well to Spain, Portugal, the ports of the Mediterranean, and Germany, as to the territories of the East India Company, on which this perfect compendium is silent. We might proceed to fill pages with errors of a similar nature. The mysteries of bellows-making are more fully disclosed than the principles of MARINE INSURANCE! which are scarcely noticed. On subjects of foreign commerce, blunders and omissions. abound.

We shall extract a few specimens, previously mentioning articles laboured with greater success. Among these we select book-keeping,' in which the relative advantages of double and single entry are well discriminated. This article would have been valuable if a clear outline of the Italian method of book-keeping had been given as well as of that of single-entry, which would have more advantageously employed the spaces assigned to imperfect tables of interest and the terms of fire-insurance-offices, which almost every pocket-book and grocer's shop can furnish.

The important subject of Bills of Exchange is explained with tolerable perspicuity.

The article Bank of England is also respectably executed, and sufficiently answers the futile declamations once circulated on the subject of its solvency. The writer might have added, that if the entire debts owing from the government were lost, the Bank would yet remain solvent.

On Embargo, the author states that, those who suffer from it are to be indemnified for any losses consequently incurred. During the last war, great individual losses and delays were experienced in consequence of the various de tentions of English ships and cargoes in British ports, for which we recollect no instances of indemnity, and few for the delay of ships of any flag.

In the foreign articles we shall limit our attention to a few, among the numerous deficiencies; desirous only of supporting our opinion by adequate facts.

COTTON is omitted among the products of the United States of America;' as well as of Brazil!'

In the list of manufactures of PORTUGAL,' linen, which employs the industry of the northern parts, is not inserted. Among the imports from England, cotton-goods, principal articles, are omitted. From SPAIN' to England, among the exports, no colonial produce appears. On the subject of galleons,' or 'galloons,' we apprehend, the author is incorrect: this system of communication between Spain and her colonies is abolished.

The trade to South America, so far from being confined to Cadiz, has, during many years, been open to Malaga, Co

runna, Barcelona, Santander, and all the greater ports. The returns to Old Spain for England are stated to be nearly all made in gold and silver. Did the author never hear of cochineal, indigo, hides, or Jesuits' bark-No' annual flota' now exists. The trade is carried on by single ships at all seasons.

To expose the errors of works compiled with industry, and intended for public instruction, is a duty extremely invidious: yet, as these works are addressed to the uninformed, our duty must not be evaded. While therefore we acknowledge that Mr. Montefiore has amassed a variety of interesting information on commercial topics, we lament that he has failed to attain the sole object' to which we have alluded in our introduction to this article. His COMPLETE COMPENDIUM!' which must be consulted with caution, may, however, be occasionally useful.

6

ART. XIII.-The Synonymes of the Latin Language, alphabetically arranged; with critical Dissertations upon the Force of its Prepositions, both in a simple and a compounded State. By John Hill, LL.D.&c. 4to. li.11s. 6d. Boards. Longman and Rees. 1804. ANXIOUS for the promotion of that species of learning which constituted the employment of our earlier days, and in the cultivation of which we have passed some of the sweetest moments of our lives, we receive with more than common interest every thing connected with Grecian or Roman literature. Among a certain description of men, it has been the fashion to. decry pursuits of this kind. They have affected to consider the classical scholar as an useless being, whose attention is occupied by works, not things. As if, forsooth, it were possible for a man of common understanding to study those prototypes of consummate excellence, both in style and reasoning, without imbibing the sentiments of wisdom and virtue with which they abound, or catching a portion of that taste which they every where display! But we restrain ourselves; it is our business at present not to vindicate the student, but to examine his productions.

The gentleman to whom we are indebted for the present publication may be considered, both from situation and experience, as well fitted for the task he has undertaken. Educated in an university of distinguished celebrity, and filling a professorship instituted for the promotion of the Littera Humaniores,' Dr. Hill's attention must have been long directed to the Synonymes of the Latin Language; and it is fair to regard his work as the result of patient thought and laborious investigation. It was natural, therefore, that our expectations should have been

raised to no common height: that we should have looked forward to this work for profound criticism, and accurate illus tration that we should have hoped to find the substance of what was scattered in the writings of various critics brought to a focus: in short, to have seen the subject on which it treats in a great measure, if not completely, exhausted.

We should, however, be uncandid and ungenerous in the extreme were we to deny that difficulties of no common magnitude presented themselves on the very face of the undertaking. Even in modern languages, it is by no means an easy task to point out the nice and sometimes almost imperceptible shades of difference which discriminate synonymous terms. A nativé does not always succeed in the attempt; and it is by intercourse alone with those who speak it in all its purity that a foreigner can hope to arrive at any tolerable perfection. In support of our former remark, we need only refer to the pages of our Journal in which we have so frequent occasion to notice the misapplication of terms: to prove the truth of the latter, it is only necessary to observe the mistakes into which the most careful are betrayed, in speaking a language which is known to them only through the medium of its writers.

