difficulties attending the execution of it are unquestionably formidable; and the mere fact of its being a dead language prefents the greatest of obftacles. We know the mistakes to which every, one is liable who attempts for the first time to speak any of those languages of modern Europe which he has previously known only from books. A little confideration will convince us, that thefe difficulties arise principally from the impoffibility of feizing the nice differences and fhades of meaning which the fame, words are capable of bearing in different fituations; in a word, that they originate chiefly from the want of an intimate acquaintance with the fynonymous terms of the language. As this is a difficulty which can scarcely be furmonted without the affistance of frequent colloquial intercouse, it is obvious that it must prove almoft infuperable in the cafe of a language which has long ceafed to be spoken, and where we cannot have recourse to the aid of converfation to refolve our doubts and rectify our mistakes. Nor are thefe difficulties in any way diminished by the confideration that the language in queftion ran a longer career than most others with which we are acquainted, and participated in the progrefs.of a people who extended not only their dominion but their laws and customs over the greatest part of the civilized world. Should it be fuggefted that thofe writers, however, on whofe authority alone we could rely, all exifted about the fame period, and confequently that the sphere of our inquiry need not be extremely extenfive, it may easily be replied, in the first place, that from them alone we fhould never be able to trace that hiftorical progrefs of the language by which alone its fignificance is often determined; and, fecondly, that the writers alluded to, contributing by their own exertions to the refinement and perfection of their language, indulged in fo wide a range of metaphorical expreffion, that a thorough acquaintaince with the military difcipline, the civil and religious inftitutions of the Roman people, is indifpenfably neceffary for thofe who with to feel the full force of the fynonymous and figurative expreffions which abound in the compofitions of the pureft writers of the Auguftan age.

But if Dr Hill had to encounter confiderable difficulty in digefting the matter of fuch a work, he had every advantage and facility, we think, in reducing it to order and form. A treatise on fynonymes was no longer a novelty in the literature of Europe, nor could the author of it be at any lofs how to employ and difpofe his materials in fuch a way as to infure the approbation of the public. The Abbé Girard alone has the merit of originality in this refpect. His book has profeffedly served as the model for all the authors who, fince his time, have written on fimilar fub

jects.

jects. In his own language he has been followed, and in fome refpects furpaffed by Rouland. A book alfo on the synonymes of the Italian language was published at Parma, A. D. 1778, by Aleffandro Maria Bandiera; and what is more to our purpose, M. Dumefnil, a profeffor in the univerfity of Paris, has given to the world a book entitled, Synonymes Latins, et leurs differentes fignifications, avec les exemples tirés des meilleurs aufeurs, à l'imitation de M. L'Abbé Girard.' This, though not without its faults, may be confidered as a prototype, in many refpects well worthy the imitation of fucceeding writers. Suppofing, however (which we fcarcely can fuppofe), that Dr Hill was ignorant of the existence of Dumefnil's book, ftill, from his own confeflion, he was no stranger to that of Girard; and the truth is, that however the original author of a work on fynonymes may be deemed inferior to Rouland in the profoundness of his learning and the folidity of his arguments, he ftands (and probably ever will ftand) unrivalled for the perfpicuity of his ftyle, the neatness of his illuftration, and for the happy faculty he poffeffes of keeping alive the attention of his reader, and mingling entertainment with his inftruction.

Unfortunately for us, our learned Profeffor has not imitated the excellences of Girard's work, even where they were moft open to his imitation. Inftead of contenting himself with a clear and concife definition of all the words he has undertaken to diftinguifh, Dr Hill, by conftantly aiming at fubtle and comprehenfive difquifitions, fo confufes and bewilders himself, that it is frequently dangerous to attempt to follow him through all the mazes and windings of his intricate course.

Ne labyrinteis è finibus egredientem

Tecti fruftraretur inextricabilis error.

The nature and extent of the faults into which he has fallen will be beft judged of, however, by an examination of the work itfelf. We may begin with the Preface.

