ing features of its history and mythology; to discover the means of reproducing the master-pieces of the Latin language in all ages; and to present to us, in an available form, the results of such an investigation, embracing the collected labors of the most accomplished scholars who have ever devoted their attention to such subjects, it certainly deserves the careful examination, and, if successful, the warm admiration, of all who may have occasion to avail themselves of it.

We have no desire or intention to overrate the difficulties of the task. But we believe that we shall meet with no contradiction, if we assert that hardly any two languages could be selected from those of the ancient or modern nations of Europe, differing more in the arrangement of their idioms, the construction of their sentences, and the nature of the signification of their words, than do the Latin and English. The very nature of our own language is enough to induce such a difference. Its singular union of Teutonic and Celtic roots and dialects with that which it has borrowed from the Latin, gives to its distinctive features an aspect entirely different from that of any language which claims a more simple origin. We know the great difficulty which every foreigner experiences in his endeavors to acquire it; how much greater, then, must be the difficulty of collating its words, phrases, and constructions with those of any dead language!

We must be careful, also, to remember that a knowledge of Latin, such as to enable one to cope successfully with the difficulties of which we speak, is not an every-day affair. It is one thing to read a Latin classic easily, even critically, and quite another to understand the details of the language and the several relations which they bear to each other. The rarity of this accomplishment may be perceived in the difficulty, which approaches an impossibility, experienced by every modern author who attempts to write in one of the dead languages. We believe that we speak quite within bounds, when we say that no person who has written in Latin since it ceased to be a living language, has succeeded in so exactly imitating his classical prototypes, that the modern date of his production would not be detected by a skilful classical scholar. Nor is he thus detected merely from the over-nicety or precision of his language, as those sometimes are who use a tongue which they have learned by rule merely ; but because it is impossible for any author so constantly to retain in mind the precise peculiarities of the signification and history of

every Latin word, as always to use each one precisely in its proper place, although he may be able to detect many errors similar to his own in the works of another. Sir James Mackintosh has a remark on this point, which will, in a manner, illustrate our meaning. In his diary he says:

666

Through thick and thin,'-By hook and crook,'With might and main,'-were, in the time of Spenser, phrases admissible in poetry; if any writer, when English becomes a dead language, should mix these phrases with the style of Gray, he would make a jumble, probably resembling our best Latinity."

This is undoubtedly true; and the particular examples given will be enough to suggest to the reader's mind many others, which would go far to add to the incongruity of this jumbled English. It is evident, then, that the mere circumstance, that many men can readily read and write in both English and Latin, is far from proving that there is, by any means, a general knowledge of the niceties of the comparison of the idioms of the two languages. The first of these acquirements is comparatively superficial and easy of attainment; the other is one which is perhaps never acquired by a single individual, and its results can only be arranged in a form suitable for general reference by the united labor of many scholars.

In mentioning, as we do, niceties of meaning and of idiom, and details of style and construction, we do not wish to deal in unmeaning general terms. If this were the proper place, we could adduce examples without number, to illustrate the niceties and details to which we refer. Any one who has the slightest knowledge of any of the dead languages, will understand their nature. To say nothing of the differences of the origin of the English and Latin languages-we see at once that nations, whose habits of thought, whose manners, history, philosophy, and politics, are of a nature so entirely different from ours, as were those of the ancient republics, must have had many entirely different ideas; and, consequently, a vocabulary of a nature entirely different from ours. Nations whose languages are formed on national characteristics, climate, and associations, at entire variance with each other, must have very different idioms and constructions. The attempt to compare them is not unlike that of teaching a deaf and dumb person, unused to any communication but by general signs, the manner of reading a written language. He wants that which makes it

so easy to others—the perfect familiarity with spoken words. In comparing a dead with a living language, we want the perfect familiarity with the ideas conveyed, and with the ancient habits of thought and expression, which we can have in the study of any of the modern languages. In thus speaking of the study of Latin, we mean, of course, its accurate and precise study. It may be superficially acquired, and to much profit, also, with as little labor as most languages.

Comparatively little assistance for the faithful execution of this task, can, from the nature of the case, be derived from the older English philologists. The very existence of a dictionary, as we now understand the word, was impossible, till within the three last centuries, before which period, many of the other branches of criticism, of much less importance than this, had attained a vigorous growth. It was not, indeed, till late in the seventeenth century that our language was 30 far settled, that any studies founded on its existing state at any particular period, would be of much use to subsequent critics; and long after that time, the minds of the scholars who turned their attention to such branches as lexicography, were so completely imbued with the spirit and idiom of a dead language, that they were not able to treat of their own in its purity. Their English is, after all, rather a Latin-English, than the language which was used by their countrymen. far, too, as mere definitions of words are concerned, no direct information, of course, could be derived from ancient authors. The Roman grammarians treated, at great length, and in detail, of the construction of their language, and the powers of its several parts; modern grammarians, therefore, have had something ancient on which to build their labors; but, excepting this, the lexicographer has no direct aid, but is obliged to obtain his results by a constant, persevering application to the whole field of classical study.

