Page images
PDF
EPUB

85

ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS.

Monastic Ruins of Yorkshire, illustrated by a Series of General Views, Plans, Sections, and Details, from Drawings made expressly for this Work by William Richardson, Architect. With an Introduction, by the Rev. EDWARD CHURTON, M. A.; and Historical and Descriptive Notices of each Ruin. Lithographed by George Hawkins. Part I. Large folio. R. Sunter, York. 1843.

Under the above comprehensive title is commenced a new Topographical, Archæological, and Architectural work; which is most preposessingly magnificent in all the attributes of paper, type, lithography, and mechanical execution: and from the learned author of the Introduction, we have a right to expect that the literary portion will be commensurate, if not superior, to the other portions. The Essays given with the present part are not sufficient, in quantity or matter, to afford a criterion whereby to judge of the reverend author's qualifications for the arduous task he has undertaken: for this task enjoins him to elucidate the history, the local annals, the architectural peculiarities, and particularly the monastic spirit of the many interesting ruins with which Yorkshire abounds, and which the work professes to illustrate and describe. It has recently been a fashion, and a very rational and useful one, for the students of our two old Universities, to cultivate an acquaintance with the Architectural Antiquities of their own nation, and with other collateral objects connected with the Ecclesiastical History of the country. To young men intended for the Church, and who may become Archdeacons, Deans, and Bishops, such a course of study cannot fail of being very interesting, and may prove of distinguished advantage, not merely to the individual, but to a large community, over whom it may be his lot to preside. This advantage and pursuit were unknown to our forefathers; and hence we rarely hear of any of the older prelates, and officers of cathedrals, or even of the parochial clergy, manifesting any zeal for or even knowledge of the cathedrals or churches to which they were respectively attached. Whether the author of the letter-press now before us, be of the old or of the modern school, we are not enabled to judge by the brief literary matter in the present number: but it is hoped that the second portion will give us ample proof of Archæological and Architectural knowledge.

The Monastic Antiquities of Yorkshire are not only numerous, but replete with architectural beauties and interest. The Abbeys of Fountains; Riveaux; Whitby; Roche; Whalley; Byland, St. Mary's, at York; Bolton, &c., are alike attractive to the Architectural Antiquary, the Artist, and the Practical Architect; and each will afford abundant materials for the study and elucidation of all. It is, however, to be feared that the size and expensiveness of the publication now before us, will preclude them from being all brought forward and completely displayed within the compass of its literary and graphic pages. The portion now under notice contains only four picturesque views of Whitby Abbey Church, with ground-plan and two details, on one stone, whilst the letter-press is limited to four and a half pages of Introduction, and two of History. It is also ornamented with a splendid page of picture-writing, a dedication to the venerable and respected Archbishop. There are also a picturesque view of the ruins of Kirkstall Abbey, and a drawing of architectural details. Though thus of small amount in illustration and letter-press, the size and quality of paper, and the execution of the drawings and typography, are all of the finest and most beautiful class. The Drawings by Mr. Richardson, and Lithography by Mr. Hawkins, are entitled to our highest commendation, and make us wish to see more of the same kind to illustrate the magnificent ruins and fine architectural specimens of other Yorkshire Monasteries.

III. MISCELLANEOUS LITERATURE.

I. PHILOLOGY.

A Greek and English Lexicon, based on the German Work of Francis Passow. By HENRY GEORGE Liddell, M.A., Student of Christ Church; and ROBERT SCOTT, M.A., some time Student of Christ Church, and late Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford: At the University Press. 1843.

