: tained in a knowledge of the Greek tongue, many subdivisions are needed. This has been long recognized in grammars, which always contain different heads, nearly such as the following:-if we may venture to introduce a few new terms. (1) Characterology which gives account of alphabets and the sounds of letters, with all such historical information as belongs to the subject. (2) Pronunciation: which should include the laws of euphony, and of accent, if they can be treated together. (3) Rhythm or the laws of poetical combinations of sound. (4) Lexipathy: or Accidence,' which teaches the inflexions of words, and all modifications of their form which result from general principles. (5) Lexigony: which lays down the laws of derivation, or the connection of word with word; as far as general principles are discoverable. (6) Syntax: a vague term, but by use settled in meaning. It must include, of course, all the laws which guide the union of words in a sentence. Under each of these six heads, distinct remarks are needed on the different dialects, and on the changes of each in progress of time. Such remarks are generally, with much convenience, printed in a smaller type, and reserved for study after the rest has been well digested. We think it is not equally recognized, that dictionaries need subdivisions as much as grammars, or, to speak more accurately several dictionaries are needed, different in kind from one another. From not attending to this, it seems to us, none of them can attain the perfection aimed at. They grasp at too much; and either become unwieldly in bulk (as the Thesaurus of Stephanus), or, in studying condensation, have no philosophical principle of rejection. There ought to be a serious difference even in so straightforward a work as a French-English dictionary; according as it is intended, on the one hand, to enable an Englishman to understand French, or on the other, to help a Frenchman to talk or write English. When the idiom, however, of two languages. is so nearly alike as in this case, both objects may be embraced in one book without becoming very voluminous. But if there be a wide opposition of idiom and diversity of culture, it is requisite for the compiler of the work clearly to hold up one or other end to himself, and adhere to this systematically. We now study Greek, not solely to be able to read ancient authors passably well, but to undertand the relationship of all the words in the language to one another; and moreover, to understand the connexion of Greek with Latin, with German, with English, perhaps with Persian and Sanscrit. A dictionary intended to exhibit the phenomena which fall under this last head, would be a Comparative Lexicon of a certain family of languages; and although Greek might be the standard of comparison for the rest, this would not make it exclusively a Greek dictionary. Valuable as such a work would be, if well executed, it is hardly that of which we are now talking; and we may here dismiss this subject. But to explain the relation of Greek words with one another (so far as the subject is one of detail, and not embraced in grammar), legitimately belongs to a Greek dictionary. All the families of words ought to be seen registered in juxtaposition. To effect this, the arrangement according to roots is convenient, at least in Greek and Hebrew; indeed, in every language we believe that some other arrangement than the alphabetical should be adopted, depending on the genius of the language itself. The English explanations should be as concise as possible; just enough to identify the word. Those who have hitherto compiled Greek lexicons in this order, appear to us to have erred, in wishing to embrace the objects of an alphabetical lexicon besides. We think that each work has its own sphere: they ought to encroach as little as possible on each other, and every student should possess both. The common alphabetical dictionary should be devoted to lexigraphy; or to the description of words, with their various meanings arranged in philosophical order; adding all such details concerning their inflections and syntactical peculiarities, as do not fall under grammatical rules. It should be ordinarily confined to a particular dialect; and all words of other dialects which cannot be omitted should be marked as foreign, old, poetical: and words or senses of later origin should be carefully referred to their own time. This is a vast business, even when it has been stripped as much as possible of all that can be thrown under the other heads. Glossography, however, we think, ought certainly to be made a separate branch; without