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 hefitate not to pronounce them worthy of the fcholar's attention. In justice to the memory of Dr. Edwards, and from relpect to the curiofity of the Public, the following notes are felected, and occafionally confirmed or difputed.

Page 2. line 12. for T8s dwavTWVTas, forfan Ta davтwvтa. 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 pas. Ex hominum autém 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 ftriking to us, and excited fufpicions, at leaft, 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 οικίσειν edidit Erneftus, male-verbum dixos hic recte fe habere, viri eruditiffimi pace, audacter afferam-fi enim grammaticis vetuftioribus adhibenda eft fides, To μéxx tam futuro quam præfenti rite conjungaturcum aorifto autem nullo modo, μέλλω ποιεῖν, μέλλῳ ποιήσειν, ου μέλλω ποιῆσαι —T, Magifter - ἔμελλον ποιήσαι, ἔμελλον θῆναι, ἁμαρτήματα ἐσχάτων-Phrynichus.

1

We know not from what editions Dr. E. quotes these grammarians. The negative part of their pofition is undoubtedly falfe. In page 149 of Phrynichus, edit. Pau. Hoefchelius quotes from the sth book of Thucydides μελλήσοντας γενέσθαι. The fame paffage is quoted, for the fame purpose of confutation, by Stanley, in his note on the 626th line of the Prometheus Vinc tus, where we read, μinaw nadev.-Stanley has completely refuted the canon of Thomas Magifter, and fhews that Plato had twice ufed μλλw 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 II. for περὶ τῶν τοιύτων, Dr. E. reads περὶ τῶν ερανίων, and quotes from Lib. 4. c. 7. § 4. Ολως δέ των ερανίωνφροντισὴν γιγνεθαι, απέτρεπεν. This alteration alio had been propofed in Simpfon's edition, and probably was fuggefted to Simpfon by Dr. Edwards. Zeunius propofes Juwr: we approve of

U 3

the

糕

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

Page 7. line 7. καὶ ξύλα τα τυχόνια και θηρία.] Nulla ufquam gens coluit lapides et ligna quælibet. Error in textum irrepfit, nefcio quomodò. Xenophontem, ordine verborum leviter mutato, 'fic (cripfiffe κ ξύλα καὶ τα τυχόνα θηρία-mihi pene pro certo eft. We think this tranfpofition right, and accede to the reafon affigned for it; but we add, that Hindeburgius had, for a different reafon, propofed it before, ut membri hujus poftrema pars fimilis ratione numeri reddatur antecedenti ἔτε ἄλλο τῶν θείων ἔδεν. The Leiphic reads καὶ τα τυχόντα θηρία.

Page 9. line 7.x Déσe inpioa.] Populo fuffragii ferendi poteftatem dare noluit. Anglice: He would not put the queftion. Vide Demofth, 2 tom. p. 269. ed. Taylor. This interpretation is juft. On the word ingoa there is a moft valuable note in page 86, of the Dilucidationes Thucydideæ, by Abrefch, He oppofes Kufter, who denied that inçizar could fignify mixuga-the authorities produced against Kuster 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 αὐτὸν λέγεσι τὸ ἐπιψηφίζειν, καὶ ἄλλως οι φιλόσοφοι, οι ρήτορες ἐπὶ τὸ ἐρωτῶν ταῦτα τάπασιν· οἱ δὲ φιλόσοφοι ἐπὶ τῇ κυρῶσαι. V. Harpocration in voce, who illuftrates this fenfe of the word from Demofthenes κατά Ανδροτίωνος-quoted alio 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 affeciffe rempublicam quam maximo, sciebant omnes. This is very true, and very obvious; and the fame may be faid of a fubfequent remark, in which we are told, that siis ufed for T.-We read with surprise and concern what follows: Scias velim, Lector, quod omnes fere grammaticos criticofque effugit, fententiam, in quâ verbum modi indicativi conjunctioni fubjicitur, non folummodo hypothefin continere, verum etiam iftius hypothefews affirmationem.' Now, we believe there are few fchoolboys, who have not heard from their mafters many curious and fubtile diftinctions between the affumptive and hypothetical ufe of a and fi. We cannot therefore give Dr. E. credit for the novelty of his criticism, and as to the truth of it, we know that the general rule is to be admitted with many restrictions. In the following line & is not affirmative-ou d'è peagai fi μe cawσεis-Iliad, A. line 83.-In the following paffages It is conditional, and contains nullam affirmationem hypothefews: Εἷς ὅρος, μία βροτοισίν ἐστιν ἐυτυχίας όδος,

ει

θυμὲν ἔι τις ἔχων απευθὴ δύναται διατελείν βίον.

