of Dr. E.; and the various readings are taken from eleven manufcripts, which he had procured from foreign librarians, and which he was prevented from examining, by that illness which terminated in his diffolution. Three of the manufcripts are in the Vatican Library at Rome, five in the Medicæan Library at Florence, and three in the Royal Library at Paris. The oldeft Vatican manuscript is of the 14th century: the oldeft Medicæan is of the 13th; and the oldest Parifian is of the 11th. The references to the Vatican are, Vat. 1. 2. 3. To the Medicæan, Cod. A. B. C. D. E. To the Parifian, Cod. Paris. 1. 2. 3. The eight Italian manufcripts are perfect. Of the Parifian manufcripts, the firft contains the two firft books of the Memorabilia; the fecond has only the fourth book; and the third contains the first and fecond books, and the greater part of the third. The Parisian manufcripts are collated throughout, the reft only in felect paffages, and particularly in thofe, which have embarraffed men of learning, and have given rife to conjectural emendation, or philological controverfy.

66

To the foregoing extracts from Dr. Owen's Preface, we shall fubjoin the concluding paragraph; because it is equally diftinguished by delicacy of fentiment and elegance of diction: "Hoc opus, amico vice fufceptum, nunc tandem eâ, quâ potui, fide et diligentia perfeci; quod quidem fuperftes ipfe melius multo perfeciffet. Tuum eft igitur, candide lector, ut nofirum hoc officium qualecumque amico fatis funto præftitum æqui bonique confulas. Vale."

In a concife and well-written addrefs from Dr. Edwards to the Reader, we are informed, that he had endeavoured to make the text correct, and the tranflation perfpicuous: that he had prepared an index of the heads of the different chapters: that he intended to fubjoin a few notes of his own and that his object, both in the index and in the notes, was to elucidate the real meaning of his author, and to establish a pofition, which had been overlooked by all modern scholars, hunc nempe libellum philofophia moralis fyftema continere. To the illuftration of this pofition the index is judiciously accommodated, and our Readers may recollect, that Dr. E. published a full and elaborate defence of his opinion, in the year 1773, under the following title; The Socratic Syftem of Morals, as delivered in Xenophon's Memorabilia *

The tranflation is clear and exact, and is printed immediately under the text of the original. The propofed emendations are often placed at the bottom of the page. To the work itself are fubjoined the notes, printed in a fmaller letter, and extended through 24 pages. Then follow the different readings, in 15 pages, diftinguished by references to the manufcripts from

* See an account of this little tract in our Rev. vol. xlix. p. 72.

which they are refpectively taken, and interfperfed with notes by Dr. Owen and Mr. Belin. The edition concludes with corrections of 22 errata. It falls not within the limits of our Review to produce even thofe readings, which we think the moft important. We have, however, examined them accurately, and we hesitate not to pronounce them worthy of the scholar's attention. In juftice to the memory of Dr. Edwards, and from respect to the curiofity of the Public, the following notes are felected, and occafionally confirmed or difputed.

Page 2. line 12. for τις απαντῶντας, forfan τὰ ἀπαντῶντα, Non folùm ex animalibus, fed etiam ex tonitru, fulgore, &c. bonam vel malam fortunam conjectare folebant divinantes.' This alteration we think unneceffary, and Zeunius is of the fame opinion, nam commode intelligitur apnas. Ex hominum autem occurfu capta effe omina, docent loca laudata a Lindebrogio ad Terent. Phorm. iv. 4 25. The emendation had appeared in Simpson's edition -We here remark, with pain, that many of the oblervations and emendations which occur in the notes of Edwards, are to be found alfo in Zeunius's edition.-The coincidence was very striking to us, and excited fufpicions, at least, that Dr Edwards had feen the notes of Zeunius on the Memorabilia, which were publifhed at Leipfic in 1781, and alfo the Opufcula Politica of Xenophon, published in 1778, by the fame

editor.

Page 4. line 2. καλῶς οικήσειν—καλῶς δικίσειν edidit Erneftus, male-verbum dixnos hic recte fe habere, viri eruditiffimi pace, audacter afferam-fi enim grammaticis vetuftioribus adhibenda eft fides, To é tam futuro quam præfenti rite conjungaturcum aorifto autem nullo modo, μέλλω ποιεῖν, μέλλῳ ποιήσειν, ον μέλλω ποιῆσαι - Τ. Magifter- ἔμελλον ποιήσαι, ἔμελλον θείναι, ἁμαρτήματα ἐσχάτων-Phrynichus.

We know not from what editions Dr. E. quotes these gramThe negative part of their pofition is undoubtedly falfe. In page 149 of Phrynichus, edit. Pau. Hoefchelius quotes from the 5th book of Thucydides μeλλnoolas yevéoda. The fame paffage is quoted, for the fame purpose of confutation, by Stanley, in his note on the 626th line of the Prometheus Vinctus, where we read, μéλλw nadev.-Stanley has completely refuted the canon of Thomas Magifter, and fhews that Plato had twice used uλλw with an aorift. In Bernard's edition of Thomas Magifter, page 607, the queftion is fully difcuffed in the notes of Bos, Drakenborch, Stober, and Oudendorp.

