al policone more cleanemark of edu

ει τις υπό χλαινη βεβλημένος Ηλιοδώρας

θαλπεται, υπναπατη χρωτί χλιαινόμενος,

Xobuco w pèr ó noxvos. "Meleaget, p. 29. ibid. We have taken the first passages which met our eye in the first books that were at hand; it were easy to produce a thousand of the same kind. The following remark of Gerner will explain the use of es, and si, more clearly and precisely than the loose and general pofiiion of Dr. Edwards : • Indicativus modus adhibetur in re certâ ac definitâ, conjunctivus pendere conditionem, incertamque effe, indicat. -Tamen finitivis tõis 080518õis id eft indicativis etiam jungitur, quum fignificatur conditio, ita

men, ut nexum conditionis cum consequenti suo certam indicer. Upon a subject where so much has been said, and with so little accuracy, we think it not pedantic to add the following quotation from Scheller's Præcepta ftyli Latini, p. 157: • Hic ergo notandum, partitulas has: etsi, tametsi, quamquam, si, nisi, antequam, fimulac, quamvis, non per se conjunctivum regere, ut vulgo dicunt, fcd indicativum. At contextús ratio efficere poteft, ut omnes hæ particulæ, et plures, v. c. quando, ubi, quis, quid, &c. cum conjunctivo conjungantur. . Ergo a contexiu pendet hic usus subjunctivi,' In the following lines the construction of Ek is determined by the context:

Το μέν θανόντος εκ άν ενθυμούμεθα,
έι τι φρονιμεν, πλείον ημέρας μίας.

Simonides, p. 129. Brunck Anal. vol. 1. The fallacy of Dr. E.'s position will appear to any reader who will take the trouble of consulting Budæus's Commentaries, p. 1048. or Vigerus, cap. 8. fect. 6. We shall content ourselves with saying that al with the optative, as Et TÚX01, is hypothetical; and it may not be amiss to add, that in some passages where a contingent future event is to be expressed, the particle Et would be insufficient to express it. In Ælian, lib. 2. cap. 36. the text corruptly reads zu de Tobarw; some of the manuscripts read čav, 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 ću vixen Jewol, on which Valckender writes thus: Ferri nequit-revocabitur fincerun: ñv voxngéwro. He then refers to the above quoted påffage in Ælian, and adds, Coutans veterum usus fperneret to ću doo Jaww, uc folæcum, alterum {ày tantum admisic: in his fæpe fuit a viris doctiflimis peccatum. We shall close this tedious lubject by observing, war whatever mood or tente be joined to gb, the conditional or conungent force of the sentence, depends, not upon this particle, but upon av, exprefled or understood.

Page 18. line 6. és puso ou õuws.] Mallem legere prorsus, omnino, arcent. The aleration is plausible; but as the nanuscripts and editions vary in the position of the word quws, we

U 4


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

In the verses from Theognis, Dr. E. proposes to change forta vóov into čvonta váov: the same correction being proposed in Simpson's edition, increases our suspicion that Dr. E. had communicated many of his emendations to Simpson.

Page 20. UTÒ Tóan wv xj ośrowy guvoixwv, &c. Hunc locum corruptum effe puto, quippe neque biftosiæ veritati (Vide Plat. Alcibiad. 1.), neque authoris fimplicitati respondentem.' Dr. E. therefore would read ανθρώπων for γυναικών-But there is no violation of history; for, as Ernestus says, hic de patre [Cliniæ fiiio Z.] fermonem effe clarum est : unde male de filio hunc loc cum capit Taylorus ad Lyriæ, Orat. 1. Ern. de Alcibiadis genealogia. Vid. Valefii Emendat. p. 101. reg.' As to the expression, Ruhnkenius quotes from Philoftratus, utró Twu xanĝv γυναικών θηρευομενος.

Ibid. line 12. Qua đuvault = Tv EP vảA; x ; Tuy.p.2015 iTÒ Todaw xj duvetov xol axévely. This paliage is much disputed-Erneftus thinks xonanévetv spurious, and would throw it out.--Zeunius interprets it duró tô xol axévelv, men who are able or skilful to flatter. - The Greek idiom admits this construction, but it is not adapted to the general sense of the passage. We therefore prefer Budæus's reading, xonaxevóvtWv. Dr. Edwards says, hoc verbum non est solicitandum, and quotes from Thucydides-rõis duvarõis, men in power. We do not clearly under. stand the meaning of this note, for the difficulty lies not in the preserving or rejecting of the word duvarwv, but in the manner in which it is to be understood with xora xévelv; and this difficulty is not at all lessened by Dr. E.'s note ; for, if xonanéven be retained (which he does not even propose to alter or attempt to explain), it is impoffible to understand duva twv in the sense assigned to it by Dr. Edwards. We, it is true, adopt that sense; but, at the Same time, would alter the reading of xonaxéuss. We would observe, by the way, that dialÚTTETQI is a most emphatical word, and is applied metaphorically by Theocritus to the conceited and petulant air of the finger, just before she begins the song : Vid. Eidyll. 15. line 99.

