an Errata listing three errors discovered by Johnson.[36] The work was advertised in the November 1741 issue of the Gentleman's Magazine (11:614) and in the Scots Magazine of the same month. Johnson's prediction that "the Publick will be soon satisfied" proved correct. In an attempt to clear Cave's warehouse, Johnson puffed the work in a two-part essay in the Gentleman's Magazine for March and November 1743. The book did not sell well, and Cave was still advertising it as late as 1753.[37]

III

Besides prodding Cave to move more quickly with his own Crousaz books, the publication of Curll's Commentary also affected the text of both of Cave's works. Curll's Commentary is, in fact, a translation and abridgement by Forman of the first epistle of Crousaz, with Pope's lines substituted for the Du Resnel text, essentially vitiating Forman's attack on the verse translation since the reader has few examples of it. The "Remarks" on his translation of the Commentary are in footnotes to the text. These notes, largely favorable to Pope, attack both Du Resnel's translation and Crousaz's commentary based on it.

The influence on Johnson's activities by Curll's publication of a translation of the Commentaire's first epistle can best be shown by looking at Johnson's Commentary first. Although Johnson may have read over the Commentaire in anticipation of translating it, he could not have begun serious work on the first epistle of his Commentary before the publication of Forman's translation on 21 November 1738 since he clearly used it to make his own. Johnson's translation is superior to Forman's and includes the whole text; nevertheless there are a number of verbal parallels, several too close to be dismissed as coincidence. Johnson, for example, translated "à la gayeté" (60) as "Mirth and Gaiety" (27) and Forman as "Gaiety and Mirth" (24). The

French "on en prend ce qu'il faut pour se conserver en vigeur; & on n'a garde de se laisser séduire par des plaisirs qui émoussent l'attention & la vivacité de l'intelligence" (103) is translated by Forman as "We take what is necessary for preserving us in Health and Vigour; but we also take Care not to suffer ourselves to be seduced by Pleasures that take off the Attention, and blunt the Vivacity of the Understanding" (56-57) and by Johnson as "We take what is necessary to preserve Health and Vigour, but are not to give ourselves up to Pleasures that weaken the Attention, and dull the Understanding (61; italics added). Johnson is misled by taking a cue from Forman's translation of "alloit plus loin que la bêtise de cet animal" (55). Forman, confusing "bêtise" with "bête," writes "was more a Beast than that Animal" (20) and Johnson "was much more despicable than the Brutality of that Animal" (23).

Curll's edition of the Commentary served Johnson not only while he translated the first epistle; it also suggested the tone and form his footnotes should take. Curll's remarks in the Preface—"Impartiality and Justice obliges us to ask Mr De Crousaz, as he had two French Translations of Mr Pope's Essay on Man in his Hands, why he did not take the Prose to comment upon rather than the Verse, since he did not understand English?"—provide the point of attack for both Forman and Johnson.[38] Both translators make numerous complaints about how Du Resnel's French verse translation has distorted Pope's meaning and hence Crousaz's commentary, and in six instances Johnson has a footnote at or near the same point in the text, even though he does not always agree with Forman. On "just Balance" Forman's footnote suggests, "This is the Translator's Way of rendering equal Eye, which he likewise has too in the next Line; or sa juste Balance is a Flight of his own" (31). Johnson says, "These two Lines that give Occasion to these Questions, are entirely inserted by the Translator" (34). Forman's "These six lines are not in the Translation; how they came to be passed over, the Translator knows best" (33) is condensed by Johnson to "In this Place six whole Lines are omitted" (36).[39] To a quotation of lines 99-108 of Pope, which Forman has substituted for those of Du Resnel, Forman adds a footnote: "To these ten Lines, the Translator, tho' counted one of the French First Rates, has hobbled out their Meaning within the Compass of twenty four of his own; but he has left their Spirit behind him" (33). Johnson, of course, includes Du Resnel's verses with a translation, so he takes a slightly different approach, in part answering Forman:

