Ravis, Shickart, Cunæus, Leusden, Ludolph, Schaaf, Schindler, Gusset, Clodius, Schultens, Schroeder, Michaelis, and Wilmet, all belonging to Germany and Holland. At the present day, the important study of Oriental literature is pursued, in Germany especially, with a degree of enthusiasm and success little, if at all, inferior to that of former times. The name of GESENIUS, who is acknowledged to be an excellent Hebrew scholar, and his LEXICON, the work now before us, may be referred to in confirmation of this statement: and we may further observe, in the words of the translator, that, "At a period when the utmost regard and attention are bestowed on the Hebrew language by this nation, and the learned works of those celebrated men, Lightfoot, Castellus, Poole, and Lowth, are so eagerly sought after, when the desire of reading the Bible in the original tongue begins to increase, when the utility of the vowel-points appears to be appreciated, and the study of the sacred language is patronized by the most eminent divines of the nation; at such a time the translation of a Hebrew Lexicon, which has met with unanimous approbation from biblical and oriental scholars on the continent, and extended its reputation to this, as well as to other countries, may naturally be expected to obtain a favourable reception from the British public." Amongst the causes which have hitherto much retarded the general study of Hebrew in this country, notwithstanding we have some celebrated Orientalists to boast of, the want of a good Hebrew and English lexicon may certainly be considered as one much to be lamented. The only book of the kind, indeed, which is at all worthy to be mentioned, is that of Parkhurst; which, notwithstanding its numerous and very great defects, must still be considered as a valuable Hebrew dictionary, and as possessing many claims upon the attention of Biblical and oriental students. The defects of Parkhurst's work, without speaking of its want of the vowel-points, are chiefly to be attributed to his Hutchinsonianism, his extreme fondness for puerile etymologies, and his ignorance of the principal cognate tongues, particularly the Arabic. Etymology is at all times an amusing study, and acquires a still more interesting character, when we consider that "to form correct ideas of things, it is necessary to have a correct knowledge of words, by which things are designated; and this is best obtained by an acquaintance with etymology."" I know," says Volney, who was a good scholar, although he applied his knowledge to a very bad purpose, "that such inquiries into etymologies have been much decried: but if, as is the case, words are the representative signs of ideas, the genealogy of the one becomes that of the other, and a good etymological dictionary would be the most perfect history of the human understanding. It would only be necessary, in this inquiry, to observe certain precautions which have hitherto been neglected, and particularly to make an exact comparison of the value of the letters of the different alphabets." Etymology, indeed, is the clue by which we are enabled to trace a connection between nations the farthest removed, and apparently the most distinct from one another in every respect whatever; by which we discover numerous remarkable coincidences in their habits of thinking, in their philosophical deductions from the observation of nature, and in various other phænomena of the human mind, as well as in their vocabularies and grammars. Etymological inquiries, therefore, when properly conducted, constitute a very important branch of philological knowledge, and one which has hitherto been too much disregarded; a circumstance caused, no doubt, in a great measure, by the injudicious methods pursued by Parkhurst and others, who had but a very limited acquaintance with the oriental languages. We could have wished that this Hebrew Lexicon of Gesenius, who is so well qualified for the task, had, together with the other advantages which it possesses above its rivals, given us something of the etymological connection of the Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues*, with the languages of the East and West, both of ancient and modern times. There appears the less reason to regret this circumstance, however, when we consider that such discussions would have much increased the size of a book, which is certainly large enough already; but we cannot dismiss the subject without seriously recommending it to the attention of philologists in general, and of Oriental scholars in particular. With regard to the great utility of an intimate knowledge of the cognate dialects to a Hebrew scholar, and especially to a Lexicographer, we were much inclined to suppose, that there could be but one opinion. So much, in fact, has this been considered as a decided point with all Oriental scholars, that Christian Ravis has long ago given us one Grammar as quite sufficient "for the ready attaining of the Ebrew, Samaritan, Calde, Syriac, Arabic, and the Ethiopic languages.' 6 "The Hebrew language," says Mr. Campbell, "is a dialect of a primitive Asiatic speech, that was once diffused over Palestine, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Arabia, and that even extended to Ethiopia. The Fathers of the Church used to call this parent speech the language of the East. Some modern philologists have termed it the Semitish, on the assumption that it originated with the immediate descendants of Sem; but the propriety of this appellation may fairly be disputed."Vide New Monthly Mag. No. IV. April, 1821, p. 377. "Not only are there many words drak λɛyoμɛva (or that occur only once) in the Hebrew Scriptures, the import of which, if ever to be un derstood, must be sought for in other Oriental tongues; but there is a great variety of other vocables, the roots of which are not now to be found in the comparatively scanty remains of that language, which have come down to our times. The meaning or force of these it is utterly impossible satisfactorily to attain, without having recourse to the cognate dialects, and especially to the Arabic, the richest, and by much the most copious of them all. Nor is it more possible, without this prerequisite, justly to appreciate even the beauties of the Hebrew style of composition, and especially of its sublime poetical diction. Of this there cannot be a more demonstrative proof, than is afforded by the new and interesting light which the varied and extensive knowledge of Oriental literature, possessed by Michaelis and Rosenmüller, have enabled them to throw on many passages of the sacred poets, even after they had received the elegant, and often in themselves poetic, illustrations of Lowth*." We had occasion to refer to this subject in the review of Robertson's Clavis Pentateuchi, which appeared in our first Number; and in addition to what is there said regarding the necessity of a knowledge of Arabic, for properly explaining the Hebrew Scriptures, we might adduce