Sic etiam vertit Beffario. Idem, cum levi mutatione particular in T, edidit Erneftus; fed verba, vel fic emendata, vitiofa effe puto, tum quod mihi non recte mentem auctoris exprimere videntur, tum quia illud in nullo Codice, quantum fciam, reperitur, Nos una cum Zeunio locum fic exhibuimus, quemadmodum eum emendarunt Brodeas, et Gefnerus in Chreftom. mutata paulum lectione Ed. Juntine: ἀγαθὸς τότο γένοιτο, καὶ δοκεῖν βάλοιτο. Quod unum deβderatur, 6, ab ultima fyllaba præcedentis yo.ro facile abforberi potuit. Cum Junt. confentiunt uterque Vindob. et Par. 1. Sic etiam Par. z. nifi qund τοῦτο omittit. καὶ δοκεῖν βάλοιτο legitur in Flor. A. fed omiflum ft Taro ibi, necne, incertum. Mallem ipfe omitti vero, quod interpreta menti caufa additum fuiffe videtur, et verba fic legi, uti fere extant in Par. 2: ἀγαθὸς γένοιτο, ὃ καὶ δοκεῖν βάλοιτο. Aut etiam legendum fore taffe, fine ulla literarum mutatione, fed elifa tantum vocali in verbo γένοιτο: ἀγαθὸς γένοιτ', ὃ καὶ δοκεῖν βέλοιτο.” P gr.

Such is the variety of lections. In his note, the learned editor enlarges on the opinions of Ernefti, Reifke, Zeun, &c. and concludes by fupporting the fame reading. In his propofed emendation, we do not coincide with him. We do not fee the neceffity of rejecting tro. It is a form of expreffion which the paffage below, ii. 6, 39, and that from the Cyrop. ftrongly support.

Set. 5. ἀπατεῶνα δ ̓ ἐκάλει, ἢ τὸν μικρὸν μὲν] This is another of thofe paffages where the MSS. and editions vary fo greatly, and where the fenfe will fo readily admit of different interpretations, that it is difficult on which fide to determine. Mr. B.'s note is clear and intelligent, and gives perhaps the most expreffive meaning. We, however, are difpofed to conftrue the paffage as Ruhnken does. Had the oppofition of the fentence been as the editor would point it, the expreffion, we think, would have been, not πολὺ δὲ μέγισον, but ἄλλα μέγιςοκα

Lib. II. C. i. Sect. 5. one of μaxoi] We here with we could afford room for the editor's acute obfervations. He clears this confused paragraph from all difficulties, and renders the context easy and diftinét. He prints,

σε καὶ τηλικέτων μὲν ἐπικειμένων τῷ μοιχεύοντι κακῶν τε καὶ αἰσχρῶν, ὅτα των δὲ πολλῶν τῶν ἀπολυσόντων τῆς τῶν ἀφροδισίων ἐπιθυμίας ἐν ἀδείᾳ, ὅμως εἰς τὰ ἐπικίνδυνα φέρεσθαι, ἆρ ̓ ἐκ ἤδη τέτο παντάπασι κακοδαιμονῶντας 45." P. 99.

He adds, in the various readings,

"Sic edidi ipfius MS. auctoritate, cujus excerptum modo citaverim; fimulque levius punctum appofui poft piperSar, ut verba per interrogationem accipiantur. Vulgo legitur ἐλαύνεται ὅμος εἰς τὰ ἐπικίν Sura Cipeodai, quod fine omni dubio vitiofum eft. Neque vero ita diffimilia funt inter fe adeg et haere, quin hoc pro illo librariorun incuria facile fubftitui potuerit." Ib.

In this correction we entirely agree with him. We always thought the averzi, &c. peculiarly harfh, and unlike the style of Xenophon, and the reading probably was a corruption of the dig. Mr. B. further supports his opinion in the note.

