Dictionary

Less needful are details of Latin diction aries, though they have been very plentiful ; in the Middle Ages they were the daily necessity of all cultivated existence. They began much later than Greek: even the etymological treatise of the great M. Terentius Varro, Cicero's con temporary, preserved only in fragments, can hardly be called a dictionary; the first real one is of Verrius Flaccus under Augustus. One of Guttenberg's volumes was the ofJohannes de Janua (Giovanni Balbi), 1460. The monk Calepino published in 1502 at Reggio a Latin-Greek lexicon, which was so famous that for many years all diction aries were called in 1575 it was made a polyglot of Italian, French and Spanish as well, and in 1590 extended to all languages, and many times reprinted. Robert Estienne, father of Henri published in 1531 at Paris a great Lingua Latine,' not sup planted till Forcellini's in 1771, at Padua. All these were Latin into Latin, except that the latter had definitions also in Greek and Italian. A new edition, largely supplemented, Prato, 1858-79, forms the greatest Latin dictionary ever pub lished. The first Latin-English dictionary was the of a Norfolk monk, Galfridus Grammaticus, compiled 1440, printed 1499; the first important one was by Sir Thomas Elyot, London 1538. In the 18th century Robert Ainsworth's was for many years the only popular one (I•ondon 1736). At pres ent the two general popular ones are White & Riddle's (London 1880), and Harper's(An drews Freund, revised by Lewis and Short, 1886). The great German-Latin one is Georges', 4 vols., Leipzig, 1880-85. The English-Latin are Smith & Hall, 1890; White & Riddle, 1869. A giant was started in Leipzig, 1900, to outrank any other Latin lexicon in exist ence; it is to be edited by the greatest German scholars, under the supervision of the fivegreat German academies, and has not yet finishe4 the letter A. The great dictionary of mediaeval Latin is Du Cange's, 1733-36, re-edited, Paris 1882-88, 7 vols.

For modern European languages into Eng lish and vice-versa, the following are standard: French — Smith, Hamilton & Legros, 1891; Spiers & Surenne 1891; Gasc, 1895. German Thieme-Preusser, 1898; Flugel, 1891; Lucas, 1854-68; Whitney 1877, valuable for etymology; Adler's, 1875, still unequaled for discrimination of synonyms. Spanish— Velazquez, revised by Gray and Iribas, 1901 (the old Velazquez's Seoane revised with a great new technical vocab ulary). Portuguese— Lacerda, 1871; Michaelis, 1894; Valdez, 1879. Italian — Baretti, 1877; Meadows, 1869; James and Grassi, 1884; Hill house, 1899. Dutch— Caliseh, 1890. Danish Ferrall, Repp & Rosing, 1873. Swedish— Wen strom & Lindgren, 1889; Nilsson, Widmark & Bollin, 1889. Norwegian — Geelmuyden, 1886. Russian — Alexandrov, 1879. Turkish — Red house, 1880. Polish — Baranowski, 1884. Hun garian — Bizonfy, 1878-86.

The great foreign dictionaries of their own languages, corresponding to the

Though Oriental and ancient, their close connection with our racial and religious ancestry and current problems makes Sanskrit and He brew worth noting separately. For the former, the great English works are by Monier-Wil liams : English-Sanskrit, 1851; Sanskrit-English, 1872. Hebrew, Fiirst, 1867.

English lexicography, on its own language beins very humbly, with John Bullokar's Eng lish Expositor,' 1616. More famous was Henry Cockeram's, 1623, which passed through nine editions up to 1650. Blount (1656), Philips (1658) and Coles (1677) succeeded these; but the first attempt at a thorough collection was Nathan Bailey's (1721) . This gave etymologies, marked accents and remained the sole pos sessor of the field till Johnson's appeared in 1755; and was reprinted over a quarter of a cen tury longer from its handy size, the 24th edi tion dating 1782. Johnson's, however, is the

first of any importance from a scholar's point of view. The etymologies are superseded, but he was the first to make a dictionary something like a history of the language, with full (even over-full) illustrative examples, precise defini tions, and attention to the form. It has been reprinted as late as 1866, but for popular use is superseded even in England by the great Ameri can dictionaries, and for scholars by special works. It did not mark pronunciation except by accents, likely Bailey's. The first to enter on this unending task was Kenrick (1773) ; then came Perry (Boston 1777) ; Thomas Sheridan (1780), the elocutionist, father of the great dramatist; Walker (1791), of immense vogue in its time and still cited as an authority, though entirely out of date; Smart (1836), based on Walker; all making their first claim as arbiters of elegant taste. Richardson (1836) was pri marily for etymologies. Ogilvie's