position of individuals or nations, in consequence of which their impressions assume a character differing more or less widely from that which they originally bore. The most direct and easy expedient, and consequently that most usually adopted, for expressing the modified feelings to which a new condition of things gives rise, is, not to undertake the construction of new terms, but to employ those already in existence for the expression of such ideas as their original most nearly resembles and thus a word which was created to represent a single idea may gradually become the exponent of many others standing to it in various degrees of relation. From each of these secondary meanings new ones may branch out, until at length the only. mode in which the connection between the primary meaning of a word and its remotest applications can be rendered obvious, is to trace out the path followed by the mind in deducing the latter from the former. It will not unfrequently be found that the intermediate significations have fallen out of use; but as without these the exhibition of the powers and uses of a word must ever remain incomplete, there hence arises the necessity for their restoration as far as practicable; and this may truly be said to constitute one of the most difficult and delicate of all the arduous duties which the lexicographer is called upon to perform.

In order to accomplish this in a manner to satisfy himself and benefit those who may adopt his work as a guide, if the language of which he treats be already extinct, it is requisite that he should render himself acquainted with all its most important remains, as these are the most authentic sources of information to which he can possibly refer; but should it be still in use and rich in the treasures of literature, the abundance of materials thus furnished will impose upon him the additional task of tracing its history down from the remotest periods to which he can have access, and of showing what words and what acceptations of words have come into use and been again rejected in all the different stages of its existence for

"Ut silvae foliis pronos mutantur in annos,

Prima cadunt, ita verborum vetus interit aetas."

Again, as a language when it first attracts the lexicographer's attention may have already arrived at that state in which the meanings of a single word have often no visible interconnection in consequence of the disappearance of the intermediate shades of signification, and which the utmost familiarity with that language alone will not suffice to restore, the lexicographer who

desires properly to perform this portion of his task must apply himself to the attainment of such a knowledge of its cognate dialects as may enable him to consult them with facility; and when these fail in furnishing the information required, he must have recourse to languages possessing no other relation to the subject of his labors than that which all the varieties of human speech bear to one another in consequence of their community of origin and design. The labors which the lexicographer is thus called upon to perform may well be termed Herculean; yet he alone who has mastered the peculiarities of a variety of languages, whose powers of observation have been sharpened by constant use, and who possesses a judgment capable of weighing with scrupulous exactness the value of conflicting testimonies, can perform the part of one in a manner to satisfy the claims which will be made upon him by the present advanced state of the science of philology.

In addition to what has now been stated, there remains another difficulty for the lexicographer to overcome. We have already seen that instead of constructing a new term for the representation of a new idea, the same object is frequently effected in a readier manner by employing a word existing in the language whose signification is nearly related to the idea for which an exponent is desired. When however this new idea, although bearing a radical affinity to one which has already attained its expression, is so far removed from it as to render the above expedient insufficient for the purposes of perspicuity, another step in derivation is taken, which consists in modifying or altogether rejecting one or more of the elements of the original word or in making an addition to their number. In this manner from a comparatively few primitives are produced a multitude of new terms bearing a resemblance to their respective originals both in form and signification. So that the lexicographer, after having discovered and systematically arranged the various shades of meaning assumed by each separate word, has to select the primitive from a mass of words bearing to one another an obvious relation, and then to show the manner in which the derivatives have been formed, and the means whereby they are rendered capable of adequately representing those modifications of the original idea which they are intended to convey.*

* For a more complete development of the writer's ideas on this subject, see the preface to his Hebrew Grammar, pp. xi. et seqq.

We have already shown that the discovery of the primary meaning of a word, and the tracing of the connection between it and its sometimes numerous secondary significations, is frequently rendered so difficult by the disappearance of those which were intermediate, that the possession of the acutest reasoning powers aided by the most comprehensive views of language will not invariably ensure success. This holds true, and to a still greater extent, of the attempt to find out and exhibit the connection between the various derivatives from a single root-an attempt whose difficulty is sometimes rendered almost insurmountable from the multiplicity of changes both internal and external, to which words are subjected in the process of derivation, and furthermore from the fact that the primitive word itself frequently becomes lost, and thus leaves them without any common point of reference. Here comparative philology comes to the aid of the lexicographer, by presenting him from the cognate languages, and sometimes from those which are more remote, the roots and significations which have disappeared from that which forms the subject of his labors. Yet the lexicographer must be careful in an especial degree to guard against the error, so prevalent at the present day, of hunting out far-fetched illustrations from foreign tongues, to the neglect of those sources of information which each language presents in greater or less abundance for the explanation of its own phe

nomena.

