NECROLOGY. CHARACTER OF DR. RAINE. THE time that has intervened since the death of Dr. Raine, may enable us to appreciate his character more impartially, and less influenced by those poignant feelings, which so unexpected an event had called forth; but can scarcely have diminished the calm regret of his friends, or the interest of the public concerning him. The temper of the present times is, perhaps, unfavorable for estimating properly the merits of such a man. The long period of war, and party conflict, has turned our attention so exclusively to military glory and political talent, that we neglect those unostentatious qualities, that dispense their utility in a less conspicuous sphere. Yet, surely, few stations are more important in society, than that to which is entrusted, on an extensive scale, the formation of the future statesman, warrior, and scholar. How Dr. Raine discharged this office, the testimony of all who were so fortunate as to be his pupils, will proclaim. His clear and comprehensive method of explaining every subject of instruction, his attention to the peculiar disposition of every youth, and adaptation of the means most likely to influence it, have perhaps rarely been equalled, and can scarcely be excelled. His manner united in a singular degree the alluring mildness of persuasion, with the imposing authority of instruction. The conduct of his scholars, and the literary distinctions they acquired at the universities, numerous in proportion to the size of the school, show the success that attended his exertions. But his care and attention to their welfare ceased not when they quitted his control, and he continued to be the friend, the adviser, and, where he could be, the patron, of all, who in maturer life sought and deserved it. His uniform and ardent attachment to civil and religious liberty never tempted him to influence the sentiments, or make the slightest allusion to those topics, in the presence of those entrusted to his care. But where there was no motive of delicacy to restrain, he seemed anxious to urge his younger friends, by the strongest arguments and exhortations, to political integrity and consistence. Even in the most unfavorable and disastrous periods he never shrunk from the manly and independent avowal of his opinions. Perhaps this might be attended by some sacrifice of interest and preferment; yet he was amply repaid by the satisfaction of an upright and independent mind; and has declared he knew no part of his own conduct, which, in declining life, he could view with more complacency than his uniform adherence to those tenets, which he considered most conducive to the preserva tion of the constitution, and the welfare of his country. In the intercourse of social life, he was cheerful, entertaining, and innocently convivial. It has been said, his conversation was somewhat tinged with the manner of the school-master. Perhaps this was the unavoidable effect of long habit; but there was nothing in it overbearing, pedantic, or dogmatical. His benevolence was conspicuous in the candor and kindness with which he spoke of the failings of others. Whenever he was heard to censure, or condemn, it was evidently the effect, not of hostility to the individual, but of virtuous indignation, bearing its dignified and fearless testimony against the faults or the vices it wished to discountenance. No man that ever knew him was his enemy; some, indeed, who violently opposed his political or religious principles, might feel emotions of dislike or rancor; but if ever they met in the intercourse of life, his urbanity and amiable qualities disarmed their enmity, and softened it into regret, that with such a man they could differ so widely. His acquirements in Classical Literature were of the first rank. Though he has given nothing to the world, yet he devoted a part of his little leisure to the foundation of some works, which, if perfected in the retirement he was just on the point of enjoying, might materially have enriched the stores of Greek erudition and criticism. This faint and inadequate outline has been delayed, in hope that some one better qualified for the task might have rendered its publication_unnecessary. As this has not been the case, the writer has only to regret, that the delineation of such a character has fallen to the lot of one, who never was his pupil, and but lately was honored with his friendship. Trin. Coll. Camb. G. P. CLASSICAL CRITICISM. