less ordinary physical acts, requiring, many of them, plan and combination, and to denote the less obvious objects and qualities of objects in the outward world;-to do these things we draw largely upon the Latin element of the language. And when we turn to the words in English expressive (6) of civil and social organization, or used (7) to denote intellectual acts, states, qualities, powers, possessions, products, or required (8) to express the higher feelings and the traits of character, or needed (9) to denote classes and general notions, we find the contrast between the Anglo-Saxon and the Latin in English most striking. It is in words expressive of these things that the Anglo-Saxon element is painfully lacking.

These distinctions, made between the two grand elements of our vocabulary, we should find ratified did we push our examination into other fields, especially into the more scientific -though here the Latin is generously aided by the Greek. Some of the deficiencies of the Anglo-Saxon may be accounted for by claiming that Anglo-Saxon words have perished, and others by the fact that Scandinavian words do duty occasionally for them; but we think that in the comparison just made, the present state of the Anglo-Saxon and of the Latin in the English vocabulary is not unfaithfully pictured.

XXXII. The Anglo-Saxon and the Latin in Use. We have been speaking of these two elements as found in the dictionary. Fortunately, we are able to say something respecting them in use. It fell to us not long since to make an extended examination of the words eminent writers and speakers choose. The examination was made in looking into the charge brought against Rufus Choate that he employed a diction unduly Latinized.

The different words found in his works were gathered to

gether and arranged alphabetically. Twenty other distin guished men-ten British and ten American-were chosen. From each of these a speech, an argument at the bar, an oration, or some chapters of a book were taken, and the words of each were also alphabetically placed. No word in any one of the twenty-one lists thus formed was counted more than once, unless the several forms of it were from distinct roots; only one degree of an adjective or an adverb; only one of the six or seven possible forms of any verb; only one case of any noun or pronoun. Let this be borne in mind. Had each word been counted at its every appearance, the showing we are about to make would be very different; for let us say, once for all, that the words constantly reappearing are Anglo-Saxon.

The classes formed were five—(1) the Teutonic (almost entirely Anglo-Saxon); (2) the Latin; (3) the Greek; (4) the Indo-European; and (5) the Scattering. After the classification, a count was made, and the percentages were reached. The curious may care to know that the comparison completely relieved Mr. Choate of the charge, thirteen of the twenty using a proportion of Latin words larger than his.

The worth of the comparison to us, however, lies in the light which it throws upon the use great writers and speakers make of the Anglo-Saxon and the Latin. Their relative value for literary purposes is seen in the levy which these learned men, in their characteristic efforts, make upon these elements.

The general belief (1) that for ordinary communication we make the heaviest drafts upon the Anglo-Saxon; (2) that the words coming most frequently to the tongue and oftenest repeated on the page are Anglo-Saxon; and (3) that, while on social or business topics we can construct whole paragraphs without a word of Latin, it is all but impossible

to frame a sentence without the Anglo-Saxon ;-this belief the figures of the comparison do not disturb. And this is much to confess; for it is an acknowledgment that our dependence upon the Anglo-Saxon is absolute, so far as it extends. Nor do these figures (4) give the number of the Anglo-Saxon and of the Latin words in our vocabulary, or (5) settle their ratio to each other, or (6) decide the question whether, had our ancestors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries imitated the ancient Greeks or the modern Germans, and formed new words by compounding native material, we might not now be using a vocabulary all of a piece, and yet ample for our utmost needs. But when twenty-one representative authors in their representative efforts use a per cent. of Latin words varying from 56 to 72 (of Latin and Greek together, from 63 to 7516) over against a per cent. of Teutonic ranging only from 234 to 334-when, we repeat, this is the exhibit made by the comparison, we think we are warranted in claiming that, at least, we cannot do without the Latin words in our English; that, when we rise above the commonplace in matter and in manner, we find such words indispensable. We say indispensable; for, while the ferry-boat that takes us daily to our place of business is indispensable, is not the transatlantic steamer that bears us to Europe, even though we go but once?

But, just as it is difficult to tell how much of the Englishman or of his achievements is due to his Germanic and how much to his Latin ancestry, so it is impossible to estimate precisely what his style or his literature owes to words from each of these sources. It would seem, however, that these two classes of words, mingling freely in the current of every English sentence, have dwelt so long and pleasantly together that we cannot with propriety continue to call either class

foreign, alien. Often we cannot, without close scrutiny, tell which words are Latin and which are Anglo-Saxon. By some ear-marks, perhaps, but certainly not by their length, by their strangeness to him, or by his inability to handle them deftly, would any one of but average culture suspect that the following nouns, adjectives, and verbs belong to the Latin :

Age, art, cap, case, cent, cost, crust, fact, fault, form, ink, line, mile, noise, page, pain, pair, part, peace, pen, piece, pound, price, rule, soil, sound, ton, tone, and vail; apt, chief, clear, cross, crude, easy, firm, frail, grand, grave, just, large, lazy, mere, nice, pale, plain, poor, pure, rare, real, rich, round, safe, scarce, square, sure, vain, and vast; add, aid, aim, bet, boil, class, close, cook, cure, doubt, fail, fix, fry, mix, move, pass, pay, save, serve, strain, stray, train, try, turn, and use.

These, and hundreds of other short Latin words, as well understood as the simplest Anglo-Saxon, are mostly without Saxon equivalents. But even those with Saxon duplicates are almost equally necessary; they give to our speech a rich synonymy that aids us in making and in expressing the finer distinctions in thought.

Besides, the Latin are often (1) the most forcible words in English. What Anglo-Saxon verb of teaching matches in vigor inculcate to drive in with the heel? What other adjective denoting health has the strength of robust-oaken? Such words, unfortunately, are pregnant with meaning only to the etymologist. In this they differ from what the vigorous, self-explaining Anglo-Saxon words would have been had that element been fostered. They give (2) conciseness to expression; like canals across isthmuses they shorten the route -witness mutual, reanimate, circumlocution. Oftener than the Anglo-Saxon they are (3) metaphorical, and flash upon the thought a poetic light; as, dilapidated, applied to for

tune or dress; ruined, to character; luminous, to expression. They impart (4) grace and smoothness to style-are the musical, melodious, and mellifluous words of the language. They give (5) pomp and stateliness to discourse, and make possible the grand manner of Sir Thomas Browne, of Milton, and of De Quincey. A vocabulary like ours, duly compounded of the Teutonic and the Romance, has a manifoldness and an abounding verbal wealth that adapt it to every kind of writing, and are wonderfully stimulative of it. And so, while the literatures in other languages excel, each in some single department, ours is confessedly eminent in all.

While it is difficult to exaggerate the work and the worth of the Anglo-Saxon in English, we must say that we deprecate what has been called the "violent reaction" that has set in, in favor of it—a reaction which, carried to the extreme, would practically disinherit us of vast verbal possessions. But, without any wish to champion the Latin element, we may safely say that this reaction cannot be carried to the extreme. As soon expect to drive us back to the ancestral tunic and to wooden trenchers, or attempt to squeeze the full-grown fowl into its native egg-shell again.

Hence we find the wise Alexander Bain breaking out, on the opening page of his work On Teaching English, into, "To write continuously in anything like pure Saxon is plainly impossible. Moreover, none of our standard English authors, whether in prose or in poetry, have thought it a merit to be studiously Saxon in their vocabulary."

The words chosen should be appropriate to the topic, and level to the comprehension of those addressed. Thus much we may properly insist upon; but it would be unwise to encourage our pupils to seek for such words in the AngloSaxon element alone.