The above are the principal points to which the lexicographer must direct his attention in the illustration of words separately considered; but as in actual speech they are placed together in every possible kind of relation, it becomes necessary likewise to state the various modifications of meaning which thence result, together with the manner in which they are produced.

Let us now briefly sum up the duties which the lexicographer of the present day is called upon to perform. First he must collect all the shades of signification pertaining to each individual word, arranging them in the order in which they arose, and explaining on philological grounds the mode in which one has proceeded from the other. In addition to this historical developement of particular words, he must point out the primitive of each group or family of words, showing in what manner its derivatives were formed from it, and by what means they are enabled to convey their respective meanings as modifications of

the original idea. Finally, he must indicate the variations of meaning to which a word is liable when construed with others, and point out the mode in which these variations are produced. Should the lexicographer have fully met these requisitions, whose fulfilment the advanced state of philological science so absolutely demands, he may rest under the conviction of having completed his undertaking, and answered all reasonable expectations. And should he, without failing in any of these essentials, proceed still further, and exhibit the wonderful connection existing between languages that have heretofore been regarded as containing little or nothing in common, he will communicate to his reader both instruction and delight, while to himself may be applied the words of Horace :

"Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci."

Having now given in outline the objects whose attainment the lexicographer should propose to himself, and having enumerated the excellencies which at present so happily characterize the lexicons of the classical and of many modern tongues, we will now turn to our principal subject, the lexicography of the Hebrew, and endeavor to show in how far the existing lexicons of this language come up to the requirements of the age. And it may well form a subject of self-congratulation to every lover of this venerable tongue, which for twenty-three centuries has existed only in books, and the scantiness of whose remains so much enhances the difficulties inevitably attending the acquisition of a dead language, that its lexicography now stands upon a footing equal if not superior to that of the Latin or the Greek itself.

For this pleasing state of things we are mainly indebted to the critical mind, the vast erudition, and the unwearied exertions of Wilhelm Gesenius, who, having applied himself from his earliest youth with uninterrupted assiduity to the pursuit of Oriental learning in all its branches, and being surrounded by his situation with" every implement and means of art," has placed himself foremost in the ranks of Hebrew lexicographers, and, by the perspicuity of his writings, the depth and accuracy of his researches, and a felicitous use of the materials so abundantly furnished him by his predecessors, Kimchi, Buxtorf, Simonis, Winer, and others, has raised this department of Oriental philology, which he has made so peculiarly his own, to the high pitch of excellence it now exhibits.

Notwithstanding the high tone of commendation we have here employed in reference to Gesenius, and which we feel is scarcely adequate to express those feelings of generous admiration which the literary character of this distinguished scholar is calculated to excite in every mind capable of appreciating real merit, we do not mean to assert that he has absolutely left no room for further improvement. On the contrary, we are of opinion that the etymological comparisons which he has instituted between the Hebrew and other languages, especially those of the Indo-European stock, although exhibiting a fund of ingenuity and learning, are susceptible of being extended much further, and that many families of words which he has attributed to two or three distinct stems might with propriety be reunited and arranged under a single primitive. It is not however our intention to enter at present into the history of Hebrew lexicography, or to point out precisely how far and in what respects Gesenius has been enabled to improve upon the labors of his predecessors, or in what his own may be regarded as deficient; since his work has been rendered accessible to all by means of the accurate translation of Professor Robinson reviewed in the twenty-fourth No. of this journal. We therefore proceed at once to a consideration of the respective merits of the two works whose titles are placed at the head of this article, and which, having but recently appeared, have not yet, it may be presumed, become known to the public in general. This we will do with all candor and impartiality, bearing in mind the celebrated saying of Pythagoras:

· ἣν σὺ κακῶς δικάσης σε θεὸς μετέπειτα δικάσει.”

Both of these works we have examined with some care. The former, written in German and published in Germany, is called a "School Dictionary;" accordingly we expected to find it defective in some particulars, and containing few or no essential improvements on the larger works that had preceded it. The latter, written in English and published in America, bears the imposing title of "A Complete Critical and Pronouncing Dictionary on a New and Improved Plan ;" leading us to anticipate that in it the deficiencies of former lexicons would be at least in some degree supplied. The result, however, as is not unfrequently the case when judgments are based upon mere externals, has proved entirely the reverse of our expectations. On proceeding with our examination, we found the School VOL. XI. No. 30

62