Patrick, Ernesti, Morell, and Larcher. But it was bad in the first concoction. Ernesti, in his Preface, justly expresses himself thus, of the original compiler:-" Non libenter dico, quod præsens institutum dicere cogit: Hedericum illum, virum bonum cetera et laboriosum, at Græce doctum, et ad tale Lexicon rite conficiendum satis a lectione Græcorum scriptorum instructum non fuisse. Totus ille, id quod per totum opus observare licuit, e Scapula, aliisque vulgaribus Lexicis, pendebat; tot præclaras doctorum hominum de verbis plurimis, post Stephanum et Scapulam, observationes ignorabat, nec ipse e lectione ipsorum scriptorum meliora didicerat." Now, we say, that a Greek Lexicon, compiled by such a man, must have that radical unsoundness in all its frame, which no sanative process can remove.

To the booksellers of this city we seem to be indebted for the last -and not the least-improvement of it: the insertion of numerous additions and corrections from the papers of the learned Larcher; which they purchased at the sale of his library in Paris, and submitted for revisal to an eminent scholar of this country. We could wish that the editor had distinguished Larcher's additions by the first letter of his name, or some other mark. They can now be ascertained only by comparison with the former editions; though they may often be conjectured from the verdure of certain spots, amidst surrounding sterility. But after all the attempts that have been made to supply the deficiencies, and correct the errors, of the work, it still remains so erroneous, defective, and utterly unscholarlike, that we do consider the continued use of it in our schools disgraceful to the literature of this country. Let us adduce a few examples to justify our opinions.

αι

Longinus (§ 24), marking the beauty of that expression in Herodotus, ἐς δάκρυα ἔπεσε τὸ θέητρον, says, τὸ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν διηρημένων εἰς τὰ ηνωμένα ἐπισυςρέψαι τὸν ἀριθμὸν, σωματοειδέςερον. Here it is plain, that Us means conglobare, to collect, or incorporate into one; according to the common import of the verb ausgepw, But let the student consult Hederic on the word, and what does he find for the interpretation of wovsgipw? "Una converto ad aliquid suscipiendum contra aliquem!”

Now, this stuff passed from Stephens to Scapula, from Scapula to Schrevelius, and so on to Hederic; in whose Lexicon it is carefully retained to this day, for the instruction of our English youth in the Greek language. We beg pardon of Stephens's memory, for having mentioned him in such company. Longinus is not among the classics to whose authority he refers, or with whom he appears to have been familiar (Pseudo-Longinus is frequently cited by Stephens.) On this word he evidently was at a loss for classical authority; endeavoured to conjecture its meaning from its composition; and ultimately wavered in his judgment. For, after giving the interpretation which alone Hederic has retained, he adds—“ vel, Colligo, seu cogo ad aliquid, &c. [i. e. suscipiendum contra aliquem] ea nimirum signif. qua aliquis dicitur factiosam catervam cogere. Sed affertur ex Maccab. 1. i. c. 14 ἐπισυςρέψαι συςροφήν pro convocare conventum.” Here it is plain that Stephens was led astray by wanting a classical example of the word, and by endeavouring to give some peculiar force to the preposition inì in its composition. There is none; no more than in

émiovvyóμeva* at the beginning of the same section. But Hederic omits all that approached towards the right meaning in Stephens; and retains only the interpretation, in which he furthest departed from the true.

Lucian, in his treatise on the composition of history (§ 45), says, δεήσει γὰρ τότε ποιητικό τινὸς ἀνέμε ἐπαρισσάοντος τα ἀκάτια, καὶ συνδιοί. σοντος ὑψηλὴν . . . τὴν ναῦν, where it is evident that aκάτια means the sails. (See Xen. Hell. 6. 2, 27. Ed. Schneider.) But the only interpretation of the word which the student will find in Hederic, is, "parvi navigii genus, genus naviculæ piscatoriæ, cymba:" in which sense certainly the word occurs in Thuc. 1. 4, c. 67, and elsewhere. Stephens, though he complains of wanting a classical example of the word, supplies the other meaning; but Scapula, upon whom Hederic depended, deserted him.

A few lines after the passage we have last quoted from Lucian, that writer urges the importance of the historian's examining most carefully what he relates as facts, and adds καὶ μάλισα μὲν παρόντα και ἐφορῶντα, εἰ δὲ μὴ κ. τ.λ. “ if possible, from his own personal presence and inspection: but if that cannot be," &c. This use of sa mèr ... si de un is common in the Greek classics, and perfectly analogous to a corresponding use of maxime in Latin. Sall. B. Jug. c. 46.— maxume vivum, sin id parum procedat, necatum. We observe that Stephens largely illustrates the phrase; but in vain would the student look for any notice of it in Hederic.

