ButtheperiodwhichintervenedbetweenLeibnitzandthismoderndevelopmentwasaperiodofphilologicalchaos。ItbeganmainlywiththedoubtswhichLeibnitzhadforceduponEurope，andendedonlywiththebeginningofthestudyofSanskritinthelatterhalfoftheeighteenthcentury，andwiththecomparisonsmadebymeansofthecollectionsofCatharine，Hervas，andAdelungatthebeginningofthenineteenth。TheoldtheorythatHebrewwastheoriginallanguagehadgonetopieces；butnothinghadtakenitsplaceasafinality。Greatauthorities，likeBuddeus，werestillcitedinbehalfofthenarrowerbelief；buteverywhereresearches，unorganizedthoughtheywere，tendedtodestroyit。
　　ThestoryofBabelcontinuedindeedthroughoutthewholeeighteenthcenturytohinderorwarpscientificinvestigation，andaverycuriousillustrationofthisfactisseeninthebookofLordNelmeonTheOriginandElementsofLanguage。HedeclaresthatconnectedwiththeconfusionwasthecleavingofAmericafromEurope，andheregardsthemostterriblechaptersinthebookofJobasintendedforadescriptionoftheFlood，whichinallprobabilityJobhadfromNoahhimself。Again，RowlandJonestriedtoprovethatCelticwastheprimitivetongue，andthatitpassedthroughBabelunharmed。StillanothereffectwasmadebyaBretontoprovethatalllanguagestooktheirriseinthelanguageofBrittany。Allwaschaos。Therewasmuchwrangling，butlittleearnestcontroversy。Hereandtheretheologianswerecallingoutfrantically，beseechingtheChurchtosavetheolddoctrineas“essentialtothetruthofScripture“；hereandthereotherdivinesbegantoforeshadowtheinevitablecompromisewhichhasalwaysbeenthusvainlyattemptedinthehistoryofeveryscience。Butitwassoonseenbythinkingmenthatnoconcessionsasyetspokenofbytheologiansweresufficient。InthelatterhalfofthecenturycamethebloomperiodoftheFrenchphilosophersandencyclopedists，oftheEnglishdeists，ofsuchGermanthinkersasHerder，Kant，andLessing；andwhilehereandtheresomewriteronthetheologicalside，likePerrin，amusedthinkingmenbyhisflounderingsinthisgreatchaos，allremainedwithoutformandvoid。[417]
　　[417]ForHottinger，seetheprefacetohisEtymologicumOrientale，Frankfort，1661。ForLeibnitz，CatharinetheGreat，Hervas，andAdelung，seeMaxMuller，asabove，fromwhomIhavequotedveryfully；seealsoBenfey，GeschichtederSprachwissenschaft，etc。，p。269。BenfeydeclaresthattheCatalogueofHervasisevennowamineforthephilologist。ForthefirsttwocitationsfromLeibnitz，aswellasforastatementofhisimportanceinthehistoryoflanguages，seeMaxMuller，asabove，pp。135，136。Forthethirdquotation，Leibnitz，Opera，Geneva，1768，vi，partii，p。232。ForNelme，seehisOriginandElementsofLanguage，London，1772，pp。85-100。ForRowlandJones，seeTheOriginofLanguageandNations，London，1764，andpreface。FortheoriginoflanguagesinBrittany，seeLeBrigant，Paris，1787。ForHerderandLessing，seeCanonFarrar’streatise；onLessing，seeSayce，asabove。AstoPerrin，seehisessaySurl’Origineetl’AntiquitedesLangues，London，1767。
　　NothingbetterrevealstousthedarknessanddurationofthischaosinEnglandthanacomparisonofthearticlesonPhilologygiveninthesuccessiveeditionsoftheEncyclopaediaBritannica。ThefirsteditionofthatgreatmirrorofBritishthoughtwasprintedin1771：chaosreignsthroughthewholeofitsarticleonthissubject。Thewriterdivideslanguagesintotwoclasses，seemstoindicateamixtureofdivineinspirationwithhumaninvention，andfinallyescapesunderacloud。Inthesecondedition，publishedin1780，someprogresshasbeenmade。
　　Theauthorstatesthesacredtheory，anddeclares：“TherearesomedivineswhopretendthatHebrewwasthelanguageinwhichGodtalkedwithAdaminparadise，andthatthesaintswillmakeuseofitinheaveninthosepraiseswhichtheywilleternallyoffertotheAlmighty。Thesedoctorsseemtobeascertaininregardtowhatispastastowhatistocome。”
　　Thiswasevidentlyconsidereddangerous。ItclearlyoutranthebeliefoftheaverageBritishPhilistine；andaccordinglywefindinthethirdedition，publishedseventeenyearslater，anewarticle，inwhich，whiletheauthorgives，ashesays，“thebestargumentsonbothsides。”hetakespainstoadheretoafairlyorthodoxtheory。
　　Thissoothingdosewasrepeatedinthefourthandfiftheditions。
　　In1824appearedasupplementtothefourth，fifth，andsixtheditions，whichdealtwiththefactssofarastheywereknown；
