Thirdly; our lexicographers omit to give a specific reference in the case of words contained in their work, though references may be made to authors in general. That in making this assertion we bring no false charge against them, our readers, if they will only take the trouble to examine a few pages of their work themselves, which may again be selected at random, will soon find ample and convincing proof; since the fault or defect on which we are animadverting is one of constant recurrence.* To such early authorities as Homer, Hesiod, and Herodotus, the three tragedians, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, &c., the references are in general specific enough; but not to such writers as Aristotle, Theophrastus, Polybius, Strabo, Plutarch, Dioscorides, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Appian, Josephus, Lucian, Philo Judæus, the later poets, &c. In regard to the former, the line, the book and line, the book and chapter, or the book, chapter, and section, are specified; but not so in the case of the latter. We by no means intend to assert that no late writer is ever specifically referred to, though we do not recollect having observed any such instance; but if such ever is the case, this forms not the rule, but the exception. Now, we really cannot ourselves see any sufficient ground for making such a distinction. To us it appears that a specific reference is as much called for in the one case as in the other. According to the old adage, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In a work like their abridgement, designed, we presume, merely for schoolboys, a bare general reference may, perhaps, be sufficient; but not so, we hold, in their larger work, intended, we suppose, for more advanced scholars. There every reference ought to have been specific; and where such is not the case, we are of opinion that there might as well have been no reference at all. We think our readers will coincide with us in this opinion, if they only consider what is the use of a reference. References in a lexicon are valuable, as answering a threefold purpose; first, as showing when any given word first came into common use (though we admit the proof is, in some degree, incomplete, since, of many writers, the works have altogether perished, and we have only fragments of others, and it is not impossible that a word might be used in the language of common life long before it found its way into any author); secondly, in so far as they enable us, if we at all question the corrrectness of a meaning assigned to a word, to satisfy our doubts by referring to the passage in which it occurs ourselves; and thirdly, as putting it in our power to discover and correct the mistakes made by lexicographers, which would otherwise in all probability remain undetected, and only be perpetuated. If to such voluminous writers as Hippocrates, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Lucian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Galen, and others, references are to be merely general, we must, it is evident, either wade through their writings, in order to discover in what part of them any given word is to be found, or we must be content to take the fidelity and skill of the lexicographer on trust. But who will take the trouble to search through a voluminous writer for a single word? This were almost worse than to look for a needle in a bottle of hay.

by applying to it this rule of their own. Here, then, is the result in the case of vwpóc and νωθρότης. The authority they cite for νωθρός is Plato, and for νωθρότης Aristotle. Now, Plato flourished, according to them, 395 (though we doubt whether their dates are always to be implicitly depended upon); and Aristotle 356 B.C. We should err, however, if we concluded these to be the times of these words' first usage. They both occur in Hippocrates, who flourished (again we follow their authority) 35 years before Plato, and 74 before Aristotle. So much for this lexicon, as a means whereby we may determine the time of a word's first usage.

Not that any proof of this is required. They plead guilty to this indictment too. In their preface they say, “In these, and writers of a like stamp, we have seldom been careful" (we only wish they had, and do not think it would have been altogether superfluous and a work of supere. rogation)" to add the special reference, being usually content with giving the name of the author;" thus indirectly acknowledging their ignorance of Passow's plan, and of the plan on which a lexicon, to be complete, ought to be constructed; or that they have not followed this plan; and consequently that their work is as valueless as one so constructed can be.

For instance, Epictetus, they say, flourished 90, and Arrian 134, A.C. In the epistolary preface to his dissertations of Epictetus, however, Arrian says he heard him deliver them. So that we cannot but think that one date is too early, or the other too late; or even that one is too early, and the other too late. But this is, perhaps, in some measure matter of opinion.

+ He also uses vo0póg in an active sense, making sluggish, &c.

