Greek Tragedy With a Happy Ending:
The Publication of Robert Potter's translations of
Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles

The middle years of the eighteenth century saw the decline of the system of literary patronage and the emergence of authorship as a full-time profession. However, patronage did not die overnight, and throughout the eighteenth century there were plenty of authors whose works of scholarship could not command substantial sums from the booksellers, and indeed might never have been published on a commercial basis. Such men continued to look to patrons for financial assistance either to supplement their limited incomes or else to underwrite the production costs of their works.

The various ways in which literary patronage operated, and on occasions failed to operate, in the later years of the eighteenth century are well illustrated by the career of Robert Potter. According to his draft autobiography in the National Library of Wales (Ms 125021, Wigfair 21) he was born in 1721 at Podimore in Somerset, the third son of a Prebendary of Wells Cathedral. For more than forty years he held various meagre livings, notably as the Curate of the village of Scarning in Norfolk, where he also ran a boarding school. Potter was also a poet, critic, the translator of Greek drama, as well as a writer of works of political and social commentary. He is now remembered primarily as a translator and critic rather than as a poet, but he had literary talents in several fields, which were only partly recognised by his contemporaries.¹ He was a witty and perceptive correspondent and conversationalist, displaying a lively interest in all aspects of contemporary literature, drama and the arts. According to the antiquary Craven Ord, he was

Narrow in his circumstances; with a disaggreable [sic] wife - he is rather an entertaining & well behaved gentleman, with some singularities of thinking [B.L. Addl Ms. 14823 fo.137].

Potter's abilities went largely unnoticed for the first fifty-seven years of his life. Then in 1777/8, he achieved fame among polite and educated society with his verse translation of the tragedies of Aeschylus, the first to have been undertaken into English. As a result of the critical acclaim awarded to this work, Potter was taken up by literary society in London and encouraged to undertake similar translations of the remaining Greek tragedians - Euripides and Sophocles.

According to John Nichols (Literary Anecdotes II.306) Potter was 'a scholar of the old school; and nothing tempted him to relinquish divine and polite literature'. He never expected to profit directly from his writings, yet much of this work was undertaken with the aim of seeking preferment within the church. Whilst he was ultimately successful in this objective, he had to wait more than a decade, and suffer many disappointments before he reaped any reward for his considerable labours.

* * *

By the mid-1770s Robert Potter was perhaps beginning to feel that life had passed him by, and he had not been able to fulfil his early promise. He was midway through his sixth decade and had published a number of works at his own expense,² but without having achieved any great literary reputation, or advanced to any extent within his profession. In spite of holding several poor livings and the office of schoolmaster at the village of Scarning, his total income was always relatively small and barely kept pace with the living costs of a minor gentleman. Above all, it had not enabled him to amass any legacy for his children. Yet he could point to friends of his youth who, although from similar backgrounds, had fared much better in life. His school fellow Edward Thurlow, although ten years his junior, was then Attorney General, and would shortly become Lord Chancellor. Likewise Richard Hurd, with whom he had studied at Emmanuel College had since risen to become Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry.

However, in spite of his lack of financial success Potter continued to publish his own poetry, and had contributed to The new foundling hospital for wit, (London, 1771). He also appears to have continued a particular interest in Greek drama, which he gained at school. In December 1773 he sent to the press an octavo edition of his collected Poems (London: J. Wilkie, 1774). This work reprinted most of his existing published verses but also included a blank verse translation of a chorus from the Hecuba of Euripides. It was published a few months later for a respectable number of subscribers. It also contained the important announcement that "preparing for the Press, by the same Author, a translation of the intire Tragedies of Euripides".

Greek drama had not been much read or appreciated in England during the first half of the eighteenth century. Although Pope's translation of Homer in particular had done much to popularize Greek narrative poetry among those who did not have a sufficient grasp of the language, until the second half of the century the dramatists had been largely overlooked.³ However the appearance of Thomas Francklin's edition of the tragedies of Sophocles in 1758/9 did awaken public interest in the genre. A translation of Euripides was the obvious next step therefore, for a classical scholar such as Potter who wished to establish a reputation. Whereas "in the early and mid-eighteenth century Sophocles was generally awarded the palm; later when sensibility took the place of good sense, the tender Euripides was preferred".⁴

Potter was not the only scholar whose interest in Euripides had been awakened. Writing to Elizabeth Montagu on 12 December 1782, he explained:

... in February following [i.e.1774] Mr [Michael] Wodhull announced the same intention; and my bookseller at that time sent Dr [Edward] Harwood's proposals: I had at that time some of the tragedies ready for the press, I would not publish them, though much urged to it by my friends, nor precipitate a volume, but gave these gentlemen a clear stage, and finished Aeschylus, which I had intended for the second task well knowing it would be most popular (Huntington Library MO 4164).⁵

In the event Wodhull's translation of Euripides did not appear until 1782, and Harwood did not complete his version. Nevertheless Potter's limited free time over the next three years was spent translating the plays of Aeschylus into blank verse, which task was completed early in 1777, when he advertised for subscribers.

As this bold and animated writer, the father of the drama, hath never yet appeared in an English dress, the translator flatters himself that his attempt will be acceptable to the public. The work will be immediately put to the press, and shall be elegantly printed in one volume quarto. Price to the subscribers one guinea in boards, to be paid on delivery of the book. Subscriptions taken in by Mr T. Payne, Mews Gate; Mr Dodsley Pall-Mall; Mr White Fleet-street; and Mr Wilkie, St Paul's Church-yard, London; Messrs T. & Mr Prince Oxford; Mr Hazard at Bath; Mr Balfour in Edinburgh; the Booksellers in Dublin; and by J. & C. Berry Norwich. (Norwich Mercury 1 March 1777)

The Tragedies of Aeschylus was to be a work on a far greater scale than any of his previous publications and required in the region of eighty printed sheets. As a relatively unknown author, he had to cover the cost of production for his own publication, and did not have sufficient capital to finance a project on this scale. The number of copies printed is not known but is most unlikely to have been more than the six hundred ultimately subscribed for.

The author might have requested part payment from his subscribers in advance, but had he done so it is certain he would not have secured nearly so many promises. The whole system of taking subscriptions in advance had fallen into disrepute long before Potter's time. Instead, he chose to produce the work as cheaply as might be acceptable to his aristocratic subscribers. He did this by dealing directly with a local printer (John Crouse of Norwich, the proprietor of the Norfolk Chronicle newspaper) rather than entrusting the whole work to the supervision of a wholesale bookseller in London, such as Robert Dodsley. He also included only the translation together with a minimal introduction, and without benefit of the usual commentary or scholarly apparatus.

Throughout 1777 the translator used all the influence he could muster and managed to gather a respectable number of subscribers for such a work. Bishop Hurd, Potter's friend from University was appointed Preceptor to the Prince of Wales and his brother Prince Frederick in 1776. He appears to have used his influence in getting them to subscribe together with the Duchess of Cumberland. Yet in spite of the work's subsequent critical success, nearly one hundred of the copies which had been subscribed for through Robert Dodsley, were not in fact purchased, and had to be disposed of separately over the next year (letter to Elizabeth Montagu 4 April 1778, Huntington Library MO 4155).

