Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

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

On compofitions, indeed, in the learned languages, and on' fubjects of verbal criticism, we think it neither jult nor becoming to employ general obfervation. In defcending, however, to particulars, we cannot always feparate accuracy from minutenefs; and in examining the opinions of learned men, we fhall feldom venture to object, without attempting, at leaft, to confute. Having made this apology to our Readers, we proceed in the farther selection of notes from Dr. Edwards.

Page 53. 1. 10. ὅταν τί ποιήσωσι.] • Fortaffe τί ὅταν ποιήσωσι. Habet enim Plato λéye, tí nỳ toixvtá σɛ. Euthyph. § 2. Ed. Forfler. Of this tranfpofition we approve, and it is fully fupported by the paffage from Plato.

Page 55. 1. ΙΙ. καὶ ἅμα πάντων ἐπιμελεῖθαι αυτές. ] Sic et apud Scriptores Sacros pronomen fæpiffime abundat. Conf. Math. iv. 16. v. 40. viii. 1. 23. A&t. Ap. vii. 35.' The inftances to which Dr. E. refers, are not fimilar to the paffage in Xenophon. Aulos, we know is, in appearance, often redundant in the facred writers; but it is always in the fame cafe with fome word in the preceding part of the fentence; which is commonly faid to be a dative abfolute, and is really governed by a prepofition underflood. Any one of the paffages, if produced, will fhew the difference: τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρα και σκιᾷ θανάτε, φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αυτοῖς. AUTOS. The redundant aurès in St. Matthew is generally in the dative: but in the Acts, x. 38. it is found in the accufative. Kypke has illuftrated this ufage, by one paffage from Herodotus, two from Arrian, and one from Jofephus. Vid. Obferv. Sac. vol. ii. p. 54. As to the paffage in Xenophon, we would expunge aures, which, indeed, is rejected by Zeunius and Erneftus, and is not to be found in feveral manuscripts.

Page 64. 1. 10. διατίθεθαι εἶναι.] • Pro εἶναι legendum arbitror av ut vim potentialem inferat propofitioni.' This alteration is unneceffary, becaufe sivas is put for evas.

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

Page 72. 1. 10. a, te o vòμos áteiλe, &c.] Cautum eft in Jure Attico, ἐὰν τὶς μοιχὸν λάβη, ὅτι ἂν βέληται, χρήθαι. He refers to Taylor upon Lyfias, in whofe note we find, that the laws of the Vifigoths were fimilar in feverity, and almost in their terms, to the laws of the Athenians. By the Lex Julia, we add, among the Romans, the hufband might deftroy an adulterer vilioris conditionis, fi triduana denuntiatio interceffiffet: but the

father

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

Page 77. 1, 1. devov máλaioμa.] he properly tranflates fori artificium,' and refers to the oration of fchines: c. Ctefiphon-as Dr. E. in this, and fome other inftances, does not point out the page, we shall fupply the omiffion-See page 645, edit. Cant. Demofth. vol. 2. by Taylor. Taylor adopts the explication from Victorius, and refers to his Varia Lectiones. P. 81. 1. 8. μo.] forfan μvo. Vid. Odyff. A. v. 287, et Toup. Emend. in Suid. part ii. p. 193 Though we find not any notice of a typographical error, we fuppofe Dr. E. to have written weo-and fo it is fpelled by Toup, and by Zeunius, whoy as well as Dr. E. refers to Toup, and admits the emendation.

[ocr errors]

Ρ. 82. 1. 1. ἐξελθόν]α εἰς ἡσυχίαν] he properly tranflates Rouxía, locus defertus,' and refers us to his friend Taylor's Notes on the fpeech of Efchines con. Timarch. p. 51. which we correct for 41.

Ρ. 84. 1. 5. δι δὲ μισωνίες με, υποκοριζόμενοι, &c.] This is one of the moft difficult and moft difputed paffages in Xenophon. Dr. E. is content with adopting the conjecture of Erneftus, who would infert u. Dr. Owen abides by Suidas, and interprets STоxopi Coμevos, 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 Maris, Thomas Magifter, and Timæus in Lex. Platonic. To these writers, whom Dr. Edwards does not appear to have confulted, and to the note in Zeunius's edition of the Memorabilia, we refer the curious reader. Of Toup's emendation we do not approve, becaufe we have doubts as to the admiffibility of un, with the power which is here affigned to it. We agree with Erneftus, in rejecting the opinion of Ruhnkenius, Who would carry back υποκοριζόμενοι τo φίλοι; though it is not impoffible, we confefs, that Xenophon fhould, from inadvertency, have put this word into the mouth of Kaxía. We do not agree with him in oppofing Valckenaer, who would reject it from the text. But muft this be done in oppofition to the united authorities of Suidas, and the Etymol, Mag. where the word is interpreted diacups, and where this paffage is exprefsly referred to? Had other paffages been produced, or hinted at, we should have acquiefced; but we believe the text to have been early: corrupted, and that Suidas, to folve the difficulty, had recourse to this violent mode of interpretation *. Erneftus tells

We are aware that fome words have different fignifications in different writers or different ages. Thus Banxes is ftrong in Pindar, and weak in Homer. Vid. Etymol. mag. & Carm. Pindar. Fragm. by Schneider, page 22.

