The immediate occasion of these notes on the Alcestis of Euripides was a recent performance of the play at the Little Theatre in London. In this performance, though the programme professed that the interpretation which had been adopted was essentially that proposed by Dr. Verrall in 1895, an innovation seemed to be contemplated which even at first sight, and still more when one went behind the English version to the original, appeared to stray beyond reasonable conjecture, and indeed ran counter in some points to the express indications of Euripides. In particular, the genuine reluctance of Admetus to give the assurance which Alcestis asks, that he will not marry again, was so greatly emphasized, and so markedly enhanced by his behaviour in the last scene, till the identity of the veiled woman was disclosed, as to lead up to a catastrophe which was tragical in every sense, and ‘satyric’ in none; while the behaviour of the restored Alcestis showed only too clearly that in her interval for cool reflection at the tomb she had taken the measure of Admetus; that it was only with reluctance that she had returned to this life at all; and that it was the crowning point of her misery to find that the reason why she was restored was that she might resume her place as his wife. This, at all events, was the manner of her retreat into the palace, and the convulsive writhings of Admetus both before and after it hardly admitted any other interpretation. The one cheerful spot in the gloom was the hilarity of Herakles, who, tactless as ever, bade them fare well and ‘live happy ever afterwards.’