The Tragedies of Aeschylus was advertised in the Public Advertiser for 23 December 1777, and appears to have been an overnight success among educated society. In January 1778 Horace Walpole wrote to his friend the poet William Mason

... There is a Mr Potter too, I don't know who, that has published a translation of Aeschylus, and as far as I have looked is a good poet. I am sure he has taste, for in his preface he speaks like an initiate of Elfrida and Caractacus. I am delighted with Prometheus though I do not approve of a mad cow for first woman⁶ (Horace Walpole's Correspondence, ed. W.S. Lewis O.U.P., XXVIII, 347-8).

Soon afterwards it received a favourable review in the Gentleman's Magazine (xxxx. 34-5), and in March, James Harris, one of the first Britons to study Greek philosophy, and author of Hermes, wrote from the House of Commons, to congratulate the translator.

... I have perused a large part of your fine translation of Aeschylus, and, had I been happy in knowing you before publication, I should have thought it an honour to have my name appear in your list of subscribers (B.L. Addl. MS 4079 f.70).

According to Boswell, Potter's work was the topic of conversation between Harris, David Garrick, and Samuel Johnson on April 9 (Life of Johnson, O.U.P., 1969. 920-1). Harris defended the work, whilst Johnson described that little he had read as verbiage (a word not to be found in his dictionary), but he nevertheless agreed to read a play. Before he died in 1779, Garrick is also reputed to have wanted to stage Potter's unpublished translation of Euripides' Hecuba, and went to some expense in procuring costumes. However the plan had ultimately to be abandoned because of the cost of the accompanying Greek chorus (letter from Daniel Watson to John Carr, 2 April 1788 (John Nichols, Illustrations of literary history of the eighteenth century, London: Nichols 1817-58, I. 431).

In his short introduction to Aeschylus, Potter quoted several lines from an essay on Shakespeare, written by one of his subscribers, which he described as "the amiable candor of a fine writer". This compliment to Elizabeth Montagu, the rich and influential leader of society in London, was singularly well placed. As a result she befriended the poor country curate and introduced him to some of the most famous names of literary society. She also undertook to encourage and assist him in his future work.

Thus society's verdict on Potter's translation of Aeschylus was indeed favourable, and may perhaps be summed up by the opinion Scottish poet James Beattie, writing to Mrs Montagu 1st February 1779:

... I did not think it possible to do justice to the old Grecian in any modern tongue; but Mr Potter has satisfied me that I was mistaken. It seems to me, that this is indisputably the best translation that ever appeared in English of any Greek poet. I beg, madam you will exert all your influence with the author, to make him go on with Euripides.. (William Forbes, An account of the life and writings of James Beattie, London: Baynes, 1824, 256).⁷

Nevertheless the publication as a whole was considered by Harris, Mrs Montagu and others to be flawed because of the lack of commentary and footnotes. Such elucidatory notes were then judged to be an essential appendage to such a work. As Harris suggested:-

If I might venture to hazard a wish upon what you have already done so ably, my wish would have been that you had subjoin'd a few notes of the historical & mythological kind, such as might have assisted un-informed readers. This far their use that translation, and, above all, that of antient authors seems principally to be calculated; and when they want such helps, I know they are often disappointed (B.L. Addl. MS 4079 f.70).

This point was also made in George Colman's otherwise favourable review of the work in the Monthly Review (LIX, 1778, 286) "It were to have been wished also, that to the version of an author so difficult as Aeschylus, the Translator had subjoined copious notes, instead of penuriously stinting his readers to a meagre preface to the work, and spare introductions to each play".

Potter considered such detailed commentary to be an unnecessary fashion of 'polite literature', and had no particular wish to compile them, particularly as the work was now published.⁸ However when the bookseller Thomas Cadell added the additional incentive of purchasing the copyright of a second, annotated, edition of Aeschylus, Potter felt he could not easily refuse the requests he had received. He explained his position in letters written 13 March and 14 May 1778, to his friend Samuel Parr, Master of the Norwich Grammar School (John Johnstone ed., The works of Samuel Parr, London, 1818, 227-8.)

... At the desire of some persons, of such rank that their requests have the force of commands, I am engaged in writing notes to the English Aeschylus: this is much against my own judgment, as I think with Mr Gray, that notes are an affront to the reader's understanding, and I am sure that every one knows, or ought to know, whatever I know....

... I write notes most furiously, but they are chiefly in the style of the ingenious and praiseworthy Mr Newbery,⁹ for masters and misses: some few must necessarily be critical; such as they are shall be printed in quarto, and presented to the subscribers before the second edition is published, to avoid the common complaint against authorism and booksellerism.

It is remarkable, that the author's sense of justice to his original subscribers demanded that he must therefore give away copies of the notes which were to be included in the second edition.

In a letter to Mrs Montagu 4 April 1778 however, the author sought to take advantage of his new found patron in more ways than one:-

... you expressed a desire that notes explanatory of the antient mythology, history, customs &c might be added to the English Aeschylus. Tho' I think that every body knows, or ought to know, whatever I know; and I am certain that you want notes the least of any person alive, yet in deference to your judgement a second edition is preparing with notes: ... I have consulted many books on the explanation of the antient mythology, but find very little satisfactory; Mr Bryant has more good sense than all of them put together; ... Mr de Gebelin's Monde Primitif might also be of use to me; but it is not to be met with in the country; you will therefore give me leave to avail my self of the liberty you gave me, and beg the favour of you to send it to me; if the book be scarce & valuable (I know nothing of it) it shall carefully be returned to you. With this Dr Burton's Pentalogia will be very acceptable. By the Norwich Coach from the Swan with two Necks in Lad Lane, to be left at Mr Berry's, Bookseller, Norwich.

With regard to this second edition of Aeschylus I am under some difficulties; thro' the disingenuity of Mr Dodsley the unsold copies of the Qto edition, about 100, remain my property; these should be sold before the Book be republished; my friends assisting me in this will do me the same favour as in solliciting subscriptions. But will not my subscribers have reason to think themselves ill treated, if an edition be offered to the public at a less price and, as some may deem it, so much improved? This Consideration has great weight with me, and I know not how to exculpate my self (Huntington Library MO 4155).

Mrs Montagu took one of the hints and supplied Potter with the reference works, but she needed to be reminded of the great trouble and the additional cost to which she was subjecting her protege, in a further letter a fortnight later.

... I write notes most furiously, and have gone thro' two of the Tragedies. Mr Cadell is desirous of having the notes so as to be ready with his new edition by the beginning of November and I fear that I shall not be able to prevail on him to defer the publication till February so that what of the Quarto edition is unsold at that time will become of little value. I fear too that I must be at the expence of printing these notes to present them to my subscribers, that they may have no cause of complaint (Huntington Library MO 4156).