THE well-earned and justly-deserved celebrity of the university, at whose press the Greek and English Lexicon, which we have placed at the head of this article, was published, raised our expectations to the very highest pitch; and, as we seized our paper-knife to cut open its leaves, preparatory to a critical examination of it, we said within ourselves, "Well, after the many abortive attempts that we have witnessed to produce a somewhat complete Greek and English Lexicon, we, doubtless, at last have one before us, which will make good its title to be esteemed and called such." We came to the conclusion that the gentlemen who had undertaken to conduct it, were so well qualified for and so competent to the task, that failure was out of the question, and not for a moment to be thought of. But the higher our hopes were raised, the deeper were the disappointment and mortification which we were doomed to experience. Before the publication which has elicited the present remarks, a perfect Greek and English Lexicon was a desideratum, and a desideratum it still remains. Indeed, the heart of the conductors themselves seems, even before its appearance, to have been seized with something like misgiving, as to whether their work was calculated to supply what the Greek classical world has so long stood in need of and called for, though it has hitherto called in vain. Toward the end of their preface we find them, who ought to be best acquainted with its plan and the mode of its execution, thus speaking of their performance :-"We now dismiss our book," say they, "with feelings of thankfulness that we have had health and strength to bring it to a close. We know well how far it is from what it might be, from what we ourselves could imagine it to be. But we hope that by pains and accuracy" (the inconsiderable amount of which may perhaps be made to appear before the conclusion of this article) "we have at least laid a good foundation, and we shall be ready to profit by any criticisms that may be made upon it, whether public or private."* If these gentlemen, whether from want of time, or, which we are less inclined to believe, from lack of scholarship and ability, could not make their work much more perfect and much more complete than in the shape in which, without any compulsion, they have chosen to publish it, why then, we ask, did they ever undertake it? Or, if they could make it more perfect and more complete, why then did they not do so? And why were they in such a hurry to go to press ? And can they fairly expect the public to go to the expense of purchasing so imperfect a work, which must soon be followed and superseded by one more perfect? Surely there are, if they only meet with sufficient encouragement and patronage (for we believe it to be solely owing to the want of sufficient encouragement and patronage that no such work has hitherto been produced), scholars of ability more than enough, and learning and erudition more than enough, in this country, to compile a perfect Greek and English Lexicon; but, even if there were not, an attempt, as we learn from the preface of Messrs. Liddell and Scott's work, and as we ourselves happened previously to know, is being made in Germany, to complete Passow's work

Had Messrs. Liddell and Scott given the least proof that they were ready to profit by their own criticisms upon their work, we would have given them credit for the disposition and ability to profit by the criticisms of others upon it, whether public or private. Their own criticisms, however, appear to have been lost upon them, and what reason is there to believe that they either will or can profit by the criticisms of others? If they knew well that their work was not what it ought to be, why did they not make it what they knew it ought to be, and then invite learned men to pass their criticisms on it?

on his own plan, by following which only, in fact, success is to be attained; and such is the opinion which we entertain of the accuracy and perseverance of German scholars, that we do not doubt the attempt will be crowned by success: though, so great is the interest which we take in the honour of Greek-English scholarship, that we confess we would rather see German forestalled in their undertaking by English scholars, than English by German ones. But what will be the value of this work, should our expectations be realised? It will be worth just what it will bring as waste paper. "Deferar in vicum vendentem thus et odores,

Et piper et quidquid chartis amicitur ineptis."

The first part of a work is, generally speaking, the preface. And here, were we disposed, and had we time, we might descant a little upon some strange opinions put forward in the preface of the work under review: that obliquity or obtuseness of mental vision, which cannot see that the same arguments which make in favour of a Greek lexicon in English, equally tell in favour of annotations to Greek authors in English, and that Frenchmen as much need a Greek lexicon in French, as Englishmen in English and the quaintness of style in which parts, if not the whole, of it are written. To us it looks much more like the language in masquerade, than drawn from the pure well of English undefiled. But, as it is our intention to extend these remarks to no greater length than we can avoid, and we propose to bring them into as narrow a compass as possible, we shall proceed, however strong may be the temptation to the contrary, to state what fault we have to find with the manner in which the work on our table is executed; for, as to the plan on which a Greek-English lexicon ought to be constructed, all, or almost all, are now agreed, from whose views the authors of the particular work before us (whatever they may do in practice) do not, in theory, at least, seem to dissent. In fact, had they only as well filled up, as they have sketched, the outline of their work, we should have had a far more agreeable and satisfactory task to perform.

The faults or defects which we have observed in our examination of Messrs. Liddell and Scott's Greek and English Lexicon will, we conceive, all conveniently fall under two heads: first, under the head of omissions; and secondly, under that of mistranslations of Passow, or wrong meanings assigned to words, or both.

The omissions with which it is chargeable are manifold. We will chiefly instance four: First, the omission of references in the case of words which are found in it; secondly, the omission of a reference to the earliest author in whom a word is found, though one may be given to a later writer; thirdly, the omission of a specific reference in the case of words contained in it, though references may be made to authors in general; and lastly, the omission of many words which it ought to have contained, but in fact does not contain.

