if its origin had been traced to some root in our own language equally ignoble, and resembling it as nearly in point of orthography.'Philosophical Essays, p. 195. This is elegantly and plausibly expressed, and will doubtless appear very convincing to a certain class of readers. In our opinion the criticism is radically unsound, and more worthy of Lord Chesterfield than of Dugald Stewart. In fact, the implicit adoption of the principle involved in it would make us quarrel with half our national vocabulary, which must, in the nature of things, have been applied to low and familiar objects, when it was the language of a rude and barbarous people. Let us apply the canon to another expression, much more homely in its origin and associations than harbinger. We need not inform our readers who wrote the following passages Though the yesty waves Confound and swallow navigation up.' These are thy toys, and, as the snowy flake, They melt into thy yeast of waves, which mar With all due reverence for Partridge's maxim-de gustibus -we cannot help maintaining that no man can perceive the full power of the above nervous expressions, unless he knows precisely what yeast means; and, moreover, that the critic who would quarrel with them on account of the connexion of the word with malt, hops, and beer-barrels, and propose the substitution of froth, foam, or any similar milk and water expression, had better shut up Shakspeare and Byron, and devote himself to the study of French tragedies. It seems as absurd to quarrel with a forcible and appropriate poetical epithet on account of the homeliness of its origin, as it would be to despise a beautiful butterfly, because it was once a caterpillar; and, to pursue the analogy, it is as interesting and instructive to trace the progress of language from rudeness to refinement, as to watch the successive transformations of the various tribes of insects. Once more: Mr. Stewart describes philologists as a useful sort of inferior drudges, who may often furnish their betters with important data for illustrating the progress of laws, of arts, and of manners, or for tracing the migrations of mankind in ages of which we have no historical records. It does not seem to have occurred to him that it is very possible for the profound philologist, and the enlightened antiquary or historian, to be united in the same person; and that he who derives this species of knowledge from the fountainhead, must possess a great superiority over him who has it at second or third hand, as all can testify who know and are able to appreciate the profound researches of such men as the late illustrious Humboldt. Humboldt. Had Mr. Stewart himself possessed a little more of this sort of knowledge, he would never have brought forward that most extraordinary theory of the origin of Sanscrit, which he supposes to be a mere factitious language, manufactured by the Bramins on the model of the Greek. This, we are willing to admit, is the most flagrant absurdity that has emanated from the Scotch school since the days of Monboddo. Our anxiety to vindicate a favourite pursuit has rather led us astray from our purpose, which is, to make some remarks on the present state of English lexicography. We shall not laboriously attempt to demonstrate the value of a good dictionary, or to show that there is as much reason for compiling a good one of the English language as of any other. Even supposing that we did not require such a work for ourselves, it must at all events be wanted by those foreigners who take an interest in our literature. In most parts of Europe, a knowledge of English is now a necessary part of a liberal education, and the scholars of Germany and Denmark are not satisfied with a meagre school vocabulary, but go to the best and most original sources of information, wherever they can procure them. It is, therefore, of great importance to them that the words of our language should be carefully collected and correctly explained, as they cannot always have recourse, like ourselves, to living sources of information. We heartily wish, for their sakes, as well as for our own credit, that they had some better guidance than they can command at present. We fear that our best means and appliances are far from trustworthy, and we feel rather inclined to agree with a worthy Hibernian of our acquaintance, who declared that the only good English dictionary we possess is Dr. Jamieson's Scottish one. None of our lexicographers has equalled, or even approached, the venerable Doctor's industry in collecting words, or his skill and care in explaining them; and though etymology is his weakest point, he has, even in this department, a decided superiority over his southern competitors. Etymology and philology do not seem to thrive on British ground. We were indebted to a foreigner (Junius) for the first systematic and comprehensive work on the analogies of our tongue, and it is humiliating to think how little real improvement has been effected in the two centuries that have since elapsed. We have manifested the same supineness in other matters connected with our national literature. We have allowed a Bavarian to print the first edition of the Old Saxon evangelical harmony-the most precious monument of the kind, next to the Moso-Gothic Gospels-from English manuscripts. In like manner, we are indebted to a Dane for the first printed. text of Beowulf, the most remarkable production in the whole range of Anglo-Saxon literature; and we have to thank another Dane Dane for our knowledge of the principles of Anglo-Saxon versification, and for the only grammar of that language which deserves the name. We have had, it is true, and still have, men who pride themselves on their exploits in English philology, but the best among them are much on a par with persons who fancy they are penetrating into the profoundest mysteries of geology, while they are only gathering up the pebbles that lie on the earth's surface.* We admit that Horne Tooke dug more deeply than his competitors, and by no means without success; but, for want of practical knowledge, he often laboured in the wrong vein, and as often failed to turn the right one to the utmost advantage. One principal cause for the little progress hitherto made in this branch of science is, that it has too often been studied as physiology was before the time of Galileo and Bacon. It was found easier to guess than to explore; consequently, almost every etymologist-instead of forming his system from a copious and careful induction of facts-sets out with a determination to reduce everything to a certain preconceived chimerical theory. One starts with the doctrine, that Celtic was certainly spoken in Paradise; another assumes the identity of Irish with Phoenician; a third undertakes to prove that Welsh is the oldest daughter of the Hebrew. Murray clearly sees all languages lurking in nine uncouth monosyllables-like forests of oaks in a few acorns; Voss is content with extracting Greek from a couple. On this, a German philologist, of a