uhn, and Breal, and Dasent, and Burnouf.
He takes no note of the Rig-Veda, nor does he seem to realize that there
was ever a time when the ancestors of the Greeks and Hindus worshipped
the same gods. Two or three times he cites Max Muller, but makes no
use of the copious data which might be gathered from him. The only work
which seems really to have attracted his attention is M. Jacolliot's
very discreditable performance called "The Bible in India." Mr.
Gladstone does not, indeed, unreservedly approve of this book; but
neither does he appear to suspect that it is a disgraceful piece of
charlatanry, written by a man ignorant of the very rudiments of the
subject which he professes to handle.

Mr. Gladstone is equally out of his depth when he comes to treat purely
philological questions. Of the science of philology, as based upon
established laws of phonetic change, he seems to have no knowledge
whatever. He seems to think that two words are sufficiently proved to
be connected when they are seen to resemble each other in spelling or in
sound. Thus he quotes approvingly a derivation of the name Themis from
an assumed verb them, "to speak," whereas it is notoriously derived from
tiqhmi, as statute comes ultimately from stare. His reference of hieros,
"a priest," and geron, "an old man," to the same root, is utterly
baseless; the one is the Sanskrit ishiras, "a powerful man," the other
is the Sanskrit jaran, "an old man." The lists of words on pages 96-100
are disfigured by many such errors; and indeed the whole purpose for
which they are given shows how sadly Mr. Gladstone's philology is in
arrears. The theory of Niebuhr--that the words common to Greek and
Latin, mostly descriptive of peaceful occupations, are Pelasgian--was
serviceable enough in its day, but is now rendered wholly antiquated
by the discovery that such words are Aryan, in the widest sense. The
Pelasgian theory works very smoothly so long as we only compare the
Greek with the Latin words,--as, for instance, sugon with jugum; but
when we add the English yoke and the Sanskrit yugam, it is evident that
we have got far out of the range of the Pelasgoi. But what shall we say
when we find Mr. Gladstone citing the Latin thalamus in support of
this antiquated theory? Doubtless the word thalamus is, or should be,
significative of peaceful occupations; but it is not a Latin word at
all, except by adoption. One might as well cite the word ensemble to
prove the original