First, Messrs. Liddell and Scott omit to give references in the case of words which are to be found in their lexicon. Instances of this kind are innumerable. It is, we had almost said, the greatest blemish in their book. Our readers will be convinced of the truth of our assertion, if they will only open their lexicon at random here and there, and examine the pages turned to themselves. We dare not venture to give an opinion as to the proportion which the words without references bear to the words with references, not having taken the pains to make any such calculation; but, though we cannot be so particular and exact, it is very considerable. Till this fault or defect be remedied, either by the conductors themselves, or some one else, we shall never possess a complete Greek and English Lexicon. With regard to the lexicon, entitled to put forward a claim, if not to absolute, yet to such perfection and completeness as the public have a right to require, and such an one as it is our wish to see produced, we hold that every word and every different meaning assigned to any word contained in it, should be verified by a quotation from, or a reference to, some author, as Passow has done for Homer, Hesiod, and Herodotus; and as he intended to do, had his invaluable life been spared, for every other Greek writer whose productions, or any portions of whose productions, have come down to us. In proof of this, we refer such of our readers as understand German to the prefaces prefixed to the several

editions of his lexicon, compared with what he did for Homer, Hesiod, and Herodotus ; and we further beg to quote an extract from a letter which he wrote to his old preceptor, F. Jacobs, on the publication of the first part of it, for which we beg to acknowledge ourselves indebted to the preface of Messrs. Liddell and Scott's work :"It would be worth a great deal to me," says he, "to hear your judgement on the plan of my lexicon, especially on the manner in which I have given the first place to the Homeric senses, and then to those of Hesiod; my purpose being to go on in regular historical order, and thus to arrive at something like completeness. These Homeric and Hesiodic articles I have worked up with real diligence, trusting wholly to myself; and here I hope nothing will be found wanting that can properly be required in a lexicon. All the rest has been put together from Schneider's materials (often raw enough), with my own notes, marginal and interlinear; and this part will be found more or less perfect, according to the measure of Schneider's exactness and my own carefulness. In the conjunctions, however, particles, and prepositions, I have found it necessary to go below Homer, and beyond Schneider. If I live for a second edition, the old lyric and elegiac poets, with the prose of Herodotus and Hippocrates, shall be worked into the text on the same principles; in a third, the Attic poets; and then the Attic prose. In this way I hope gradually to come nearer to my ideal of a good lexicon, and to bring organic connection into the thing of shreds and patches which we now have."

Secondly, Messrs. Liddell and Scott frequently omit to give a reference to the earliest author in whom a word occurs, though they may give one to a later writer. This fault also detracts very largely from the value of their performance, and they must carefully correct it, if they would achieve the honour of producing a lexicon at all approaching completeness. In the 101st number of The Quarterly, in which is contained a review of the Greek and English Lexicon of Dr. Donnegan, the writer of that able article, when speaking incidentally of Schneider's lexicon, and animadverting on the same fault in his work, thus admirably expresses himself: :-" And again, we might have expected that Schneider would make a point of quoting, as his authority for the meaning of a word, the most ancient or one of the purest writers in which it occurs; that where, for instance, a word or a meaning was found in the old epic language of Homer, we should find Homer cited as the example; but, strange to say, Schneider has so much neglected, except in a few articles, those primeval monuments of the Greek language, that he frequently refers us to Apollonius Rhodius, Nicander, Oppian, Quintus Smyrnæus, or Nonnus, where he ought to have quoted the Iliad or the Odyssey; and, in general, we should think it more likely to meet with the solution of a difficulty occurring in one of those later and comparatively unknown writers, than in those of an earlier and more classical period-of Homer, of Herodotus, of Pindar, or of Plato." And toward the end of the same article, when giving an outline of such a Greek and English Lexicon as he wished, and we ourselves wish to see, the same able writer observes :-"It should be an invariable rule, in the commencement of a new line of lexicography, never to admit a meaning for which there is not some good and undoubted authority, and to affix to each meaning the authority on which it rests, or the passage from which it is drawn : of course, the earliest or best author should be preferred.' In fact, Messrs. Liddell and Scott themselves do, in theory, recognise the principle for which we are contending; for, in the preface of their work, they say, "Our plan has been that marked out and begun by Passow; viz., to make each article a history of the usage of the word referred to: that is, we have always sought to give the earliest authority for its use first." Such was, they say, the rule which they laid down for themselves in the construction of their lexicon; but have they adhered to it? We will, by way of example, point out a few instances in which they have not, and from which it will appear what reliance is to be placed on the accuracy of their lexicon in this respect. The following is a pretty extensive family of Greek words: κεφαλαλγέω, κεφαλαλγής, κεφαλαλγία, κεφαλαλγικός.

