We would obferve by the way, that slow is ufed by St. Johns ii. 19. for those who drink freely, though not to any great degree of intoxication; and thus Lucian, when he would exprefs exceffive drunkennefs, adds Пápaves to μéducos, as if the latter word were not emphatical enough. See vol. i. p. 171. Ed. Reitz. P. 226. 1. 8.ro öλcu.] Kazd to μép in prioribus libris dictum eft; in hoc dicitur xere To λov, univerfim, i. . 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.ý naṛšitai faciain.] Ita et Div, Jacobus Ερίβ. ii. 8. νόμον τελειτε βασιλικόν. E. There is a fimilar image in Varro de linguâ Latina. Quartus (explicandi gradus) ubi eft aditus et initia regis. Lib. 4, p 7. edit. Scal. BaσIXÓV TI TO XXλλivas. Xen. Symp. cap. 1. But on the word voμous (for fo we fhould read) joined with Bars, Tóλews. Vid. Arift. Rhet. cap. 2. lib. 3. with a fenfible note in the Oxford edition. Ρ. 236. 1. 6. τῶν δικαιῶν ἔστὶν ἔργα, ὥσπερ τῶν τεκτόνων. Εστιν 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 interpreta tion we have feen of the word pyov is in a note of Perizonius on Sanctius, de Vocibus Homonymis. Perizonius there, fhews, that ią Greek it often emphatically denotes quotidianum alicujus hominis opus. This criticism, though not immediately applicable to the paffage in Xenophon, deferves to be pointed out and recommended to the learned reader. On the rhetorical fense of ipyasía, fee Capperon: Quintilian, p. 239. P. 244. 1. 10. ITε oμolo.] Mea quidem fententia & cuoio denotant επιτυγχάνοντας, et contrariantur τοις αποτυγχάνεσι in hac ipfa periodo. Legendum forfan και οι μὲν ὁμοιοι οιδε απο TUTXάVOUTES. Oi uolos 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 pool, 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 firft occurs in his observations on the 4th book of Xenophon's Hellenica, Steph. edit. 289. Tutos de nu j το είδος νεανίσκῷ καὶ τὴν ψυχην ευρωστο, ε μέν τοι των ομοίων. Ff 2 To To ouoiwv videtur hic fumi 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 fignificatu, faltem non memini me legiffe. Sic inter Gallos, ordo quidam fublimioris dignitatis dicuntur les pairs, pares, poio, 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 Lacedzmonios aliud fignificabat, quam apud alios Græcos. Sic enim vocabunt nobiles fuos, ex quibus Senatus, yeprora, conftituebatur. We fay in English, the Peers. Ρ. 245. 1. 3. καὶ ατιμαζόμενοι.] • Poft verba αδόξοι καταγέλασοι, et καταφρονόμενοι, frigidum eft ατιμαζόμενος—et curiofa 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 fubftitute arusperos. In fupport of this reading, he quotes the following words from Taylor's Notes on the fpeech of Demofthenes, Tepi παраπρeσbεás. "Áriμal ad privatam infamiam, ad contumeliam fignificandum eafque ignominias, quæ homini ab homine, non a lege, infiguntur. 'Aruów eft vox ritualis et tota forenfis." In addition to the criticism of Taylor, which is fupported by numerous authorities from the profe writers, we would remind our Readers, that the famé exactness is observed by the Attic poets. Τους φευγοντας καταπα]ωνίας 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 Sophocles would read ατιμώσας for ατιμάσας. P. 252. 1. 5. iv.] Obiter hic emendandus locus vexatiffimus Div. Petri 2 Epift. i. 20. Pro voce imiλúrews quæ vehe menter torfit theologos, lege imλEvrews, 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 Eurεws 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 Care Philologica of Wolfius, p. 169. vol. 5. On the word iTv, Valckenaer has fome acute and ingenious remarks, in the 464th page of his Notes on the Phariffa. Ρ. 263. 1. 