“Sect. 17. åλλ'ây áp.] Hujus loci, in quo diu fruftra laborarunt interpretes, en veram tandem et integram lectionem exhibent codices Vaticani, ἀλλ ̓ ᾧ γε ἡ ἀφροσύνη πρόσεςι, nifi quod fultitia infuper adfit, &c. 'Anλà in h. 1. idem valet quod av, feu el μm, nifi præterquam. Conf. Reifk. Ind. Dem. v. änλά. Verbum autem, quod exquifitiffimum eft, licebit fic refolvere: Tér ör. i. e. quatenus, vel in boc, quod. Vid. Reifk- Ind. Dem. v. diap. Cum hæc forte conjunctim fcripta reperirentur a ye, ideoque obfcuriora viderentur, pro a manus aliqua refcripfit aλo, et + afperum fpiritum in lenem convertit. Pro Shorti, quod paulo poft fequitur, ingeniofe Hindeburgius valt reponere ori adverbium, ut fect. 3. Deλartùr imouévesv. Sed vulgatum non eft follicitandum." P. 524.

We do not hesitate to approve this acute emendation, and the manner in which it is explained.

Sect. 26. Song] To the observations of preceding annotators on this difficult word, Mr. B. adds:

"Locum hunc omnium fere, qui apud Xenoph. obviam funt, vexatiffimum, propofitis virorum doctor. obfervatt. in medio relinquendum duxi. Sane verbum inoxgio in locis omnibus, qui ufquam citantur, fignificat rem deteriorem honeftiore nomine appellare, et vereor ut fenfum contrarium, nempe dixouge, obtrectare, capere poffit. Nam locus ille Ariftotelis, quem citavit Erneftus, non nifi de nominibus diminutivis intelligendus eft, ut conftat ab exemplis, quæ ipfe philofophus mox adducit, fc. ἀντὶ μὲν χρυσία, χρυσιδάριον· ἀντὶ δ ̓ ἱματία, ἱμαιδάριον ἀπὸ δὲ λοιδορίας, λοιδορημάτιον, καὶ νοσημάτιον. Haec monuit Cl. Rubnkenius ad Timai Lex. Plat. in voc. ubi de duplici monogiμ, altero in verbis, altero in fententia, luculentiffime differuit. Vid. Ed. poftr. Lugd. Bat. 1789. Eidem viro doctiffimo una cum Valkenario et Toupio locus Xenoph. de mendo fufpectus eft. Cum Valkenario autem verbum Voxogos e textu ejiciendum effe cenfet eruditus Britannus in criticis obfervationibus in Edvards. Ed. Xen. Mem. ap. Monthly Rev. qui arbitratur locum corruptum effe ante Suidam et Etymologici Mag. au&torem. Præter fcriptores, qui fupra memorantur, adeat lector Thom. Mag. et Helych. in v." P. 532.

Notwithstanding fuch high authority, we fill incline to believe the word genuine. It is difficult to account otherwise how it fhould have found its way into the text. It was intended, we think, to be applied in fome oblique way of delicate farcafm.

C. ix. Sect. 3. xxi i‡n jäsov iva] As we efleem this an inftance of moft ingenious criticifm, and as it fuggefts a new interpretation of this intricate paffage, we fubjoin the whole

note.

