shape. In Jer. 12: 13, referred to for the Pi'hel, we find only the Niph'hal Next we have " Piail" (why repeated ?), “Deut. 29: 22" (this should be 29: 21), and further down, "Hiph. 1 K. 22: 34" (the word is here in Hoph'hal). Proceeding to the next line, we find "As a n. m. s." (in this word are two typographical errors: should be pointed with (-), and 3 with (-), thus as in Deut. 28: 61). Among the affixes to this verbal noun we are presented with "-her" (" misfortunes never come singly," and accordingly here also are two mistakes: the vowel preceding is () not (—), and should contain a Mappik, thus ); and this is followed by the enigmatical expression "f. s. const.," whose meaning is probably best known to the author. We have next ""nin My infirmity, weakness, f. s. Ps. 77: 11, for "b, 3 Rad. drop. because of aff. compens. by dag." (in this passage are four misstatements: first, nib is not a derivative noun, but, is the regular inf. constr. Pi'hel of the verb; secondly, the author immediately contradicts himself by asserting that in is for with the third radical dropped on account of the affix ", whence it appears that he now regards it as the pret. Pi'hel with the afformative of the first pers. sing. which however would be not b: but in reality the word, as we have already observed, is the infin. constr. with the suffix of the first person; consequently is not a suffix, but the hardened form of the third radical! thirdly, the afformative of the first pers. sing. pret. of verbs is ♫ not ; fourthly, as to the compensation of the third radical by Daghesh in the second-for this is the only letter in the word bearing this point-we would merely suggest that this is the characteristic of the Pi'hel species). "Hence, He declared it to be my infirmity,” etc. (the word here rendered " he declared" is NĮ Ps. 77: 11, the first pers. sing. fut. with conv.) Let the reader compare this heterogeneous mass of absurdities with the masterly exposition of M. Biesenthal, and draw his own conclusions. 66 Another of the many instances in which we think the author of the School Dictionary to have happily reunited the parts of a root which Gesenius had separated is to be found in the two words court and from the Arabic grass; the former of these is derived by Gesenius حضر to enclose, surround, and the latter from خضر to be green, to flourish (viruit). Both words are referred by M. Biesenthal to a single obsolete Hebrew root bearing the same meaning with its cognates yx = 1 = PE , viz. to divide, cut off, hence grass, that which is cut down, and front court, that which is cut off, separated. We could wish that he had proceeded a little further, and had noticed the connection between grass and court-a place separated from the public ground by an enclosure and hence producing grass; which would have united the two Arabic roots to be andés خضر to hedge about and خضر green. We will here give the article on, as a favorable specimen of the author's mode of treating the nouns. חצרי 1. "com., constr., with suff. i; pl. b, with suff. n, and fem. ning, constr. ning, with suff. rning court-yard. naat 1 the inner (priests') court of the temple. 2. hamlet, village; used also of the moveable tent-villages of the nomads. Is. 42: 11. It is used in composition to form many names of places, viz. (a) 7-- a place on the border of the tribe of Judah. Num. 34: 4. (6) 75 n and more (Horse-court) in the tribe of Simeon. Josh. 19: 5. 1 Chron. 4: 31. (c) and (Fountain-court) on the borders of northern Palestine. Num. (Fox-court) in the tribe of Simeon. Neh. 11: (Middle-court) on the border of Hauran. Ezek. 47: 16. (f) plur. ning a camping-place of the Israelites. Num. 34: 9. (d) 27. (e) 7 11: 35.". On turning to the " Complete Dictionary,” we find “mory grass, leeks, young grain" (!). One of the three references given is “Is. 15: 16 ;” this chapter has but nine verses, and the word appears in the sixth. The word the reader will seek for in vain, but in lieu thereof he is presented with "" (that this cannot be laid to the printer's charge, is shown by the annexed pronunciation "cha. tzar;" of this another specimen occurs a little further down, where we have "n-cha-tzar-mo-weth" for n ma-weth). "A court, or open place, set apart for public business." "Ps. 104: 4" (here the word does not occur). The attention paid by M. Biesenthal to the development of the significations of verbs as affected by the various particles with which they are construed will be seen in the following article on "fut. apoc. 1. to burn, used only of anger; with Nanger, or elliptically (§ 573) as Ps. 18: 8: ibn he burned (es entbrannte ihm) scil. with anger, one burned in the eyes as though his eyes glowed with rage; with against one, usually with of the person and of the object, less often Part. pl. Is. 41: 11, fut. apoc. with Niph. 3 pl. Job 1: 6. 1. to 2. to be ardent, zealous. to be angry, with with one. Hiph. let or cause anger to burn. Job 19: 11. :: Tiph. fut. 2 pers. Part. 2 to enrage one's self, to contend, with no with one. Jer. 12: 5. 22: 15. Hithp. fut. apoc. to enrage, irritate one's self. Ps. 37: 1.” On this word the "Critical Dictionary" has as follows: " 1. He was irritated, etc.; 2. fretful, etc.; 3. zealous, etc. Neh. 3: 20," (by what rule of preference is the third signification, which is that of the Hiph. species, favored with a reference which is refused to the two first?) "3. m. s. Pret. K. reg." (this is an error, as according to the common phraseology adopted by Mr. Roy the verbs are irregular). “F. Exod. 32: 1," (it occurs in the eleventh verse of this chapter, but not in the first,)" 12" (the only word from the root which appears in this verse is, not the future of the verb, but the noun ji¬n). The ingenious suggestion of M. Biesenthal with regard to the obscure word sun, is well worthy of notice. This word he supposes to have arisen by transposition from the to rise, as sun, and cites in support of his opinion the proper noun Born Judg. 2: 9. Josh. 19: 50. 