To give reasons for my choice of certain readings in the case of either Michael Angelo’s or Campanella’s text; to explain why I have sometimes preferred a strictly literal and sometimes a more paraphrastic rendering; or to set forth my views in detail regarding the compromises which are necessary in translation, and which must vary according to the exigencies of each successive problem offered by the original, would occupy too much space.  Where I have thought it absolutely necessary, I have referred to such points in my notes.  It is enough here to remark that the difficulties presented to the translator by Michael Angelo and by Campanella are of different kinds.  Both, indeed, pack their thoughts so closely that it is not easy to reproduce them without either awkwardness or sacrifice of matter.  But while Campanella is difficult from the abruptness of his transitions and the violence of his phrases, Michael Angelo has the obscurity of a writer whose thoughts exceed his power of expression, and who complicates the verbal form by his endeavour to project what cannot easily be said in verse.[14] A little patience will generally make it clear what Campanella meant, except in cases where the text itself is corrupt.  But it may sometimes be doubted whether Michael Angelo could himself have done more than indicate the general drift of his thought, or have disengaged his own conception from the tangled skein of elliptical and ungrammatical sentences in which he has enveloped it.  The form of Campanella’s poetry, though often grotesque, is always clear.  Michael Angelo has left too many of his compositions in the same state as his marbles—­unfinished and colossal abbozzi, which lack the final touches to make their outlines distinct.  Under these circumstances, it can hardly happen that the translator should succeed in reproducing all the sharpness and vivacity of Campanella’s style, or should wholly refrain from softening, simplifying, and prettifying Michael Angelo in his attempt to produce an intelligible version.  In both cases he is tempted to make his translation serve the purpose also of a commentary, and has to exercise caution and self-control lest he impose a sense too narrow or too definite upon the original.

So far as this was possible, I have adhered to the rhyming structure of my originals, feeling that this is a point of no small moment in translation.  Yet when the choice lay between a sacrifice of metrical exactitude and a sacrifice of sense, I have not hesitated to prefer the former, especially in dealing with Campanella’s quatrains.

Michael Angelo and Campanella follow different rules in their treatment of the triplets.  Michael Angelo allows himself three rhymes, while Campanella usually confines himself to two.  My practice has been to study in each sonnet the cadence both of thought and diction, so as to satisfy an English ear, accustomed to the various forms of termination exemplified by Spenser, Milton, Wordsworth, and Rossetti—­the sweetest, the most sublime, the least artificial, and the most artful sonnet-writers in our language.