given him concerning the words themselves-he will acquire a knowledge of the difference between the two words under consideration; but that knowledge will be strictly limited to the words themselves, and the explanation itself will not suggest any power of distinguishing between other words. Such terms are explained in the fifth section of this work, and are ranged under the head of "MISCELLANEOUS."

In concluding my remarks upon this classification of synonymous words, I must again repeat that I do not set forth this system as a complete or perfect classification of such terms, but that I have adopted it for want of a better, or rather, for want of any existing arrangement. In all the works on synonymy which have fallen under my notice, I have in vain searched for some rule, the application of which would bring any required word under a certain class, and thus enable a student to ascertain its precise meaning, as distinguished from its nearest relative. As far as I am aware, no system of classification has been adopted by any writer on the subject. But though it is true that none of these writers has adopted such a classification as might suggest to the learner uniformly acting principles of difference, there can be no question that they were acquainted with these principles, for they have frequently employed them in their definitions. On the other hand, though the meaning of some words is explained in these works, in many instances, with great ingenuity and acuteness, many others are defined upon very vague, and some upon very arbitrary principles. The student, it is true, may gain the information he requires with respect to certain words; but here his knowledge stops; it is restricted to the words immediately under consideration; nothing is done towards enlarging his views of the philosophy of language, nor is any rule given him by which he may for himself discover the real difference which exists between words apparently identical.

Every one who has had any habit or practice in composing must remember the doubts he has frequently entertained of the proper use of many words suggesting themselves in the course of writing. In all cases of this sort, there is a word, and but one word, which will exactly convey our meaning;

but the difficulty is how to get at it. The writer lays down his pen begins to think-becomes more and more embarrassed—till, at last, by some lucky association, a word, which he fancies the right one, strikes his mind, and he imagines the difficulty removed. Very far from it; another word, apparently as appropriate as the first, presents itself to his mind, and he now is more perplexed between the two, than he was before puzzled about the one. With many, it now becomes a mere question of euphony, and the more harmonious word is adopted without hesitation. But the conscientious writer, though he may regard harmony as a very desirable attainment, cannot be satisfied with sound for sense, and he looks for some principle upon which he can securely rely, to guide him in his choice. It is true, that he can search for the difference between the two words in some work of reference, and will probably obtain the required information, as regards the word itself, the precise meaning of which he wishes to fix; but he will perhaps not have written a few lines, before the same difficulty again presents itself, and he thus finds himself conInually involved in the most discouraging perplexities. These observations will, of course, not apply to the careless writer. To him it is of little consequence in what form he exhibits his thoughts, or what words he employs in expressing them; however just his views on any subject may be, or whatever merit he may possess, either of novelty or originality of thought, his total indifference to accuracy of expression will not only cause him to fail in his attempts to make his readers understand him, but will produce much positive harm in their minds, by the looseness and inaccuracy of his style.

But to those who would write sensibly and carefully-who are not satisfied with sound for sense, and who are honestly desirous of acquiring a clear and perspicuous style, the following rule may be useful:-Where a difficulty of choice in two or more words occurs, collect together all those which bear upon the meaning desired, and apply to them some of the principles above explained. It will be found, that some may be ranged under the class of generic and specific, others may belong to the active and passive class, a third pair may

be distinguished by the principle of intensity, others again may be to each other as positive and negative, and so forth. By thus applying some general principle of difference to words, the precise limits to the meaning of each will not be so difficult to ascertain, and the habit of testing their signification in this manner will soon produce a marked effect on the style of those who practise the rule.

There is one science intimately connected with the subject of synonymy, upon which it will be naturally expected that some remarks should here be made. I mean Etymology. A knowledge of the derivation of words is unquestionably of great service in enabling us to determine their meaning, and it may be confidently asserted, that they who are wholly ignorant of those languages from which English is derived can never have that clear conception of the primary signification of words which every good etymologist must possess. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten, that as words are continually undergoing some alteration in meaning, and in course of time, acquiring an incrustation, as it were, of signification, we should not place too firm a reliance on a knowledge of their original meaning, in endeavoring to fix the exact limits of their modern acceptation. A love for antiquity and classical associations, however natural and admirable in itself, may, like all other strong passions, prove in some respects pernicious; and it is much to be feared, that undue admiration for the beauty of ancient languages has, in many instances, caused us to underrate the qualities of our mother tongue. But we should remember, that in order to gain any sound knowledge of a subject, it is necessary not only to make ourselves acquainted with its origin, but also to be able to trace it through all the phases of its existence, a rule particularly applicable to language, the materials of which are so fluctuating and changeable. Now, the principles before explained do not belong to any one language in particular, but are applicable to every language on the globe, both ancient and modern; they are universal—they are founded in the very nature of thingsthey existed before any language was spoken, and we may presume that they will last as long as the world continues to

