his objects is to give ufeful editions for schools, we are happy to fee boys deprived of this retuge for indolence, this most fatal impediment to a proper knowledge of the Greek language. M. Wolff, who is profeffur of eloquence and of the humaniores literæ in the university of Hall, in the king of Pruffia's dominions, introduces his work by a letter to Reizius, profeffor at Leipfic. He had been employed, he fays, four years in reading the Greek orators, and particularly Demofthenes, chiefly to collect what related to the republic of Athens, its condition, its laws, its juridical decifions, its revenues and civil inftitutes, for the ufe of his cla's, and we truft, ultimately, for that of the world. From a predilection for fome of the more interefting orations, arofe the plan of publifhing them more correctly, and this leads him to a fort account of the more important editions, in which he feems to treat our countryman Taylor with too little complaifance, though he difapproves of the harsh and unjustifiable severity of Reike. M. Wolff next explains the plan which he intends to purfue in the future editions, and which we have already fhortly mentioned. The authors defigned to follow Diodorus, are Heliod, focrates, Arrian, Lucian, Apollonius, Dyfcolus, and fome books of Ga len, particularly thofe de Ufu Partium.' Thofe authors publifhed in the fame way by others, particularly Herodotus by Reizius, and Thucidides, which appeared about five years fince at Vienna, he purpofes to ont t. The reafon of publishing this oration in a different manner was to give a fpecimen of all the new types, and the oration to Leptines was preferred because it requires lefs knowledge of the political ftate of Greece, and is in that more quiet placid style of eloquence, which is more eafily understood, and more generally agreeable. Indeed, asthe editor obferves, this oration has much intrinsic merit; for when, fays he, I investigated the fenfe of every word, I was fo much affected with that fubtelty, recommended by the Demofthenes of Rome, that admirable force of fentences and words, that politeness and art with which the author unfolds and weakens the arguments of his adverfary, while he fpares the man, that I fcarcely remember having received greater pleasure from any profe compofition.' From this predilection the particular regard of our author feems to have arifen, and the number of the notes is apologized for from the little attention which has been paid to this part of Demofthenes' labours by other editors. The declamation of Elius Ariftides is added, a Sophist of the lower empire, who often aimed at bending the bow of Ulyffes with Ulyffes himself. Our editor fpeaks of the work with little refpect, and has not added a word in explanation. He has corrected the text only, in a few places, from the Venice edition. Other critics have treated Ariftides lefs hardly, and we think more properly. 1 The Prolegomena, which extend to 122 pages, follow the Epiftle; and M. Wolff, in this preface, explains the mode of 5. writing writing adopted by the rhetoricians of the middle age, of which the oration of Ariftides is an example. He is difpleafed with the Sophift becaufe he is not equal to Demofthenes. We have read this oration with great pleasure, because he comes fo near to his mafter, an opinion perhaps influenced by the judg ment we had formed of his abilities from his other writings. We shall extract from Mr. Wolff's preface a fhort comparative view: Haec et alia vitia fingulis exemplis Declamationis noftrae declarari poffent, fi id opus efeffet. Facile enim animadvertet, qui leget. Attendat mihi pro fe quifque, quam afpere in ea cum Leptine agatur, quem tam comiter habet Demofthenes; quantum incommoda legis ultra probabilitatem pinguiter augeantur; quam inepto loco vetufta et mythica exornentur, ut §. 40. 64. 92. ; quam puerilis lufus fit in verbis iifdem repetendis, felicet acuminis et gravitatis cauffa, ut §. 2. 10. 11., ubi auc tor etiam fubtilitate videtur cum magiftro contendere voluiffe. Sed ea ars illi fere in fpinas et araneam abit. A tali fubtilitate profecto Leptinis legi nihil periculi metuendum fuit.' Afterwards, in the enquiry into the peculiar merits of Demofthenes' writings, our author returns to this point, and fuppofes Leptines to be a man of refpect and dignity in the state, because he is treated fo gently, while the Athenians, prifca fuâ fimplicitate et licentia morum,' were, on fuch occafions, violently abufive and acrimonious. One confideration will, we think, explain the whole. When Leptines propofed the law to take away the various immunities granted at times to different perfons, in order to fcreen them from public offices, and to prevent the repetition of fimilar grants, which