On the whole, we think this a very refpectable publication; and, as we have freely cenfured the objectionable parts, we have as freely commended the many others which are va luable.

Platonis Euthydemus et Gorgias. Recenfuit, vertit, notafque fuas adjecit, Martinus Jofephus Routh, A. M. Collegii D. Marie Magd. Oxon. Socius. Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano. 8vo. 5s in Sheets, fmall Paper; 75. 6d. large Paper. Elmfly. THE learned world is already indebted to the Clarendon

prefs for an excellent edition of five of the dialogues of Plato, by Forster, published in the year 1745; and of three others by Etwall, published in the year 1771, whofe edition, though inferior to that of Forster, is by no means deftitute of merit. The Euthydemus and Gorgias are now prefented to the public, by Mr. Routh, printed at the fame prefs, with the ufual elegance of type, and excellence of paper.

The former of thefe Dialogues, the Euthydemus, has, we believe, never before been printed feparately. A Latin verfion of the Gorgias was published, together with fome of the other dialogues of Plato, by Leonardus Aretinus, in the be ginning of the fifteenth century: and, about the middle of the following century, the Greek text was printed at Strafburg, but without either verfion or notes.

In difcuffing the merits of the prefent edition, before we enter into particulars, it will be neceffary to lay before our readers, a short account of the principal fources from which the editor has drawn his materials.

The works of Plato were first made public in Europe through the medium of a tranflation. Marfilius Ficinus, of Florence, the celebrated modern Platonift, first published his Latin verfion at Florence, more than twenty years before the publica tion of Plato in the original language. This verfion was foon afterwards reprinted at Venice, in the year 1491.

The first edition of Plato's works was printed at Venice, by Aldus, in the year 1513, under the care of Marcus Mufurus, a Cretan, who was afterwards raifed to the dignity of archbishop by pope Leo the Tenth. This learned and refpectable editor has celebrated both his author and his patron, in an elegant Greek poem which is prefixed to his edition, and which has fince been reprinted, with a verfion and notes, by Mr. Forfter, at the end of his Effay on Accent and Quantity *.

* A copy of this edition, printed on vellum, and bound in Turkey leather, is faid to have been purchased at Dr. Afkew's fale, by the late Dr. Hunter, at the enormous price of fifty-five pounds thirteen fhillings.

Ia

This edition of Aldus having been printed with great accuracy, from the oldeft Greek copies, ftill retains its credit, and has, indeed, been made the great bafis of fucceeding editions.

In the year 1534, an edition of Plato's works was printed at Bafil, under the inspection of Oporinus: but this edition is undoubtedly of inferior authority, fince Oporinus had recourfe to no manufcripts.

A fecond edition was printed at Bafil, in the year 1556, under the care of Marcus Hopperus, but rendered more valuable than the former by the various readings with which it was enriched. Thefe readings were taken from a copy of the former Bafil edition, which had been collated throughout with feveral manufcripts, by Arnoldus Arlenius.

The next edition which appears is that of Henry Stephens, printed at Paris in the year 1578, from the text of Aldus. This is the model which Mr. Routh has chofen to imitate; but he has at the fame time corrected it, where it wanted correction, by the affistance of preceding editions.

Stephens profeffed to have had recourfe to fome ancient copies of Plato, but of what particular defcription cannot now with certainty be known; the expreffion which he uses is vague and indeterminate, quum autem varia ex veteribus libris auxilia conquifiviffet,' &c. The readings which he derived from these fources were partly admitted into the text, and partly inferted in the margin; but his own conjectural emendations were printed entirely either in the margin, or the

notes.

From the credit of this edition, however, Mr. Routh has in fome measure endeavoured to detract, by infinuating, in ftrong terms, that Stephens made use of no MSS. but drew his various readings principally, if not folely, from Ficinus's verfion, from the fecond Bafil edition, and from the notes of Cornarius. To this hypothefis, he fays, one objection only can be made; viz. that Stephens has paffed over in filence fome of the best and most valuable readings of the Bafil edition; which it is utterly inconceivable that a man of his judgment and penetration fhould have done, if he had confulted that edition at all, or at leaft if he had made it in any degree the bafis of his own. But of this objection, strong as it may at first fight appear to the unprejudiced reader, our editor obviates the force in a moment, by faying, Vereor autem, ne fimulatio viri in caufâ hujufce rei fuerit; ut ne videretur exemplo illo unquam fuiffe ufus. Imo vero Fischerus, (in præfat. in Platon. Euthyph. p. 16.) eundem, arguit depravationis

et

et mutilationis lectionum Bafilenfium, ut fraus eo certius lateret.'

That there is fomething myfterious in the conduct of Stephens, cannot perhaps totally be denied; but, furely, charges of this kind, which involve fo confiderable a degree of moral obliquity, ought not haftily or rafhly to be imputed to any character: much less are we justified in admitting them, without the strongest evidence, when applied to a man whofe extraordinary merits are univerfally acknowleged by the learned world, and whofe name will ever be recorded with honour amongst the venerable restorers of Grecian literature.

The fucceeding editions of 1588, 1590, and 1602, being little more than copies of that of Stephens, do not at prefent claim any particular notice.

In addition to the affiftance which has been derived from these several editions, Mr. Routh has given the collation of a manufcript of the Gorgias, repofited in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. This MS. he fays, is apparently of no very early age, but contains many valuable readings in common with other MSS. of Plato, and some which are peculiar to itfelf. Unfortunately, however, it has shared the fate of many other precious remains of antiquity, near a fifth part of the whole dialogue having perished by the ravages of time, or the carelessness of its former poffeffors. After the editor had completed the text, and almost half of the notes, he was favoured with a collation of both the Dialogues, with a valuable MS. of the thirteenth century, containing a confiderable part of Plato's works, and now preferved in the Royal Library at Paris. The readings of this MS. as far as the 135th page of Mr. Routh's edition, arriving too late to be printed in their proper place, are fubjoined under the title of Addenda: the remainder are partly arranged under the fame title, and partly inferted

in the notes.

