thought of the original. The Gceek of Plato often goes beyond the English in its imagery: cp. Laws iii. 695 C, S>v KoX vvv iTi aixiKpa oveipara Ae'AetTrrat ; Rep. i. 345 E ; ix. 588 C, &c. Or again the modern word, which in substance is the nearest equivalent to the Greek, may be found to include associations alien to Greek hfe : e. g. SiKao-rai, 'jurymen,' ra jusVa t&v ttoKlt&v, 'the bourgeoisie.' (d) The translator has also to provide expressions for philo- sophical terms of very indefinite meaning in the more definite language of modern philosophy. And he must not allow discordant elements to enter into the work. For example, in translating Plato, it would equally be an anachronism to intrude on him the feeling and spirit of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures or the technical terms of the Hegelian or Darwinian philosophy.

(7). As no two words are precise equivalents (just as no two leaves of the forest are exactly similar), it is a mistaken attempt at precision always to translate the same Greek word by the same English word. There is no reason why in the New Testament biKaioavvr^ should always be rendered 'righteousness,' or hiadr]Kr] 'covenant.' In such cases the translator may be allowed to employ two words — sometimes when the two meanings occur in the same passage, varying them by an ' or ' — e. g. eTno-rrJ//?;, ' science ' or ' knowledge,' elSos, ' idea ' or ' class,' a-Mfjipoawr], ' tem- perance ' or ' prudence,' — at the point where the change of meaning occurs. If translations are intended not for the Greek scholar but for the general reader, their worst fault will be that they sacrifice the general effect and meaning to the over-precise rendering of words and forms of speech.

(8). There is no kind of literature in English which cor- responds to the Greek Dialogue ; nor is the English