In another footnote Forman writes, "Mr Pope has nothing to do with these Words, they are one of the Translator's Flights, which the Critick is only exposing at the same time that he thinks he is demolishing Mr Pope" (36). Johnson says, "Mr Crousaz is so watchful against Impiety, that he lets Nonsense pass without Censure. . . . I take this Opportunity of observing, once for all, that he is not sufficiently candid in charging all the Errors of this miserable Version upon the original Author. . . . He had a Prose Translation in his Hand, which he might have compared with Du Resnel's . . ." (49). Then Forman writes, "Here we omit some of the Criticism, because it is upon a few Lines of the Translation that neither shew Mr Pope's Words not his Meaning" (48). Johnson, who reprints the lines in his text with a translation, also adds a footnote: "This Couplet is an Addition by the Translator" (53). Again, Forman writes, "The Translator's Vein is, no doubt, fertile enough sometimes; for it makes Mr Pope say many Things which he never thought of, tho' not in this Place, which is the first of Mr Pope's that has met with the Commentator's entire Approbation; notwithstanding the Beauty of the Original is quite lost in 23 Lines of French" (62). Johnson comments, "On this Passage where sixteen Lines are translated into thirty three, it is not necessary to make any other Remark than may be made in general on the whole Work, that it is extremely below the Original in Spirit, Propriety, and notwithstanding the Diffuseness of his Expression, in Perspicuity" (67).[40] Even such a Johnsonian-sounding note as "The address of one is the Exclamation of a Freeman, that of the other the Murmur of a Slave" (3) echoes Forman's "Notwithstanding all Mr Crousaz's Logick, this Argument smells more of the Slave than Mr Pope's Philosophy does of the Poet" (66). Forman even anticipates Johnson in discussing the significance of individual words: "The Translator takes vile to signify poor and wretched as to worldly Circumstances, and therefore places the Man in a Chaumiere (a Cottage); after which he gravely shews that a poor Man may sometimes have good Qualities; but, it seems, never such good ones as are enjoyed by the Rich" (69). A parallel case is Johnson's discussion of "End" or "Destinee."[41]

Forman substitutes Pope's verses for those of Du Resnel throughout his translation of the first epistle of the Commentary. Johnson, however, follows Crousaz in reproducing Du Resnel's poem in its entirety, although adding his own line-for-line translation. But when Crousaz repeats a line or lines of Du Resnel's poem in his text for analysis, Johnson substitutes the lines of Pope. He also cites Pope's verse in the footnotes. This helps Johnson reinforce his point about the difference in quality between Pope's and Du Resnel's verses.

IV

Twenty-one-year-old Elizabeth Carter was essentially responsible for the translation of Crousaz's prose in the Examination. That she was the translator we have the testimony of Carter herself, her father, Nicholas Carter, Thomas Birch, Samuel Johnson, William Seward, and her nephew, Montagu Pennington. But Johnson probably had an important stake from the beginning in her translation of the Examen, as well as his own of the Commentaire, for the combined project may well have been his own idea. Thomas Kaminski is certainly correct in observing, "That Johnson was instrumental in Cave's decision to publish the Crousaz translations may be inferred from their unique place in all of Cave's publishing ventures. Never before or after did he stray into the area of literary or moral controversy, yet these topics would have had considerable appeal for Johnson" (223 n.49). The appeal of the topic, coupled with the appeal of Elizabeth Carter, was irresistible. Johnson had met Carter through Cave in April 1738. In that month he wrote to Cave, "I have compos'd a Greek Epigram to Eliza, and think She ought to be celebrated in as many different Languages as Lewis le Grand" (Letters, 1:17). The epigram, with a Latin translation, was published in the April issue of the Gentleman's Magazine, and in the July issue Johnson published a second epigram in Latin praising her, with his English translation of it in the August issue.[42] It may have been Johnson's admiration for Carter and a desire to find a literary project for her which would allow them to work together that had suggested the translation to him in the first place. There can be no doubt that there was competition, friendly at least on the surface, for Carter's attention between Johnson and Thomas Birch, both of whom believed that the way to her heart was through her mind.[43] Both men, having chosen to play the role of Mentor, found it necessary to have a literary project for a medium. Johnson had Crousaz, and when it was completed he suggested that Carter "undertake a Translation of Boethius de. Cons. because there is

prose & verse & to put her name to it when published," Cave reported to Birch in a letter of 28 November 1738.[44] Instead Carter took Birch's suggestion that she translate from Italian a work by Francesco Algarotti, Il Newtonianisimo per le Dame (1737), published in May 1739 as Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy Explain'd For the Use of the Ladies. In Six Dialogues on Light and Colours. From the Italian of Sig. Algarotti (London: Printed For E. Cave, at St. John's Gate, MDCCXXXIX).

