ART. III.-GREEK AND ENGLISH LEXICOGRAPHY.

From the London Quarterly Review.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.

The direct bearing which the subject of Greek Lexicography in general has upon the proper study of the New Testament, is a sufficient apology, if any were demanded, for inserting in a work devoted to Biblical Literature, the following able article from a cotemporary foreign journal. It is found in the latest number of the Quarterly Review, Vol. LI, No. 101. References in it to a similar though less general article in No. 44 of the same work, and a comparison with that article, furnish intrinsic evidence that it comes from the same author, Dr Blomfield, the present bishop of London, one of the most accomplished Greek scholars of the age. A brother of his, the translator of Matthiae's Grammar, was still more distinguished; but died in early life. To him allusion is made in the first paragraph below.

This essay will be found not merely a valuable critique and contribution to literary history; but it everywhere brings into view and discusses the true principles on which the study of the Greek language (and of course every other) ought to be prosecuted. The absurdity of studying one dead language through the medium of another, is fully set forth; and this exhibition was to us the more gratifying, as it corresponds entirely with the views which we had many years ago occasion to express. But more than this; Dr Blomfield, in laying down proper rules for the compilation of a lexicon, gives also necessarily the rules which ought to direct the private student in the investigation of the words of a language; since a good lexicon is and can be only a record of the results, at which the student aims to arrive. In respect to every word, he investigates its origin, its fundamental form and signification, the various forms and senses in which it has been used in the different epochs and dialects of the language, and the manner and order in which all these are derived from the radical one and from each other; and when

all these points are properly ascertained and arranged in his own mind, then and not till then, is he master of the word in question. The transcript of this view, with the necessary vouchers, is the lexicography of that word. To Passow, the writer of the following article strongly and justly ascribes the merit of having first applied this method to the Greek language; but Passow would himself have been the last to claim this as an exclusive merit. It seems to have been rather the general result of a better method of philosophical study, which has sprung up during the present century among the scholars of Germany; and in respect to which the names of Hermann, Buttmann, Jacobs, Passow, Tittmann, Winer, and others, are particularly conspicuous so far as relates to the Greek language. The same method was applied with great success to the Hebrew by Gesenius, so early as 1810; and to him in truth belongs the merit of having first exemplified it, in its full application to the lexicography of any language. The principles on which he proceeded, may be seen in the preface to the editions of his lexicon of 1810, 1823, and 1827; and in the Bibl. Repos. Vol. III. p. 39 sq. They are the same, cæteris paribus, as the rules given by Dr Blomfield towards the close of the present article.

Some of the admissions of the reviewer in respect to the state of the critical study of the languages, or rather the study of philology as a science, in England, may perhaps be startling to the American reader; but a course of not cursory observation for several years past, has long since convinced us, that they are not too broad. The remarks on Donnegan's Lexicon we had thoughts, at first, of omitting; but we believe that every American student ought to know the exact literary value of every work put into his hands as a daily guide; and as we happen to know that the opinions here expressed and fully sustained by proof, are also entertained by some of the first Greek scholars. in our own country, we have felt it to be our duty to give that portion of the article entire.-EDITOR.

1. Griechish-Deutsches Wörterbuch, von J. G. SCHNEIDER, Professor and Oberbibliothekar zu Breslau. Dritte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. 4to. Leipzig 1819.

2. Handwörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache, von FRANZ PAssow. Vierte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. 8vo. Leipzig 1830-1831.

3. Thesaurus Græca Lingua, ab HENRICO STEPHANO constructus. Post editionem Anglicam novis additamentis auctum, ordineque

alphabetico digestum, tertio ediderunt, C. B. HASE, etc. Parisii 1831.

4. A New Greek and English Lexicon, principally on the plan of the Greek and German Lexicon of Schneider, etc. by James Donnegan, M. D. 1 vol. 8vo. London, 1st Ed. 1826. 2d Ed. 1831.

