tions in the Infcriptiones Atticæ of Corfini. The Athenian citizens, when they had finished their 18th year, were enrolled under the general name of Ephebi; who again were divided into the Adfcriptitii in their 19th year, and the Ephebi in their 20th. Vehemens certe fufpicio mihi fuboritur Adfcriptitios ipfos, Epheborum inftar, in Athenienfium civium numero habendos effe: nec alio prorfus difcrimine, Ephebos ab Adfcriptiis distingui poffe, quam quod illi, fecundum 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 egreffi in militum albo recenferentur. After reasoning upon this fubject very ably, he thus concludes: Ephebi nomine in noftro Marmore, aliifque pluribus, cives illos indicatos exiftimo, qui fecundum hujus militiæ annum agerent; Adlectos vero, vel Adfcriptitios vocari cenfeo, qui nuper ejus Archontis anno labente Ephebis aliis adjecti, recenfque adfcripti forent; proximoque demum anno nobiliori Epheborum nomine appellandi, adjectaque tribuum ferie recenfendi fuerant, p. 14. and 15. P. 181. 1. 1. pupíwv dixiv.] Dr. E. tells us, that the number of Athenians was 20,000, and refers us to Demofth. adv. Ariftogit. and the Vefpæ of Ariftoph. 1. 705. Before the Perfic war, it was 30,000, tefte Herodoto, lib. 5. The information given by this note is trifling. They who would understand the subject more fully, fhould confult Meurfius de Fortuna Athen. cap. 4. Hume's Effay on the Populoufness of ancient Nations, p. 458, &c. and above all, Wallis on the Numbers of Mankind, p. 54. P. 191. 1. 1. Dr. Edwards would lop off the conclufion of the eighth chapter, from γραφαι το προσιέναι - p æcedentibus enim, fays he, non cohærent.' The tranfition, we confefs, has not the ufual perfpicuity of Xenophon; but as the paffage is quoted by Stobæus, and found in all the Manufcripts, we cannot venture on the defperate measure propofed by our Editor. From γραφαί to παρέχεσι might be fpared; but we cannot part with the opinion of Socrates, on the beft fite of temples. Ρ. 192. 1. 12. τὰ μὲν καλὰ τε καὶ αγαθα γιγνώσκοντα χρῆσθαι aulois. The two laft words Dr. E. thinks, fenfum perturbant;' which, if they be rejected, becomes fole meridiano clarior. "Omnes virtutes in fcientia pofitas effe afferuit Socrates;" repugnante quidem Ariftotele, apud quem virtus moralis cu pasis anna ρäis. This reafoning is fpecious, but not decifive, or well-placed; for Socrates, as Erneftus obferves, does not enquire, in what virtue, abftractedly confidered, may confift, but defcribes a virtuous man. Xpñdzi durois, as oppofed to Toy To aioxpa idora ¿vλaßuda, is good fenfe; and as to the conftrucsion, xpnofas obviously and properly depends on or understood. REV. Dec. 1786. Ff P. 197. P. I 197. 1. ult. ταχιστ ̓ ἂν ἀπολέθαι.] Dr. E. propofes to read κάκιστα opponitur enim, τῷ ὡς ἔτυχε, ζημιέθαι. certain and immediate deftruction is fufficiently oppofed. Surely, P. 211. 1. 9. for pospiplas in the middle voice, he would read poppy. Dr. E. does not tell us, that poopípn is the old reading, which Stephens changed into por pipalas, and which Zeunius has replaced in the text of his very correct edition. We take this opportunity of faying, that we do not approve of the cenforious and contemptuous foirit, with which the Dutch Reviewer treats the criticifms of Zeunius upon the Memorabilia of Xenophon. See Part 6. p. 116. In his Examination of the Cyropædia and the Opufcula Politica, Equefiria, et Venetica, published by the fame editor, he has hewn more juftice and candour. Vid. Part 5. p. 128. and 130. P. 212. 