article, have come to our hands, it is due to the public, that we should make some comparison between them, and give our reasons for any preference which we may have for either above the others. And we trust we shall make it appear, that we are not swayed by national, or local, or personal prejudices, in giving our opinion decidedly in favor of the last.

6

First in the order of time, is the Lexicon of Jones, a well known Greek scholar, and a learned philologist. It is a compendium in English of the celebrated Lexicons of Damm, Sturze, Schleusner, and Schweighaeuser;' and it is not presuming too much, from the established literary reputation of the author, to suppose that the work is in general well executed. It is professedly a dictionary for Tyros, and its excellences and defects should be measured by its main purpose. There is, and will be, probably, some diversity of opinion respecting his omission of the accents, which omission he vindicates by the following sweeping clause. The accents I have entirely omitted, as defacing the native simplicity of the language, and as requiring much sacrifice of expense and labor, without bringing in return the smallest advantage to the learner. I am happy to think that I am sanctioned by the example of Morel and Dr. Maltby, who retain only the circumflex, which I also have done.' Now this, we beg leave to say, is no sanction at all; for no point of learned controversy can be sanctioned by a few insulated examples. Though we would not, with Porson, even in Latin phrase, call the contemners of the accents "scoffers and fools," yet we cannot but think that in any key, intended to unlock the treasures of the Greek language, which comes from their hands, they are chargeable with too little respect for the great body of the most eminent scholars, in omitting any thing which these think essential to the instrument. If the accents are superfluous, the teacher or learner may treat them as such, in the same way as the vowel marks and accents of the Hebrew have often been treated. But in both cases, the process for coming to a right conclusion of the matter, is, in our estimation, a very summary one. For, whatever may be said concerning the antiquity of the Greek accents, they are (no less than the vowel marks and accents of the Hebrew), as the language has come to us, a part of the language, and, like many other minute subjects of learning, they will be variously estimated, according as knowledge and prejudices vary, or as curiosity is more or less awakened.

Another objection, in our opinion, to the valuable Lexicon of Dr Jones, is a peculiarity in the arrangement, the benefits of

which he seems very much to overrate. He puts all the derivatives, real or supposed, and all the compounds, under the primary word. Thus under NATZ he places twenty-seven words, mostly compounds, out of their alphabetical order. We are willing to allow that this is philosophical; but it must be borne in mind, that his Lexion is the Tyro's Lexicon,' and the first of all facilities given him, should be that of finding the word. How is he to know, when he sees the word in his text, that is derived from vas? and yet to find that word, first in alphabetical order, he must pass over fifteen intervening words. There are, probably, instances which would be much more puzzling to a learner than this; but it answers sufficiently well for an example. This is a retrograde movement in Greek lexicography, of a similar kind to that from which we have just recovered in the Hebrew (a favorite language of Dr. Jones), in which the learner was obliged to believe upon compulsion, against all reason and common sense, that a verb was the primitive of almost every name; and he might in vain look for a noun, be its initial letter what it would, or ever so far removed from that of the verb, till he had found this real or imaginary root, this etymon, which was sometimes obsolete, and sometimes never existed except in the. imagination of the lexicographer. In Greek it must be admitted, that the etymological arrangement is not so perplexing, because the derivatives do not take initial formative letters. But why perplex the learner at all with such an arrangement, and try to make him an etymologist, before he has acquired a vocabulary? for the process is really nothing different from this, and is therefore clearly an inversion of the true order.

6

There is one other objection to this Lexicon, which we do not mention without some reluctance, because we not only do not wish, but also do not wish to seem, to discourage any portion of useful learning. We here refer to that part of the etymology, which, going beyond the Greek language itself, carries us to the Hebrew, for the origin of Greek words. Here again, be it remembered,' we use the author's own words, that the Lexicon is intended solely for learners of the Greek language, whether in school, at college, or in their private studies.' Now for students thus described, such etymologies, however well founded, are at least superfluous, if not an incumbrance. But the fact is, that many of them are forced, and not satisfactory to any but the most hardened etymologists. The meaning of the original must often be so distorted, and brought to bear on its supposed offspring by such remote analogies, and ingenious inferential rela

.

tions, that it really seems to throw no light upon the subject. Besides all this, there are so few words that are manifestly derived from the Hebrew, and illustrated by the derivation, that there appears to be little practical use in diverting the attention from definitions founded on the usage of approved authors, to a kind of speculation, of which those authors knew nothing, and which is not very nearly allied to the main object, namely, that of explaining the words of one language by corresponding words of another.

We have no disposition to magnify the defects or faults of a work for which we feel so much respect; and apart from the deductions we have made from its value, which some may think of less amount than we do, it is unquestionably a very useful Lexicon, and its absolute merit is great.

Of the London translation of Schrevelius, which reached this. country a short time before the appearance of that which was recently published in Boston, we cannot speak so favorably. There are no distinctions of type in the words of the Greek vocabulary, and none between the English renderings, and the observations and critical remarks. Some of the meanings are expressed in a careless or unsatisfactory manner, and in general, the work bears the marks of very blameable haste. It would be easy to justify this censure by numerous instances; but the following, cited from different parts of the work, may be sufficient to show the nature of the defects of which we complain.

