ENGLISH AGAINST THE CLASSICS. 709 



change. That is all that can be said for the study of philology, and 

 it is no small recommendation. To go Mr. Clark's length is a mistake. 

 The meaning of root words, and the history of their transformation 

 down to the present time, are no more essential to clear and effective 

 composition than an historical knowledge of tools is essential to good 

 carpentry ; and the reason is manifest. The meaning of a word is de- 

 termined not by its derivation but by usage. We can no more know 

 the meaning of a word from the meaning of its etymon than we can 

 know the size of a river at its mouth by going to its source. 



Philological knowledge, however delightful, being a luxury, and 

 therefore a secondary object, my space will not permit me to expatiate 

 upon it. I make a brief statement. 



The enormous acquisition of Latin and Greek is both insufficient 

 and unnecessary. 



It is insufficient. A thorough knowledge of Greek and Latin clear- 

 ly will not help us in such parts of our vocabulary as are not derived 

 from those sources. 



It is unnecessary and even useless. The roots in English are com- 

 puted at 500. The only rational way to study our philology is, to take 

 up these roots, and trace their ramifications, so far as these have been 

 ascertained. A collateral study would be the importation of words 

 from various sources : for this purpose it would be ridiculous to master 

 the syntax and literature of the various original languages. The main 

 groups are determined by simple rules. 



The philological argument assumes yet another form. The Latin 

 scholar is supposed to have a peculiar advantage in scientific termi- 

 nology. 



Mr. Torr, a Lincolnshire farmer, examined before the Commissioners, 

 says : " All botany and all chemistry have a sort of Latin derivation. 

 There is a sort of knowledge of Latin in every thing. For instance, a 

 man could not go into chemistry or botany without knowing the deri- 

 vation and finale of every word." 



In this matter, many argue as if the meanings of the original words 

 were learned without an effort. The real state of the case is obvious 

 enough. If the meaning of the original is adopted without change in 

 the derivative, it can be learned as easily in English as in Latin. If the 

 meaning of the original is not retained in the derivative, a knowledge 

 of the one will be no aid toward the knowledge of the other. 



Where several words come from the same root, let the common 

 element be explained. If philology were really taught in our schools, 

 as it might be were less time occupied with classics, the root-words 

 in scientific nomenclature would be no less familiar to the average boy 

 than they are at present to the best classical scholar. 



We are told, furthermore, that English grammar cannot be taught 

 without Latin grammar. " All masters," say the Commissioners, " ap- 



