"This is due to the general principle spoken of before, that the sacrifice was looked upon as a meal for the gods. Whatever was held to be the best meal for human beings was regarded as also constituting a proper sacrifice."

In this connection I also call attention to the well-wroughtout article by DR. GAST in the REFORMED CHURCH REVIEW, January, 1900, The Idea of Sacrifice as Developed in the Old Testament.

A comparative table of the Semitic alphabets, such as there is in GES.-BUHL, might be given a place in a future edition of this lexicon. Such a table would be serviceable especially to those users of the lexicon who have not yet sufficiently mastered the different Semitic alphabets, but yet are otherwise anxious to make use of the comparative philological material in the body of the work. The presence of such a table is accordingly also "a stimulus to study the cognate languages." Just a word concerning the treatment of the Aramaic of the Old Testament. This is treated separately at the end of the lexicon on pages 1078-1118, instead of in one alphabetic series along with the Hebrew. This method of treatment gives the Aramaic, by lifting it out of the Hebrew vocabulary where former lexicographers were wont to embed it, its proper independence and quietly causes the student to feel that Aramaic is an independent language which has to be studied separately. This separate treatment is thus likely to prove an incentive to study this important language and its literature. The importance of a knowledge of this language for the New Testament student I have brought out in another place.* The Aramaic of the Old Testament, especially that

* The Importance of a Knowledge of the Semitic Languages to the Proper Understanding of the New Testament, in the REFORMED CHURCH REVIEW, October, 1906. My main contention in this article has met with general approval. European scholars, by letter, expressed their approval, so has also, among others, the Professor of New Testament Science in our Theological Seminary, DR. WM. C. SCHAEFFER. Before the article was read before the public it was submitted to the latter for criticism. A brief written criticism was handed to me in which, among other things, he said: "Your main contention will, I think, be readily granted."

In urging the importance of the Semitic languages, and in particular the

in the book of Daniel stands nearer to the time of Jesus and his disciples than any other that has come down to us thus far in literature.

The printing of the lexicon is remarkably clear and the proof-reading well done. On page 860, 2nd column, should be ney, and on page 188, 1st column, last line, read Aramaic, upon theological students I was preceded by 26 years by my honored professor and friend DR. GAST, who addressed these words to the ministers and theological students of our church: "But we assure our younger ministers and theological students, that in the use of this version [the Peš.], they will be amply repaid for the little time and trouble necessary to master its language,—that language into which the New Testament was first translated, and which is almost identical with that spoken by our Lord and his disciples." REFORMED CHURCH REVIEW, April, 1880, p. 262.

What was true then, is still more so now, because of the epoch-making discoveries of 1892 and subsequently. Moreover, not only does the Old and New Testament student, who interests himself scientifically in his subject, need a knowledge of the Aramaic language, but the historian of early church history as well. It is generally acknowledged by those who have a right to a judgment in this matter that HARNACK's first volume of his Dogmengeschichte is the most original and characteristic, because it is based upon the author's own investigations of the original sources. Nevertheless, this excellent piece of work, now quite generally admired, is marred because of the learned historian's insufficient knowledge of the original sources in the Aramaic language. This is the opinion of those who know much more Aramaic than my little self. The many greater and lesser lights who use HABNACK's works as a source and go back no further, some of whom, perchance may not even know that among the source-material for early church history there are Aramaic sources, can, of course, not be allowed a voice in this matter scientifically. Even LooFs thinks the church historian rarely has occasion to use Syriac: "Ich wenigstens gestehe offen, dass die Kenntnis des Hebräischen und Syrischen, die ich in Lagardes Schule mir erworben hatte, sich in den seitdem verflossenen 26 Jahren nur verringert hat." To check "Dilettanten," Loors said, at the same time, in the fall of the year 1906, that his knowledge of these languages was still sufficient. This state of affairs led NÖLDEKE, no doubt, to express himself as follows in the article, Aramaic Language, in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, column 285 f: "It is very desirable that theologians who interest themselves scientifically in the history of the first centuries of Christianity should learn some Syriac. The task is not very difficult for those who know Hebrew."