By June eighty five quarto pages of notes and commentary were completed without any decision being made as to their publication. One thing was clear however, that since the notes (and more particularly the notes to the notes) contained a substantial amount of Greek, it would not be possible for them to be entrusted to the original Norwich printer, John Crouse. Their publication, and distribution to the original subscribers would therefore involve a printer in London or one of the University presses. Again he wrote to Elizabeth Montagu with a heavy hint:

... I cannot deny my self the honour of telling you that last night after four months close application I finished the rough draught of the notes on Aeschylus: these are to be transcribed for the press against the second week in July, when they will be printed separately in Quarto as an appendix to the present edition, & given to the subscribers; a copy or two shall be sent to Hill Street; I wish you may find any thing in them worth your attention; few of them are critical, and those will give offence as they differ from a favorite annotator;¹⁰ the rest are explanatory of the antient mythology, history, and customs alluded to by the author: .... I have the ambition to wish to dedicate to Mrs Montagu; indeed I now write purposely to request that favour; be not under apprehensions, your delicacy shall not be hurt with dedication-language; only permit me the honour of devoting to you the notes, the translation, and the translator. (Huntington Library MO 4157).

On this occasion he was not disappointed, and in Mrs Montagu agreed to pay the publication costs. He wrote to thank her and report on progress, 14 July 1778:

Late on Saturday night I finished the transcript of the notes on Aeschylus; they are sent to the University Press at Cambridge, that the many Greek quotations may have a chance to be correct; as soon as the work is finished, Mr Archdeacon's¹¹ account of charges shall be sent to you. What shall I say of your generous, noble ----. I believe the less is said, the more acceptable it will be to such a mind; mine is deeply gratefull (Huntington Library MO 4158).

Potter informed his nephew John Conway Potter that by 19 August 1778 the University printers "are got forward as far as Agamemnon; they will be finished in a fortnight," (N.L.W. Ms. 12433, Wigfair 33D letter 1), but as usual with assurances from printers this was over optimistic. By 5 October he had still not seen a copy, although he reported to Elizabeth Montagu that "Mr Dodsley will have a parcell this week" (Huntington Library MO 4159).

Both the original translation, and the subsequent notes, were reviewed in the Monthly Review (LIX, 1778, 286 and 486) by the dramatist and translator George Colman, but whereas the translation was commended, Potter was accused of having compiled the notes "with reluctance" and "too drily and stiffly", whilst occasionally debasing his style with "low expressions" and "familiar French phrases". However far more fulsome tribute to the notes was forthcoming from his friend Samuel Parr.

... I am happy to find that you perform the less task with propriety as well as the greater with dignity, and that your labour as commentator will not disgrace your reputation as translator. I speak the language of my serious and most fixed conviction, when I say that the soundness of your understanding, the delicacy of your taste, and the brilliancy of your imagination, are strongly marked in evry page of your annotations: they unite elegance with perspicuity, they illustrate the beauties as well as explain the obscurities of your author, and they are happily calculated at once for the information of the unlearned reader and the entertainment of the most learned (Johnstone, The works of Samuel Parr, Longman: 1828, 228-9).

Parr did however go on to censure his friend's use of his commentary to praise another Greek scholar, Richard Paul Jodrell, whom he rather described as "the pedant of Berners Street", and a "coxcomb". Jodrell was a London barrister and dramatist, then working on a scholarly commentary on the plays of Euripides. He appears to have befriended Potter after the publication of Aeschylus, and visited him briefly at Scarning in 1779.

Robert Potter now aged fifty-seven, was at the high point of his literary career, and for the first time in his life was a sought-after member of society, with a little spare money from the profits of the first edition and the sale of the copyright for the second octavo edition published by William Strahan and Thomas Cadell, in 1779.¹² During the summer of 1778 he even took a brief holiday in London with his son:

... we spent two evenings at Vaux Hall, one at the Haymarket Theatre, one at Kensington Gardens, the rest with our friends; the days were spent chiefly in rambling from painter to painter, which to me is the highest of all entertainments; Jack sate for his picture to a very pretty young man at Sir Joshua Reynolds', a Mr Doughty; I have a good opinion of it, & expect it home every day. The excellent Romney gave me my head, as a picture a wonderfull fine one,¹³ .... I have done nothing since but saunter; indeed I meditate an attack on Euripides, but the weather is too hot for reading Greek (N.L.W. Ms. 12433, Wigfair 33D letter 1).

The trip also included invitations to literary assemblies, one of which included an introduction by Mrs Montagu to the famous Doctor Johnson whom Potter greatly admired. Unfortunately, Johnson was in one of his ungracious moods, and publicly snubbed the poor curate, which humiliation, was never thereafter forgotten (E.H. Barker, Literary anecdotes and contemporary reminiscences of Professor Porson and others, London, 1852, I. 1-2).¹⁴

However Potter could not for long live on the intellectual capital and meagre profits of his translation of Aeschylus; he wished to consolidate his reputation as a classical scholar. Since nothing had been heard of the projected translations by Wodhull and Harwood since 1775, the obvious next step was a return to Euripides; a task already partially complete. As he explained to Elizabeth Montagu in a letter date 5 October 1778:

...I have the deepest sense of your favours; the best return I can think of making you is by attending to Euripides with care, & expediting the translation as fast as I well can, though my servile employment leaves me but little leisure. (Huntington Library MO 4159).

Mrs Montagu was a useful friend to Potter, who helped him in many ways, but she was not in a position to give him the one thing he most needed - long term financial security. As she explained to James Beattie:

Mr Potter is now translating Euripides; and, if he succeed as well as in the other translation, the world will owe him a great deal; I heartily wish, that, in some shape, it would pay him part of the debt; he is a man of great merit, small preferment, and large family (Forbes, An account of the life and writings of James Beattie, London: Baynes, 1824, 269).

This could only come from patronage within the church, and inevitably one of the main reasons for his undertaking this work was in the hope of thereby achieving some recognition. Thus, when the following February he was invited to interrupt work on Euripides in order to assist a man who was in a position to provide such patronage, he did not hesitate to do so, in spite of his previous promises to his Mrs Montagu.

Potter's notes on Aeschylus had attracted the attention of Hans Stanley, a Privy Councillor and Member of Parliament for Southampton. Stanley was preparing his own translation of Pindar's Odes, and wished to employ the curate to oversee the whole and prepare the necessary annotations.¹⁵ Potter did not consider Stanley to be a man of great poetic talent, but the opportunity of making an influential friend was too good to turn down.

Between February and August 1779 Potter and Stanley collaborated on the Pindar, whilst in June the former sought to assure Mrs Montagu that he was not neglecting Euripides.

... This work goes on tolerably well, I suffer nothing to interrupt it, not even my attention to the translation of Pindar though I fear Mr S. thinks me indiligent. I find that Gentleman sensible, a good scholar, well acquainted with his author, and patient under my animadversions; as far as it lies in my poor ability his work shall be kept free from faults; but I fear it will want that rich stream of music which ought to flow deep, majestic, smooth, and strong; he may drive the car of Pindar without overturning it, but he has not

The Coursers of ethereal race,
With necks in thunder cloath'd and long-
resounding pace (Huntington Library MO 4160.).¹⁶

The collaboration between Stanley and Potter was a success and the project was complete by September 1779; thus the following month the curate who had been overlooked for so many years confided his optimism about his future to his nephew.

