character apophthegms and maxims of weighty and scntentious wisdom and select portions of the more lively and humorous conversation. Indeed, the entire substance of many dialogues might in this way be compressed into a very narrow space, by connecting the series of such extracts with a brief summary of the topics and arguments which fill up the intervals. To the majority of readers, such a mode of presenting many parts of the longer and more difficult dialogues would be even more intelligible, and far less tedious, than an entire translation; for it must be confessed, that what Gibbon too summarily calls the verbal argumentation' of Socrates, and the profuse and often prolix illustrations, are a little apt to weary the patience of any reader, who is not either a philosopher or a scholar.

Such a work as we venture to sketch, would a little resemble Van Heusde's entertaining volumes, entitled 'Initia Philosophiæ Platonicæ.' We beg to suggest to Mr. Knight, whether it might not form two or three volumes of his popular series, and we should certainly felicitate both him and ourselves, if he could prevail on the same accomplished scholar, who has recently given us such admirable translations of some of the lives of Plutarch, illustrative of the Civil Wars of Rome, to attempt its execution. Or if the task of compilation be too tedious for scholars so capable of better things, might not two or three combine for the purpose each taking distinct dialogues? One or two scenes from the 'Gorgias' are appended to the second volume of Mr. Lewes' 'Manual of the History of Philosophy;' and, though necessarily compressed, they are translated with so much spirit, that we hope their unknown author might be persuaded to join the party. Is it too much to expect some such tribute

from the modern scholarship of England to the memory of the great master of the Academy, who has hitherto been so inadequately treated by English translators?

But we must conclude, and we will do so with a single remark. We certainly hold the entire dramatic projection and representation of Socrates in the pages of Plato to be one of the most wonderful efforts of the human mind. In studying him, it is impossible that his character as a teacher of ethics, and his life-like mode of representation, should not suggest to us another character, yet more wonderfully depicted, and by the same most difficult of all methods, that of dramatic evolution by discourse and action; of one who taught a still purer, sublimer, and more consistent ethics, pervaded by a more intense spirit of humanity; of one whose love for our race was infinitely deeper and more tender; who stands perfectly free from those foibles which history attributes to the real Socrates, and from that too Protean facility of manners which, though designed by Plato as a compliment to the philosophic flexibility of his character of Socrates, really so far assimilated him with mere vulgar humanity; of one, too, whose sublime and original character is not only exhibited with the most wonderful dramatic skill, but in a style as unique as the character it embodies a style of simple majesty, which, unlike that of Plato, is capable of being readily translated into every language under heaven; of one whose life was the embodiment of that virtue which Plato affirmed would entrance all hearts, if seen, and whose death throws the prison scenes of the Phædo utterly into the shade; of one, lastly, whose picture has arrested the admiring gaze of many who have believed it to be only a picture. Now, if we feel

that the portraiture of Socrates in the pages of Plato involved the very highest exercise of the highest dramatic genius, and that the cause was no more than commensurate with the effect, it is a question which may well occupy the attention of a philosopher, how it came to pass that, in one of the obscurest periods of the history of an obscure people, in the dregs of their literature and the lowest depths of superstitious dotage, so sublime a conception should have been so sublimely exhibited; how it was that the noblest truths found an oracle in the lips of the grossest ignorance, and the maxims of universal charity, advocates in the hearts of the most selfish of narrowminded bigots; in a word, who could be the more than Plato (or rather the many, each more than Plato) who drew that radiant portrait, of which it may be truly said 'that a far greater than Socrates is there?'

368

STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.*

THIS work will be highly acceptable to Anglo-Saxon scholars; nor are these the only persons to whom it is likely to prove of value. There are, or at all events soon will be, many, by no means ambitious of achieving the fame of profound Anglo-Saxon scholarship, to whose library a Saxon and English Lexicon of moderate size and reasonable price will be a welcome addition. As this may appear a somewhat paradoxical opinion, we crave leave to offer our reasons in support of it, before we proceed to estimate the merits of Dr. Bosworth's Dictionary, as compared with any previous work of a similar kind.

Profound Anglo-Saxon scholarship has ever been, and in all probability ever will be, a very rare commodity in the market of letters. Indeed, a profound knowledge of any dead language will always be a rarity, if it can reward our industry only by a literature so scanty and so rude as that of the AngloSaxons; and it may therefore seem, at first sight, as unreasonable to expect any considerable patronage for a work like the present, as for a dictionary of some dialect of Kamschatka or Madagascar. Still, if we mistake not, the day is not far distant when it will

*Edinburgh Review,' Oct. 1839.

A Dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon Language; with a Preface on the Origin and Connexion of the Germanic Tongues, a Map of Languages, and the Essentials of Anglo-Saxon Grammar. By Rev. T. BoswORTH, LL.D. 8vo. London: 1838.

be considered disgraceful to a well-bred Englishmanutterly disgraceful to a man who makes the slightest pretensions to scholarship-to be ignorant, as multitudes (otherwise well informed) now are of the history and structure of the English tongue; and, above all, of the precise relations of modern English to that ancient dialect of the greatt Teuonic family, which has ever been, and still is, incomparably the most important element in its composition.*

A competent knowledge of these subjects, though something very different from extensive Anglo-Saxon scholarship, and though attained with comparatively little trouble, must necessarily involve some attention to the ancient language. Of the extent to which the Anglo-Saxon modifies the structure and grammatical peculiarities of modern English, and in which it contributes to its vocabulary, those who have paid no attention to the subject are little aware. Nor, indeed, has the subject ever been treated with the fulness it deserves. No apology, therefore, is made for the following attempt to determine, with some approach to precision, the proportions in which the different elements of our language are mingled; and especially the degree in which the Anglo-Saxon predominates over the rest.

It must be premised, that when we speak of English words derived from Anglo-Saxon or Latin, or any other language, we mean immediately derived. We make this remark because there are many words de

• The University of London includes, amongst the subjects of the Matriculation Examination,-'The grammatical structure and peculiarities of the English Language ;' a most judicious regulation.

This was written in 1839; since which period several valuable works on the subject have appeared. That of Dr. Latham, on the English Language,' deserves special mention.