Upon another equally common use of us, and noticed by Stephens, Hederic is equally silent; iv тois μxis idóximos (Luc. Som. §2.) which Hemsterhuis illustrates with his usual copiousness of learning. We need scarcely add, that Hederic appears to have been equally a stranger to the similar use of ἐν ὀλίγοις, ες ποταμὸν ἐν ὀλίγοισι μiyav (Her. iv. 52.) But why should we proceed in the disgusting task of collecting particular instances of error and defect in Hederic? When the general texture of his work is, as we have said, utterly unscholarlike. An example will illustrate our meaning.

"Eatçòs, ça çòr, putris, flaccidus, marcidus, vietus; (2) debilis, fragilis, quassus, futilis, frivolus; (3) vitio aliquo occulto laborans, et in neutro vitium ipsum. A onπw."

We shall not pause to examine the accuracy of these several interpretations. He seems just to have collected together, without any examination, all the Latin expressions which he could find for salgòs, in the former Lexicons: and he flings them in a mass before the student, to take his choice from among them, in whatever connexion or application the epithet may occur. We would ask any scholar, is this the way in which the meaning of axégès should be illustrated for our youth? In the same compass it would have been easy to mark distinctly the literal meaning of the word decayed, unsound; and then to enumerate various substantives, to which it is figuratively applied, with brief references to classical authorities.

* We are far from meaning that Longinus had no reason for employing, in this passage, the compounds, ἐπισυναγόμενα and επισυτρέψαι rather than the simpler forms συναγόμενα and συσρέψαι. We think the construction εἰς τὰ ἑνκα ἐπισυναγό μενα, and εἰς τα ήνωμένα ἐπισυςρέψαι is very parallel with ἐπάγειν ἐπιβαίνειν, ἐπιβάλ λειν ἐπιτιθέναι – ἐπὶ αα

The reader, who wishes more examples of such interpretation, may examine Hederic's ten meanings for ἀνάςασις, ten for ἐπίςασις, eleven for κατάςασις, nine for παράτασις, ten for πεξίτασις, ten for σύςασις, &c. thrown out without any quoted authorities or examples, except one from Larcher's papers at the close of the article on inisaois. And when we mention so many different meanings, it is to be observed that he is commonly very liberal under each. For instance, the second meaning assigned to ousaσis is expressed by six different Latin words: coagmentatio, compositio, coagmentum, concrementum, crassitudo, concretio. Surely, the student must be fastidious, who cannot please himself, and find something suitable to his wants, in such a copious assortment of explanations as is spread before him.

Some may have imagined that the necessary limits of size and price, within which a School-Lexicon must be confined, are inconsistent with the critical character, which we contend it ought to possess. But is it not evident, even from the examples which we have adduced, that the most vague and indistinct interpretations are the most diffuse and wordy? Those which are accurate and critical, may commonly be proposed in the briefest form. Again, let it be observed that a considerable portion of Hederic's pages is occupied with the merely grammatical analysis of words, which ought to present no difficulty to a boy, even moderately disciplined in his grammar. We have opened the volume at random; and in the first column which has presented itself to our eye, we find ten lines occupied with the analysis of the following forms: θολῦντα, θόςε, θοξυβεῦσιν, θορυβήση, θοξύεισθαι, θούςμαιον. And perhaps there is scarcely one of these words in which any such assistance ought to be afforded to the student.

But again, we remark that many thousands of words have place in Hederic, which might, without any loss, be omitted in a Greek Lexicon compiled for the use of schools; words, of which many are of no classical authority, and many others are found only in writers the most obscure, or most out of the line of a schoolboy's reading. We must add, and we wish Dr. Jones particularly to attend to the remark, that there is a class of words, which not only may well be omitted, but which ought never to appear in the pages of a School Lexicon. Begging pardon of the reverend gentlemen, to whose care the education of our youth has been for ages almost exclusively committed in this country, we must confess that we know not what legitimate business a schoolboy can have with studying the filthiest obscenities of Aristophanes; and we know not why a Greek Lexicon, compiled for the use of schools, should afford him any interpretation of them.

The considerations which we have suggested, convince us, that in a volume not much larger than Dr. Jones's, and nothing more costly, all the Greek words which a young student will meet with, in an extended course of school-reading, might be critically interpreted, classically authenticated, and by brief quotations illustrated in their several connexions and applications. At the same time we are aware, that to execute such a work, however humble some may think it, would require several years of laborious application, sound judgment, and good sense, extensive reading, and a critical acquaintance with the Greek language.

