Cibber has discussed at length the changes he has made in the _Cid_, and his reasons for them, in the prefatory “examen.” The main reason seems to have been his desire to make the play less “romantic” and the action more probable and reasonable from the point of view of the eighteenth century Englishman, whose ideals of honor and whose general characteristics were very different from those of the seventeenth century Frenchman. Indeed, Cibber explains in relation to one of these changes: “Here they seem too declamatory and romantic, which I have endeavored to avoid, by giving a more spirited tone to the passions, and reducing them nearer to common life.” _Ximena_, because of its source, would naturally have the general characteristics of French tragedy, in which almost everything happens off the stage, and in which the characters appear before the audience only to tell it what they think or what has been done. It violates the French canons by having a sub-action, though this sub-action is not sufficiently important to distract the attention materially from the main action, and is bound very closely to it. The blow which Don Gormaz gives Alvarez constitutes the nearest approach to violent action; but this blow, however, appears in the original play. Besides the anonymity of _Cinna’s Conspiracy_, the closeness with which it follows Corneille’s _Cinna_ and the difference in its tone from the rest of Cibber’s work have led to doubt as to his authorship.[24] To see that Cibber was not always sprightly and inconsequential, however, as he is usually supposed to be, one has but to read his _Cicero_ and his poems. The play was presented less than three months after _Ximena_, and to bring out another French tragedy translated by the same hand in so short a time might have subjected Cibber to the charge of hasty work. Though _Ximena_ apparently had a run of eight nights, it did not receive critical approbation, and _Cinna’s Conspiracy_, if known to be by Cibber, was likely to bring further critical disapproval, so that Cibber may have thought it would have better chance of success if his authorship were not known. Cibber was ambitious to be thought wise and serious, as his prefaces and _Cicero_ show, and the lack of success of the play together with its nearness to _Ximena_ in time of presentation would sufficiently explain his failure to claim the authorship.