"for" instead of "or." The volume, it should be added here, is octavo in size and handsomely bound in half Russia leather. We congratulate the Union Theological Seminary upon the appearance of this lexicon, and more particularly the two of its professors whose names appear on the title page as editors. These successors of the great ROBINSON seem to share a double portion of the spirit of their predecessor; they stand in the front ranks of American scholarship in Old Testament Science and in Semitics, a position which they attained by arduous labor and diligence. "Die kennis komt niet met het vak." The high character of this their joint work has shown to us anew "that the study of the Hebrew language and literature demands the same linguistic ability and scientific method that are indispensable to success in other fields of philological and literary research."* The work of these professors is a monument to American scholarship, resting upon the broad foundations laid by the untiring and learned master GESENIUS of the first half of the last century, built up by making use in a discriminating way, as wise builders, of the relatively assured results of the world's best modern scholarship in Semitics and in Old Testament science. In its structure go, speaking in a general way, the best results of comparative philology, textual and literary criticism, archæology, and some of the results of the science of the history of religions. It is truly a great work, though somewhat marred and unequal because of its slow appearance in fasciculi ever since 1891. Though strictly we cannot call it " up to date," nevertheless we would * PROFESSOR Noss in his Inaugural Address, Scientific Theology, 1905, p. 40.

It is so characterized by HENRY PRESERVED SMITH in the Biblical World, April, 1907, in an instructive article, General Survey of Work on the Old Testament, p. 285: “For the first time in many years American students are in possession of a lexicon which may fairly be called up to date. The elaborateness of this work will make it a standard work for reference for a long time to come, and it is not likely to have a competitor." It may also be of interest to some readers to read in this connection the following from the Literary Digest, February, 1907, p. 263: "We regard this as the only extant lexicon of complete authority

1

not like to be without it, and we are glad that at last there is a standard Hebrew-English lexicon which can be used with profit and pleasure by beginners as well as by advanced students. We have recommended it to our classes in the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, at Lancaster, Pa., and are now using it. We shall continue to recommend it until a better lexicon appears.

This lexicon should not call forth a rival, but now that it has appeared in its completeness the editors should continue to work and at suitable intervals put out new editions which present "the additional material which is now in their hands,' according to the "Preface," and which keep pace with the rapidly advancing knowledge in the department of Old Testament science.

for English students. The references are copious, the printing and manufacture really exquisite, and the whole work is likely to prove a delight as well as a source of real help to the Hebrew scholar and student at every stage of his studies."

III.

THE POETRY OF LONGFELLOW.*

BY PROF. C. ERNEST WAGNER, A.M.

Is Longfellow, as some recent critics allege, merely the poet of the obvious and the commonplace? Or is he something more than this? That he was and continues to be widely popular there can be no doubt. Certainly no poet of our own land, no poet, it may be said, with the possible exception of Burns, has enjoyed so fully during his life-time the appreciation of his fellow-countrymen; no English poet since Byron has shared with him the distinction of "going round the world." Not only have reprints in the English language been made in several of the countries of continental Europe, but numerous translations occur in German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, French, Italian, with a few versions of single poems in Portuguese, Spanish, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian, and even Russian.

Testimony such as this may be used in one of two ways: to prove that the poet's appeal is, in his own age, well-nigh universal, or to demonstrate the presence in his work of the obvious and the commonplace. Homer, Dante, and Shakspere are world poets, poets for all time; and yet, who would have the temerity to call them "popular" poets to-day? In America, certainly, Eugene Field, Whitcomb Riley, and Bliss Carman would better merit the title. The simple test of popularity is, therefore, an extremely hazardous one to employ. Thomas Hovenden's "Breaking the Home Ties" was, by all odds, the most popular single picture at the Chicago Exposition, in 1893. And why? Certainly not because of any marvelous skill in technique or any greatness of treatment, reveal

* A paper read at a centenary celebration of the poet's birth, held in Lancaster, Pa., on the evening of February 27, 1907.