OBSERVATIONS

ON

"AN ANSWER TO A PSEUDO-CRITICISM

OF THE

GREEK AND ENGLISH LEXICON,

WHICH APPEARED IN THE SECOND NUMBER OF THE WESTMINSTER

REVIEW."

1824.

WE are cordial friends to the right of appeal from our critical decisions to the tribunal of the public; and are equally disposed to pay all due attention to any motion for a re-hearing in our own court. But the extreme scurrility of this pamphlet has caused us to hesitate considerably whether we should take any notice of it. We shall handle the foul object as delicately as possible, and hasten to wipe our fingers, and dismiss it and the author for ever. If selfpartiality and passion had not blinded Dr. Jones, he might easily perceive that, in our last number, we laboured to be as gentle in our censures on his work as possible. We went quite as far as was consistent with the honest discharge of our duty to the public, in attributing his blunders, absurdities, and defects, to haste-to inattention -to every thing rather than to ignorance and incapacity. Our feelings of tenderness to him led us to hold a language of encouragement and hope, that a future edition of his work might be so altered and amended as to merit praise. We confess, that in this we held a language not warranted by the inward conviction of our own judgment; but we must add, that we then had not any adequate conception of the depth of Dr. Jones's ignorance. If we had any of these hostile feelings towards him, which he so profusely attributes to us, they might be abundantly gratified by his present production. But, indeed, we sincerely regret that any one who has devoted so much time to literary pursuits, should make such a melancholy exposure of himself both as a man and as a scholar. He shows himself even incapable of understanding the plainest corrections which we offered of his grossest errors. For instance, on that

passage of Xenophon, όσα μεν ἐςι μαθοντα ἐιδεναι, which he translated whatever things it is lawful to know after having learnt them,” p. 608, we briefly remarked, that if he had read on to the end of the sentence he must have seen, that à es μaborta edeva is equivalent with panta, things which may be known by teaching. (These Xenophon contrasts with things discoverable only by divination.) But it now appears that we judged quite too favourably of Dr. Jones's attainments, in conceiving that he must have seen this if he had read the whole passage. He gravely maintains that his version-" whatever things it is lawful to know after having learnt them"-is" an exact representation of the original"-twice alleges that we accuse him of mistranslating the passage, because he has given to xrðara the meaning of to learn-and exclaims against our assertion, that a ἐςι μαθοντα εἶδεναι is equivalent with μαθητα, as an assertion that "things which are known after being learnt are the same with things to be learnt." Certainly, this man "cannot teach and will not learn." The same obstinacy of error appears throughout his strictures on our article; and is carried so far, that he even employs two pages in maintaining the justice of his version of ἐκῶν βασιλευς εἶ συ; Thou art not, then, a king?" in place of the common version, "Art thou a king, then ?" We had asked, "Is it possible that Dr. Jones is ignorant that ex has not a negative signification?" It now appears that he not only was, but is. He gravely tells us, that “is an interrogative"! and that "it depends upon the views of the person who puts the question-whether the question which it was intended to elicit, (what can the man mean?) is to be understood as negative or affirmative”!

There is but one instance in which Dr. Jones defends himself successfully; and of that instance we wish to give him the full benefit. We noticed the extraordinary meaning assigned to the verb yragicoμai, I am reconciled, and offered an account of the error, which struck us as bearing internal characters of being indubitably the true one. But Dr. J. gives us a different account. He says-" The word reconciled, is a typographical mistake for recognised, which escaped me when correcting the press, but which, soon after the publication of the book, I discovered and corrected." (He must mean corrected in his private copy of the work.) Very well, let all we have written on that passage be considered as expunged. But could he not state the fact of this typographical error without charging us as having been aware of the fact? The inserting of recognise, as I have done, under the active form yvwça, must lead every reader, however superficial, to perceive that by-I am reconciled-under the passive yvwçou, I must have meant, I am recognised. Common candour, therefore, would lead the critic to point it out as a typographical mistake." Rude and foolish man! The very circumstance which he marks as sufficient to convince us of the typographical error has exactly the opposite tendency.

He sets up a similar defence, but altogether ineffectually, in another instance. We animadverted on his mistranslation of the sentence in Demosthenes, beginning, Ει μεν γας μη ἐχρῆν, άλλα την Μ. λ. κ. την Ε. ἦσαν ὁφθηναι, κ. τ. λ. Here, also, Dr. J. tells us, "there is an