Page 21. 1. 7. ŠTA nupeanodtov.] · En metaphoram pulcherri. mam e musicorum scientia depromptam ; qua usus eft Horatius, ji. Ep. 144. Sed veræ numerosque modo que ediscere vilæ: diceremus Anglicè, If they played any note out of tune.' Horace uses, as Dr. E, might have added, a similar allufion in Epift. 18. lib. 1. verf. 59. Aristocle's definition of virtue corre. sponds to this idea-- xabózou de this per operis £51, TÓ TOLŽOV σπουδάιαν την διαθεσιν, περί την ψυχην, ήρεμάιαις και τεταγμεναις XIV.95E06 Xpwpívnv, our owuõusar xaTe Taula ta jégn--Ariftot. de Virt. et Vis. p. 295. vol. 2d. edit. Paris.


fucusueen lietle cintastic and Judæus

[ocr errors]

There is a passage also of the same fort in Philo Judæus, which, as, in the language of a certain fantastic and faftidious hyper-critic, it probably has been little blown upon,we shall produce: το εμμελές, και έυρυθμoν, έκ εν φωνή μάλλον ή διανοια ŠTideixvuelos Telewu éves, P. 650. edit. Mangey, vol. 2d.

Page 34. I. 7. "Eegou did ev ovɛidos, &c.] Mirum est inter an. tiquos fuiffe, qui hunc locum Hefiodi male sunt interpretari quafi óúdev ad gou referendum effet, cum ad överdos'referri debeat. Simp. fun. "Profecto, ödev ad öveidos commode referatur, fi versus ci. tatus per se confideretur: fi vero conjungatur cum fequentibus, quæ iftius explicandi gratia proferuntur, ad pogov referatur ne. ceffe eft. Socrates inter novĒOV TI Xeogxracat pro suo more acu. tiffime diftinguit.' Vide L. iii. 9. 5. Edwards.

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

Page 39. I. 5. v II u día amoxepíveta..] Ernest. pofuit utroxpivelar. Sed recte fe habet leétio vulgata. Confer L. iv. 3. 8.

We think Ernestus right, and aflign the following reasons : Erneftus reftituit ex Juni, et M. S. Vindob. 1. verbum exquilitius, cujus Toxpívěloco eft Scholion. Suidas enim roupívetas, inquit to a Toxpiveo loco ós maraior. Et Hesychius ÚTOXDo Iñuan, amoxpo Iñuan. I his note of Zeunius we will confirm by the following quotation from Alberti, in his note on the word in Hesychius-Notum eft ex Hom, Herodot, alijs paffim umoxpiVedtero olim pro otroxpive tab usurpatum fuisse. Nec femel ita apud Arrian, ut pluribus docui in Observ. ad Matth. vi. 2. Atticos enim ita locutos effe tradit Schol. Hom. ad ll. H 407. coll. 11. M. 228. Quin et Artemidor. l. 4. p. 215. fin. Útrexpivato pro respondit. Adde Thom. M. ejusque Interpp.'

T. Magister writès unoxpívoje al oj arroupívou alb, osy u tóxpois To auto. He justifies his interpretation by two passages in the first book of Herodotus. We add another authority from the ad book, page 184. Tòv autū unoxgivedlab. The critical reader would do well to consult the interpretation of amoxpivou ao in Stock. clav. L. Sanct. ,

P. 41.1. 3. oitw~he quotes the famous paffage from D. Laer. rius-- reyk Ewxpatns, Tòus pều äraous av@puntos 3 ñu vsobíovev, dulòv de olisiv, iva lun. 1. II.

P. 42. 1. 6. ÚTD TÖv xocopov futrina0600.-Erneftus reads xóa pov. Dr. E. would retain raspor, because it means, fus temporis, tempeftiva occafio, whence it signifies, modum et mensuram rei; and he refers to Xen, in Agefil. cap. 5. 1. et Hellenic, 1. 1. 3. Zeunius, also, considers nópov, as the interpretamentum exquifitiffimi xoipov, quod perfæpe apud Xenophontem de modo rei di. citur, He too refers to the Agesil.


pud Arria ita locutoset Artemide

[ocr errors]

In p. 47. 1. 6. Dr. E. would retain Meng@yców.evoy, which is thrown out by Ernestus, Ruhnkenius, and the vis quidam doctus apud Simpsonem. If this vir doctus was Di. E. he had changed his mind on this subject; if it was not, we are sorry to find the Doctor adopt or repeat his opinions so ofien without ac. knowledgment.