Befides these feveral fources of information, the editor has confulted a variety of authors, 'who have quoted and preferved different paffages of Plato in their respective writings. The principal of thefe are Ariftides, Jamblichus, Stobæus, Plutarch, Eufebius, and Theodoret. And here it may not be, improper to obferve, that Mr. Routh profeffes to have made ufe of MSS. of all these authors, except Jamblichus and Plu-. tarch; a circumftance which reflects confiderable honour on. his diligence and attention.

In his very fenfible and unaffected preface, and alfo in his notes, Mr. Routh acknowledges with great candour the advantages which he has derived, as well from the obfervations

1

of Stephens, Serranus, Cornarius, and Cafaubon, as from the communication of fome private and particular friends.

With respect to the text, our present editor has, as we have before obferved, with fome few exceptions, followed the edition of H. Stephens. And, where he differs from it, he has not ventured to admit any reading which was not countenanc ed by fome former edition; but whatever has been suggested either by his own conjecture, by the Bodleian MS. by the verfion of Ficinus, or by the different authors who have quoted Plato, which may tend to correct the text where it is corrupt, or to elucidate it where it is obfcure, is fubmitted to the judg ment of the reader, either at the bottom of the page, or in the notes. In hâc tamen cautione, fays he, admittendi nihil, quod non fuerat prius in editione aliquâ Platonis, laudandum me neutiquam affero, præfertim ubi librorum auctoritate fruebar. Verum nimis cauto facilius ignofcendum, quam temere mutanti.' If we cannot, without fome limitations, admit the principle, we must at least admire the candid and unaffuming fpirit of this apology.

Such is the plan on which the text is printed; and it is printed, as far as we have obferved, with great accuracy; being, we believe, except the few errata which have been noted by the editor, in general free from typographical errors.

rous.

Of the Latin verfion which Mr. Routh has given, it is but justice to say, that it appears to have united perfpicuity with concifenefs; that it is generally exact, and often elegant. The notes are, in proportion to the text, extremely nume The text and verfion together occupy only three hundred pages. To these are allotted, in a type confiderably fmaller, two hundred and fifty-eight pages of notes, various readings, and addenda. The notes on the Euthydemus fill fifty fix pages, thofe on the Gorgias an hundred and feventyfour, and the addenda amount to twenty-eight.

To these notes it may perhaps justly be objected, that they are not fufficiently philological; and that they oftener draw off the attention of the reader to tedious and uninteresting dif cuffions, than affift him in fettling the reading of doubtful and difputed paffages, or in fixing the precife meaning of particular words or expreffions. It must, however, be confeffed, that they bear trong marks of unwearied attention and indefatigable industry; that they are replete with hiftorical information, as well as general knowledge; and that they often contain much of profound, as well as extenfive erudition. But Mr. Routh will not, .we conceive, totally efcape an imputation which has been often invidiously, and often with justice,

thrown

thrown out against the critic and commentator; we mean the imputation of having fometimes laboured rather to difplay the depth of his own learning, and the fplendor of his own attainments, than to explain the difficulties, or elucidate the obfcurities of his author. Our fentiments on this fubje& exactly coincide with the judicious remark of the excellent Pearce, Iş mihi in veteribus fcriptis edendis videtur rei literariæ optime confulere, qui quam pauciffimis verbis clare doceat, quid fuus autor et fenferit, et fcripferit.' Præfat. in Cicer. de Óra

tore.

We fincerely wish that the editor had exerted the fame laudable diligence in correcting the other parts of his work, which he has manifefted with refpect to the text. But we were rather furprised at obferving more than two whole pages of errata; and we venture to affert, from our own obfervation, that the catalogue might have been confiderably enlarged. We will content ourselves with pointing out two inftances only. In page 308, line third, waynçariasal, is printed waypariarai; and in page 452, line ult. we have BéTOTE, which we conceive fhould have been printed βλέπομεν.

At the end of the work Mr. Routh has added the preface which was prefixed by Olympiodorus to his Scholia on the Gorgias. Hiftory has recorded feveral writers of the name of Olympiadorus, but the commentator upon Plato is fuppofed to have lived in the fixth century of the Chriftian æra. preface is curious, and, though fhort, contains many fenfible remarks on the nature, defign, conduct, and characters of the dialogue.

His

We have already commended the attention with which Mr. Routh appears in general to have conducted this edition. We lament, however, that he has not given another inftance of it, by the addition of indexes, on the plan of those subjoined to the dialogues edited by Forfter and Etwall.

It seems that Mr. Routh was fearful of fwelling his volume to a disproportionate bulk; but, as a commentator, we think he might, in this inftance at least, have facrificed fymmetry to ufe. Let not the fuperficial reader ridicule this cbjection as frivolous or pedantic. The advantages arifing from copious vocabularies, when applied to the cultivation of claffical and philological criticifm, are univerfally acknowleged by men of folid learning. Scholars of this defcription will agree with us, that the index of Seber has eventually contributed more towards the illuftration of Homer's language than almoft any one of his numerous commentators. Works of this na ture, though defpifed, as it fhould feem, only because they are laborious, are the fources from which verbal criticism will VOL. LX. July, 1785. E

moft