MS,

us, that Ariftotle fays the word may be applied fo as to leffen what is good or bad. True; but what are the inftances by which Ariftotle illuftrates his pofition ?-χρυσιδαρίου for χρύσιον, ἐματιδαρίον for ἱμάτιον, λοιδορηματιον for λοιδορία, νοσημαλίου for vóonua. See Rhetor. cap. pr. lib. tert. in fine. Thefe examples, furely, bear no refemblance to κακίαν ufed as a term τῇ διασύρειν. On the whole, we accede to Valckenaer's conjecture, that owoxagoμEvo fhould be expunged. Dr. Edwards properly translates xaxiav vitiofitatem, on the authority of Cic. Tufc. Difput. vi. 15.

P. 84. 1. 11. igyáτnu ayatov.] Hunc vocat D. Paulus igZÁTNY AVEπTÁLO XUvlov. 2 Tim. ii. 15.' The word is far more emphatical 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 Obfervationes Sacræ, from p. 36 to 38. The Deity is confidered by the facred 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 difputed; fome underftand cutting of marble, fome the diftribution made by a steward, &c. &c. We agree with Bos, who explains the words, probum ecclefiæ miniftrum, qui non negligenter nec dolofe in arvo operatur'-this explana tion may be illuftrated by verfe 6, of the fame chapter; and for fuller information, our Readers may confult fome very learned remarks in Parkhuri's Lexicon.

[ocr errors]

P. 92. 1. Ι. οικήματα.] ο οικημα pro carcere pofuit Dinarchus. At pro lupinari Efchines. Suidas. Vide quæ dixit Cl. Taylor ad Marm. Sanduic. p. 59.' The foregoing note feems to be partly a tranfcript, and partly a tranflation from a note of Taylor en the fpeech of Æfc. con. Timarch. p. 97.-xnua is tranflated by Zeunius, fella meretricia; and Erneftus has told us, xnua, attice for πορνείον.

Ρ. 102. 1. 7. ἡγεμονικώτερα είναι σε πρὸς τὴν φύσιν ταύτην.] Dr. E. would read, προς την φυσικὴν φιλίαν ταύτην-φιλίαν is found in Stobæus for quoi-we retain the latter word, which Zeunius explains, amicitia naturalis. See his note.

P. 103. 1. 3. μaλaxn] Dele-Edwards-fed fortaffe lectus fuperior vel honoratior mollior erat-Owen.' We cannot help obferving, that Erneftus had rejected μaλaxñ, and that Zeunius fays, fortaffe ne μaλaxй quidem eft fpurium quia non abhorret a vero, fedem honoratiorem fuiffe eandem molliorem.' No mention is made of Zeunius's interpretation, or of Erneftus's opinion, in Dr. E.'s edition.

Ρ. 108. 1. 5. αλλ' ὅμως. ] Dr. E. propofes to read ἐπιπόνως, ex antithefi, cum fubfequantur voces άgysávεμÉvws: we retain us. It refers to the preceding fentences, in which the advantages of friendship are enumerated; but (great as they are) fome, nevertheless, are diligent in cultivating trees, &c.'

[ocr errors]

P. 110.

P. 110. 1. 6. T Eupovτos.] Locus non follicitandus fubint. Xpalos--Anglice, at the price it brings.'-Dr. Edwards is right; but is the interpretation entirely his own? The Cod. Brodai et edit. Paris read supe0avlos-one manuscript reads ruxdilos, which is approved by Erneftus-but Zeunius fays, utraque lectio eft Gloffema Te suportos longe exquifitiffimi. Eupione autem,cum alibi tum apud noftrum interdum dicitur de re, quæ reditum affert→ ergo τὸ ἑυρὸν elliptice dicitur pro χρῆμα ἑυρὸν πόρον. He confirms this explanation by the following paffage in the Oeconomics, cap. 20. & TORU agyúpion sugionoi, p. 128. edit. Zeun. We are forry to meet with fo many inftances of inattention and negligence in Dr. E. when he inferts in his own notes the interpretations made by other critics. On the ufe of duplexes, for comparare, fee Taylor's Index to Lyfias.

δι

P. 114. 1. 4. WOTE ixpoi.] Forfan pulos Dr. E. Erneftus had propofed xango, which is neither more nor less probable than agro. The fenfe admits either reading; and at all events, we fufpect ix poi.

P. 123. 1. 10. dux moμévovσ.] Nihil morantur, fays the tranflator. Dr. E. much more properly, non fufferunt.' The Englifh words, which occur in this note, fhould, on every principle of delicacy, have been translated into Latin. The learned reader has not forgotten the offenfive expreffions which are introduced in a Latin page by Dawes, in his Mifcellanea Critica; and by Toup, in his Epiftola Critica, addreffed to the late Bishop of Gloucefter.

