Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tions in the Inscriptiones Atticæ of Corsini. The Athenian citizens, when they had finished their 18th year, were enrolled under the general name of Ephebi ; who again were divided into the Adscriptitii in their 19th year, and the Ephebi in their 2oth. Vehemens certe suspicio mihi fuboritur Adscriptitios ipfos, Epheborum inftar, in Athenienfium civium numero habendos effe: nec alio prorsus discrimine, Ephebos ab Adscriptiis diftingui poffe, quam quod illi, secundum inter Ephebos annum agebant; hi vero, inter Ephebos nuper relati, primum, in hoc militiæ genere, annum agerent. Etenim, ut opportunius alibi demonftravi, ii, qui octavum decimum annum ætatis impleverunt, Ephebis infcribi tenebantur, donec vicefimum ætatis annum egrefli in militum albo recenserentur. After reasoning upon this subject very ably, he thus concludes: Ephebi nomine in nostro Marinore, aliisque pluribus, cives illos indicatos existimo, qui secundum hujus militiæ annum agerent; Adlectos vero, vel Adseriptitios vocari censeo, qui nuper ejus Archontis anno labente Ephebis aliis adje&i, recensque adscripti forent; proximoque demum anno nobiliori Epheborum nomine appellandi, adjectaque tribuum serie recensendi fuerant, p. 14. and 15.

P. 181. 1. 1. pupiw orxsūv.] Dr. E. tells us, that the number of Athenians was 20,000, and refers us to Demofth. adv. Ariltogit. and the Velpæ of Aristoph. 1. 705. Before the Persic war, it was 30,000, telte Herodoto, lib. 5. The information given by this note is trifling. They who would understand the subject more fully, thould consult Meursius de Fortuna Athen. cap. 4. Hume's Effay on the Populousness of ancient Nations, p. 458, &c. and above all, Wallis on the Numbers of Mankind, p. 54.

P. 191. I. 1. Dr. Edwards would lop off the conclusion of the eighth chapter, from ypapai to sportivas-pæcedentibus enim,' says he, non cohærent. The transition, we confels, has not the usual perspicuity of Xenophon ; but as the passage is quoted by Stobæus, and found in all the Manufcripts, we cannot venture on the desperate measure proposed by our Editor. From ypx pai to tapéxxou might be (pared; but we cannot part with the opinion of Socrates, on the best fire of temples.

Ρ. 192. 1. 12. τα μεν καλα τε και αγαθα γιγνώσκονlα χρήθαι autoos. The two last words Dr. E. thinks, sensum perturbant;' which, if they be rejected, becomes role meridiano clarior. « Omnes virtutes in scientia pofitas effe afferuit Socrates;" repugnante quidem Aristotele, apud quem virtus moralis iv guiris alle spagos' This reasoning is specious, but not decilive, or well-placed; for Socrates, as Ernestus observes, does not enquire, in what virtue, abstractedly considered, may con Go, but describes a virtuous man. Xpñolzi d'utòis, as opposed to TOV Ta' air xpci kodota įuaalis Sz!,. is good sense; and as to the conftrucsion, pralai obviously and properly depends on ürte understood. Rev. Dec, 1786.

Ff

P. 107.

[ocr errors]

P. 197. I. ult. Ta X107 Šv ÚTORÉ 2.) Dr. E. proposes to read xcx1670- opponitur enim, tw ws PTUX, Smulde zee'. Surely, certain and immedizie destruction is sufficiently opposed.

P. 211. 1. 9. for naposqipnia in the middle voice, he would read tporopa. Dr. E, does not tell us, that tapoopépon is the old reading, which Stephens changed into pot ©éprilos, and which Zeunius has replaced in the text of his very correct edition. We take this opportunity of saying, that we do not approve of the censorious and contemptuous Ipirit, with which the Dutch Reviewer treats the criticisms of Zeunius upon the Memorabilia of Xenophon. See Part 6. p. 116. In his Examination of the Cya ropædia and the Opuscula Politica, Equefiria, et Venetica, publithed by the same editor, he has thewn more juítice and candour. Vid. Part 5. p. 128. and 139.