"Facile

"Farile effe a sycophantis accipere, exigere, exprimere pecuniam : nam, cum fint homines improbi, facile inveniri poffe, quod ipfis vere objíciatur. Ejus autem criminis ne rei fiant, libenter iis pecuniam dant, qui litem intendunt, ut fycophantæ Critonis fecere. Vid. fect. 6. Ern. [Simili fere forma dicitur, ut monuit Ruhnkenius, Cyr. Anab. II. vi. 24. [p. 180. Hutch. Ed. maj.] τὰ δὲ τῶν φίλων μόνος ᾤετο εἰδέναι ὅτι ῥᾷςαν açúdanтα daμbavy. Sed et idem Vir Cl. et ipfe Erneftus lectionem codicis Viani quisagos v veriorem putant.] Mihi quoque fufpectiffima funt verba ëîn pasov tivi, quippe quæ et a contextu orationis et a fcopo loci prorius aliena fint. Etenim mentem auctoris paulo attentius infpiciamus. Primum narrat Xenophon eos (Socratem fc. et Critonem) Archedemum inveniffe, hominem dicendi agendique peritiffimum, fed pauperem. Deinde, ni fallor, caufam exponit, quare pauper effet Archedemus: Où yàp v olos, &c. Non enim is erat, qui quovis modo quæftum faceret, fed æquitatis amans erat, et — dicere folebat, facillimum effe a fycophantis pecuniam exigere. Sed quid hic caufæ erat, quare pauper effet? Minime ad imum fervatur fenfus, qualis ab incepto proceffit. Quod fi hæc vulgatæ lectioni recte objici videantur, improbanda eft etiam emendata illa codicis lectio, quæ, quod ad fenfum quidem attinet, eodem fere vitio laborat. Tametfi ea fortaffe veræ lectionis veftigia quædam habet. Nam comparativum aliquem in locum verborum in psov fubftitui debere facile crediderim. Alterum porro adjectivum, non verbum, hic requiri monftrat illud τε poft. φιλόχ. fed ferri nequit εὐφυέτερος, quoniam vox illa ad indolem tantum refertur, cum in h. 1. defideretur vox aliqua, quæ vir tutem animi, juftitiam fc. five moderationem, fignificet. Repono igitur: ὦ γὰρ ἦν οἱ Θ. ἀπὸ παντὸς κερδαίνειν, ἀλλὰ φιλόχρηςός τε καὶ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΤΕΡΟΣ (fic fcribo, cum mihi nulla alia vox ejufdem fignificationis fuccurrat, quæ ad vulgatam lectionem literis propius accedat) 'H 'NE άrò TOY συκοφαντῶν λαμβάνειν· συκοφαντῶν participium eft a verbo συκοφαντέω, ut inf. 5. Senfus autem ett: Non enim is erat, qui quovis modo quæftum faceret, fed æquitatis amans erat et juftior, quam ut ab ullo homine falfis criminibus inferendis pecuniam extorqueret. Nam hoc fere voluiffe dicere auctorem nullus dubito. In hanc rem egregie facit locus Ariftophanis : Ἐγὼ ΘΕΟΣΕΒΗΣ καὶ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣ ὢν ἀνὴρ,

Κακῶς ἔπρατίον και ΠΕΝΗΣ ΗΝ.

Ετεροι δ ̓ ἐπλέτων, ἱερόσυλοι, ῥήτορες,

Kai EYKOPANTAI.-Plut. 28." P.580,

The following remarks occur alfo in the various readings. "Locus fine dubio corruptiffimus, quem nemo interpretum fatis felicibus aufpiciis fanare aggreffus eft. In MS. 1. legitur xai zvçuéçaos

and etc. probante Ernefto, et hoc idem in textum admifit Zeunius, pofita interpunctione poft ἀλλὰ et ὤν, ita ut verbum λαμβάνειν, una cum præc. xepozive, ad olos referatur. qy delet Ruhnkenius, et haμbávery cum · εὐφυέςερος conjungit. Denique καὶ εὐφυέςερος ἡ ὡς ἀπὸcorrigit Schutzitar; melius paulo, fed adhuc longe a vera lectione, ni fallor. Nam, ut cætera omittam, vocabuli quis pos fignificatio fcopo hujus loci plane alienus eft. Ipfe pro tenuitate mea huic vitio, quod in textu Xenophente

jam

jam olim infedit, medicas adhibere manus conatus fum. Sed hæc, cum longiora effent, in notas rejecimus." P. 198.

We own we formerly thought the reading Quistgos had healed the wound; but we agree with this learned critic, that fome word more analogous to póxenos would be better. The propofed emendation of the latter part of the fentence shows great fkill and fagacity; nor can any thing be more appofite to it than the quotation from the Plutus. Should the MSS. ever favour Mr. B.'s conjectures, we fhould not hesitate to adopt them.