I am flattered too with the expectation of being removed from Scarning, but do not too much rely upon the promises of the Great. I work very close upon Euripides, and have not stirred from home all this summer. One volume will be ready this winter (N.L.W. Ms. 12433, Wigfair 33D letter 5).

However in February of the next year he had to confess that his hopes and expectations had been dealt a major setback.

... My journey to town proved very unfortunate: it was undertaken at the desire of a great man, for whom I had gone through a laborious task, and had the good fortune to please him; he had without sollicitation promised to place me in a more easy station; his power was great, and he was remarkable for his generous spirit and warm attachment where he professed a friendship: the day before I expected him in town the public papers announced his death: so that I not only lost an handsome present, but all my hopes of future preferment. To add to my misfortune, Mrs Montagu was ill, and to go to Bath as soon as she is able; so that Euripides will have little support from her (N.L.W. Ms. 12433, Wigfair 33D letter 8).

Stanley from time to time suffered from chronic depression, which appears to have been a family trait. For like his father before him, he took his own life by slitting his throat.¹⁷ Potter had no choice but to return to Euripides, which task had been set back at least a year.

The next mention of the proposed edition comes in a letter to his friend, the poet Edward Jerningham of 30 November 1780, by which time he had finished the text of the first volume and was writing the preface (Huntington Library JE 683, Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 332-3). But more specific information was given in a letter to the artist George Romney, written on the Boxing Day following:

... the [first] Volume of the English Euripides is finished, nay more, it is in the press, and will be published as soon as the printer can get through his work; but I fear this will not be till the end of March; when the book is ready to be delivered, I shall take a journey to town of necessity, as I shall not be able to settle the list of subscribers without waiting in person on some gentlemen who are too great to be addressed by letter, and who, I flatter myself, are friendly to me (John Romney, Memoirs of the life and works of George Romney. London, 1830. 160).

A similar letter was sent to Elizabeth Montagu in February 1781 asking for her help in finalizing the list and thanking some of her aristocratic friends who had been canvassing for subscriptions;

... my friend in Ireland tells me that the Primate¹⁸ has been in many places before him; I have a very gratefull sense of the honour done me by such a man, and know to whom my first thanks are due for it, and have now to beg the favour of you to request his Grace to send you the names of such Gentlemen as having subscribed thro' his application; if I find this list with you about the end of the next month, when I expect to have the honour of waiting on you, it will be very sufficient.... The books will, I expect, be ready to be delivered by the first or second week in April, and I flatter my self that Euripides will be as favourably received as Aeschylus was (Huntington Library MO 4162).

The Introduction was dated at Scarning, 2 April, 1781. On the same day Potter wrote a far less optimistic letter to Mrs Montagu. Having made his journey up to town, immediately before publication, he was however feeling deeply humbled over the necessity of his being obsequious to such eminent subscribers:

... The times are indeed very unfavourable to works of literature, perhaps the spirit of the times is worse than the times themselves; besides this, with regard to subscriptions there is an illiberality in many persons not otherwise illiberal, which induces them to think the money they pay is levied upon their charity; though they would be among the first to purchase the book if it were published for a bookseller: this has more than once been suggested to me from under mitres, and may perhaps be a necessary mortification to the natural vanity of a well-received writer; but should I have life and health to publish any thing after the second volume of Euripides, Mr Dodsley and I will manage as we can, without troubling their Lordships. Notwithstanding this I am so far from complaining, that I have the greatest reasons to be very gratefull for so liberal an encouragement, I am supported by many persons whose names do me the greatest honour, which I have not failed to acknowlege (Huntington Library MO 4163).

Nevertheless, the publication of the first volume of Euripides was undoubtedly a success. The list of five hundred and eleven subscriptions was again headed by the Prince of Wales, and his brother Prince Frederick, the Archbishops of Canterbury and Armagh (who subscribed for ten and six copies respectively), the Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland, several other Bishops and a large number of the nobility. He had also managed to secure the specific patronage of the Duchess of Beaufort, to whom the work was dedicated, and who subscribed for three copies.¹⁹ Mrs Montagu subscribed for a further six copies. The largest single number of subscriptions however was fifteen copies in the name of Hans Stanley, which were presumably delivered to his executor.

Although the total number of subscriptions for Euripides was significantly less than for Aeschylus, this work nevertheless should have been the more profitable for Potter. Following the success of his first work, and his reputation as translator, Potter was now able to negotiate the sale of the copyright to the wholesale bookseller Robert Dodsley, and the agreement is preserved in the British Library, (Egerton Ms. 2334 f.19). In lieu of money, he accepted five hundred and twenty-five copies of each volume delivered free of the cost of paper and printing. Thus, before publication he had secured the sale of virtually all his copies, for which he had only to meet the cost of binding. This was fine in theory, but in practice the binding costs had to be paid immediately, whereas the receipts from book sales might take many months to reach him. Thus the following March, Potter was writing to his nephew

I am sorry that the epidemical distemper has reached so far as Denbighshire, I mean the want of money; it rages here, I never was so poorly; since the first week in January I have not received a guinea; not one of my correspondents, who long ago received Euripidean money for me, will send me a shilling; (N.L.W. Ms. 12433, Wigfair 33D letter 14).

During the first three months of 1782, came the next major setback to Potter's career as a translator. The Euripides received an unusually long and detailed review which appeared in the January and March issues of the Critical Review for that year (LIII. 17-28, and 169-173).

Euripides, as we observed in a former Review, is undoubtedly of all Greek tragedians, on many accounts, the most difficult to translate. Arduous, however, as the task is, we entertained the most sanguine hopes that Mr Potter, of whose taste, learning, and abilities, we had a favourable opinion, would have been able to perform it. His Aeschylus, though not without faults, was deservedly applauded in the literary world as a performance of no inconsiderable merit; we are sorry to add, that his Euripides is, by no means, equal to it.

Whilst allowing that the translation was "tolerably faithful" to the original, the anonymous reviewer attacked the work on the grounds of the lack of perspicuity and elegance.

The colouring is coarse and indelicate, without that grace and softness, that elegance and pathos, which so eminently distinguish the original... This translation, as every reader who has any ear or taste cannot but observe, is too close and literal, and the lines consequently tame, ill-sounding, and prosaical.

The reviewer also criticised two fundamental principles adopted by Potter in his translation, and explained in the preface. The first of these was his adherence to the convention of Athenian theatre, whereby

... in the most interesting and important scenes the dialogue is often thus broken into single lines, each speaker confining himself to his line, sometimes for a long continuance. It is difficult to conceive what grace this amoebean recitative had on the Athenian stage, .... yet the translator did not think himself at liberty to deviate from the manner of composition prescribed by his author.²⁰

Secondly the reviewer complained

... that the work is very deficient in point of notes: a deficiency which the author has endeavoured in his preface, to apologize for, by observing that 'Annotations are not properly the province of the translator.' [see preface, p. xv.] From which assertion we beg to differ.