1. 6. Ty sigla ] Dr. E. contents himself with quoting a well-known line from the fecond Idyllion of Theocritus. He would have obliged his readers more effectually, by fupporting or confuting the very learned and judicious note of Erneftus: who confirms the interpretation of Suidas, where the fuy is faid to be put for the rhombus ufed in incantations, with the bowels, probably, of this bird faftened to it, and rolled round with it. P. 218. 1. 6. aneuvos.] Dr. Edwards would read axaćevos, in which he follows, but without acknowledgment, Leunclavius. We follow Stephens, and many other refpectable critics, in fuppofing axapaves to be the name of a celebrated physician. P. 224. 1. 10. To inwxacta.] Hoc verbum, quod iis qui bene et frugaliter vefcuntur, tribuit Socrates, Div. Petrus, 2 Epist. ii. 13. ad epulones voluptuarios tradux.t.' St. Peter ufed the word in a general and lax fenfe; Socrates in a more limited fignification, accommodated to his own derivation, which we will confirm by quoting at length a paffage from Athenæus, which is partially cited by Ζeunius, Τας δὲ ἐυωχίας ἐκάλουν ἐκ ἀπὸ τὶς οχής, ή εσι τροφή, ἀλλ ̓ ἀπὸ τὸ κατὰ ταῦτα ἐν ἔχειν, εις ὡς δὲ συνίοντες, οι τὸ θείον τιμώντες, καὶ εἰς ἐμφροσύνην καὶ ἄνεσιν αυτούς μεθίεντες, τὸν μεν πότον μέθυ, τον δὲ τέτο δωρησάμενον Θεόν, Μεθυμναιον καὶ λυαιον, καὶ Εὔιον, καὶ ἰηίον προσηγόρευον. p. 363. Arifα tophanes, in the Lyffrate, applies the word to the temperate meats of the Lacedemonians TO όπως αν οι Λάκωνες ένδοθεν καθ ̓ ἡσυχίαν απιωσιν ευωχημένοι. 1. 1225. But in the Vefpe, he ufes it in the lax and general fenfe of feafting ὥσπερ καχρύων ὀνίδιον ευωχημένον. 1297. And in the Plutus, Blepfidemus fays, ἐθέλω πλουτειν ευωχείσθαι μετὰ τῶν παιδων τῆς τε γυναικος. 1. 604. We We would obferve by the way, that low is ufed by St. John, ii. 10. for those who drink freely, though not to any great degree of intoxication; and thus Lucian, when he would exprefs exceffive drunkennefs, adds Ipaves to μíGucos, as if the latter word were not emphatical enough. See vol. i. p. 171. Ed. Reitz. Ρ. 226. 1. 8. και το ὅλον.] Κατὰ τὸ μέρος in prioribus libris dictum eft; in hoc dicitur xara To nov, univerfim, i. e. in ge neri. Hinc mihi videtur, quod Imus Liber continet officium hominis erga numen et feipfum. IVtus Liber erga omnes univerfim-feu omnium hominis officiorum repetitionem fummariam.' E. P. 235 1. ult. x xahirai Barilinn] Ita et Div. Jacobus Ερίβ. 11. 8. νόμον τελείτε βασιλικόν. E. There is a fimilar image in Farro de linguâ Latina. Quartus (explicandi gradus) ubi eft aditus et initia regis. Lib. 4. p 7. edit. Scal. BasiλINÓV TI TO XXX2 var. Xen. Symp. cap 1. But on the word vouous (for fo we fhould read) joined with Bars, Tónews. Vid. Arift. Rhet. cap. 2. lib. 3. with a fenfible note in the Oxford edition. Ρ. 236. 1. 