us, that Ariftotle fays the word may be applied fo as to leffen what is good or bad. True; but what are the instances 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. These examples, furely, bear no refemblance to κακίαν ufed as a term το διασύρειν. On the whole, we accede to Valckenaer's conjecture, that vo HogóμEVOL fhould be expunged. Dr. Edwards properly tranflates xaxia vitiofitatem, on the authority of Cic. Tufc. Difput. vi. 15. P. 84. 1. 11. igyáτn ayabor.] Hunc vocat D. Paulus Jáτη άVETαιOXUiTov. 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 understand cutting of marble, fome the diftribution made by a fteward, &c. &c. We agree with Bos, who explains the words, 'probum ecclefiæ miniftrum, qui non negligenter nec dolofe in arvo operatur'-this explanation may be illuftrated by verse 6, of the fame chapter; and for fuller information, our Readers may confult fome very learned remarks in Parkhurst's Lexicon.

Ρ. 92. 1. Ι. οικήματα. ] 4 οίκημα pro carcere pofuit Dinarchus. At pro lupinari Æfchines. Suidas. Vide quæ dixit Cl. Taylor ad Marm. Sanduic. p. 59.' The foregoing note feems to be partly a transcript, and partly a tranflation from a note of Taylor on the fpeech of Æfc. con. Timarch. p. 97.-xnue is tranflated by Zeunius, fella meretricia; and Erneftus has told us, dırnua, attice for πορνείον.

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

P. 103. 1. 3. maλanй.] Dele-Edwards-fed fortaffe lectus fuperior vel honoratior mollior erat-Owen.' We cannot help obferving, that Erneftus had rejected μaλæ×ñ, and that Zeunius fays, fortaffe ne paλaxй 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.

P. 108. l. 5. aλa' oμws.] Dr. E. propofes to read iπimóvws, ex antithefi, cum fubfequantur voces ágyas áveμévws: 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.'

6

P. 110.

-P. Ito. 1. 6. T EUρOUTOS] Locus non follicitandus fubint. Xpnpalos-Anglicè, at the price it brings.'-Dr. Edwards is right; but is the interpretation entirely his own? The Cod. Brodai et edit. Paris read upavlos-one manuscript reads Tuxólos, which is approved by Erneftus-but Zeunius fays, utraque lectio eft Gloffema Tupóvros longe exquifitiffimi. Eupioxε autem,cum alibi tum apud noftrum interdum dicitur de re, quæ reditum affertergo τὸ ἑυρὸν elliptice dicitur pro χρῆμα ἑυρὸν πόρον. He confirms this explanation by the following paffage in the Oeconomics, cap. 20. ε TOXÙ agyúpion Eugicnoi, 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 use of up axe, for comparare, fee Taylor's Index to Lyfias.

Ρ. 114. 1. 4. ὥσπερ οι ἐχθροί.] Forfan & ἄρχοι Dr. E. Erneftus had propofed xangos, which is neither more nor lefs probable than aguro. The fenfe admits either reading; and at all events, we fufpect ixfpor.

6

P. 123. 1. 10. dux' woμévovov.] Nihil morantur, fays the translator. Dr. E. much more properly, non fufferunt.' The Englifh words, which occur in this note, fhould, on every principle of delicacy, have been tranflated 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. 11. xuvos λóyov.] Canis fabulam. Hæc fuit olim, ni male auguror, inter fabulas fopicas. Hoc equidem pro certo habeo, fabulas fopicas e veteribus vocari, épous. Sic Plato, as TS TË 'AITÚTTE Moyes. Phæd. 4. edit. Foft. This explanation of the word is juft, and may be confirmed by the following paffage in Arifotle—λόγος δὲδιος ὁ Στησιχόρου πρὸς Φάλαριν, και Αισώπου περὶ τὸ δημαγωγό. Rhetor. lib. 2. cap. 20. edit. fol. vol. 2.

P. 136. 1. 4. Tepopig.] 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 go, with Erneftus, but from opiois.

P. 141. 1. 3. dux öri μóv.] He would retain or, 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. τατίειν ἔτε λέγειν.] • Stobæus, ἔτε ἄγειν, nullus dubito veram lectionem effe Stobæanam'-ral y apud Xenophontem fæpe conjunguntur. Vid. Cyrop. lib. I. prope finem.' We agree with Dr. E. and Zeunius in writing dye.

9

P. 157.

P. 157. 1. 4. ὅσα τε νόμῳ μεμαθήκαμεν.] Fr. Portus νόμῳ ἔσηfuetudine interpretatur recte more et inftituto civitatis. Zeun. eft

Ρ. 159. 1. 2. ε γάρ τοι τοι εισιν ̓Αθηναῖοι.] • Lege, ἰδ. γὰρ εἰt 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 πрosάtev ] Lege #posals. Would not the reader give Dr. E. credit for an ingenious conjecture, on feeing merely his note? But #porale is in Stobæus, and occurs in the text of the Leipfic edition of 1781.

