A very large class of synonymes may be ranged under the heads of GENERIC and SPECIFIC; that is, the one word will be found to differ from the other, as the species from the genus as in such words as to do and to make; to clothe and to dress; praise and applause, &c. But as these terms, generic and specific, may not be familiar to the generality of young students, it may be useful here to explain them. In their classification of natural objects, philosophers have divided them under three grand heads, or, as they are termed in scientific language, kingdoms. These kingdoms are divided into classes and orders. These orders again are divided into genera, and the genera into species. This system of classification, though it may not be applied so extensively to language as in natural philosophy, will in many cases assist in discovering differences not so easily perceived by the application of any other principle. Rejecting the terms kingdom and class, we may consider the part of speech, as noun or verb, to represent the order; then the genera may be classed under each order as expressing some general or leading principle, and the species under the genus, as describing the latter more particularly. Let it be required to discover the difference between to do and to make :-Applying the principle above explained, both words will fall under the order verb:-as to do expresses general action, it will be the generic; and as to make describes a more specific mode of doing, it will be the specific term. By the same principle, applause will be a species of the genus praise, both belonging to the order noun. Again, robust will be a species of the genus strong, and belonging to the order adjective. In the exercises under this head, we have to do only with the genus and species, for the order, or part of speech, is equally applicable to both words, and will be of no assistance in our endeavour to determine their respective meanings.

It will be here necessary to explain the signification of the terms ACTIVE and PASSIVE as applied to the philosophy of synonymy, and under which head the words in the second section of this work are arranged. Many words possess an active or passive meaning, wholly independent of the grammatical sense of these two terms. A word that expresses a passive

or recipient state may thus often be distinguished from one that contains the same idea in an active state. Between many abstract nouns we shall find this principle to operate. This may be illustrated by the respective meanings of the two words ability and capacity. The idea of power is here common to both words, but the latter expresses a power of receiving, and has a recipient or passive meaning; whereas the former expresses a power to execute, and consequently has an active signification. Again, the idea of reason enters into the meaning of both the adjectives reasonable and rational; but the former qualifies a being who exercises reason, and the latter, one who possesses reason, and consequently, the difference between them is to be found in the active and passive meaning of each respectively. Lastly, even in the case of verbs, into which the idea of action more fully enters, we may frequently observe a difference in meaning dependent upon this principle. This may be exemplified by the two verbs to keep and to retain. We keep, by the exertion of our own power; we retain, from the want of power or will in others. We keep what we prevent others from taking, we retain what is not taken from us. In the first, we are in an active, in the second, in a passive state. It is undeniable that attention to this phenomenon would, in many cases, solve a doubt which might exist as to the exact difference in the meaning of words.

Another extensively prevalent principle in nature is that of INTENSITY. In the material world, its effects meet us at every turn. Scarcely at any two moments does fire burn with exactly the same degree of heat, nor does the sun shine with the same brilliancy without some intervening circumstance which modifies or increases its degree of brightness. We may then confidently look for the same principle in words which is applied so extensively to objects of sense. It must here again be remembered that this principle of intensity has no reference to comparison, as applied to a grammatical class of words, but imports a higher degree, as marked by the difference of meaning between two words in another respect similar. We find it not only in adjectives, but also in nouns and verbs, and indeed, in some cases, in prepositions. The

distinction between the two adjectives bright and brilliant is marked by the intensive degree expressed in the latter word. Brilliant is bright and something more, or it expresses a higher and more intensive degree of bright. A difference of degree will also mark the distinction between the words breeze and gale; a breeze signifies a gentle wind; a gale, a stronger wind. Again, the difference between to see and to look, or to hear and to listen, will depend upon the same principle, the latter expressing a more intensive degree of the former. Whenever the differences between two words may be accounted for on this principle, such words may be termed synonymes of intensity.

A fourth class of differences may be formed under the head of POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. Here also we find the same idea common to both words; but in the one it appears in a positive or independent form, whilst in the other it has a negative meaning. The two verbs to shun and to avoid will come under this head of differences. To shun means positively to turn from; whereas to avoid is merely not to go in the way of, and has a negative sense. The same remarks will apply to the difference of meaning between the two nouns fault and defect. A fault is something positively wrong; a defect is something negatively wrong. What is faulty has what it should not have; what is defective has not what it should have. This class may not be found to contain so many words as those above explained, but the principle will be frequently available in determining the difference of words which cannot be brought under another category.

But although some of the principles above explained will test the difference of a large majority of synonymous terms, there are, undoubtedly, many to which none of them will apply. The difference between two words will, in many cases, be so slight, and will consist in so nice and delicate a variation, that it can be explained only by the individual circumstances of the case. And here it must be confessed that the synonymous words explained in this manner lie open to the objection mentioned in another part of this introduction; for the student will here gain no further information than that

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