or opposition suggested by aurag is overlooked; and secondly, another word is introduced to mark more emphatically the succession, in regard to time, of the second to the first action. Now observe, reader, my sagacious opponent, perceiving that then might be admitted in an English version, has concluded that it is the meaning of aurag, the sense of which he overlooks ; and gives it the sense of another word not in the original; and thus he gives a double proof of his own want of judgment, at the moment he arraigns mine. If farther evidence be wanting of this twofold confusion, it is supplied by the consideration, that Homer very frequently uses ETTEITA in the same sense, and for the same purpose, for which an Englishman would use then, or after that. I will give one example, and dismiss this part of the subject : Αὐτὰς ἐπεὶ τάδε γ ̓ ὧδε θεοὶ κακὰ τεκμήραντο *Ανδρὸς "ΕΠΕΙΤ ̓ ὤφελλον ἀμείνονος εἶναι ἄκοιτις. Il. vi. 350. In this and similar places my opponent must yield his then, or after that, to the appropriate original Tεita; and look out for some other sense for aurág. And here I cannot but observe, that commentators and critics afford an unquestionable proof, that they do not comprehend the exact import of a term, when in different places they assign it such different senses: on the other hand, we give a sure evidence of the true signification of a word, when in every connexion we affix to it one sense, or a sense obviously analogous. Finally, in other passages of Homer we meet with the phrase auràs ywys, and it always marks the opposition, for which I am contending in the disputed verse. Μήτηρ μὲν τ' ἐμέ φησι τοῦ ἔμμεναι· ΑΥΤΑΡ "EгOTE ovx oida, Od. i. 215.—“ My mother says that I am his son, BUT I do not know this." Mentor having given Orestes his advice, adds, that he had to depend on his own efforts in expelling the suitors; and that he could give him no personal assistance, as then going to depart—καὶ ΣΥ, φίλος, ἄλκιμος ἔσσο—ΑΥΤΑΡ ΕΓΩΝ ἐπὶ νῆα— κατελεύσομαι, Οd. i. 301. 5. The amended construction of Professor Pórson cannot be just; because the emphasis and opposition between 7 and ywye is thus destroyed. But, says Mr. Dunbar, ywys docs mark a particular emphasis. Nestor calls upon Agamemnon of himself to repress his anger, "and in addition to this I intreat you," &c. Here the writer betrays a want of acquaintance with the first and most obvious principles of the Greek language, as he ascribes to the meaning of autós. If Homer intended to convey such meaning as the above, he would have written to this effect-Αὐτὸς δὲ παυε τεὸν μένος, ἔγωγε Aloooμal σe TaÚELY μévos. The confusion with which Mr. Dunbar stands chargeable is really puerile; and little accords with his character as a professor of Greek. Laying aside this confusion, the sense, being no more than the following, is unworthy of Homer-"Do thou, who art a king, restrain thy anger, and I, who am Nestor, request thee to do it." 6. In my first criticism on this verse, No. vI. p. 376. I said, "I allow that μebéμev xoxov may be rendered, to dismiss thy anger; but when a noun in the dative or accusative is connected with this verb to denote the object or end of the motion, implied in it, peper does not mean to dismiss, but to send, to throw, to transfer: and the sense of the phrase 'Axiλani peteuer óñor would be, to hurl thy anger at Achilles, a signification the very reverse of that which these critics put upon the words." I know not whether my meaning here may fairly be mistaken; certainly Mr. Dunbar has mistaken it, or at least he has affected to do so. "The advocate of the old translation," says he, "does not appear to be much conversant with the language of Homer, other wise he would not have asserted that μebéμey with a noun in the dative or accusative does not mean to dismiss, but to send, to throw, to transfer." Here my language is garbled. I said, a noun in the dative or accusative, to denote the end of the motion implied in the verb. But this clause, which was necessary to explain my meaning, is entirely suppressed, and having suppressed it, he triumphs in my ignorance of the language of Homer; and he quotes a verse to prove what I expressly have allowed, namely, that petuer means to dismiss. My assertion, however, is perfectly correct, and the charge of want of acquaintance with Homer, or of wilful misrepresentation, must rebound on my adversary. When einu has an accusative noun, and another noun in the dative, or in the accusative, with a preposition, to denote the object, in which the motion of the verb terminates, it always has the senses above given. The first sense given to this verb by Sturzius, in his Lexicon of Xenophon, is jaculari, to dart, to hurl; but I shall draw my examples from Homer himself. When Hector slew Patroclus, the Grecian chiefs exhorted one another to recover his body; and said, that it were better the earth should swallow them, than give up his body to the Trojans― TouTov Tρweσσ! μednooμev. II. xvii. 418. Here the meaning of the verb is certainly to yield, or give up; and if for TOUTOY Homer had occasion to write lov or TEXTOY, his meaning then would have been to hurl at the Trojans. A similar construction occurs in Il. xiv. 364. μεθίεμεν Εκτορι νίκην, to give up the victory to Hector. The dative case expressing the object of the motion is sometimes implied. Thus Od. xviii. 