The review ended with the overall assessment that "the first volume of the Translation of Euripides by Mr Potter, is, we will venture to pronounce, upon the whole, a very indifferent performance".

In essence, this review disputed Potter's theory of translation and its function,²¹ and although there was justice in some of the statements made, it was not perhaps necessary for them to be re-iterated at such length. Undoubtedly Potter considered he had been most unfairly treated, and that the review stemmed rather from a personal animosity. He was sent copies of the issues of the Critical Review, by his friend and neighbour John Fenn of East Dereham, on each occasion Potter wrote to thank him:-

.... Alas, who would be an author? But I am not much crest-fallen; there is strong internal evidence which points out to me the writer of this review.

.... I thank you for this review, I am more confirmed in my suspicions of the writer, and at a proper time the objections shall be carefully attended to, and where I find them just, I will avail myself of them. (Letters to John Fenn 24 February and 11 April 1782. Norfolk Record Office NNAS C3/2/4.)

He also outlined his anger and suspicions in a letter to Edward Jerningham of 4 April 1782.

You have seen, and doubtless with great indignation, the violent attack of the Critical Reviewers on me; they have shown as much ignorance and want of taste, as want of candour; with such persons I shall enter into no contest, it is not pro dignitate; but I shrewdly suspect, from internal evidence, that this malignity proceeds from Berners Street: is it impossible to ascertain this? Can you put me upon any method to trace it? Could I fix the affront on that learned personage, I should be attempted to make an appeal to the Public (Huntington Library JE 685 and Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 336-7).

Potter thus considered the review to be the work of his erstwhile friend Richard Jodrell. He felt betrayed, since he had given the reviewer such fulsome praise in his notes on Aeschylus, and had loaned him the translation of Euripides, so that Jodrell might have benefit of it when preparing his own Illustrations of Euripides, the first volume of which, was published in 1781.²² However, when in 1786 Jodrell's play The Persian heroine, founded upon Herodotus, was rejected by Drury Lane and Covent Garden because the elucidatory notes occupied as much space as the text, Potter was mightily pleased (Letter to Edward Jerningham April 1786 (Huntington Library JE 696 and Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 353-4).

Another disappointment occurred in late 1782 with the appearance of Michael Wodhull's complete, and long awaited, The nineteen tragedies and fragments of Euripides, in four volumes, before Potter could publish his second volume. Nevertheless Potter considered his own version to be the superior, as he explained to Elizabeth Montagu on 12 December 1782 :

I have Mr Wodhull's translation; it will do me credit; he mentions me twice in his preface, once with slight civility, once (absit invidia dicto) with impertinence; twice in his notes he honours me with indirect censure; for which reason, and perhaps with some pride on my part, I have taken no notice of him; he deserves no compliment from me, and I am not of a disposition to say any thing uncivil (Huntington Library MO 4164).²³

In the same letter he could report the completion of his own version:

...the last Mss sheets of Euripides are sent to Mr Dodsley, the greatest part is through the press, and I expect that the volume will be published by the Queen's birth-day, at which it may be presumed that every body of fashion will be in town. In this volume I have said nothing of my self or of my work; the book must speak for itself: if it is well written, it wants no apology: if ill, it deserves none. Some professed critics have been sagacious enough to discover marks of hurry and weariness of so long a work; but all their sagacity will not lead them to discover what parts were written first, what last; you will judge whether my attention has abated, by comparing the Hecuba, which was the first Greek Drama I ever attempted to translate, with the Electra which was the last (Huntington Library MO 4164).²⁴

Potter now considered that his career as a translator of Greek dramatists was at an end. He turned his attention rather to lyric poetry, where he hoped to combine his earlier experience with Pindar with an essay on contemporary poetry:

... my next attempt will be a most beautiful Ode of Pindar, merely for the sake of a preface inquiring into the nature of the sublime lyric compositions of Antient Greece, and pointing out the unrival'd excellence of Mr Gray among the moderns; it will be no difficult task to show that Dr Johnson has no portion nor sense of that aetherial flame, which animates true genius to make daring incursions into unexplored regions of invention, and boldly to strike into the pathless sublime (Huntington Library MO 4164).

By the time the work appeared in May 1783 however, it had fundamentally changed in nature, perhaps due in part to the influence of Mrs Montagu, to a direct attack on Johnson's Lives of the Poets.²⁵

With two completed translations of Greek dramatists under his belt, Potter's chief concern was in securing his future. He was now in his sixties and relatively famous, and had many influential acquaintances. Yet in spite of the earnings from his two works (which never lived up to his expectations), he was still a relatively poor man whose income was largely tied to his "servile employment" as a school master. As he explained to his patroness in a letter of 1 July 1783 "I only wish for such an income as would enable me to make some little provision for my family: as a father it is my duty to endeavour this" (Huntington Library MO 4165).

Potter's correspondence over the next four years refers to a succession of abortive attempts to persuade his friends to use their influence in securing him some form of preferment. He might solicit the help of Mrs Montagu or Bishop Hurd, only to find his chances of promotion blocked elsewhere. A letter to Mrs Montagu of 22 March 1784 is typical of several from this period:

... You know perhaps that Mr Frederick Montagu has been earnest to serve me; he induced Lord John Cavendish to support my interest, they together recommended me to the Duke of Portland for a Crown Living, and my name was entered, in the Great Book as a scholar forsooth, a man of genius, and the defender of Mr Gray; the two Gentlemen abovementioned signed their names to this recommendation. Soon after this measure, which does me so much honour, was taken, a revolution happened in public affairs, and my friends no longer had the power to serve me, nor does it appear that they are likely to recover it. I should not have thought this disappointment any hardship had I been taken up in a political view; but my politics carry me very little further than to wish my country well, to fear God, and honour the King. I never had any ambitious views, my expectations were not very sanguine, nor is my disposition apt to despond; I know who disposes of all events (Huntington Library MO 4166).²⁶

On occasions he became despondent about his plight, particularly when writing to his nephew "I made an excursion to London; my business was partly to put my great and promising friends to the proof, whether they were in earnest in their professions; I am fully convinced of their insincerity" (N.L.W. Ms 12433, Wigfair 33D letter 21). Most letters to Jerningham show rather a bitter sense of humour, such as on 8 February 1787:

... I beg, and request, and entreat you never to mention a Lord to me more, and especially not a Lord Spiritual; they are animals of another species, and have nothing of the communis sensus about them; talk to me of persons that feel the glow of humanity warm at their hearts. Of Lord Carlisle I know nothing, but that his Excellency did me the honour to subscribe to Euripides; but he is among an hundred other Lords who have not done me the justice to take the second volume. But I have learnt to speak of this neglect a little distrustingly, as Dodsley's carelessness has led me into some scrapes. Farewell to Lords. Let me turn my enquiries towards Mrs Montagu: I have not been honoured with any notice from her since July last. Is she made Bishop? (Huntington Library JE 698 and Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 356-7)

In any event he lost much of the will and impetus to push his claims forward, following the death of his wife in July 1786.

In spite of his disappointments and tribulations, Potter's publishing activities did not cease with his attack on Johnson in 1783 In 1785 he published The Oracle concerning Babylon. And the Song of Exultation from

Isaiah, Chap. XIII and XIV.

