New-York tribune., 1876-02-05
TIE SHAKESPEARE LEXICON
DIR. .sCIIMIpT,s VALUABLE WORK.

MIR. IRvING's INDEf ENsIBLE INNOVATIONS.
iYRoM TIE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT oF THE TRIBUNE.
LONDON, December 22.-The second and conclud-
ing volume of DR.. Alexander Schmidts Shake
speare Lexicon has just been issued IN London by
Mossrs Williams Il Norgate. Henceiorth this
Lexicon is Just as essential part of every Shake
speare scholars equipment as Mrs. COwden Clarkes
Concordance to the Plays, and Mrs. Furness's Con-
cordance TO the Poems. 1t supplies want SO
obvious that the moment you have the DOCK you
wonder how YOU got on without it. The first
volume appeared last year aud those who bought IL
are familiar with its plan But most people have
. Just dislike to trying incomplete works ana
the Lexicon is probably not widely known as 1t
deserves IL is nothing less than n complete die
tonary of all the English words, phrases, and con-
structOns in the 80 plays gwen III the ilIst f0no,
together with Periclcs and the Poems Foreign and
diaectic words and phrases consigned to an al-
pendix; decision Of doubtful prOprIety. They fill
few pages only, and this arrangement has the IN
convenience of making two references sometimes ne
cessary instead of One An Englishman would not
have done it, but All Enghshman is not born with
passion for symmetry, does not crafty it at the
sacrifice of convenience.
Dr. Schmidts principle is simple one. He gives
every word in its alphabetical place defines briefly
and cites or quotes in full the passages In which 1t
occurs Different signfcatiOns and usages OF the
same word are Disseminated the appropriate quota
tions being collected under each head Grainmati-
cal remarks are added where needed; sometimes
critical remarks also, aud there is sometimes hint
Of that quite superuOus habit of elucdaton OF what
seem difficult passages, which the last century COM
mentators and some of this century, indniged N.
Tie variornm editions contain masses of this i'll Dr.
Schmidt there is happily, not much of il, for it is
out of the scope Of his work. An example may be
Hamlet. 4, =.
b77 (the numbering of the lines Is from the Globe
sditionl, DR.. Schmidt thinks il necessary to add
1T is not this faculty of the player that Hamlet
means to call mOnstrOus, but his own lethargy so
different from it, which, however, by kind OF l0gl-
sal anacOluthon he forgets to add "a clean waste OF
four lines DIR. Schmidt might have remembered
but that is one of those things which no German
ever does remember-that anybody who knows what
logical anacouthon is, would probably be able to
interpret the passage for himself For the most part,
however Dr. Schmidt is content 10 rely on ms dehni-
tions. as he should. These again, sometimes
faulty from over subtety; for that very German
tendency to excessive refinement i'll distinguishing
between shades Of meaning essentially similar. /
fear it he said also that grave leXleograpucal
fault may be imputed TO him; that of assigning to
the word under discussion part of the meaning
which is due to its qualifying word or clause ION
Is treated under five separate heads and the fourth
definition is. modifying verbs by the idea oil an
easy aud happy proceeding almost to the best ad-
vantagep and as an illustration is quoted this
comes of we'll" Had the phrase been " this comes
off ill"-whch is equally diOmatc-Dr Schmidt
would doubtless have told us that the verb is mod
fed by the idea of an aRhappy proceeding almost
equal to the Worst advantage. His OWN quotation
from the Two Gentlemen, 1T came hardly off, Is
not easy to reconcile with his theory.
Criticism Of this kind, il is fair to say, is depre
Gated by Dr. Schmidt in his Preface, and an expla-
nation of many errors is perhaps supplied by his
confession that for the purposes Of this lexicon he
has neglected etymology. He does not think ETY.
mology need be much considered in ascertaining the
sense of words at period in which the genius Of the
language was breaking new ways, now and then
even with some violence, to supply its increasing
wautsD Hence he has chosen to arrange the slgnf-
tcations of word in what he calls "A natural and
rational rather than historical order. The ques-
ton, however, is not one Of arrangement merely,
He has gone much further and adopted as rule
that il is "always the safest way TO study and eX
plain the language of Shakespeare by Itself calling
In 10 other help as long as it could be done with
ont That is not for some purposes bad rule
but il is not a rule that be adhered to consist
emily with the period theory propounded just be-
fore. You may regard Shakespeare as standing
alone i'm genius but il is difficult treat his dicti0n
apart from its proper place in the historical devel
opment of the language. Forster ascribes 10 Dyce
remark almost identical in one particular with that
OF Schmidt. He quotes Hazlitts dctum that the
Ezabethau dramatists were a race of giants, all Of
@ noble but common brood, and Shakespeare only
the first among them the tallest and strongest
of them all. "NO" said Dyce, that is
decidedly not so Shakespeare was not only i'm
measurably superior to his Ehzabethan comrades IN
creative power, profound thought. and ins ght INTO
AL baor hut ato ia
from the whole of them in his methods of delinea-
ting character. in language in versifcation and in
pecslarides ofdiction" But take it to be quite
tain that Dyce never said that. lie never could
have used the words have italicized, never used
them in the sense which Forster ascribes to them
certainly not with any such meaning as Dr.
Schmidts. For Dyoe occupied ali his life long
In illustrating Shakespeare by the help OF cotcm-
poraneons authors. Forster himself says Of him that
none of the commentators surpassed and very few
equaled Dyce III the felcitOus application. from
remarkably wide range of reading, of identical or
analogous phrases and words to the settlement OF
lines IN dispute Yet DR.. Schmidt's theory has been
held and held strongly, by others than himself. 1t
eanno! be held consistently by any one who uses
the labors of the long line OF Shakospearean
editors from Rowe downward And If All attempt
be made TO apply it in practice, it breaks down.
Would ANY one venture to put forth an edition OF
Shakespeare rejecting all that had been done since
the first folio appeared IN 1928
This need not have been pressed quite far in
notice Of his particular book. But there signs
In Dr. Schinid,'s preface as well ia the body of
his work that his knowledge Of the critical liter
ature OF Shakespeare is less complete than might be
expected Of man who took upon himself such
task Ii is hard to conceive of trained Shake
sperean scholar coupling the first two fohos, ms If