Vou. VI.J 
moft careful and judicious manner. In: 
the department of Greek literature, we 
were agreeably furprized with the follow- 
ing excellent work: ‘* 4 Critical Diéio- 
~uary of the Greek and German, Languages, 
to be ufed in reading the Greek prophane 
writers,” by J. G. SCHNEIDER, pro- 
feffor in the univerfity of Frankfort on the 
Qder, vol. i. fcom Ato K. pp. 347, large 
8vo. The editor, who is one of the oldett . 
Greek profeflors in Germany, has directed 
his principal attention, in the compoiition 
of this Digtionary, to etymology, ana- 
logy, as well as the general and particu- 
lar derivation of words; he has confined 
himfelf entirely to the fecular Greek 
writers, as the Germans poffe{s.a variety 
of particular dictionaries of the Old and 
New Teftament, together with others 
explaining the ecclefiattical writers in the 
Greek language; a circumftance which 
has induced the learned editor to omit 
even all the proper nouns. ‘* 4 Complete 
Greek Grammar for Schools and Acade- 
mies,” by A.F. BERNHARDI, 8vo. Ber- 
lin, pp. 356, This elementary work is 
compofed upon the fame principles which 
the author has adopted in his Latin 
grammar, publifhed about three years 
ago: it hows throughout the man of re- 
flection, and it muft be confefled in juftice 
to Mr. BERNHARD1, that his is not 
only the moit complete, but likewife 
the moft ufeful and peripicuous Greek 
grammar of which the German {chools 
can boait. ** Ariffotle’s Politics and Frag- 
ments of Economy,’’ tranflated from the 
Greek, and accompanied with remarks, 
together with an analyfis of the text, by 
J. G. ScuLosseEr, partI. p. 40 and 356, 
$vo. 1798. This is the firlt attempt of 
the kind in the German language, and 
Mr. SCHLOsseR, although frequently 
mifled to make partial and fhallow re- 
marks, by his exceflive hatred to every 
other but a monarchical form of govern- 
ment, and by his paflionate oppotition to 
the progrefs of ¢ Critical Philofophy,” has 
neverthelefs difplayed a confiderable fhare 
of judgmentand philological information 
in this elegant verfion. To juftify in 
fome degree our affertion, we fhall quote 
fome obfervations from the introduétion, 
- xix. Socrates believed that true phi- 
jolophy could and ought to regulate the 
daily actions of human life, and in this 
alone it ought to difplay its whole power 
and influence, ‘To Plato philofophy ap- 
peared of a more fublime nature; who- 
ever will approach to its divine precepts, 
ought, according ta him, to rife above 
the commen. clafs of men, Ariltgtle, 
Retrofped? of German Literature....Philology. 

53% 
laftly, was of opinion that philofophy. 
ought to proceed on its own path, and 
fhould at moft, only now and then con- 
defcend to an{wer the purpofes of life, im 
order to prevent every where contufion andi 
irregularity. Thus the firlt of.thefe phi- 
lofophers wifhed to form only good and 
noble men; the fecond would have no 
other but femi-gods ; and the third was 
fatisfied with tolerable men only.’ By, 
thefe characteriftic remarks, Mr.ScHLOS- 
SER wifhes to fhow the different points of 
View in which thofe three men of anti- 
quity have confidered philofophy ; but his 
comparative ftatement is not critically 
correct. If we make a proper and due 
diftinction between the theory and prac- 
tice of philofophy, it is highly probable 
that all thefe antients looked upon phi- 
lolephy as a fcience, which rales man 
above the common herd of his fpecies, and 
wubich deferves to be more practically em- 
ployed for the improvement of mapzkind. 
The femi-gods of Plato are certainly no 
other than the good and noble men of 
Socrates, and it can by no means. be 
proved, that Ariftotle wifhed to form to- 
lerable men only. ‘* Xenophontis Mema- 
rabiha Socratis grece. Editio tertia emen- 
datior et auctior, p. viii and 188, 8vo,7? 
‘The former edition of this fmall work was 
pubdlithed by Srroru, and the prefent 
editor, Mr, £itzuger, of Gotha, has care- 
fully corrected the textofERNEs?TI (which 
STROTH had almoft literally copied) ac- 
cording to the late improvements made by 
ZEURE, SCHNEIDER, SCHUTZ, and 
WEISKE. ‘The laft article we thall men- 
tion, in Greek literature, is a tolerable 
tranflation of “ Hefod’s Poems,” by C. 
H. ScHUTZE, p. 302. 8vo. -This verfion 
has fomewhat the appearance of the claf- 
fical labours of Prot. Vofs; but it does 
not ftand the tcft of criticifm as well as 
thefe, for it is not only deficient in point 
of eafy and well-turned expreflions, but 
alfo frequently imperfeét and unharmo- 
nious in the terminations of the verfes. 
The effays annexed by the tranflator con- 
tain quotations from other writers, rather 
than original remarks, puns: and plays 
upon words rather than found difguifitions 
or ufeful illuftrations. In the branch of 
Hebrew literature we find at prefent only 
“* Aconcife Grammar of the Hebrew Lan- 
Suage ; being an abitract fromthe larger 
works by J. J. VATER, profeffor at Jena, 
P- 174, 8vo. 1798. This epitome is 
purpolely detigned for thofe beginners who 
have not yet imbibed any prejudices from 
other grammars; many of the abfolute 
parts of grammar are here fimplified and 
i explained 
more 