Page 6. line 11. for Tegi TV TOISTWV, Dr. E. reads wee! TŴU ερανίων, and quotes from Lib. 4. c. 7. § 4. Ολως δέ των θρανίων φροντιςην γιγνεθαι, απέτρεπεν. This alteration allo had been propoted in Simplon's edition, and probably was fuggefted to Simpfen by Dr. Edwards. Zeunius propofes Jawv: we approve of

U 3

the

the common reading, where ToiTwv has the fame meaning with TOIUTA in the preceding fentence.

Page 7. line 7. xal Eúna ta tuxoila x Ingía. Nulla ufquam gens coluit lapides et ligna quælibet. Error in textum irrepfit, nefcio quomodò. Xenophontem, ordine verborum leviter mutato, fic fcripfife - και ξύλα και τα τυχόνα θηρίαmihi pene pro certo eft. We think this tranfpofition right, and accede to the rea fon affigned for it; but we add, that Hindeburgius had, for a different reafon, proposed it before, ut membri hujus poftrema pars fimilis ratione numeri reddatur antecedenti ἔτε ἄλλο τῶν θείων δεν. The Leipfic reads καὶ τα τυχόντα θηρία.

Page 9. line 7. x ¿Déanoev imi&ngiog.] Populo fuffragii ferendi poteftatem dare noluit. Anglice: He would not put the question. Vide Demofth. 2 tom. p. 269. ed. Taylor. This interpretation is juft. On the word miroiray there is a moft valuable note in page 86, of the Dilucidationes Thucydideæ, by Abrefch. He oppofes Kufter, who denied that ingin could fignify image-the authorities produced againft Kufter are numerous and decifive. For the fake of our Readers who may not have Abrefch's book, we will quote a part of the Schol. inedit. upon Ariftidesἄλλως οι ρήτορες ἐπὶ τὸ ὑποβάλλειν αυτὶν λέγεσι τὸ ἐπιψηφίζειν, καὶ ἄλλως οι φιλόσοφοι, οι ρήτορες ἐπὶ τὸ ἐρωτῶν ταῦτα τάτεσιν· οἱ δὲ φιλόσοφοι ἐπὶ τῇ κυρῶσαι. V. Harpocration in voce, who illuftrates this fenfe of the word from Demothenes κατά Ανδροβίωνος-quoted alfo by the Scholiaft on Ariftides.

Page 15. line 9. ει μὲν τι κάκον—ἐποιησάτην.] Notent tirones particulam non femper dubii quid fignificare. Nam Critiam et Alcibiadem damno affecifle rempublicam quam maximo, fciebant omnes. This is very true, and very obvious; and the fame may be faid of a fubfequent remark, in which we are told, that

is uled for T.-We read with furprife and concern what follows: Scias velim, Lector, quod omnes fere grammaticos cri ticofque effugit, fententiam, in quâ verbum modi indicativi conjunctioni & fubjicitur, non folummodo hypothefin continere, verum etiam iftius hypothefews affirmationem.' Now, we believe there are few schoolboys, who have not heard from their mafters many curious and fubtile diftinctions between the affumptive and hypothetical ufe of s and fi. We cannot therefore give Dr. E. credit for the novelty of his criticifm, and as to the truth of it, we know that the general rule is to be admitted with many reftrictions. In the following line is not affirmative-au de geTas at the Jawors-Iliad, A. line 83.-In the following paffages it is conditional, and contains nullam affirmationem hypothefews: Εἷς όρος, μία βροτοισίν ἐστιν ἐυτυχίας ὁδος,

θυμῖν ἔι τις ἔχων απευθὴ δύναται διατελείν βίον.

Bacchylides, p. 149. edit. Brunck, vol. 1.

ἔι τις ὑπὸ χλάινῃ βεβλημένος Ηλιοδώρας

θάλπεται, ὑπναπάτη χρωτὶ χλιαινόμενος,

κοιμάθω μὲν ὁ λύχνος· Meleaget, p. 29. ibid.

We have taken the first paffages which met our eye in the first books that were at hand; it were easy to produce a thousand of the fame kind. The following remark of Gefner will explain the use of, and fi, more clearly and precifely than the loose and general pofition of Dr. Edwards: Indicativus modus adhibetur in re certâ ac definitâ, conjunctivus pendere conditionem, incertamque effe, indicat.-Tamen finitivis Tos xos id eft indicativis etiam jungitur, quum fignificatur conditio, ita men, ut nexum conditionis cum confequenti fuo certam indicet.' Upon a fubject where fo much has been faid, and with fo little accuracy, we think it not pedantic to add the following quotation from Scheller's Præcepta ftyli Latini, p. 157: ergo notandum, particulas has: etfi, tametfi, quamquam, fi, nifi, antequam, fimulac, quamvis, non per fe conjunctivum regere, ut vulgo dicunt, fed indicativum. At contextus ratio efficere poteft, ut omnes hæ particulæ, et plures, v. c. quando, ubi, quis, quid, &c. cum conjunctivo conjungantur.. Ergo a contextu pendet hic ufus fubjunctivi." In the following lines the conftruction of & is determined by the context:

Τὸ μὲν θανόντος ἐκ ἄν ενθυμοίμεθα,

ἔι τι φρονιμεν, πλεῖον ἡμέρας μας.