P. 134. 1. II. xuvos λoyov.] Canis fabulam. Hæc fuit olim, ni male auguror, inter fabulas fopicas. Hoc equidem pro certo habeo, fabulas fopicas e veteribus vocari, ayous. Sic Plato, vas TeS TO 'ALOTTE Moyes. Phæd. 4. edit. Foft. This explanation of the word is juft, and may be confirmed by the following paflage in Ariftotle—λόγος δὲ ποιὸς ὁ Στησιχόρου πρὸς Φάλαριν, και Αισώπου περὶ τὸ δημαγωγό. Rhetor. lib. 2. cap. 20. edit. fol. vol. 2.

P. 136. 1. 4. Tεpopig.] He tranflates, extra fines,' and refers to Plato's works by Preux, p. 338. Zeunius understands it in the fame manner, and derives it, not from geos, with Erneftus, but from píois.

P. 141. 1. 3. dux öтi μóv.] He would retain ori, which Erneftus would reject, and he refers to Hoogeveen de particulis gr. cap. 27. fect. 7. Aéyw is understood. In Zeunius we find the fame opinion, the fame interpretation, and the fame reference. Is this coincidence quite cafual?

P. 150. 1. 5. τατειν ἔτε λέγειν.] Stobæus, ἔτε ἄγειν, nullus dubito veram lectionem effe Stobæanam-ταπειν καὶ ἄγειν apud Xenophontem fæpe conjunguntur. Vid. Cyrop. lib. 1. prope finem.' We agree with Dr. E. and Zeunius in writing yɛv.

9

P. 157.

P. 157. 1. 4. ὅσα τε νόμῳ μεμαθήκαμεν.] Fr. Portus νόμῳ con» fuetudine interpretatur recte more et inftituto civitatis. Zeun.

P. 159. 1. 2. ὁ γὰρ τοι τοι εισιν ̓Αθηναῖοι. ] • Lege, is. γὰρ eft vox rationem reddens, is eheu, tales enim funt Athenienfes. The common reading is intelligible and proper. If we read is, yag is mifplaced. But the alteration of du is quite unneceffary.

P. 161. 1. ult. To πposάtuv ] Lege poraτlav.' Would not the reader give Dr. E. credit for an ingenious conjecture, on feeing merely his note? But posarle is in Stobæus, and occurs in the text of the Leipfic edition of 1781.

Ibid. ἔκάστες ἐπιτηδειες πράτζειν.] Edwards reads, ἃ χρὴ τὰς ἐπιληδειες, &c. We prefer the text of Zeunius, ἑκασίες τὰ ἐπι ήδεια πραττειν.

[ocr errors]

P. 164. 1. 6. σ spalnya.] Erneftus Vir cl. Socratem hæc arbitratur difputaffe cum Pericle, cum jam a populo spalnyos effet creatus. Mihi aliter videtur, tum propter verba ipfius Periclis, $5. Oi Xavlaveis μe, &c. tum propter verba, i Toivuu, &c. p. 174. l. 14.' It must be remarked, that the Leipfic edition differs in the fame manner from Erneftus, directs his readers to the fame paffages in Xenophon, and adopts (or proposes) the fame emendation, spalnynaarlos, with Dr. E.

P. 165. 1. 7. ουδὲ ἐν τούτοις Αθηναιοι μεμπτοι. ] < Hæc verba Pericli adjudico.' The reafon Dr. E. gives is, that the fpeech of Pericles is ftrongly expreffive of indignation against the Athenians, and that he commends them fparingly. We therefore fufpe& a falfe 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 fuppofition the note is unneceffary; but if he meant to take them from Pericles, we do not accede to the obfervation; for, angry as was this proud Athenian, he had allowed his countrymen much merit in the three preceding anfwers; and the context requires in this place fome anfwer, and even the very answer which Pericles makes in favour of his countrymen.

Ρ. 174. 1. 9. μέχρι τῆς ἐλαφρᾶς ἡλικίας. ] • Per atatem. Ita vox nλixía reddi debet Matth. vi. 27. et Luc. xii. 25. potius quam per ftaturam. Ita quidem redditur, Joan. ix. 21. 23. et Ep ad Hebr. xi. 11.' We understand the paffage in St. Matthew, as Dr. E. does, and as to the word, nyus, or cubit, applied to the measure of time, St. Matthew's words may be illuftrated by the following lines in Mimnermus

Πήχνιον ἐπὶ χρόνον ἄνθεσιν ἥξης
Τερπόμεθα.

[ocr errors]

V. Brunck's Anal. vol. 1. p. 60. Page 175. 1. 5. déπw kinov črn yeyors.] As Dr. Edwards has not favoured his readers with any note upon this paffage, we hope our readers will not be much difpleafed with us for laying before them the fubftance of some learned and acute obferva

« AnteriorContinuar »