my space so that I had to excise and compress wildly. I was of course anxious to air my own views and so I naturally only mentioned other people's views when it seemed necessary. . . . I am sorry that you thought my criticisms of your work and that of others needed repentance. I think my raps were no harder than yours. One's knuckles are less sensitive than one's face. But had I had more space, I should have been far less dogmatic. Yours very truly,

C. A. M. FENNELL.

Whether I should have coupled the name of FENNELL with that of Mr. GARROD in a recent Brief Mention (A. J. P. XXXVI 476) if I had known that the editor of Pindar had passed beyond the reach of earthly criticism, it is hard to say. Death, which wipes out all other scores, shows no mercy to the members of our guild. The worthy magister, who two hundred years ago confused Lycurgus, the orator, with Lycurgus, the lawgiver, is still held up to ridicule. Neither age nor sex is spared. ‘Vexat censura columbas ', and despite my inbred deference to womankind, I myself have called attention to the blunder of the young lady who confounded Herakleitos and Herakleides (A. J. P. XXXIII 114). Still I could not help shuddering the other day, when an irreverent Italian scholar in discussing Pindar, O. 8, 85, spoke of 'la cervellotica opinione di Boeckh', Boeckh the greatest Hellenist of my day, if not of all time. The spectral hunt of the Néκvia goes on through the ages.

The irreverent critic of Boeckh whom I have just cited is Professor LUIGI CERRATO of Genoa, whose edition of Pindar's Olympians marks the return of the editor to his first loves, Le Odi di Pindaro, Testo, Versione, Commento-Parte 1o Olimpiche (Sestri Ponente, Bruzzone). In his Tecnica composizione delle odi pindariche published in 1888 (A. J. P. XI 528) Professor CERRATO shewed himself in accord with Croiset as to the function of the myth, and gave his adhesion, in general, to the distribution of the odes advocated in my Introductory Essay. Unterrified by the counterblasts that have been blowing these twenty years and more, CERRATO still maintains that the myth is an incarnation of a moral idea. The general plan of the ode is actuality, myth, actuality, though there are variations, and the myth is not indispensable. The connexion of the myth with actuality need not be very close, and it is idle to seek in the myth a perfect reflex of the life of the victor, an exact parallel between the prizer of flesh and blood and his mythical prototype-the besetting sin, the fatal insistence, of Boeckh and Dissen, against which I have found occasion to protest at every turn in my commentary. The invention of an historical

romance in order to unriddle hypothetical allusions in the myth is a sheer waste of learned ingenuity. There is not the ghost of a smile on the countenance of the makers of these fabliaux, whatever merriment they may have kept hidden in their hearts; and I am gravely concerned lest some serious person may have thought I was in dead earnest when in the last number (A. J. P. XXXVII 108) I suggested an anthropological interpretation of the Ninth Pythian. The trouble is that paradoxes begin to gain on the paradoxographer. The anthropological interpretation of the passage is reinforced by Cheiron's oeuvòv avтpov and still further by Professor Fay's cave-dweller etymology of avoρos q. d. *avτрwπоs just as the feminine nature of the genitive (XXXVI 109) is reinforced by the passivity of those senses that take the genitive (A. J. P. XXXI 75).

Of the artistic merits of CERRATO's version I have no right to express an opinion. I have declined to pass judgment on Wilamowitz (A. J. P. XX 110) and Bellermann (A. J. P. XXXIII 229) because, though familiar with German from my early youth, I do not claim the native feeling, and my knowledge of Italian is rudimentary. Still it may be worth noting that though CERRATO is dissatisfied with Fraccaroli's poetical version and praises Romagnoli somewhat grudgingly, when he quotes versions of other authors, he prefers the poetical rendering. As to points of interpretation that are not affected by the subtleties of foreign idiom, there are divergencies of exegesis between my commentary and Cerrato's as there are between my commentary and that of Sir John Sandys, but of these divergencies only one or two specimens can be given, the rest being reserved for my projected 'Pindarica'. Needless to say, having committed myself in print, I am unconvinced. So O. 4, IO CERRATO translates after Dissen xpovióтaтov pάos 'luce perenne' in which he has the support of Sir John Sandys, and, according to my judgment, misses the point of the little ode (A. J. P. XXVIII 481; XXIX 503). The last two verses he assigns to Pindar and not to Erginos, just in order to carry out his scheme of Attualitá-Mito-Attualitá. O. 6, 31: Kρve δὲ παρθενίαν ὠδῖνα κόλποις, he renders tenne occulto il virgineo frutto nel suo grembo ', defending his version by the authority of Dissen, Heyne and Dukas. The plural might have given him pause and tenne occulto' produces the effect of κpúaσa eixev.

17

NECROLOGY.

JAMES MERCER GARNETT.

(1840-1916)

Professor James Mercer Garnett, a constant contributor to this Journal, died at his residence in Baltimore on the 18th of February of the present year, the seventy-sixth year of his age. He was born on the 24th of April, 1840, in Aldie, Loudon Co., Virginia. His parents, Theodore Stanford Garnett and Florentina Isidora Moreno (daughter of Francisco Moreno of Pensacola, Florida, whose ancestors came to this country in the early colonial period), belonged to families of social, professional, and political distinction. Professor Garnett was especially interested in the history of his paternal line, and during the last two decades of his life prepared and published the following histories and sketches: James Mercer Garnett' (1898), a member of Congress, 1805-1809; 'Genealogy of the MercerGarnett Family of Essex Co., Va., and of the Mercer Family of Stafford Co., Va.' (1905-10); John Francis Mercer' (1907), Governor of Maryland, 1801-1803; 'James Mercer' (1908), a member of the Virginia Court of Appeals, 1789-1793; Muscoe Russell Hunter Garnett' (1909), a member of Congress, 18561861, and a member of the Confederate Congress, 1861-1864; 'Charles Fenton Mercer' (1911), a member of Congress, 18171840. These writings, however, gain a wider significance when it is observed that they give an indication of Professor Garnett's characteristic envisaging of the serious concerns of life. He valued good tradition in family and in state; believed in strong attachment to local centers for the maintenance of individuality and force of character; and persistently supported organization and institutional control of agencies in political, ecclesiastic, and educational progress. It was inevitable, therefore, that he found his most congenial method of argument for future advancement in re-tracing the steps by which the present had been attained. Whatever his immediate activity might be, he was at the same time historian of the underlying principles. No one could know him and be surprised that he should write on the Early Revolutionary History of Virginia' (Va. Hist. Collections, vol. xi, 1892), and on the University of Virginia, its History, Influence, Equipment, and Characteristics' (1904).

