Ew, to seat; Ew, to clothe; ew, to go; ew, to send; ew, to satiate.'-Donnegan*. It is no wonder people complain of the difficulty of the Greek language: the ews themselves are enough to deter a prudent man from meddling with it. Dunbar only gives ew, to be, which will be a great relief to a young student, but then after 'to be' he adds to go,' which again will very much puzzle our young student. Perhaps he may infer that in Greek 'to be' and 'to go' are the same thing. káñw, for káπt, to breathe out, to inhale.'—Dunbar. Is the student to understand from this that there is a word náпw or not? It is difficult to say; but it is well known that there is no more a verb κάπω than there is a verb τύπω. We omit any other examples because it is against the principle of obsolete and non-existing words that we contend, and if the amount of error caused by this principle were less than it is, we should still object to recognize it. III. Both the lexicographers profess to have taken great pains to discover the primary meanings of words, and thence to deduce, by a natural association, the secondary and derived signification. As they have distinctly seen the importance of this principle, while many lexicographers appear not to have had the least notion of it, we may expect to find some improvement under this head. Donnegan, as usual, has occasionally somewhat the advantage, by the aid which he has derived from Schneider, but a total want of judgment in many cases has led him to amplify articles, and consequently to confuse them beyond all reason. Professor Dunbar admits the difficulty of the task which he undertook, and does not feel conscious of having fully succeeded in it, which he partly ascribes to the numerous corrections and alterations which Schrevelius, the ground work of his labours, required. This is an important fact, which will assist us in assigning their due proportion of praise to the two editors, whatever may be our opinion as to the relative value of the two books. Dr. Donnegan certainly has had a great advantage over Professor Dunbar in the choice of his substratum, and if he had only used his materials with more judgment and skill, he would have left us little to desire, for the present, in a school lexicon. It is only fair to mention some words, which, in our opinion, appear to be almost unobjectionable, as to the significations given, in both lexicons : ἄγαλμα, ἀγάλλω: παρεργὸν: *Nothing could be a better proof of the necessity of pointing out distinctly the stems of words than this extract from Donnegan. When the student knows that s is the real stem of the verb to be, and that of the verb to go, he will be able to understand these two important words in all the forms in which they may exist in all the kindred languages. κόσμος, κοσμέω : περόνη, &c. We only mention these few as specimens, which we think are favourable, though we do not warrant every thing found under them. In the word aρɛрyov Professor Dunbar has the advantage, Donnegan having almost hid all that is good in his explanation under a bushel of words. Under Tɛρón Dr. Donnegan has much the advantage; indeed the whole of his article repóvn is very good, and contains the anatomical significations of megóvn, which the Professor has not noticed. Professor Dunbar's article on Teρóvn is concluded by about a dozen lines of a Latin extract from Salmasius. We shall presently say something more about this. • åßgòs, à, ov, effe-åßgòs, a, ov, splendid, magnificent, Dor. for hßn åßgès, a, ov, in the full vigour of youth or growth: luxurious, delicate: effeminate, cowardly. Stem. äß. See üßn. We have given the whole of Dunbar's article, except two quotations, in which the word is used adverbially; reasons for not giving all Donnegan's must be obvious. The third column contains our own view of all that is necessary to give a student a proper conception of the meanings of this word. We have not given all the varieties of meaning, with their references, because we think this is entirely superfluous and out of the province of a lexicon, particularly one on so limited a scale; but we have attempted to place the meanings in a more natural order than either Dunbar or Donnegan has done. This and a few more samples that we shall give will show the connexion that subsists between the primary meanings of words and the true etymology. jvdμòs, the forming of an outline, or figure; the arrangement and proportions of the parts of any thing, a term judμòs, oũ, ô,rhythm, cu- jvdμòs, Ion. ¡voμòs, oỡ, ô, measured dence, Aris. Nub. 638; movement, as that of the body and what is now called feet in dancing; the modulation of measure both in poetry the voice in singing; regulated and music; harmony, cadence; harmony; a harmonious proportion; a mea-flow in discourse, &c. &c.-ar-applicable to music, sured movement of any kind; the form or figure of the alphabetic letters. Herod. v. 58, &c. rangement of parts, in general, ac dancing, adjusting the dress, tranquillity of mind, &c. Stem pv. The fault of Dunbar's puuòs is the want of arrangement, and the absence of any thing that guides us to the proper notion of the word. Donnegan's is in substance the same as Schneider's article. The explanation which we have attempted is not complete; we have only given what we conceive to be the primary notion; the rest easily follow. Ρυθμός, οι ῥυσμός, is a word of similar formation to αρθμός, Seouòs, the euphonic &, or o, being introduced, together with the suffix μος. We doubt if this word should be connected with pέuß and pénw. Its simple notion is that of figure or form, originating in motion; but, as we have seen, its derived senses are often limited to that which results from motion-shape, proportion, and arrangement. Aikη, properly, the decision of a judge; law, right, justice,' &c. -Dunbar. Aiky, prim. s. established custom, usage, having the force of law, way, manner, practice, habit,' &c., and a great many other significations.-Donn. We have only taken a few of the significations to show what is the primary notion of Sixn, according to the two lexicographers. As to the numerous derived notions, they are all found in the two books, and we believe are in the main very correctly given. But we do not see how a student can derive any of the secondary meanings from the primary one of Dunbar. Surely the decision of a judge is not that from which our notion of right and justice are necessarily derived; the decision of a judge is founded, or ought to be, on some notion that existed before his office. This notion, as we have already said on another occasion, we believe to be that of equality, an equivalent, compensation, fine, punishment, &c., and we put justice at the end of them, as being a complex idea which takes in all the rest. We have the same objection to Professor Dunbar's run. Dunbar. Tin, s, , honour, respect, reverence, veneration, dignity, reward, the price at which any thing is valued, Demosth. 