almost endless extracts from the works of Ludolph, Hottinger, Castel, Pococke, Schindler, Clodius, &c. in support of our opinion; but we shall content ourselves with saying, in the words of Reland, who is certainly a very competent authority, "An ergo nulla est utilitas linguæ ARABICE, ut multi opinantur? Non dicam, ergo stultissime fuerunt illi viri, qui ei addiscendæ et promovendæ tam sedulam operam navarunt, Pocockius, Bochartus, Erpenius, Golius, Castellus, Hottingerus, et alii. Sed, an a theologo hæc vox proficisci potest? Unde tot loca difficilia, tot anak λeyoueva, quæ Judæi ipsi fatentur, Se non intelligere, in Jobo, in Prophetis, in aliis S. Scripturæ libris lucem accipiunt, nisi ex lingua Arabicâ †?" We have been led to be thus particular in insisting on this matter on the present occasion, by the strange, we had almost said, absurd reasoning, which is made use of in regard to it by the translator of this work, in the fourth and fifth pages of his Preface. We forbear quoting the observations in question, both because they would occupy a good deal of space, which we intend to devote to more important matter; and because we consider it quite unnecessary to combat such reasoning as Mr. Leo has thought proper to employ on the occasion. It seems, in * Vide New Edinburgh Review, No. III. p. 84. + Vide Hadriani Relandi De Religione Mohammedica, Præf. fact, to resolve itself into this curious proposition: because Mr. Mendelssohn, and Mr. Crool, and, we suppose, Mr. Leo, who are good Hebrew scholars, know nothing about Arabic; THEREFORE, a knowledge of Arabic is not necessary to a good Hebrew scholar! This truly is a non sequitur; for there are degrees of comparison in regard to Hebrew scholarship, as well as other things; and no one can deny, that a good Hebrew scholar may become better, by studying Arabic; whilst he who would wish to be considered best, must study also the other cognate dialects, which are, in fact, only parts of the same language. "Let him never be led out of the whole store of God's provision," says Ravis; "that is, out of this whole tongue, Ebrew, Calde, Samaritic, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic; as if he might do well enough in learning only Ebrew, or, at the highest, Ebrew and Calde; being certaine, that that notion is no more reasonable, than as if a man would be able to expound the first chapter of Moses in Ebrew, if hee never had any Ebrew more than occurres in that chapter. For as hee has great need of all the Ebrew that is in the whole Bible, nay more too than there is in the Ebrew Bible, how much more then will there be a necessity of all and the whole tongue to understand so many thousand passages, which are yet to be cleared up *." When Mr. Leo, therefore, informs us, that "the Arabic may be considered as affording the same assistance to the Hebrew, as the German does to the English language;" and that "the Jews interpret many words on the authority of the ARABIC, although totally ignorant of the language:" which, as he elegantly observes, "may appear strange, but nevertheless is a TRUE FACT!" we must confess, that we are entirely at a loss to comprehend his meaning. Indeed we cannot sum up what we have said on this subject, better than by quoting the following very judicious observations, which are given by Gesenius himself, in the first and second pages of his own Preface to this work; and which, we have no doubt, all our lectores QiλavatoAXOYλWTTO, will agree with us in approving: λικογλωττοι, "Above all things it was my first and most particular endeavour (of which I believe I have never lost sight) to ascertain the peculiar phraseology of the Hebrew, as founded on its own distinct dialect, and to place it in a proper point of view, with relation to the peculiar phraseology of the cognate Semitic dialects: an endeavour which, however simple, natural, and coincident with the subject of every Lexicographer, does not appear to have guided all my predecessors. That the most accurate knowledge and comparison of the cognate dialects are among the first and most indispensable requisites for investigating the signifi * Vide Ravis' "Discourse concerning the Easterne Tongues,” p. 59. cations of Hebrew words, it is fortunately no longer necessary to insist upon; though far otherwise was the case when Alb, Schultens, and still later J. D. Michaelis, were obliged so often to recommend the use of these means. But, on the other hand, it may perhaps be requisite at this time to give a caution (as some of our better interpreters have done) against the vague and unjustifiable misuse of such comparisons, which, having originated in Holland, has extended its influence to several of the schools of Germany. Our business should be to understand, as clearly as possible, the relation which the peculiar phraseology of the dialects bears to that of the Hebrew, which will, of itself, direct us in our comparison of them with each other. It will appear, that though too much has been done on the one hand, there is still a great deal left undone on the other," Among the most important matters for which this Hebrew Lexicon deserves commendation, we may particularly advert to two: viz. the arrangement of the words, and the insertion of geographical and proper names. In regard to the arrangement of the words, there are two methods which present themselves to the notice of the Lexicographer, the alphabetical and the etymological. By means of the first, which has been hitherto adopted in all languages, except the Hebrew and those connected with it, all words, whether derivative or primitive, are found at once without the necessity of much critical, or even grammatical analysis, on the part of the student. But, however simple and natural this method may appear, it has been almost entirely abandoned by Oriental Lexicographers, for the more abstruse, and seemingly more philosophical arrangement, which is founded upon etymology. For the full understanding of this circumstance, it is necessary to advert to the fact, which almost all Orientalists have taken for granted, viz. that the whole of the words of the Hebrew language, together with its cognate dialects, may be reduced to a certain number of roots or primitives, of which not more than two thousand are now to be found in the original language of the Old Testament. It has been farther assumed by Orientalists, that these roots are all verbs, that they are triliteral, and that from these, by means of certain letters, which in Hebrew are technically denominated heemantiv, VN, all other words, of whatever description they may be, are regularly formed in a very systematic manner. "Est Hebrææ et linguarum orientalium proprietas," says Robertson, " quod verba primitiva ex diversis consonantium conjunctionibus per triadas composita sunt; et uti exstant viginti duæ literæ, variæ copulationes et combinationes per tres literas 10,000 efficiunt, quod plane copiam et divitias hujus linguæ ostendit: nam iis conjunctionibus |