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

ἔι τις ὑπὸ χλάινῃ βεβλημένος Ηλιοδώρας

θάλπεται, ὑπναπάτη χρωτὶ χλιαινόμενος,

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

We have taken the firft paffages which met our eye in the first books that were at hand; it were eafy to produce a thousand of the fame kind. The following remark of Gefner will explain. the ufe of , and fi, more clearly and precifely than the loofe and general pofition of Dr. Edwards: Indicativus modus adhibetur in re certâ ac definitâ, conjunctivus pendere conditionem, incertamque effe, indicat.-Tamen finitivis TÕIS opisinÕIS id eft indicativis etiam jungitur, quum fignificatur conditio, ita tamen, ut nexum conditionis cum confequenti fuo certam indicet. Upon a subject where so much has been said, and with fo little accuracy, we think it not pedantic to add the following quotation from Scheller's Præcepta ftyli Latini, p. 157:Hic ergo notandum, particulas has: etfi, tametfi, quamquam, fi, nifi, antequam, fimulac, quamvis, non per fe conjunétivum 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:

Τὰ μὲν θανόντος ἐκ ἄν ενθυμοίμεθα,

ἔι τι φρονιμεν, πλεῖον ἡμέρας μιας.

EL

Simonides, p. 129. Brunck Anal. vol. r. 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 shall content ourfelves with faying that & with the optative, as E TÚ, 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 Et would be infufficient to exprefs it. In Elian, lib. 2. cap. 36. the text corruptly reads & de dobavw; fome of the manuscripts 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 & vinGiwoi, on which Valckenaer writes thus: Ferri nequit-revocabitur fincerum v vixnéwo. He then refers to the above quoted paffage in Ælian, and adds, Conftans veterum ufus fperneret To doSáva, ut folæcum, alterum av tantum admifit: in his fæpe fuit a viris doctiffimis peccatum. We fhall clofe this tedious fubject by obferving, that whatever mood or tense be joined to , the conditional or contingent force of the fentence, depend., not upon this particle, but upon av, expreffed or understood.

Page 18. line 6. iguaσiv čμws.] Mallem legere λws: prorfus, omaino, arcent. The alteration is plaufible; but as the ma nufcripts and editions vary in the pofition of the word ouws, we

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 ovla voor into vorra vcov: the fame correction being propofed in Simp fon's edition, increases our fufpicion that Dr. E. had communicated many of his emendations to Simpson.

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 ἀνθρώπων for γυναικών-But there is no vice lation of hiftory; for, as Erneftus fays, hic de patre [Cliniæ filio Z.] fermonem effe clerum eft: unde male de mio hunc locum capit Taylorus ad Lyfia, Orat. 1. Ern..de Alcibiadis genealogia. Vid. Valefii Emendat. p. 101. feq.' As to the expreffion, Ruhnkenius quotes from Philoftratus, vо Tx γυναικων θηρευομενος.

Ibid. line 12. διὰ δύναμιν δὲ τὴν ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ τοις συμμά χοις ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ δυνατών κολακέυειν. This paflage is much difputed-Erneftus thinks xoxaxéus fpurious, and would throw it out.-Zeunius interprets it duvátův xolaníveis, men who are able or skilful to flatter.-The Greek idiom admits this construction, but it is not adapted to the general fenfe of the paffage. We therefore prefer Budæus's reading, xoλaxevóvтwv. Dr. Edwards fays, hoc verbum non eft folicitandum, and quotes from Thucydides-Tois duvarõis, men in power. We do not clearly understand the meaning of this note, for the difficulty lies not in the preferving or rejecting of the word JuvaTv, but in the manner in which it is to be understood with xoxaxéveiv; and this difficulty is not at all leffened by Dr. E.'s note; for, if xoλxxivɛiv be retained (which he does not even propose to alter or attempt to explain), it is impoffible to underftand duvarov 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 noλaxéve. We would obferve, by the way, that dialpúTTET is a moft emphatical word, and is applied metaphorically by Theocritus to the conceited and petulant air of the finger, juft before the begins the fong: Vid. Eidyll. 15. line 99.