Ibid. εκάστες ἐπιληδειες πράττειν.] Edwards reads, ἃ χρὴ τὰς ἐπιτηδειες, &c. We prefer the text of Zeunius, ἑκασίες τὰ ἐπιΠήδεια πρατζειν.

P. 164. 1. 6. σ8 spalnyno al.] Erneftus Vir cl. Socratem hæc arbitratur difputaile cum Pericle, cum jam a populo spalnyos effet creatus. Mihi aliter videtur, tum propter verba ipfius Periclis, § 5. Οι λανθάνεις με, &c. tum propter verba, ἐι τοίνυν, &c. p. 174. 1. 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, spalnynoalos, with Dr. E.

Ρ. 165. 1. 7. ουδὲ ἐν τόυτοις ̓Αθηνᾶιοι μεμπτοι.] • Hæc verba Pericli adjudico.' The reafon Dr. E. gives is, that the speech of Pericles is ftrongly expreffive of indignation againft the Athenians, and that he commends them fparingly. We therefore fufpect 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 anfwer which Pericles makes in favour of his counvery

even the

trymen.

Ρ. 174. 1. 9. μέχρι τῆς ἐλαφρᾶς ἡλικίας.] • Per ætatem. Ita vox ixía 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, nxus, or cubit, applied to the measure of time, St. Matthew's words may be illuftrated by the following lines in Minnermus

Πήχυιον ἐπὶ χρόνον ἄνθεσιν ἥξης
Τερπόμεθα.

V. Brunck's Anal. vol. 1. p. 60. Page 175. 1. 5. ἐδέπω ἔικοσιν ἔτη γεγονώς.] 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 fome learned and acute obferva

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 Marinore, 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. μupíwu dixiv.] Dr. E. tells us, that the number of Athenians was 20,000, and refers us to Demofth, adv. Ariftogit. and the Vefpæ of Aristoph. 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 fubject more fully, fhould confult Meurfius de Fortuna Athen. cap. 4. Hume's Effay on the Populoufnefs 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 præcedentibus enim,' fays he, non cohærent.' The tranfition, we confefs, has not the ufuat perfpicuity of Xenophon; but as the paffage is quoted by Stobæus, and found in all the Manufcripts, we cannot venture on the defperate measure proposed 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.

6

P. 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 vois anna πρâs. 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. Χρήθαι αυτοις, as oppofed to τον τα asσxpa sidoтα Euλaßada, is good fenfe; and as to the conftruction, probar obviously and properly depends on or understood. REV. Dec. 1786. P. 197

Ff

P. 197. 1. ult. Taxiol är äñoλédas.] Dr. E. propofes to read κάκιστα opponitur enim, τῷ ὡς ἔτυχε, ζημιέθαι. certain and immediate deftruction is fufficiently oppofed.

Surely,

P. 211. 9. for porpipala in the middle voice, he would read por pépy. Dr. E. does not tell us, that porgépn is the old reading, which Stephens changed into pooppalai, 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 fpirit, 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 Cyropædia and the Opufcula Politica, Equeftria, et Venetica, published by the fame editor, he has fhewn more juftice and candour. Vid. Part 5. p. 128. and 130.

P. 212. 1. 6. Tâv iüyla.] 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 supporting or confuting the very learned and judicious note of Erneftus, who confirms the interpretation of Suidas, where the ivy 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. ansμevos.] Dr. Edwards would read anxóμevos, iti which he follows, but without acknowledgment, Leunclavius. We follow Stephens, and many other refpectable critics, in fuppofing axevos to be the name of a celebrated phyfician.

P. 224. 1. 10. To uwxda.] Hoc verbum, quod iis qui bene et frugaliter vefcuntur, tribuit Socrates, Div. Petrus, 2 Epift. ii. 13. ad epulones voluptuarios traduxit.' 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 Zeunius. Τας δὲ ἐυωχίας ἐκάλουν εκ ἀπὸ τῆς οχής, εςι τροφή, ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τὸ κατὰ ταῦτα ἐν ἔχειν, εις ὡς δι συνίοντες, οι τὸ θείον τιμῶντες, και εις ευφροσύνην καὶ ἄνεσιν αυτοὺς μεθίεντες, τον μεν πότον μέθυ, τον δὲ τὸτο δωρησάμενον θεὸν, Με θυμναιον καὶ λυάιον, καὶ Ενιον, καὶ ἰηίον προσηγόρευον. p. 363. Arif tophanes, in the Lyfiferate, applies the word to the temperate meats of the Lacedemonians

1

όπως αν οι Λάκωνες ένδοθεν

καθ ̓ ἡσυχίαν ἀπιωσιν ευωχημένοι. 1. 1225. But in the Vespa, he ufes it in the lax and general sense 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