in the Composition of Nouns and Adjectives. 69 
when compared with the corresponding portion of Pavus, en- 
ables us to discover the extent of the sins both of omission and 
commission perpetrated by the monkish barbarian. The mis- 
chief caused by omission is of course irreparable ; but, under the 
able guidance of JoserpH ScaLIGER, we may exercise our inge- 
nuity in discovering his counters, and separating them from the 
more valuable productions of the Roman mint: Yet it is a con- 
jectural art, where it is scarcely possible to persuade another to 
agree with you in all points; consequently that science, as yet 
without a name, and of which a small portion only is compre- 
hended under the modern acceptation of the word Philology, has 
sustained a severe loss, as far as Latin literature is concerned, 
from the united labours of Festus and Pauxus. It must, how- 
ever, be confessed, that it was principally from this book, maimed, 
mutilated, and mangled as it is, that the great Nizsune drew 
those materials which enabled him to reconstruct the edifice of 
the early‘history of Rome, and infuse life into what had previous- 
ly been nothing but a confused heap of lifeless bones. 
I have thought it right to make these previous observations, 
in order to account for the many absurd derivations of Latin 
words commonly found in our dictionaries, many of which (al- 
though assuredly not all) are to be fathered upon this miserable 
Paut, whose mutilated copy of Festus was almost literally tran- 
scribed by the first modern lexicographers of the Latin language. 
I must here notice a question which has been often asked, 
Why men like Caro, Cmsar, Varro, and Mrssata,—why a 
Verrivus Fuaccus or a QuincrTiILiANn, should be so anxious about 
the use and etymology of words, seeing the framers of the lan- 
guage themselves regarded not such trifles, and left them to the 
researches of future and less active ages? To answer this ques- 
tion fully, and at the same time conclusively, would require a 
volume. But it may be briefly stated, that a language in its in- 
fancy has but few radical terms, and that these are confined to 
the expression of our common feelings and actions, and to the 
