The wish has been expressed to me from different quarters, and
particularly by several respectable schoolmasters, to see the essential
results of my larger work on Latin Synonymes and Etymologies compressed
into a Hand-book. Although within the twelve years since I began to work
at the long-neglected study of Latin Synonymes, the market has been
almost glutted with works of the same sort, in the form of hand-books,
by Habicht, Ramshorn, Jentzen, and Schmalfeld, I have not, on that
acount, the least hesitation in complying with the wish expressed to me,
by publishing the present Abridgment; for, in asserting that my method
and the arrangement of my materials are totally distinct from what have
been adopted by those deserving authors, I trust that I am neither
extolling myself, nor underrating them. The Abridgment which I here
submit to the Public contains, I hope, all that is essential in my
larger work;--to effect which object I have omitted certain things of
less direct importance; namely,--
First,--All etymological deductions. Not wishing, however, entirely to
renounce my principle of associating the etymology with the synonyme,
I have inserted it between parentheses, whenever it was not either so
obvious as to make the insertion unnecessary, or so far-fetched as to
make the etymology doubtful. Many instances of this sort will and must,
especially to him who is not conversant with etymological researches,
appear singularly uncouth; but it would have led me too far to refer, in
every instance, to the principles established in the Treatise on the
Formation of Latin Words, which I have subjoined to my larger work as a
Supplement. I must, therefore, entreat those readers and critics into
whose hands my treatise has not fallen, to ignore (if I may use a law
term) the words included between parentheses, or to suspend their
verdict concerning them.
Secondly,--I have omitted all parallel passages, and such as have an
affinity with each other, without possessing any stringent force as
proofs. On the other hand, I have given at length those passages in the
classics in which the ancients, in the course of speech, and not by
means of grammatical reflections, have introduced synonymes in contrast
with each other, and thus taught their differences; and where such
passages were wanting, I have frequently brought into juxta-position
several passages from one and the same author, in which he seems to have
indicated some peculiar force in a particular expression.
Thirdly,--I have omitted all critical and exegetical discussions. The
more scientific form of my larger work not only afforded me the
opportunity, but imposed the obligation of entering upon such
discussions; but in the present Abridgment I have thought it best,
except in a very few cases, to omit them altogether.
Fourthly,--I have omitted all detail in the treatment of the Greek
synonymes. Nevertheless, I have thought it of essential importance to
search for the nearest corresponding expression, both in the Greek and
German languages, and place them by the side of the Latin synonyme; and
at the same time to ascertain, and make intuitive, as it were, the
precise meaning and extent of the Latin expression, by the introduction
of such words as are strictly in opposition to it.
Fifthly,--I have omitted the views of other writers on synonymes. In my
larger work I introduced, often only as literary curiosities,
distinctions derived from the Latin grammarians, Varro, Cicero,
Agrætius, Pseudo-fronto, and Pseudo-palæmon; and I also quoted, whether
agreeing with or differing from me, the modern writers on synonymes,
Popma, Hill, Dumesnil, Smitson, Habicht, Ramshorn, Jentzen, and others.
Instead of which I must here content myself with merely referring to
such quotations as are contained in my larger work; and have therefore
added, at the end of each article, the volume and page of that work in
which these quotations are to be found.
Sixthly,--I have omitted such synonymes as are of very rare occurrence,
and distinguished from each other by a very slight difference. In my
larger work I have treated as synonymes many expressions, #hapax
eirêmena#, that occur but once, and whose differences, on that very
account, cannot be deduced from the general usage of the language, but
can merely be guessed at from etymology and other sources. Such
expressions are of no importance with reference to the object of this
Hand-book. The same may be said of many synonymes which can be
distinguished, as it were, only by a microscope. Such synonymes are
found throughout my larger work in great numbers, and have drawn upon me
the reproach of "hair-splitting." The fact I must acknowledge, but
cannot admit it to be a reproach; for surely it is the proper vocation
of a scientific writer on synonymes, not so much to distinguish words
that merely resemble each other in meaning, as those that are apparently
equivalent. The greater their apparent equivalence, the more difficult
it is to grasp their essential difference, and the more indispensable
the aid of a guide to synonymes. If, therefore, it be admitted, that
words identical in meaning do not exist, and that it is morally
impossible, if I may use the expression, that they should exist, the
only questions are, whether, in such cases, it is worth while to search
out their differences, and whether it is possible to find them out.
Science will answer the first question, without hesitation, in the
affirmative; and with respect to the second, there can at least be no
presumption in making the attempt. A distinction is soon obtained when
several words are contrasted with the word under consideration; and if
these contrasted words are also synonymous with each other, it must
follow, that the affinity of the several words in meaning is so close,
as to permit their interchange, as synonymes, under all circumstances.
