' By- them, however, an attempt was made to gather materials from a wider field. FOrster in his Did. Heb. Arov., Bas. 1557, sought to determine the meaning of the words from the comparison of the different passages of Scripture in which they occur, and of allied words, words having two consonants in common, or two consonants of the same organ. Schindler added to this the comparison of different Shemitic dialects for the illustration of the He brew, in his Lex. Pentaglotton, Han. 1612. The example thus set was carried forward by Sam. Bohle, a Rostock professor (Disserd. pro formall Signif: S. S. eruenda, 1637); though by his fond ness for metaphysical methods and conceits, he was often betrayed into mere trifling ; by Christian Nolde, professor at Copenhagen (Concordant. par ticularum Ebroro. Chad. V. T., Ham. 1679); by Joh. Cocceius (Coch), professor at Leyden (Lex. d Comment. serm. Hebr., Lond. 1669); by Castel] (Lex. Heptaglot., Lond. 1669); by De Dieu in his commentaries on the O. T. ; and by Hottinger in his Etyynologicum Orient. sive Lex. harmonicum heptaglot., Frank. 1661. Sol. Glass also in his Philologia Sacra, 1636, rendered important service to Hebrew learning and O. T. exegesis. [See the articles under these names.] Meanwhile a new school of Hebrew philology had arisen under the leading of Jakob Alting and Johann Andr. Danz. The former in his Funda menta pundationis lingua. sancta. sive Gramma/. Heb., Gron. 1654 ; and the latter in his Nucifran gibulum, Jena 1686, and other works, endeavoured to shew that the phenomena which the Hebrew ex hibited in a grammatical respect, the flexions, etc., had their basis in essential properties of the lan guage, and could be rationally evolved from prin ciples. Peculiar to them is the systema morarum,' a highly artificial method of determining the placing of long or short vowels, according to the number of morce appertaining to each or to the consonant following, a method which led to endless niceties, and no small amount of learned trifling. The fundamental principle, however, which Alting and Danz asserted is a true one, and their assertion of it was not without fruits. Nearly contemporary with them was Jacques Gousset, professor at Groningen, who devoted much time and labour to the prepara tion of a work entitled Commentarii Ling. Heb., Amst. 1702, in which he follows strictly the method of deducing the meanings of the Hebrew words frorn the IIebrew itself, rejecting all aid from Rab bins, Versions, or Dialects. The chief merit of Gousset and his followers, of whom the principal is Chr. Stock (Clavic Ling. Sand. V. et N. Ti. Lips. 1725), consists in the close attention they paid to the usus /equendi of Scripture, and Hkver nick- thinks that adequate justice has not been done to Gousset's services in this respect (Introd. to O. T., p. 221, E. Tr.) Hitherto not much attention had been paid to etymology as a source for determining the meaning of Hebrew words. This defect was in part reme died by Caspar Neumann and Valentin Loescher; the former of whom in different treatises, the latter in his treatise .De Causis Ling. Heb., Frank. and Leips. 1706, set forth the principle that the He brew roots are bilitere, that these are the charac teres significationis' as Neumann called them, or the ‘semina vocum,' as they were designated by Loescher, and that from them the triliterals, of which the Hebrew is zhiefly composed, were formed. They contended also that the funda mental meaning of the biliterals is to be ascertained from the meaning of the letters composing each ; and for this purpose they assigned to each letter what the former called significatio hieroglyphica,' and the latter 4valor logicus.' This last is the most dubious part of their system ; but as a whole their views are worthy of respect and consideration (see Hupfeld, De emendanda lexica:. ratione, p. 3).
A great advance was made in the beginning of the ISth century by the rise almost simultaneously of two rival schools of Hebrew philology ; the Dutch school, headed by Albert Schultens, and the school of Halle, founded by the Michaelis family. In the former the predominating tendency was towards the almost exclusive use of the Arabic for the illustration of Hebrew grammar and lexi cography. Schultens himself was a thorough Arabic scholar, and be carried his principle of appealing to that source for the elucidation of the Hebrew to an extent which betrayed him into many mistakes and extravagances ; nevertheless, to bis labours Hebrew philology owes an imperish able debt of obligation. Besides his commentaries on Job and Proverbs, which are full of grammati cal and lexicographical disquisition, he wrote Origines Hebreeee seu Heb. Ling. antiquissima nattera et indoles ex Arabia penetralibus revocata, FrancE 1723 ; and Asti/Wilmer ad jimdamenta Ling. Ileb., Leyd. 1737. To this school belongs Schroder, professor at Groningen, who published in /776 a Hebrew grammar of great excellence, and which has passed through many editions, under the same title as the second of the works of Schul tens above noted ; and Robertson, professor at Edinburgh (Grammatica Hebr., Edin. 1783, sec. ed.) Both these works excel that of Schultens in clearness and simplicity ; and in neither is the Arabic theory so exclusively adhered to. Venema, as a commentator, was also one of the luminaries of this school.