precluded the fervices of able perfons, and threw too great a proportion of the burthens on the poor, he was oppofed by Bathippus; but before the caufe could be tried, the accufer died, and a year elapfed before the accufation was renewed. After one year the author, or propofer of a decree or law, was no longer refponfible, and the accufation was directed against the law, not against the man: fo M. Wolff fhould have tranflated the title for & wgos Actiny hoyos, is, we think, notwithstanding our author's arguments, Oratio ad Leptinem, and not adverfus Lep tinem *. Belides, while Demofthenes was arguing against this popular law, his language ought to have been carefully guarded. Little of the real chara&er and fituation of Leptines can now be discovered: he owes all his fame to the oppofition of Demosthenes, who on this occafion fpoke after Phormio, the Kara feems to be applied to a perfonal attack; pos to an oppofition to opinions. There is certainly a great difference in the force of the two prepofitions, fuppofing them in fome degree fynonymous; and in this intance, the attack was not aduerfus Leptinem, but only against the law which he propofed. principal principal accufer. In this rank he feems to have fometimes re peated the arguments of his predecefior, and this repetition ap pears to have been allowed, when it was in the ora or's power to elucidate, to inforce, or to add to them. M. Wolff thinks it probable, from the internal evidence, that the operation of the law was fufpended be au'e no inconveniencies are mentioned to have refulted from it. The explication of the various kinds of immunities is a very favourable specimen of our au thor's critical talents. Etiam &Texas duo imprimis genera funt, alterum, de quo 'nunc diximus, quod vacationem dabat a choragia, gymnafi archia et εστιάσει * (ἀιλειτεργίαν ἐγκύκλιοι, did.); alterum, ad quod pertinebant immunitates portorii, reliquorumque vectigaHum, aliae. Bene haec et fimilia docent Intpp. ad Pollucem VIII, 140. et Vandal. Differ att. Antiqq. et Marmorr. illuftr. p. 781. Unum tamen ab his omiffum eft, rísa ispăr, quami Nofter tangit §. 10., brevius, quam velles in re, quam nullus veterum nobis expofuit. Coniectura ergo quum utendum fit, nifi me mea fallit, Oratoris fententiam preffe fequens, pertinuit immunitas facrorum eo, quid cives debuerunt victimas et alias res, fortaffe pecuniam quoque erogare in templa, facrificia et alia eiufdem generis: ac de his ipfis, vel parte eorum, accipiam etiam ryga, Aefchini memorata in loco infigni Orat. in Crefiph. p. 430. C. Confirmator hoc quodammodo ab Ariftotele, qui de magnificentia loquens in Ethica Nicom. IV. 5. fumtus in templa, anathemata et facrificia coniungit cum choragia, trierarchia et orácu. Sed alterum illorum generum, quae fuperius pofui, vel utrumque Graeci dicunt quum fimpliciter dicunt ἀτέλειαν. Et hinc quoque intelliges ἀτέλειαν ἀπάν Ta apud Atticos. Nam nihil ad nos Herodian. II. 4. Itaque fi vectigalium immunitas continetur nomine 27λias, vere Leptines illa ratione potuit uti, quam Nofter carpit, ne dicam calumniatur §. 20. feq. Iam ex iis, quae difputavi, varie explicari debent immunitates, quas leg mus feu civitati a civitate, feu privato conceffas, ut in Infcriptt. ap. Chandlerum p. 20. Herodot. I. 54. Xenoph. Hellen. I. 2. 7. Pfephism. Byzant. in Demotth. Or. de Cor. p. 487. E. ubi arogyro dicuntur, qui Atticis funt &TEA. Adde Diodorum Sic. X, 43. Nondum enim video, cur άredes docto interpreti ibi fcriptum videatur pro ivoriheis; nifi forte in animo habuit locum Xenoph. de Vectig. IV. 12.' : Indeed every circumstance which can illuftrate this celebrated oration is adverted to with the fame care, and with fimilar accuracy. The arguments of Leptines and his antagonist are given fhortly and comprehenfively. M. Wolff proceeds, in order to illuftrate this oration, and to give the readers ideas not very different from those impreffed on In time of war two others were added, scopoja, and rgiñgagnın.” the the hearers, to fome account of the customs which were eftablifhed at Athens in the appointments to the public offices, and the ceremonies in enacting or repealing laws. Each branch of the Argia, before mentioned, is explained at length with great precision and great learning. The explanation of the Tengagxia, as it was first established, and afterwards altered in different places, would alone establish the credit of our author as one of the most able claffical antiquaries. All this part of the differtation is extremely valuable. It appears that it was very dangerous to be rich, fince the state demanded the affiftance of every opulent citizen, without being folicitous whether he might not be by this means reduced to poverty. Each citizen confequently concealed his