not, and never have had, a sympathy with those who insist the clergy of a nation should be born and educated in it. That has never been the spirit of the Church. Native nationalism is as much to be guarded against as foreign nationalism. We want a clergy that understand the country in which they are to labor, and who will not insult its nationality, or attempt to force upon it a foreign nationality, but to us it is no objection to them that they were not born in the country. We do not like to hear a priest in our country appealing to his congregation as Irishmen, Frenchmen or Englishmen, and denouncing Americans as a distinct and villanous race of people. We have heard clergymen do it, and we have thought that they would do better to preach Christ and him crucified, instead of the particular nation in which they happened to be born. But be that as it may, we no more want our own nation preached, instead of Christ, than we do a foreign nation. We know no difference be tween the Irish Catholic and the American Catholic,-and we think it would be very hard and very unwise, to say the least, while the mass of our English-speaking Catholics are Irish, were there to be no priests to minister to them but native Americans. We want no exclusion in the case. We repeat, we do not want a national clergy in the sense of a clergy that admits none but native-born Americans. Our Native Americanism has never gone, and we trust never will go that length. We look to what the man is, not to where he was born. We would, if the matter were left to us, as it is not, be as liberal with regard to admitting foreigners among the clergy as the naturalization laws are in admitting foreigners to the rights. of American citizenship.

Moreover, we do not look upon a college at Rome as a college in a foreign country. Rome is every Catholic's country, every Catholic's native country or fatherland,—the land of his New Birth. We are all in one sense born Romans, in being born Catholics. Our young men are not abroad at Rome; they feel not themselves strangers there. They are there with their Father, and hanging on the bosom of their dear Mother. Finally, we think the American College at

Rome will hasten the day when we shall be able to have a grand seminary in the United States worthy of the country and worthy of the Church in America. We have given our honest views, and we hope they will not be regarded as impertinent. We take a deep interest in the American College; we take a deep interest in the young gentlemen now pursuing their studies in it, and we have great confidence in, and profound respect for the reverend gentleman, Dr. M'Closkey, who is selected for its Rector. We augur great good to our country from this College. We thank the unknown friend who has sent us from Rome a copy of the addresses to the Holy Father on the occasion of his recently visiting it, and must find room for one of the shorter poetical pieces, to which every American Catholic will subscribe.

"We hear, o'er the murmuring waves of the Ocean,
The sound of sweet music rise joyous and free;
The hymn of Thy children's deep heartfelt emotion,
Whose harmony steals o'er the waters to Thee.

As softly it swells, ah! let our voices, blending

Their tones, not ungrateful, fall sweet on Thy ear:
Let gratitude's strains, grief's cold manacles rending,
Call smiles to Thy lip, from Thy cheek chase the tear.
O if aught can console, 'mid the woes that oppress Thee,
But lift up Thine eyes to the land of the West;
There millions of hearts ever gratefully bless Thee,
And love Thee, of fathers the kindest and best.

But bless now those fond hearts, and, faithful for ever,
Responsive they'll throb at the sound of Thy name:
Let others forsake Thee, those children shall never
Prove false unto Thee, or partake of their shame!"

ART. VI. LITERARY NOTICES AND CRITICISMS.

1. A Dictionary of the English Language. By JOSEPH E. WORCESTER, L.L.D. Boston: Hickling, Swan & Brewer. 1860.

4to. pp. 1786.

Dr. Worcester is well known by his excellent Pronouncing Dictionary, published some years ago, and by his Universal and Critical Dictionary of the English Language, first published in 1846, both valuable and highly esteemed. The present is a new work, much larger, and on a far more comprehensive plan, intended to be a complete Dictionary of the Language--at once an Etymological, Spelling, Pronouncing and Defining Dictionary-to which is added a Key to the pronunciation of Greek and Latin names, the Pronunciation of Scripture Proper Names, Modern Geographical names, Pronunciation of the names of distinguished men in modern times, abbreviations and signs used in writing and printing, and a collection of words, phrases and quotations from the Greek, Latin, French, Italian and Spanish languages. The vocabulary is more complete than that of any other English Dictionary, containing about one hundred and four thousand words. It includes a larger number (much larger than usual in a general dictionary) of technical and scientific terms, and nearly every thing may be found in it for which such a work is likely to be consulted.