which, the subordinate dialects never receive adequate attention. To those who can afford to purchase many books, probably nothing will supersede lexicons written for particular authors; of which Schweighæuser's lexicons for Herodotus and Polybius are admirable specimens. Indeed, in every art and science, it appears to be conceded that nothing is so instructive as a monograph. But while these cannot be fairly compared with general dictionaries, we have no doubt of the expediency of a separate glossary for all the peculiar words of the Ionic • Meidinger has published (in German and in French) a Comparative Dictionary of the Teutogothic languages. It requires great erudition to speak confidently on such a work; but while we acknowledge its vast research, it strikes us as deficient in severity of judgment. + The words Lexicography, Lexicographer, are contrary to analogy; and should be Lexigraphy, Lexigrapher. and Doric dialects, so as to leave the ordinary dictionary as a repository for the common Greek alone. To recapitulate, the scholar needs, if possible, (1) A Comparative Dictionary embracing a Family of Languages: say, Greek, Latin, German, and English: (2) A Greek Dictionary arranged by roots, as a family-register of the genealogy of all Greek words. (3) An Alphabetical Dictionary. (4) A Dictionary for the cognate dialects. To these must be added, (5) an Inverse Lexicon ; to assist an Englishman in writing Greek. We entitle these five subjects, (1) Comparative Lexignosy, (2) Lexignosy, (3) Lexigraphy, (4) Glossography, (5) Metaphrastics, Having ventured to impose so many hard words on our readers we will add a criticism on the term Philology, which is now naturalized among us. Its inventors probably intended by it, 'the love of language;' but this should have been Philolexy' for 'Philology' * must mean the love of discussion. Considering also how the termination logy is used in the words Astrology, Mythology, Pathology, &c., it is obvious that the science of language ought to have been called Lexilogy, of which Lexigraphy and Lexignosy are parts, just as Geography and Geognosy are subordinate to Geology. Perhaps it is not even yet too late to introduce the expressive term Lexilogy, which is so readily understood by any intelligent Englishman. Lexigraphers generally endeavor to embrace in a single work two or three of the above heads. Even when they confine themselves to their own most peculiar business, they have a vast undertaking, especially in the Greek language, the irregularities of which below the surface, are far greater than upon the surface, Its irregular nouns, though rather numerous, are generally given in good grammars moreover a copious list of irregular verbs is uniformly found. But the verbs, called Regular, are but seldom wholly so; although many students do not find this out until they endeavor to compose in Greek. We do not mean to inflict on our readers a lecture on Greek Grammar; but a few words are needed to explain this. In English we have two primary methods of forming the past tense; first, by change of vowel; secondly, by adding ed, d, or t. As examples of the first or older method, we have speak, spoke; break, broke; give, gave; come, came ; drink, drank; run, ran ; &c. The second admits of subdivisions, only that we do not now care for niceties. In it we find, rout, routed; sound, sounded; save, sav'd; gain, gain'd; read, read [better, redd]; sleep, slept; leap, leapt [better, lept]; leave, left; eat, ate [better, ett]; search, searcht; burn, burnt; press, • Scapula gives the following meanings of poλóyos (1) fond of discussing, (2) talkative, (3) fond of hearing discussions, (4) literary, learned. prest. Now, what would be thought of an English grammarian who should lay down, that English verbs have two past tenses,' and should exhibit them thus: See, saw, or seed Come, came, or con'd Give, gave, or giv'd &c., &c. Live, lave, or liv'd Leave, laf, or left A foreigner would never guess that seed and com'd were not quite as good English as saw and came; and if, late in his studies, he were told that lave, laf, and sorch were all words invented 'for illustration,' he would think he had been most unfairly imposed on. Yet this is not a caricature of the mode of instruction pursued in all, at least except the most recent, Greek grammars. The Greeks, as the English, have two modes of forming the past tense; and this the grammarians perversely call, having two past tenses. The one mode, called second Aorist, is formed by change (generally shortening) of vowel ; as in ληθ, ελαθ; τεμ, εταμ ; λειπ, EAT. The other mode, called First Aorist, is