Xavλodous is used by Herodotus to describe the crocodile, as having projecting or prominent teeth; Schrevelius expresses this by dentes exsertos habens, which the London editor renders, "having the teeth drawn!”

'Hμsiλexov—“ half an axe," for, an axe with one edge or blade.

'Avarravgila-"to crucify again," instead of to crucify simply; for avà, in this and various other verbs, does not signify repetition.

Under 'Exoros, σxoròs is rendered " butt-end," instead of butt, the object of aim. 'Arxibros" near to God," for resembling or like a god.

'Axgwrńgiov (vnòs) is rendered "the fragment of a ship," instead of the beak or rostrum of a ship.

66 'a swelling,” instead of a mushroom or truffle, because the Latin happen

ed to be tuber.

"Tragxos, "THE Indian name of a river."

Δίκην (διδόναι) to lose a suit. We are not aware that the phrase ever has this meaning.

Zaidion-" a little broth," which expresses the force of the diminutive termination in a noun of this sort, about as nearly as a little beer represents the idea of small beer. Under Пous, it is said, "the CABLES of a ship, for slackening or tightening the sail, are called modes."

The proper names generally are not Englished; and the terms in natural history sometimes absurdly keep their Greek

explanation, or are rendered by general terms, where specific names might have been given without difficulty. The more we have examined the book, the stronger has become our impression that it must have been translated, in great part at least, directly from the Latin by an incompetent person. Its intrinsic faults are not a little aggravated by the confusion arising from the uniformity of the type, which must often embarrass the learner, especially in cases like the following.

""Hyov, adv. the same as ro, or; also, videlicet: fr., or."

"Huos, when, without the interrogation: to which rμos, then, corresponds."

The appending of a Latin and Greek vocabulary to a Greek and English Lexicon, strikes us as a glaring inconsistency, which not only causes useless expense, but encumbers the book.

We come now to speak more particularly of the Lexicon published by Messrs. Cummings, Hilliard, & Company, from the University Press in Cambridge, New England. This work was projected many years ago by Mr. John Pickering, of Salem, Massachusetts, and was commenced by him in 1814. The calls of his professional duties were such as to induce him to engage Dr. Daniel Oliver, now Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy at Dartmouth College, as an associate. To say nothing of other causes which have operated thus long to defer the hopes of the public, the conscientious fidelity of the authors has, we are convinced, had a great share; and though we wished it done quickly, we were still more concerned that it should be well done.

The following passages from the Editors' Preface will show, in some important particulars, in what way their labors have been conducted.

"In the execution of their task, the Editors have not contented themselves with being translators of Schrevelius's Latin interpretations, which are often ambiguous and unsatisfactory; but they have, to the best of their ability, rendered the English explanations from the original Greek. It will be at once perceived, that the significations given are more copious than the Latin ones of Schrevelius. This has been occasioned partly by the difficulty of always finding single English words, which would correspond to the Greek so exactly as many of the Latin terms do; but principally from a desire to obviate the embarrassment arising from the ambiguity of the general terms used in the Latin, by substituting for them English significations less general, and of course more precise. It has been the intention of the Editors, that the work should comprehend all the words which are to be found in Professor Dalzel's Collectanea Majora and Minora, Jacobs's Greek

Reader, and the other books now studied in our schools and other seminaries of learning; but, notwithstanding the pains taken in this respect, they dare not flatter themselves with having accomplished it. Any omissions of this kind, however, may be supplied in a future edition."

66 Among the improvements, as the Editors hope they may be called, in the present work, they would state-that upwards of two thousand articles in it are either wholly new, or have new additions, of more or less importance; these articles are distinguished by a bracket placed at the end of them. Besides the additions thus marked, very numerous references to authors have been inserted without being thus designated. The prepositions have been a particular subject of attention; and the uses of the article are explained with as much minuteness as would be advantageous to that class of students for which the work is chiefly designed. Another improvement, and one which was not adopted any edition of Schrevelius till a long time after the present work was begun, is the marking of the quantities of the doubtful vowels. This has been done, for the most part, without sacrificing the accents; and in those instances, where the accent does not appear, the student will know that it has been displaced in order to make room for the quantity; and he will, without much difficulty, decide by the place of the syllable, what kind of accent should be supplied."

in

In the progress of the work, almost all the Lexicons extant have been occasionally consulted; those which have been most frequently resorted to are Hedericus, Planche's excellent Dictionnaire Grec-François, and Schneider's admirable Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch; and, for Scriptural words, the highly valuable edition of Wahl's Lexicon to the New Testament, by Mr. Robinson, of the Theological Institution at Andover. The learned Lexicon of Dr. Jones was not received, until so much progress had been made in the present work, as to prevent much use of it; and, just before the last sheets were printed off, a copy of the London translation of Schrevelius reached this country; which, till the Editors had looked into it, made them regret that they had not sooner met with it. A slight examination, however, made it apparent, that although it contained many additional words, yet it was a hurried performance, upon which it would not have been safe to rely."

pp. vii-viii, Preface.

The Lexicon of Schrevelius has been long used, and is none the worse for the length of time during which it has been tried. It has received important additions since the author's time, and having been in constant use in our schools, and thus received a general sanction, it seems to have claims sufficiently strong for