(London: G. and T. Wilkie), "to revive my dormant name" (letter to Jerningham 17 April 1785 (Huntington Library JE 693 and Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 350).²⁷ But, this small publication was nothing compared to his work with the Greek dramatists, and it was not long before suggestions were being made that he should complete the trio of tragedians by undertaking a new translation of Sophocles. As he explained in a letter to Elizabeth Montagu of 17 March 1786

... I had not finished Euripides, when I was requested to give Sophocles also; this was so often repeated that at length I looked over the Oedipus Tyrannus with such a view; but Sophocles has so much of that beauty which characterizes Virgil and Pope, that happy choice and arrangement and condensation of words, that I thought it impossible to preserve his graces, and shrunk back from the task. About a year ago I was called upon in a very singular manner to undertake this work, with such liberal offers of assistance in the publication, that I could not refuse the attempt; I have done so much, that I flatter myself with the hopes of being able to do the whole well, better than Aeschylus is done, though for obvious reasons it will not be so well received. But to what purpose is it to present the public with works of manly and Attic composition, when nothing will go down but the nauseous morcels with which his many-headed Worship is daily gorged? (Huntington Library MO 4171).

The approach had come in the Spring of 1785, from Dr Charles Poyntz of North Creake in Norfolk, on behalf of Georgiana Dowager Countess Spencer, whom Potter had met when collaborating with Hans Stanley. Countess Spencer suggested that she might provide Potter with the necessary reference works to complete the translation, and underwrite the publication costs. Potter considered the proposition for several months, before agreeing. In December 1785 Poyntz supplied Potter with a copy of Thomas Johnson's edition of the collected plays of Sophocles, in Greek and Latin (Sophoclis tragoedia, ed. Thomas Johnson, 3v. (London: 1746)). In his letter of thanks, Potter committed himself to the new project:

... to show you that I am seriously in earnest, I have the honour of acquainting you that I have translated the Oedipus Tyrannus, and have sent it with the original and with Dr Franklin's translation, which is in high repute, though in truth it is ill done, it is unfaithfull, always spiritless: if my friend encourages me, I shall proceed with redoubled alacrity. Sophocles, you well know, is the most correct of all writers and has a thousand peculiar graces in his style and manner: what a task then have you set me? and if I succeed, how very few are capable of forming a just judgement? yet for the sake of those few, if I do the whole, it shall be well done, it shall not be unworthy of the perusal of Lady Spencer.²⁸

and by the following Spring he had determined to proceed.

In April 1786 Edward Jerningham chided his elderly friend for taking over another such large project when he had received so little benefit from the two previous translations. Potter replied in mock anger

I want to rap your knuckles for your jibes and your jeers. You were one of the first to encourage me to give the public a translation of Sophocles; I will do it for all your vloutings; what care I for Franklin's ghost?²⁹ .... I wish however the public may think with you, that my mind retains its whole vigour in the advance of life; (though by the by, what occasion have you to wipe the advance of life over my nose?) it was not thought so in my Euripides, because it had not the fire & fury of Aeschylus; nor has Sophocles: can I help that? I will do it well (Huntington Library JE 696, Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 353).

The translation of Sophocles was completed by the end of March 1787, but required revision and transcription, although Potter was not then in good health; "a disorder in my stomach has lately brought me within a near expectation of the long black box" (Huntington Library JE 699, Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 357). He had now to find a publisher for the work, for his relations with Dodsley had apparently become strained. This was perhaps the result of the large number of subscribers who had not taken the second volume of Euripides, blamed by Potter on the bookseller's mismanagement. In any event, Potter was still seeking some of his receipts from sales of Euripides from Dodsley as late as 1787. He therefore determined to find another bookseller.

Potter's good friend John Fenn was then dealing with the London wholesale booksellers George and John Robinson who were publishing his edition of the Paston Letters.³⁰ It was presumably as a result of his recommendation that Potter made an approach. However by 1 October 1787 agreement had still not been reached, and so Potter wrote to Jerningham to find another bookseller:

... I have not been able to elicit any answer from Mr Robinson, and am determined to wait no longer for his fastidious insolence; I therefore request the favour of you to recommend me to Mr Robson,³¹ this moment by letter. I do not wish you to commit yourself, only put us together. It would be most eligible to me to sell the copy right through all possible editions; but I shall ask what he perhaps will think a great deal of money; if he cannot agree to my terms, I will without any hesitation publish at my own expence, and shall be glad to engage him as my Bookseller (Huntington Library JE 701, Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 359-60).

By mid November Potter reported to his nephew that Sophocles "is finished, and gone to the Devil (of the Press)". On this occasion he was a little more realistic over the likely profits however:

... I am not yet certain that I shall get a shilling by it; but I am sure of not being a loser by it; ... it is very probable that I have laboured very assiduously two years and six months for nothing but a little fame, which I value at just as much as in these days of taxation it is worth (N.L.W. Ms. 12433, Wigfair 33D letter 26).

In spite of his earlier letter, Potter did eventually use George Robinson as the publisher, although not under his preferred terms. Presumably the losses made by Dodsley on the Euripides made Robinson wary of purchasing the copyright. As Potter explained to Charles Poyntz

... A tedious negotiation with Mr Robinson is at length concluded, but in a manner not altogether agreeable to my wishes. I hoped to have sold the copy, that I might not be troublesome to Lady Spencer or you and with that view proposed what I think advantageous terms to him, he has made me no offer, and only says "I decline purchasing the Copy Right". He has sent me a sheet & half as a specimen, which I approve, and an estimate of the expence, both which I enclose to you, but should be glad to have the specimen returned. You will see that there is a considerable advantage in printing 750 copies, but I fear that 500 will be more than I shall be able to sell. I now most thankfully accept your kind offer of supplying me with money for this occasion, and beg to be informed how and where Mr Robinson may draw for it as it will be wanted; I can only assure you that I will not touch a single guinea arising from the sale till you are reimbursed. I wished to have your answer as soon as may be, that the press may go on, the whole copy is in Mr Robinson's hands...

Estimate of Sophocles
72 Sheets printing at 18s/ a sheet 64 16
72 Reams of Paper, 1s a Ream 72
Putting 500 Copies in boards 18 15
Advertisements and the incidental expences, suppose at 10 0
________
Expence of 500 Copies 165 11
250 more, about 58 0
750 copies 223 11
Agreeable to the specimen of paper & print now sent

Further details of the publication were finalised the following month, when Potter also sought the advice of Dr Poyntz over the wording of his preface.

... In this age of anecdote and sing-song I dare not hazard more than 500 copies of such a work as the translation of Sophocles, and I must set every engine at work to secure the sale of these; much depends on fashion, and I hope that the Duchess of Devonshire will be prevailed upon to interest her self in its favour. Should this impression have a quick sale, I may probably sell the copy right for future editions to some advantage; but nothing of this must even be hinted to Mr Robinson. I shall write to him immediately; I think the proper time of publishing will be soon after Easter.

