in some other languages, in any degree correspondent. I shall exemplify these three classes in Greek, Latin, and English, which will sufficiently illustrate my meaning.

3. In all languages, the words whereby the obvious productions of nature, and the plainest distinctions of genera and species known to the people are signified, correspond respectively to one another. Thus to the Greek words ήλιος, σεληνη, ορνις, δενδρον, αετός, αμπελος, λιθος, the Latin words, sol, luna, avis, arbor, aquila, vitis, lapis, and the English, sun, moon, bird, tree, eagle, vine, stone, are perfectly equivalent in signification; and we are sure that we can never mistake in rendering the Greek word λos, wherever it occurs, into Latin by the word sol, and into English by the word sun. The same thing holds true of the other terms in the three languages, taken severally in the order in which I have placed them.

To this class we must add the names of natural and obvious relations, as πατηρ, μητηρ, υἱος, θυγατηρ, αδελφος, αδελφη, to which the Latin words pater, mater, filius, filia, frater, soror, and the English words father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, perfectly correspond.

To the same class we ought also to assign those words whereby the most common and necessary productions of the mechanic arts are expressed: for though, in different countries, and distant ages, there are considerable differences in the fashion and appearance of their productions, we attend solely, in translating, to the prin cipal uses which a piece of work was intended to answer. Consequently, when in these we find an entire coincidence, we, without further examination, pronounce the names equivalent. Thus OIKOG, VAVG, Kλn, in Greek, and domus, navis, lectus, in Latin, answer sufficiently to house, ship, bed, in English, on account of the coincidence in use of the things signified, notwithstanding the less important differences in structure and workmanship.

These, however, are not entirely on the same footing with natural objects; in which there is every where, and in every age, a more perfect uniformity. The names Bißiov, liber, book, are in most cases suited to one another. But as the books of the ancients were in outward form and construction very different from ours, when we find any thing advanced concerning ßßλov in Greek, or liber in Latin, with an evident allusion to the outward make, we know that the English word book is not a proper version. Thus the words ουρανος απεχωριςθη ὡς βιβλιον είλισσομεvov, Rev. vi. 14. if rendered "heaven departed as a book that is rolled up," would not be intelligible, though nothing conveys a more distinct image than the words in the original. Their books consisted of long scrolls, commonly of parchment, sewed or pasted together, and fastened at the ends to two rollers. Our translators properly therefore employed here the more general word

scroll, which perfectly conveys the meaning. Again, the word Bißλov occurs in an application wherein the term book could not be rightly apprehended by a mere English reader: Bißiov yeγραμμενον EOWDEV KAι OTTιoev, in the common version, "a book written within and on the back-side," Rev. v. 1. To such a reader, the last term thus applied would be understood to mean the cover, which is not very fit for being written on, and could, besides, contain no more than might have been contained in one additional leaf, though the book had consisted of a thousand leaves. Now the long scrolls or books of the ancients were seldom written but on one side, here said to be ɛow≈ɛv, within, because that side was turned inwards in rolling. When any of these scrolls was written on both sides, it contained twice as much as if written in the usual way. The chief intention of the prophet in mentioning this circumstance must have been to signify, that this volume was replete with information, and that its contents were not to be measured by its size. But notwithstanding the exceptions in a few particular cases, the names of the common productions of the most necessary arts may be considered as so far at least corresponding to each other in most languages, as not to throw any difficulty worth mentioning in the way of a translator.

4. The second class above-mentioned is of those words which, in one language, do but imperfectly correspond to any of the words of another language compared with it. Of this kind will be found, if properly attended to, most of the terms relating to morals, to the passions and matters of sentiment, or to the objects of the reflex and internal senses, in regard to which it is often impossible to find words in one language that are exactly equivalent to those of another. This holds in all languages less or more, according as there is more or less uniformity in the constitution, religion, and laws, of the nations whose languages are compared; on which constitution, religion, and laws, as was observed, the sentiments, manners, and customs of the people, in a great measure depend. Herein consists one principal difficulty, which translators, if persons of penetration, have to encounter. Finding it sometimes impossible to render fully the sense of their author, they are constrained (if I may borrow a term from the mathematicians) to do the best they can by approxi

mation.

To come to examples: To the Greek words αρετη, σωφροσύνη, εγκράτεια, φρόνησις, ελεος, the Latin words, virtus, temperantia, continentia, prudentia, misericordia, are not entirely equivalent; still less the English words, virtue, temperance, continence, prudence, mercy for, though these last are manifestly formed from the Latin words, one would think that, by being adopted into another country, they had all, more or less, changed their na

A book executed in this manner the Greeks called onioSoygapes, which is thus expressed by Juvenal, "Scriptus et in tergo." Sat. 1.

ture with the climate. Those persons whose knowledge in such matters is but superficial, will not enter readily into these sentiments. They are accustomed to consider certain words, in the different languages, as respectively correspondent. The grammars, lexicons, and common translations, lead them to conclude so, and they inquire no further. But those who are conversant with authors of reputation in these different tongues, will need no arguments to convince them of the truth of what has been advanced.

Who knows not that the Latin word virtus would, in many instances, be but weakly, not to say improperly rendered by the English word virtue; as that word, in Roman authors, comes often nearer the import of what we call valour or fortitude, sometimes even brute force? We should not readily ascribe virtue to wild beasts; yet Tacitus so applies the term virtus:-" Fera animalia, si clausa teneas, virtutis obliviscuntur." And if some of our words have too great latitude of signification to answer always to their Latin etymons, some have, on the contrary, too little. For example, the English word temperance is too confined in meaning to answer to the Latin temperantia, which implies moderation in every desire, and is defined by Cicero, in one place, "Moderatio cupiditatum rationi obediens ;'

another, "Temperantia est quæ in rebus aut expetendis aut fugiendis, rationem ut sequamur, monet."+ Now all that is implied in the English word is almost only that species which he denominates "temperantia in victu." And, though the differences may not be so considerable in all the other related words abovementioned, it were easy to show that they cannot, in every instance, be made to tally.