Page 21. 1. 7. inλпμμλnoάτnv.] En metaphoram pulcherrimam e muficorum fcientia depromptam; qua ufus eft Horatius, ii. Ep. 144. Sed veræ numerofque modofque edifcere vitæ: diceremus Anglicè, 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 τῆς μὲν ἀρετῆς εςι, τὸ ποιξιν σπουδαιαν τὴν διάθεσιν, περὶ την ψυχήν, ἠρεμάταις καὶ τεταγμέναις κινήσεσι χρωμένην, συμφωνούσαν κατὰ πάλα τὰ μέρη Ariftot. de Virt. et Vit. p. 295. vol. 2d. edit. Paris.

There

T

There is a paffage alfo of the fame fort in Philo Judæus, which, as, in the language of a certain fantaftic and faftidious hyper-critic, it probably has been little "blown upon," we shall produce: τὸ ἑμμελὲς, καὶ ἔυρυθμον, ἐκ ἐν φωνῇ μᾶλλον ή διανό ἐπιδείκνυσθαι πειρωμένας. P. 656. edit. Mangey, vol. 20.

Page 34. 1. 7. "Egyou & der overdos, &c.] Mirum eft inter antiquos fuiffe, qui hunc locum Hefiodi male funt interpretati quafi dudev ad you referendum effet, cum ad veidos referri debeat. Simpfon. Profecto, dev ad veidos commode referatur, fi verfus citatus per fe confideretur: fi vero conjungatur cum fequentibus, quæ iftius explicandi gratia proferuntur, ad you referatur neceffe eft. Socrates inter ποιειν τι και εργασάθαι pro fuo more acutiffime diftinguit.' Vide L. iii. 9. 5. Edwards.

This note is very fenfible and convincing, both in the part which is quoted, and in the remaining part, which relates to the Socratic use of terms.

Page 39. 1. 5. ή Πυθία αποκρίνεται.] Ernet. pofuit ὑποκρίνεται. Sed recte te habet lectio vulgata. Confer L. iv. 3. 8.

We think Erneftus right, and affign the following reafons: Erneftus reftituit ex Junt. et M. S. Vindob. 1. verbum exquifitius, cujus αποκρίνεται eft Scholion. Suidas enim υποκρίνεθαι, inquit τὸ ἀποκρίνεσθαι οι παλαιὸι. Εt Hefychius υποκριθῆναι, ·άπоxρinvaι. This note of Zeunius we will confirm by the following quotation from Alberti, in his note on the word in Hefychius Notum eft ex Hom. Herodot. aliis paffim sroxpíVa olim pro aоxρívedα ufurpatum fuiffe. Nec femel ita apud Arrian, ut pluribus docui in Obferv. ad Matth. vi. 2. Atticos enim ita locutos effe tradit Schol. Hom. ad II. H. 407. coll. II. M. 228. Quin et Artemidor. 1. 4. p. 215. fin. Expívaτo pro refpondit. Adde Thom. M. ejufque Interpp.'

T. Magifter writes ὑποκρίνομαι καὶ τὸ ἀποκρίνομαι, καὶ υπόκρισις To duro. He juftifies his interpretation by two paffages in the firft book of Herodotus. We add another authority from the 2d book, page 184. Tov de άUT STоngiveα. The critical reader would do well to confult the interpretation of amonρivoja in Stock. clav, L. Sanct.

P.41.1. oir-he quotes the famous paffage from D. Laer- felt tiusἔλεγε Σωκράτης, τους μὲν ἄλλους ανθρώπες ζῆν ἵν ̓ εσθίοιεν, αὐτὸν δὲ ἐσθίειν, ἵνα ζώη. 1. 11.

Ρ. 42. 1. 6. ὑπὲρ τὸν καιρὸν ἐμπίπλασθαι.—Erneftus reads κ. gov. Dr. E. would retain xaigov, becaufe it means, flos temporis, tempeftiva occafio, whence it fignifies, modum et menfuram rei; and he refers to Xen. in Agefil. cap. 5. 1. et Hellenic. 1. 1. 3. Zeunius, alfo, confiders xogov, as the interpretamentum exqui fitiffimi xaipov, quod perfæpe apud Xenophontem de modo rei dicitur, He too refers to the Agefil.

3.

In