600 



LATIN LEXICOGRAPHY. 



composition. With all it* defects, however, it 

 was not wholly destitute of merit, and passed 

 through several editions, both in Italy and France. 



Omitting several names of less note, we would 

 mention John Reuchlin or Capnio, a German, and 

 Nicholas Perottus, archbishop of Siponto, as num- 

 bered among those who in the fifteenth century 

 deserved well of Latin lexicography. But one of 

 the most known of the early Latin dictionaries 

 was that of Calepin. The author was a monk, 

 and took his name from a small town called Cale- 

 pio, in the territory of Venice as it then existed. 

 Calepin made liberal use of the labours of his pre- 

 decessors in the preparation of his work, but, as 

 at first published in 1502, it was of no great value. 

 Succeeding scholars corrected some of its errors, 

 and supplied some of its defects, and numerous 

 editions of this dictionary followed each other. 

 Among those who laboured to improve the lexicon 

 of Calepin, are found the names of Job. Passera- 

 tius, Jac. Montanus, Lud. de la Cerda, Conrad. 

 Gesner, and Budaeus. 



In the early part of the sixteenth century, this 

 department of Latin literature received a valuable 

 addition in the well-known Lexicon Ciceronianum 

 of Nizolius. This work, as improved by its suc- 

 cessive editors, especially by Facciolati, exhibits in 

 a form easily accessible the great body of Cicero- 

 nian Latinity, and, though substantially incorpor- 

 ated into later dictionaries, is still of great use to 

 the student. It was less, however, the object of 

 Nizolius to define the meaning of words, than to 

 furnish forms of expression, and a general phraseo- 

 logical storehouse. But the claims of lexicography 

 were not wholly disregarded. The author ar- 

 ranged the phrases, which he had collected, under 

 distinct heads, though not always with a just dis- 

 crimination ; and this Thesaurus was an important 

 accession to Latin literature, considered merely as 

 a dictionary. 



Robert Stephens, who was so highly distin- 

 guished both as a scholar and a printer, first pub- 

 lished his Thesaurus Lingua: Latince in 1531. 

 This was a work of great labour and value. The 

 author issued a second edition in 1536, and a third 

 in 1543, with large improvements. 



In the year 1571, was published at Leipsic the 

 first edition of the Thesaurus Lingua Scholastics 

 of Basil Faber. This author, in the composition 

 of his work, departed in a great measure from the 

 track of his predecessors. It was not his aim to 

 furnish a vocabulary of the Latin language, with a 

 bare explication of the meaning of words, but to 

 enter more largely, than had hitherto been done, 

 into the regions of poetry and criticism, and to ex- 

 hibit in addition an extensive view of idioms, pe- 

 culiar constructions, and elegant phraseology. 

 Hence his quotations from the Roman authors, 

 both in prose and verse, are numerous and ex- 

 tended, and often selected with judgment and taste. 

 Illustrations of mythology, geography, and history, 

 constitute an important part of the work, and at 

 the time of its appearance must have rendered it 

 peculiarly valuable. The Thesaurus of Faber was 

 improved by succeeding editors, and especially by 

 Joh. Matt. Gesner, whose edition appeared at Leip- 

 sic in 1726. 



Johannes de Garlandia, who flourished in the 

 eleventh century, was the first Englishman who 

 turned his attention to compiling a Latin diction- 

 ary, and his Synonyma et JEquivoca was first pub- 

 lished at Cologne, in 1490, and soon after in Lon- 



don. About half a century after, Thomas Elyot 

 published his Bibliotheca. Elyot was succeeded 

 by numerous authors in the same department, 

 among whom the most noted were Thomas Cow- 

 per, Francis and Thomas Holyoake, and Adam 

 Littleton. This last-named lexicographer acquired 

 the most reputation by his labours ; and his work, 

 especially as improved in the Latin dictionary pub- 

 lished at Cambridge in 1693, has very considerable 

 value. The editors of this last work, among other 

 aids, had at their disposal a manuscript collection 

 of authorities from Roman authors, in three vol- 

 ! umes, folio, by John Milton. 



In the year 1735, a corrected and enlarged edi- 

 ' tion of the dictionary of Robert Stephens was pub- 

 | lished in London. In preparing this work for the 

 ; press, the editors aimed to combine with the The- 

 \ saurus of Stephens some of the peculiar excellencies 

 of Faber. Their efforts were in a good degree 

 successful ; and the publication of the London edi- 

 tion of Stephens brought this branch of lexico- 

 graphy to such a state, that, with the increased 

 means of literary labour, and the new zeal which 

 was manifest in every species of improvement, its 

 subsequent more rapid advance towards perfection 

 might be easily anticipated. 



In the mean time, as the only Latin dictionary 

 common in the English schools was that of Coles, 

 which was full of errors and defects, proposals 

 were made in 1714 to Mr Robert Ainsworth, who 

 enjoyed a high reputation for his knowledge of the 

 Latin language, to prepare a new dictionary.which 

 should better answer the public demand. This he 

 undertook ; and after having laboured, with some 

 interruptions, for more than twenty years, in 1736 

 he published his Thesaurus Linguae Latinee Compen- 

 diarius. The English-Latin Part was a great im- 

 provement on any thing of the kind which had 

 preceded it. In the Second Part of the work, 

 where the Latin precedes the English, the arrange- 

 ment of the definitions was new. Each meaning 

 was numbered, and the authorities, which were 

 placed in a body after the English definitions, 

 were numbered in the same manner for the ease of 

 reference. This was thought an important im- 

 provement; but it may be justly questioned, whe- 

 ther the use of this disposition of the authorities is 

 not rather apparent than real. The eye, perhaps, 

 may pass more readily from one part of a definition 

 i to another, so far as the English is concerned ; but 

 i if the authorities on which the definitions rest are 

 i to be consulted, a course almost always useful, 

 . and sometimes necessary to the student, there is 

 i an obvious source of embarrassment. And it will 

 ; probably be found, likewise, that students, in con- 

 sequence of this separation, often fail to consult 

 the authorities as they ought, and to receive that 

 advantage from them which they are designed to 

 afford. This dictionary of Ainsworth was very 

 favourably received ; but with some excellences it 

 had likewise its faults. Succeeding editors have 

 somewhat improved it ; but on comparing in vari- 

 ous places the late London stereotype edition with 

 that of 1736, the changes appear to be few. Some 

 errors have been corrected, and some deficiencies 

 supplied, but the work is essentially what it was 

 at first. 



In the year 1715, a new Latin Lexicon was 



begun at Padua, chiefly at the suggestion, and 



under the superintendence and advice of Jac. Fac- 



. ciolati the head of the university. Facciolati was 



j advantageously known by his labours in the pro- 