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. THE following observations on a passage in Eschylus, and two passages in Aristophanes, which are adduced by Mr. Porson in his Preface to the Hecuba, are much at your service, if you them worthy of being inserted in your Journal. Aug. 1. 1812. I. Esch. Choëph. 654. Εἴπερ φιλόξενος ἐστιν Αἰγίσθου βία. think P. E. Cum Aldus et Robortellus ediderint qλógv Tiv, levi mutatione legendum Φιλοξένη 'στιν. Fatendum est quidem Atticos hujusmodi nomina plerumque generum duorum communia facere. Non semper tamen hanc regulam servant veteres. PORSON. (p. ix.) None of the examples, which are produced by Mr. Porson, in this passage, and in his note on Med. 822. are sufficient to justify the use of φιλοξέm in a tragic iambic. The feminine termination is peculiarly inadmissible in the present instance, as the Poet, by virtue of the σχῆμα πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον, has taken the liberty of joining the words Αίγισθου βία, to a masculine adjective in the same play. V. 893. Οι 'γω, τέθνηκας, φίλτατ ̓ Αἰγίσθου βία. I venture to propose the following emendation of the verse in question : Εἴπερ φιλόξενός τις Αίγισθον βία. This use of 7 is by no means uncommon, although it is not noticed, to the best of my knowledge, by the commentators on the Attic poets. I subjoin a few examples of it. Æsch. Prom. 695. Πρό γε στενάζεις, καὶ φόβου πλέα τις εἶ. Soph. Αj. 1266. Φεῦ, τοῦ θανόντος ὡς ταχεῖα τις βροτοῖς. Χάρις διαῤῥεῖ, καὶ προδοῦσ ̓ ἁλίσκεται. There is some authority for τοῖς βροτοῖς, but the common reading appears to me to be preferable on every account. Phil. 519. Aristoph. Αν. 924. II. Aristoph. Eq. 319. Ὅρα σὺ, μὴ νῦν μὲν τις εὐχερὴς παρῆς. Πάνυ γὰρ βραδύς ἐστί τις, ὥσπερ ὄνος. Καὶ νὰ Δία, καμὲ τοῦτ ̓ ἔδρασε ταυτὸν, ὥστε κατάγελων Πρὶν γὰρ εἶναι Περγασῆσιν, ἔνεον ἐν ταῖς ἐμβάσιν. This is the common reading. Kuster, in his notes, proposes the following emendation of the first verse: Καμὲ, νὰ Δία, τοῦτ' ἔδρασε ταυτὸν, ὥστε κατάγελων. Notwithstanding the dactyl in the second place, Brunck pronounces this emendation to be most certain, and has admitted it into his text. The Ravenna MS. reads : Νὴ Δία, κἀμὲ τοῦτ ̓ ἔδρασε ταυτὸν, ὥστε κατάγελων. Mr. Porson silently exhibits the following reading, p. xlix. Κἀμὲ τοῦτ ̓ ἔδρασε ταυτὸ, νὴ Δί ̓, ὥστε κατάγελων. In the second verse, Kuster reads, in his text, τοῖς δημόταις καὶ τοῖς Φίλοις, which reading is adopted by Brunck. Kuster proposes, in his notes, τοῖς δημόταισι καὶ φίλοις. This reading is confrmed by the Ravenna MS. I suspect, that the true reading of these two verses is as follows : Κἀμὲ, νὴ Δί', αὐτὸ τοῦτ ̓ ἔδρασεν, ὥστε καὶ γέλων Πάμπολυν τοῖς δημόταισι καὶ φίλοις παρασχεθεῖν. In the first place, it appears to me, that αὐτὸ τοῦτο, this very thing, agrees better with the preceding verses than ταυτὸ τοῦτο, the very same thing. Secondly, I have not been able to find any authority for the expression κατάγελων παρέχειν, το afford matter of laughter. In this sense, if I am not mistaken, the Attics always use γέλωτα or γέλως. On the other hand, ὥστε καὶ occurs frequently. So Ach. 143. Nub. 613. Ὑμῶν τ' ἐραστὴς ἦν ἀληθῶς, ὥστε καὶ ἐν τοῖσι τοίχοις ἔγραφ', ̓Αθηναῖοι καλοί. Ὥστε καὶ λέγειν ἅπαντας, ἐξιόντας ἑσπέρας, Μὴ πρίῃ, παῖ, δᾷδ', ἐπειδὴ φῶς σεληναίης καλόν. Αν. 1290. Ωρνιθομιάνουν δ ̓ οὕτω περιφανῶς, ὥστε καὶ Thirdly, I write παρασχεθεῖν, with the circumfex accent on the last syllable. Ἔσχεθον is a poetic form of ἔσχον, the aorist of ἔχω, and, in some passages, has been converted into rxov by the transcribers. So Eurip. Hippol. 1989. : ̓Αφανῆ. Φανερὰν δ ̓ ἔσχεθες (vulgo ἔσχες) ἄταν. Εσχεθες is the emendation of Markland, which Mr. Monk would probably have received into his text, if he had noticed the Aldine reading of Phoen. 