After giving us fome useful advice concerning the delicate ma nagement of a young philologift, our author proceeds to inform us, that in order to make his views intelligible on a fubject to which few grammarians have as yet paid the attention it deferves, he hall

-fift ftate precisely what he means by fynonymous terms, and then thew the caufes of the ambiguity they fometimes occafion, together with the means by which this may be removed.

The word fynonymous (he adds) is fuppofed to be applicable to fuch terms only as denote precifely the fame conception. Though this fe of it be legitimate and confiflent with its etymology, it must not be units only one,

P. in.

the way, we may ask how this ufe of it is confiftent

with

with its etymology. Scaliger was of a contrary opinion, when, after citing enfis, fpatha, and gladius, as terms which, in the general acceptation of the world, were called fynonymous, he adds, * Græci hæc rohovoux, quidam è noftris ou falsò-fortaffe autem rectius locuti eflent Græci fi aware appellaffent, quæ folo nomine extarent indicantia res diverfas.

But to return to our author. Some words occur, in the different languages, fo ftrictly equivalent, that their meaning is not to be diftinguifhed.' (p. iii.) It is not without fome diffculty that we can affent to this propofition, when we recollect with what learning and ingenuity Scaliger and Sannazarius have maintained that there are no two words in the Latin language that have exactly the fame fignification. For our parts, however, we are inclined to think that many terms come to be nearly or altogether fynonymous in the progrefs of language, though we are perfectly perfuaded that each of them had originally a distinct fignification, and either reprefented a different object, or fuggefted the fame object by its relation to different ideas. In ftrictness of fpeech, therefore, we cannot admit that there are any words exactly equivalent in meaning, though there are many undoubtedly that may be ufually fubftituted for each other. The parent stock of fynonymes are thofe great families of tropes and figures, by the multiplication of which, language becomes abftracted and refined; and in these it is always to be recollected that there is a direct and original meaning, befides that which is adventitious and metaphorical. This fecondary meaning is fometimes imperfectly eftablished, and fometimes the word continues to perform both functions with equal propriety. Thus, when Homer ufes the expreffion (Iliad 164.) "Epiɛ nann yànm—y is admirably employed as a fynonymous term for Kagn, a word for which, in its primary fenfe, it could not be fubftituted. In like manner impedimentum is in one fenfe fynonymous to mera; in another, when, for reafons fufficiently obvious (being perhaps one of the most expreflive words in any language), it fignifies the baggage of an army, it may be fubftituted for farcina.

Úr Hill goes on:

• The multiplicity of fuch terms' (viz. words firiåly equivalent) • increafes the harmony of speech, and gives the poet and the orator an advantage in the practice of their refpellive arts.

But, although this copioufnefs may, when in a certain degree, be an article of fuperiority, yet it is poffible for it to degenerate into a hurtful redundance. The fteadinefs of mens' conceptions may be fhaken by a fuperfluous variety in their figns, and obfcurities created by the abuse of a number of thefe, as well as by a fcarcity. Were a redundance of this kind to pervade a language completely, the fame people might be faid to speak, at least, two language at once. Though the

established

eftablifhed fyntax might apply equally to every fet of terms, yet the unmeau ing multiplicity would ely prove the folly of those who formed it.

P. iii..

This paffage is fo contradictory, and fo confufed, as, at first fight, to appear almost unintelligible; the meaning, however, it' was intended to convey, may be readily difcovered in an extract from a celebrated French grammarian, which Dr Hill feems to haye been willing to borrow: Cette varieté de mots met dans le difcours beaucoup d'embarras, et de richeffe; elle est très incommode pour le vulgaire & pour les philofophes qui n'ont d'autre but en parlant, que de s'expliquer clairement; elle aide infiniment au poëte et à l'orateur en donnant une grande abondance à la partie materielle de leur ftyle. (Des Broffes fur la formation des langues)

He is not much more perfpicuous, however, when he trufts folely to the light of his own genius for his direction. In pourtraying the character of the good grammarian, he tells us, that

he (the grammarian), of all men, has leaft right to be arrogant; becaufe, from the nature of things, it is impoffible but that he must imperfectly execute the task impofed upon him.'