So

The mere creation of a vocabulary, however, in which the definitions of the words in one language shall be explained by corresponding words in another, is, as we have implied, but the smallest part of his labors. Any treatise on synonyms, or any course of classical reading, will show how nice are the shades of meaning between different words; these shades it is his duty to point out with care, that the student may not be misled so as to misunderstand the real relation between different words in the same language. Again; he will find

many words which will have no correlative terms in English; these he must explain as he best can by circumlocution. He will find, also, that one party of philosophers use a certain set of words in one sense, while another party give them quite a different one; and the causes and results of this difference come into his field of inquiry. The words which he will have to explain will frequently be technical terms, and here, if he does his duty thoroughly, he will attempt to exhibit their origin and real signification. Locke, in speaking on a similar subject to that before us, alludes to this difficulty -of expressing in one language names of objects and terms in art unknown to the people who use another-and suggests that small pictures might be advantageously introduced into our lexicons to explain the meanings of words which have no correlative terms. If the lexicographer does not adopt this somewhat clumsy expedient, he will find himself obliged to make a free use of explanatory language whenever he comes to one of such terms.

An extract from Mr. Leverett's preface will still further explain this point:

"There seems to be no valid reason why a dictionary, certainly of an ancient language, may not, in some measure, assume the form of an encyclopedia, if fuller illustration of the meaning and use of words is thereby afforded; more especially, as such a work must needs fall into the hands of many who are scantily furnished with the means of information upon the auxiliary departments of history, antiquities, etc., not to say grammar. In such a case, the work is better overdone, than come tardy off. It is hoped, then, that the occasional detail, which has been indulged in, with respect to these accessory matters, so far from being viewed as superfluous, will prove some recommendation to the work. It will be perceived, for instance, that in such words as castra, circus, and the like, and especially in the names of public officers, (as consul, tribunus, etc.,) many things are introduced which, though strictly belonging to the province of antiquities, throw light upon the meaning of the words and their derivatives. It will also be observed, that in accordance with the same principle, much care has been bestowed upon proper names and their derivative adjectives and substantives. This, it is presumed, is none the less important for having been hitherto so much neglected. The vast and imposing mythology of the ancients was admirably adapted for the groundwork of their poetry; and the poets have, accordingly, built much upon it. It being thus, in a measure, the staple of their works, it is not surprising that passing allusions are made to their mythical gods and heroes with a

frequency which can never be approached in similar cases in any modern language; and that, from the names of these illustrious personages, they have formed various epithets-as the flexible nature of their languages, especially the Greek, enabled them to dowhich would be utterly unintelligible without some acquaintance with their fabulous traditions. The same remark applies with equal force to those ancient cities and hills, which had become consecrated by so many recollections, that their names were the property of the poet. No one would guess that Perimedeus meant magical, or that Titania astra meant the sun, or what equus Trojanus would denote, in its figurative sense, unless he had some knowledge of the derivation of these words. This holds good, also, of other similar derivative adjectives. When we find in Catullus Odissem te odio Vatiniano, this is a riddle to us, till we learn that Cicero, by his raillery and sarcasm, made his enemy, Vatinius, the object of such hatred, that odium Vatinianum became a byword. Examples of this kind might be multiplied almost without number."

The reader will at once perceive over how wide a field such a plan of operations as that thus laid down will take the lexicographer. The technicalities of every art must fall under his eye, the original meaning of every colloquial phrase, the derivation of every cant term in the language he is illustrating, must be investigated in the performance of his duties. More than this, however, he must understand enough of the different classical writers and their objects, to know exactly in what lights they themselves viewed the matters of which they wrote. He must not mistake the aim and style of one writer, by judging it according to the rules he has laid down

for another.

Recently, the means have been afforded for a much more complete exposition of ancient geography than those which our predecessors had at command. Many of the scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, whose erudition on other points cannot be doubted, fell into sad errors on this point. We cannot blame them for this, certainly, for they probably knew as much of ancient geography, as any as any intelligent man of their time did of modern. But the age of geography had not then begun. Indeed, many of our difficulties in explaining ancient geography, and many of the strange perversions of the ancient nomenclature, arise from the barbarism of the mariners and geographers of the middle ages. The Venetian mariners contorted the Greek name of the