Many titles of papers and addresses would have to be added here to give a complete view of Professor Garnett's sustained interest in the history and experiences of Virginia and in the past, present, and future of the University of the state.

His career was not without variation. After preliminary training at the Episcopal High School of Va., he entered the University of Va. in 1857, where he obtained the degree of M. A. in 1859. The next year he was a teacher in Greenwood School, Albemarle Co., Va., and then returned to the University for a graduate course (1860-1861). Experiences of another character now set in. He entered the Confederate Service July 17, 1861, and was paroled at Appomattox Court House April 9, 1865. Professor Garnett's military career, in which he attained the rank of Captain of Artillery (in the 'Stonewall Brigade'), was cherished to the end of his life as a memory of highest duty faithfully performed. In obedience to his request he was at death shrouded in his militant uniform, and was thus buried in the symbols of one that never faltered in an avowed purpose or failed to keep once plighted faith.

Academic duties were resumed at the University as Licentiate Professor of Ancient Languages (1865-1866). The next year he taught Greek and Mathematics at the State Univ. of La., and in 1867-1869 was Principal of the school of his youth, the Episcopal High School of Va. He declined continuance in this office, and led by his preferences went abroad to study the classics at Leipzig and Berlin (1869-1870). On his return he became President of St. John's College, Annapolis, Md. He held this office for ten years (1870-1880),-years in which he became a prominent advocate of certain changes in educational theory and practice. In addition to his scholarship in the classical languages-especially in Greek-he had been led to study Anglo-Saxon and to see the importance of basing courses in English on historic principles. He now inaugurated and conducted a department of English in accordance with these convictions, and in published articles and in addresses before Educational Societies urged the study of the language and literature of the early periods. It was the decade in which the neo-grammarians issued their initial edicts, and the contagion of their enthusiasm quickly reached some American scholars. Professor F. A. March, of Lafayette College, had indeed anticipated the new movement by publishing his 'Anglo-Saxon Grammar' and 'Reader' (1869-1870), but the new school of scholars in Germany imparted the stimulus to the fuller appreciation of these books. Professor Garnett won a distinguished place in that small group of American scholars who then perceived the need of more scholarly methods in the teaching of English. He was a principal advocate of the reform, as may be inferred from the titles of some of his addresses: The Study of the Anglo-Saxon Language and Literature' (Proc. Natl. Ed.

Assn. 1876); The Historical Method in the Teaching of English (id. 1879); Text-Books of Instruction in English' (Va. Ed. Assn. 1878); and ten years later, 'The Position of Old English in a General Education' (Va. Assn. for the Advancement of Higher Education, July 10, 1889; The Academy,' Boston, 1890).

After leaving Annapolis and while awaiting an academic appointment he conducted a private school at Ellicott City, Md. (1880-1882), and finished his translation of Beowulf', which was published in 1882. But he was soon (1882) called back to the University of Va., as Professor of English, and held that post until 1896. His retirement was spent in Baltimore, but it was not an idle retirement. He at once accepted a temporary appointment to teach a year at Goucher College, and thereafter for a number of years took pleasure in assisting private pupils. But he was otherwise busily engaged to the end. In memory of his year at Goucher College he published an edition of Macbeth' (1897), and it has been noticed above that the History of the Univ. of Va. is dated 1904; his genealogic sketches also fall within this period. He continued, moreover, to contribute to this Journal, to The Nation' and other periodicals; and contemplated an edition of the Anglo-Saxon Juliana', for which he published a preliminary study (Publications of the Mod. Lang. Association of America, xiv, 1899).

་

In addition to the books already mentioned Professor Garnett edited the following texts: 'Selections in English Prose from Elizabeth to Victoria' (1891); 'Hayne's Speech to which Webster replied' (1894); Burke's Speech on Conciliation with America' (1901); and following the method of his 'Beowulf', he published a translation of 'Elene, Judith, Athelstan, and Byrhtnoth' 1889; enlarged ed., 1901). His 'Beowulf' has continued through many years to be perhaps the most widely read translation of the poem. Its usefulness has in part been due to the Bibliography supplied in it and through repeated revisions kept notably complete. In this line-for-line and rhythmic translation a certain level of merit has been maintained that has survived considerable controversy as to the best manner of translating Anglo-Saxon verse, a controversy to which Professor Garnett gave careful attention in two papers in the Publications of the Mod. Lang. Association of America, vols. vi (1891) and xviii (1903). In point of accuracy the translation is highly praiseworthy, it is indeed especially creditable in view of the state of Anglo-Saxon studies in America at the time it was made. Professor Garnett continued to follow with close concern all critical examination of the original text, and kept wishing for his publishers' consent to bring his translation into agreement with the latest accepted readings.

He never relaxed in his interest in the progress of English scholarship, as is shown in his book-reviews published in this