One  thing  at  leaat  is  ceruin,  that  nothing  in  tbo  Cjn>>
pndia  indicatea  Uie  intention  of  iu  author  to  peodnoa
a  work  of  tbe  imagination.    Otfaeis  have  aoppaaad
that  Xmophon's  object  in  writit^  the  traaiiaa  in  q«ee-
tion  was  to  criticise  tbe  first  two  hooka  of  Plato's  Re-
(mbliCi  and  that  tbe  latter  reulivwl  in  hia -third  book
of  lawa  by  drawing  a  chancter  (tf.Cynis  quite  difieraat
from  that  which  Xenophon  had  depicteL  (Conanh
Aul.  GeU.,  I.  c,  and,  in  telstion  to  toe  Cyropmdie  gm-
erally,  tbe  Biasartatioo  of  Fragtaer,  Mem.  dc  CAcmL
dt*  /iuer.,du.,.vol.3.  p.  48.— SotUe  Orou,  Otocrva-
itons,        ibid.,  vol.  46.  p.  39&^£adeN.  OfmaemU
Lutim;  Hmm.t  1763.  8ro,  n.  S.— ItaaiM,  Btrfiw
jrimatocArt^,  ]796,nil.  I,  p.6&.),  nioagh  tbe  Cyie-
pvdia  be  certainly  Um  work  of  Xanopbon,  eonw  doaba
have  nevertbalasa  ariaen  with  respect  to  the  Uuer  put
of  the  history,  and  whigh  Va{cli«naer,  Sebneidor,  F.
A.  Wolfe,  aod  many  other  modem  acbolars  regard  as
tbe  addition  of  siKne  later  writer,  who  wished  to  weak-
en tbe  favoorabla  impreaaiOD  towaida  the  Pi  taiaai
which  tbe  pemsa)  oT  the  mam  work  could  not  Ibil  ta
produce.    (Compare  Sekuis,  De  Cyrop^iim  epilaf9,
&c.  /At/..  1806,  8vo.— AonMUMi,  Ejnli^.  der  Cy»-
p4tiie,£K.,  Leipz.,  1819. 8vo.) — 4.  Aoy^  ei{  Ay^-
loov  {"Elogt  on  Ag*nlaM*"\    Xei»of>bon  bad  fol-
lowed this  prince  in  hia  expedition  into  Aaia,  and  bed
been  an  ayewitaeas  of  bia  victoriaa  in  that  coootiy.