Fourthly; in their work they omit many words which it ought to have contained, just as much as others which they have admitted into it. It is principally, though not exclusively, in regard to such late writers as Plutarch, Appian, Pausanias, Josephus, Maximus Tyrius, Epictetus, Philo Judæus, &c., that their work is chargeable with this fault or defect. We ourselves, a short time ago, happened to be reading a treatise of Philo Judæus, and, in the short space of only ten lines, we met with two verbs which we in vain sought for in their lexicon. The same may be said of words which occur even in so early a writer as Hippocrates. It would be idle for them to attempt to defend themselves by saying they did not consider it necessary to insert in their lexicon any words which they did not find in Passow, or more than they have inserted. From Philo they have inserted in their lexicon words which are not to be found in Passow, and we hold that it is the business of a lexicographer not to pick and choose the words which he will admit into his lexicon; but to explain and interpret every word contained in the language to which his lexicon refers: and more especially in the authors whom he professes to cite as authorities, and of whom Messrs. Liddell and Scott have prefixed to their work a pretty copious and lengthy list. Of the authors contained in this list, however, that by far the greater part were inserted for the mere purposes of ostentation and parade, and of leading the generality, so disposed to take everything on trust, so unapt to suspect any of being mere sciolists and pretenders, and so little inclined to sift things to the bottom, to form a high opinion of their own profound and extensive learning, of the diligence and research bestowed on their work, and of its completeness, every page of this lexicon furnishes ample materials for showing, and but little proof to the contrary. When we first looked through their list of authors, with the editions referred to (how wonderfully minute and particular these gentlemen are! though we could have wished they had given a little more practical proof of it), we confess that we did give them credit for having them all at their fingers' ends; and we imagined that their contents must be as familiar to them as household words: but, when we came to investigate the work itself, we were wretchedly disappointed; nor can we see any reason why they should profess to refer to the greater part of them as authorities, except that-ut lucus a non lucendo-they never refer to them at all, or, at most, they have picked up a stray reference or two to them from Passow or elsewhere. Really, we should doubt not only whether they have read the greater part of the authors in their list, but whether they have ever so much as even seen some of them.* And therefore to prefix to their book such a list, was a piece of assurance and effrontery to which we recollect no parallel, and of disingenuousness of which we should not have suspected them of being capable.

These omissions in Messrs. Liddell and Scott's work we have thus commented upon, because they are the most palpable. They are, in fact, continually meeting us. Not that they are the only ones with which their work is chargeable. We might also have noticed their omission of words which may be found in Passow, and which rest on

•This judgement of ours may, perhaps, to some of our readers appear to be a harsh one, but it is strictly founded upon an examination of their work. Of words occurring in the same author, and almost in the same page or sentence, they again and again, in their dictionary, insert one and omit another, and cite him as their authority for one, and not for another. For instance, Hippocrates has such a word as varias, which he uses both as a substantive and an adjective. Our readers, however, will in vain search for it in their lexicon. Theophrastus has a subst. Žvyía, and derived from it an adj. Súyɩvos, but they have neither; because Theophrastus uses words not to be found in Schneider's Theophrastian index, and, as Bishop Horsley reproached Dr. Priestley, they appear to be more familiar and conversant with the indexes to authors than the authors themselves. For Kpeμastup the authority whom they cite is Celsus, a Latin medical writer! It occurs in Aretaus. Citing, as they do, Celsus, and not Aretæus, as their authority for it, who would not suppose that Celsus was in their list of authors, and that Aretæus was not? According to Passow, wevixpós is exclusively a poetical word; and they say that it is "a poetical form, though the adv. Evixpws is used by Aristotle." In the later prose writers, however, the adjective itself is far from being of unusual occurrence. We have noticed it, at least, in Esop, Diodorus Siculus, and Aristides, the two latter of whom are in their list of authors, and to the former of whom they refer in their work; and, unless our memory fail us, it also occurs elsewhere. And here we would take the opportunity of observing, that we attach very little value to the division of words into poetical and non-poetical; for many words, which in the earlier writers are

indubitable authorities,* and of additional significations of words contained in their own work, of which they take not the slightest notice whatever. But enough of omissions.

