1945.] Lexicography gives the Results-not the Process. 99 It must suffice if the remarks-very frequent-frequent-rarevery rare—and the like, proximately express the amount of use of a word. Only in the case of the azağ signuέva, so called, it is of importance to be precise. A separate sign has therefore been chosen for them—the star, *—which is applied to mark three gradations. (1) * prefixed to an article, shows that the word so marked is only once used. (2) * prefixed to a meaning, shows that the word occurs only once in this meaning. (3)* before an author's name shows that he has used the word only once. Those words resemble anag tioruiva, which, though occurring more than once, are found in but one writer. These also should be pointed out by a peculiar sign. But the author, finding this path wholly untravelled, has been the first to pursue it; he therefore did not venture to pronounce in all cases with decided confidence, and, wherever he thought himself right, preferred to satisfy the demand upon him by the remark-only in such an authorleaving the rest to the future advances and extension of this difficult branch of lexicography. Like other kinds of statistics, this element in regard to words can reach a degree of certainty and credibility only by continued improvement and correction. 2. Lexicography, owing to its historic nature, only allows us to give the results, which have been obtained by the researches we have pursued; and prevents us from showing the way itself in which we have reached our conclusions. Hence our views, especially if differing from the prevailing ones, are bereft of their supports; and the mind of the reader often feels a suspicion of the correctness of what is asserted. The author of the present dictionary, therefore, in order to render an account of the path which his lexical inquiries have followed, until they reached the results given in the work itself, has sketched the plan, if God shall grant him health, after the printing of the fourth volume of the dictionary shall have been completed, of issuing, as a sequel to the lexicon and commentary upon it, a work with the title of "Lexicalische Scholica, [lexical scholia] a specimen of which accompanies this preface, as an appendix. But here and there, in the lexicon itself, must single positions be supported by at least a few words, because they would be unintelligible, if destitute of all explanation. See, for example, the articles assentior, assuesco, assimulo.1 To prevent all possible misapprehension, let me here remark, that the notice relating to assimulo, in Jahn's Jahrbücher, (Vol. VII. No. 2. p. 234) was borrowed in an abridged form from the present lexicon. [The author here refers, (1) to his observations under assentior, where he IV. Of the Arrangement of the Articles. 1. As every article of a Latin lexicon (according to No. III. 1) is the monography of a Latin word, and every word forms an independent whole, it follows that the single articles of a Latin lexicon bear no inward relation to one another, and hence that the mode of their arrangement in the dictionary, as a collection of these monographies, is purely arbitrary. Remark. It is sometimes asserted that the articles devoted to derived words in the lexicon, ought to stand by good right under those of their roots. This error rests on a confusion of notions. It is true, indeed, that every word, which is not primitive, stands originally in connection with its primitive; and that its nature, without a knowledge of this primitive, can be but imperfectly comprehended. And hence the etymology of every derived word is given in a lexicon, just as a biography begins with telling who were the ancestors of its subject. But this connection subsists only at the origin of the word. With the moment when it forms a part of language, the bond is severed; it unfolds the nature received from the primitive in an independent way. It preserves its independent being as long as it exists, and performs its part as the sign of an idea, on the same footing with its root, not under but by the side of the root; as the independent son, in the sphere of his activity is no longer a son, but a man, like his father. The same relation which the subject-matter of the one science bears to that of the other, that same relation do these objects compared bear to one another. Hence the single articles of a lexicon, as monographies of independent words, are themselves not subject to one another, but independent. § 2. It is, however, desirable, for the easier consultation of the separate articles, that they should not be thrown together without a plan, but be arranged according to some principle, which may serve as a guide in finding what we seek. Now there are a number of such principles. A lexicon may be conceived of, which shows that the deponent or middle form was alone in use so early as Varro's time, and accounts for this fact from the meaning of the word; (2) to his defence of the construction of assuesco with an ablative, against some remarks of Wunder; (3) to his doctrine in regard to the spelling of assimulo, rather than assimilo, that Latin euphony required u and i, when on the two sides of 1, to take the forms ilis or uius. The few exceptions, mutilus, nubilus, pumilus, rutilus, are, he thinks, owing to the first u. Hence difficulter, but difficilis from facul-tas, similis from simul, but simulo, dis-as-simulo.—TR.] 1845.] Three ways of arranging Articles. 101 shall arrange its articles according to the several parts of speech, with subordinate divisions furnished by the different changes of form and of construction. Another might classify them by the significations, as the well known vocabularies in modern grammars bring their words under separate heads, like those “relating to God and divine things," those relating to "human bodies," etc.; a third might select the national extraction of the words as its guiding principle. (See II. § 4.) Nor could any objection, in a scientific respect, be brought against either of these methods; for the very reason that the classification of the words is indifferent to science, and left by it to the free choice of the lexicographer. 