94 On the UTlLITT 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 claflical writers, he 

 fufpects it will be found, that in the glow of compofition, the 

 Uriel distinctions between fuch words have not been always at- 

 tended to, and that the pureft writers have occasionally de- 

 viated from the ftandard which their general practice 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 fubjecl to which, in the line of his. pro- 

 feffion, he was led to give particular attention, and as he consi- 

 ders it to be of no fmall importance to thofe who wifh to dif- 

 criminate the flighted: 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 expreflion of a defire to obtain fomething not 

 pofTefTed, but differ in refpect to the urgency with which this 

 defire is announced. They are all distinguished from the verbs 

 cupere and optare, which, though not equivalent, fuppofe, like 

 them, the existence of defire, but not the expremon of it, with 

 a view to its being fulfilled. 



The power of the verb rogare extends no farther than to the 

 Simple 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 confeious, that com- 

 pliance with the requeft muft be voluntary and the effect of 

 good-will. " Moleflum verbum eft, et onerofum, et demillb 

 " vultu dicendum rogo*." — " Malo emere quam rogare j\" 



He 



* Sen. Ben. 22. f Cic. in Ver. 4. 12. 