P. 212. 1. 6. Try siz to ] D, E, contenes himself with quoting a well-known line from the second Ilyliion of Theocritus. He would have obliged his readers more effectually, by supporting or confuting the very learned and judicious note of Erneslus; who confirms the interpretation of Suidas, where the ivy E is laid to be put for the rhombus used in incantations, with the bowels, probably, of this bird faftened to it, and rolled round with it.

P. 218.1.6. a.xx.Eros,] Dr. Edwards would read o'xzépesvos, in which he follows, but without acknowledgment, Leunclavius, We follow Stephens, and inany other respectable critics, in lupposing aváperos to be the name of a celebrated physician.

P. 224. 1. 10. TO {wwwžicima.] Hoc verbum, quod iis qui bene et frugaliter vefcuntur, trbuit Socrates, Div. Petrus, 2 Epil. ji. 13. ad epuicnes voluptuarios tradux.s.' St. Peter used the word in a general and lax lense; Socrates in a more limited lignification, accommodated to his own derivation, which we will confirm by quoting at length a paffage from Atheneus, which is partially cited by Zounias, Τας δε ευωχίας εκάλουν εκ από τις οχης, ή εςι τροφη, αλλ' από τε καλά ταυτα εύ έχειν, εις ας δη συνίοντες, οι το θείου τιμωντες, και εις ευφροσύνην και άνεσιν αυτους μεθίείες, τον μεν ποτον μέθυ, τον δε τετο δωρησάμενον θεόν, Μεθυμναιον και λυαιον, και, ΕΥιον, και, ιηίον προσηγόρευον. p. 363. Αriftophanes, in the Lyl rate, applies the word to the temperate meals of the Lacedemonians--

όπως αν οι Λάκωνες ένδοθεν

καθ' ησυχίαν απιωσιν ευωχημένοι. 1. 1225. But in the Vejpe, he uses it in the lax and general sense of fcafting

ώσπερ καχρύων ονίδιον ευωχημένον. 1297. And in the Plutus, Bleptidemus says,

εθέλω πλουτζιν ευωχειαι μεία των παιδων της τε γυναικος. .

We

[ocr errors]

1. 604.

.

We would observe by the way, that peguw is used by St. John, . 10. for those who drink freely, though not to any great degree of intoxication; and thus Lucian, when he would express exceffive drunkenness, adds II. parcs to Sucos, as if the latter word were not emphatical enough. See vol. i. p. 171. Ed. Reitz.

P. 226. 1. 8. και το όλον.] Κατά το μέρ in prioribus libris dictum elt; in hoc dicitur xc T O TO Ölov, univerfim, i. 2. in generi. Hinc mihi videtur, quod

Imus Liber continet officium hominis erga numen et seipsum.
II dus - Erga familiares, Scil. Mípov tå oixe.
IIItius-Erga Cives : popior TS WOMEw5.

IVéus Liber erga omnes univerfim-leu omnium hominis officiorum repetitionem fummariam.' E.

P. 235. 1. ult. xj xxiitaBeridir. ] Ita et Div. Jacobus Epi1, 11. 8. νόμον τελείτε βασιλικού. Ε. There is a fimilar image jo t'arro de lingua Latini. Quartus (explicandi gradus) ubi est aditus et initia regis. Lib. 4. P 7. edit. Scal. B20141x6v TI 70X22a Guivas. Xen. Symp. cap 1. But on the word voulous (for so we should read) joined with Bao mõis, TTÓ 25w5. Vid. Arist. Rhet. cap. 2. lib. 3. with a lensible nore in the Oxford edition.

