ness of his collection of these small things, that constitutes in our judgment the chief historic attraction of his enterprise. It is the analysis of the country; the exposition of all the primary elements which composed the mind of the people and prepared it for resistance; the gathering together of the mass of individual facts upon which a safe generalization can be founded.

Nor let it detract from the generous praise to which Mr. Force is entitled, that most of the documents which he has collected, had one day appeared already in print. They never before have been published in a form accessible to the student. He who before this must have wandered over our whole land in quest of materials, may now quickly turn alchymist in his closet, and extract truth from the documents which the judicious industry of Mr. Force is heaping up in one commodious pile. Before this, nine lives at least were necessary to gather together the materials of history; here are the clay, and the straw, every thing necessary but the forming hand; here are the sand and the ashes, and all that is needed for the pure crystal, save only the creative fire which is to fuse the base materials into beauty, transparency, and harmony. If any should undertake to stop the gathering together of these memorials of the revolution, may their minds be haunted by the hobgoblins of imperfect conceptions; may their midnight slumbers be disturbed by the ghosts of the heroes of '76, clamoring for just honors to glorious deeds; and when they come to die, may oblivion hide their shame, and their names perish from among men.

The point of view, from which this work should be estimated, is, the degree in which it advances the science. And we must say, that the advance is exceedingly great. Doubtless some things remain to be discovered and introduced. The work of Mr. Force is far superior to any thing that had been undertaken among us, is full of the richest and most pregnant and interesting materials, and, if executed with equal diligence, will, when completed, form a series of folios to which we look forward with anxiety and hope; and for which we would cheerfully exchange any folios in our library.

Yet why do we say, with anxiety? Let us not admit a fear for the patriotism of Congress. Let us not doubt, that they will persevere in the enterprise which they have thus far shown a disposition to encourage most liberally. Our Independence

was the fruit of centuries; the whole previous civilization of the world was the condition, under which the glorious event was possible. Let us gather up every fragment of its history; let us allow nothing to be lost. Beautiful was the dawn of freedom upon our hills, when the nations of the earth sung for joy at the promise of a new civilization. Let us not allow the light of that morning, as it made the sky brilliant with gladness, to perish from the memory of man. Let us fix indelibly

on enduring monuments a fit representation of even the most evanescent hues. Let us count every sunbeam that quickened, every drop of dew that refreshed the immortal tree, which our fathers planted. Let us encourage our own hearts, and cheer our children, by the bright examples of every one among the crowd of messengers, who announced to mankind the glad tidings of the separation of our country from the forms, the superstitions, and the compacts of the Past.

ART. VIII. A Complete Hebrew and English Dictionary on a New and Improved Plan, containing all the Words in the Holy Bible, both Hebrew and Chaldee, with the Vowel Points, Prefixes, and Affixes, as they stand in the Original Text; together with their Derivation, Literal and Etymological Meaning, as it occurs in every Part of the Bible, and illustrated by numerous Citations from the Targums, Talmud, and Cognate Dialects. By W. L. Rox, Professor of Oriental Languages in New York. New York; Collins, Keese, & Co. 8vo. pp. 740.

THE study of Hebrew, once so extensive among the primitive clergy of this land, and pursued by them with great ardor and no little success, had, until within a few years, fallen so completely into desuetude in our country, that scarcely an individual was to be found, unless educated in Europe, who possessed any knowledge of the Old Testament language, except barely to distinguish, perhaps, a from a 5, or a from a, and by the aid of Parkhurst's Lexicon without vowels, to make

and others like אֶרֶץ, שָׁמַיִם דָּבָר אָמַר out the literal meanings of

words. A new impulse has been given, of late, to this study. It is spreading far and wide. Hebrew is taught, more or less,

as we believe, in nearly every respectable theological seminary of the land. It has found its way into a number of the Colleges, and not a few of the higher Academies. Private individuals are busying themselves with it. Females, even, in not a few cases, have been stimulated by curiosity, and by a desire to enjoy the original beauty of the Scriptures, to engage in the study of this tongue, once deemed so formidable, and given over only to those who were supposed to have no other talent than that of learning conjugations and declensions.

Sympathizing as we sincerely do with this promising state of things, we are loth to move a finger which might seem designed to retard the good work. Most heartily will we welcome every well-aimed and judicious, although humble publication, which is adapted to promote such a work. But the feelings, which would lead us to do this, are the very feelings which constrain us to warn the public against any work on subjects of this nature, which we deem to be useless, or worse than useless, to the Hebrew students in our community. Such, we feel compelled to say, we believe the work before us to be; and, after a declaration of such a nature, we will offer to the public, as we feel bound in duty to do, some of the reasons on which we ground our critical judgment.