The school of Halle was founded by John Henry and Christian Benedict Michaelis ; but its principal ornament in its earlier stage was the son of the latter, John David, professor at Gottingen [Mi CIMELIS1. The principle of this school was to
combine the use of all the sources of elucidation for the Hebrew—the cognate dialects, especially the Aramaic, the versions, the rabbinical writings, etymology, and the Hebrew itself as exhibited in the sacred writings. The valuable edition of the Hebrew Bible, with exegetical notes, the conjoint work of John Henry and Christ. Benedict, some grammatical essays by the latter, and the Hebrdische Grammatik (Halle 1744), the Supplemeszta ad lexka Hebr. (6 parts, GOtt. 1785-92), and seveml smaller essays of John David, comprise the princi pal contributions of this illustrious family to Hebrew learning. To their school belong the majority of more recent German Hebraists—Moser (Lex. Alan. Heb. et Chad., Ulm 1795), Vater (HA Spmch lehre, Leipz. 1797), Hartmann (Aqfangsgriinde der Heb. Sprache, Marb. 1798), Jahn (Grammatica Ling. Heb., 1809), and the facile princeps of the whole, Gesenius (Hebr. Detitsches Hdworterbitch, 2 vols. Leipz. t810-12; Ileb. Grammatik, 1813; ISth ed. by Rodiger, 1857 ; Garchichle der Heb. Spr. und Schrift, 1815 ; Ausjarliches Gram. errit. Lehrp,ebdude der Heb. spr., 1817 ; Lexicon .4Ianuale, 1833, t847 ; Thesaumes Phil. Crit. Lin:.
Hebr. et Chald., 3 tom. 4to, i835-1858). [GEs€ Nun.] Gesenius has been followed closely by Moses Stuart in his Grammar of the Hebr. Lan guage, of which many editions have appeared. Under the Halle school may be also ranked Joh. Simonis (Onomast. Vet. Test., Halle x741 ; Lexi con ltfan. Ile& et Chald, 1756; re-edited by Eich horn in i793, and with valuable improvements by Winer in 1828) ; but though a pupil of Michaelis, Simonis shews a strong leaning towards the school of Schultens.
Among recent Hebraists the names of Lee (Grammar of the Heb. Lang. in a series of Lectures, Lond. 3d edit. 1844; Lexicon Heb. Chald. and Engl., IS4o), Ewald (Krit. Gramm. der He& Spr. Ausfiihrlich bearbeitet, Leipz. i827 ; 6th ed. 1855, under the title of Ausflihrliches Lehr& der Heb. Spr. des A. B.), and Hupfeld (Exercitationes Aethio pica, 1825 ; emend. Lexicogr. Sem. ratione Comment., 1827 ; Ueber Theorie d. Heb. Gr. in the Theol. Studien und liriliken for iS2S ; Ausf. Hebr. Gram., 1841), are the most prominent. Each of these pursues an independent course ; but all of them incline more or less to the school of Alting and Danz. Lee avows that the aim of his gram matical investigations is to study the language as it is, that is, as its awn analogy collected from itself and its cognate dialects exhibits it' (Grammar, Pref. p. iv., new edition, 1844). Ewald has com bined with his philosophical analysis of the lan guage, as it exists in its own documents, a more extended use of the cognate dialects ; he contends that, to do justice to the Hebrew, one must first be at home in all the branches of Shemitic literature, and that it is by combining these with the old Hebrew that the latter is to be called from the dead, and piece by piece endowed with life (Gram matik, Vor. p. ix.) Hupfeld's method is eclectic, and does not differ from that of Gesenius, except that it assigns a larger influence to the philosophic element, and aims more at basing the grammar of the language on first principles analytically deter mined ; by him also the Japhetic languages have becn called in to cast light on the Shemitic, a course to which Gesenius too, after formally repu diating it, came in his later works to incline.
Among the Jews the study of Hebrew literature has been much fettered by rabbinical and tradi tional prejudices. Many able grammarians, how ever, of this school have appeared since the begin ning of the 16th century, among whom the names of the brothers David and Moses Provencale, Lon zano Norzi, Ben Melech, Siisskind, and Lombroso, are especially to be mentioned. A more liberal impulse was communicated by Solomon Cohen (17o9-62); but Mendelsohn was the first to intro duce the results and methods of Christian research among his nation. Fiiist (Lehrgeb. d. Aram. Idiome mit bezug aufa'ieIndo-Germ. Chald. Gram., 1835 ; Charuze Peninim, 1836 ; Concordantia Libr. Vet. Test., 1840; Hebr. und Chald. Hdwar terbuch d. A. T., 2 VOIS. 1857) seeks to com bine the historical with the analytical method, taking note of all the phenomena of the Hebrew itself, illustrating these from the cognate tongues, and those of the Indo-Germanic class, and at the same time endeavouring on philosophic grounds to sepamte the accidental from tbe necessary, the radical from the ramified, the germ from the stem, the stem from the branches, so as to arrive at the laws which actually rule the language. All his works are of the highest value. Mr. Hurwitz, a Jew resident in London, has published an excellent Hebrew Grammar in two parts, Lond. 1835. Worthy of notice also is the Grammar of Isaac Nordheimer, a German Jew who spent his later years in the United States, where he died, in 1842, in his thirty-fourth year. His Grammar iS 2 VO1S. 8vo, New York, 1838-42 (Wolf, Hebr. 1715-53 ; Loscher, de Causis Ling. Ebr., libb. 1706 ; Hezel, Gesch. der Ire& Spr. und Litter., 1776 ; Gesenius, Gesch. der Heb. spr., 1815; Delitzsch, 7eshurun, Isagage Gramm. et Lexicagr. ling. Heb., 1838 ; Fiirst, Bib yudai c a ; Steinschneider, 7e7vish Literature, Per. ii. sec. t6; iii. sec. 27).—W. L. A.