The competition between Johnson and Birch to decide who would be the director of Elizabeth Carter's next translation project is revealing. Although Carter had an excellent knowledge of languages, she welcomed outside assistance. On all three of her translations, including All the Works of Epictetus (1758), she received generous help, relying first, it appears, on Johnson, then on Birch, and finally on Thomas Secker, always with her father as advisor in the background. An overview of her major projects and the evidence for the assistance she received will make this clear.[45]

To begin with Epictetus, the last translation, because its history is the best documented, it is clear that she relied heavily on the advice of Bishop Thomas Secker and her friend, Catherine Talbot. Both gave advice on the introduction and notes and Secker not only read several drafts of the translation, but even read proofs. Secker's corrections and revisions must have been extensive, for Talbot tells Carter in a letter of 9 July 1755 that "the Bishop of Oxford shut himself up with him [Epictetus] for near a month, never leaving his study but for his morning ride and afternoon walk." James Harris, an excellent Greek scholar who had assisted John Upton with his important edition of Arrian's Epictetus (1739-41), answered queries on the translation. Carter used Upton's edition for her translation and he is frequently cited in the footnotes.[46]

Her second translation, Algarotti's Il Newtonianisimo per le Dame, received extensive assistance from Thomas Birch, who read drafts of it and provided editorial assistance. Anyone who reads through the footnotes to the translation and is familiar with Birch's work will recognize at various points his heavy hand. Numerous notes appear, diminishing in number after the early portion of the work, some lengthy, most unnecessary, reminding the reader of Johnson's description of Birch given to Sir John Hawkins: "a pen is to Tom a torpedo, the touch of it benumbs his hand and his brain; Tom can talk; but he is no writer."[47] Carter's translation of Algarotti, unlike her deservedly praised Epictetus, can best be described as serviceable, lacking the elegance of the original.[48]

Carter's first translating project, the Examen of Crousaz, also received editorial assistance, in this case from Samuel Johnson.[49] As previously mentioned,

Carter was responsible for the translation itself, including turning Silhouette's French prose rendition of Pope's verse into English prose. Although the preliminary announcements for the Examination in September 1738 indicate that it would be published "With Remarks by the Translator," this phrase is omitted from all later advertisements. Carter presumably completed the translation before 26 September 1738, but without remarks.[50] The translation has remarks, however, and evidence suggests that it was Johnson who added them, in the same manner he added "Annotations" to his own Commentary.[51]

The Examination, like Forman's Commentary, substitutes Pope's verses for Crousaz's quotations from the French prose translation of Silhouette. In some instances Pope's verses are inserted in the text and in others placed in footnotes. Johnson at this period was one of the "miners in literature" for Cave, translating, writing occasional pieces in prose and verse, and handling a variety of editorial chores, including revising the parliamentary debates. As Kaminski has shown, much of Johnson's work for Cave had little to do with the Gentleman's Magazine.[52] Johnson would have been the logical person to have gone through Carter's prose translation, inserting Pope's verse into the text and footnotes, especially since he was doing the same thing for his own Commentary about that time.

V

Crousaz's examination of the first epistle of the Essay on Man fills pages 1-112 (or B1 through L2) of Carter's translation of the Examination. All five of the cancel leaves are in this portion of the text. It is surely no coincidence that Forman's Commentary also happens to cover only the first epistle. Of

the eleven footnotes occurring in the rest of the books, covering the other three epistles (pp. 113-227), nine are verses from Pope without commentary.[53] Of the two remaining, one in the final gathering informs the reader "The Illinois are a People of North America" and the second is a quotation from Du Resnel's verse translation with which Johnson was familiar, even though it is unlikely he had reached this far in his translation of the Commentaire. The text says, "Prepared by the Effect of Poetic Prose, when he begins his third Epistle with calling me bounded man!*" to which a note has been added: "*Apprens, Homme borné, que le maitre du monde. Resnel's French Translation."[54] Of the thirteen footnotes to the first epistle, eleven are verses from Pope—seven with commentary, and four without.[55] Some of the comments are simple: "Mr Pope's Words are," "Mr Crousaz has this Distich in view," "See the subsequent verses," "See Mr Pope's Universal Prayer, the third Stanza," and "The whole Passage stands thus."[56] One footnote simply defines "Conscientia sui" as "Consciousness."[57]

Two of the footnotes that introduce passages of Pope's verse are more critical, much in the style Johnson uses in the Commentary: "I suppose the following Lines are alluded to; perhaps the Remarker strains them a little too much" (28, D2v), and "Had the ingenious Author of the Examination regarded the Whole of this Passage, which he so much objects to, and not only a Part of it, he would perhaps have given a more favourable Interpretation" (67-68, G4r-v).