We subjoin the words with their meanings, and the references by which they are supported in the dictionary of Messrs Liddell and Scott :

kepaλaλyέw, ƒ. now, to suffer from head-ache, Diosc. from

kegaλaλyýs, éç, (äλyos) suffering from headache, Plut. II. act. causing headache, Xen. An. 2, 3, 15.

Hence,

kepaλaλyía, n, headache, Aretæ., Plut.

κεφαλαλγικός, ή, όν,= κεφαλαλγής, both act. & pass., Gal.

Of this family of words, as our readers perceive, they do not quote Hippocrates as their authority for so much as a single one; though he very frequently, as might have been expected, uses them all, except кepaλaλys and kepaλαλyikóg, in the second signification assigned to them. In this sense we do not recollect that he uses the words at all.

Another still more extensive family of words, is καρηβάρεια, καρηβαρέω, καρηβαρής, καρηβάρησις, καρηβαρία, καρηβαριάω καρηβαρικός, καρηβαρίτης, which, as in the former case, we subjoin from Messrs. Liddell and Scott, with their meanings, and the references appended to them.

καρηβάρεια, η, heaviness in the head, headache, also καρηβαρία and καρηβάρησις : from καρηβαρέως. ήσω, (κάρη, βαρύς) to be heavy in the head, have a bad headache : hence, to hang the head, also Thy Kepaλjν к. Arist. Part. An. Att.—páw, Theophr. Odor. 46. Cf. καρηβαριάω : from

KapηBaphs, és, heavy in the head, Synes. Hence,

καρηβάρησις, εως, ή, and καρηβαρία, ή, = καρηβάρεια.

καρηβαριάω, = καρηβαρέω, Ar. Fr. 625. where Lob. Phryn. 80, reads καρηβαρᾶν. KapηBaρikós, ý, óv, heavy in the head, II. causing headache, olvos, Hipp. καρηβαρίτης, ου, o, making the head heavy, οἶνος.

Of the words belonging to this family they do cite Hippocrates as the authority for καρηβάρεια and καρηβαρικός, ΙΙ.; but he also uses καρηβαρής, καρηβαρία, and καρηρικός, Ι.

In the same page of Passow we also have the following family of words, kapdiaλyéw, καρδιαλγής, καρδιαλγία, καρδιαλγικός. As their authority for καρδιαλγέω, καρδιαλγικός they quote Hippocrates; for καρδιαλγής they quote Galen, and for καρδιαλγία they cite no authority at all. Hippocrates has both.

Similar instances of whole families of words, or of single words, might be easily multiplied; but we, and our readers, too, perhaps, may think that we have already alleged sufficient, and therefore we forbear to adduce any more. After a pretty extensive and careful examination of their book, we will venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, or, at least, of our assertion being disproved, that there are very few, if any, pages in it in which they will not be found to occur; so that, if they do quote a writer as an authority for a word, we cannot be sure that he is the earliest author who employs and makes use of it. The rule itself, to quote, wherever a word will admit of it, the earliest writer in whom it is found as the authority for it, is a most important and valuable one; but Messrs. Liddell and Scott, if they ever did lay it down for themselves in theory, did so-only to depart from it in practice.*

• After this article was finished, a friend of ours, to whom we were showing this lexicon, drew our attention to the word vεupów, with its reference, Alciphron. This led us to observe, that Hippocrates is the earliest author in whom we recollect having met the word. It also occurs frequently in Philo Judæus, and once even in Aristophanes. Now, between Hippocrates and Alciphron, according to their own showing, there intervened 630 years. But what are 630 years to Messrs. Liddell and Scott?

For Avμavrikóg, too, the authority which they cite is the Geoponica. The earliest writer in whom it occurs is, to the best of our recollection, Philo. It is also used by Epictetus. Between Philo Judæus and the Geoponica there was, according to their own table, an interval of rather less than 900 years. This is, indeed, giving the earliest authority for the use of a word first with a vengeance!

Again, in their preface, Messrs. Liddell and Scott say, "We subjoin an alphabetical catalogue of authors quoted, together with a note of the edition used, to which (as above stated) we have been careful to make uniform reference. The date of each author's floruit' is added in the margin; and, by comparing this with the short summary of the chief epochs of Greek literature prefixed to the catalogue, it will be easy to determine the time of a word's first usage, and of its subsequent changes of signification." Of course, they cannot object to our testing the accuracy of their book,

The best proof of this would have been invariably to have appended a specific reference to the earliest author in their list in whom any given word occurs, as their authority for it. But this they have not done,

« PreviousContinue »