To a large extent the table speaks for itself, for the interests and preferences of each generation are made self‐evident; nevertheless it may be worth while to sum up a few of the outstanding facts. The Elizabethans translated anything which appealed to them and in many cases added to or at least embellished the translation as they saw fit. Some of their translations were made from the French, as Caxton’s version of Aesop or North’s version of Plutarch. One has but to compare Marlowe and Chapman’s _Hero and Leander_ with Musaeus to realize how little is Musaeus and how much is Marlowe and Chapman. The Elizabethan translators, moreover, were indiscriminate in their tastes, largely because their stock of Greek learning was small and consequently they had no perspective from which to judge the comparative merits of the works which they translated. “It was all Greek to them” and therefore proper to be translated. They enjoyed and believed Artemidorus’ _Dreams_ as much as they did any of the works of Aristotle. Finally I wish to point out the high place Romance holds in the fifty years before 1600. This adds to the credibility of the theory of the influence of the Greek Romance upon Elizabethan prose fiction. All things considered, the translations of the Elizabethans are thoroughly in accord with the temper of the times as exhibited in their literature. It is interesting to note that in the one hundred and fifty years immediately following the Civil War Philosophy is the chief interest. The neo‐classicists, theoretically at least, went back to the classics for their authority. Indeed Aristotle’s _Poetics_ was considered absolute in all its dicta. Fable and Epic with varying success contend for second place in their interest. The moralized fable was naturally popular with a generation which loved the didactic; and the epic, as they often acknowledged, was a model for their own poetry. The rise of Poetry, such as Pindar’s _Odes_, Anacreon’s _Odes_, and Tyrtaeus’ _Elegies_, is to my mind an evidence of the change in opinion and attitude toward literature which was gradually increasing during the latter half of the eighteenth century and which finally came to the foreground in the first part of the next century. Pindar’s _Odes_ were placed directly in opposition to those of Cowley’s and the lyrics of Sappho were certainly not in accord with the ideas of the neo‐classicists. Whether these translations were wholly correct or not, is aside from the point. Men were becoming more interested in the lyrical side of Greek literature, and this interest exhibited a taste foreign to sententious didacticism; for none of that is to be found in the Elegiac, Iambic, or Lyric Poetry of the Greeks. Once again, then, the kind of translation which the generations enjoyed was coincident with the prevailing literary taste, and the rise of Poetry toward the close of these one hundred and fifty years is at least evidence of a change in public interest.