Before we proceed further, however, we will pause for a few moments, in order to enquire to what cause these omissions are to be ascribed. If the writers with respect to whom their work is chargeable with the omissions which have been enumerated and dwelt upon, had not been found in their list of authors, or if they had never referred to them at all, this would perhaps have satisfactorily accounted for them; though, had those writers not been found there, and had they never been referred to, we conceive our readers will agree with us in thinking that they ought to have been. But those writers are to be found in their list of authors, and they are moreover sometimes referred to by them. Either, then, they have gone through those writers in a most careless and superficial manner; or, which we are the rather inclined to believe, they have never so much as even read them at all: and all they know of them, and all the information which their lexicon gives us concerning them (and it is meagre enough), they have picked up, at second hand, by means of indexes, &c., which, though they are certainly all very well as supplementary to, are a very poor, indifferent, and bad succedaneum for, the perusal of the authors themselves.

Perhaps Messrs. Liddell and Scott may say, that they never intended or undertook to give us a perfect lexicon. Our reply is, that we do not profess to be in their secrets, or to know what they intended or undertook to do; that, had they intended or undertaken to give us a perfect lexicon, though we should not have been surprised at their failure, we might have felt a little astonishment at their arrogance and presumption; that, had the faults or defects, which we have pointed out in their work, been fewer in number and less in magnitude, we would, in consideration of the merit of the remainder, have compassionately thrown a mantle over them, and not exposed them to the gaze of the world; and that they have not done so much or anything like so much as they ought, and we defy them to prove it. Resident members-at least one of them-of the University of Oxford, and possessing the advantages which they consequently must, having access to so many libraries; enjoying the opportunity, when they entertained any doubts, of consulting many scholars, who could resolve those doubts; with their abilities and scholarship, had they only taken sufficient time and pains; they could have done much more than they have done, and they ought to have done it. It was due alike to a regard to their own reputation as scholars to the exclusively poetical, are not unfrequently to be found in the later prose writers. Passow, and they, misled by his authority, assert that nápoios is only used in the compounds, ¿ykápoios and Emiкápolos. We have not observed it elsewhere, but it occurs once in Hippocrates. From Maximus Tyrius they (Passow has neither) have given admission into their lexicon to ȧμŋTηptov, and excluded from it onwoig, which occurs in him, in Philo, and more than once in Polyænus. They have cited Maximus Tyrius, too, as their authority for åμnrýpiov, but not for Oepiornpios, though both of them occur in the same dissertation, and within a few lines of each other. And in Polyænus, 3, 9, 32, which consists of only one sentence, there occur, evdoßondeia ψευδοενέδρα, ψευδοπροδοσία, ψευδαυτομολία, ψευδέφοδος, ψευδοπανικά. Of these the first occurs in Xenophon, and they do cite him as their authority for it. Of the rest they merely cite Polyanus as their authority for ψευδοπροδοσία and ψευδοπανικά, though they all follow each other without an intervening word, just as we have placed them. Had they read these authors, the case would, we believe, have been otherwise. But if they have not given themselves the trouble to read the more common ones, we should doubt whether they have seen the scarcer ones.

Of course, it was hardly to be expected that there would be many omissions of this description. Though we have not observed many, a few such omissions, however, do occur. For instance, they omit ykareípyw, Aretaus 1, 5, and avaπerns, Aretæus 1, 7; and though we cannot now recall them to memory, they omit others, which occur in Philo. Whether these omissions are to be ascribed to negligence, to oversight, or to doubts of the genuineness of the words so omitted, we know not; but we feel more disposed to attribute them to unavoidable incuria.