563, 8, &c. &c. From riw, to honour, &c. Donnegan. Tun, ns, n, the price or value of any thing; estimation; hence, honour, &c. See τιμάω. Dr. Donnegan's article is clear and precise, offering to the student a leading notion, with which he may readily associate all the derived significations of the word. In this way, too, we connect τι-μὴ with the verb τίω, τίνω, and τινύμι, in all of which the notion of price and payment is the leading one. We accidentally stumble on a small error in Dunbar, under the head of the verb Tvów*, which is explained, 'to pay, to expiate.-Eurip. Or. 317. In the passage referred to, the word is TvUueva (particip.), and has a different meaning from that assigned to it. The signification which Professor Dunbar gives to what he calls the middle form of riva belongs also to this passage in the Orestes. We have said enough to show that neither of these two lexicons is faultless as to the order in which the significations ** There is no verb rwów: the word is Tv See Schneider. are arranged. Dr. Donnegan also errs continually in giving us a number of vague and almost synonymous words, which add nothing to the meaning, but tend very much to increase the bulk of his book and to confuse the reader. It remains now to express our opinion, that in the majority of instances, the words are well and fairly explained in both, and certainly in many cases much better than in the lexicons hitherto used. The errors in this department of the subject are generally to be attributed to the defective etymological knowledge displayed in both lexicons; and as we have already asserted that the amount of errors under this head is, in our opinion, very considerable, it follows that it must affect, to a certain degree, a large portion of the explanatory part of the lexicon. It is not because we cannot find materials to justify more fully our assertion that we now leave this part of our subject. IV. This division is that which treats of the relationship of words to one another in sentences. This, in fact, is syntax, and the complete study of it involves the study of the whole language. It is indeed no part of lexicography, properly so considered. If a Greek lexicon were so constructed that for each meaning assigned to a word, some passage were quoted, or referred to, such a lexicon would be a very complete one, but much too large and cumbrous for common use. The examples produced to support a particular interpretation of a word would also at the same time show how such a word, if it were a verb, adjective or preposition, affected the case, &c., of other words, with which it came in connexion. It is the practice in our ordinary lexicons to show such facts as those mentioned in the last sentence, and also to insert under such verbs as didwu, rídnui, &c., a great number of short expressions, commonly called phrases, which a student will meet with in his reading. It is our opinion that school lexicons are too much loaded with matter of this kind. Such phrases, when they do occur, are in general easily interpreted, in accordance with the notions of syntax derived from a good grammar and from a master's instruction. It is certainly useful to give in a lexicon the more difficult kind of expressions, but an examination of Professor Dunbar's or Donnegan's book will show that they are rather overloaded with matter of this kind. Though we differ from these two lexicographers as to the necessity for so much syntactical matter, we believe that this is the best part of both the lexicons, and we also believe that they may fairly claim credit for their labours in this department. It is true, materials were most abundantly provided to their hands, this being one of the divisions of grammar that has been much cultivated, to the almost total neglect of etymology. Dr. Donnegan's lexicon contains much more matter of this kind than Dunbar's: see mßaivw, ini, Béλλw, tídnu. But this is not always the case: Dunbar's nãs, for example, is much longer than Donnegan's, and might with great advantage be cut down to half the size. Surely such matter as the following, though quite correct, is out of place in a lexiconnas äviewπos, every man, wav pñua, every ἄνθρωπος, ῥῆμα, word, πύλαι πᾶσαι, all the gates : πάντα νέκυν, the whole dead body, &c.: wavтes agioto, all the hest,' and so on. There is a considerable degree of sameness in the difficult expressions, such as úλaι nãoα, &c., which the two lexicographers have been so kind as to explain; but neither of them has noticed a peculiar usage of Távra, in Herod. Iv. 88. Ix. 81. In the interpretation of indeclinable Greek words, such as μὴ, μέχρις, ἂν, ἐπεὶ, ὅτε, ἡνίκα, &c.*, and the prepositions, we are of opinion that much more liberty should be allowed in a lexicon. To give a list of the various significations of such words, without at the same time giving a complete phrase (containing a verb) in which they occur, is mere trifling. If such words are to be explained in a lexicon, (which we do not maintain with respect to an elementary one,) they ought to be explained by a regular series of examples, translated in the best idiomatic manner. This has been done to a considerable extent in both lexicons, and if not done completely, the difficulty of the task may be pleaded as an apology. The difference between izɛl and őre is not at all well explained in Dunbar; both the articles are very defective: in Donnegan ne is better, but not good "NOTE, to take another example, is very inadequately explained in Dunbar; but in Donnegan very fairly. Again, after a careful examination of dia in both lexicons, we are of opinion that this preposition is amply explained; and if all the rest are done as well, this part of the lexicons is certainly good. We must not be understood as giving unqualified praise even to this part; and we make not this reservation from a spirit of hypercriticism, but because we observe some slight faults, according to our notions. At least, whether faults or not, they seem so to us, and therefore we call them so. V. This head treats of the technical and scientific meanings of words. We take it in a very wide sense, as comprehending all words particularly relating to science and art, such as terms of botany, medicine, jurisprudence, measures, astronomy, geo The mention of this word reminds us of some curious matter in both the lexicons: nvíxa is said by Dunbar to come from vixa, but Donnegan says from and ἡνίκα. Of course Donnegan's verb záyw (see above) should come from and ἄγω. If we write down ποῖος, τοῖος, οἷος : πότε, τότε, ὅτε: πηνίκα, τηνίκα, vixa, there will be no occasion to discuss the matter further. |