24: 30, and the words i a Job 9: 7, which he regards as an instance of paronomasia. The opinion of Gesenius, however, who considers the primitive idea to be that of dryness, heat, and the root an instance of the change of into for, is by no means destitute of probability; the commutation of the letters r and s being of frequent and universal occurrence, e. g. Germ. war, eisen, hase, Eng. was, iron, hare. Turning to this root in the "Dictionary on a New and Improved Plan," we meet with the following: ", in Arab. \ɲ” (this word is even more than commonly unfortunate: it contains an initial instead of a medial Re, a medial instead of an initial Shin, and VOL. XI. No. 30. 63 a final Elif instead of nothing at all; the word حرش the ver bal root of which is→). "To animate, enliven, stir up, be active, lively, vigilant" (as neither Golius, Castell, nor Freytag has been able to discern any one of these meanings in the word, we are under the necessity of awarding to Mr. Roy the entire credit of their invention). "As a n. m. s. " ( should have (), as in Job 9: 7, which is changed into (-) only when accompanied by a pauseaccent). The few extracts we have made from the letter will suffice we think to justify the opinions we have expressed concerning the merits of the School Dictionary. At the same time it were much to be desired, that its author had carried out more fully his idea of reüniting when possible those roots which previous lexicographers have divided without sufficient reason. Thus the root, which Gesenius has separated into two parts, the first signifying to be foolish, the second to desire, to attempt to go, might we think easily be shown to bear a close relation to the Arabic وال to flee, to hasten, whence first, foremost; from which is naturally derived the idea of acting with haste or inconsiderateness, and hence foolishly. The hastening or pushing of one's self forward, so characteristic of youth, is closely connected and especially by the grave Orientals with the idea of folly, while the deliberateness of movement peculiar to age is united in our minds with the notion of wisdom. This union of haste and folly is expressed in the forcible German proverbs, "Der Narr ist immer vorn an," ""Mit dem Narren macht man Bahn." We could also have wished that M. Biesenthal had devoted some share of his attention to the comparison of the Hebrew with other languages; for, although his work is designed principally to be a student's manual, we agree with the opinion expressed by Gesenius in the preface to his smaller Grammar, that the exhibition of the relations which a language bears to others is an excellent means of keeping alive an interest in the young philologist for the objects of his pursuit-an opinion, be it said, which applies with greater pro priety to lexicography than to grammar. The author could easily have materially increased the interest and utility of his work, by giving at the end of each article the results of those comparisons in which Gesenius may be considered to have attained complete success. This, however, his desire for originality in all likelihood forbade. We will now devote a short space to a consideration of the general character of the Complete Dictionary, although we fear that the reader like ourselves is already heartily disgusted with the subject; for, as the book is a native production, it behooves us once for all to make its real character completely known. The first point to which the attention is naturally directed on taking into consideration the character of a work is its general plan; but as we candidly confess our inability to discover in the present instance aught deserving the name, we will briefly state what appears to have been the mode of its fabrication. The grand idea then of the author it appears was this to copy from the Concordance all the forms of each word that occur in the Bible, and arrange them in the order of the alphabet, whether beginning with a radical or a servile letter. But this brilliant undertaking has not been crowned with success, as will sufficiently appear from the numerous deficiencies disclosed by a comparison of the first full page of the Dictionary with the lexicon of Gesenius, which we have made in compliance with the author's own proposal. In the first place, we find, agreeably to the alphabetical arrangement, the word 22 m. s. pret. Pi'hel of a, but why is no mention made of the first pers. 72 Jer. 15: 7? again, why have we not as Num. 17: 20, and with ♬ par. 2 Sam. 17: 1, and also a Ps. 44: 7. 55: 24, etc.? It is true that these are not made separate articles by Gesenius, but they should be so to carry out the alphabetical principle of Mr. Roy; the following independent words, however, occur in the Bible and consequently in Gesenius, although in the "Complete Dictionary" they will be sought for ,6:24 .Exod אֲבִיאָסֶף ,1 :9 .Sam 1 אֲבִיאֵל,9:15 .Esth אַבְדָן ; in vain Num. 1: 11. 2: 22, TEN Exod. 9:31. Jer. 2: 14, 7772 Gen. 25: 4,2 1 Sam. 8: 2, N2 conversive and conjunctive are of constant occurrence in almost every letter of the alphabet. The author states as one of the "superior advantages" of his Dictionary, that it will supply the place of a |