New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-02-19

of tbe second and more important ground Of his alleged
disqualification, and then proceeds to comment on
what was left AZ though Professor Whitney had
deprecated IN, counter criticism.
Miller had said in his "Reply to Mr.. Darwin lp.
42l l437D with naire Inconsistencies OF the rdicu-
Iousaess of his criticism: "Of course, we T."r rot
expect in Professor Whitneys Lect.rs anything Ike
q systematic or exhaustive ..~stment. They touch
OH points which wer- r;ost likely to interest large
audiences In Washington and other towns in
Amerixe. They were meant TO be popular, and
! nothing would he more unfair than to blame an
author for not giving what he did not mean to give
Ii was this ludcrous INSTRUMENTATION OF his
Lectures, accompanied, it was, with specicus
affectaton of judicial accuracy and candor that, ~
we see from the context had led Professor Whitney
to speak A. he did of Miller's uniitness to be his
critic and cxpostor. Readers of Professor Whtneys
work will be able to judge for themselves OF the
justice of our comment upon Mhers description OF
| it. Those, however who shall need to base their
opinion of the lectures upon the dcfd OF Scholars,
NAV set off against tho critical Josh that we have
quoted the authoritative compliment that they re-
ceiye from Curtus the foremost of living philolo-
giss who describes them ("Greek Etymology," Ed 3,
D. u as "work characterized by sober rgoT
{" das durch aGchfcTne Sfrepgs dgGc,oictnete bek y
In this connection should be noticed the frivolous
deals with OF the several evidences mentioned by
Professor Whitney of his opponents unfamilarity
with his lectures Professor Whitney says (Contemp.
Rev. 72G: Randschau, 272) "iIe has not even dis
covered that IT was printed and published in En-
land instead Of IN America" Miller had described
il In his "Rcply to Mr.. Darwin Up. i2l li37l.
Miller, quoting from the RHndsohda with two
crrors and evading the real charge by an illtimcd
sophistca,iag pun upon the double meaning of q" Oh
serre'-remnding one OF a well known passage va
series y. go l267l in which 10 indulge himself in
pitifu G9aroQie he LAYS down doctrine cienfcally
unsound whlch he himself is Obliged 10 qualify, and
which has recently been styled by Madyg ("kleine
Schrften "p }2D "as scnscless as is possibe'-nakes
this scholarly response "Why ought to have oh
served this do not understand Would IT have
served as an Advertisement Should have said that
the author resided in Canada 90 secure his book
against the imminent danger Of piracy in England Y
Another proof of Micr's acquaintance with the
Lectures dcrered AZ Hoshp5tor" Is afforded on page
4G7 1881. Here me finds genuine mares nest de
tectng Professor Whitney he represents. in claim
ing chronological affinity between the words tight,
dliGhf and deiiChi! The doctrine of the passage
alluded 20 ~. 131 ~ briefly this: Jnst as We are not
confused by external differences IN words OF the same
nearing so are rot confused by external re-
scmbanccs between words OF such totally different
sicnidca;lun as light, GLsh, and delight, although,
FROM the close resemblance of these words IN form
"bcy opg according 10 NE psUni G7a'ogo Of ne ian
gaage 10 staad IN relation Of meaning together" No
attentive reader can miss the authors point, nor
fail to SEE that the hes, words 10 illustrate II Ia
all the long list are tic three In question. ~
Miller has since withdrawn this foolish charge
t"Acadrlny" Jan. - II needs no comment, though II
ruu,t be re-, k0nel All item of the body Of proof
which couvicts him az unscholarly a. Il slovcnly
haste Another tciract;ou occur, on =. joI 80.
In lis "Rcpy 10 Mr. Darvsu' -. 40 rs hr ha'
been reckless enough to assert ;lat Sts.niAd! IA
moment OF irritation forgot himself 80 FAR as 81 r'-
taiae with NE sdne missile Nth uhich Ne hat bo1'
assailed." Though now Ictractcd. tie stat. mont
served a purpose ard enabled him a. rcealc his En-
glish readers on several occasions with specimen
II Stciuthals mode Of augmentation. for which
service his friend Mr. Matthew Arnold" dos nos
appcar 10 commend him c'God and The Bible
p. PIG. though MuiiD's phanthroIic motive
was merely 90 furnish :" . warning 10 o,DcrsV
Another curious illusratio, Of carclo ,sncs, where
II would least he expected While cnlcayori"g
10. 30 l,37l to convict Professor Whitney u
dense ic1o,aucr Of San.krit ,up'ory, MILLER him
self commit. the great buudcr " r,f ring las read
crs 10 "a section of his grammar GSi) that would
only bc relevant. if tie words of the pas.
age IN question were oi0 'Pri,h'Gm. They are %.
fact exc sprish'am; and the question that aro''
in regard {" them il whether the second<w"r.
shall b, Interpreted sprishidm or 'spri'h'dm as
prshfoa a,pg,i lm, initial being ciid,d hc rules
Of en- lopy dHor.aJ ciNc. In his Edi lon OF tie
Athara-Ncda Professor whitney had given the for
mcr Interpretation; but upou suggestion of Miller,
in the frs', not thc second edition Of his grammar
(as Miller mistakenly asscfisl, hc adopted the Other
Interpretation fsmi.htaD) as on the whole hcttc.
L t. L..
public achnowlcd pncnt to Muller that Is customary
among scholars. t'Joufnal of Amer Orient. Sac
Vol Y. =. 1872. Our authors hluuder here i, fl
counterpart to his case OF the American captain
sitting on the safety valve 10 kccp his rCsse FROM
bocing up" Up. 49, I5i3l).
Another evidence of cafclcssnoss. On page iGG
1881 It is stated that the Reply to Mr.. Darwin
apprarcd in NorcDLcf 1874. Ia fact, it appeared III
Jiuuary. 1873. The correction is important since
Miller excuses himself for not reading Professor
Whitncys article which Mr.. Geo Darwin hal
cpilomized, by saying lp. l67 1851 he could not
get it in time, although IL appeared in the " A.
Review of the preceding July and may fairly be
assumed To have been procurablc without much
effort at a great university Ike Oxford five months
after publication. In Mdllcr's Rmd,chaH article
tp. 39J) of March 1873, he changes his language.
and simply says, have not seen il and the infer
ence wdrranlable chat he had not tried to OBJ
tain IT, as eight nine months had then elapsed
since its publication.
On D. 2JJ Of his Lectures, Professor Whitney thus
speaks of the Phnnicians " 4 significant indication
OF the far-reachng and benoGceut nature Of their
activity is Ia he seen in the fact that large portion
of the worlds alphabets came from the
Phnnicau az their ultimate source" Also in Lee
turr XII (p. 1872: "rhc Phnuican alphabet was thus
strictly AMI exclusively phonetic system. though