the the Ionic prose of Herodotus in the same way as he had done the writings of Homer; but unfortunately for the progress of genuine lexicography, a second edition was called for almost before the first was finished, and Passow, willing to answer a call so advantageous to his pocket, as well as gratifying to his character, gave up his plan for a time, and brought out, in 1825, the second edition, revised and corrected from the first, but without any very material additions. A third edition appeared in 1827-again revised, corrected, and very considerably enlarged, but without any farther progress being made in the original plan; and again, after a lapse of four years more, came out, towards the end of 1831, the fourth and last edition, now increased to two thick octavo volumes, each containing between 1400 and 1500 pages. In this work, which has left at an immense distance every other lexicon, even that of Schneider, Passow has put in execution the second part of his original plan, that of following up explanation of Homer and Hesiod by an examination of the Ionic prose of Herodotus; and though he has not done it in so detailed a manner as he did the two poets, he has given, in our opinion, quite enough to satisfy any reader of Herodotus; and what he has given is done skilfully and with judgment. For we cannot but think, that, for a general lexicon, rather too much space is allotted to the meanings of Homer and Hesiod, too many quotations and references are given, every the most trifling shade of difference being marked, and oftentimes where the difference was not exactly in the meaning of the word, but rather implied in the thing signified more minute Passow could not have been, had his Lexicon, after the manner of Damm, been confined exclusively to those two poets. But in his account of the language of Herodotus, he has given all the most striking and most important significations,— all the forms and constructions peculiar to Herodotus and the Ionic dialect. More than this we can neither expect nor desire in any general lexicon. In this admirable book, Passow has not proceeded with his original plan farther than Herodotus, though we still find, in the other parts, very considerable improvements and additions, by meanings and extracts from many other authors; but he promises to proceed in his next edition with his original project, which we heartily wish him life, and health, and leisure to complete, although we fear that it is almost more than he can hope or expect. Should not Passow, however, be spared to finish his Herculean task,* we have no doubt that Germany possesses many scholars worthy of treading in his steps, who, we hope, * Since writing the above, we have heard that Passow has been taken off in the midst of his literary career. His death was mentioned in an English newspaper, but we have never seen any authentic account of it. will judiciously pursue the same career which he is now pursuing with so much credit to himself and so much advantage to the classical world; and we may then expect, that not many years can elapse before Germany will possess a lexicon that may serve as a sure foundation and an almost perfect model for all others. It is, perhaps, not strictly in accordance with the original purpose for which we undertook this article, to notice the new edition of Stephens's Thesaurus' now in a course of publication at Paris. Our first object in taking up this subject was to aid and direct the progress of Greek and English lexicography, and in furtherance of this design we have been necessarily led to describe, at some length, the gigantic strides which the Germans are making in the same department. But Greek and French lexicography is still so completely in its infancy, that we shall learn little or nothing by noticing the progress made in that country. And yet, as the republication, and consequently the more general diffusion of such a body of Greek literature as the Thesaurus contains may be expected to have a considerable influence on the lexicographical knowledge of that language, whether a dead or a living tongue be the medium of interpretation; and as every student and every lover of classic lore must be interested in such a work,-we are sure that no apology is necessary for our giving an account of the plan and its execution, as far as we can judge from the few numbers yet published; nay, we rather feel, that were we to pass over in silence such a vast and influential undertaking, we might be fairly expected to give some strong reasons for such an omission. The present publication, of which only three numbers have as yet appeared, is a reprint of the original ''Thesaurus,' with selections from the numerous additamenta of Valpy's edition, and fresh contributions from many of the leading scholars of Europe. The principal editor is M. Hase, assisted by M. de Sinner and M. Fix. Hase* is known in the literary world as having edited 'Leo Diaconus,' for the new edition of the Byzantine Historians; De Sinner has published an edition of Longus,' and of Buondelmonti de Insul. Archipel.'; and Fix was, we believe, a pupil of Hermann. The wisdom or utility of reprinting any work of some centuries old, when the subject of it has been progressively improving, must always be very questionable. In the case of a Greek Lexicon, published more than two hundred and sixty years ago, when the philosophy of language and the great principles of etymology were little * M. Hase entitles himself, Instituti Regii Francia Socius, in Schola Regia Polytechnica Regiaque Speciali Linguarum Orientalium Professor, In Bibliothecæ Regia parte Codd. MSS., complectente Conservator adjunctus, &c. &c. understood, understood, and when the internal structure and analogies of ancient Greek were so much less known than they now are, to republish it, with all its errors and defects, would seem to be a downright absurdity. And yet, whenever any new edition of the Thesaurus ' has been talked of, it has been a very generally expressed wish among scholars, an almost sine qua non, that whatever additions might be made, the original should be reprinted entire and unmutilated. Now as long as this is made the basis of any new edition, as it was in Valpy's, and as it is in the present, so long will it go on to be rudis indigestaque moles,' a mazy labyrinth of valuable matter without system or arrangement, and requiring to be entirely remodelled before it can be anything like what it ought to be. It may be said, perhaps, in defence of this plan, that although in both the modern editions each article is first given with any errors and defects, as Stephens left it, yet it is immediately followed by other paragraphs, correcting the one and supplying the other. But why, it may be asked, reprint in the beginning of an article what is now an acknowledged error, merely to correct it at the end? Why leave deficiencies in one paragraph to fill them up in another? Why give, in one page, etymologies or meanings now known to be incorrect, only to demolish them in the succeeding one? Why give derivative and secondary senses