2. ἵππον καὶ βὲν τῳ βελομένῳ δικαίες ποιήσαθαι.] Axes dicitur vel de re vel de perfona, quæ muneri fuo par est. Ita Lucianus de Hift. confcrib. § 39. Xenophontem vocat dinato uyfedpea, i. e. idoneum et hiftoriæ confcribendæ parem auctorem. Ad eam normam fcriptum reperimus apud Longinum, § 44. wasδομαθείς είναι δελέιας δικαίας “ videmura pueritia imbuti effe jufta vel abfolutâ fervitute." Latini multa cum liberalitate, voce, juftus, ad eam rem utuntur: ut volumen, prælium, éxercitus dicuntur, jufti. Quicquid fcil. fun&ionem 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. avrína.] 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 also 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 explana tions. He acknowledges neither! ἐκεινος зар P. 293. 1. 3. Exivos yap λéywy, &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, P. 296. 1. 3. Aλx.] Omnia Athenienfium festa 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 Meurfus in his Græcia Feriata, βαλληλὺς βορεασμοί-δωδεκάτη — ἑβδόμη - φελλός – there were Athenian fealts. Thofe of other nations were generally in the neuter; but there are exceptions-dziais, a feast among the Argives-mλns, among the Milefians-xiσerói, among the Phliafians-καρυατis, and διαμαστίγωσις, among the Lacedemonians. From the notes which we have produced, our Readers, probably, may be inclined to agree with us, in confidering Dr. E. as a good fcholar, rather than as a fagacious critic. His erudition, certainly, was not very extensive, 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 wish that he had been equally attentive in mentioning fome other fources, from which his criticifms are evidently derived. We cannot follow him in his favourite opinion, that the Memorabilia of Xenophou contain a complete and regular fyftem of ethics; but we readily allow his tafte and judgment in the explanation of fome particu lar 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 unutual phrafeology: we are yet more happy, in being able to in Ff3 form form our Readers, that it is quite exempt from that arrogance of temper, and that bitterness of invective, in which philological writers often indulge themfelves to a moft unjustifiable and most odious excess. As no work of Xenophon is more generally read, or more juftly admired, than the Memorabilia, we have employed our remarks upon the editor rather than the author. The limits of our Review will not permit us to enter minutely into the merits of the feveral manufcript readings. Upon one of those readings there is the following note: Ρ. 3. 1. 1. ἐγίγνωσκεν.] ἐγίνωσκεν, Par. I. et γίνωσκω fæpius apud Xenophontem, ut dulcius et αττικωτερον, invenitur. We differ toto cœlo from the very candid and learned writer, for yγνωσκω, not γινώσκω, is the Atticifm. Γίγνεται, αττικώς. γίνεται, ελληνικώς. Μαris. In confirmation of our opinion, which ought to be confirmed by every poffible proof, when we differ from an authority fo refpe&table as Dr. Owen's, we will produce a note of Valckenaer Mewing, γίγνωσκειν et γιγνεθαι veterem effe verborum fcriptionem : • firmat illam Latinam Gigno. Græ corum obfoleta forma fuit aliva multiplex : γίνω γείνων γίνω· ο γίνω, γιγίνω, γίγνω· ficut a πέτω, πιπίτω, πιπτω· μένω, μιμένω, μίμνω. This note is on the 1346th line of the Phania. . Το We fufpect that Valckenaer's obfervation had been read, though it is not acknowledged, by the acute writer of the Fragmenta Grammatica Grace, published in Edinburgh 1782, while we obferve that he deduces πίπτω from πίτω, not πέτω. put the fpelling of γιγνώσκω beyond all doubt, we will quote a paffage from Heraclides, quoted by Euftathius on Odyff. M. p. 489. Γιγνώσκω δια τῶν δύο γ ὡς εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ αυτώ, ἡμαρτημένον τὸ γινώσκω δια μόνο το κατ' αρχην γάμμα. ἐν δὲ τότο τοι τον καθ' Ηρακλέιδην, πλάιοιο ἂν ὁμοίως, καὶ τὸ γίνεθαι καὶ τὰ κατ ̓ αὐτὰ πανά. οἷς ὁι μὲν παλαιὸι, ἐν δυσὶ γάμμα ἐχρονο, γίγνομαι λέ γειλες καὶ γιγνόμενοι, ουτω δὲ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα. ΟΙ We will close our reasons for diffenting from Dr. Owen, with quoting the note of Brunck on the 52d line of the Rana of Ariftophanes αναγιγνώσκολι μοι- fic Β. duplici y, redte-propriam hanc Atticis fcripturam, tum codicum, tum veterum grammati corum auctoritate utique apud comicum reftitui.' Euftathius, p. 1064. 