6. των δικαιῶν ἔστὶν ἔργα, ὥσπερ τῶν τεκτόνων.] Έστιν εν ἔργον ανθρώπε, κ. τ. λ. “ Opus igitur hominis eft func tio muneris animi rationi confentanea, aut certe ratione non carens. Arift. Eth. N. lib. 1. c. 7.' The most curious interpretation we have seen of the word you is in a note of Perizonius on Sanctius, de Vocibus Homonymis. Perizonius there fhews, that in Greek it often emphatically denotes quotidianum alicujus hominis opus. This criticifm, though not immediately applicable to the paffage in Xenophon, deferves to be pointed out and recommended to the learned reader. On the rhetorical fenfe of pyaria, fee Capperon: Quintilian, p. 239. P. 244. 1. 10. OITE MO101] Mea quidem fententia di pocos denotant επιτυγχάνοντας, et contrariantur τοις απολυγχάνεσι in hac ipfa periodo. Legendum forfan καὶ ἂν μὲν ὁμοιοι διδε απο TulxdVOUTES. O polo fæpe apud noftrum, videntur effe nobiles, viri dignitate, virtute, et prudentiâ clari. Xen. Hellenic. iii. 3. De Republ. Athen. 1. 6.' This note, we fufpect, was fuggefted by the following obfervation of Zeunius. Sed quoici, apud noftrum omnino dicuntur, qui funt ejufdem conditionis dignitatis, muneris. Conf. Ind. Cyrop. et Opufc. politic. Thus in the book De Republ. Laced. ὅσει αν σύσκηνοι ὦσι τῶν ὁμείων. But the interpretation is not original even in Zeunius. We therefore fhall illuftrate and confirm it by two quotations from the Exercitationes Jacobi Palmerii. The first occurs in his obfervations on the 4th book of Xenophon's Hellenica, Steph. edit. 289. Outos de v το είδος νεανίσκῷ καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἔΕυρωστο, ε μέν τοι των όμοιων. Ff2 To 1 To quoov videtur hic fumi in rare 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 fignificatu, faltem non memini me legiffe. Sic inter Gallos, ordo quidam fublimioris dignitatis dicuntur les pairs, pares, Quoio, ea tamen voce in eo fignificatu videtur uti Demofth. contra Leptinem. The fecond occurs in his criticisms on this fpeech of Demofthenes contra Leptinem, edit. Pr. p. 323. Poft 375. Μετὰ τῶν ὁμοίων.—ὅμοιοι apud Lacedamonios aliud fignificabat, quam apud alios Græcos. Sic enim vocabunt nobiles fuos, ex quibus Senatus, yeprora, conftituebatur. We fay in English, the Peers. n Ρ. 245. 1. 3. καὶ ατιμαζόμενοι.] • Poft verba αδόξοι καταγέλασοι, et καταφρονόμενοι, frigidum eft ατιμαζόμενοι—et curi ofa Xenophontis felicitate prorfus indignum. Infignem aliquam depravationem, quam nemo criticorum, quantum fcio, fufpicatus eft, huic verbo fubeffe nullus dubito; et felici conjecturâ ufus, textum in genuinam puritatem reftituere poffe confido.' He then afcribes the common reading to the ignorance of the Librarians, and, with great probability, would substitute aripéμevoi. In fupport of this reading, he quotes the following words from Taylor's Notes on the fpeech of Demofthenes, Tepi жαрaπρeσberas. 'ÁTua ad privatam infamiam, ad contumeliam fignificandum eafque ignominias, quæ homini ab homine, non a lege, inAliguntur. 'Ariów eft vox ritualis et tota forenfis." In addition to the criticifm of Taylor, which is fupported by numerous authorities from the profe writers, we would remind our Readers, that the fame exactness is obferved by the Attic poets. Τους φευγοντας καξ απαλώνας καὶ τυπτομένους ἐπίτηδες Ψήφον ἔθεν ατιμώ σαντες ἔριν γυναικών. Ariftoph. in Pac. v. 741. Efchylus in Supp. p. 652. We know a learned friend, who in the 22d line of the Antigone of Saphocles would read ατιμώσας for ατιμάσας. P. 252. 1. 