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 lefs 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 thefe feveral editions, Mr. Routh has given the collation of a manufcript of the Gorgias, repofited in the Bodleian Li brary 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 perifhed by the ravages of time, or the careleffness 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.

Besides these several fources of information, the editor has confulted a variety of authors, who have quoted and preferved different paffages of Plato in their refpective writings. The principal of these are Ariftides, Jamblichus, Stobæus, Plu tarch, 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 Plutarch; a circumftance which reflects confiderable honour on his diligence and attention.

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

1.

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

With refpect 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 countenanced 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 judge 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.

Of the Latin verfion which Mr. Routh has given, it is but juffice to fay, 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

rous.

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 juftly be objected, that they are not fufficiently philological; and that they "oftener draw off the attention of the reader to tedious and uninteresting difcuffions, than affift him in fettling the reading of doubtful and difputed paffages, or in fixing the precife meaning of particular words or expreffions. It muft, however, be confeffed, that they bear ftrong marks of unwearied attention and indefatigable industry; that they are replete with hiftorical information, as well as general knowledge; and that they often con tain much of profound, as well as extenfive erudition. But Mr. Routh will not, we conceive, totally escape an imputa tion 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 fubject exactly coincide with the judicious remark of the excellent Pearce, Is 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 Ora

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 surprised 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, wayngariaral, is printἐὰ παρατιαςαι; and in page 452, line ult. we have βλέποπεν, 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. History has recorded several writers of the name of Olympiadorus, but the commentator upon Plato is fuppofed to have lived in the fixth century of the Chriftian æra. His preface is curious, and, though fhort, contains many fenfible femarks on the nature, defign, conduct, and characters of the dialogue.

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 thofe fubjoined to the dialogues edited by Forfter and Etwall.

It feems 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 leaft, have facrificed symmetry to ufe. Let not the fuperficial reader ridicule this objection 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 almost any one of his numerous commentators. Works of this nature, though despised, as it should feem, only because they are laborious, are the fources from which verbal criticism will VOL. LX. July, 1785. E moft

moft fecurely draw its materials, thofe materials which the faftidious arrogance of genius condefcends indeed to appropriate, but without deigning to own the obligation. We will add, that if a verbal index be useful in editions of claffical authors in general, it is even necessary in thofe of the ancient philofophers. One of the great difficulties which attends the study of the Greek philosophy arises from the necessity not only of diftinguishing the force of words, as ufed by writers of different schools, but of afcertaining the peculiar fenfe which any fingle author has affixed to them. It is true, that in different inftances this difcrimination is more or lefs neceffary, and perhaps the dialogues felected by Mr. Routh may afford lefs fcope for it than fome other works of Plato. However, we cannot retract our objection. On the contrary, we think it has the more weight for a reason before hinted at. We must

repeat, that Mr. Routh's notes are not, in our opinion, fufficiently philological; the want of an index will therefore be the more feverely felt by his readers, who may conceive, that what he did not think fit to do himself, he should at least have enabled them in fome measure to fupply.

In juftice to Mr. Routh, we deemed it incumbent on us to prefent the public with some specimen of his ftyle and manner as a commentator. We have therefore felected the following note, which, we prefume, will convey to our readers no unfavourable ideas of our author's laborious industry in collecting hiftorical information.

P. 154. 1. 7. Agxiaor] Archelaus, de cujus facinoribus hic fufe agitur, haud purum putum erat fcelus, five, at loquuntur, nulla virtute redemptus. Regnum enim Macedonicum, tefte Thucydide, L. z, c. too, p. 164, Ed. Dukeri, ornatius atque potentius reddidit; et literas literatofque homines tanto-favore profecutus eft, ut multos viros ingenio atque doctrina, illuftres liberali hofpitio exciperet; in quibus ipfe erat Euripides. Vide Alian. Var. Hift. 2, 21. 13, 4, Schol. Ariftoph. in Ranas, ve 85, et Suid. in v. Espaids. Imo ab Athenæo Platoni vitio datur, quod Archelaum hoc dialogo fugillaverit, quia, Speufippo teftante, paral Plato huic regi erat. L. 11, c. 15, p. 5c6 E. Socrates vero, cum Archelaus eum ad fe vocaret, recufaffe dicitur, ea gratia, ut mihi quidem videtur, quia vocatorem ipfum, ut ex Æliani V. H. 14, 17, conltat, parvi haberet. Meæ fententiæ favent Laertii verba in Vit. Socr. L. z, Segm. 25; confer autem caufas alias afferentes Ariftot. Rhet. 2, 14, Senecam De Beneficiis 5, 6, et Antoninum imperat De Seipfo, 11, 22, qui Perdiccæ tamen nomen, non Archelai, habet. Tandem fcelerum priorum dedit pœnas, a cinado fuo occifus. Plato in Alcib. pofteriori §. 5, Ed. Etwalk. Ariftot. L. 5, Polit. c. 10, p. 404 Ed. Duval. Ælian. V. H. 8, 9, et

