tive part of the book is on that account difficult; but the colloquial part is ftudiously filled with idioms, as one of the principal characters continually expreffes himself in proverbs. Of this work there have been many English translations, executed, as may be fuppofed, with various degrees of merit. The two beft of these, in my opinion, are the translations of Motteux and Smollet, both of them writers eminently well qualified for the task they undertook. It will not be foreign to the purpose of this Effay, if I fhall here make a short comparative estimate of the merit of these translations *

*The tranflation published by Motteux bears, in the title-page, that it is the work of feveral hands; but as of thefe Mr Motteux was the principal, and revised and corrected the parts that were tranflated by others, which indeed we have no means of difcriminating from his own, I fhall, in the following comparifon, speak of him as the author of the whole work.

Smollet

Smollet inherited from nature a strong fense of ridicule, a great fund of original humour, and a happy versatility of talent, by which he could accommodate his style to almost every species of writing. He could adopt alternately the folemn, the lively, the sarcastic, the burlefque, and the vulgar. To these qualifications he joined an inventive genius, and a vigorous imagination. As he poffeffed talents equal to the composition of original works of the fame fpecies with the romance of Cervantes; fo it is not perhaps poffible to conceive a writer more completely qualified to give a perfect tranflation of that romance.

Motteux, with no great abilities as an original writer, appears to me to have been endowed with a ftrong perception L 12

of

of the ridiculous in human character; a just discernment of the weaknesses and follies of mankind. He feems likewife to have had a great command of the various ftyles which are accommodated to the expreffion both of grave burlefque, and of low humour. Inferior to Smollet in inventive genius, he seems to have equalled him in every quality which was ef fentially requifite to a tranflator of Don Quixote. It may therefore be fuppofed,

that the contest between them will be nearly equal, and the question of preference very difficult to be decided. It would have been fo, had Smollet confided in his own ftrength, and bestowed on his task that time and labour which the length and difficulty of the work required: but Smollet too often wrote in fuch circumstances, that dispatch was his primary

primary object. He found various English translations at hand, which he judged might fave him the labour of a new compofition. Jarvis could give him faithfully the fenfe of his author; and it was neceffary, only to polish his afperities, and lighten his heavy and aukward phrafeology. To contend with Motteux, Smollet found it neceffary to affume the armour of Jarvis. This author had purpofely avoided, through the whole of his work, the smallest coincidence of expreffion with Motteux, whom, with equal prefumption and injustice, he accufes in his preface of having "taken his verfion "wholly from the French*." We find, therefore,

*The only French translation of Don Quixote I have ever feen, is that to which is fubjoined a continuation of the Knight's adventures, in two fupplemental volumes, by Le Sage. This tranflation has undergone number+ which from a note on the Dedication appears to be the work of M Lancels t

therefore, both in the translation of Jarvis and in that of Smollet, which is little

lefs editions, and is therefore, I prefume, the beft; perhaps indeed the only one, except a very old verfion, which is mentioned in the preface, as being quite literal, and very antiquated in its ftyle. It is therefore to be presumed, that when Jarvis accufes Motteux of having taken his version entirely from the French, he refers to that translation above mentioned to which Le Sage has given a fupplement. If this be the cafe, we may confidently affirm, that Jarvis has done Motteux the greateft injuftice. On comparing his tranflation with the French, there is a difcrepancy fo abfolute and univerfal, that there does not arise the smallest suspicion that he had ever feen that verfion. Let any paffage be compared ad aperturam libri; as, for example, the fol lowing:

"De fimples huttes tenoient lieu de maifons, et de pa"lais aux habitants de la terre; les arbres fe defaifant "d'eux-memes de leurs écorces, leur fourniffoient de quoi couvrir leurs cabanes, et fe garantir de l'intem"périe des faifons."

"The tough and ftrenuous cork-trees did of themfelves, and without other art than their native libera"lity, difmifs and impart their broad, light bark, which "ferved to cover thofe lowly huts, propped up with

"rough