411. Πῶς δ ̓ ἦλθες Αργος ; τίν ̓ ἐπίνοιαν ἔσχες ; Before I quit these three verses of Aristophanes, I must observe, that they ought rather to be attributed to Nicias than to Demosthenes. The mention of the δήμος, or parish called Περγασαι, is not made at random. It appears from Athenæus, (p. 537. C.) that Nicias was Περγασῆθεν. III. Aristoph. Αν. 599. Τοὺς θησαυρούς τ' αὐτοῖς δείξουσ', οὓς οἱ πρότεροι κατέθεντο, This is the reading of all the MSS. except one, which has d instead of ἴσασι. The editions prior to that of Brunck read οἴδασι, τ word as foreign to Attic ears as οἴσασι. Brunck, in his notes, proposes the following reading : Τῶν ἀργυρίων. οὗτοι γὰρ ἴσασ'. εἶχε λέγουσιν τάδε πάντες. Mr. Porson, (p. li.) prefers ὥστε λέγουσιν. I suspect that the error is chiefly in the word λέγουσι. Perhaps the Poet wrote: Τῶν ἀργυρίων. οὗτοι γὰρ ἴσασ'. ᾄδουσί γε τοι τάδε πάντες. The alteration of de into ye is required by the sense. The other part of the emendation, which I do not propose with confidence, derives some weight from the resemblance of ἴσασι, οἴσασι, οίδασι, and ᾄδουσι It is possible, that the Poet may allude to some scolion or popular song. P. S. Allow me to take this opportunity of correcting an error which I have committed in a short letter inserted in the Ninth Number of the Classical Journal, p. 202. In the passage of the Troades, which gave occasion to that letter, (vv. 1123.-1155.) the ancient reading of the following words probably ought to be retained without alteraκαί σφ ̓ ᾐτήσατο tion: θάψαι νεκρὸν τόνδ' These words may be translated as follows: And she obtained leave from him to have this corpse buried. There is a similar passage in the Helena, v. 1063. Ως δὴ θανόντα σ' ενάλιον, κενῷ τάφο θάψαι τύραννον τῆσδε γῆς αἰτήσομαι. The second line is thus translated by Æmilius Portus : Ab hujus agri tyranno petam, ut mihi permittat te sepelire. It is hardly necessary to produce examples of this use of the verb αἰτοῦμαι. Eurip. Med. 780. Παῖδας δὲ μεῖναι τοὺς ἐμοὺς αἰτήσομαι. This verse is thus translated by Portus: Petam verò ut liberi mei maneant. Professor Porson, Mr. E. H. Barker, and Sidneyensis. AFTER dismissing of, scito, on the ground, that Nil agit exemplum, litem quod lite resolvit, the controversy betwixt Sidneyensis and Mr. E. H. Barker (CLASSICAL JOURNAL, No. viii. p. 433.-No. 1x. pp. 185, 187. No. x. pp. 377, 380.) turns on two questions very distinct and intelligible. 1. Is, ἵνα μάθῃ Διὸς νωθέστερος, without the participle ὤν, Attic Greek for this English "That he may learn he has not the cunning of Jove."? E. H. Barker asserts it. 2. Was Mr. Porson right, in remarking on the lection, Orest. 792. ποῦ γὰρ ἂν δείξω φίλος ; that it involves a double solecism? E. H. Barker denies it. To prove the first position, instances were wanted of paváva, γιγνώσκω, αἰσθάνομαι, εὑρίσκω, and similar verbs, in passages like these, from a well authenticated text and with a meaning clear and undisputed. Learn that thou art mortal. I found I was fortunate. He discovered he was a wicked man. 4. εὗρες ἀμαθής. You found out you were ignorant. To prove the second position, instances were wanted of deixvuur, aívw, and similar verbs, in passages well authenticated, and with meaning incontrovertible, like to the following. 5. Seikoμer pixo. We shall prove that we are friends. 6. paveis dixaios. You will show that you are a man of integrity. Not one instance of verbs, so taken as in the above fictitious examples, in ACTIVE meaning with a nominative case of the adjec tive following the verb, participio quod aiunt suppresso, has been yet produced by Mr. Barker, in support of either of his positions.. And all the passages he has quoted or referred to, are foreign to the purpose; inasmuch as they prove nothing that ever was denied, nothing that belongs to the controversy betwixt us. Here I take my leave of the subject; which is now finally left on my part to the decision of your readers. Somewhat too much of this, already. SIDNEYENSIS. North Sheen, Aug. 27, 1812. |