Diod.

Diod, Sic. L. 14, C. 37, p. 671 Ed. Weffeling. qui interfectum Archelaum narrat archonte Lachete, hoc-eft, anno primo Olymp. 95, eodem, quo mortuus eft Socrates. Sed ante Socratem periiffe videtur, qui de Archelao tanquam nuper vitæ defuncto loquitur tam in Theage p. 124 D, quam in Alcib. 2ndo, loc. jam citat. Quot autem annos Macedoniæ regnaverit, inter auctores non convenit, cum valde incerta fit Macedonicorum regum fucceffio. Sine igitur, ut tabella fequens, quod in hac re verifimillimum videtur, facili ratione demonftret.

Ultima quæ fit mentio de Perdicca, Macedonum rege et Archelai patre, pertinet ad

Olympiadis

Prima Archelai regis mentio,

91. I

92. 3.

Difputatio hæc Socratis cum Gorgia,

93. 4.

Alcibiadis interritus,

94. 1.

Archelai et Socratis mortes,

95. 1. Ex hac temporum notatione in primis patet, fibi inconftantem effe Didorum Siculum, feptem tantum annos Archelai regno affignantem, quem ipfe Pydnam occupaffe fcribit Olympiadis 92 anno tertio, atque obiiffe. Olymp. 95 anno primo, quod anno-. rum decem intervallum eft. Confer L. 13, c. 49, P. 579, et, L. 14, c. 37, p. 671. Hic autem alter Diodori locus corruptus videtur, etfi nonnullis viris doctiffimis fucum fecerit, ut Cafaubono & Baylio. Deinde hinc verifimilis videtur Syncelli computatio in Chronograph. pagg. 262 et 263 annos quatuordecim Archelaio tribuens; quod placuiffe video Dionyfio Petavio De Doct. Temp. Parte 2, p. 849, et Hen. Dodwello in Apparatu ad annales Thucydideos p. 18, et in Annalibus p. 49; quodque, fi verum fit, initium regni Archelai ad Olymp. 91 annum tertium refert. Non enim cum quibufdam regnum ejus ad multo plures annos dilatandum effe, ex eo patet, quod Perdicca regis nomen in anno primo Olymp. 91 apud Thucydidem, fcilicet L. 6, c. 7, p. 382, occurrat-Tertio hinc conftat, on duara teneri Platonem, qui in Alcib. pofteriori, §. 5. Soératem cum Alcibiade de Archelai cæde loquentem induxit, cum ipfe Alcibiades quatuor ante annos occifus effet- Poftremo colligendum eft, annorum plus minus novem intervallum fuiffe inter initium regni Archelai, quando facinora hoc dialogo me morata ab eo patrata funt, et tempus, quo habitam fuifle hanc cum Gorgia difputationem jam fupra oftendi ad p. 361. Itaque verba illa Platonis, ἐχθὲς καὶ πραήν γεγονότα, in latiorem folito fenfum accipienda funt. "Voces ifte, nuper, ri, ac fimiles, nullius certi temporis" ut notat Cafaubonus ad Athenæum difcriminationem habent; funt enim Tapos ri, et ad aliquid femper referuntur. Itaque modo brevias, modo longius tempus defignant." Animadv. p. 384. Réfpectu igitur aadarar ogayμalar. (hæc Platonis verba proxime antecedunt) heri et nuper accidiffe res ifta dici poterant."