5. iv.] Obiter hic emendandus locus vexatiffimus Div. Petri 2 Epift. i. 20. Pro voce úσws quæ vehementer torfit theologos, lege iλúrews, et plana fiunt omnia, et fibi maxime congruentia. The paffage in St. Peter is extremely difficult, and we prefume not to decide upon the true reading, or the true fenfe; but we refufe to Dr. E. the merit of originality; for ETEλivσews had been proposed by Grotius, by Calvin, by Alexander More, and by Curcellæus. We refer our Readers to a long and elaborate note in the Cure Philologica of Wolfius, p. 169. vol. 5. On the word intλ9, Valckenaer has fome acute and ingenious remarks, in the 464th page of his Notes on the Phanifa. P. 263. 1. 2. ΐππον καὶ βὲν τῷ βελομένῳ δικαίες ποιήσαθαι.] Axis dicitur vel de re vel de perfona, quæ muneri fuo par eft. 66 Ita Lucianus de Hift. confcrib. § 39. Xenophontem vocat dixator avyfgapea, i. e. idoneum et hiftoriæ confcribendæ parem auctorem. Ad eam normam fcriptum reperimus apud Longinum, § 44. maiδομαθείς είναι δυλειας δικαίας “ videmur a pueritia imbuti effe jufta vel abfolutâ fervitute." Latini multa cum liberalitate, voce, juftus, ad eam rem utuntur: ut volumen, prælium, exercitus dicuntur, jufti. Quicquid fcil. functionem fuam recipit; quicquid fuo muneri refpondet, et omnibus numeris eft abfolutum ; id apud eos fcriptores juftum dicitur.' We confirm Dr. Edwards's criticifm by juftum poema' in the 4th Sat. of Horace, lib. 1. P. 290. 1. 12. avτíxx] Exempli gratiâ, Vide Xen. Cyropæd. lib. v. p. 319. Ed. Hutch. de Republ. Laced cap. 1. § 3. The Leipfic editor had tranflated this word primum, and then fubftituted exempli gratiâ; which explanation he alfo affixed to the word in the Oeconomics of Xenophon, published in 1782. Vid. cap. 19. p. 121. Dr. E. perhaps had feen one or both of these explanations. He acknowledges neither! Ρ. 293. 1. 3. ἐκείνος γαρ λέγων, &c.] Hæc omnia ufque ad fectionis finem, cujufdam Scioli effe additamenta puto. Uncis ea inclufi, prorfus rejicere non aufus.' We applaud Dr. E.'s fagacity in fufpecting 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, abfque ulla exceptione, nifi me fallat memoria.' This perhaps is not entirely true. We have felected the following names of feafts from Meurfius in his Græcia Feriata, βαλληλὺςβορεασμοί-δωδεκάτη —ἑβδόμη — φελλός -- there were Athenian feats. Those of other nations were generally in the neuter; but there are exceptions-dziais, a feaft among the Argives-λnis, among the Milefians-xicoτóμoi, among the Phliafans-καρυατές, and διαμαστίγωσις, among the Lacedæmonians. From the notes which we have produced, our Readers, probably, may be inclined to agree with us, in confidering Dr. E. as a good scholar, rather than as a fagacious critic. His erudition, certainly, was not very extenfive, nor very deep; and for many of his obfervations he is indebted to his friend Dr. Taylor. He feems, indeed, ambitious of acknowledging his obligations to the illuftrious editor of Demofthenes; and we with that he had been equally attentive in mentioning fome other fources, 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 fyftem of ethics; but we readily allow his taste and judgment in the explanation of fome particular parts. As to the ftyle of his Notes, we think it neither remarkably elegant, nor uniformly correct; but we are happy in finding it not deformed by any affectation of uncouth and unufual phrafeology: we are yet more happy, in being able to in Ff3 form |