the preference given to it over others by the Editors of the work before us. It may indeed appear to some, that Jones, deriving his vocabulary and explanations from four independent and learned lexicographers, has an advantage over the translators of Schrevelius in the body of the work. But when it is considered that these translators, besides their emendations of the interpretations of Schrevelius, in their translation, have with great diligence, aided by the contributions of learned teachers of the Greek, endeavoured to add all the words, not found in the original work, which are to be met with in the books usually studied in our schools and higher seminaries, we cannot doubt that it is a work as well adapted to the purposes of instruction in this country, as is demanded, or could be procured. And from the defects and inconveniences which we have noticed in Jones's Lexicon, it is wholly free. It has been objected to Schrevelius's Lexicon, as being foreign from the purpose of such a work, that it contains every where so many derived tenses of the verbs; thus invading the province of grammar, and encouraging the pupil's ignorance of the formation of those complicated words. To this objection the Editors make the following reply, which though it does not, in some respects, flatter our literary pride, as a nation, yet we do not undertake to dispute its justice.

"The argument on this point is not without weight; and if the Editors had consulted their own wishes alone, they might have thought it best to strike out a large proportion of those derivatives. But, besides being desirous of making as few alterations as possible in the original vocabulary of a work, to which every teacher in the country has been so long accustomed, the Editors were apprehensive, that, in the present state of our Greek studies, it might be taking too great a step at once, to reduce the work to such a form as would be better suited to the advanced state of distinguished foreign institutions than to our own. Another consideration also had its weight; that is, the possibility, that amidst the various improvements which are taking place in the modes of education, it might happen, that our teachers would make their pupils commence their classical studies with Greek instead of Latin-a method, which, as will presently be seen, has the sanction of the very highest authority." p. viii, Preface.

We are very desirous, now that we are furnished with the means, of seeing the experiment tried in some of our schools of studying the Greek before the Latin language. It is true, that of late we have had some school helps of this kind, by means of which an attempt of this sort might have been made; English

interpretations to the vocabularies of some small Greek works; but not of sufficient magnitude to encourage the innovation. Our attention was strongly attracted to this subject some years since, by a passage in the translation of Wittenbach's Preface to his Selecta Principum Historicorum, relating to it. This translation was printed in the North American Review (June and September, 1819), and was followed in the number for July, 1820, by an article recommending strongly the priority of Greek studies. Add to these the opinion of Gibbon, Erasmus, Ruhnken, and Hemsterhuys, in favor of commencing classical education with the Greek language, and it certainly will not be thought a visionary recommendation. Except the difficulty of learning a different alphabetical character from that to which the learner has been accustomed, and that cannot be considered a great obstacle, we can see no reason why the language which the Latin writers acknowledge for the mother tongue, should not be studied before that which is in so great a measure derivative.

During the short period that has passed since the publication of the Lexicon now before us, we have had time only to examine a few successive portions in different parts of the book, but enough to form an opinion concerning its general execution. The interpretation of the words is clear and precise, and there is as much of critical remark as seems to us requisite for the generality of Greek scholars. The additions (for nearly all of which Mr. Pickering is responsible) are valuable, and for the most part essential for reading some of the authors that are now used in our seminaries of learning. In regard to the typographical execution, we are confirmed in our belief of its general accuracy, by an examination of the work, as far as this examination has extended. But apart from this evidence, we have, in common with those who are acquainted with the circumstances of the progress of this Lexicon through the press, as much security for the faithful correction of the proof sheets as can well be obtained. Those who have read the classical works which have recently appeared from the University Press in Cambridge, will think any assurances of ours on this subject entirely superfluous. Whatever blemishes or minute inaccuracies may be found in the Lexicon, must be of a kind which will always in a greater or less degree occur in a work of this nature, such as will sometimes escape the most vigilant eye.

Though the names of the authors are not on the titlepage of the Lexicon, yet we are happy to be authorized, by the terms of the copyright, to make use of them. We therefore acknow

ledge ourselves, and may safely claim a like acknowledgment from the public, under great obligations to Messrs. Pickering and Oliver, for their faithful, persevering, and successful labors in the execution of their work. This is a part of the reward of their toils in the cause of learning, which we know they will not undervalue; and we wish them every other reward to which their sacrifices in this cause entitle them. If it should be found that this new facility afforded for learning Greek should make the language more popular, and consequently that out of the whole number of students there should be a greater number of proficients in the language, this alone will do much to recompense them for their exertions. For theirs is not among the contrivances which afford refuge for indolence, but one for removing an unreasonable obstacle in the path of knowledge. Youth needs encouragement, and among our greatest cares should be that of avoiding all unreasonable exactions. "Many a school-boy," says Gibbon, if we quote him rightly, "has been whipped for not understanding a passage, which Bentley could not interpret, nor Burmann explain." And to require him to express an obscure portion of Greek, through difficult mediums, in his own vernacular dialect, is a sure method of producing a sentiment twice diluted, if not wholly vitiated.

