rch: "As that translation was only from the
French, so it suffered this double disadvantage; first, that it was but
a copy of a copy, and that too but lamely taken from the Greek original;
secondly, that the English language was then unpolished, and far from
the perfection which it has since attained; so that the first version is
not only ungrammatical and ungraceful, but in many places almost
unintelligible." There is another English version, by the Langhornes,
which has often been reprinted; there is an edition of it with notes by
Wrangham. I have compared my translation carefully with the German of
Kaltwasser, and sometimes with the French of Amyot, and I have thus
avoided some errors into which I should have fallen. There are errors
both in the versions of Amyot and Kaltwasser which I have avoided; but I
may have fallen into others.

The translation of Kaltwasser contains some useful notes. Those which I
have added to this translation are intended to explain so much as needs
explanation to a person who is not much acquainted with Roman history
and Roman usages; but they will also be useful to others. The notes of
Kaltwasser have often reminded me of the passages where some note would
be useful, and have occasionally furnished materials also. But as I have
always referred to the original authorities, I do not consider it
necessary to make more than this general acknowledgment. The notes added
to this translation are all my own, and contain my own opinions and
observations.

This translation has been made from the edition of C. Sintenis, Leipzig,
1839, and I have compared the text of Sintenis with that of G.H.
Schaefer, Leipzig, 1826, which has been severely criticized: this
edition contains, however, some useful notes. I have very seldom made
any remarks on the Greek text, as such kind of remark would not have
suited the plan and design of this version, which is not intended for
verbal critics.

I shall explain by two brief extracts what is my main design in this
version and in the notes, which must be my apology for not affecting a
learned commentary, and my excuse to those who shall not find here the
kind of remarks that are suitable to a critical edition of an ancient
author. I have had another object than to discuss the niceties of words
and the forms of phrases, a labour which is well in its place, if it be
done well, but is not what needs to be done to such an author as
Plutarch to render him useful. A man w