# The Plays of Euripides (Coleridge)/Preface

PREFACE.
IN preparing the following translation of the plays of Euripides I have followed the text of Paley as it stands in the "Cambridge Greek and Latin Texts' series" 1869. Similarly, too, the order of the plays conforms to his arrangement.
Without going into lengthy details for my choice of this text, I may briefly mention a few reasons for having selected it. First, there is the accessibility of this edition; secondly, its very general use to-day by the mass of English readers, in preference to the once popular "Poetæ Scenici" of W. Dindorf; and thirdly, its superiority in many respects to all previous editions of the complete body of plays, due partly to its greater fidelity to the MSS. readings, partly to the more metrical arrangements of choral passages.
In some ways, perhaps, the adoption of a particular text saves the translator much trouble by precluding him from straying far afield into the region of textual emendation; but, at the same time, it not unfrequently forces him into direct opposition to his own opinion, if he consents to follow it without any deviation and to yield implicit obedience to its authority.
At the risk of incurring the chance of inconsistency, I have, though as a rule adhering rigidly to Paley's text, occasionally allowed myself the liberty of following the emendations of other scholars, where for the sake of clearness or on grounds of probability, there seemed fair reasons for so doing; but in every such case attention is ​called to the divergence in a footnote, and the actual Greek words of the variant text are quoted.
Into the question of MSS. authority I do not here venture to digress at any length. The majority of English readers probably take small interest in such investigations; while the few who do pursue them further, will naturally have good critical editions within reach, and in these a full discussion of this subject more usefully finds a place. Those, however, who, without making a special study of the MSS., wish to see shortly on what authority any particular play of our poet rests, cannot perhaps do better than read the few remarks offered by Mr. Gow on this subject in his excellent volume, entitled, "Companion to School Classics" (Macmillan, 1888). From his concise summary and from Paley's more exhaustive essay in Vol. III. of his large annotated edition of Euripides, I extract the following very brief account of the Euripidean MSS., omitting all superfluous details:—
(2) Seven others rest on the authority of two MSS. only, the Palatinus in the Vatican and Florentinus 2 (both 14th century), viz.—Heracleidæ, Supplices, Ion, Bacchæ, Iphigenia in Tauris, Iphigenia in Aulide, Cyclops.
Another point requiring explanation, perhaps, is my treatment of corrupt passages. Only those who have set themselves carefully to examine the text of an ancient classic, more especially that of a Greek dramatist, can be fully aware of the difficulties that beset the student from first to last. The ravages of time, the ignorance of copyists, the more ​dangerous officiousness of grammarians, the perverted ingenuity of successive editors infected with the pernicious "cacoethes emendandi," have all contributed in the course of many centuries to render the task of arriving at the genuine text an almost hopeless one.
"The whole question of the present state of our classical texts," wrote Paley, in the preface to his third volume of Euripides, "is one demanding a most careful and lengthened inquiry. If we cannot have them perfect, which is not to be hoped for, we must make up our minds to choose between adhering to the authority of the best existing MSS., or freely admitting the conjectural restorations of eminent critics, or we must adopt a cautious mean between the two, which consists in correcting obvious errors, to the rejection of all purely speculative or only plausible alterations."
It is this last method which Paley himself adopts; and, agreeing cordially as I do with his strictures on unwarrantable tampering with the text, I have endeavoured as far as possible, to follow his guidance through the tortuous mazes of textual corruption; with this reservation, however, that, as my purpose is a twofold one, being as much to enable readers unfamiliar with the Greek to understand the dramatist's meaning as to produce a faithful version of the original, I have, in dealing with passages avowedly corrupt, preferred to adopt provisionally an intelligible emendation to leaving an awkward break in the sense. At the same time, from a textual critic's point of view, Paley's remark is unquestionably true, "passages really corrupt should be marked as avowedly corrupt, not patched up and almost rewritten."
On the other hand, it is by no means certain at times, whether, in the attempt to follow the supposed genuine reading, an editor has not rushed to another extreme and committed an error, pleasantly described by a recent reviewer as "translating unintelligible Greek into unintelligible English and going on his way rejoicing." Absit omen!
​As regards the addition of notes to this translation, the few that are given have, for the sake of the reader's convenience, been appended as footnotes, to avoid the necessity of referring continually to an appendix. They are of two kinds, dealing firstly, with variant readings and proposed emendations, and secondly, with obscure allusions; the former being by far the more numerous class.
Euripides is an author, about whom and whose writings so much has been written that a mass of notes is not only unnecessary, but apt to distract and weary the reader, who presumably wishes to know not what a commentator but what the author says and thinks. Still as there is occasionally an allusion, the elucidation of which is necessary to a full understanding of the context, a few explanatory notes have been added.
The adoption of Paley's edition as a textus receptus, has to some extent obviated the need of calling attention on every occasion to variations from the MSS., for that which he has admitted I have in the majority of instances tacitly followed; wherever I have diverged from him I have noted the fact and cited my authority for so doing; and occasionally, when unintelligible or corrupt passages occurred, more than one of the numerous emendations offered have been quoted.
There has been, and still is, in Germany, a large school of critics, who settle textual difficulties by a method only praise-worthy for its extreme simplicity; they at once pronounce spurious whatever appears to them hard to understand, and so relieve Euripides of a host of more or less time-honoured "cruces." Against such a charming plan for elucidating his author Paley resolutely sets his face, and, it may be, goes a little too far in the opposite direction in his sturdy conservatism and retention of passages almost certainly spurious or interpolated.
