uncommon ability, taste, and learning. Works of this description will soon put a new aspect on English classical scholarship, which has, in times past, been too limited in its range, and too mechanical in its spirit, producing men of great sagacity, refined taste, and, in some points, minute erudition; but rarely a scholar of comprehensive learning, as compared with the principal philologists of Germany. It would be absurd to set up the Burgesses, the Burneys, the Marklands, the Elmsleys, the Tates, and the Porsons, against such men as Wolf and Heyne, Herrmann, Böckh, and K. O. Müller.

It is a striking mark of the inactivity of English classical scholars, that Lempriere's "Classical Dictionary" was allowed to reign paramount so many years in the English schools. It was, in its day, a meritorious work, and creditable to the learning and industry of its author. It was even translated into Latin, by a Dutch scholar, and had some currency on the continent. After passing through many editions during the author's lifetime, which closed in 1824, it began to be revised, added to, and altered by other scholars, both in England and in the United States. Several editions have been published by Professor Anthon, of Columbia College, New York, in which important additions were introduced. These were reprinted in England, under the editorial care of Mr. E. H. Barker, one of the contributors to the "Classical Journal." This gentleman and Professor Anthon have been indulging a habit of exchanging honeyed compliments across the Atlantic, to the great satisfaction and improvement of the learned public. Mr. Barker is a somewhat conspicuous specimen of pedantry without much ability; and if we may judge from his prefaces, of a keen mercantile eye for the main chance. It is amusing to see what pains he takes to caution purchasers against being imposed upon by the proprietors of the original work, who were so unreasonable as to try to palm off their wares, when everybody ought to have known that none were genuine except those signed "E. H. Barker." He professes also to have corrected various inelegancies of expression used by Dr. Lempriere, and otherwise improved many of his articles. It is very singular that a person like Mr. Barker, whose prefaces are written in an awkward and contemptible English style, should presume to touch the easy, flowing, and polished paragraphs of Dr. Lempriere. But we must not dwell upon the merits or demerits

-

Mr. E. H. Barker. Those who are curious to know in what estimation his literary character has been held at home among the real scholars of England may find some pithy comments in the seventh number of the "Museum Criticum," (page 510.) Dr. Anthon is a scholar of a far higher character and more distinguished abilities than Mr. Barker. He has rendered real and great service to the classical scholars of both countries, by the additions and improvements he has introduced. into his successive editions of Lempriere; and his own articles, though few and far between, are generally marked by an easy and correct English style. We say "generally"; for the learned Professor in his own recently published Dictionary has the bad taste to repeat, again and again, that noted vulgarism, sanctioned, it is true, by Walter Scott, but none the less a vulgarism on that account, of using would for should, as "We would err," for " We should err." Dr. Anthon's editions of Lempriere have been favorably received, and have met with an extensive sale. But, with all the additions that were made to it, the work of Dr. Lempriere was found insufficient for the increasing attention paid to classical learning, and Dr. Anthon wisely resolved on making a new book. This has lately appeared under the title placed at the head of the present article. It has been received with praises more extravagant than critical, trumpeted forth by the clamorous tongues of the daily and weekly press, in a style of eulogy that would go far to damn it in the estimation of persons qualified to pronounce upon its merits. It must be a work of no ordinary character to bear up under the storm of applause which "hushed in grim repose, expects" each new publication of Professor Anthon. A rapid sale and large profits are pleasant things no doubt both to publisher and author; but when they are obtained at the cost of scholar-like accuracy, and permanent utility, they are too dearly purchased.

We have been in the habit of consulting Dr. Anthon's new Dictionary for some time past, and have satisfied ourselves that it is the best book of its kind in the English language. This is not saying much. We are satisfied that it is in some respects a good book without reference to any other. It is a book that does honor to the learning and industry, though not to the judgment and accuracy, of Dr. Anthon. Both scholars and teachers will thank him for the information he has collected for them. He has drawn upon the principal works of modern criticism, and his compilation is a valuable

repository of facts and speculations for the use of the classical scholar. In the various departments of biography, mythology, and geography, he has done a great deal towards furnishing the student with ample though not always precise and well-digested information.