Lib. III. C. vi. Sect. 1. dia irava.] Mr. Benwell has here fome ingenious obfervations on the jealoufy, or rather enmity, that was fuppofed to fubfift between Plato and Xenophon. It is certainly a matter difficult to be accounted for, why two perfons, who had fo high a refpect for their master, should, in the memorials they have left us of him, fcarcely mention each other's names. We agree with this learned critic, that the reafons hitherto affigned, do not give complete fatisfac

tion.

Here Mr. Benwell's labours on this work ceafe; and as the remainder of the notes are chiefly fupplied from the editions of Simplon and Schneider, we need not further purfue our remarks. Our object has been to give a juft idea of what has been done by the prefent editor, and we have confined our felections to those annotations which more immediately fhow what new matter or illustration the Memorabilia have received from Mr. B.'s own exertions, not withing to dwell on what Ernefti and others had noted before him. We could with pleasure have indulged in many more felections, but we have already brought forward fufficient inftances to fhow what was undertaken in this edition, and the taste and ability with which it has been executed. Many explanatory notices and allufions, both by Upton and Mr. B. we have paffed by without remark; and it will be feen by our readers, that due attention is every where paid to the valuable criticifms of preceding annotators. We have obferved alfo, with fatisfaction, the judgment and deliberation with which the text has been fettled. No new readings have heen introduced (except perhaps in the places we have pointed out) without proper MS. authority; and we have, in more than one inftance, admired the skill with which the editor has adminiftered a healing hand, and cleared a difficult paffage. We remark this caution the more particularly, because editors in general are too apt to indulge in licence and conjecture; nor do we hesitate to fay, that both Ernefti and Schneider have been too bold in adopting unauthorized readings into the text. We regret that this amiable

fcholar

scholar did not live to accomplish the undertaking on which he had fo laudably been employed; and it would have been a high gratification to us, to have feen it continued upon his admirable plan, and not merely completed from the other editions. We confider the public, however, as under obligation to the gentleman, who fuperintended the publication, for the pains he has bestowed upon the printing, and the general correctness in which the book appears. We would only fuggeft, that there are some notes introduced from the third edition of Simpfon, without proper reference being made to the places from which they are taken.

To the remarks which we have already made, on the diflribution of the page, we have only to add, that we highly disapprove the collocation of the Latin verfion fo immediately with the Greek. We wish the notes and the translation had been made to change places. To this form of printing the Latin underneath the Greek, we strongly object, as it holds out so ready a help to the idle ftudent; and even a temptation to idleness where the difpofition is lefs ftrong. In the prefent inftance, indeed, much as we admire this Latin tranflation for its excellence, we should have been content, had it been altogether omitted; for the copious annotations, together with the Index Græcitatis, are fully fufficient for the explanation of every difficulty. Perhaps we ought to add, that the book is fo printed, as to be bound in one or two volumes. To the notes there is a feparate title-page, fo that they may be kept by themfelves, or bound up with the main body of the work.

In taking our leave of this incomparable production of Xenophon, we cannot but repeat our praises on its flyle and elegance. We think that for felicity of expreffion, it almoft flands unrivalled among the Greek claffics; and, were we called upon to mention what we esteem the happiest model of Attic refinement, united with fimplicity of language, we should certainly first name the Memorabilia of Xenophon.

Our readers will have furmifed, that we were not unacquainted with the deceafed editor of the prefent volume. The perfon who drew up this account had often, indeed, the happinefs of being inflructed by his converfation, and improved by his example; and were he to pay a tribute of respect to the memory of that lamented friend, could not do it better, than in feletting fome of the particulars, with which the Greek memoir writer fums up the character of his virtuous maf

ter.

σε Τῶν δὲ Β. —γιγνωσκόντων, οἷος ἦν, οἱ ἀρετῆς ἐφιέμενοι πάντες ἔτι καὶ οὖν διατελέσι πάντων μάλιςα ποθῦντες ἐκεῖνον, ὡς ὠφέλιμον όντα πρὸς ἀρετῆς

ἐπιμέλειαν.