exist. I would not have it supposed, that in making these remarks, I entertain any disrespect for the languages or literature of antiquity; so far from this being the case, I yield to none in my respect and veneration for the ancients; and I am impressed with a firm conviction, that antiquity is the source from which all the poets and philosophers of modern times have most copiously drawn. I would merely caution the young student against allowing his prejudices in favour of the ancients to interfere with the application of universal principles. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the ancients were as well acquainted with these principles as ourselves, for every day brings to light some new proof of how much further advanced they were even in practical science than we are inclined to give them credit for; and we are not justified in inferring, because they have left us no distinct works upon this subject, that they were not aware of these principles, and did not apply them in the same way as the moderns.

It is not a little surprising that the English, who in some questions have displayed such admirable patience of research and sagacity of investigation, should have produced so few works on the subject of synonymy. During the last century, France reckoned a considerable number of writers on this subject; among others, Girard, Voltaire, D'Alembert, Duclos, Dumarsais, Diderot, Beauzée, Roubaud, Lavaux, &c. The German writers on synonymy are Eberhard and Maass. The Italians and Spanish have also directed some attention to this subject among the former may be mentioned, Grassi, Romani, and Tommaseo; and among the latter, Huerta and March. The only works on synonymy deserving of notice which we possess in English are, those of Dr. Trusler, Mr. W. Taylor, of Norwich, and Mr. Crabb. These are all books of reference, and not one of them adapted to the wants of younger students, or in any way suited to the purposes of practical education. Dr. Trusler's book, published at London in 1766, was a partial abstract of the Abbé Girard's "Synonymes Français." Most of the articles are little more than translations from this work, and these are interspersed with some original definitions of some contiguous terms peculiar to

ourselves. But many of his explanations are very vague; several of the terms which he defines are altered in meaning since his time, and others are growing, or have already be come, obsolete. These objections are of themselves sufficient to render his work rather a matter of literary curiosity than a source of instruction. Mr. Taylor's work, which appeared in 1813, displays much learning. He has taken etymology as the basis of his definitions, but in so doing, he appears to have frequently lost sight of the modern acceptation of words, and consequently he has sometimes attempted to force on words a meaning which they do not really possess. Hence many of his definitions and discriminations are purely arbitrary. For these reasons, his work was not so useful as he undoubtedly had the power of making it, and we believe that it never reached a second edition. But the largest work that we possess on the subject of synonymy is that of Mr. Crabb, who, in 1810, published his "English Synonymes arranged in alphabetical order." This is a work of much higher pretensions, and, as a book of reference, is unquestionably of great utility. There is, however, one point connected with its execution which appears to interfere in some measure with its utility. One part of the plan of his work, is to compare four or five, and sometimes as many as six words of the same class of meaning, and explain their differences in one article. In doing this, all the words are so mixed up together, and their explanations so perplexed, that the student, who it may be presumed is searching for the exact meaning of a single word, often finds it utterly impossible to disentangle the one term from the many with which it is mixed up, and thus, in many cases, obtains no satisfactory information. It should be remarked, however, that this practice is not peculiar to Mr. Crabb, but is common to both the others, as well as to all the foreign writers on the subject.*

* Besides the works above mentioned, there was published at Brunswick, in 1841, a work entitled "Synonymisches Handwörterbuch der Englischen Sprache für die Deutschen." The author of this work is Dr. Melford, professor of modern languages in the University of Göttingen. This book, which is merely a translation of some of the principal articles in Crabb, with additional examples, contributes nothing whatever towards an improved knowledge of synonymy.