3. Among possible principles, three have for centuries been more particularly applied in practice; the purely alphabetical, that which is partly alphabetical and partly genealogical, and that which is partly alphabetical and partly etymological, The first places all the words after one another in an alphabetical row, determined by the initial letters of each word; the second assigns such an order to the roots, but musters derivatives and compounds behind their primitives; while the third places roots and compounds in the order of the alphabet, but bids derivatives follow their roots. The first method aims singly and alone at convenience in finding the articles. The two others sacrifice a part of this convenience to scientific objects; the genealogical, endeavoring to bring into view together the whole family-circle of Latin words; and the etymological, stopping short of this at the derivations. As to the last named method, which is well known to be pursued in Gesner's Thesaurus, we may ask why, in bringing the articles together, we should pay such especial attention to the etymological element of lexicography, which is neither the only nor the most important one. If the objects of lexicography can be attained after sacrificing a share of convenience, then every other element has as good a claim as the etymological to give law to classification. For, acceptable as it may be to the linguist, if you take one element into view, to be able to survey all the derivatives from a word, it may be equally so, in respect to another element, to see all the deponent verbs, or all the supines, or all the nouns of the fourth declension brought together; and no less so, in relation to a third element, to have a union in the same place of all the technical terms of the language, of religion, war, or oeconomy, all purely poetical expressions, and the like. Thus the grammatical and the rhetorical modes of arrangement have as much to say for themselves as the etymological; so that an ex clusive regard to the latter must appear partial and one-sided. Better reasons seem to exist in favor of the genealogical method. For, as no element of lexicography can present a rival claim to it, because the genealogy of words lies quite out of that sphere, he who makes it the rule of his arrangement is not guilty of partiality, and makes amends for the inconvenience of searching for a word twice, by giving a survey of families of words,— a thing of great interest to a philologer. But here arises another question; if the genealogy of words, as we have regarded it hitherto, lies out of the circle of lexicography, why should this science arrange its materials to suit the purposes of a science foreign to it. Is the reason that this foreign science has no other field to occupy? In this very fact now lies the fault. Scientific genealogy of words is needed, but hitherto has not been formed into a separate department of the general science of language and therefore lexicography must do its duties. Now every one readily perceives that this is not the right way to satisfy the demands of science. In time there must, and will without doubt, be formed a genealogy of words which shall take its place, as a science by the side of lexicography; and which, by means of tables exhibiting the relationship of words belonging to the same family in their various degrees of descent, shall make that clear on inspection, of which only an imperfect idea can be formed by putting words together in the lexicon. The author has made for himself a number of such genealogies; and will perhaps hereafter append one or two of them, accompanied with remarks to his Scholia. The family of CAPIO numbers a hundred and twenty words and over. If we allow to each of these on the average one page of the dictionary, and capio alone fills four, accipio two, and the other compounds of the first degree, con- ex- in- prae- sus-cipio take up almost as much room-the whole family, when brought together, will spread itself over a space of more than a hundred and twenty pages: how can it be possible in such a case to take a survey of the family genealogy. But further; a genealogical table makes it plain at the first view, where a form has been passed over in the degrees of descent, or is wanting in the monuments of the language which have come down to us. Of the words growing out of the union of CAPIO with DIS, for example, one of the second degree discepto and two of the third disceptatio and disceptator are extant; but the immediate descendant in the second degree discipio is not known to have existed. And so of the union of CAPIO with AVIS,-the word in the fourth degree aucupatorius 1845.] Alphabetical Arrangement employed. 103 is extant, but not its progenitor in the third aucupator. A survey like this, the lexicon can in no way afford, because it can neither leave an empty space for the word which is lacking, nor insert that word, any more than others which do not exist, for the sake of its derivative. § 3. Since, therefore, the etymological principle in arranging the articles of a lexicon, appeared to the author to be partial, and the genealogical, to lie beyond the science of lexicography, he has, in his dictionary, pursued the purely alphabetical arrangement. 4. But we have had to deviate, in the following instances, from the order thus prescribed to the articles. A. The grammatical element requires, (1) that all the secondary forms of a word should not be separately handled, but be arranged under the main form. Thus, e. g. aevitas under aetas; balneae, balineum and balinaea under balneum; cors and chors under cohors; coda, colis, plastrum, etc. under cauda, caulis, plaustrum, etc.; and this, even when the form which deviates from the other had a peculiar meaning attached to it at single periods of the language; as codex under caudex; in which instances, moreover, the appropriate form must, as is clear of itself, accompany each separate meaning; (2) that derived adverbs should go along with their adjectives, even when the root-vowel is changed; as bene with bonus; and (3) that participles used in an adjective sense, under the appellation of participial-adjectives (in abbreviation Pa.), and printed in italics, should be taken up just after their verbs; whilst, on the contrary, pure participles are not specially considered. B. The exegetical element requires that adjectives, derived from proper names, should be inserted under their primitives, and in the same article with them; because they would, for the most part, be unintelligible without the whole of the historical information which accompanies the proper names; and to repeat that information would be inadmissible. Remark. All such words are likewise put down in the alphabetical series, and reference is there made to the place where they are treated of. V. Of the Signs and technical Terms employed in the Lexicon. § 1. This chapter treats of the methods adopted in the external getting-up of the present work. The aim has been clearness in every particular and convenient survey of the whole, even at the expense of room. In the first place, to the words heading the |