1 1. τὸ δὲ γινώσκειν, οι μὲν ύστερον ̓Αττικοὶ μετὰ καὶ δευτέ του γάμμα γιγνώσκειν φασιν ὡς καὶ ὁ κωμικός δηλοι, καθα, καὶ τὸ γνεθαι, γ γνεθαι. He then refers to the note of Valckenaer, quoted above.... We add, that Zeunius in all his indices to the works of Xenophon, of which he is the editor, preferves the true fpelling. We fhall conclude our remarks on the V. L. with the following obfervation of Mr. Belin, to which, after mature confideration, we cannot accede : Page 69. line 7. Si verba, ρίγες, θάλπες et πόνε, cum προς επιθυμίαν congruere, viris quibufdam doctis, doctis, non visa sunt, in animo non habebant non folum defiderii, fed cujus libet animi difpofitionis exiuis effe fignificationem, inde dici poteft εJuuía móve, János yes, Cl. Belin. Upon comparing the criticism of Belin with the text of Xenophon, we, at firft, did not abfolutely reject this interpretation; and we fhall now endeavour in fome measure to illuftrate, for we mean not directly to justify it, by a paffage in Andronicus Rhadius meel matŵy: Vid. p. 739. edit. Leyden. Τα γενικώτατα πάθη τέσσαρα, λύπη, φόβος, επιθυμία, ήδονή. He then defines επιθυμία - επιθυμία ἐστὶν ἀλόγΘ' ὄρεξις ἤ δίωξις προσδοκωμένα αγαθα - Επιθυμίας δὲ ἔιδη, fays be, p. 742. are, 'Ogyn. Juucs xoxer mixgía. MuVIS NOT• ἔρως, ἵμερος, πόθος, δυσμένεια, δύσνοια. αψικαρία ριψοφθαλμία. σπανις τραχύτης . ερισπροσαλπάθεια, φιληδονία. Φιλοχρηματία. φιλοτιμια - φιλοζωία, φιλοσωματία - γαστριμαργία οινοφλυγία. Aayusia. Andronicus afterwards proceeds to explain these words in detail, and his explanation fhews the latitude in which ɛm.SuMía, when used to exprefs the animi affectus, is underflood. We confefs, however, that Belin's interpretation of Xenophon is circuitous, and fomewhat harth; and therefore, on the whole, we. wou'd understand the paflige according to the plain, and wellfounded canon, which Erneftus would apply to it.-'Subftantiva ad idem verbum referri fimul, quæ fingula commode non poffent, et fufficere, quod proximum verbo locum occupet, ei accommodatum verbum effe.' Dorville, as Zeunius well obferves, has moft ably and moft fully illuftrated this ufage, in his notes on Chariton; and who can recollect without indignation, the injurious and illiberal treatment, which that great scholar has experienced from the author of a Commentary on the Epifle to Auguftus, not quite fo READABLE as David Hume's Hiftory of England-In grafting fyftem on writings, where system, probably, was never defigned, Dr. E. and Dr. H. feem Arcades ambo. The Fellow of. Jefus College was perhaps not quite equal to the Paftor of "Thurcafton's Low Vale," either in acuteness of reafoning, or ingenuity of refinement; but he had too much good fenfe to fcoff at philology, and too much liberality to fneer at his fuperiors. ART. V. Poems, chiefly in the Scottish Dialect. By Robert Burns. 8vo. Kilmarnock printed. No Bookfeller's Name, nor Price. 1786. POETA nafcitur, non fit, is an old maxim, the truth of which has been generally admitted; and although it be certain that in modern times many verfes are manufactured from the brain of their authors with as much labour as the iron is drawn into form under the hammer of the smith, and require to be afterwards fmoothed by the file with as much care as the burnishers Ff 4 of |