Imágenes de páginas

to ascertain the sense of Xenophon, and to determine the ability of his editor.

On compositions, indeed, in the learned languages, and on Subjects of verbal criticism, we think it neicher jult nor becoming to employ general observation. In descending, however, to particulars, we cannot always separate accuracy from minuteness ; and in examining the opinions of learned men, we shall seldom venture to object, without attempting, at least, to confute, Having made this apology to our Readers, we proceed in the farther fele&tion of notes from Dr. Edwards.

Page 53. 1. 10. Otav tí toinowor.) Fortasse río tar woontwri. Habet enim Plato abys, tí sj Tolštá 08. Euthyph. $ 2. Ed. For Ner.' Of this transposition we approve, and it is fully supported by the paffage from Plato.

Page 55. 1. 11. xai es le of WÁVTWY ŠTijansi son durgs.] Sic et apud Scriptores Sacros pronomen fæpiffime abundat. Conf. Math. iv. 16. v. 40. viii. 1. 23. A&t. Ap. vii. 35. The instances to which Dr. E. refers, are not fimilar to the paffage in Xenophon. Aulos, we know is, in appearance, often redundant in the sacred writers ; but it is always in the same case with some word in the preceding part of the fentence; which is commonly said to be a dative absolute, and is really governed by a prepofition understood. - Any one of the passages, if produced, will thew the difference: τοϊς καθημένοις εν χώρα και σκιά θανάτε, φως ανέτειλεν autos. The redundant autos in St. Matthew is generally in the dative: but in the Aes, X. 38. it is found in the accurative. Kypke has illustrated this usage, by one paffage from Hesodotus, two from Arrian, and one from Josephus. Vid. Obferu. Sai. vol. ii. p. 54. As to the passage in Xenophon, we would expunge cutes, which, indeed, is rejected by Žeunius and Erneitus, and is not to be found in several manuscripts.

Page 64. 1. 10. doctite Tact Elvano] • Pro živou legendum arbitror ãv ut vim potentialem inferat propositioni.' This alteration is unnecessary, because stvo is put for EELVOK.

Page 72. 1. 9. Ľus Ta's sigxta's.] Verte, partes domorum prohibitas.' This interpretation he illuftrates from the preface of Cornelius Nepos" Neque sedet mater familias nifi in interiore parte ædium, quæ yuvasxwrites appellatur.” We take the liberty of referring our Readers to the Crepundia Jani Gebhardi, lib. iii, cap. 15.

Page 72. I, 10. a, te o vomos aneinei, &c.] · Cautum eft in Jure Actico, tav tis porxiv acon, oro är Beintah, xorietanHe refers to Taylor upon Lyfias, in whose note we find, that the laws of the Visigoths were fimilar in severity, and almost in their terms, to the laws of the Athenians. By the Lex Julie, we add, among the Romans, the husband might destroy an adulterer vilioris conditionis, a triduana denuntiatio interceffidet: but the

father father might put to death his daughter, and an adulterer cujufeunque conditionis, if they were detected in his own house, or in that of his son-in-law. Vide Heineccii Elem. Jur. Civ. part 7. par. 184. .

Page 77. 1, 1, delvèo Tránalomon) he properly translates' fori artificium, and refers to the oration of Æsebines: c. Ctefiphon-as Dr. E. in this, and some other inftances, does not point out the page, we shall supply the omiffion-See page 64%; edit. Cant. Demosth. vol. 2. by Taylor, Taylor adopts the explication from Vidorius, and refers to his Variæ Lectiones.

P. 81. 1. 8. peccato.)— foisan urogo. Vid. Odyf. Ai V, 287, et Toup. Emend. in Suid. part iii p. 193. Though we find not any notice of a typographical error, we suppose Dr. Es to have written peces--and so it is spelled by Toup, and by Zeunius, whoy as well as Dr. E. refers to Toup, and admits the emendation.

P. 82. 1. 1. EEN Móva sis: rougcior] he properly translates Rouxía, locus desertus,' and refers us to his friend Taylor's Notes on the speech of Æ/chines con. I imarch. p. 51. which we correct for 4!.

P. 84. 1. 5. és de pargyles p., ÚTOXOP. Sópevolg &c.]. This is one of the most difficult and most disputed paffages in Xenophon. Dr. E. is content with adopting the conjecture of Erneftus, who would insert uni'. Dr. Owen-abides by Suidas, and interprets ÚROXop Copevoi, obtrectantes, invidiofo nomine appellantes. Our own opinion has long ago been formed, and in order to form it properly, we had read with care the very full and learned notes on the word in Mæris, Thomas Magister, and Timeus in Lex. Platonit. To these writers, whom Dr. Edwards does not appear to have consulted, and to the note in Zeunius's edition of the Memorabilia, we refer the curious reader. Of Toup's emenda tion we do not approve, because we have doubts as to the admiffi. bility of us, with the power which is here alligned to it. We agree with Erneftus, in rejecting the opinion of Rubnkenius, who would carry back υποκοριζόμενοι to φίλοι; though it is not: impoffible, we confess, that Xenophon (hould, from inadvertency, have put this word into the mouth of Koník.“ We do not agree with him in oppofing Valckenaer, who would reject it! from the text. But muft this be done in opposition to the united authorities of Suidas, and the Etymol. Mag. where the word is interpreted doar upelv, and where this passage is expressly referred to? Had other passages been produced, or hinted at, we should have acquiesced; but we believe the text to have been early: corrupted, and that Suidas, lo folve the difficulty, had re. course to this violent mode of interpretation *. Erneftus tells

