ART. V-1. A Greek and English Lexicon for the Greek Classics in general, &c. By the Rev. Greville Ewing. Third Edition. Glas gow. Printed at the University Press. 1827.

2. A Greek and English Lexicon, &c.; considerably enlarged and carefully revised. By the Rev. John Groves. Third Edition. Glasgow. 1829.

INCE the Greek and German Lexicon of Schneider, and the Greek and French Lexicon of Planche, have been used with advantage by the respective nations for whom they were intended, an opinion has been slowly but surely establishing itself in England, that we too ought to have Greek and English Lexicons. The necessity which once existed for interpreting Greek through the medium of Latin no longer exists: the Latin has ceased to be the general language of the learned; and, except in a few strong holds where prejudice still fights against reason, the Latin, as the medium of interpretation, is abandoned for the mother tongue.

This is a great step towards improvement in education. Our early years are spent over the study of the Latin and Greek; it is a fashion we have inherited, and we could not lay it aside suddenly, even if it were desirable to do, so. As Latin and Greek must, then, form the basis of our public education, it is to be hoped that all zealous instructors will betake themselves to the best means of accomplishing what has always been professed, but has never yet been done; namely, the teaching of these languages in such a manner, that a student may read any Greek or Latin author with pleasure and advantage. To do this effectually and certainly, the Greek language must be interpreted by means of the English; and the Latin must be used in Greek instruction in no other way than for the purpose of etymological comparison, and occasional illustration.

Besides the two Lexicons, a brief examination of which is proposed, a translation of Schrevelius, together with the Lexicons of Jones and Donnegan, has been some time known and used: it is sufficient to mention this, and the fact of Groves and Ewing having each attained a third edition, to shew that a great change has been effected in our public education.

But it is not enough to make a new thing; unless it be also a good one, we gain little by the change. Though an English word is put instead of a Latin one, we get no new knowledge, unless it be a more exact and definite term than that which it displaces. If the general principles of Lexicography are no bet→ ter understood by modern compilers, than by the original framers

of Lexicons, the public will derive but small benefit from changing the medium of interpretation.

The true basis of all Lexicography, particularly in the Greek and kindred languages, is an examination of the etymological structure of these tongues. This examination is founded on a comparison of words; and for the purpose of comparing words with precision, we classify them according to their terminations. For the Greek language this has already been done in the "Dictionarium Analogicum Græcæ Lingua" of Hoogeveen, printed at Cambridge in 1810; a work which, with an unpretending title, comprehends materials indispensable for the Lexicographer and Etymologist. In this Lexicon, all the words of the Greek language are arranged according to their terminations in a reverse alphabetical order: the only thing in which it differs from other Lexicons is, that we read from the end of a word towards its beginning. For example, all the adjectives in -vos, as λιθινος, πηλινος, &c. are found together under the letter : all the verbs in ανω as λανθ-ανω, λαμβ-ανω, μανθανω, &c. are found under the letter w.

A comparison of many words which have the same termination leads us to observe, that most words are formed of two parts that are easily separable; one the element or root, the other a suffix or part appended. The root is that element which hast a general meaning; the suffix is that which modifies the meaning of the element to which it is attached, itself having probably once been an integral and significative element.

An example will make this intelligible. The Greek element which signifies to give is do or dw for nearly every root admits both the long and short vowel; the usage of one in preference to the other being merely a euphonical consideration. Thus we have, di-du-u, I give; do-roç, given; do-rnp, a giver; do-ois, the act of giving; dw-pov, a gift.

The most common form of a root is that of two consonants with a vowel or vowels between them, as orup, to sow; λaß, to lay hold of; way or any, to peg or fasten. A general expression for all roots may be easily exhibited the forms and σ IKT, which are, respectively a single vowel, and a vowel between pairs of consonants, contain nearly every possible form of a root. The possible forms, then, are σπικτ, σπικ, σπι, πικτ, πικ, πι, ι, (κ, εκτ the form or occurs as a root occasionaliy, when, for euphonical considerations, the short vowel between the two consonants is dropped.

Every word, then, which admits of a probable explanation, contains something in it by which the family to which it belongs is recognised its particular rank, station, and duties in the

family are indicated by parts prefixed or suffixed. As in all languages, sounds and their representatives are modified by the other sounds with which they are placed in juxta-position, it is necessary to observe well these modifying causes for the purpose of detecting the root. Thus in λαβ-ρος, λα(μ)β-ανω, ληπ-σομαι, ληπ-τος, ληφθεις, λημ-μα, there is the same element λαβ or ληβ modified by circumstances; the μ in λa(u)ß-ave is a euphonic λα(μ)β-ανω and necessary insertion analogous to the v in λa(v)~J-avw, the y in Tʊ(7)x-avw, and in к(y)x-avw.

It is the business of the Lexicographer to exhibit the root of each word in a manner so distinct, that it may strike the eye of a learner, and show itself clear and detached from all appendages and trappings. When the roots of a few words are well understood, the pupil easily recognises them in other examples, and being acquainted with the modifying nature of the suffixes or prefixes, he assigns a meaning to new words without the trouble of consulting a Lexicon. In this way it is not necessary to learn every word separately; if a pupil knows the tests by which a word is to be tried, he ascertains, without the aid of books, the general meaning of the word, and the exact limits of attainable knowledge on the subject.

Suppose a student to be acquainted with the element Bad which exists in Baw, and all forms of that word; he will recognize it easily in βολος, λιθο-βολος, βελ-ος, ε-βαλ-ον, &c. In ẞλ(n)ros, ẞλ(n) Ous, &c. he may not discover it at first; but a comparison of these forms with κλ(η)τος, κληθεις, τμ(η)τος, Tu(n)Ous, &c. will show him that a similar omission of the short vowel takes place in the roots kaλ, TEμ, &c.