I shall be under a necessity of speaking in any preface of Dr Franklin; it will be a delicate and a difficult point. I cannot praise, it is not in my disposition to censure. I know not for whom he translated, nor to whom his translation can be pleasing.³² (B.L. Althorp E28).

During December 1787 final details of the wording of the preface and dedication were agreed, and by the end of February the translator was able to report to his nephew that the work was all but complete:

... Sophocles is nearly through the Press, it has been lately advertised and will be soon published. I have now translated into English more than forty four thousand three hundred Greek verses, by which I have gained some reputation, a very few guineas, many promises and as many disappointments: but it has been an amusement to me under some severe afflictions. I have not other work in view (N.L.W. Ms. 12433, Wigfair 33D letter 28).

In a letter to Edward Jerningham of 22 February, Potter claimed that "the new edition of Dr Franklin's translation hastens the publication", and five weeks later he was announcing that "Sophocles comes flying all abroad on Monday next... My great object, and great interest is to sell this impression, that I may dispose of the copy right to some advantage; therefore he serves me best, who assists me most in expediting the sale." (Huntington Library JE 702/3, Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 361.)

Potter's The tragedies of Sophocles translated, (London: G.G.J. and J. Robinson, 1788) was reasonably well received, although subject to the usual criticism of paucity of notes.³³ However, ultimately the work was not as successful as he hoped. It did not manage to supplant Francklin's version, although some commentators considered it to be the superior. Thus the edition did not sell out quickly, and provide its author with a profit, although the translation was recognised by contemporaries as being one of some merit, and at least as good as his Euripides.

According to the poet Coleridge,

... Pope's popular translation [of Homer] was in the hand, nay, in the mouth of every person; while the translations of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides [by Francklin, Potter and Wodhull] were found only in the libraries of those who did not want them, making scarcely any impression on the community at large (Thomas Raysor, Coleridge's Shakesperian Criticism, 2v. (London, 1930), II., 83).

Whilst it is true that many of Potter's subscribers were people of literary fashion rather than learning, all three of the translations were reprinted several times during the nineteenth century and were held in fairly high esteem for fifty years until eventually replaced by more modern editions.³⁴ The elderly translator therefore retired to Scarning in the Spring of 1788 without having made his fortune, but nevertheless having made a major contribution to Greek Studies in eighteenth century England.

However Potter's story does not end with the disappointing sales of Sophocles. Within a month of publication he received a terse letter from Lord Chancellor Thurlow, to whom he had sent a copy of Sophocles.

Sir
Your merit with the literary world intitles you to the attention of the Publick; and consequently of those who possess the opportunity of shewing any degree of respect to such merit. This circumstance draws upon you the trouble of the present letter. The present vacancy of a prebend of Norwich, which is not far out of your neighbourhood seems to afford such an opportunity which may possibly be agreeable to you; if so, I should place some pride, as well as pleasure in disposing of it so properly.³⁵

Potter continued the story in a joyful letter to his nephew written 17 May 1788.

This carried me to Cambridge, as the Degree of A.M. was necessary on this occasion; I was received at Emanuel with every mark of civility and kindness, and by the University with the highest honour it can bestow, the offer of a Dr's Degree, which I declined, at least for the present. From Cambridge I went forward to London, and brought the Great Seal home with me on Saturday last This week I have been at Norwich, and have been installed (N.L.W. Ms. 12433, Wigfair 33D).

Lord Chancellor Thurlow, with whom the sixty-seven year old Potter had been at School, later claimed "he did not like to promote him earlier for fear of making him indolent" (John Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors and keepers of the Great Seal of England, 5th ed. (London: Murray, 1868) VII. 295.)³⁶

The value of the promotion was £300 per year, double his existing income and furthermore, it did not involve the family leaving Scarning since attendance at the Cathedral was required for only two months each year. However, if this were not good fortune enough, the local ecclesiastical establishment at last began to recognise the scholar whom they had so long neglected. In June 1789 Bishop Lewis Bagot, without being asked, awarded to Potter the united livings of the Vicarage of Lowestoft and Rectory of Kessingland, which were valued at œ470 and therefore among the richest benefices within the diocese. Thus the family had a new home and an income well beyond their expectations. Potter retained his prebend's stall, but resigned from his other livings, and in 1790 he moved from Scarning to Lowestoft.

His remaining literary works were a discussion of his ideas of literary criticism in the form of a further more detailed pamphlet attack on Johnson (The Art of criticism; as exemplified in Dr. Johnson's lives of the most eminent English poets, London: T. Hookham, 1789), and two commemoration sermons.

Potter is usually portrayed as having been a likeable, unaffected and simple mannered man with an undoubted sense of humour. The old man was appreciated by his new parishioners who later subscribed to a mural monument for him in Lowestoft churchyard.

Near to this place are interred the remains of the Rev. Robert Potter, A.M., a prebendary of Norwich, and also vicar of Lowestoft and Kessingland, with which preferment his highly deserved literary fame as 'the learned and elegant translator of Aeschylus' and other Greek dramatic poets, was nobly rewarded. Endeared to the inhabitants of this parish by his open, manly, and generous attachment to their general welfare, and earnest zeal for their spiritual improvement, let this stone, placed at their expense, attest how warmly they cherish the remembrance of their late pastor, who died 9th August 1804. in the eighty-fourth year of his age."³⁷

David Stoker

25 July 1991

Footnotes:

1. There are two accounts of Potter published this century, Lewis Bettany, Edward Jerningham and his friends: a series of eighteenth century letters, (London: Chatto & Windus, 1919) 325-374, and Herbert G. Wright, 'Robert Potter as a critic of Dr Johnson' Review of English studies, XII, (1936) 305-321, which studied Potter's two pamphlet attacks in detail.

2. Retirement; an epistle, by Mr Potter. (London: Paul Vaillant, 1748), A farewell hymne to the country Attempted in the manner of Spencer's Epithalamion, (London, 1749 and second ed., 1750). On the pretended inspiration of the Methodists. A sermon preach'd in the parish church of Reymerston in Norfolk, (Norwich: W. Chase, 1758). An appendix to the sermon on the pretended inspiration of the Methodists, Occasioned by Mr. Cayley's letter, (Norwich: W. Chase, 1758). Holkham. A poem. To the right Honourable the Earl of Leicester. By Mr. Potter, (London: R. Manby, 1758), and Kymber. A monody. To Sir Armine Wodehouse, Bart. By Mr. Potter. (London: R. Manby; 1759).

3. M.L. Clarke, Greek Studies in England 1700-1830, C.U.P., 1945, 147. There had been a prose translation of Sophocles by George Adams published in 1729, but this appears to have had very little impact on Hellenic studies. I am most grateful to Professor Clarke for his helpful comments and criticisms of a draft of this paper.

4. Ibid, 147.

5. Potter may have been writing with the benefit of hindsight in his judgment that Aeschylus would be more popular translation. According to Clarke (Greek Studies in England 1700-1830, C.U.P., 1945, 151) "Aeschylus was commonly regarded as a venerable monument of antiquity, one whose works were good in their day but were surpassed by the latter dramatists"

6. "Elfrida", and "Caractacus" were both poems by William Mason. The "mad cow" refers to Io in Prometheus.