401. Our Toσo κέλαδον μεθέηκεν, i. e. ἡμῖν, or εἰς ἡμᾶς, he would not have hurled the firebrand of such contention among us. Damm has with great exact ness expressed this passage, non tantum tumultum excitasset nobis, ubi xéλados velut sagitta aliqua pingitur per hoc verbum. In Od. v. 460. we meet with the accusative after is expressing the object of the motion denoted by this verò, κρήδεμνον εἰς πόταμον μέθηκεν. And thus it appears that up, with a noun in the accusative, in connexion with another in the dative or accusative after a preposition, uniformly means to give up, yield, hurl, throw, transfer: nor is there a single exception to this, either in Homer, or, I believe, in any Greek writer whatever. The question then comes to an easy termination : Professor Porson and his advocates give to the clause κεθέμεν 'Αχιλλή xoxov, a signification, which not only is not warranted by any similar passage in Homer, but is diametrically opposite to the sense which similarly, constructed passages bear in that admired author. It remains now to show briefly, that the old acceptation of the verse is the true one. And I observe that the dative case after ioooμas is not an insurmountable objection. For it is authorised by analogy. This is the case which verbs of praying and supplicating usually govern; and the phrase λίσσομαι ̓Αχιλλήα differs from λίσσομαι ̓Αχιλλῆς 28, "I supplicate Achilles," does from "I present my supplication to Achilles." The address of Nestor is artful and delicate. He takes the most effectual means to appease the anger of Achilles by telling Agamemnon in his hearing, that he would supplicate him to dismiss his resentment, and at the same time soothes his offended pride, by impressing on Atrides a sense of his high importance to the success and the security of the Greeks. Achilles was the hero, who was to preserve the ships from destruction: and I cannot help thinking that Nestor gave to λίσσομαι the government of εὔχομαι or ἀράομαι, in order to insinuate that the same humble supplication should be offered to appease the wrath of Achilles, as the wrath of an offended deity. But let us examine the sense of the passage a little more closely : "Do thou restrain thy resentment; but I will supplicate Achilles to dismiss his rage." In the presence of Nestor, Agamemnon had said to Achilles, οὔδε σ ̓ ἔγωγε λίσσομαι, εἵνεκ ̓ ἐμεῖο μένειν. v. 173. And to this assertion he alludes, when he says, αὐτὰς ἔγωγε λίσσομαι 'Αχιλani μeléμev xóλov, but I will supplicate Achilles to dismiss his rage: that is, "Do thou, Atrides, suppress thy own anger: and as thou hast declared that thou wilt not petition Achilles to stay here, I will take this upon myself, and supplicate him to dismiss his rage. His continuance here is indispensable for our success, and even for the protection of our ships." In this view the construction of the passage is natural, and its meaning forcible: τεὸν μένος are opposed to 'Αχιλλῆς xoxov; and while the former comports with the sedate and more dignified behavior of Agamemnon, the latter is in unison with the fury of Achilles. Moreover avràp has its appropriate signification, while o and ywy have their usual emphasis as opposed to each other. The reference to line 173. is, I think, very obvious; and I am persuaded that if Mr. Porson had been alive, he would have readily acknowledged it. Candor was one of his great virtues. I wish I could say that my adversaries were equally candid. Neither of them has taken any notice of this reference, though I have laid upon it no inconsiderable stress. They doubtless felt its force; and they declined to notice an argument which they were unable, satisfactorily, to answer. Nor is this all. The poet appears to me to have a farther allusion to this line, in a verse which he presently puts in the mouth of Thersites. The verse is strikingly similar, and I shall therefore quote it. ̓Αλλὰ μάλ ̓ οὐκ ̓Αχιλλῆι χόλος φρεσὶν, ἀλλὰ μεθήμων. Π. ii. 241. The meaning of this is, ̓Αχιλλῆϊ οὐκ ἐστὶ χόλος, ἀλλὰ μέθηκε χόλον. "Achilles no longer retains, but has dismissed his rage." By this Thersites glances at the intercession of Nestor; and insinuates that his supplication had been too effectual in disarming Pelides of his wrath. Great Coram street, 1812. JOHN JONES. NECROLOGY. WE sincerely sympathise with the learned and affectionate author of the following Inscription. From early friendship and similarity of studies, we had entertained a sanguine hope that Mr. Littlehales would have been raised to a situation adequate to his merit and to his talents, in which he could have promoted the best interests of Religion. That hope was partly, and was likely soon to be fully, realised. But the Great Disposer of events judged him worthy of celestial happiness at an early age: ὃν γὰρ φιλεῖ τὸ Θεῖον, ἀποθνήσκει νέος. It is remarkable that another friend, deeply lamented by him and by us, who approached as near perfection as the state of human nature could permit, Mr. Benwell, died in the same manner, and from the same cause,—a pious and unremitted attention to his poor neighbours, who were laboring under an infectious disorder. Of each it may be truly said: nullius unquam periculi terroribus ab officio, aut ab humanitate discessit. |