the　Parmenides；　and；　above　all；　of　the　Rev。　Professor　Campbell　of　St。
  Andrews；　and　Mr。　Paravicini；　late　Student　of　Christ　Church　and　Tutor　of
  Balliol　College；　with　whom　I　had　read　over　the　greater　part　of　the
  translation。　　I　was　also　indebted　to　Mr。　Evelyn　Abbott；　Fellow　and　Tutor　of
  Balliol　College；　for　a　complete　and　accurate　index。
  In　this；　the　Third　Edition；　I　am　under　very　great　obligations　to　Mr。
  Matthew　Knight；　who　has　not　only　favoured　me　with　valuable　suggestions
  throughout　the　work；　but　has　largely　extended　the　Index　（from　61　to　175
  pages）　and　translated　the　Eryxias　and　Second　Alcibiades；　and　to　Mr　Frank
  Fletcher；　of　Balliol　College；　my　Secretary。　　I　am　also　considerably
  indebted　to　Mr。　J。W。　Mackail；　late　Fellow　of　Balliol　College；　who　read　over
  the　Republic　in　the　Second　Edition　and　noted　several　inaccuracies。
  In　both　editions　the　Introductions　to　the　Dialogues　have　been　enlarged；　and
  essays　on　subjects　having　an　affinity　to　the　Platonic　Dialogues　have　been
  introduced　into　several　of　them。　　The　analyses　have　been　corrected；　and
  innumerable　alterations　have　been　made　in　the　Text。　　There　have　been　added
  also；　in　the　Third　Edition；　headings　to　the　pages　and　a　marginal　analysis
  to　the　text　of　each　dialogue。
  At　the　end　of　a　long　task；　the　translator　may　without　impropriety　point　out
  the　difficulties　which　he　has　had　to　encounter。　　These　have　been　far
  greater　than　he　would　have　anticipated；　nor　is　he　at　all　sanguine　that　he
  has　succeeded　in　overcoming　them。　　Experience　has　made　him　feel　that　a
  translation；　like　a　picture；　is　dependent　for　its　effect　on　very　minute
  touches；　and　that　it　is　a　work　of　infinite　pains；　to　be　returned　to　in　many
  moods　and　viewed　in　different　lights。
  I。　　An　English　translation　ought　to　be　idiomatic　and　interesting；　not　only
  to　the　scholar；　but　to　the　unlearned　reader。　　Its　object　should　not　simply
  be　to　render　the　words　of　one　language　into　the　words　of　another　or　to
  preserve　the　construction　and　order　of　the　original；this　is　the　ambition
  of　a　schoolboy；　who　wishes　to　show　that　he　has　made　a　good　use　of　his
  Dictionary　and　Grammar；　but　is　quite　unworthy　of　the　translator；　who　seeks
  to　produce　on　his　reader　an　impression　similar　or　nearly　similar　to　that
  produced　by　the　original。　　To　him　the　feeling　should　be　more　important　than
  the　exact　word。　　He　should　remember　Dryden's　quaint　admonition　not　to
  'lacquey　by　the　side　of　his　author；　but　to　mount　up　behind　him。'
  （Dedication　to　the　Aeneis。）　　He　must　carry　in　his　mind　a　comprehensive　view
  of　the　whole　work；　of　what　has　preceded　and　of　what　is　to　follow；as　well
  as　of　the　meaning　of　particular　passages。　　His　version　should　be　based；　in
  the　first　instance；　on　an　intimate　knowledge　of　the　text；　but　the　precise
  order　and　arrangement　of　the　words　may　be　left　to　fade　out　of　sight；　when
  the　translation　begins　to　take　shape。　　He　must　form　a　general　idea　of　the
  two　languages；　and　reduce　the　one　to　the　terms　of　the　other。　　His　work
  should　be　rhythmical　and　varied；　the　right　admixture　of　words　and
  syllables；　and　even　of　letters；　should　be　carefully　attended　to；　above　all；
  it　should　be　equable　in　style。　　There　must　also　be　quantity；　which　is
  necessary　in　prose　as　well　as　in　verse：　　clauses；　sentences；　paragraphs；
  must　be　in　due　proportion。　　Metre　and　even　rhyme　may　be　rarely　admitted；
  though　neither　is　a　legitimate　element　of　prose　writing；　they　may　help　to
  lighten　a　cumbrous　expression　（Symp。）。　　The　translation　should　retain　as
  far　as　possible　the　characteristic　qualities　of　the　ancient　writerhis
  freedom；　grace；　simplicity；　stateliness；　weight；　precision；　or　the　best
  part　of　him　will　be　lost　to　the　English　reader。　　It　should　read　as　an
  original　work；　and　should　also　be　the　most　faithful　transcript　which　can　be
  made　of　the　language　from　which　the　translation　is　taken；　consistently　with
  the　first　requirement　of　all；　that　it　be　English。　　Further；　the　translation
  being　English；　it　should　also　be　perfectly　intelligible　in　itself　without
  reference　to　the　Greek；　the　English　being　really　the　more　lucid　and　exact
  of　the　two　languages。　　In　some　respects　it　may　be　maintained　that　ordinary
  English　writing；　such　as　the　newspaper　article；　is　superior　to　Plato：　　at