P. 50. I. 5. fpura yöuu xj Štoxpvcupe 26. Dr. Edwards and others would expunge these words. Zeulus cannot account for their being interpolated, and considers tnem, very judiciously, as the threwd reply of Ariftodemus.

(To be concluded in our next ]

FOREIGN LITERATURE. [The following Article has been communicated by one of our most respectable corresponíling Asociates, who (residing abroad) had not leen the account given of M. Savary's late pubiication, in our last dix. This farther, though brief, view of the subject will, no doubt, be well received by our Readers, as it contains some curious observations, which they will accept, in ADDITION to those that are comprehended in the former Article] Art. XVII. Lettres fur lEgypte, &c. i. e. Letters concerning

Egypt; in which a Parallel is drawn between the ancient and modern Manners of its Inhabitants ; its present Situation, Commerce, Agriculture, and Government are described; and a Relation is given of the Attack of Damietta by St. Lewis. Compiled from Joinville, and the Arabian Authors; and accompanied with Maps. By M. SAVARY. Vols. II. and III. Svo. Paris. 1786. UITE gave, at the time of its appearance, an account of the

V first volume of these Letters *, with the expressions of esteem that were due to the erudition and capacity of their Author. In the volumes now before us, he sets out from Cairo, arrives at those borders of the Nile, where the tribes of the wan.' dering Arabs have pitched their tents, and describes, with spirit and precision, the manners of this people, which are already sufo ficiently known. When he came to Memphis, so famous in ancient story, he found nothing but ruins, the Arabs having removed to Cairo the columns and remarkable remains of that city, which they have placed, without taste or order, in their mosques and other edifices. The plain of Mummies allo disappointed his curiosity; for the bodies deposited there, which were embalmed with such care and formerly preserved with such respect, are, at present, torn from their sepulchral monuments and fold to strangers. With respect to the Pyramids, he considers them as royal tombs, not erected through vain ostentation, but from a principle of religion ; for the Egyptians, says he, believed • See Rev. Nov. 1785.


that as long as their bodies were preserved from corruption, their souls would continue in them; and, after a period of three thousand years, would re-animate them. It was this doctrine, continues he, that gave rise to these vast buildings with narrow floping passages, which the archirects employed all their invention to render inaccessible. This account is not new; it is mentioned by Greaves, and other writers. We are, however, rather inciined, in a matter ro dark and ambiguous, to adopt the opinion of the learned Bryant, who confiders the Pyramids as designed for high altars and temples, constructed in honour of the Deity.

Io describing the ancient monuments of the province of Ar. finoé, now Favium, he exhibits a comparative view of the ancient and modern topography of that country. He then proceeds to the famous Labyrinth, ascertains its situation by the testimonies of the ancients, and gives, from Herodotus, a magnificent description of that stupendous edifice, composed of twelve separate palaces under one immense roof, which contained three thousand apartments. The vestiges of this astonishing edifice ftill fub list in the ruins of Balad Caroun; and they rather confirm than invalidare, according to our Author, the accounts, which the an. cient historians give of its magnificence. What he says of the present state of the lake Moeris is a farther confirmation of the credibility of the ancient writers in their wonderful accounts of the former grandeur of the Egyptians, of their stupendous undertakings and the marvellous labour with which they were executed; for if, as he tells us, that lake has still a circumference of fifty leagues after the wattes and revolutions which have, for above 2000 years past, changed the face of that country, we do not see why Pliny and the general voice of antiquity should be disbelieved when they declare unanimously, that its circumference was 80 leagues in former times. The ruins of Thebes are also, in their present state, adapted to vindicate the historians of old from the charge of exaggeration, as they bear surprising marks of its former magnificence, even while they convey to the mind dejecting impressions of the wastes of time. Our Author is cir. cumstantial in his account of the majestic remains of one of its four principal temples, whose gares, porticos, marble walls that seem indestructible, enormous sphinxes, colossal ftatues, some 33 feet high, still continue to aftonith the traveller. The space occupied by the ruins of Thebes is so extensive, that three days are required to walk round them. Upper Egypt, in which, at this day, there is scarcely any thing that merits the name of a town, exhibits many splendid remains of weal hy cities, of temples, in whole roofs and cielings gold and azure are still ob. fervable; and in an extent of above two hundred leagues the banks of the Nile are covered with mountainous heaps of ruins.


« VorigeDoorgaan »