6 heap of quotations from Plutarch, after Aristotle had been given before; and this, not to introduce any new meaning or construction, but actually prefacing his paragraph by sensu proprio Plutarchus-sensu proprio Hermes Trismegistus! What a thing of shreds and patches' poor Stephanus will become! It will be readily supposed, that amidst all this pic-nic of scholars and editors, it is quite out of the question to expect that, when we search for a word, we shall find its original sense the first. Nothing like it. Its original sense will be found quite as likely, or more so, in the middle or at the end of an article. Nor are we to expect, that an authority quoted is one of the earliest or purest in which the word occurs. Far from it. The word may have been perhaps used in the same sense by Homer; but the authority is more likely to be Philo. Many of these latter defects are not, be it remembered, to be attributed so much to the editors themselves, as to the unfortunate plan which they and their advisers have thought fit to adopt in reprinting Stephanus. Those, for instance, which we have last mentioned, are defects in the original; and a reprint of the original, with additions affixed to different articles, must necessarily contain all its defects, and in cases, particularly, of mal-arrangement, an accumulation of others. At the same time it would be unfair not to add, that we have found many useful and able paragraphs, showing extensive reading, and containing scholar-like remarks, particularly some by Fix, who appears to be not so long-winded as his colleagues. But now a word or two as to the length and cost of this new edition. It may be recollected, that in our XLIVth Number we found it necessary to animadvert in pretty strong terms on the very lengthy manner in which the English editors began their edition of this same Thesaurus,' and our animadversions had so far the desired effect, that the numbers published after the appearance of our article were surprisingly and advantageously curtailed. The present editors are not indeed to be compared to their English friends, in this respect, but still their labours will admit of great cutting down, and their work would be in every respect improved by the operation. But, indeed, some very considerable curtailment must be effected in the future numbers, if the work is to be brought within anything like the limits which the editors have laid down. Let us calculate, as nearly as we can, what length the book threatens to reach. The change from the etymological to the alphabetical arrangement precludes our forming any comparison between this and the original: but we may draw a fair guess from examining it along with the last edition αἴθων. edition of Passow. Each of the three first numbers of the 'Thesaurus' contains 160 folio pages, and the editors promise to finish it in 28 numbers, consequently the whole work should be only 4480 pages. The three numbers, containing 480 pages, reach to alwv. Now Passow, at alwv, has advanced only 48 pages-consequently, the new Stephens is just ten times as long as Passow; and, carrying on the proportion, as Passow's Lexicon is 1500 pages, the Stephens will be 15,000. Dividing this by 160, the amount of pages in each number, we have rather more than 93 numbers, instead of the promised 28. We were so surprised at the results of this calculation, that we tried it by the last edition of Schneider and by Hederic, in both of which the result was still higher. The cost of so voluminous a work will, of course, exceed in the same proportion the price at which the editors put it in their Prospectus: it will be but a trifle under that of the English edition which their own prospectus so clamorously denounces. Nor are the editors much nearer their promises as to the time within which their opus magnum is to be completed. Their first number, according to the Prospectus published in 1830, was to appear in April, 1831, and from that time the work was to proceed at the rate of six or eight numbers in the year. We are writing in February 1834, and as yet we have heard of only four numbers (the fourth we have not seen); at this rate the publication will be finished about A.D. 1900. However, as only four numbers have yet been published-these editors have time enough before them to profit by experience and advice; and most earnestly do we intreat them, as they value the character of their work, to cut down, with unsparing hand, all useless excrescences. We know how difficult it is to do this-how invidious a task it is to curtail or omit the contributions of