The final two footnotes provide an even more detailed critical commentary on the text. On the passage from the first epistle of the Essay on Man beginning "Presumptuous Man! the reason wouldst thou find, / Why form'd so weak, so little, and so blind!" (ll. 35-36), which Crousaz, of course, read in Silhouette's French prose translation,[58] Crousaz observes (here in Carter's translation):

To this passage is appended the following footnote:

Later Crousaz takes objection to this passage by Pope: After devoting a paragraph to pride and a discussion of the need for man to be thankful "that he is the Work of the eternal and perfect Being," Crousaz observes that man To this passage is appended the following footnote:

Not only is the technique for footnoting similar to that used by Johnson in his Commentary, but there are occasional verbal echoes as well. The Examination introduces a quotation from Pope with "Mr Pope's Words are" (7), repeated exactly in the Commentary (62), and with slight variations such as "Mr Pope only says" (28, 141) and "Mr Pope has only these Words" (89). The Examination introduces another quotation from Pope with "The whole Passage stands thus" (71). "Stands thus" appears in a footnote in Johnson's translation of Du Resnel's Preface, included at the end of the Commentary (308); it is repeated in another footnote as "his Argument against Mr Pope seems to stand thus" (32), with a variation on the use of "thus" later in the Commentary, "Mr. POPE thus concludes his first EPISTLE" (83). One of the footnotes on a cancel leaf in the Examination concludes, "Perfection is a relative Term, and varies its Signification according as it is differently apply'd" (14); "signification" appears in a similar sense in a footnote to the Commentary (63), as does "signifies" (32). The two longer footnotes, which provide critical commentary on the text, share a common phrase, "at all." The first footnote says, "Nor does he at all dissent from Solomon" and the second "For does . . . aspiring to the Perfection of Angels, at all imply." This phrase does not appear elsewhere in the Examination. Johnson sometimes uses it when translating "ne . . . point," as "not at all unhappy" for "n'est point malheureux" (137). Crousaz's "Il ne faut donc pas s'étonner" (5) is translated as "It is therefore not at all surprising" (iv) and Du Resnel's "S'il est permis de flater les Hommes" is translated as "If it be at all allowable to flatter Men" (315). Altogether "at all" appears fourteen times in the Commentary.[60]

The instance in which "Conscientia sui" is defined in a footnote would seem to be another manifestation of Johnson's hand. Although the Latin phrase "Conscientia sui" appears in Crousaz's Examen, the footnote with a definition as "Consciousness" does not. When Johnson turned to editing the texts of Browne, Ascham, and Shakespeare, he frequently annotated them by defining a word or words which he thought the reader would not understand.[61]

A more important sign of Johnson's hand in editing the Examination is the quotation in a footnote from Du Resnel's French verse translation, "Apprens,

Homme borné, que le maitre du monde" (3.2) to explain "bounded Man" (138). Du Resnel's translation is quoted in its entirety in Johnson's Commentary, with a literal line-for-line English translation. "Homme borné" appears in Crousaz's Examen, indicating that he also consulted Du Resnel's verse translation, which he was later to use in his Commentaire, for nothing resembling it appears in Silhouette's prose version.[62] The footnote, however, does not appear in Crousaz's Examen, but was added to the Examination by Johnson. In the Commentary Johnson translates Du Resnel's second line of epistle three as "Learn, bounded man, that the master of the world" (158). Perhaps Carter in the text of the Examen chose to translate "borné" as "bounded" instead of "limited," "confined," "restrained," or "restricted," but a more likely explanation would be that Johnson was at work here.