7. On the quality of Potter's translation of Aeschylus see Reuben Brower's essay, 'Seven Agamemnons', in On translation, ed. R. Brower, (New York: O.U.P., 1966) 173-195.

8. On the role of the commentary in such translations of the classics, and their audience, see Penelope Wilson, 'Classical poetry and the eighteenth-century reader', in Books and their readers in eighteenth-century England, edited by Isabel Rivers, Leicester University Press, 1982. 84.

9. John Newbery was the publisher of A little pretty pocket book, and Goody two shoes]

10. Benjamin Heath author of Notae sive lectiones ad Aeschyli, Sophoclis et Euripidis ... dramata..., (Oxford, 1762)]

11. John Archdeacon was printer to the University of Cambridge from 1766 until 1793.

12. This work was reviewed in the Gentleman's Magazine, XLVIII, 1779, 46. Publication had been delayed until February 1779 to allow Potter first to dispose of the quarto edition. However there were still copies of the quarto edition advertised for sale in the first volume of Euripides which was published nearly three years later.

13. William Doughty (d.1782), the portrait painter and mezzotint engraver Romney's portrait of Potter eventually arrived in Scarning in August 1779. According to Romney's son and biographer "Dr Potter's translation of Aeschylus was read by Mr Romney immediately after its publication, and he was so forcibly impressed by the boldness and sublimity of the subjects selected by that early dramatist, and by the simple, but vigorous manner in which they were treated, that he called him the painter's poet, and ranked him next to Shakespeare as a powerful delineator of the stronger passions." (John Romney, Memoirs of the life and works of George Romney, London, 1830, 161). Romney also planned to illustrate a scene from Alcestis, and Potter therefore sent him a transcript. (ibid., 150). Potter's keen interest in art is also evident from the prologue to The Supplicant, where he describes "the persons of the drama forming a picture, that would have well employed the united pencils of Poussin and Claude Loraine", Aeschylus, 68.

14. Johnson's mockery of Potter's attempts at blank verse is also mentioned in a letter of 1 August 1779 from Susan Burney to Fanny Burney, The early diary of Frances Burney, 2v. (London: Bell, 1889) II. 256-8.

15. Stanley approached Potter through a mutual acquaintance, the Honourable Charles Townsend, (N.L.W. Ms. 12481C Wigfair 81). This manuscript also contains Potter's notes and drafts of his correspondence relating to this matter.

16. Quotation from Gray's Progress of Poesy.

17. See Horace Walpole's Correspondence, ed. W.S. Lewis O.U.P., XXVIII. This happened whilst Stanley was staying with his friend Lord Spencer of Althorp. Potter did however later manage to use part of his work in An inquiry into some passages in Dr. Johnson's Lives of the poets: particularly his observations on lyric poetry, and the odes of Gray (London: J. Dodsley, 1783) which included 'The ninth Pythian ode of Pindar translated' (pp.39-50).

18. Richard Robinson, Lord Rokeby and Archbishop of Armagh, who subscribed for six copies. He was a distant relation of Mrs Montagu.

19. She may also have given Potter the expensive engraving of the Head of Euripides, which adorns the title page, (Huntington Library MO 4163).

20. The reviewer is quoting from Robert Potter, The tragedies of Euripides translated. 2v. (London: J. Dodsley, 1781-1783), I. 27, footnote.

21. Other reviews of the Euripides were less damming or else reserved judgment until the appearance of the second volume, although that appearing in the Monthly Review (LXVII (1782), 242) complained of "several expressions too familiar and prosaic for the tragic Muse, and which by no means were necessary to give a faithful representation of the original", and the Westminster Magazine, February 1782, 26. See also Penelope Wilson, 'Classical poetry and the eighteenth-century reader', 80.

22. Richard Jodrell, Illustrations of Euripides, on the ion and the Bacchae (London: Nichols, 1781). A second volume on The Alcestis, was published in 1789. Jodrell used Potter's [unpublished] translation in various illustrations from the text, acknowledged only by the translator's name given in brackets. He did not however mention the forthcoming edition among the list of modern poetical translations (p. 610). Potter and Wodhull together received fleeting praise in the second volume (p. 365).

23. Wodhull's translation is usually considered to be inferior to that of Potter (Clarke Greek Studies in England 1700-1830, 151), and the Critical Review, pronounced "The translation is accurate and just, the poetry, in general, inharmonious, and the dialogue flat and prosaic". However coming after Potter, this work was not submitted to the same contemporary criticism.

24. Potter also reported to Edward Jerningham that the work was printed and would immediately be published on 3 March 1783 (Huntington Library JE 4165, and Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 339.

25. Robert Potter, An inquiry into some passages in Dr. Johnson's Lives of the poets: particularly his observations on lyric poetry, and the odes of Gray, (London: J. Dodsley, 1783). "The ninth Pythian ode of Pindar translated" appeared as an appendix to this work (pp. 39-50). The manuscript is N.L.W. Ms. 12499, Wigfair 99.

26. See also letters to Elizabeth Montagu of 1 July 1783, and 17 March 1786 (MO 4165, 4171), and eight similar references in letters to Edward Jerningham between 3 February 1784, and 14 August 1785 (Bettany, Edward Jerningham, 340-51).

27. This work had been offered to Robert Dodsley to publish, but he refused Potter's terms (Huntington Library MO 4153). The manuscripts are also in the Huntington Library.

28. Potter's correspondence with Poyntz is in a volume of miscellaneous correspondence recently acquired by the British Library which has not yet been foliated and has the temporary reference number Althorp Ms. E28.

29. Dr Thomas Francklin, the first significant translator of Sophocles, had died in 1784.

30. John Fenn, Original letters, written during the reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III., 4v. (London: G. & J. Robinson, 1787-9). Fenn's correspondence with Robinson, together with the draft of a letter of presentation of this work to Potter are preserved in B.L. Addl. Ms 27454.

31. James Robson was also a wholesale bookseller in New Bond Street.

32. Potter's only reference to Franklin in his preface was that he had wished to leave him "in the undisturbed possession of his well-acquired reputation".

33. For example see the Gentleman's Magazine (LXIII, 1788, 343-4 and 429-31.

34. There were further editions of Potter's Aeschylus published in 1808, 1809, 1819 (all 8vo.) 1833 16mo, 1886 8vo, and 1892 8vo. Euripides was likewise published in 1808, 8vo, 1814 8vo, 1832 12mo. 1887 8vo, 1906. The Sophocles was reprinted only in 1808 and 1880 (both 8vo.)

35. The original of this letter is apparently lost, but Sir John Fenn made a transcript in his account of Scarning School in 1780 (Norfolk Record Office Ms. 21511).

36. Thurlow's subsequent ungracious behaviour to Potter when he attempted to thank him in person for the promotion is described in William Beloe's The sexagenarian, 2v. (London, 1817), I. 299-300.

37. Quoted from G.A. Carthew, The hundred of Launditch, and Deanery of Brisley in the county of Norfolk, 3v. (Norwich 1877-9) III. 362.