kind literary friends; but, however unpleasant, it must be done. We observe the editors mention, among a host of contributors, (and, to our great astonishment, mention it as matter of joy and congratulation,) that Professor Struve, of Königsberg, has sent them eleven hundred articles on different words beginning with alpha! We should have rather expected them to exclaim, as Pyrrhus did, after a dear-bought victory,- A few more such, and we are ruined.' We have hitherto noticed only the defects arising principally from the absurd plan of giving a reprint of the original, and the tautology caused by the still more absurd plan of the different editors contributing separate paragraphs to form one article. We will now add a few specimens of the imperfect manner in which the the editors have used the means which are, or ought to have been, within their reach. We have hitherto spoken of redundancies, we shall have now to speak of deficiencies. The first word in the lexicon, daros, is a strikin; proof of both;-of much admitted, which is unprofitable, and everything omitted which could elucidate its meaning. It is rendred noxius and innoxius; and then comes all the nonsense from Eustathius and the scholia of two alphas privative destroying ech other— of the possibility of its meaning in the same passage, crens noxa, or, ironically, valde noxius, &c. &c. Now there are to scholars, by whom the word had been handled in a masterly ad satisfactory manner,-viz., Passow, in his Lexicon, and Buthann, in his Lexilogus yet the former is not once thought of the latter, who has discussed the word in all its bearings, so aso leave nothing to be desired, is just referred to in a most megre and slovenly manner: Diverso tamen modo Buttmann,' &. &c. Now can anything be more careless than, in so copious work as this new Thesaurus,' which professes and ought to giv the best and most ample information, to put the student off witła mere reference to a work written in German? We have notime or space to give Buttmann's masterly dissertation on this wrd, but must follow the example of the French editors; we deso, however, with the less reluctance, because we have heard th a translation of his Lexilogus into English is in a state of csiderable forwardness.* Again, in aάßanтoi, Buttmann has given, in a ve few words, a far more satisfactory account of its formatiorand meaning, than Stephanus and all his editors together; and we have drily 'Cfr. Buttmanni Lexil., i. 233;' the obvious interetation of the brief hint being that Buttmann's opinion wouldbe found confirmatory of what had gone before; whereas, ithis and many other instances, it is decidedly the contrary. The same may be said of ἀβληχρὸς, ἀγοστέω, α, ἀείδελος, ἄηTos, and aintos, of adéw, &c.; under the last ofvhich words we find the following curious recommendation,- Btm. Lexil. cujus totum legas,' &c. &c. One should almost be irined to suppose that the editors were ignorant of Buttmann's wk being written in German. If not, they must suppose the nerality of their * Buttmann's Lexilogus is a most able disquisition on thlerivation, formation, and meaning of a number of doubtful words and passages inomer, and contains, in two small unpretending volumes, a deeper and more criti knowledge of Greek, more extensive research, and more sound judgment, than weer remember to have seen in any one work before. Though it is primarily a crism on Homer, yet it is not confined to his poems; for every author, and every page, and every analogy which the whole range of Greek literature can furnish as illration or example, is brought to bear on the old epic language with a talent and a memory surpassed (if surpassed) only in Porson himself. readers readers to understand that language: and this idea would seem to be confimed by their having copied 'Aygoxnov from Schneider's Lexicon, and given the whole explanation in German,—either not takingthe trouble, or not thinking it necessary to translate it. Indeed, unless it were translated better than that of 'AywvTinos is, it were etter left undone. They say "Aywvioikos ap. Galen. et recentiores Medicos, Strenuus, Fortis, Audax, Molentum habens: Schneid. Lex.' Schneider's interpretation is, in fact, bold and decisive; a meaning which it wuld be difficult to collect from the vague epithets of the Parian editors. We canno think aẞíacros done with due care and accuracy. We have first th original article of Stephens, with rather less than its usual complment of single and double brackets within each other, and then a resh paragraph begins thus: Ineluctabilis, cui obsisti