We shall confine ourselves mainly to a review of the topics suggested in the Introduction of this new work, in connexion with the work itself, as an exhibition of the manner in which they are handled. We do this, because the author has here stated his reasons for publishing his book, and the grounds why he thinks his Lexicon is superior to all works of this nature which had preceded his. If we can show that not one of these grounds is tenable, we shall then have shown that there was at least no need of Mr. Roy's Lexicon. We expect to

do more than this. We believe that it would be utterly impossible for any student of Hebrew to use this lexicon only, and to obtain from it any tolerable knowledge of the Hebrew. Nay, more; he must learn many, very many, things which are positively insignificant, unphilological, or erroneous in every important respect.

We begin with the Introduction. We are told at the outset, in order to magnify the importance of the Hebrew language, that "it was the primitive language of man." The argument for this is, that "the names of many ancient cities, towns, and nations, are, in general, purely Hebrew."

Where these cities, towns, and nations were, the author does not tell us. We had ever supposed, that names of such a nature were confined almost entirely to hither Asia, and the places which the Carthaginians (descendants of the Phenicians who doubtless spoke the Hebrew) occupied on the northern coast of Africa. The world over, these regions excepted, we find no more proof that the Hebrew was the original language, than that the Zend, or the Sanscrit, or the Chinese has the like claim.

Besides, the author himself states merely, that many of the ancient cities, etc., bore names of Hebrew origin. From what language, then, were derived the names of other cities, etc., equally ancient, but not related to the Hebrew ?

Has Mr. Roy not read the names of the Hebrew alphabet itself? If he has, then he must have seen, that these very names, exhibiting Segholate forms different from any that belong to the proper Hebrew, indicate an origin from a tongue that differed from the Hebrew. It is not probable, then, that literature, or the art of writing, commenced among those who spoke the Hebrew dialect, but was adopted by them from some language perhaps still more ancient.

As to the Hebrew roots that are found in other languages, which afford another of Mr. Roy's arguments, one may say, that Zend and Sanscrit roots are also found in all the languages of Europe, and also of Asia, yea, in the Hebrew itself; and that, at the best, this argument is a weapon which may always recoil upon the owner. Why might I not argue, that the English language is the original one, because I find, in every language of Europe and of hither Asia, roots which appear to be the same as those of our own English words?

The next step of our author is, to show us, that the original Scriptures of the Old Testament are not all Hebrew, but a part of them Chaldee. His statement runs thus; "A small part of Jeremiah, the whole of Ezra, and part of the book of Daniel, are written in Chaldee; p. v.

Truly has he said, "a small part of the book of Jeremiah is Chaldee." Out of one thousand three hundred and sixtyfour verses (if we have counted rightly), and most of them very long ones, contained in this book, there is one solitary verse, and one only, of two lines in length, which is in the Chaldee. This is Jer. x. 11. It is intended for an address to the idolatrous heathen neighbours of the Jews, and is therefore directed to them in their own vernacular tongue.

Now our present Greek Gospel of Matthew consists of only twenty-eight chapters (Jeremiah has fifty-two). In Matt. xxvii. 46, there is a Hebrew (i. e. Hebrew such as was spoken in the Saviour's time) sentence, viz. Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani. Supposing now, in treating of the original language of Matthew's Gospel, we should say; "A small part of it is written in Hebrew ;" what kind of impression would our readers receive from our learned remark? Just the same as the public, we mean such of them as are capable of judging, will receive from Mr. Roy's account of the Chaldee part of Jeremiah. But we should have more justice on our side than he has on his, because the proportion of Hebrew in Matthew is greater than that of Chaldee in Jeremiah.

But Mr. Roy's next statement is more singular still: "The whole of Ezra is written in Chaldee."

Now every student, on opening his Hebrew Bible, finds nothing but Hebrew in Ezra until he reads on to chap. iv. 8; thence to chap. vi. 18, he finds Chaldee; then comes Hebrew again until he advances to chap. vii. 12; and this is followed by sixteen more verses of Chaldee; and thence all is Hebrew to the end of the book. In the whole book there are, if we have rightly counted, two hundred and fifty verses; of these one hundred and nine are Chaldee, leaving one hundred and forty-one verses written in Hebrew; that is to say, the larger part of the book.

In regard to the book of Daniel, our author is less adventurous. He states only, that "a part of it is written in Chaldee." It is so; but here, out of three hundred and thirtyseven verses in the whole book, two hundred are Chaldee. Would Mr. Roy's readers be led to suppose such a proportion, from the statement which he has made?

Thus much for critical acumen and knowledge of the plainest facts, in order to prepare us for the work which is to eclipse all its competitors, and to throw them into the shade of neglect.

In order to justify the attempt which the author has made to promote the study of the Hebrew, he tells us, that "there is no Hebrew lexicon that contains all the words in the language, arranged in alphabetical order, with their exact and literal meaning." And could he say this, with Mr. Frey at his side in Brooklyn, whose Hebrew Dictionary is arranged on the same general plan with his own, although in all respects a