  any　rate　it　is　couched　in　language　which　is　very　rarely　obscure。　　On　the
  other　hand；　the　greatest　writers　of　Greece；　Thucydides；　Plato；　Aeschylus；
  Sophocles；　Pindar；　Demosthenes；　are　generally　those　which　are　found　to　be
  most　difficult　and　to　diverge　most　widely　from　the　English　idiom。　　The
  translator　will　often　have　to　convert　the　more　abstract　Greek　into　the　more
  concrete　English；　or　vice　versa；　and　he　ought　not　to　force　upon　one
  language　the　character　of　another。　　In　some　cases；　where　the　order　is
  confused；　the　expression　feeble；　the　emphasis　misplaced；　or　the　sense
  somewhat　faulty；　he　will　not　strive　in　his　rendering　to　reproduce　these
  characteristics；　but　will　re…write　the　passage　as　his　author　would　have
  written　it　at　first；　had　he　not　been　'nodding'；　and　he　will　not　hesitate　to
  supply　anything　which；　owing　to　the　genius　of　the　language　or　some　accident
  of　composition；　is　omitted　in　the　Greek；　but　is　necessary　to　make　the
  English　clear　and　consecutive。
  It　is　difficult　to　harmonize　all　these　conflicting　elements。　　In　a
  translation　of　Plato　what　may　be　termed　the　interests　of　the　Greek　and
  English　are　often　at　war　with　one　another。　　In　framing　the　English　sentence
  we　are　insensibly　diverted　from　the　exact　meaning　of　the　Greek；　when　we
  return　to　the　Greek　we　are　apt　to　cramp　and　overlay　the　English。　　We
  substitute；　we　compromise；　we　give　and　take；　we　add　a　little　here　and　leave
  out　a　little　there。　　The　translator　may　sometimes　be　allowed　to　sacrifice
  minute　accuracy　for　the　sake　of　clearness　and　sense。　　But　he　is　not
  therefore　at　liberty　to　omit　words　and　turns　of　expression　which　the
  English　language　is　quite　capable　of　supplying。　　He　must　be　patient　and
  self…controlled；　he　must　not　be　easily　run　away　with。　　Let　him　never　allow
  the　attraction　of　a　favourite　expression；　or　a　sonorous　cadence；　to
  overpower　his　better　judgment；　or　think　much　of　an　ornament　which　is　out　of
  keeping　with　the　general　character　of　his　work。　　He　must　ever　be　casting
  his　eyes　upwards　from　the　copy　to　the　original；　and　down　again　from　the
  original　to　the　copy　（Rep。）。　　His　calling　is　not　held　in　much　honour　by　the
  world　of　scholars；　yet　he　himself　may　be　excused　for　thinking　it　a　kind　of
  glory　to　have　lived　so　many　years　in　the　companionship　of　one　of　the
  greatest　of　human　intelligences；　and　in　some　degree；　more　perhaps　than
  others；　to　have　had　the　privilege　of　understanding　him　（Sir　Joshua
  Reynolds'　Lectures：　Disc。　xv。）。
  There　are　fundamental　differences　in　Greek　and　English；　of　which　some　may
  be　managed　while　others　remain　intractable。　　（1）。　　The　structure　of　the
  Greek　language　is　partly　adversative　and　alternative；　and　partly
  inferential；　that　is　to　say；　the　members　of　a　sentence　are　either　opposed
  to　one　another；　or　one　of　them　expresses　the　cause　or　effect　or　condition
  or　reason　of　another。　　The　two　tendencies　may　be　called　the　horizontal　and
  perpendicular　lines　of　the　language；　and　the　opposition　or　inference　is
  often　much　more　one　of　words　than　of　ideas。　　But　modern　languages　have
  rubbed　off　this　adversative　and　inferential　form：　　they　have　fewer　links　of
  connection；　there　is　less　mortar　in　the　interstices；　and　they　are　content
  to　place　sentences　side　by　side；　leaving　their　relation　to　one　another　to
  be　gathered　from　their　position　or　from　the　context。　　The　difficulty　of
  preserving　the　effect　of　the　Greek　is　increased　by　the　want　of　adversative
  and　inferential　particles　in　English；　and　by　the　nice　sense　of　tautology
  which　characterizes　all　modern　languages。　　We　cannot　have　two　'buts'　or　two
  'fors'　in　the　same　sentence　where　the　Greek　repeats　（Greek）。　　There　is　a
  similar　want　of　particles　expressing　the　various　gradations　of　objective
  and　subjective　thought（Greek）　and　the　like；　which　are　so　thickly
  scattered　over　the　Greek　page。　　Further；　we　can　only　realize　to　a　very
  imperfect　degree　the　common　distinction　between　（Greek）；　and　the
  combination　of　the　two　suggests　a　subtle　shade　of　negation　which　cannot　be
  expressed　in　English。　　And　while　English　is　more　dependent　than　Greek　upon
  the　apposition　of　clauses　and　sentences；　yet　there　is　a　difficulty　in　using
  this　form　of　construction　owing　to　the　want　of　case　endings。　　For　the　same
  reason　there　cannot　be　an　equal　variety　in　the　order　of　w