non ftest, Severianus Gabal.' who speaks of the Creator of the worldas 8 vεúμaтI aẞíαoros, &c. Then follow three ¶s, each of whic according to the Preface, indicates some- Nova vocabuli sign catio a nobis demum observata.' The first of these newly-discoved significations is, 'inviolatus,' which is not new, for it is mentned in the paragraph preceding. An authority is given from St Basil; and then follow five other quotations from ecclesiastical viters, in every one of which the word does not mean inviolatus, buhas the ordinary sense of non coactus. The second ¶ is, 'Sensu teologico, Qui fruitur libero arbitrio. S. Joann. Climac.' &c. Nv, in what this new meaning differs from the old one of non cotus, spontaneus, we confess we are not casuists enough to discer. The third ¶ is, Exquisitum et proprium vocabulum de ɔn coactâ explicandi ratione, ubi nulla inferenda sit vis verbis alinterpretibus: Euseb. Præpar. Evang.,' &c. In short, this is thold meaning again of non coactus applied to language, as all tl world say an expression or interpretation not forced, but natul; a meaning given, forty years ago, by Ernesti, in his Lexico Rhetoricum,' and exemplified by aß. xágis, a natural, unforce beauty: Dionys. in Jud. Demosth. xxxviii. p. 1071. α We did expeco find under äßios at least a hint that the meanings of sine ar,' (Biòs,) and of invalidus,' or 'validus,' (Bía, with a priv. or ins.) are more than doubtful; but we have only a reference to Vckenaer ad Theocr. Adoniaz., p. 215. And it would have been; well if we had been told that ßíwv, in Il. v. 6, is undoubtedly thame (not the epithet) of a Thracian or Scythian people, and not he been left to guess the probability of such a thing from the mtion of a passage of Strabo, or Epiphanius, or Ptolemy, at the e of the article; particularly as all these points had had been cleared up, as long ago as 1819, in the first edition of Passow. 'Aßgoraw is left with the old foolish meaning and derivation of · τὸ βροτοῦ ἀποτυγχάνειν ἐν ὁδῷ, or “ τὸ ἐν ἀβρότῃ ἀποπλανᾶσθαι in nocte evagari.' Reference is given by Fix to the Lexilogus, as if in confirmation of the above; but not one word of Buttmann's opinion, which entirely demolishes these meanings and derivations, cuts of all connexion between ἀβροτάζω and ἄβροτος, and satisfactorily traces a chain from ἁμαρτάνω, ἥμαρτον, ἤμβροτον to ἀβροτάζω. Again, in aßgornμw, not a word is said of its connexion with ἁμαρτάνω. Under äßgoros, M. Hase has another notable ¶, giving, as a new meaning,carens mortalibus.' We have only to remark, that this new meaning may be found in the original Stephanus, in Scapula, and in Hederic; but that it ought not to be found in a new edition of Stephanus, without our being told that it is now universally exploded as a false signification; and that the authority quoted from the Prometheus is now universally admitted to be a corrupt reading. "Аyaπnτãs, vix. Quamvis locutionis ratio non adpareret, satis est usum sic jubere.' We, on the contrary, think the reason very apparent, and to be traced very satisfactorily. We know that ἀγαπητὸν ἐστι, like αγαπητέον, meant in Xenophon and Demosthenes, one must be well contented; and hence the meaning of άyaпnτãs, which, strictly speaking, is not vix, though that idea is implied. Thus, Tv signvnv Tanoaσde ay.,you thought yourτὴν εἰρήνην ἐποιήσασθε selves lucky in having made peace.' Demosth. Alonμer ay. nai pónis, Aristid. We see here plainly what the true meaning of àyawntãs is, and how that of 'vix' comes to be mixed up with it. 'Adnuovέw and its derivatives are not accurately rendered in Stephanus, nor, indeed, in any of our lexicons. 'Animo concido, terreor, terrefio, pavesco;' and 'sollicitudine affici, angi,' are expressions too general to give a definite idea of the meaning of the word; and we wonder that, as M. de Sinner has made a good use of Buttmann in stating its probable derivation, he did not add Buttmann's explanation of its meaning,-which had, indeed, been before given in Photii Lexicon—τὸ ἀπορεῖν καὶ ἀμηχανεῖν — to be in perplexity-not to know what to think or how to act. But it is unnecessary to pursue this examination further: from the extracts which we have given, our readers will be able to judge for themselves. These gentlemen may yet, if they will listen to advice, and profit by experience, go a great way towards retrieving the character of their work: the unfortunate plan which they have adopted will always be a great obstacle to their best exertions; but still, by care and accuracy, they may make up for much imperfection, VOL. LI. NO. CI. M Jur |