And foon afterwards he puts the finifhing ftroke to the portrait of the faid good grammarian, by ftating,

he has a right to fuppofe that the combination, in respect to each mafs of matter, to whatever ufe it has been turned, has been duly afcertained. To the most corret ufe of the term he requires a rigid adhe rence, and he pardons neither the inaccuracies that spring from dulness, not the innovations that spring from conceit." (p. viii.)

,

In an elaborate panegyric on the pureft writers, he defcribes them, in one place, as fneering at the fetters with which fevere critics would bind them; and, in another place, as having forgotten, in the glow of compofition, the ftandard they had established. Nevertheless, we are informed in the fequel, that they never had loft fight of the diftinctive character of the term, and that the feemingly anomalous expreffion may be reconciled with what is primary.' (p. xi.) Thus pure writers are allowed to forget, in the glow of compofition, that which has never been out of their fight!

The ninth page commences with the following extraordinary fentence:

By means of this, the nominal effences of fubftances, which alone can be laid hold of,' &c.

We do not pretend to understand exactly what the nominal effence of a fubftance is; but we will venture to affert, that if a fubftance hath any component part, any quality, relation, or afinity, which it must be particularly difficult to lay hold of, its nominal effence must be the most impalpable. We cannot help regretting, indeed, that Dr Hill fhould not have thought it worth his while to take a little more pains than he feems to have

done

done with the style of thefe introductory obfervations. There is a great want of perfpicuity throughout, and very many deviations from the rules of correct compofition. We do not lay much stress on the many clumfy expreffions which every where occur; as, for inftance, Every fign has its own conception' No difference is at fometimes perceived' Before admitting the juftnefs of this ré mark,' &c. &c.-though we fear our English readers will clafs them under the general head of Scoticifms. We have remarked, alfo, that he fometimes falls, as it were, under the dominion of a word: Thus, in the course of fourteen pages, we find mention made of delicate management, delicate variety, delicate analogies, delicate Gigns, and delicate beauties. This expreflion, however, is evident ly borrowed from certain French writers on this fubject.

We have dwelt the longer on this part of the work, because it furnishes an excellent fpecimen of the ftyle which the reader may expect to encounter, fhould he continue his course through the remainder of the volume; and we have done this the rather, because we think that an author, who pretends to point out the nice diftinctions of language, ought to be peculiarly attentive to the purity of his own expreflions: if thefe appear in the out fet to be unufually inaccurate and confufed, he cannot complain if the reader fhould call in question his competency to execute the talk he has undertaken.

Though Dr Hill has candidly allowed that his lift of fynonymes may be capable of addition, he nevertheless boldly afferts;

that by far the greatest number of Latin words, that can be justly oppofed, are to be met with in this collection. (Prefaces p. xi.); and the size of the book appears, no doubt, to warrant this affertion; but a close investigation of it will fhew that the omiflions are really one of its most characteristic faults. Synonymous words, bbvious to the merelt schoolboy, are unnoticed; as, for inftance, Regnum, Imperium, Dominium-Vultus, Os, Facies-Sermo, Oratio, Loquela-Trepidatio, Terror, Horror, Timor, Pavor-Imus, Inferus, Infimus-Enfis, Gladius-Simul, UnàAntiquus, Vetus, Vetuflus-Crimen, Deli&tum, Culpa-Poculum, Cyathus, Scyphus-Tutus, Securus-Nomen, Vocabulum-Coma, Crinis, Capillus-Collis, Clibus, Mons, Tumulus-Lenis, Mitis, Suavis, Manfuetus→Mare, Pelagus, &c. &c. When words of this stamp are omitted, we cannot be aftonished that no names whatever are inferted, fuch as Cynthia, Diana, Phœbus, Apollo, &c, and that there are few words included, which by their explanation would ferve to illuftrate the civil and military inftitutions of the Roman people. Accordingly, we find no mention made of As, Hæreditas Accenfus, LictorManipulus, Legio, Calors-Tutor, Curator-Epiftola, Littera,

Referipta,