I do not feel called upon, in the capacity of translator, to ​discuss the genuineness of any of the plays attributed to the poet. Where single lines have been called in question by Paley or Nauck, by Dindorf or Kirchhoff, I have generally noticed their objections, without, however, absolutely omitting the lines. But when the genuineness of large portions of plays is at stake, as in the case of the conclusion of the "Phœnissæ," or of frequent passages in the "Iphigenia in Aulide," to say nothing of the entire "Rhesus," I have not made any allusion to the voluminous controversies that have been carried on over them.
In alluding briefly to editions of Euripides, other than that of Paley, I cannot sufficiently express my debt to the critical apparatus prefixed to Vol. I. of the Teubner edition ("Euripidis Tragœdiæ ex recensione Augusti Nauckii. Editio tertia. Lipsiæ, 1887"), which I have consulted throughout; as well as to the critical notes appended to Hartung's edition, an edition one might employ with still greater advantage, were it not so full of his own daring and not unfrequently capricious corrections; to Jerram's useful little volumes in the Clarendon Press series, the value of which is immensely enhanced by the addition of brief critical notes on the most important variant readings; and lastly, to several editions of separate plays, amongst which for English scholars, Sandys' edition of the "Bacchæ" ranks facile princeps as a book which every student of Euripides will value and appreciate; to the careful but somewhat laboured works of Pflugk and Klotz, a few only of whose volumes I have read through; and lastly, to Verrall's edition of the "Medea," and Mahaffy's edition of the "Hippolytus," both of which works are full of interesting suggestions, although, like Hartung's, they seem to admit too many variations into the text. What Paley has called the "subjectivity" of the editor is almost too conspicuous; so that, what with rewriting in the one case and re-arranging in the ​other, the originals are, as it were, old friends appearing with new faces. For a fuller account of the numerous modern editions of separate plays reference may be usefully made to Professor Mayor's "Guide to the Choice of Classical Books," new edition (George Bell and Sons). Of the older editions of Euripides, Paley gives a brief account in his introduction to Vol. III, cited above, from which and from the article on Euripides in Dr. Smith's large Biographical Dictionary, I extract a short resumé:—
| (i) | Editio princeps of Euripides, containing the Medea, Hippolytus, Alcestis, Andromache, probably edited by J. Lascaris, and printed by De Alopa, at Florence, towards the end of 15th century. |
| (ii) | Aldus published 18 plays, omitting the Electra, at Venice, 1503. |
| (iii) | An edition published at Heidelberg, containing the Latin version of Æmil. Portus and a fragment of the Danae. 1597. |
| (iv) | Edition of P. Stephens. Geneva. 1602. |
| (v) | Edition„ of Barnes. Cambridge. 1694. |
| (vi) | Edition„ of Musgrave. Oxford. 1778. |
| (vii) | Edition„ of Beck. Leipzig. 1778–88. |
| (viii) | Edition„ of Matthiæ. Leipzig. In 9 vols. with the Scholia and fragments and a Latin version. 1813–29. |
| (ix) | A variorum edition. 9 vols. Glasgow. 1821. |
| (x) | The Fragments by Wagner. Wratislaw. 1844. |
Of separate plays there have been almost countless editions; but here it must suffice to mention a few of the more famous editors e.g., Porson, Elmsley, Valckenaer, Monk, Pflugk, Hermann, etc., etc.
The only complete translation in English of any note, actually known to me, is an old one in verse by Michael ​Wodhull (3 vols., London, 1809). In the author's preface to this work, an exhaustive account of previous attempts in the same field is given, which is not without interest as showing the critical stand-point of that age.
In more recent times we have had Robert Browning's "Balaustion," a beautiful poem in itself, and almost a verbatim translation of the "Alcestis;" while not a few scholars of modern days have shown their keen appreciation of the beauties of Euripides by presenting the world with verse translations of portions of his works.
In conclusion, if it is necessary to say anything on the vexed question of translations in general, one might perhaps defend them against their traducers on the ground that, when, as now, the whole world is bent on being examined in every branch of knowledge, time becomes an object of vital importance, and, if only to save this, translations have a distinct value. There are many who wish to know the contents of the ancient classics without being put to the trouble of studying them closely in the original language; indeed, the number of those who will have leisure in the future to study these great masterpieces is only too likely to become even smaller than now as the pressure of examinations and the range of prescribed subjects becomes daily larger; if, then, a translation can, in however an imperfect way, serve to keep alive an admiration for the models of antiquity, it will not have been undertaken in vain.
The form that any translation should assume is a point on which few persons hold identically the same opinion. It is a matter for individual taste. As far as I am concerned, this knotty point has been decided for me by my publishers, who have therefore saved me the trouble of weighing conflicting claims.
A prose version having been essayed, I have endeavoured to produce one, which should combine, as far as the different ​idioms of the two languages permit, an accurate rendering of the Greek text with some elegance of expression. Howfar the execution falls short of the conception I am only too painfully conscious. To be literal and at the same time literary is a high goal to aim at; and it is to be feared that in all attempts of this kind, the amari aliquid will rise both for reader and writer. Still it will not be wholly in vain, if by means of a translation, imperfect as this will doubtless appear to many more competent to produce one than the present writer, anything is contributed to the wider study of one concerning whom a brother poet and dramatist once wrote: "a poet whom Socrates called his friend, whom Aristotle lauded, whom Menander admired, and for whom Sophocles and the city of Athens put on mourning on hearing of his death, must certainly have been something." (Quoted from Goethe by John Addington Symonds in his "Studies of the Greek Poets," 1st series, p. 242.)