on the meaning of the word.

the word “faction” comes from the latin “facere”; it is employed to signify the state of a soldier at his post, on duty (en faction), squadrons or troops of combatants in the circus; green, blue, red, and white factions.

the acceptation in which the term is generally used is that of a seditious party in the state. the term “party” in itself implies nothing that is odious, that of faction is always odious.

a great man, and even a man possessing only mediocrity of talent, may easily have a party at court, in the army, in the city, or in literature. a man may have a party in consequence of his merit, in consequence of the zeal and number of his friends, without being the head of a party. marshal catinat, although little regarded at court, had a large party in the army without making any effort to obtain it.

a head of a party is always a head of a faction; such were cardinal retz, henry, duke of guise, and various others. a seditious party, while it is yet weak and has no influence in the government, is only a faction.

c?sar’s faction speedily became a dominant party, which swallowed up the republic. when the emperor charles vi. disputed the throne of spain with philip v. he had a party in that kingdom, and at length he had no more than a faction in it. yet we may always be allowed to talk of the “party” of charles vi.

it is different with respect to private persons. descartes for a long time had a party in france; it would be incorrect to say he had a faction. thus we perceive that words in many cases synonymous cease to be so in others.