of a thorough, critical reading of the authors themselves, not merely a consultation of their indices verborum. The third step of the proceeding is the arranging and digesting of this mass of materials. A moment's reflection will convince us that, even if the first and third duty may be performed by one person, the second exceeds the power of any one man, and Freund, in his preface, frankly acknowledges as much. The necessity of a proceeding of this kind is so fully recognized in Germany, that, at one of the annual meetings of philologists, if our memory serves us right, it was at that held at Dresden, an attempt was made to mature a plan. But every thing which requires the coöperation of many is difficult of execution, and the scheme was abandoned. of the reasons, and probably one of the most influential, which renders scholars disinclined to enter upon a work requiring patient labor and unwearying perseverance, is the small chance of gaining a fame corresponding to their toil.

One

While we thus endeavor to show that Freund has not, and indeed, could not, satisfy all the claims which are now made upon a Latin dictionary, we are far from undervaluing or denying his merits. Whatever may be his shortcomings, his work is still the best; and Dr. Andrews, after resolving to furnish American classical scholars with a better dictionary than had hitherto existed, could not have made a better selection.

No lexicographer has stated with more completeness and precision than Freund has done in his preface, and we advise our readers most earnestly to peruse the whole of it,what a dictionary should accomplish. Keeping the ideal, there sketched by Freund, before our minds, while we take a brief retrospect of what had previously been done in the field of classical lexicography, and more particularly in Latin lexicography, we shall in some measure be able to judge of the merits of Freund both by themselves, and in their relation to those of his predecessors. Freund declares it to be the object of Latin lexicography to set forth the nature of every single word of the Latin language during all the periods of its existence, or, in one word, the history of every single word of the Latin language as long as it was the national language of the Roman people; that is, from the earliest times to the fall of the West-Roman empire; including even those words which,

though of foreign origin, have, by donning a Latin garb, become incorporated into the language, and obtained full citizenship. Thus, each article of the dictionary is a historical monograph of that word which is therein described. This history has to unfold the form or outer nature, and the meaning or inner nature, of the word. With regard to the form, Freund marks with precision the boundary between grammar and dictionary, clearly indicating how far the grammatical element of a dictionary extends. Inasmuch as the greater portion of Latin words are derived from radical words, it is, secondly, the duty of the history of a word to indicate the root. This is the etymological element. These two elements, the grammatical and etymological, constitute the external history of the word. The internal history of a word consists in the exhibition of its meaning, and this constitutes, thirdly, the exegetical element of lexicography. Since many words resemble one another in their meaning, it is, fourthly, the duty of lexicography to compare and distinguish these meanings, which is the element of synonymy. Only a few words, forms of words, and meanings were in use at all periods of the existence of the Latin language. The history of a word must, therefore, fifthly, state to which time a word, or a form or meaning of a word belongs; and this is the special historical or chronological element. The history of a word must, in the next place, sixthly, indicate in what style it was used, whether in poetry or prose, whether in higher or lower prose, whether as a technical term relating to religion, economy, rhetoric, philosophy, etc. This is the rhetorical element. It is, finally, seventhly, the province of the history of a word to state whether it was used frequently or seldom; and this is the statistical element. Each article in a dictionary is, therefore, a monograph of the particular word according to its inner and outer nature with reference to the seven elements above enumerated and explained.

Without attempting to give a more particular account of the application of this theory of the seven elements to the construction of the dictionary, a subject on which we refer our readers to the preface itself, we must, for a moment, look at the manner in which the exegetical element, unquestionably the most important in a dictionary, has been treated.

The first principle laid down by Freund is this, to consider among several meanings of a word that which is etymologically pointed out as its original meaning. Since the meaning indicated by etymology as the original one is naturally to be looked for in the earliest specimens of the language, Freund was led to consider these with special care. We will illustrate this point by a single example. The verb amittere has, in the age of Cicero and afterwards, almost exclusively the meaning to lose; while the etymologically original meaning, to send away, is found in numberless instances in the earlier writers, especially Plautus and Terence. We would remark in this place that Freund, while mentioning among the earliest specimens of the language the fragments of the columna rostrata, seems to entertain no doubt of its genuineness; at least, he says nothing on the subject, nor on the degree of authority attaching to it in the condition in which it has come down to The second principle is, to place in the order of meanings the proper one as the original before the tropical, as that which is derived; and again to subdivide the notion or conception of the tropical meaning. The latter point is very well illustrated by the various meanings of the word arena. In selecting or forming an appropriate expression for each meaning, Freund did not consider it indispensable to do this by one word, thinking, very properly, that in many cases precision can be attained more effectually by a circumlocution.

us.

