Amphitryon | ||
PREFACE.
I have been induced to publish these two volumes of my intended translation of the whole of Plautus's comedies, in order to try how far such an attempt may meet with approbation. The success of Mr. Colman's Terence led me to hope, that I could introduce Plautus to public notice in the same agreeable form and manner; and I was the more encouraged to the attempt, by Mr. Colman's readily offering to forward me with one play, which was at once a proof of his regard and good opinion. In consequence of my having advertised this design, I had a still further incitement to proceed in it; as a gentleman, to whom I was then a stranger, was pleased to decline all thoughts,
I have purposely avoided following the arrangement of our author's plays, which is alphabetical in the editions of the original, because I found, by observing that order, I should tye myself up to the unnecessary task of translating on, just as the book directed me; though the choice I have made has been purely accidental, without any immediate regard to the particular merit of each play. For this reason the reader must not expect to find, in the volumes now presented him, a select collection or chef d'œuvres of our author's works: the learned reader will be sensible, that as many, if not more, which are equally admired, among our
As for the notes, they would perhaps have been fuller, with respect to the conduct of our author as a dramatic writer, if I had not intended a particular dissertation on that point, but which cannot with propriety appear, till the whole of the translation is completed. I shall then examine into the respective merits of our author and Terence, between whom there is not perhaps so much difference, but that we may apply to them the words of Terence, in his prologue to the Andrian.
Non ita dissimili sunt argumento, sed tamen
Dissimili oratione sunt factæ ac stilo.
Know one, and you know both; in argument
Less different than in sentiment and stile.
I have thought it necessary, for the satisfaction of the less learned reader, to add some notes, which those who are conversant in the ancient writings might deem superfluous; and though I do not mean directly to write for
I have followed no particular edition of our author; but where there have been various readings, I have always prefer'd that which seemed to me the most simple and least forced. It is true, indeed, there are some passages, the sense of which it is hardly possible to determine, and of which we may almost say with our author in his Pœnulus, or Carthaginian,
Opus conjectore est, Sphyngi qui interpres fuit:
If in these I should happen to be mistaken, I can only plead in excuse, that I find the commentators as much puzzled as myself; and I cannot help frequently crying out, after having consulted them,
Now than I was before.
I flatter myself, that a translation of Plautus may be acceptable at least to the English reader,
As I profess to give nothing more than a translation of my author, it is necessary to mention
“Plautus, (says he) like all great men, is not without his exceptions. He has an unbounded inclination to moralizing on every thing in his way. An affectation perhaps of knowing every thing, and of making a parade of that knowledge, often leads him into such perplexity and obscurity in his reflections, as have baffled the pains and endeavours of his commentators to make them intelligible.
“Neither is his propensity to the equivoque less pardonable:—he is often playing upon words; but in a manner so low and insipid, that good taste is surfeited even to nauseating. One of these must have been the case; either the old Romans were a set of such jolly fellows, that a little would make them laugh, or else our author had as much of the low as of the high in his judgment . . .
“Is not our author also censurable for his indecencies? In my opinion he can in this be no otherwise excused, than by supposing that
“Another fault of our author is, that he abounds in tautology and needless repetitions. His thoughts are often like flowers hid under a multiplicity of weeds: they are like fruit, which the quantity of surrounding leaves obscures the beauty of. Too liable to repeat the same phrase and the same word, one might say he liked the produce of his thoughts too well not to give it more than once; or he imagined his readers and his audience had too limited a discernment to understand them at once . . .
“But what gives me the most concern is the little regard he has to probability. Instead of measuring the time by the duration of the action which ought to fill it up, he is thinking of nothing but the action itself, and often supposes
“But in the article of probability there is one instance extremely disagreeable. On the stage you see messengers of good news; they usually come from the port; they run quite out of breath to declare the arrival of a father, an husband, or a son of those who are in expectation of them with the utmost impatience. And what do these Mercuries, when they are talking of the haste they are in? 'Tis pleasant to think of it:—they bawl out, that every one should make room for them; they tell you frankly, they will knock down every impertinent fellow that shall be rash enough to obstruct them in
“Another defect I pass over, which is, confounding the representation with the action. The actor sometimes speaks in his own person and in character at the same time: in the middle of the speech he tells you, that he is not what he appears to be; joining his own personal qualifications with his part, and with the character he is personating” . . .
Thus far M. Gueudeville, who, however, concludes with saying, that “all the shades of Plautus do not cloud over the brightness of his sunshine: all his irregularities cast no veil on his original beauties.”
To the above it may be proper to add, for the information of the English reader, another circumstance, which may seem strange to him, on account of the difference between the antient and modern stages.—“Some (says Echard in his preface to Terence, as quoted by Mr.
Having already declared, that I profess to give nothing more than a direct translation of my author, I shall only add, that the English reader will not, I hope, be displeased at my adhering so strictly to the sense of the original with respect to those customs, manners, ceremonies, &c. which differ from the modern. In other respects, universal nature is and has been so much the same in all ages and countries, that the characters, dispositions, and passions of men, as set forth by our author, will be found very nearly to resemble those of the present times.
Amphitryon | ||