We have not had the work before us long enough to give it a thorough examination throughout, but we have examined it sufficiently to satisfy ourselves that it is, upon the whole, the best Dictionary of our language, for practical use, that has as yet been published. We naturally, and almost unavoidably, are led to institute a comparison between the American Dictionary of the English Language, by the late Dr. Noah Webster, which many of our countrymen have been induced to suppose is regarded as a standard Dictionary of the language. We are not disposed to speak or even to think lightly of the philological and other labors of Dr. Webster, and his Dictionary is a creditable monument to his ability, his learning, and his industry. He was accustomed to think for himself, and he labored hard to free the orthography of our language from its numerous anomalies, and to do for it what has in Italy been done for the Italian, and in Spain for the Spanish. His etymologies may be sometimes fanciful, far-fetched, or absolutely unfounded, but they are often ingenious, and always instructive. In Spelling and Pronunciation he is no authority, and deviates too far from the best English usage to be followed; but as an Etymological and Defining Dictionary, we hold his work in high esteem, and in higher esteem than any other we are acquainted

with. In these respects, we are disposed to give him the superiority over Dr. Worcester. Dr. Worcester's definitions are more concise, perhaps equally philosophical and exact, but somehow we seem to learn better from Webster the history of a word, and to trace the relation of its derivative meanings back to its primitive meaning, or the meaning of its root. Webster's etymologies throw light on his definitions; Worcester's throw very little, and generally none, on his definitions. Webster helps us to a knowledge of the philosophy of language; Worcester may give the results of philological studies as accurately and to as great an extent, but he seems to regard language as purely conventional, and his definitions stand as conventional meanings, for which no reason is given but that of usage. At least, this is the impression the examination we have been able to give leaves on us. strikes us as an able, learned, painstaking and accurate compiler; while Webster is an author, fresh and original, though often blundering, and not seldom crotchety. Webster had real philological genius; and though perhaps far less learned than his vanity led him to believe, he really had studied, with some depth and success, the philosophy of language.

He

Yet we mean by no means to speak lightly of Dr. Worcester's definitions. They are, so far as we are able to judge, in general, very full and very accurate, clearly and concisely expressed. The only class of terms in which we have found him not always precise and exact, are in the terms peculiar to the Catholic Church. He here occasionally is inaccurate, in consequence of relying on Anglican instead of Catholic authorities. În philosophy, we have found him nearly always exact, and frequently very happy in his definitions. We are much obliged to him for admitting the word sensism, as the name of that system of philosophy which restricts all our knowledge to the affections of our sensitive faculty or nature. The usual word, sensualism, taken from the French, etymologically and by usage in our language designates a moral rather than an intellectual system. Sensism is regularly formed from the noun sense, and admits the whole class of derivatives, as sensist, sensitive, sensible, etc., and enables us to avoid the equivoque of such words as sensual, and the awkwardness of such as sensuous and sensational as philosophical terms. As a general thing, his definitions are fuller than Webster's, and he more accurately marks different senses of the same word. He better distinguishes the different shades of meaning, and uses less tautology in defining. So, upon the whole, practically considered, it may be as good even as a Defining Dictionary as Webster's,-equally as good, if not even better, for those who consult a dictionary, not to study the origin and history of a word, but the exact meaning good usage gives it.

As a Spelling and Pronouncing Dictionary, we consider it supe

rior to any other English Dictionary extant. In the orthography of words, it deviates but little from the best English usage. The only deviation we have noticed is the uniform suppression of the u in all words derived from the Latin ending in or, and this deviation is in favor of simplicity and correctness, for, if we derived these words originally from the French, there is no good reason why the traces of their passage through the French should be retained, since we use them in their original Latin sense. In pronunciation it differs widely from Webster, and probably comes as near the best English usage as can be determined. English usage should determine American usage, but, unhappily, English usage varies; and in many words the best English usage is recognized in no Dictionary of the language, and an American consulting the very best English authorities will often fail to get the best English pronunciation. There is in England no recognized standard of pronunciation, as in France or Spain. Still, we apprehend that an American pronouncing according to Worcester would, in no English society, be remarked as singular in his pronunciation. He would be recognized as an American, very likely; but rather from his speaking more through his nose, and less from his throat, with a leaner and sharper, and a less round and full voice than an educated Englishman. We are, however, correcting our manner of speaking in this respect. The Irish influence, though not favorable to grammatical purity and propriety, is very favorable in leading us to overcome the Puritan twang affected by our ancestors, and in speaking with a richer tone and fuller voice.

We have given, we feel, but a meagre notice of Dr. Worcester's great work; but we repeat what we said in the beginning, that, as a whole, we have no hesitation in pronouncing it the best Dictionary for the practical purposes for which a Dictionary is wanted, and it compares favorably with the best Dictionaries of most modern languages we are acquainted with. In most instances, or rather with very few exceptions, we have adopted it as our standard, and we hope to see it generally adopted by our countrymen as a standard, especially in the spelling and the pronunciation of words. In these respects, it must, and will, in spite of the Harpers and one or two more publishing houses, supersede Webster, even as modified by the New Haven Professors. We thank Dr. Worcester for his work, and we think he may congratulate himself on having rendered an important service to our mother tongue, which is really one of the richest and noblest of modern languages, and destined to be the language of freemen over more than half the globe, a language which lends itself with ease to the expression of all the wants, thoughts, affections, passions and emotions of the soul, rivaling in pomp and dignity the Spanish, the harmony and sweetness of the Italian, the naturalness and grace of the French, the richness and expressiveness of the German, the philosophic wealth of the Greek, and the majesty of the Latin.