The translation of Plutarch’s Morals “by Several Hands” was first
published in London in 1684-1694. The fifth edition, “revised and
corrected from the many errors of the former editions,” published in
1718, is the basis of the present translation. The earlier translation
made by Philemon Holland, Doctor of Physick, published in London in
1603 and again in 1657, has often been of great use in the revision. It
hardly need be stated, that the name “Morals” is used by tradition to
include all the works of Plutarch except the Lives.
The original editions of the present work contained translations of
every grade of merit. Some of the essays were translated by eminent
scholars like William Baxter (nephew of Richard Baxter) and Thomas
Creech, whose work generally required merely such revision as every
translation of such an age would now need. But a large number,
including some of the longest and most difficult treatises, were
translated by men whose ignorance of Greek—or whatever language was
the immediate ancestor of their own version—was only one of their
many defects as translators. Perhaps we may gain a better idea than we
have had of the scholars of Oxford whom Bentley delighted to torment,
from these specimens of the learning of their generation; and it may
have been a fortunate thing for some of our translators that Bentley
was too much occupied with the wise heads of Christ Church to be able
to notice the blunders of men who could write notes saying that the
Parthenon is “a Promontory shooting into the Black Sea, where stood a
Chappel dedicated to some Virgin God-head, and famous for some Victory
thereabout obtain’d;” or who could torture a plain statement that a
certain water when stirred produced _bubbles_ (πομφόλυγες) into a story
of a new substance called _Pompholyx_, “made by Mixture of Brass with
the Air”! See Vol. V. p. 337, and Vol. III. p. 517, of the original
translation.
Besides the great variety of scholarship and ignorance, each translator
had his own theory of translation. While some attempted a literal
version, so as even to bracket all words not actually represented
in the Greek, others gave a mere paraphrase, which in one case
(Mr. Pulleyn’s “Customs of the Lacedaemonians”) became an original
essay on the subject, based on the facts supplied by Plutarch. The
present editor’s duty, of course, changed with each new style of
translation. It would have been impossible to bring the whole work to
a uniform standard of verbal correctness, unless essentially a new
translation had been made. The original version was often so hopelessly
incorrect that no revision was possible; and here the editor cannot
flatter himself that he has succeeded in patching the English of the
seventeenth century with his own without detriment. Fortunately,
the earlier translation of Holland supplied words, and even whole
sentences, in many cases in which the other was beyond the help of mere
revision. The translation of Holland is generally more accurate than
the other, and, on the whole, a more conscientious work; its antiquated
style and diffuseness, however, render it less fitted for republication
at the present time. Notwithstanding all the defects of the translation
which is here revised, it is beyond all question a more readable
version than could be made now; and the liveliness of its style will
more than make up to most readers for its want of literal correctness.
It need not be stated to professional scholars, that translations made
in the seventeenth century cannot, even by the most careful revision,
be made to answer the demands of modern critical scholarship.
One of the greatest difficulties in preparing the present work has been
to decide how much of the antiquated language of the old translation
should be retained. On this point the editor has fortunately been
able to consult the wisest and most experienced advisers, to whose
aid he has been constantly indebted; but even the highest authorities
occasionally disagree on the first principles. He is fully aware,
therefore, that he has dissatisfied a large number of the friends
of Plutarch in this respect; but he is equally sure that he should
have dissatisfied an equal number by any other course which he might
have followed. The general principle adopted has been to retain such
expressions as were in good use when the translation was made, provided
the meaning is obvious or easy to be learned from a dictionary, and
to discard such as would be unintelligible to ordinary readers. It
has, in some cases, been assumed that the use of a phrase of obvious
meaning in this translation is of itself authority for accepting it.
On these principles many words and expressions are retained, which
are decidedly weaker than their modern equivalents, especially many
Latinisms and Gallicisms which now seem pedantic. Even here consistency
has been impossible, where the duty of a reviser changed with every
new treatise. Perhaps the editor cannot state his own object more
correctly, than by saying that he has tried to make each treatise what
the original translator would have made it if he had carried out his
own purpose conscientiously and thoroughly. Where so many errors were
to be corrected, it would be absurd to hope that many have not remained
still unnoticed.
The corrupt state of the Greek text of many parts of Plutarch’s
Morals must not be overlooked. No complete edition of the Greek has
been published since Wyttenbach’s (1795-1800), except the French one
by Dübner in the Didot collection. The latter gives no manuscript
readings; and although it professes to be based partly on a new
collation of the manuscripts in the public library of Paris, nothing
distinguishes the changes made on this authority from conjectures of
the editor and his predecessors. A slight glance at Wyttenbach will
show that many parts of the text are restored by conjecture; and many
of the conjectures, though plausible and ingenious, are not such as
would be accepted by modern scholarship if they were made in earlier
classic authors. A translator must accept many of these under silent
protest; to enumerate one-half of them would introduce a critical
commentary entirely out of place in a translation. In fact, no critical
translation of these treatises is possible, until a thorough revision
of the text, with the help of the best manuscripts, has been made; and
this is a task from which most scholars would shrink in dismay. In
many cases in this edition, blanks have been preferred to uncertain
conjectures or traditional nonsense. The treatises on Music, on the
Procreation of the Soul, and the two on the Stoics, have many of their
dark corners made darker by the utter uncertainty of the Greek text.
The essays in this edition follow the same order as in the old
translation; but those on Fortune, and on Virtue and Vice, with the
Conjugal Precepts, are transferred from the beginning of volume
third to the end of volume second. The sections have been numbered
in accordance with the modern editions of the Greek text. References
to most of the classic authors quoted by Plutarch are given in the
foot-notes, except where a quotation is a mere fragment of an unknown
work. The tragic fragments are numbered according to the edition of
Nauck (Leipsic, 1856). All notes (except these references) introduced
by the editor are marked G. A few notes are taken from Holland; and all
which are not otherwise marked are retained from the old translation.
In conclusion, the editor must express his warmest thanks to his
colleagues at the University and other friends who have kindly aided
him with their advice and skill. Without their help, the undertaking
would sometimes have seemed hopeless.