94 On the UTILITY of defining 
yet to catch the circumftance on which their differences reft, is 
no eafy matter, and may often leave room for diverfity of ‘opi- 
nion. After a careful examination of the claffical writers, he 
fufpedts it will be found, that in the glow of compofition, the 
ftridt diftin@iions between fuch words have not been always at- 
tended to, and that the pureft writers have occafionally de- 
viated from the ftandard which their general prafice had efta- 
blifhed. Still, however, he apprehends, that there is room for 
a critical and fcientific difcuflion of the Latin fynonymous 
terms. As this is a fubject to which, in the line of his pro- 
feffion, he was led to give particular attention, and as he confi- 
ders it to be of no fmall importance to thofe who with to dif- 
criminate the flighteft violation of purity in the Roman lan- 
guage, he has made a very large collection of its fynonymous 
words, with remarks upon them. The following fpecimen of 
the inftances he has collected, he fubmits, with much diffidence, 
to this learned Society. 
ROGARE, PETERE, POSTULARE, POSCERE, FLAGITARE, agree 
in denoting the expreffion of a defire to obtain fomething not 
poffeffed, but differ in refpe@ to the urgency with which this 
defire is announced. They are all diftinguifhed from the verbs 
cupere and optare, which, though not equivalent, fuppofe, like 
them, the exiftence of defire, but not the expreffion of it, with 
a view to its being fulfilled. 
Tue power of the verb ragare extends no farther than to the 
fimple intimation of defire. By means of it, a want is fug- 
gefted to the perfon addreffed, of which he was before ignorant, 
and both he and his petitioner are fuppofed conf{cious, that com- 
pliance with the requeft muft be voluntary and the effec of 
good-will. “ Moleftum verbum eft, et onerofum, et demiflo 
“ yultu dicendum rogo*.”—* Malo emere quam ragare t.” 
HE 
* Sen. Ben. 22. 4 Cic. in Ver. 4. 12> 