• We are aware that some words have different fignifications in different writers or different ages. Thus Bangepos is frong in Pindar, and weak in Homer. Vid. Etymol, mag. & Carm. Pirdar. Fragm. by Schneider, page 22.


palasetus utiturgelii come writers

us, that Aristotle says the word may be applied so as to lessen what is good or bad. True ; but what are the instances by which Αriftotle illuftrates his pofition !-χρυσιδαρίου for χρύσιον, εματιδαρίου for έμάτιου, λοιδορηματιον for λοιδορία, νοσημαίoν for vóonud. See Rhetor. cap. pr. lib. tert. in fine. 'These examples, furely, bear no refemblance to κακίαν αfed as a term τη διασύρειν. On the whole, we accede to Valckenaer's conjecture, that ónoXocóuevou lhould be expunged. Dr. Edwards properly translates zaxiar vitiofitatem, on the authority of Cic. Tusc. Disput. vi. 15.' · P. 84. 1. 11. sprátnu @yadàv.] Hunc vocat D. Paulus épo. gátou everaio Xuntov. 2 Tim. ii, 15.' The word is far more enphatical and appropriate in St. Paul than in Xenophon, where it is general. The full force of it is most ably explained by Bos, in his Observationes Sacræ, from p. 36 to 38. “The Deity is considered by the sacred writers as the Dominus fundi, and the Præcones evangelii conferuntur cum operariis fervis quorum operâ herus utitur in agro colendo, &c.' The metaphor in this paffage has been disputed; some understand cutting of marble, Come the distribution made by a steward, &c. &c. We agree with Bos, who explains the words, 'probum ecclesiæ miniftrum, qui non negligenter nec dolose in arvo operatur'--this explana, tion may be illustrated by verse 6, of the same chapter; and for fuller information, our Readers may consult some very learned remarks in Parkhurst's Lexicon.

P. 92. l. 1. oixnuala.] • Öexnpec pro carcere posuit Dinarchus. At pro lupinari Æschines. Suidas. Vide quæ dixit Cl. Taylor ad Marm. Sanduic. p. 59. The foregoing note seems to be partly a transcript, and partly a translation from a note of Taylor cn the speech of Æsc, con. Timarch. p. 97.- Orxenuce is translated by Zeunius, sella meretricia ; and Ernestus has told us, õixenua, attice for πορνείον.

P. 102. l. 7. nyepoveXWTEC Firei os tipos Thiv púrw taúrny] Dr. E. would read, após iniu puosnio piría taúrnu-pinbar is found in Stobæus for quriwe retain the latter word, which Zeunius explains, amicitia naturalis. See his note.

P. 103. 1. 3. paraxñ ] Dele-Edwards-red fortasse lectus superior vel honoratior mollior erat-Owen.' We cannot help observing, that Erneftus had rejected rodaxñ, and that Zeunius says, 'fortasse ne paraxñ quidem eft spurium quia non abhorret a vero, sedem honoratiorem fuiffe eandem molliorem.' No men. tion is made of Zeunius's interpretation, or of Erneftus's opinion, in Dr. E.'s edition.

P. 108. l. 5. aaa'ouws.] Dr. E. proposes to read étinóws, ex antichesi, cum subsequantur voces apjüs xj dveljéws : we retain özews. It refers to the preceding sentences, in which the advantages of friendthip are enumerated; but (great as they are) some,' nevertheless, are diligent in cultivating trees, &c.'

P: 110.

[ocr errors]

· P. 110. 1. 6. rõ łupóUTO5.) • Locus non sollicitandus fubint. Xpříjcélos--Anglicè, at the price it brings.'-Dr. Edwards is right; but is the interpretation entirely his own ? The Cod. Brodæi et edit. Paris read &uped ivlos-one manuscript reads Tugoslos, which is approved by Erneftus-but Zeunius says, utraque le&io eft Gloslema Tš Eupovtos longe exquisitiffimi. Eupir keiv autem,cum alibi tum apud noftrum interdum dicitur de re, quæ reditum affertim ergo tò fupós elliptice dicitur pro xpirez upou Topov. He con. firms this explanation by the following paffage in the Oeconomics, cap. 20. si Tonu apgupoon čuçioxon, p. 128. edit. Zeun. We are sorry to meet with so many instances of inattention and negligence in Dr. E. when he inserts in his own notes the interpretations made by other critics. On the use of lupicxelv, for comparare, see Taylor's Index to Lyfias.

P. 114. 1. 4. ürmep égcheoí.] Forsan ós äpalo. Dr. E. Erneftus had proposed xanpon, which is neither more nor less pran bable than äexto. The sense admits either reading; and at all events, we suspect éx@poño .

