University of Virginia Library

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,

which he had before conceived, of prosecuting the same intention. To him I am indebted for his assistance in one play, as well as for communicating to me whatever he thought might be of service in the undertaking, with that heartiness which endears him to all who have the happiness of being acquainted with him. The same gentleman also took upon himself the trouble of translating the life of our author from Petrus Crinitus.

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

author's twenty plays, are to follow; and it is intended to complete the whole with all possible expedition, if the design should happen to meet with the approbation of the publick.

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.

Colman.

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

schools, I have had them in my view, where I have quoted some peculiar or remarkable expression or passage of my original; and sometimes I have done it in order to justify me to the learned reader in the use of some common expression or phrase in our own tongue.

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,

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,

Ter. Phorm. Colman.

I flatter myself, that a translation of Plautus may be acceptable at least to the English reader,

as he has never appeared entire in our tongue. Echard, indeed, has given us a translation of the three plays, which had been selected by Madam Dacier. Cooke published proposals for a complete translation of our author, and has printed one play, the Amphitryon, in Latin and English. There is likewise an old translation of the Menæchmi of our author, by W. W. printed in 1595, in the collection of Mr. Garrick, of which I shall take further notice, when I come to that play. These are in prose; and how little soever I may appear to go beyond them in other points, I have at least one considerable advantage over them, from the new and elegant mode of translation in familiar blank verse, which Mr. Colman so happily hit upon in his Terence; the propriety and use of which he has so fully set forth in his preface to that work, as makes it needless for me to say any thing here concerning it.

As I profess to give nothing more than a translation of my author, it is necessary to mention

some peculiarities in his manner, which may appear strange to the English reader. Those who can read and relish him in the original, will be sensible how much these peculiarities are against the translator, who, while he is obliged to be faithful to his author, is obliged likewise to take upon himself in some measure his author's faults. But that I may not be thought to palliate or exaggerate these his seeming defects, I shall extract part of what is said on this point by M. Gueudeville, in his preface to a translation of our author's plays.

“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

in so doing he conformed himself to the unpolished taste of the age he lived in. It is probable, that the Romans were not then arrived at elegance in point of delicacy: much less polite than they became afterwards, their ears with pleasure attended to indecent expressions and immodest words . . .

“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

things to be done, the execution of which necessarily demands a long space of time. A person goes to the market-place, does his business, and returns again in a minute or two; another, in as short a space of time, marches over a whole town to find his man. Twenty other examples of this kind might be produced . . .

“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

their passage; . . . yet these very messengers, that quake for fear lest they should not arrive in time, give themselves leisure to review all that come in their way . . .

“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.

Colman) object, that in the beginning of many scenes two actors enter the stage, and talk to themselves a considerable time, before they see or know one another; which, say they, is neither probable nor natural. They, that object this, do not consider the difference between our small scanty stage, and the large magnificent Roman theatres: their stage was sixty yards wide in front; their scenes so many streets meeting together, with by-lanes, rows, and allies; so that two actors coming down two distinct streets or lanes, could not be seen by each other, though the spectators might see both; and sometimes, if they did see each other, they could not well distinguish faces at sixty yards distance. Besides, on several accounts, it might well be supposed, when an actor enters on the stage, out of some house, he might take a turn or two under the porticoes, usual at that time, about his door, and not observe another actor on the other side of the stage.”—These observations, relative to Terence, are no less necessary to be remembered with respect to our author; and I cannot too much caution the modern reader constantly to bear in mind the extent and scenical decoration of the antient stage. Without this it will be impossible to reconcile many particulars, that continually occur, to any kind of probability.

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.