The next and very important point is, the arrangement of the passages quoted from writers in support of the definitions ; and Freund's rule has been to arrange them, with the exception of the locus classicus, chronologically; in the case of prose words or meanings, to place the proof-passages from poets after those from prose writers; in the case of poetic expressions to observe the opposite arrangement; and to avoid, or place last, passages from authors decidedly not genuine.

The last point upon which we shall touch, in speaking of the exegetical element, relates to the mode of using the Latin authors themselves. We quote the words of Freund himself on this important subject:

"The Latin authors themselves are naturally the surest and richest mine for the lexicon. But as it would have been utterly

impossible to examine for lexicographical purposes, all the Latin authors, [and yet, until this is done, the material for a complete lexicon cannot be said to be collected,] from Livius Andronicus down to Jerome and Augustin, in unbroken series with equal thoroughness and, so to speak, at one heat, the author has made it his first object to examine the first or ante-classical period,* and hopes with the help of Providence gradually to advance further. For the Latinity of this period he had prepared six separate special lexicons, whose contents were,-1. Earliest Latinity down to Plautus, 2. Latinity of Plautus to the exclusion of works falsely attributed to him; 3. Latinity of Terence; 4. Latinity of Lucretius; 5. Poetic fragments from the age of Plautus to that of Cicero; 6. Latinity of the prose writers before Cicero. From these speciallexicons the passages of the greatest importance, and of which the reading was most to be relied upon, have been transferred to the pages of the present work." "But though the greater share of attention was bestowed on the Latinity of the abovementioned period, still the periods succeeding it received that degree of notice which the harmonious union of the whole indispensably called for. The results of many years reading, for the purpose of lexicography, have been put together in order to make the picture of the classical and post-classical usage, if not a striking likeness, at least a resemblance to the original."

From this language of Freund it will be at once apparent, that what he has done, or attempted to do, for the ante-classical literature of Rome, must be done for the classical and post-classical periods also, before we can in truth say that the materials are collected and in readiness. Freund says very truly, "that it would have been utterly impossible for himself alone, to examine for lexicographical purposes all the Latin authors from Livius Andronicus and Ennius down to Jerome and Augustin in unbroken series." Until this is done, we may have valuable additions to our existing lexicographical resources, but we cannot have a complete lexicon, constructed symmetrically, according to clear and well defined principles. We look upon Freund's lexicon as such an addition, and a very valuable one, too; and we again express, in the name

*Freund means by this the earliest period, from the oldest fragments to Lucretius and Varro. He divides the body of Latin writings into three principal periods; 1. ante-classical, from the oldest fragments to Lucretius and Varro; 2. classical, from Cicero and Cæsar to Tacitus, Suetonius, and the younger Pliny, inclusive; 3. postclassical, from that time to the fifth century of our era. The classical Latinity is subdivided into Ciceronian, Augustan, and post-Augustan.

of the classical students of America, our sincere acknowledgment to Dr. Andrews that, by his enterprise, labor, and perseverance, it has been rendered accessible to the students of this country. But truth and justice forbid us to represent that as complete and perfect which falls still short of completeness and perfection.

We now understand in some degree the relation which Freund's Lexicon bears to the author's own ideal, as sketched in his preface. The next thing is to ascertain the relation of Freund's labors to those of his predecessors, which we shall best accomplish by taking a brief survey of Latin lexicography. We should like to extend this survey over the entire field; but our limited space obliges us to pass by in silence what the Romans themselves have done in the department of lexicography, and what has been done in it during the middle ages, until we come to the time when the revival of letters imparted to this branch of learning, as to many others, a new and vigorous impulse. We shall confine our survey, therefore, to the more recent period of Latin lexicography, and begin it with an account of the labors of one of the founders of modern Latin lexicography, one whose influence continued for more than two centuries, and whose labors are still regarded, by classical scholars, with respect and admiration. We refer, of course, to Robert Stephanus.

It cannot be our object to give a biography of this distinguished man; we shall merely touch upon those events of his life, a knowledge of which will enable us better to appreciate his lexicographical labors. It is well known that his national name was Robert Etienne. He was born in 1503,

Paris, and belonged, by birth, to the class of men, at that ime considerable, who were at the same time scholars and pinters, such as Aldus Manutius and his descendants in Venice, and Joh. Froben in Basle. His father's name was Henri Etienne, of course not to be confounded with that of the great Greek lexicographer, who was the son of Robert. When only nineteen years old, he managed the printing establishment of his step-father, Simon de Collines. He early joined the party of the Reformation. By this act, as well as by the publication of a new edition of the New Testament, he aroused the hostility of the Sorbonne. He was yet quite young when he married Petronella, the daughter of a printer,