P. 236. 1. 6. των δικαιών έστιν έργα, ώσπερ των τεκτόνων.] Eoliv v špzov av Spa T2, %. 7. 2. • Opus igitur hominis eft functio muneris animi rationi consentanea, aut certe ratione non carens. Arisl. Eth. N. lib. 1. c.7.' The molt curious interpretation we have seen of the word 'pyou is in a note of Perizonius on Sanelius, de Vocibus Homonymis. Perizonius there she ws, that in Greek it often emphatically denotes quotidianum alicujus hominis opus.' This criticism, though not immediately applicable to the paffige in Xenophon, deserves to be pointed out and recommended to the learned reader. On the rhetorical sense of épgavík, fee Capperon : Quintilian, p. 239.

P. 244. 1. 10. και οιτε όμοιοι ] - Mea quidem fententia οι έμοιοι denotant επιτυχάνουλας, et contrariantur τοις αποτυγχάνεσι in hac ipsâ periodo. Legendum forsan xj s peču čuctos---coda duon Tuszávoutes. Oi (poso! fæpe apud nostrum, videntur efle nobiles,' viri dignitate, virtute, et prudentiâ clari. Xen. Hellenic. iii. 3. De Republ. Athen. 1. 6.' This note, we suspect, was fuggested by the following observation of Zeunius. Sed om.obos, apud nortrum omnino dicuntur, qui sunt ejufdem conditionis dignitatis, muneris. Conf. Ind. Cyrop. et Opus. dolitić.? Thus in the book De Republ. Laced. Coc1 av outunucu Hivi twv opciwn. But the interpretation is not original even in Zeunius.' We therefore thall illustrate and confirm it by two quotations from the Exercitationes Jacobi Palmerii. The first occurs in his observations on the 4th book of Xenophon's Hellenica, Steph. edit. 289. &UTOS de zu xj το ειδα νεανίσκο και την ψυχην ευρωστο, 8 μέν τοι των ομοιων. Ff 2

T.

To quoco videtur hic sumi in raro fignificatu, nimium, pro no. bili et aliis nobilibus Spartiatis æquo vel pari. Ea vox, ut puto, fuit Laconibus peculiaris, certe alibi (credo) non occurrit in eo úgnificatu, faltem non memini me legiffe. Sic inter Gallos, ordo quidam sublimioris dignitatis dicuntur les pairs, pares, ouõios, ea tamen voce in eo fignificatu videtur uti Demofth. contra Leptinem. The second occurs in his criticisms on this speech of Demosthenes contra Leptinem, edit. Pr. p. 323. Poft 375. Meta tw opow. puoio apud Lacedæmonios aliud fignificabat, quam apud alios Græcos. Sic enim vocabunt nobiles suos, ex quibus Senatus, si yeprola, conftituebatur. We say in English, the Peers.

P. 245. 1. 3. xai atopazopsvos.] • Poft verba adótor XATEγέλασοι, ct καταφρονόμενοι, frigidum eft ατιμαζόμενοι-et curiosa Xcnophontis felicitate prorsus indignum. Infignem aliquam depravationem, quam nemo criticorum, quantum scio, suspicatus eft, huic verbo fubeffe nullus dubito; et felici conje&turâ usus, textum in genuinam puritatem reftituere poffe confido. He then ascribes the common reading to the ignorance of the Librarians, and, with great probability, would substitute atopézhevos. In fupport of this reading, he quotes the following words from Taylor's Notes on the ipeech of Demosthenes, Tepi Tapat perberes.

'Arigaçw ad privatam infamiam, ad contumeliam fignificandum eafque ignominias, quæ homini ab homine, non a lege, inAigunturi 'Ariuów eft vox ritualis et tota forenfis.” In addition to the criticism of Taylor, which is supported by numerous authorities from the prose writers, we would remind our Readers, that the same exactness is observed by the Artic poets.

Τους φέυγονίας καξαπακωνίας και τυπομένους επίτηδες
'Εξηλας ατιμιωσας πρωτG». Arifoph. in Pac. v. 741.

Yripor Ev aluca

σαντες έριν γυναικών. Æschylus in Supp. p. 652. We know a learned friend, who in the 22d line of the Antigone of Sophocles would read ατιμώσας for ατιμασας.