τεμ;

The consonants, in fact, are the frame work of the word, and the vowels comprised between admit of many various forms: belonging to the root oπup to sow, we have orор-a, a sowing; σπαρτος, sown; σπερ-μα, seed; connected with τεμ to cut, we have rou-n, a cutting; rap-ias, a divider and distributor; Tμ(n)Tos cut, &c.

It is the business of the Lexicographer, then, to indicate in each word what is that element which makes it essentially different from other words; this is not yet done in any Lexicon, except in a very imperfect and inexact manner.

Another part of a Lexicographer's business is to endeavour to assign to each root a definite and comprehensive corresponding English word, and then to deduce, in a natural order, from this primary notion, the secondary and other derived significations. The advantage of such a method consists in the greater facility with which the various uses of one word is learned, when its remoter significations are deducible by a natural association from one striking and easily-remembered meaning.

Those meanings of words which may be termed primary appear to be expressive of the sensations which we experience from the immediate operation of physical objects: a very large number of them are nothing more than the imitation of natural sounds. To express the compound and complex ideas which are the result of a mental operation, we either require a new set of words, or we are compelled to use words already existing; in the latter case we apply them in a new manner, and give to them meanings which are metaphysical. No absurdity can be greater than that of assigning to a Greek word a variety of significations arranged in no order, and each differing from its neighbour by no definite and decisive mark. In general it will be found that three or four English words are all that are wanted, unless the word represent a thing of that kind which must be described rather than defined.

Let us see how the two Lexicons under consideration fulfil the conditions required: we will begin with the word din.

"Akn,-ns, n, Dica a deity supposed to preside over justice : justice, right, equity: an action at law, indictment, cause, judgment, decision, punishment, vengeance, vindictive judgment."-Ewing.

Groves has "justice, rectitude, equity; law; an indictment, and sixteen significations besides; and not a single one among them that presents a distinct and intelligible idea. The word Sikatoç of course signifies "just, upright, righteous," in which three words both Lexicographers agree, one having copied from the other or both from a common original: Groves, however, is the more prolific in words, and, as usual, the less productive in sense.

Neither of these Lexicographers has discovered the true meaning of dun, which is "an equivalent," "a compensation"; from this notion is derivable every usage that the word possesses. It is rather singular that a certain adverbial usage of the accusative δικην did not lead them to its true meaning : “ δικην (viz. κατα) according to justice, like"-Ewing. "diny, (viz. Kaтa) in the usual manner, according to custom, usually"-Groves.

66

66

When the Watchman, in the Agamemnon, says that he keeps his station Kuvos diny, like a dog; there is no difficulty in deriving this from its primary meaning, but it would require some torturing to deduce it from a word so unintelligible as justice, or right:

Herodotus [II. 149.] uses the word Sikatos in that primary sense which we attribute to it: αἱ δ' ἑκατον οργυιαι δικαιαι εισι σταδιον Earλε0рov, a hundred orguiæ are exactly equal to a stadium of six plethra.

Let us examine some of the words, which contain the element ax, a point: we have aκτη, ακτις, ακ-μη, ακ-ων, ακμαιος, ακμαζω,

ακμ

&c. It is a fact, which it is important to notice, that when we form a word such as aк-un, by adding the suffix un, we may consider aku as a new element, from which are formed the secondary words aкμ-aιoç, aкu-alw, by subjoining their respective suffixes. According to the explanation [See Ewing], akuaios comes from ακμαζω, and ακμαζω from ακμη, and ακμη from ακη : this explanation does not lead a pupil to observe the one element which is the basis of all.

"Axny (from a and xaive) silently, without ostentation, quietly."-Ew.

Groves has the same etymology, and twice as many significations, and, of course, twice as many blunders. Both of these Lexicographers ought to know that the word would be axavdov, not gaping, which has no connection with the word army. The Homeric formula ακήν εγενοντο σιωπη, should be translated, "they were silent all at once, suddenly, or completely;" and this usage of the accusative differs not at all from those of αρχην, δίκην, ακμην.

From being totally unacquainted with the etymological structure of this language, our Lexicon-makers fall into blunders, which would be detected by a youth of twelve years of age, who has been instructed in a proper manner.

The most ill-used word in the whole language is iornu and its relations. "'Iornu...(from ioraw) I set, place, stand, remain, &c."-Ewing. Hence the student will translate iorn, either I place, or I stand, whereas these different significations belong to different forms of the verb, which are never confounded. Groves begins thus, "Iornu, to set, place, pitch, plant;" and for the sake of making every thing simple and easy to beginners adds forty different significations, many of which depend entirely on certain words with which this verb is associated, and are unintelligible without particular examples.

μι

The formation of iornu may be thus explained: most of the verbs in μ consist of the pronominal suffix μ, the element or root, and what is usually termed the reduplication. Take as examples δι-δωμι, πι(μ)-πρη-μι, τι-η-μι, &c. : the μ in πίμπρημι is euphonic, as in λaußavw, &c.; and in rnu the unaspirated consonant is used in the first syllable instead of 9. As ora or orn is the root of iornu, the regular formation would be o-orη-, analogous to the Latin si-sto; but this is adequately represented by i-orn-u, the aspirate being often equivalent to o. The word Torauai, I know, is formed, according to Groves (who dearly loves an old orthodox etymology), from and ισημι onu; how the crept into the word he has not explained. Ewing says it is Ionic for spiorauai, by which he means to say,