plausible: and in this and a few similar cases I have put down what
suited the context. Occasionally also, as in the Idyll here printed
last--the one lately discovered by Bergk, which I elucidated by the
light of Fritzsche's conjectures--I have availed myself of an opinion
which Professor Conington somewhere expresses, to the effect that, where
two interpretations are tenable, it is lawful to accept for the purposes
of translation the one you might reject as a commentator. [Greek:
tetootaiost] has I dare say nothing whatever to do with 'quartan fever.'

On one point, rather a minor one, I have ventured to dissent from
Professor Blackie and others: namely, in retaining the Greek, instead of
adopting the Roman, nomenclature. Professor Blackie says[G] that there
are some men by whom "it is esteemed a grave offence to call Jupiter
Jupiter," which begs the question: and that Jove "is much more musical"
than Zeus, which begs another. Granting (what might be questioned) that
_Zeus, Aphrodite_, and _Eros_ are as absolutely the same individuals
with _Jupiter, Venus_, and _Cupid_ as _Odysseus_ undoubtedly is with
_Ulysses_--still I cannot see why, in making a version of (say)
Theocritus, one should not use by way of preference those names by which
he invariably called them, and which are characteristic of him: why, in
turning a Greek author into English, we should begin by turning all the
proper names into Latin. Professor Blackie's authoritative statement[H]
that "there are whole idylls in Theocritus which would sound ridiculous
in any other language than that of Tam o' Shanter" I accept of course
unhesitatingly, and should like to see it acted upon by himself or any
competent person. But a translator is bound to interpret all as best he
may: and an attempt to write Tam o' Shanter's language by one who was
not Tam o' Shanter's countryman would, I fear, result in something more
ridiculous still.