to add o; as TUя, ετυψ; λυ, ελυσ; τι, ετισ. Now doubtless sometimes in Greek, as in English, both past tenses exist in one verb, especially if we embrace several centuries of time in our thought; just as we have lit and lighted, hung and hanged, brought and bringed, shone and shined and if we rake up our old ballads, which are most analogous to the Homeric poems, we can find authority for an extraordinary mass of strange words, such as com'd, seed, lough, mough, kep (for laughed, might, kept). But a foreigner learning English, would first desire to know the common language of literature, and to master this thoroughly, before he incurred the danger of vitiating his perceptions by such vulgarisms and it is no more true in Greek than in English, that we may indifferently employ either mode of forming the past tense. The like remarks apply to the two modes of forming the Greek Future, in verbs called regular. For all these reasons, it is highly necessary that a Greek Lexicon should inform the student concerning each verb separately, what is the past and future tense really in use; or, which method prevailed in different times and dialects. Another source of confusion hardly paralleled in English, exists in the Middle Voice of the Greek verb. We have a few such idioms as, To be mistaken, for, To mistake; where the passive is used for the active. So the Greek middle voice, besides its legitimate senses, which are numerous enough, is in particular instances, perhaps only in certain tenses,-used for the active, or for the passive; or sometimes again, it borrows passive tenses to make up its own complement. The irregularities meet one most unexpectedly, even in different compounds of the same verb; as προτρέπεσθαι and ἀποτρέπειν, ἐπιθυμεῖν and ἐνθυμεῖσθαι, ἐννοεῖν and διανοεῖσθαι. Βουλεύεσθαι and συμβουλεύεσθαι are generally Middle; but ovλevoμai is Passive, almost never Middle. In all these matters we look to the Lexicon for help. Again, since three cases of nouns may follow verbs, and it is often uncertain which of the three, the Lexicon ought here likewise to inform us. A student who knows that verbs of superiority generally govern a genitive, but sometimes a dative (which is more Ionic and Latinized), and sometimes an accusative; may wish to know whether to write κρατειν γῆς, οι κρατεῖν γῆν, ἀνάστ σειν Τρώων οι ἀνάσσειν Τρῶσιν : and whether any difference of sense is involved. It is further requisite, that the Lexicon distinguish poetical terms from common ones. Το write ἀνάσσειν for βασιλεύειν, πρόπας for ἅπας, θάσσω for καθέζομαι, and so forth, would produce as ridiculous an effect on a low topic, as in English to say sway for govern, steed for horse, rampire for battlement, &c. We would almost rather not understand poetry at all, than confound its vocabulary with that of prose. But here, a peculiarly difficult task is imposed on the Lexigrapher. Numerous words occur but rarely in Attic prose (such prose at least as we most commonly read), and are tolerably common in poetry: whence the more and the less learned are alike apt to infer too hastily that they are poetical words. For example, λαῖλαψ θύελλα, καταιγὶς, are easily mistaken for synonyms of A Storm, too high-sounding for prose; whereas, in fact, they are specific terms, like hurricane, squall, tornado. In these points, natives have an advantage over foreigners, difficult to appreciate in amount. We may lastly remark, that it is yet more important in Greek than in English, to arrange the different senses of a term in their philosophical order. For our language, having received its cultivation on a foreign basis, has in very numerous instances adopted a foreign term in place of the metaphorical use of the Saxon word. Thus, in a physical sense, we say, to wrest; in a moral, to extort in a physical, to squeeze out; in a moral, to express, to imitate in a physical sense again, to meet or come together; in a moral, to agree or make a compact. In these, and hundreds besides, the Greeks would have but one word, where the English have two; which ought to be exhibited systematically in the arrangement of meanings. When the vast extent of the language is considered, and the amount of reading needed to produce such a Lexicon as the age demands, it appears evident that the attempt is too arduous for an individual. If one or more persons really qualified for the work are to give up adequate time to it, they must expect to be remunerated for their labor. But the publishers cannot command the market; and to avoid actual loss, a favorable crisis must be seized, when no existing Lexicon has pre-occupied the public. Time |