before the primitive and original, only to have to reverse them before the ink is dry? And yet all this and more than this is done in both the English and French editions of the 'Thesaurus,' for no other reason, that we can see, but to preserve and perpetuate errors because they are the errors of a Stephanus, who, if he had enjoyed the half of our advantages, would never have committed them, and if he could now see them, would most assuredly draw his pen through them. It strikes us, that the only wise and useful way of republishing the Thesaurus' would be to give such an edition of it as we may suppose Stephens would now give, if he were alive to superintend it. And the editor who be the editor of the cannot be trusted to do this, is not fit to Thesaurus' in any shape. Although the new editors have engaged to preserve entire the matter of Stephens, even restoring some alterations made in the English edition, they have however ventured on making one most material change in Stephens's plan; they have adopted the alphabetical arrangement of words, instead of the etymological system of the original. Of this alteration we decidedly approve, as contributing to the ease and convenience with which the Thesaurus' may be consulted; and though there is much to be said in favour of the more philosophical arrangement, and some may still prefer it, yet we have no doubt but that it will be considered a great improvement by a very large majority of the classical world, When the editors had adopted this alteration, one should have supposed that their first thought would have been how they might supply the void made in the etymological department by this their change of plan, and that they would have laid down for themselves some general rule for attaching the derivation to each word now separated from its family and connexions. But through the first number, and nearly to the end of the second, there is no appearance of their having given this a thought; consequently, some few words have a derivation as originally given by Stephens, a very few others have it added by the new editors, and the greater part have none at all. Towards the end of the second number, they seem to have bethought themselves of the necessity of some such plan; and through the third they have generally imitated Passow, by adding the derivation in curved brackets, immediately after the word, and before any of its significations. As they have thus early adopted a most excellent model, we should not have mentioned the subject, but that they have adopted it only in part; they have not followed Passow's whole plan, than which we know not a better. The part which they have omitted is this, that when the derivation, from being doubtful or disputed, is too long to be placed at the beginning of the article, Passow places it at the end, so that we know at once where to look for it. For want of this simple device, the scholar, who happens to be looking for a questionable etymon in the new Thesaurus,' must wade through the whole of a long article, consisting of perhaps many paragraphs, before he can be sure that he has all the derivations which the article contains,-as, possibly, two or three separate paragraphs may each furnish a different one. There is another blemish of a different kind, and of less importance, (some, indeed, may not think it a blemish,) arising from the attempt to distinguish all the interpolations and additions from the original matter of Stephens, and each from the other. The principle of this scheme is in itself so fair, and the means of effecting it are apparently so easy, that there would seem to be no reasonable objection to it: and yet, when carried into effect, it renders the present edition a most unsightly work, and is frequently very puzzling and perplexing to the eye of the reader: a considerable part of almost every article being so filled with round, and square, and single, and double brackets, one within the other, that it requires extraordinary care and considerable practice to wind one's way safely among them. Another branch of this same principle is productive of much more more serious and extensive mischief. The three editors are to have, it seems, each his contribution inserted in a separate paragraph;* consequently, instead of an article consisting of one congruous and well-digested account, compiled from the various contributions of different editors and scholars, we have a number of different unconnected paragraphs, of which a very considerable part is superfluous little better than tautology. First, we have whatever Stephens has said on the word, whether right or wrong, interlarded with every imaginable variety of brackets. Next comes, perhaps, a paragraph abridged from the English edition, together with contributions of Schaefer, Valckenaer, &c., embracing much curious and valuable information, but a considerable proportion of it fitter for the notes of a new edition of Hesychius than for one of Stephanus. Then follows a quarter or half a page of quotations from Ast's Lexicon Platonicum' (not selected, but transcribed), nineteen-twentieths of which give no new meaning or construction. Then comes another long catalogue of quotations, by De Sinner or Fix, with some valuable points of information amidst a heap of useless repetitions. And very frequently, to crown the whole, comes Hase with a fresh list of quotations (ohe! jam satis!) from some of the ecclesiastical writers, with whom he seems very familiar, introduced for no reason, that we can fancy, but to show that Libanius or Basil used the word in the same common and usual sense that Plato or Xenophon had done before. Now surely, as we said in our XLIVth Number, in examining Valpy's Stephanus, when two or three good authorities have been given for a meaning, it is childish trifling, nay worse, it is mere bookmaking, to lengthen that section by further quotations. It cannot, for instance, be of the slightest use to give nearly half a folio page of quotations and references, taken indiscriminately from a Lexicon Platonicum,' to show that so plain and common a word as adixéw means injuste facio, or lado, violo, noceo—senses established by more than sufficient authorities in the paragraph preceding. Nor is this a rare instance; it occurs in almost every other page, in ἀδικία, ἄδικος, ἀδύνατος, ἀθάνατος, &c. Nor can it be necessary for M. Hase, in such plain words as aßagns, άyúμvaoтos, áDeórns, and we might mention fifty more, to cite a * The present editors have, it is true, improved much on their English predecessors: these inserted whole paragraphs and pages of contributions from different scholars; while the Parisians have certainly much compressed and curtailed them; but still they have not done enough. If they had carefully examined every article before it went to press, they might have omitted pages of useless repetition and tautology; we should not then have in a paragraph of one editor, a heap of quotations to prove or illustrate what had been satisfactorily and sufficiently done in a preceding paragraph by his brother editor. heap |