P. 252. I. 5. ma9ev.). Obiter hic emendandus locus vexatiffimus Div. Petri 2 Epift. i. 20. Pro voce izradÚ GEWS quæ vehementer torfit theologos, lege TEASÚCews, et plana fiunt omnia, et fibi maxime congruentia. - The passage in St. Peter is extremely difficult, and we presume not to decide upon the true reading, or the true lense; but we refuse to Dr. E. the merit of originality; for meÍUGEWS had been proposed by Grotius, by Calvin, by Alexander More, and by Curcellæus. We refer our Readers to a föng and elaborate note in the Cure Philologica of Wolfius, p. 169. vol. 5. On the word in ea9v, Valckenaer has some acute and ingenious remarks, in the 464ch page of his Notes on the Phænisja.

P. 263. 1. 2. ίππον και βύν το βελομενα δικαίος ποιήσαθαι.] 41x215 dicitur vel de re vel de persona, quæ muneri suo par ft. 1

Ita

[ocr errors]

Ita Lucianus, de Hift. confcrib. § 39. Xenophontem vocat Sixãsor Guy Spodopec, i.e. idoneum et historiæ conscribendæ parem auctorem. Ad eam normam scriptum reperimus apud Longinum, § 44. Tato douaIzis Elvar detés ces dixasas " videmur a pueritia imbuti esse jufâ vel abfolurâ fervitute." Latini multa cum liberalitate, voce, juftus, ad eam rem utuntur : ut volumen, prælium, exercitus dicuntur, justi. Quicquid scil. functionem suam recipit; quicquid fuo muneri respondet, et omnibus numeris est absolutum ; id apud eos scriptores jufum dicitur.' We confirm Dr. Edwards's criticism by juftum poema' in the 4th Sat. of Horace, lib. 1.

P. 290. 1. 12. autika) Exempli gratia, Vide Xen. Cyropæd. lib.v. p. 319. Ed. Hutch. de Republ. Laced. cap. 1. § 3. The Leipfic editor had translated this word primum, and then substituted exempli gratiâ; which explanation he also affixed to the word in the Orconomics of Xenophon, published in 1782. Vid. cap. 19. p. 121. Dr. E. perhaps had seen one or both of these explanations. He acknowledges neither !

P. 293. 1. 3. expivos yop aeqw, &c.] ‘Hæc omnia usque ad fectionis finem, cujusdam Scioli ese addicamenta puto. Uncis ea inclusi, prorsus rejicere non ausus.' We applaud Dr. E.'s sagacity in suspecting the genuineness of these ten lines, and we approve of his diffidence in not excluding them from the text.

Ρ. 296. 1. 3. Δήλια.] • Omnia Athenienfium fefta neutro genere efferuntur, absque ulla exceptione, nisi me fallat memoria. This perhaps is not entirely true. We have selected the following names of feasts from Meursius in his Græcia Feriata, βαλληλυς-βορεασμοί-δωδεκάτη -εβδόμη - φελλός -- there were Athenian feaits.' Those of other nations were generally in the neuter; but there are exceptions-dainis, a feast among the Argives-maris, among the Milesians-X1680tókon, among the Phlia aftans-καρυατιές, and διαμαστίγωσις, among the Lacedaemonians.

From the notes which we have produced, our Readers, probably, may be inclined to agree with us, in considering Dr. E. as a good scholar, rather than as a sagacious critic. His erudition, certainly, was not very extensive, nor very deep; and for many of his observations he is indebted to his friend Dr. Taylor. He seems, indeed, ambitious of acknowledging his obligations to the illustrious editor of Demofthenes; and we with that he had been equally attentive in mentioning some other sources, from which his criticisms are evidently derived. We cannot follow him in his favourite opinion, that the Memorabilia of Xenophon contain a complete and regular system of ethics; but we readily allow his taste and judgment in the explanation of some particuJar parts. As to the style of his Notes, we think it neiiber remarkably elegant, nor uniformly correct; but we are happy in finding it not deformed by any affectation of uncouth and upusual phraseology: we are yet more happy, in being able to in

forma

!

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »