perfection, and leave a monument of their talents and industry, creditable to themselves, and generally useful to Greek literature.

We come now to the Greek-and-English Lexicon, which stands last at the head of our article, and which we have placed there for two reasons, principally for its connexion with Greek-andGerman lexicography, but also because it is the best specimen that we have seen of a Greek-and-English lexicon—which, unfortunately, is saying little for it. Of this work two editions have been published-the first in 1826, the second in 1831-of both which it will be necessary to speak somewhat in detail. We will begin with the former. When we first heard of a lexicon taken from Schneider, we were on the tiptoe of expectation, knowing the intrinsic excellence of our German friend, whom we had been in the habit of consulting for some years. As soon as we had possession of our new prize, we naturally turned to the title-page, and there, to our great astonishment, we read, 'A new Greekand-English Lexicon, principally on the plan of the Greek-andGerman Lexicon of Schneider.'-On the plan of Schneider!!! The only point of similarity between Donnegan's and Schneider's lexicons, as far as we have been able to discover, is in neither of them having any particular plan or arrangement at all. If there be any difference, it is in favour of Schneider, who does sometimes divide and number the different meanings of a word, and occasionally traces the derivative sense from the primitive. Donnegan never numbers the different significations of a word: he has indeed two marks which seem to denote some difference of signification, viz. a semicolon and a dash (thus -); but these marks are used so indiscriminately, with such want of decision and knowledge, or of care, that we can never be sure what they are intended to denote. They are sometimes placed between different meanings, sometimes between modifications of the same meaning, and sometimes between meanings in which there is no difference at all. We need not give instances of this-for they are to be found in almost every page. But Dr. Donnegan did see in Schneider's want of plan one very considerable inconvenience, which he has avoided-only to fall into another as great if not greater.

Schneider,' he says in his preface, by intermingling examples, critical remarks, and etymological observations, with the significations of his words, has frequently separated the various meanings to such a distance from each other that they are with difficulty traceable.'

To obviate this inconvenience, Dr. Donnegan gives the different meanings in uninterrupted succession, and afterwards adds, at the end of each article, (where he thinks it necessary,) some examples, with a translation of each, to explain or illustrate any striking or peculiar meanings. Now we find this plan quite as inconvenient

as

as Schneider's confusion, and more unsatisfactory, to say nothing of its adding unnecessarily to the size of the lexicon; because, in this case, either the same meaning must be repeated, first as an interpretation of the word—and then annexed to the quotation *—or the quotation itself must be always translated, a thing generally unnecessary when it follows close on the signification of which it is the authority. For the student who consults Donnegan, if not fully satisfied with his intepretation of a word, as given generally without any authority affixed to it, must proceed to wade through a string of sentences in search of authority or explanation, where he finds no distinguishing mark to point out with which meaning each quotation is connected, and of which it is an illustration or peculiarity. If Donnegan had chosen to adopt this plan, he should have imitated the example of Ainsworth, in his Latin-and-English dictionary, which we are sometimes inclined to think as good as any. Had he done so, marking each distinct set of meanings 1, 2, 3, &c., and then each authority or quotation 1, 2, 3, &c., as they referred respectively to each meaning, the student might have easily cast his eyes from the one to the other, as we have all done in Ainsworth, with ease and convenience.

Or should it be said that Schneider's plan, as adopted by Donnegan, consists (we still quote from the title-page) indistinguishing such words as are poetical, of dialectic variety, or peculiar to certain writers or classes of writers,'—we answer, that though there may be here and there instances of such distinction marked both in Schneider and Donnegan, yet these instances are so few and far between, so rare in comparison of what they might and ought to be, that they would seem to have come there more by some lucky chance than from any regular plan or system. In Schneider, indeed, we are frequently able to ascertain, to a certain extent, what expressions are poetical or prosaic by the authorities given : but this is an advantage of course less frequent in Donnegan, where the authorities are scattered with a much more sparing hand. So much for Donnegan's plan.

And next, a little as to the matter. To Schneider, he fairly confesses, in his first preface, that his lexicon is indebted for its most valuable matter; but he, at the same time, assures us,

that in collecting materials for this first edition, neither time nor labour has been spared; the classical Greek writers have been carefully studied, the works of eminent lexicographers consulted, and information sought in the writings of the most celebrated critics and philosophers of our own and of neighbouring countries.'

This sounds well: but where are the fruits of the preface-writer's

*Should any one wish to see this plan of Donnegan most absurdly exemplified, let him consult his lexicon, second edition, at araλλácow.

labour and research? We have not met with them in any one page of his book. We have carefully examined a very large portion of his lexicon, comparing it article by article, and page by page, with Schneider-and we will venture to assert that, while almost every error, mistake, or defect of Schneider is too faithfully copied, everything worth having, which Donnegan's boasted researches have added to the valuable matter of Schneider, might be put in a nut-shell,—aye, and leave room enough for the kernel. Dr. Donnegan entitles his book, 'A new Greek-and-English Lexicon, principally on the plan of the Greek-and-German Lexicon of Schneider,' &c.: but a more correct title would have been, An abridged translation of Schneider, with a few alterations and additions adding little or nothing to the value of the original.' As a translation, we should say that, in very ordinary cases, it is pretty faithfully done, but that in points of the least doubt or difficulty (and of course these are of constant occurrence) it is extremely faulty and defective. We should say that Dr. Donnegan has a sufficient command of English for ordinary matters, and a general knowledge of German, quite enough for the adequate rendering of any common work; and that as for his Greek-wherever an accurate or critical knowledge of the language is necessary; wherever there is required a nice discrimination of the force of particles or prepositions--an acquaintance with the analogies or a philosophical view of the internal structure of the language;-there either Dr. Donnegan's Greek breaks down under him, and leads him into sad mistakes, or (which is most generally the case) he leaves the difficulty as he found it. We must do him the justice to say that he does not seem conceited of his own powers, for he almost always follows Schneider most implicitly; but where he does venture to throw his original aside and trust to himself, we have invariably reason to regret that he has done so. In one respect, however, it were to be wished that the writer of the magniloquent preface above quoted had not always trusted to Schneider; it were to be wished that, in composing his lexicon, he had made a point of consulting and examining the original Greek authors, and comparing them with the German interpretations, rather than contenting himself with rendering at once from the German lexicographer; if he had done so, he might have avoided numberless inaccuracies and mistranslations,* of which he has been guilty-he could not have perpetuated, as he has done, all the mistakes of Schneiderand above all, he would not have loaded so many of his articles with an accumulation of unnecessary meanings.

* And yet what hope is there of one who, from poverty of mind or want of language, can translate the yapos yaμos of the dip. Tyrannus, by unhappily married,' and the daixos sivoíxnois of the Philoctetes, by an unfortunate dwelling'?

But

But let us now come to the Second Edition. It is evident, from every page and line of Dr. Donnegan's first edition, that he had never seen Passow's lexicon, although the first part of it appeared as early as 1819, and the English lexicon not until 1826. But in this second edition, Dr. Donnegan has had the advantage of Passow's labours. One thing, however, rather puzzles us: we hardly know whether Donnegan understood Passow's system of arrangement or not. That he did not see its value, or appreciate

6

it as he might, we are quite sure, both from the way in which he speaks of it in his second preface, (if indeed he does speak of it there, of which we are far from clear,) and because he has only followed it in the former half of his re-edited lexicon. The latter half, from a inclusive, is, as to anything like arrangement, precisely as Schneider left it. But more of this hereafter. Let us first see what account Donnegan himself gives in his preface, of the improvement of this second edition. Attention,' he says, 'has been most particularly directed to correct any deviation from the natural or philosophical arrangement of the meanings of words.' Now, who would imagine from this that Donnegan's first edition was composed without the slightest regard to, or knowledge of, any natural or philosophical arrangement whatever; and that this second edition-(or rather the first half of it)-is drawn up with slavish fidelity on that most admirable and systematic arrangement of Passow, which we have a few pages back described? We are justified, therefore, in saying, when he penned this preface he either did not understand the plan he was adopting, or contrived so to write as to take to himself the merit due to Passow. But in truth we cannot pass over, without censuring, in the strongest language we are capable of, Dr. Donnegan's most unfair and unhandsome conduct in not having distinctly acknowledged the advantages which he has derived from Passow's lexicon. He has adopted Passow's arrangement-copied-translated from him as he had done before from Schneider-and yet never had the honesty to give the slightest acknowledgment. It is true that the name of Passow occurs in a few scattered instances, (under äyxuga, for example,) but then in so short and unintelligible a manner as to be hardly observable; and so very rarely does even this occur, that any one who recognizes the name of Passow could only suppose that Donnegan had borrowed from him a few scattered hints, instead of having made his lexicon the foundation of his second edition. Is this fair or honourable? Is it like a gentleman or a scholar? Again, he says,

'Above 200 pages of entirely new matter have been added to the present edition. Half the work has been re-written, and THE ENTIRE

newly

newly modelled, in conformity with the general plan, but with much improvement and simplification in the details.'

We very sorry to say, the truth, and the whole truth is, that Donnegan has re-written and re-modelled only the first half of this second edition, altering, and amending, and enlarging it after Passow, of whom it is now almost as exact an abridged translation as the first edition was of Schneider-excepting in some articles, where the one is added to the other, and where, accordingly, between both, much superfluous interpretation and almost inextricable confusion are necessarily produced.* Now, of the 200 pages of entirely new matter,' or, to speak accurately, of the 219 pages by which this second edition exceeds the first, 211 are contained in the former half to K inclusive, and the latter half is increased by only the remaining eight: and so far from this latter having been newly modelled, in conformity with the general plan,'-(Qu., what is this plan?)—there are not a dozen alterations, or amendments, or corrections, through the whole of it, excepting in the beginning of each letter, and in the particles and prepositions, which are greatly enlarged, but always duce et auspice' Passow. Why Dr. Donnegan stopped

As an instance of the hungling manner in which Dr. Donnegan compounds a mixture of Schneider and Passow, we copy, word for word, from his second edition, the following

Adaros, ou, adj., that cannot be injured or violated, inviolable, Il. 14, 271., as an epithet of the waters of Styx, the sanction of an inviolable oath--invulnerable, invincible, Apoll. 2, 77. not injurious, irreproachable, hence honourable, worthy, viz. a contest, Ody. 21, 91. and 22, 5. Schn. L. Supplem. or in the first sense irrevocable, or decisive as to the result, Schn. L. ed. Pass. injurious, or highly injurious, Apollon. 1, 459. In Ody. 21, 91. s. s. as oλußλaßns, from the force of the double a or a augm. or for "yav, Eustath. yet in Ody. 21, 91. perhaps invincible, or difficult to be achieved, for Antinous adds où yag, &c., for I do not think that this well-polished bow can be easily strung. Ody. 22, 5. innocuous, relatively to that which was to follow, viz. the attack on the suitors. ¶ Damm gives as primary sense, undeceiving, and so understands it Ody. 21, 91. and ironically, 22, 5. deriving it from a priv. arw. Th. a priv. áráw from ¿áw, or a priv. áw, Buttmann Lexil. s. 231.

Again

"Aaros, ou, adj. s. s. as dúaros, highly injurious, Apollon. 1, 459. see aάaros. Th. (in the latter sense) a augm. άw to injure. ‡‡ daros or ros, insatiable, Hes. Theog. 714. and Sc. Herc. 55, and 101. with a genit. Th. (áw) aw, to satiate. s. s. as ἄητος from ἄημι, άω, to blow.

It would be waste of time and paper to cricitise such a mishmash of sense and nonsense as this. We will rather give what a very little common sense and a very moderate knowledge of Greek might (with the help of Passow and Buttmann) have easily produced:

'Adaros, i, n, (Th. ¿aw, to hurt,) that cannot be hurt with impunity, inviolable, Il. ,271. That cannot be overcome or accomplished without difficulty, Ody. 4, 91. x, 5. But Buttmann, in his Lexil. 1, p. 232, understands the word, in all three passages, more in a moral sense, as what ought not to be hurt or violated-ought not to be treated with slight or contempt. In Apoll. Rh. 2, 77, it is used in the former sense of invulnerable, invincible.

Auros,,, contr. &ros (Th. da, doa, to satiate,) insatiable, oxiμoo, Hes. Theog. 714. Scut. 59. "Auros is for antos, Quint. Sm. 1,217.

short