In fine, we cannot but promise ourselves that the work, which has thus fallen under our notice, and which we are confident will satisfy public expectation, opens a prospect of increased attention to Greek literature, bearing some proportion to the diminution of the obstacles that stood in the way of its attainment.

1. An Address delivered in Chauncey Place Church, before the Young Men of Boston, August 2, 1826, in Commemoration of the Death of Adams and Jefferson. By SAMUEL L. KNAPP. Boston. pp. 31.

2. Eulogy on John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, pronounced in Hallowell, July, 1826; at the Request of Committees of the Towns of Hallowell, Augusta, and Gardiner. By PELEG SPRAGUE. Hallowell. pp. 22.

3. An Oration delivered in Independence Square, in the City of Philadelphia, on the 24th of July, 1826, in Commemoration of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. By JOHN SERgeant. Philadelphia. pp. 44.

4. A Eulogy on John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, pronounced in Newburyport, July 15, 1826, at the Request of the Municipal Authorities of the Town. By CALEB CUSHING. Cambridge. pp. 60.

5. An Address delivered at Charlestown, August 1, 1826, in Commemoration of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. By EDWARD EVERETT. Boston. pp. 36.

6. A Discourse in Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, delivered in Faneuil Hall, Boston, August 2, 1826. By DANIEL WEBSTER. Boston. pp. 62.

THESE Addresses are entitled to notice from their own character, and that of the occasion which called them forth. The occasion is unique. A similar burst of national eulogy we can none of us expect again to witness. The great merits of the deceased; the elevation which they occupied as among the last great relies of the Revolution; the remarkable circumstances attending their death, all conspired and were all requisite to kindle so lively an emotion. Moreover, the public mind was in a state which peculiarly fitted it to be affected by such an event. It was yet warm from the welcome which had been given to the "nation's guest," from the recollections of the Revolution which his presence had awakened, and the interesting associations which had clustered round the surviving actors in that great drama. The coincident death, therefore, of the two foremost of their number, on the day of the national jubilee, naturally took a strong hold of public feeling, and gave rise to a general tribute of praise. It is interesting to view the national feeling which this indicates, and the effects which it is likely to produce. It proves that a common sentiment pervades the country; that not the old states merely, but those which sprung into being but yesterday, look upon the glory of the Revolution as a common patrimony. It proves that the nation is sensible of the worth of its benefactors, and that real merit soon dissipates the mists of party prejudice. Its effect, like that of every strong sympathetic feeling running through the people, must be to knit more closely the bonds of national union. It has given freshness to the memory of common efforts in the great national struggle, which must always prove a powerful tie among men who exult in the achievements of a common ancestry. It may, like most of our occasions of addressing the people, have furnished some incense to the vanity imputed to our nation; but

this is dust in the balance compared with the spirit which it indicates, and the feelings which it has awakened.

The Addresses themselves demand respectful notice. The occasion has called forth the ablest men to commemorate the virtues of the deceased, and to teach their countrymen useful lessons for the future from the history of the past. It is agreeable to consider the progress of good taste exhibited in these performances. Not many years since, such an occasion would have been productive of the most outrageous bombast, of a perfect chaos of metaphor. Instead of this, we have now grave dissertation and chaste eloquence. Several of these Addresses will take a respectable place in our literature, and increase the extent and influence of one of its most important departments.

The object of them all is of course the same, to set in a strong light the history of these distinguished men; to awaken the public gratitude for their services; to exhort their countrymen to be faithful to their principles, and vigilant in preserving those institutions, to attain which they sacrificed their ease and safety. These eulogies are in fact the people's testimony to the excellence of our frame of government. The veneration paid to Adams and Jefferson is an acknowledgment of the worth of the political principles which they labored to establish. And what can be more grateful, than the sight of a whole people uniting to testify their love for the government under which they live? In other countries one half of the nation is employed in preventing the other from pulling the political machine to pieces. Here all are united to uphold it. The merit of these Addresses is of course various; but the mode of treating their common subject is necessarily very similar in all. We shall not, therefore, enter into a formal analysis of them, but shall content ourselves with making a few extracts, to enable our readers to judge of the character of the several performances.

Mr. Knapp's Address, which stands at the head of our list, though occasionally exuberant in its diction, is well written. The following passage from his account of Mr. Adams's early life is interesting.

"John Adams was born at Quincy, then a part of Braintree, October 19th, 1735. He was educated at Harvard University, and graduated in 1755. While at college, he was distinguished for all those characteristics which mark the future great man. His learned and evangelical friend and classmate, the Rev. Dr. Hemmenway, often spoke of the honesty, openness, and decision of character which he displayed while an undergraduate, and