If such be the difficulty of ascertaining the precise meaning of synonymous words in a living language, in one which is no longer spoken it would appear to be almost insuperable. To laws, customs, dress, &c. allusions are continually made, and from them expressions are derived. As those of antiquity cannot be understood with the same accuracy as those of modern times,the terms which have a reference to them cannot be so easily defined. The obstacles, however, which present themselves in such an inquiry are not of such magnitude as they appear to be at first view. The Latin language, it must be remembered, did not reach its greatest purity till a late æra, and retained it but a short time. From Plautus, the earliest writer whose authority is respected, indeed the earliest writer of whose works any considerable part remains, until the time of the immortal. Cicero, when the language had attained its greatest perfection, not more than a century and half had elapsed. Within the space of a century after the death of that great man, it had greatly degenerated; for Quinctilian, when speaking of the comparative merits of the several writers of Greece and Rome, uses these memorable words: "Ex industriâ Senecam in omni genere eloquentiæ versatum * distali, propter vulgatum falso de me opinionem, quâ damnore eum, et invisum quoque habere sum creditas. Quod accidit mihi, dam corruptum et omnibus

• We have restored versatum from the Aldine edition. Rev.

vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocara ad severiora judicia contendo." And again, speaking of the same author, he observes, "in eloquendo corrupta pleraque +." Few, then, are the writers who possess the gold of Latium unsullied by alloy: few consequently are the books upon which we can rely, secure that whatever phrases their pages may contain are of unquestionable purity and of established usage. An inquiry, therefore, into the synonymes of the Latin language has all the advantages which compression can afford. For although, in the prosecution of such a work, it is undoubtedly necessary to consult a great variety of ancient authors, either for the purpose of throwing light on the subject of investigation, or for the sake of deriving advantage from the criticisms which they introduce, yet no conclusion can be drawn from their writings which does not receive support from works of indisputable authority.

The undertaking, too, is considerably facilitated in consequence of the attention paid to the language by that bright ornament of human nature, whose vast and gigantic mind was stored with multifarious learning, and whose luminous genius left a lasting light on almost every subject on which it was employed. Cicero, not less distinguished for the justice of his criticisms than the brilliancy of his eloquence, furnishes us, in his philosophic treatises, with much valuable information on the force of particular words, and the distinction between synonymous terms. Varro employed his pen on the same topic; and Gellius, though. he lived when the purity of his native tongue was greatly sullied, abounds with observations that may be consulted with great advantage. One treatise on the subject has unfortunately perished: that of the illustrious Julius Cæsar; a man not more renowned for the lustre of his warlike exploits, than the splendor of his literary achievements. Had his work escaped the wreck of time, and the ravages of barbarians, we might perhaps have found ourselves in possession of a performance which would render all other attempts on the same subject totally unnecessary. But it is trifling to lament, where lamentation is

in vain.

To the stock of information derived from these sources a large accession has been made by consulting modern critics. Vossius, Penzonius, Drakenborch, Grævius, and a number of other commentators of consummate ability, have scattered a profusion of materials which invite the collector's hand. The civil and military customs and laws of the Roman people have been illustrated by men fully adequate to the task, and the most formidable obstacle to an undertaking like Dr. Hill's was in conse

* Lib. x. cap. 1. p. 517. Ed. Gibson.

quence removed. A treatise on synonymy was likewise not a novelty; for France and Germany can boast of performances in this line, not only on their native languages, but the former has produced a very valuable work on that of the Latins also. To this we may likewise add, that the path had been considerably smoothed by the labours of Facciolati and Gesner. The masterly thesauri of these able scholars abound with observations on synonymous words: and in pointing out the difference between them, they are always concise, and often happy.

Such, then, were the obstacles which Dr. Hill had to encounter, such the means which he had to overcome them. It is our business to examine the manner in which he has employed them, and give our opinion of the success of his undertaking. If, in so doing, we are sometimes found to differ from the learned professor (for such we really esteem him), and to question the propriety of his observations, his candour will induce him, we trust, to credit our assertion, viz. that we are influenced only by a sense of what we owe the public. We, in common with others, have been often called severe: but we are convinced that impartiality will bear its testimony to the truth of a remark, which we threw out in speaking of the works of Klopstock, that the literary art has declined in Great Britain, partly for want of sharper criticism. By welcoming mediocrity with politeness, and genius with unqualified worship, both are soothed into contented repose too soon, and rest satisfied with efforts below their strength and below their duty.'

On examining Dr. Hill's volume, our attention was first engaged by the metaphysical style in which it is composed. Our author is not contented with stating concisely and clearly the meaning of the words he undertakes to explain: he generally runs into a subtleness of distinction and abstractness of expression, which often perplexes instead of illustrating the subject. It appears to us self-evident that in a work of this sort conciseness is always the best. After having given the student a clear and distinct idea of any particular term, why run the risk of confounding and confusing him by abstruse and far-fetched disquisitions? Admit as much light as is necessary for distinct vision: but admit no more. If the several parts of the object be clearly seen, do not confuse them by a needless glare. We were the more astonished at this unfortunate propensity, because the doctor seems aware of the inconvenience it has produced, and declares, that, In the attempts, as yet made, to define synonymous words in the dead languages, distinctions are often stated with more subtlety than judgment. The attention, directed perhaps to a single instance, from which little can be drawn, is harassed with unnecessary minuteness.' Pref. p. v. To prove that Dr. Hill is guilty of this very fault, we will beg leave to produce a single instance; and we shall se