better stamp, sarcastically observes, that we may just as well undertake to derive every word in every language from the vowel A; and that, if such theories are to be tolerated at all, the simplest must necessarily be the best. All extravagancies of this sort deserve to be classed with Darwin's process for manufacturing animal bodies from irritable fibres; and make us long for the re-appearance of Aristophanes on earth, to put the dreaming authors-λεπτοτάτων λήρων ἱερεῖς-in the Clouds. Another great source of failure has been, that nearly all our English etymologists took up their trade without sufficient capital; and showed themselves grievously deficient in the various kinds of knowledge requisite to pursue it with success. It is not sufficient to collect a mass of apparently similar words, according to their initial letters in dictionaries; an etymologist ought to know the affinity and different degrees of affinity between languages-to study the genius and grammatical structure of each-and, above all, to possess a certain intuitive quickness of perception, com * We are far from intending to include all our Anglo-Saxon scholars of the present day in this censure. We admired, and sincerely regret, Mr. Conybeare. Some others of them-especially Mr. Kemble and Mr. Thorpe-have also done good service in this department, and we sincerely hope that they will live to do a great deal more. bined with sound judgment, capable of distinguishing the real from the imaginary. Without this faculty of discrimination, mere ponderous learning is often worse than useless-the more a man knows, the more blunders he is likely to commit. We have a signal example of this in our countryman Hickes. Few works exhibit more zeal and industry than his Thesaurus;' and those who can separate the wheat from the chaff may glean from it a great deal of valuable information. Nevertheless, we should be sorry to send a fellow-creature thither for elementary instruction. Though he had so little discrimination as to confound old Saxon and Francic-the very north and south poles of the Germanic dialects-he, in an unlucky hour, took upon himself to determine ex cathedrá the different periods of the Anglo-Saxon language, and to classify its written monuments according to their different degrees of purity or impurity. His method of proceeding was summary enough: he first constructed a grammatical and critical system of his own, on the most erroneous and imperfect data; and then proceeded to stigmatise everything that did not seem to accord with it, as Dano-Saxon, and corrupt. As he was unable to distinguish between archaisms and poetical forms, and actual corruptions, he has included under the above head innumerable compositions which do not exhibit a single Danish peculiarity, grammatical or verbal; some of them, in fact, being written before the Danish invaders were seen or heard of. Most unfortunately, he has been looked up to as a paramount authority for more than a century; consequently, his labours have been, in many respects, more injurious than beneficial. We do not hesitate to say, that a man may learn more of the genius of the AngloSaxon language, and of the true principles of its grammar, from Rask, in a single week, than he will be likely to do in a year from the ponderous, ill-digested, and bewildering compilation of Hickes. Of course, not much was to be expected from the successors of Hickes, who had his faults without a tithe of his learning or industry. Some of them seem to have been qualified for the office they undertook, in the same way as the macers in the Scottish courts, of whom,' as the author of Redgauntlet records, it is expressly required that they shall be persons of no knowledge.' Not only do they manifest a gross ignorance of the grammatical structure of the languages they have to deal with, but a total want of perception of their most obvious analogies. The changes in corresponding words of kindred languages are not arbitrary and capricious, but regulated by fixed and deeply-seated principles; especially in the radical words of the more ancient dialects. When we meet with a simple verbal form in Anglo-Saxon, we know be forehand forehand in what shape it may be expected to occur in Icelandic, as well as what further modification it is likely to undergo in Danish and Swedish. Of this sort of knowledge-the very foundation of all rational etymology—our word-catchers do not seem to have had the smallest tincture, and consequently they are perpetually allowing themselves to be seduced by imaginary resemblances into the most ludicrous mistakes. One of their deficiencies is extraordinary enough in these days of universal diffusion of knowledge. We have taken some pains in making ourselves acquainted with our recent lexicographers and glossarists, and find great reason to doubt whether any two of the whole tribe have so much as a schoolboy acquaintance with modern German. It is well known that this language is of the utmost importance to the philologist, not only on account of the extent of its vocabulary and the number and value of its ancient literary monuments, but further, because the best works on almost every branch of the subject are only accessible to a person acquainted with it. Perhaps the writings of Grimm, Bopp, and their coadjutors-men who seem likely to effect the same sort of revolution in European philology that Cuvier wrought in the sciences of comparative anatomy and geology-have scarcely had time to make their way among our scholars: but how comes it that so little use has been made of works which have been forty or fifty years before the public? We indeed occasionally meet with references to Schilter, Haltaus, Wachter, and Richey, whose Latin furnishes some clue to their meaning; but we have looked in vain for an etymology from the valuable Bremisch-Sächsisches Wörterbuch-the Holsteinisches Idiotikon-the elaborate work of Stalder on the dialects of Switzerland; and what is still more extraordinary, we have not found the smallest notice taken of the celebrated dictionary of Adelung-which, as a comprehensive etymological depository, perhaps claims precedence over every European work of the same class. We can only account for this by concluding that the key to those treasures was wanting. The explanations and definitions are German-opoopa TEUTOVES-consequently, any attempt of the uninitiated to give us the benefit of them would have had the success of George Primrose's wellmeant attempt to teach the Dutch English. It is, however, time to take some notice of the different works we are professing to review. The limits of an article necessarily preclude all detailed analysis of their contents; we shall, therefore, give our opinion of their respective merits as briefly as we can. Concerning Mr. Todd's labours, we do not think it necessary to say much. He has shown much industry in collecting words from our old writers; and has made sundry corrections, which are not without their value. In short, it is easy to perceive that he has read |