Their differences are altogether unimportant with reference to speaking
and writing, but highly important as far as the intimate and more
refined knowledge of the language itself is concerned. It is on this
account that hair-splitting is allowable. Can there be a doubt that a
distinction will be slight in proportion as it has its origin in the
individual feelings of those by whom a language is used? Such
distinctions in synonymes are, consequently, most felt in one's native
language; it is only necessary that the feelings in which they have
their origin should not be vague and unformed. In the introduction to
the fourth part of my work I have evinced, I hope, sufficient liberality
and tolerance with regard to the obligation of conforming to these
hair-breadth distinctions, and selecting one's expressions accordingly.
So much in justification of those reprobated hair-splittings; those
discoveries of atoms, or, as my deceased friend Bremi expressed it, keen
discernment of atoms, which in my larger work, more devoted to science
than to instruction, found their proper place; but in the present
Hand-book, intended for the use of schools, especially in the art of
writing Latin, my predilection for such nice distinctions would be sadly
out of place. Distinctions of that sort I have, therefore, for the most
part, omitted, but not with the intention of silently retracting them.
* * *
I here submit a few observations to the notice of schoolmasters. For the
purposes of instruction, synonymes may be divided into three classes;
the first embraces those which the scholar cannot too quickly learn to
distinguish, because their affinity is merely apparent, arising from
their being translated by the same word in the mother-tongue; for
instance, _liberi_ and _infantes_; _animal_ and _bestia_; _hærere_ and
_pendere_; _sumere_ and _adimere_; _hostis_ and _inimicus_. The
interchange of such synonymes may be counted a blunder of the same sort
as that which is called a solecism. To the second class belong those
synonymes which may be distinguished from each other with ease and
certainty, but which are, at the same time, so nearly related in
meaning, that the ancients themselves use them, without hesitation, as
interchangeable; for instance, _lascivus_ and _petulans_; _parere_ and
_obedire_; _ater_ and _niger_; _incipere_ and _inchoare_; _mederi_ and
_sanare_; _vacuus_ and _inanis_; _spernere_ and _contemnere_;
_tranquillus_ and _quietus_. As long as the scholar has to contend with
the elements of grammar, the teacher may leave him in the erroneous
opinion, that these expressions have exactly the same meaning; but, when
further advanced, he must be taught to distinguish them, partly in order
to accustom him to that propriety of expression which is necessary in
writing Latin; partly, without reference to composition, as a very
useful mental exercise. In the third class I rank those words whose
differences are not to be ascertained without trouble, and cannot be
deduced with full evidence from the old authors, and which, probably,
were but dimly discerned even by the ancients themselves; for instance,
_lira_ and _sulcus_; _remus_ and _tonsa_; _pæne_ and _prope_; _etiam_
and _quoque_; _recordari_ and _reminisci_; _lævus_ and _sinister_;
_velox_ and _pernix_; _vesanus_ and _vecors_; _fatigatus_ and _fessus_;
_collis_ and _clivus_. Such distinctions are of little or no consequence
in composition, except when it is necessary to use synonymous terms in
express opposition to each other; for instance, _mare_ and _amnis_, in
opp. to _lacus_ and _fluvius_; _metus_ and _spes_, in opp. to _timor_
and _fiducia_: when such occasions occur, the richness of a language in
synonymes is available. A more scrupulous exactness in this respect
would appear to me arrant pedantry, and necessarily obstruct the free
movement of the mind in writing. As a teacher, I should wish that the
synonymes of the first sort should be distinguished by boys in the
elementary classes; those of the second, I would introduce into the
higher classes, and teach the scholar, when about fourteen, to observe
their differences in the choice of expressions in composition; I would
also explain them in the interpretation of an author, but with
moderation, as a spur to thinking, not as a clog in reading. Those of
the third class I would never introduce, except in explaining such
passages as render their introduction unavoidable; for instance, when an
author combines _flumina et amnes_, I would explain their difference to
defend him from the suspicion of tautology.
I have consulted convenience of reference in interweaving the
alphabetical index with the context. By this means any one can find at
once the word of which he is in search, which a separate index would
render impossible.
These arrangements, combined with an almost studied precision of
expression, have enabled me to reduce the six volumes of my larger work
on Synonymes (which fills, including the Supplement, more than one
hundred and forty-three sheets) to this Abridgment, of about fifteen.
The etymological part of my researches I reserve for a separate volume,
of about the same size as the present, which will make its appearance as
an Etymological Hand-book of the Latin language.
May the present publication, and that which I announce, meet with the
same favorable and indulgent reception that has fallen to the share of
my larger work with all its defects.
_Erlangen, December, 1839._