It requires, indeed, but a very small skill in languages to enable us to discover, that etymology is often a very unsafe guide to the proper acceptation of a term. It will not be doubted that the Latin word sobrius is the root of the English word sober, and their term honestum of our term honesty; but every body knows that the related words in the two languages will not always answer to each other. Nay, to show, in the strongest manner, how much more difficult it is, than is commonly imagined, to apprehend the precise import and proper application of words of this order in dead languages, I shall transcribe a short passage from the fourth book of the Tusculan Questions, where the author explains the generic word ægritudo, with the various names of species comprehended under it. Amongst other observations are the following:-"Egritudo est opinio recens mali præsentis, in quo demitti contrahique animo rectum esse videatur. Ægritudini subjiciuntur angor, moeror, dolor, luctus, ærumna, afflictatio: angor est ægritudo premens, moeror ægritudo flebilis, ærumna ægritudo laboriosa, dolor ægritudo crucians, ↑ De Finibus, l. i.

De Finibus, 1. ii,

afflictatio ægritudo cum vexatione corporis, luctus ægritudo ex ejus qui carus fuerat interitu acerbo.' "Let any one," says D'Alembert,* examine this passage with attention, and say honestly, whether, if he had not known of it, he would have had any idea of these nice shades of signification here marked; and whether he would not have been much embarrassed, had he been writing a dictionary, to distinguish with accuracy the words ægritudo, mæror, dolor, angor, luctus, ærumna, afflictatio. If Cicero, the greatest philosopher as well as orator that ever Rome produced, had composed a book of Latin synonymas, such as Abbé Girard did of French; and if this work had but now for the first time been produced in a circle of modern Latinists, I imagine it would have greatly confounded them, in showing them how defective their knowledge is of a subject of which they thought themselves masters."

I have brought this quotation, not to support D'Alembert's opinion, who maintains that it is possible for any modern writer to write Latin with purity; but only to show how much nicer a matter it is than is commonly supposed, to enter critically into the peculiarities of a dead language. It might be easily shown, were it necessary, that distinctions like those now illustrated in the nouns, obtain also in the verbs of different languages. Under this class those words also may be comprehended which are not barely the names of certain things, or signs of particular ideas, but which express also the affection or disposition of the speaker towards the thing signified. In every language we shall find instances wherein the same thing has different names, which are not perfectly synonymous; for though there be an identity of subject, there is a difference of manner, wherein the speaker appears affected towards it. One term will convey the idea with contempt, another with abhorrence, a third with some relish, a fourth with affection, and a fifth with indifference. Of this kind are the diminutives and the amplificatives which abound so much in the Greek and Italian languages.

It is this principally which justifies Girard's observation, that there are much fewer words in any language which are in all respects synonymous, than is commonly imagined. And it is this which makes the selection of apposite words so much, and so justly, the study of an orator: for when he would operate on the passions of his hearers, it is of the last consequence that the terms he employs not only convey the idea of the thing signified, which may be called the primary use, but that, along with it, they insinuate into the minds of the hearers the passion of the speaker, whatever it be, love or hatred, admiration or contempt, aversion or desire. This, though the secondary use of the word, is not the less essential to his design. It is chiefly from the associated affection that these different qualities of synonymous words

* Sur l'Harmonie des Langues, et sur la Latinité des Modernes.

taken notice of by Quintilian must be considered as originating: "Sed cum idem frequentissime plura significent, quod ov vo v va vocatur, jam sunt alia aliis honestiora, sublimiora, nitidiora, jucundiora, vocaliora." The last is the only epithet which regards merely the sound. The following will serve for an example of such English synonymas-public speaker, orator, declaimer, haranguer, holder-forth. The subject of them all is the same, being what the first expression, public speaker, simply denotes; the second expresses also admiration in the person who uses it; the third conveys disapprobation, by hinting that it is the speaker's object rather to excite the passions than to convince the judgment; the fourth is disrespectful, and the fifth contemptuous.

But there is a difference in words called synonymous, arising from the customary application, even when they imply little or nothing of either sentiment or affection. The three words, death, decease, demise, all denote the same thing. The first is the simple and familiar term; the second is formal, being much employed in proceedings at law; the third is ceremonious, and scarcely used of any but princes and grandees. There are also some words peculiar to poetry, some to burlesque, which it is needless here to specify. From these observations we learn, that, in writings where words of this second class frequently occur, it is impossible in a consistency with either perspicuity or propriety, to translate them uniformly by the same terms, like those of the first. For, as has been observed, they are such as do not perfectly correspond with the terms of a different tongue. You may find a word that answers exactly to the word in question in one acceptation that will not suit it in another; though for this purpose some other term may be found equally well adapted.

It was too servile an attempt in the first translators of the Old Testament (at least of the Pentateuch, for the whole does not appear to have been translated at one time, or by the same persons) at this rigid uniformity, in rendering the same Hebrew words by the same Greek words, which has given such a peculiarity of idiom to the style of the Septuagint, and which, issuing thence as from its fountain, has infected more or less all the writings of the New Testament. I might observe further, that there are some words in the original by no means synonymous, which have been almost uniformly rendered by the same term-partly perhaps through not adverting sufficiently to some of the nicer differences of signification, partly through a desire of avoiding as much as possible in the translation, whatever might look like comment or paraphrase. Of this I shall have occasion to take notice afterwards.

5. The third class above-mentioned, is of those words in the language of every nation, which are not capable of being translated into that of any people who have not a perfect conformity with them in those customs which have given rise to those words.