“There are two ways,” he says, in discussing the origin of language, “of judging of former philosophers.  One is, to put aside their opinions as simply erroneous, where they differ from our own.  This is the least satisfactory way of studying ancient philosophy.  Another way is, to try to enter into the opinions of those from whom we differ, to make them, our a time at least, our own, till at least we discover the point of view from which each philosopher looked at the facts before him and catch the light in which he regarded them.  We shall then find that there is much less of downright error in the history of philosophy than is commonly supposed; nay, we shall find nothing so conducive to a right appreciation of truth as a right appreciation of the error by which it is surrounded.” (p. 360.  The Italics are ours.)

A mere philologist might complain that the book contained nothing new.  And this is in the main true, though by no means altogether so, especially as regards the nomenclature of classification, and the illustration of special points by pertinent examples.  In this last respect Mr. Mueller is particularly happy, as, for instance, in what he says of “Yes ’r and Yes ’m.” (pp. 210 ff.) And as regards originality in the treatment of a purely scientific subject, a good deal depends on the meaning we attach to the term.  If we understand by it striking conclusions drawn from theoretic premises, (as in Knox’s “Races of Man,”) clever generalizations from fortuitous analogies and coincidences insufficiently weighed, (as in Pococke’s “India in Greece,”) or, to take a philologic example, speculations suggestive of thought, it may be, but too insecurely based on positive data, (as in Rapp’s “Physiologie der Sprache,”) we shall vainly seek for such originality in Mr. Mueller’s Lectures.  But if we take it to mean, as we certainly prefer to do, safety of conclusion founded on thorough knowledge and comparison, clear statement guarded on all sides by long intimacy with the subject, and theory the result of legitimate deduction and judicial weighing of evidence, we shall find enough in the book to content us.  Mr. Mueller does not now enter the lists for the first time to win his spurs as an original writer.  The plan of the work before us necessarily excluded any great display of recondite learning or of profound speculation.  Delivered at first as popularly scientific lectures, and now published for the general reader, it seems to us admirably conceived and executed.  Easily comprehensible, and yet always pointing out the sources of fuller investigation, it is ample both to satisfy the desire of those who wish to get the latest results of philology and to stimulate the curiosity of whoever wishes to go farther and deeper.  It is by far the best and clearest summing-up of the present condition of the Science of Language that we have ever seen, while the liveliness of the style and the variety and freshness of illustration make it exceedingly entertaining.