There are three footnotes in the Examination that are extensive enough to argue they are in Johnson's style and more nearly resemble those he was writing for the Commentary. One of the three occurs on a cancel leaf and all are marked with an "(a)" instead of the usual asterisks and obelisks used not only in the text elsewhere to mark footnotes, but also, by Cave, in the Gentleman's Magazine and in Johnson's Commentary. Of all the footnotes on cancel leaves, only two passages from Pope appear with asterisks, but these markers may be holdovers from the text on the original leaves, since the remainder have "(a)". A. D. Barker has demonstrated that Cave shared his printing during this period with Thomas Gardner.[63] The Examination, which went through Cave's press, uses asterisks and obelisks, with the exceptions noted, and Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy Explain'd for the Use of the Ladies, which went through Gardner's press, uses superscript lowercase roman letters for notes, although not enclosed in parentheses. In Cave's haste to complete the printing of the Examination, perhaps some of the work was put out to Gardner. Gardner's compositor, familiar with a different system for footnoting, might then have introduced the letter designations himself, although it is possible that he was copying what he saw in the manuscript.[64]

Leaf G4, which has a footnote with a relatively lengthy introduction to a quotation from Pope, and leaf H3, which has a substantial footnote by Johnson, are both marked "(a)" and are not on cancel leaves. Johnson may have added the passage from Pope just before printing of gathering G began. After G was printed, Johnson had second thoughts and had leaves G3 and G6 cancelled to add three passages from Pope, passages included by Forman in his Commentary. The two passages on leaf G6 are also singled out for comment by Johnson in his Commentary.[65] If the book was being printed seriatim, perhaps printing was complete only through gathering F when Curll announced his edition of the Commentary on 21 November, with printing on gathering G about to proceed. Type may have been set for gathering H and, perhaps, the remainder of the volume, at least through gathering T.

Unfortunately, the watermarks are of no assistance in ordering the printing of the sheets as all the gatherings but one contain the crown and a "WB," including at least one of the cancel leaves.[66] Only gathering U has a different watermark, a fleur-de-lys and a "IV." Gathering U was probably printed near the end of the press run and has the full-page announcement for Johnson's Commentary as "In the Press" on the verso of leaf U6.

It may well have been with gathering H that Cave and Johnson decided to push "forward with the utmost expedition," for the relatively large number of errors indicates that it was printed in haste and not proofread carefully.[67] There are also signs that gathering T was rushed through the press. On the verso of leaf T1 the footnote has no obelisk in the text. Then on the recto of leaf T4 a one-line footnote, indicated with an obelisk, was added, apparently at the last minute, to the bottom of the page: "His greatest Virtue—his greatest Bliss, V.340,". To make room for the footnote the last line on the recto was moved to the top of the verso, with the penultimate line, now the last line, containing an error: "inthose." The compositor, however, failed to

change the catchword so that it now catches the second line on the verso. The extra line added to the top of the verso of leaf T4 forced the compositor to move the last line to the top of leaf T5 recto, again forgetting to change the catchword which now catches the second line, and again failing to catch an error in the penultimate line, now the last line: "so ar" [so far].[68]

In summary, Elizabeth Carter finished her prose translation of Crousaz's Examen at least by 26 September 1738 and, perhaps, by 9 September when Cave made the preliminary announcement of its publication, as it was about this time she traveled to Deal with her father, returning later in the month. Johnson had seen all or part of the manuscript before 26 September, when Nicholas Carter refers to Johnson's commendation of the translation.[69] Sometime, probably early November, Johnson, who served as Cave's editor on a number of projects, revised Carter's manuscript, inserted Pope's verses into the text and footnotes, and rewrote the text to accommodate the verses; printing then began. Production may have moved slowly because Cave was printing the November issue of the Gentleman's Magazine and a portion of volume two of the Description of China at the same time.[70] When Curll announced the publication of Forman's translation of the first epistle of the Commentaire on 21 November, the printing of the Examination probably had not proceeded past gathering F. Realizing that the rival publication of the Commentary did, in fact, have "Remarks," Cave and Johnson made hurried adjustments to make the Examination more competitive. Footnotes were added to gatherings H, T, and perhaps others, and on the five cancel leaves. Printing proceeded on gathering G and the remainder of the volume, finally reaching gathering U with the announcement of Johnson's Commentary on the verso of the last leaf, the preliminary gathering A, which included the title page and perhaps one of the cancel leaves printed as A2, and the partial sheet containing the four cancel leaves. Cave and Johnson, after showing early signs of "Dilatoriness," completed the Examination between Curll's announcement on Tuesday, 21 November and its publication on Monday, 27 November 1738.

Notes