wealth, for no one who did not poffefs two talents could be obliged to undertake the utegias ey κυκλιοι. The Grecians have complained that they have spent their fortunes in these taxes (fe bona fua xaraλETYGYNORI HATAxgyño, &c.) and their murmurs might afford fome new arguments to our modern grumblers. We fhall transcribe some ancient grumbling from a fragment of Antiphanes, preferved by Athenæus. The Latin will be, perhaps, more generally intelligible. Quifquis mortalium Firmum quid effe credit in vita verûm The rest of the complaints relate to the more general evils of life. Sometimes, to acquire popularity, fome of the richer class would feek thefe liturgia; and fometimes it is probable that, from envy or malice, a perfon in indifferent circumstances would be nominated to this office. A law, attributed to Solon, it is faid provided against this laft inconvenience; but the law was in after-times ufelefs, for if a poorer perfon was nominated, he might fix on fome one more opulent, and compel him to undertake the office, or to change fortunes with him. The customs, etablished in enacting and repealing laws, are next explained with equal care and accuracy; and M. Wolff first confines himself to thofe circumstances which illuftrate the oration on the Leptinean law, or thofe confequences which may be drawn from it; and he then confiders the fingular paffage of the oration against Timocrates, on the annual reconfideration (cenfura) of the laws, and the mode of confirming and repealing the old laws, or enacting new ones. A paflage from Æfchines, in his oration against Crefiphon, on the fame fubject, is added. We have waited too long in the veftibule, but we were attracted fo powerfully that we could not refift. We shall there 6 fore fore be more flort than we intended in our fpecimens of the notes and the commentary. M. Wolff prefers the second ar gument to that of Libanus, and it is undoubtedly more full, more clear, and correct. It has been fuppofed that the author of the Scholia and of the argument were the fame; that each was the work of Ulpian; but this account is very inconfiftent with Ulpian's age and other circumftances. Cafaubon, we find alfo, is unwilling to attribute the whole of thefe notes to Ulpian, on account of various errors which he has difcovered-Abfit vero a nobis, ut hæc & alia hujus farinæ, qualia nonnulla in his Scholiis obfervavimus Ulpiano tribuamus. The text we have examined with fome care, and find the best readings preferved with great judgment, and the whole printed with much accuracy. It is an excellent fpecimen of M. Wolff's talents as an editor. The Scholia in this edition are those just mentioned, whether of Ulpian or of fome other author is of no great importance in our prefent views. The notes are M. Wolff's, and of these we fhall add a few fpecimens, referring to the pages in Dr. Taylor's third volume, as we cannot cally tranfcribe the whole paflage. • Μεδέ τὸ λοιπὸν ἐξεῖναι δοῦναι, ὑμᾶς τὸ δοῦναι. Haee quum mire varient in MSS., tutiffimum putavi optare lectionem ab Obfop. et Wolf. proditam, quae tum nihil habet ab Oratoris mente alienum, nihil, quod non alibi poftea repetatur, tum fuavitate concinnitatis placer, tum linguae legibus non adverfatur. Hac faltem parte laborat fedulo commendata a Tayloro fcriptura: μηδὲ τὸ λοιπὸν ἐξεῖναι δοῦναι ὑμᾶς, τὸ δοῦναι ὑμῖν ἐξεῖναι. Qua fribligine, etfi ducta e libris optimis et ed. Benenati, merito, fpreta, Reifk. dedit: μηδὲ τὸ λοιπὸν ἐξεῖναι, ὑμᾶς τὸ δοῦναι ὑμῖν ἐξεῖναι. Ετ hoc Auger, probat. Sanior haud dubie haec lectio eft, cui fi quis acquiefcat, αφείλετο ὑμᾶς τὸ ἐξεῖναι ὑμῖν δοῦναι erit explicandum : Abftulit Vobis poteftatem donandi; ad prius ia vero fupplendum e fuperioribus vai arλñ, ut fit: Quod adfcripfit Leptines, ne in pofterum quidem cuiquam licere immunem effe, in eo ius et poteftatem Vobis abftulit donand. Atque hanc rationem, fatendum eft, et bonis libris fe tueri, et teste etiam Demetrio de Elocut. §. 246. qui tili modo feripta haec laudat prò exemplo de Tris, e fcabritie et afperitate fonorum (72 duç‡Sóyy) orientis. Mihi tamen nondum plane perfuafuin eft, hanc Demofthenis effe inanum. Ut omittam, durius ada pertrahi rar äterñ, ineptus videtur ipfe circuitus, qui eft in verbis à ikiñas iμir daž– , quando fimpliciter rò dovas potuerat dici poteftas donandi, ut eft To Tμar §. ico. aliaque id genus alibi. Deinde fi cui fcriptua noitra videatur immodeffor, quam qua Leptines in ipfaregatione ufus credi poffit, haud multum ea dubitatio valeat. Prorfus fic, ut dedi, repetuntur verba §. 43. et 35. inprimifque §. 139. Iam videbor certe non fine cauffa Reifkium deferuiffe. Ac ne quis Demetrii auctoritatem mihi opponat, adhuc de hac ipfa nonnihil addubito.' Vide Taylor, tom. iii. p. 8. 1. 2. We |