But we are compelled to say that the book is not what it ought to be, coming from a man whose means are so abundant as Professor Anthon's to make it a work of first-rate excellence. He has hurried it altogether too much. Two years, the time he speaks in his preface of having devoted to its preparation, are not enough even for his indefatigable and vigorous intellect. He should have given at least ten years of labor to a task of such magnitude and extent. The vast variety of the materials, necessary to be used in such an undertaking, cannot be reduced to order and wrought into a homogeneous whole with such railroad speed. No human being can examine, compare, combine, and digest them as they ought to be digested, in a work of the high pretensions of Anthon's "Classical Dictionary." There must be omissions, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and contradictions without number. We say there must be, in a work prepared with so much haste. Haste is Professor Anthon's besetting sin. Not one of the long row of volumes that he has published, fails to show his great learning, his great capacity for labor, and at the same time his great liability to error; hardly one of his volumes is not deformed by mistakes, that seriously impair its usefulness as a work to be placed in the hands of young students. The time will come when this characteristic will be fully exposed, and the professor's name will be subjected to the penalty of a diminished literary reputation. The scholars of the country will sooner or later learn to scrutinize, as well as to eulogize. At present, newspaper editors and certain presidents of colleges, whose classical knowledge scarcely extends beyond the merest elements, are taken as the highest literary authority upon the merits of his works.

A classical dictionary ought to contain not only all the names of persons and places to be met with in the common school and college classics, but such as the general reader will be likely to find in the political and literary history of the Greeks and Romans. It is no reason for omitting the name of a person, that only a few circumstances respecting him are known. A classical dictionary is the very book in which those few circumstances ought to be recorded,

and where the student ought to be able to find them. Especially the names of persons who have taken an important part in cultivating any particular branch of literature, ought to be scrupulously recorded, however slight may be the remaining vestiges of their works. Philosophers, of whom only the name and fame have descended to our times; statesmen and generals, great men and renowned in their day, but existing only as mighty shades, sidha xaμortov, in the pages of history, should take their place, and occupy their little niche in a classical dictionary. But this cannot be done in two years, even with all the resources of German scholarship at command. Dr. Anthon's work is materially defective in this respect, as will hereafter be shown. There is also a want of proportion very perceptible, which springs no doubt from the same cause, the hasty manner in which the book was prepared. Things of no consequence are frequently discussed at great length, while others of real value are summarily despatched. Speculations on doubtful points of mythology, the delusive freaks of allegorical interpretation, discussions of obscure questions touching the connexions between Greece and the East, between Greek literature and Sanscrit philology, matters, it is true, of curiosity and interest, are too frequently brought in, to the exclusion of others which it was the more immediate duty of the author of this book to supply. We are not prepared to say that such topics should be wholly excluded; but, where the choice lies between them, and brief notices of a series of lyric poets, we think there can be no question which ought to be chosen and which to be left, even though a magnificent show of erudition may have to be sacrificed in consequence.

We do not altogether like the manner in which the principal articles in Dr. Anthon's book are composed. One would infer, from the way in which he speaks of his labors in the preface, that the articles had all been written by himself. This is very far from being the case. Many, if not all the most important, are taken, not merely compiled, but taken, in their very words, from other writers. Here and there a sentence is omitted, the arrangement slightly altered, or a phrase changed, for the purpose of interweaving a paragraph drawn from some other source. The references to the original authorities are also copied, apparently without verification; at least in some instances we have found erroneous references in the book from which Dr. Anthon has drawn, exactly copied in the Diction

ary. Now this is not the way to make a book of permanent utility, or brilliant reputation. All these materials ought to have been freely used by Dr. Anthon; but then he should have digested, arranged, and verified, and the articles should have been written in his own language, not copying individual writers, but combining all that can be collected from all writers. The effects of a different mode of proceeding are obvious enough; the book is any thing but a homogeneous whole. It is diversified by styles as numerous as the authors in Dr. Anthon's library. He ought to have personally verified every reference to the classics; for these references form one of the most important portions of such a work to every classical scholar, and where they are carelessly and incorrectly made, the value of the work is materially diminished. Dr. Anthon's Dictionary abounds in errors of this sort. Every one, at all accustomed to classical researches, knows how common these errors are, even in the works of careful writers, and how necessary it is to follow them up with the closest attention. As a general rule, it will never do to take a reference at second hand. Dr. Anthon has apparently done so, and the chances, in any given case, are that the reader who attempts to find the cited passage by means of Dr. Anthon's reference, will be sent on a fool's errand. Besides this, the edition quoted from ought in all cases to be specified; otherwise it will frequently happen, from the different arrangements in different editions, that it will be impossible to verify the citation, without resorting to other guides.

Another consequence of this mode of quoting the very words of other writers is, that inconsistent statements are often made in different parts of the book, and the young scholar will of course be at a loss which to assume as the correct one. Dr. Anthon ought to have given himself time to compare, in cases of this kind, and to decide which was correct, or most likely to be so. It is obvious that all this could not be done in two years, and therefore we claim the right of censuring him for getting up the work as if a speedy publication were an affair of life and death. It is startling to read contradictions like the following, which we take from articles on names so well known as those of Demosthenes and Æschines. Speaking of the prosecution brought by Eschines against Ctesiphon, in the article "Demosthenes," he says; "The matter remained for some time pending, in consequence of the interruption which public business of all kinds met with during the