It would have been productive of an appearance of greater uniformity, had they placed àμnτήριον under an adj. ἀμητήριος, thus :--

ἀμητήριος, ία, ιον, adj. belonging to mowing or reaping: τὸ ἀ., supp. ὄργανον, a reapinghook, sickle, Max. Tyr. diss. 14.

reasonable expectations of the public-and even to common honesty itself. Much of this, however, may be attributed to the evident Tractarian sympathies of the editors, with whom nothing is more common than a lazy and ostentatious exhibition of learning at second-hand, and misquotation of their own original and indubitable manufacture.

We now proceed to advert to the second fault or defect, which, in the outset of this article, we remarked we had observed in this lexicon; viz., mistranslations of Passow, or wrong meanings assigned to words, or both; under which head the length which our remarks have already reached, admonishes us to be brief.

The first instance of this kind, which we select, is the word vouwdós. Lest any of our readers should not happen to have their book at hand, we give the word, with their interpretation of it, and the reference which accompanies it.

rouqdós, d, (vópos, ¿ðý) one who gives the law in singing or playing, the conductor. Strab.

What led them to assign this meaning to the word we know not. Neither analogy, however, nor the derivation of the word, nor the passage in which it occurs, warrants their interpretation of it. In the first place, to affix such a meaning to it is contrary to analogy. Similar compounds are, Θρηνωδός, μελωδός, ὑμνῳδός, χρησμῳδός, ψαλμωδός. Now, θρηνωδός is one who sings a dirge, μελωδός one who sings a song or strain, ipvocós one who sings a hymn, xpnoμyoós one who sings or delivers an oracle in verse, and farμyoós one who sings a psalm, and therefore voudós ought to be explained and interpreted in a similar manner. Again, if they consider voudós to be derived from vóuos, a musical strain (though we are not certain on this head), and on, and that it will consequently bear the signification which they have affixed to it, as, according to some pηvdós, not only means naniæ cantor, but also qui lugubria carmina aliis præcinit; in this supposition they are entirely mistaken. It comes from róμos, a law, and on. Accordingly, in Hederic (Scapula has not the word at all, nor, we presume, H. Stephens) the meaning assigned to it is legum cantor, legum interpres; and in Passow, Gesetzsänger, der die Gesetze absingt und deutet. And is it possible that they could ever have explained and interpreted it otherwise, had they ever seen or read the passage in which it occurs, and which we subjoin before them? Xpovται δὲ οἱ Μαζακηνοὶ τοῖς Χαρώνδα νόμοις, αἱρούμενοι καὶ νομῳδὸν, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ἐξηγητὴς τῶν νόμων, καθάπερ οἱ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις νομικοί. Strabo, 12, 2.

Another similar instance is réλeta. Again, upon what authority we know not, forsaking the, in general, safe guidance of Passow, who renders the words by Obrigkeit, Oberbefehl, Aufsicht, they render it by perfection, completion. We subjoin the passage in which it occurs, conceiving that nothing more is necessary to convince our readers whose interpretation is the correct one: Τοῖς δὲ οἰκείοις τῶν ὑπόπτων ἀρχὰς καὶ ἐπιτελείας ἐνεχείριζε κωμῶν. Polyanus, 6, 9, 3.

Nor can we, without difficulty, bring ourselves to believe that they could ever have assigned the meanings which they have to γευστικός, ή, όν, (νεύω,) and ουρανόporog, had they met and been acquainted with the following passage of Philo Judæus, in which they occur. Τὸ μὲν δὴ πῦρ, συνανέλκον γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ περὶ αὐτὴν νευστικοῦ βρίθειν ἀναγκάζεται· ἡ δὲ γῆ, κατωτάτω ταλαντεύουσα, τῷ τοῦ πυρὸς οὐρανοφοίτῳ συνεπελαφρισθεῖσα μετέωρος ἐξαίρεται. With the passage before him in which a word occurs, we do think a lexicographer may, from precipitancy or oversight, or some such cause, occasionally assign a wrong meaning to it; but we cannot well see how, not having it before him, he can assign to it a correct meaning; or if he were to do so, we should regard it rather as a piece of good luck, than the result of fidelity and skill. What value, then, is to be attached to a lexicon, the compilers of which have not, it is evident, read one half of the authors whom they profess to refer to as authorities? The meaning, deorsum tendens, from whatever source derived and upon whatever authority grounded, assigned in Hederic to vɛvoruós, to which oupavópotros is opposed, would suit the above passage of Philo much better than the signification, nodding readily, affixed to it at hap-hazard by Messrs. Liddell and Scott, or, than that which even Passow affixes to it himself.

