1SS4.] Coi'ES 071 Or)ii'thopIii'lolo<yicaIHies. C T 



intuitions, in order to find our wa\ at all. How nice it is, under such 

 circumstances, to hear the rustle of the silken robes of a professorial 

 chair in the following, for instance : — 



"A frequently recurring example of what in these days of comparative 

 philology is regarded as vicious teaching consists in declaring that I.,atin 

 words which are only cognate to the Greek are derived from it, as -cefs 

 from K€<j>aXTJ," followed by remarks upon Aryan stock, the separation of 

 Italic and Hellenic races, and the comparative antiquity of the Greek and 

 Latin languages." 



Under the circumstances, this is not only hypercriticism, but pure 

 pedantry. We never declared that Latin words which are only cognate 

 with the Greek are derived from it. We made no declarations upon the 

 thesis of cognation as distinguished from direct derivation. If we had 

 been at an essay on that subject we should have perhaps produced one. 

 All we did, or intended to do, was to adduce -ce-ps^ K€(|>a\T], caputs cephalic, 

 occiput, etc., as words referring alike to 'head.' 



One moi'e example of this pedantic hypercriticism and we will pass to 

 other matters. Our suave critic remarks with fortitude that "the lack of 

 clear logic, incisive statement, and proper arrangement in the process of 

 derivation confronts one continually" in our little book. He supports 

 this generalization by saying, among other things, that we deduce galcaia 

 from galea, and that from galea, making it appear that we do not know 

 that ^a/efl/a is a participle meaning 'galeated.' In point of fact we de- 

 duce nothing of the sort; we make no deductions of any sort. Our words 

 are: "'Lat. galeata, helmeted ; galea, a helmet; ga/eo, I crown with a 

 helmet"; all of which we submit is perfectly true. For a case of the Pro- 

 fessor's fortiter in niodo, siiaviter in re, let this suffice. To take him on 

 his own ground, however, we beg to state that we do not believe the 

 proper derivative sequence of galea and galeo to be as he asserts, though 

 we do not propose to discuss whether a verb or a noun is the most primi- 

 tive part of speech. There are treatises enough on that subject already. 



{b) Passing to a further point, we beg to instruct our critic in another 

 canon of criticism ; which is, to review a book upon its merits as well as 

 upon its demerits. The heart of sound and useful criticism consists not in 

 finding fault, but in correctly adjudging the praise and blame which a book 

 may deserve. It is dangerous for a reviewer to spend a dozen pages of re- 

 buke upon a book for which he has just one line of qualified commenda- 

 tion. Literary men understand this perfectly well; it always makes them 

 suspect the animus of a reviewer- — perhaps unjustly. Still the suspicion 

 will enter their minds; there is room to surmise some private grudge, or 

 private purpose; it looks to them like "an attack"; in which case the un- 

 practised reviewer's blunder deprives his most just and conscientious criti- 

 cism of its due weight, and defeats his own purpose, whatever that may be. 

 Moreover, the average reader gets an idea, somehow, that there must be 

 something remarkable about a book bad enough to be pursued for a dozen 

 pages with "fateful law unredeemed by clemency." We say these things 

 vi'ith regret, and onlv to instruct our critic in the art of criticism ; for, as 