• Hic

Simonides, p. 129. Brunck Anal. vol. I. The fallacy of Dr. E.'s pofition will appear to any reader who will take the trouble of confulting Budæus's Commentaries, p. 1048. or Vigerus, cap. 8. fect. 6. We fhall content ourfelves with faying that a with the optative, as a Túxo, is hypothetical; and it may not be amifs to add, that in fome paffages where a contingent future event is to be expreffed, the particle would be infufficient to exprefs it. In Ælian, lib. 2. cap. 36. the text corruptly reads & de dobavw; fome of the manufcripts read av, which Scheffer approves; and Perizonius condemns the Common reading, and approves the emendation. In Herodotus, lib. 8. p. 641. edit. Weff. the text used to read & viundéwoi, on which Valckenaer writes thus: Ferri nequit-revocabitur fincerum vixndéwo. He then refers to the above quoted paffage in Ælian, and adds, Conftans veterum ufus fperneret To i dоSávw, ut folæcum, alterum av tantum admifit: in his fæpe fuit a viris doctiffimis peccatum. We fhall close this tedious fubject by observing, that whatever mood or tenfe be joined to ɛ, the conditional or contingent force of the fentence, depends, not upon this particle, but upon av, expreffed or understood. Page 18. line 6.

guxoi oμws.] Mailem legere ows prorfus, The alteration is plaufible; but as the manufcripts and editions vary in the pofition of the word ouws, we

omnino, arcent.

U 4

agree

agree with Zeunius, who would expunge it from the text auctoritate Juntinæ.

In the verfes from Theognis, Dr. E. propofes to change ola vóov into Evovтa véov: the fame correction being propofed in Simpfon's edition, increases our fufpicion that Dr. E. had communicated many of his emendations to Simpfon.

Page 20. ὑπὸ πόλλων καὶ σέμνων γυναικών, &c. Hunc locum corruptum effe puto, quippe neque hiftoriæ veritati (Vide Plat. Alcibiad. 1.), neque authoris fimplicitati refpondentem.' Dr. E. therefore would read ανθρώπων for γυναικών-But there is no violation of history; for, as Erneftus fays, hic de patre [Cliniæ filio Z.] fermonem effe clarum eft: unde male de filio hunc lo cum capit Taylorus ad Lyfiæ, Orat. 1. Ern. de Alcibiadts genealogia. Vid. Valefii Emendat. p. 101. feq.' As to the expreffion, Ruhnkenius quotes from Philoftratus, Ó TÜV xαλŴV γυναικών θηρευόμενος.

Ibid. line 12. διὰ δύναμιν δὲ τὴν εν τῇ πόλει καὶ τοις συμμά χοις ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ δυνατών κολακέυειν. This paffage is much difputed-Erneftus thinks xoλaxívei fpurious, and would throw it out.-Zeunius interprets it Suváτwv xoλaxÉVEIV, men who are able or skilful to flatter.-The Greek idiom admits this conftruction, but it is not adapted to the general fense of the paffage. We therefore prefer Budæus's reading, noλaxevóvтwv. Dr. Edwards fays, hoc verbum non eft folicitandum, and quotes from Thucydides-Töis duvarois, men in power. We do not clearly underftand the meaning of this note, for the difficulty lies not in the preferving or rejecting of the word duvaru, but in the manner in which it is to be understood with xoλaxvev; and this difficulty is not at all leffened by Dr. E.'s note; for, if xoλanévɛv be retained (which he does not even propofe to alter or attempt to explain), it is impoffible to understand duvarav in the fenfe affigned to it by Dr. Edwards. We, it is true, adopt that fenfe; but, at the fame time, would alter the reading of xoλaxvev. We would obferve, by the way, that dialgúTTET is a moft emphatical word, and is applied metaphorically by Theocritus to the conceited and petulant air of the finger, juft before he begins the fong: Vid. Eidyll. 15. line 99.

Page 21. 1. 7. πλпμμeλnoáτnv.] En metaphoram pulcherrimam e muficorum fcientia depromptam; qua ufus eft Horatius, ii. Ep. 144. Sed veræ numerofque modofque edifcere vitæ: diceremus Anglice, If they played any note out of tune.' Horace ufes, as Dr. E. might have added, a fimilar allufion in Epift. 18. lib. 1. verf. 59. Ariftotle's definition of virtue correfponds to this idea—καθόλου δὲ τὴς μὲν ἀρετῆς εςι, τὸ ποιειν σπουδαιαν τὴν διάθεσιν, περὶ τὴν ψυχήν, ἠρεμάιαις καὶ τεταγμέναις κινήσεσι χρωμένην, συμφωνουσαν κατα πάντα τὰ μέρη-Ariftot. de Virt. et Vit. p. 295. vol. 2d. edit. Paris.

There