P. 123. 1. 10.ouge i trojevovov.] Nihil morantur, says the tranflator. Dr. E. much more properly, non sufferunt.' The Eng. lish words, which occur in this note, should, on every principle of delicacy, have been translated into Latin. The learned reader has not forgotten the offensive expressions which are introduced in a Latin page by Dawes, in his Miscellanea Critica; and by Toup, in his Epistola Critica, addressed to the late Bilhop of Gloucester.

P. 134. 1. 11. xuvos nógov.] Canis fabulam. Hæc fuit olim, ni male auguror, inter fabulas Æsopicas. Hoc equidem pro certo habeo, fabulas Æropicas e veteribus vocari, ai yous. Sic Plato, švelnes Ta's Tð Alcune dogos. Phæd. 4. edit. Fot. This explanation of the word is just, and may be confirmed by the following paffage in Αriftotle-λόγος δε οιος ο Στησιχόρου προς Dáropov, x 'AIGÁTOU Trepi 7ð onjucywzē. Rhetor. lib. 2. cap. 20. edit. fol. vol. 2.

P. 136. 1. 4. Úspopice.) He translates, extra fines,' and refers to Plato's works by Preux, p. 338. Zeunius understands it in the same manner, and derives it, not from peon, with Erneftus, but from opioss.

P. 141. 1. 3. ouxe oto déc.] He would retain őri, which Ernestus would reject, and he refers to Hoogeveen de particulis gr. cap. 27. rect. . régw is understood. In Zeunius we find the same opinion, the same interpretation, and the same reference. Is this coincidence quite casual ? .

P. 150. 1. 5. Tát/env ŠTE Néyesv.] Stobaeus, čte a yelv, nullus dubito veram le&tionem effe Stobeanam'--ταττειν και άγειν apud Xenophontem fæpe conjunguntur. Vid. Cyrop. lib. I. prope finen.' We agree with Dr. E. and Zeunius in writing ägany."

[ocr errors]

P. 157

P. 157. 1. 4. 70a vójw Mera Bhxcuiev.] Fr. Portus vósíw consuerudine interpretatur recie more et instituto civitatis. Zeun.

P.39. 1. 2. + yae To8Toi kèoAlaveso.]: Lege, lở. vào ct vox rationem reddens, id ebeu, tales enim funt Athenienses.

The common reading is intelligible and proper. If we read is, gue is misplaced. But the alteration of du is quite unnecessary.

P. 161. l. ult. To aposátor ] · Lege mposátléuv.' Would not the reader give Dr. E. credit for an ingenious conjecture, on seeing merely his note? But posártev is in Stobæus, and occurs in the text of the Leipfic edition of 1781.

Ibid. fxcotes émilndesas Apátlevy.] Edwards reads, a xpn tor's irindexs, &c. We prefer the text of Zeunius, fx_0185 Td (TbIndɛs az aparleur.

P. 164. 1, 6. oi spalnyńcanc.] Ernestus Vir cl. Socratem hæc arbitratur disputasse cum Pericle, cum jam a populo spalngos effet creatus. Mihi aliter videtur, tum propter verba ipfius Periclis, 5.' Où acul avess me, &c. tum propter verba, so Toivur, &c. p. 174. I. 14.' It must be remarked, that the Leiplic edi. tion differs in the same manner from Erneftus, directs bis readers to the same passages in Xenophon, and adopts (or proposes) the same emendation, spalny nocolos, with Dr. E.

P. 165. 1. 7. Oude ev tóutois 'Abnuãcios usual01.] Hæc verba Pericli adjudico.'. The reason Dr. E. gives is, that the speech of Pericles is ftrongly expressive of indignation against the Athenians, and that he commends them sparingly. We therefore fufpe& a false print, and that the reading in Dr. E.'s note was abjudico. In affigning these words to Pericles, Dr. E. follows other editors. On this supposition the note is unnecessary; but if he meant to take them from Pericles, we do not accede to the observation ; for, angry as was this proud Athenian, he had allowed his countrymen much merit in the three preceding an. (wers; and the context requires in this place some answer, and even the very answer which Pericles makes in favour of his countrymen. . .

P. 174. I. 9. Méxer rñs oppas nixócę.] Per ætatem. Ita vox naixía reddi debet Matth. vi. 27. et Luc. xii. 25. potius quam per faturam. Ita quidem redditur, Joan. ix. 21. 23. ,et Ep. ad Hebr. xi. 11.' We understand the passage in St. Matthew, as Dr. E. does, and as to the word, angus, or cubit, applied to the measure of time, St. Matthew's words may be illuitrated by the following lines in Mimnermus * Πηχιον επί χρόνον άνθεσιν ήβης

Tepóuela. V. Brunck's Anal. vol. 1. p. 6o.' Page 175.1. 5. démw flxoo iv štn yegovws.] As Dr. Edwards has nos favoured his readers with any note upon this passage, we hope our readers will not be much displeased with us for laya ing before them the substance of some learned and acute observa.


abjudicoridors. On them from as this

« AnteriorContinuar »