1898-99. | THE USE AND ABUSE OF PHILOLOGY. 85 
made themselves familiar with the Maya language.” * Hence it becomes 
apparent that there are cases when archeology can see but through 
philology’s eyes. * 
On the other hand, more than once the identity of two single words or 
names in the course of myths proves of the greatest moment in suggest- 
ing the relation or affinity of the two nations among whom the myths 
obtain. Such homonymy may become an incentive to further researches 
which may ultimately be crowned with the most satisfactory results. 
Sometimes an antiquated phrase, a few archaic words no more under- 
stood may prove a most valuable clue in tracing out unsuspected racial 
affinities. In such cases, therefore, philology is also a useful aid to 
mythology. 
. 
But if the importance of its services is hardly susceptible of exagger- 
ation, it must be confessed that philology is a double-edged weapon, 
inasmuch as, in the hands of an injudicious inquirer, it may bring forth 
nothing but futile and imaginary results. More, perhaps, than any other 
cognate science, its degree of usefulness depends on the amount of dis- 
cernment displayed by the scholar. Hence the necessity of strict and 
well-observed rules in establishing linguistic comparisons. Most of my 
readers possess facilities for reference which I am far from enjoying in 
my retreat among the natives of Northern British Columbia. Yet 
I fancy that it may not be suggestive of too great presumption on my 
part simply to note in a cursory way those self-evident principles the 
ignoring of which I have personally remarked as leading -to false and 
unwarranted conclusions, especially with regard to the American 
aboriginal tongues. These may sound as so many truisms to scientists 
within reach of well-filled libraries ; but it seems to me that the repetition 
of such truisms may be of use to readers liable to reproduce the errors | 
shall presently denounce. 
In the first place, it is of the greatest moment to carefully distinguish 
in a language that which is essential from that which is merely acci- 
dental. And here, at the outset, we are confronted by two antagonistic 
schools: the lexical and the grammatical ; the one relying chiefly on 
words for proofs of racial affinities, while the other attaches more import- 
ance to grammatical forms. We will not undertake to scrutinize the 
merits or demerits of either; similarity of grammar can hardly be said 
to be the result of accident, nor could the identity of words in two differ- 
ent languages when these words are sufficiently numerous. The analogy 
* “The American Race,” p. 157, note.” This was written before Dr.Le Plongeon’s famous discoveries in 
Central America. But, unless I am mistaken, the latter’s interpretations of the same are altogether too mar- 
vellous and fantastic to be of much scientific value. 