WHILE we pride ourselves, and with reason, in having left our continental neighbours at an immeasurable distance behind us in all the great branches of the arts, and are at least keeping pace with them in the different departments of science, we are contented, it seems, to hold in our classical knowledge a quite secondary rank. In the study of the dead languages in general, but more particularly of the Greek and Latin, the Germans have taken the lead, not only of us, but of all the rest of Europe, and have gained such a decided ascendency, that their neighbours appear to have given up all hope of rivalling them, and are satisfied to follow as mere servile imitators of their triumphant career. Some splendid exceptions may be found in the names of Porson, Elmsley, Gaisford, Blomfield, Mitchell, and perhaps one or two others, who have ventured to think and examine for themselves, and whose exertions in the service of Greek literature have placed them on a level with the most distinguished of their cotemporaries; but when we consider how universally ancient Greek is studied in this country, it seems surprising that such instances of acknowledged superiority should be so rare amongst us. But the fact is, that the study of Greek with us is any thing but critical, and it must follow as a necessary consequence, any thing but deep and accurate. With some it is the fashion to look down on the labours of the critic as beneath the notice and even incompatible with the character of the excellent scholar; others are satisfied with a very superficial knowledge of the classics, preferring to rove through the modern languages or some of the numerous branches of science-ambitious perhaps of being what is termed general scholars; and others again are cut short in their classical career, being obliged to dedicate their time and talents to the particular studies of some profession. Whatever the causes may be, the fact cannot be denied, that we have comparatively few really classical scholars, few who enter deeply into the study of the Greek language, into the examination of its structure, of its formations, of its analogies. In proof of which we need say no more than this, that for the best edition of almost every Greek classic, and the best

notes of every edition, we are generally indebted to our German neighbours; that the best, nay the only Greek grammars worthy of the name, are those of Buttmann, of Matthiæ, of Thiersch; and the only Greek lexicons of any value since the time of Stephanus and Scapula, are two of those named at the head of this article, the recent Works of Schneider and Passow.

It is not our present intention to examine into the causes of this superiority of the German classics over all their neighbours, though we do hope, at no distant time, to dedicate a few of our pages to a subject which we have much at heart; at present we will confine ourselves to one point of primary importance-that which must be the first step to any decisive advance in our knowledge of ancient Greek-we mean the possession of an accurate and comprehensive lexicon of that language explained in our own tongue.

Until within a very few years it has been impossible to get at Greek but through the medium of Latin. No Greek lexiconnay, no Greek grammar* has been composed but in that language; and every commentator and almost every translator has been forced to adopt it, as the only vehicle by which he could venture to explain his author, as the only armour in which he could dare to enter the lists of criticism. Had an English scholar proposed, but a few years ago, to publish a Greek and English lexicon, his adventure would have been received with either disregard or contempt, his scholarship would have been called in question because he had condescended to use his mother tongue in preference to a dead language, and the whole host of university tutors and country school masters would have taken fright at so degrading a novelty. But the opinion of the English classical world has of late undergone, in this particular, a complete revolution. We have begun to acknowledge that the short and straight course is preferable to the longer and devious one; that our own mother tongue is a better medium for expressing our ideas clearly and definitely than any dead language can be; and that by rendering a Greek word at once into English, instead of tracing it through the intricacies of Latin, (a language certainly less analogous to it than English,) there is a much better chance of the original idea being preserved exact and accurate; any fine and delicate distinguishing points are less liable

*The Port-Royal is an honourable exception, and we might perhaps name one more; but such rare exceptions are not enough to invalidate our assertion.

to be rubbed off; and shades of difference, which would very probably be lost in the uncertain obscurity of a dead language, are seen more plainly and can be marked more distinctly. In this, as in almost every other part of classical literature, the Germans have led the way, and set us an example which at last we seem anxious to follow.

We propose in this article to examine what progress the Germans have made in this their new line of lexicography, and whether the steps which we are taking in imitation of them (few and feeble they have hitherto been) are those best calculated to lead to excellence-most likely to advance us, be it ever so little, in the road towards perfection. For, in the commencement of this new career, it behoves us most especially to remember the old maxim, doμn rò nμiov. If we set out on true principles, our knowledge and our studies will all turn to good account, and even any errors we may make, not being fundamental, will be easily corrected; whereas, if our first principles be erroneous, whatever time and talents we afterwards bestow, must be in a great measure thrown away, and even that which is intrinsically valuable will be comparatively of little service. We intend, therefore, to examine minutely the different lexicons named at the head of this article, in order that, having seen their merits. and defects, how far their authors have succeeded, and in what respects and why they have failed, we may be able to profit by experience, and to lay down such rules for the direction of future lexicographers, as may enable them to avoid the faults and improve on the excellences of their predecessors. For be it always remembered, that no single scholar, however great his talents and perseverance, can hope to produce at once a lexicon which shall make any near approach to perfection: it is only by repeated attempts, each improving on the former, that this most desirable object, can, if ever, be brought about.

The lexicon of Schneider has been in general use for some years in Germany, and-in name, at least-is well known to the scholars of this country. Its author was principal librarian at Breslau, and the well known editor of some of the best editions of different classics. The first idea of a Greek lexicon, interpreted in German, did not emanate from Schneider. It would be unfair to pass over, in total silence, the names of Dillenius, Vollbeding, and Haase, who at different times meritoriously preceded him, and set him that example which he has so well followed up, that his name must always be known as the