conveyed by particles, tense-forms, and the like. Thirdly, both alike will expect that, where the order of words in the original gives a special effect of emphasis, energy, or emotional colour, the translation should, if possible, preserve this. In imposing upon myself the fourth condition of a line-for-line correspondence with the original, I stand, so far as I know, alone among translators of the Greek drama, and fully recognise that opinions may well differ on the question whether its advantages outweigh its drawbacks. For there can be no dispute that it greatly enhances the difficulty of achieving blank-verse worthy of the name as the vehicle for a translation uniting the above-mentioned essentials. He must be a consummate artist indeed, who, with such a fourfold object to keep in view, never admits a resolved foot, or the spondaic effect of concurrent monosyllables, save where the sound is designed to echo the sense.
A translator who does not wish to burden his work with notes, which have their proper place in a commentary, must continually make his choice, without remark, between various disputed readings and interpretations. He will probably, ceteris paribus, choose those which seem best adapted for poetic treatment; and may not unreasonably hope that critics will not assume that he has neglected his obvious duty of acquainting himself with the views of the various commentators, before making his silent choice.
The Rhesus has been placed last of the plays in this concluding volume, in deference to the doubts which many competent judges entertain with respect to its authorship. The arguments in favour of ascribing it to Euripides, summarized by Paley in vol. i of his large edition, make it impossible for me to omit it; nor on its own merits would I have wished to do so. That it is the earliest of bis extant works there can be little doubt: its comparative weakness in dialogue and individualization of character suggest im-