We have also observed in their lexicon other erroneous interpretations of words occurring in Philo Judæus. We may instance άραχνοϋφής, παρησυχάζω, τοπο

Kpariw, and poσεπipoirάw; the latter of which, at least, certainly has not the same meaning in Philo, as it has, supposing a correct one to be assigned to it, in Aristides.

But though we have thus impartially and without reserve, yet we hope in the spirit of fair criticism, pointed out the faults or defects which we have observed in the lexicon of Messrs. Liddell and Scott-because we look upon this as the first step toward the removal of them-yet much of their work is deserving of unqualified praise, which we feel a pleasure in awarding to them.

We will conclude this article with a few words of parting advice. Though we have never been engaged in the task of compiling a lexicon-and we sincerely hope never to be condemned to undertake such an one, since nothing occurs to our recollection to which we can so well compare it as to his labour who, for his misdeeds in the flesh, was, according to mythological lore, in the subterranean world sentenced to roll an enormous stone up a steep hill-yet, if our advice be followed, we may perhaps live long enough to see, what we have so long and so ardently desired to see, a tolerably perfect and complete Greek and English Lexicon. We would, then, recommend Messrs. Liddell and Scott, if they ever contemplate publishing a second edition of their work, immediately to set about reading those authors whom they have not hitherto read, or to get some scholars, properly qualified, to go through them, and to compile for their use a perfect index of the words occurring in each of them. Possessed of such materials, they can, we think, hardly fail to produce a lexicon, which, while it is sure to repay the publishers of it, because it will never be superseded, will reflect lasting credit upon themselves.

II. PATRISTIC DIVINITY.

Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, on the Theophania or Divine Manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; translated into English, with Notes, from an ancient Syriac Version of the Greek Original, now lost to which is prefixed, a Vindication of the Orthodoxy and Prophetical Views of that distinguished Writer. Inscribed, by permission, to his Grace the Duke of Northumberland, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. By SAMUEL LEE, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, &c., &c. Cambridge: Printed at the University Press. London: Duncan & Malcolm.

EUSEBIUS, the father of Church History, has been equally eulogised and censured. The above work, long lost, was alluded to by Jerome in his "Vitæ Illustrium Virorum," and, doubtless, existed in the Syrian Church. Dr. Lee declares his perfect confidence in the genuineness of the text from which he has translated, and gives, indeed, satisfactory reasons for his belief. The style of Eusebius is poetical-a point to be borne in mind not only when interpreting him, but also the other fathers; for, to such a style, hyperbole and rhetoric are permissible, and, therefore, it is not to be literally interpreted. It is also very obscure. There is, likewise, a Platonic tone in its philosophy, which is again blended with the mysticism of St. John. These marks not only distinguish the work as Eusebius's, but remove it from profane appreciation. There is an esoteric air about it which commends it to the contemplatist; we should not advise its perusal by others. For such books, much preparation is wanted before the reader is disciplined for their appreciation. Where angels fear to tread, let not the unregenerate rush in. Of the manuscript from which our version has been made, the following is the account :—

Some time in the year 1839 the Rev. Henry Tattam, of Bedford, an excellent Coptic scholar, was, by the generosity of Government and a few individuals, enabled to visit Egypt, for the purpose of procuring Coptic manuscripts, in order to complete, if possible, an edition of the Coptic Scriptures. On his return he brought with