Bishopton V. County. Diocese. Durham Patron. Durham Sherburn Hospital Bamford, R. W. and Minor Canon of Durham Cathedral. Barnes Francis, D.D., Master of St. Peter's College, Cambridge. Whissendine, Rutlandsh. Earl of Harborough. Bissil, W. Buxton, Thomas Kirkby Ravensworth P. C. } N. York Chester Bishop of Chester, Carpendale, G. Harwood Chapel, in the parish of Middleton in Teesdale. Elston, W. Chapl. to Naxton House of Industry, and C. of Naxton and Levington Fookes, William, one of the Magistrates for the Borough of Liskeard, Cornwall George, R. Godbold, G. B.. Greatham R. Handcock, John, Annaduff C. County Leitrim Hardwick, Wm.. Outwell R. Norfolk Norwich Bishop of Ely Hinde, J., Master of Ludlow Free Grammar School, and Afternoon Lecturer at Ludlow Church Homer, P. B., Assistant Master in Rugby School Hooker, T. R. Rottingdean V. Sussex Chichester James, David, C. of Wenvoe and Merthyr Dovan, Glamorganshire Kitchen, Isaac .{Ipswich St. Stephen Suffolk Norw. Rev. C. W. Fon nereau Vicar of Kirkby Lonsdale Llandaff C. H. Leigh, Esq. Farthinghoe R. Manaccan V. Gt. Dalby Maul, John Milward, E.. V. and Prebendary Norfolk Nanney, John, of Belmont, Denbighshire, and of Maesynedd, Merionethshire Nixon, T. North, Henry, Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park Parsons, John, Manchester Norwich Christ's Coll. Camb. Poole, W. Moulton V. Northamp. Peterb. Porter, Robert Draycott R. Stafford L. & C. Dow. Lady Stourton Prebendary of Peterborough Cathedral, and Smith, George N., Torquay, Devon Stock, Edmund P., Chaplain to the Bradford Union Workhouse Stone, Right Rev. William Murray, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Maryland Storey, Joseph, R. of Cavan, Ireland Thompson, E. Aspatria V. Cumber. Carlisle Bp. of Carlisle Todd, John, C. of Frankley, and St. Kenelm's, Worcestershire Wilkinson, Henry, Master of Sedburgh Free Grammar School } Hants Winch. Rev. E. White THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND Quarterly Review. OCTOBER, MDCCCXXXVIII. ART. I.-A Dictionary of the English Language. By NOAH WEBSTER, LL.D. 2 vols. New York. 1828. Reprinted, London: Black, Young, and Young. 1832. A New Dictionary of the English Language. By CHARLES RICHARDSON. London: Pickering. 1835. NOT wishing to alarm our readers by the idea, that we are about to conduct them through the very heavy pages of these most unsatisfactory attempts at Etymology, we, in limine, avow our object in the selection of their titles to be an examination of the proper sources from which the primary meaning of English words should be ascertained. We indeed think it extraordinary that Mr. Richardson should not have availed himself of the guidance of the numerous works which the continental presses have issued of late years upon the subject. Of the many Dictionaries of our language which have recently been published, not one properly retraces the terms to their origin, not one having sought and established the first and radical sense explains the mode, by which the secondary and metonymical have proceeded from it. Each Lexicographer appears to have forced etymology to some preconceived system. Each seems satisfied with referring words to Teutonic or Celtic sources, occasionally also to the Latin and the Greek, without considering that the Teutonic, Celtic, Latin, and Greek must themselves have had an origin, which will require to be investigated ere the positive force of the terms can be discovered. Nor will this merely be sufficient for the purposes of accurate Lexicography. The changes of sense (the nuances, if we may so speak) which words acquire in their transit through different languages should be carefully noted; and the permutations which they acquire in these modifications should be marked, and, as far as possible, reduced to canons. Thus it will often be seen, that an individual root in the remotest tongue to which we can gain access, will give rise in its progress through others to several roots, all of which are connected in signification. In an etymological research through a variety of languages, many different derivations will frequently be presented to us, several of which may be apposite: consequently, the inquirer cannot be correct in his decision, unless it be the result of correct principles. In the present paper we have been rather occupied in exemplifying the analogies exhibited by the Asiatic families, than in deciding on the positive sources. Dr. Webster has indeed gone beyond the beaten path; but he has failed from not having been sufficiently versed in the tongues to which he has had recourse. His researches likewise are too limited, and scarcely, if ever, have they ascended to the Zend and Sanscrit. Many words also of obvious Etymology are not furnished even with a conjectural derivation, and others are manifestly incorrect. Mr. Richardson, on his side, relies too much on the Diversions of Purley. Thus, notwithstanding these recent attempts, an Etymological Dictionary of the English Language remains as great a desideratum as ever. One great fault in some of our older Lexicographers was a desire of referring every term as much as possible to the Hebrew, in consequence of the notion, that it was the primitive tongue. If we might indulge an hypothesis, it would be, that the primitive tongue was monosyllabic-an hypothesis which is well suited to the infancy of the human race; and as to the manner in which a tongue so constituted could have been applicable to colloquial purposes, every difficulty is removed by the existing Chinese and the IndoChinese dialects. The structure of the Hebrew affords strong arguments against its originality; and from the intimations of the Book of Genesis we derive valid reasons for fixing its rise in the days of Abraham. It is granted, that many words of corresponding force are discoverable in it and the languages of Europe, but they are not derived from it: they rather have passed into those languages from the Arabic, Chaldee, or Syriac. In the first, there is the want of an historical connexion, which clearly exists in the others: the dynasties of the Seleucida and the Egyptian Ptolemies, who had continual transactions with the neighbouring Arabs, nay, the chivalrous Crusades, and the conquest of Babylon by the Persians, afford to us reasons, which remove the assertion far beyond the bounds of mere hypothesis. Another class insists, that the languages of the lines of Shem, Ham, and Japheth were distinct, and should not be confounded. This assertion is more plausible than argumentative. That the three great families became to a considerable extent distinct, though they were often united by intermarriages, we are not disposed to deny; but the fact cannot be asserted to the same extent respecting their |