　　buttherewasscarcelyareferencetothebiblicaltheorythroughoutthearticle。Threeyearslatercameanothersupplement。WhilethischaoswasfastbecomingcosmosinGermany，suchachangehadevidentlynotgonefarinEngland，forfromthiseditionoftheEncyclopaediathesubjectofphilologywasomitted。Infact，BabelandPhilologymadenearlyasmuchtroubletoencyclopedistsasNoah’sDelugeandGeology。Justasinthelattercasetheyhadbeenobligedtostaveoffapresentationofscientifictruth，bythewords“ForDeluge，seeFlood“and“ForFlood，seeNoah。”sointheformertheywereobligedtotakevariousprovisionalmeasures，someofthemcomical。In1842cametheseventhedition。InthisthefirstpartoftheoldarticleonPhilologywhichhadappearedinthethird，fourth，andfiftheditionswasprinted，butthesupernaturalpartwasmainlycutout。Yetwefindacuriousevidenceofthecontinuedreignofchaosinafoot-noteinsertedbythepublishers，disavowinganydeparturefromorthodoxviews。
　　In1859appearedtheeighthedition。Thisabandonedtheoldarticlecompletely，andinitsplacegaveahistoryofphilologyfreefromadmixtureofscripturaldoctrines。
　　Finally，intheyear1885，appearedtheninthedition，inwhichProfessorsWhitneyofYaleandSieversofTubingengiveadmirablyandinfaircompasswhatisknownofphilology，makingshortworkofthesacredtheory——infact，throwingitoverboardentirely。
　　IV。TRIUMPHOFTHENEWSCIENCE。
　　SuchwasthatchaosofthoughtintowhichthediscoveryofSanskritsuddenlythrewitsgreatlight。Welldoesoneoftheforemostmodernphilologistssaythatthis“wastheelectricsparkwhichcausedthefloatingelementstocrystallizeintoregularforms。”AmongthefirsttobringtheknowledgeofSanskrittoEuropeweretheJesuitmissionaries，whoseservicestothematerialbasisofthescienceofcomparativephilologyhadalreadybeensogreat；andtheimportanceofthenewdiscoverywassoonseenamongallscholars，whetherorthodoxorscientific。
　　In1784theAsiaticSocietyatCalcuttawasfounded，andwithitbeganSanskritphilology。ScholarslikeSirWilliamJones，Carey，Wilkins，Foster，Colebrooke，didnobleworkinthenewfield。Anewspiritbroodedoverthatchaos，andagreatneworbofsciencewasevolved。
　　Thelittlegroupofscholarswhogavethemselvesuptotheseresearches，thoughalmostwithoutexceptionreverentChristians，wererecognisedatoncebytheologiansasmortalfoesofthewholesacredtheoryoflanguage。NotonlywasthedogmaofthemultiplicationoflanguagesattheTowerofBabelsweptoutofsightbythenewdiscovery，butthestillmorevitaldogmaofthedivineoriginoflanguage，neverbeforeendangered，wasfelttobeinperil，sincetheevidencebecameoverwhelmingthatsomanyvarietieshadbeenproducedbyaprocessofnaturalgrowth。
　　Heroiceffortswerethereforemade，inthesupposedinterestofScripture，todiscreditthenewlearning。EvensuchamanasDugaldStewartdeclaredthatthediscoveryofSanskritwasaltogetherfraudulent，andendeavouredtoprovethattheBrahmanshadmadeitupfromthevocabularyandgrammarofGreekandLatin。Othersexercisedtheiringenuityinpickingthenewdiscoverytopieces，andstillothersattributeditalltothemachinationsofSatan。
　　Ontheotherhand，themorethoughtfulmenintheChurchendeavouredtosavesomethingfromthewreckoftheoldsystembyacompromise。TheyattemptedtoprovethatHebrewisatleastacognatetonguewiththeoriginalspeechofmankind，ifnottheoriginalspeechitself；butheretheywereconfrontedbytheauthoritytheydreadedmost——thegreatChristianscholar，SirWilliamJoneshimself。Hiswordswere：“IcanonlydeclaremybeliefthatthelanguageofNoahisirretrievablylost。AfterdiligentsearchIcannotfindasinglewordusedincommonbytheArabian，Indian，andTartarfamilies，beforetheintermixtureofdialectsoccasionedbytheMohammedanconquests。”
　　So，too，inGermanycamefullacknowledgmentofthenewtruth，andfromaRomanCatholic，FrederickSchlegel。HeacceptedthediscoveriesintheoldlanguageandliteratureofIndiaasfinal：
　　hesawthesignificanceofthesediscoveriesasregardsphilology，andgroupedthelanguagesofIndia，Persia，Greece，Italy，andGermanyunderthenameafterwardsouniversallyaccepted——Indo-Germanic。
　　Itnowbegantobefeltmoreandmore，evenamongthemostdevotedchurchmen，thattheoldtheologicaldogmasregardingtheoriginoflanguage，asheld“always，everywhere，andbyall。”
　　werewrong，andthatLucretiusandsturdyoldGregoryofNyssamightberight。
　　Butthiswasnottheonlywreck。DuringagesthegreatmenintheChurchhadbeencallingupontheworldtoadmiretheamazingexploitofAdaminnamingtheanimalswhichJehovahhadbroughtbeforehim，andtoacceptthehistoryoflanguageinthelightofthisexploit。Theearlyfathers，themediaevaldoctors，thegreatdivinesoftheReformationperiod，CatholicandProtestant，hadunitedinthisuniversalchorus。ClementofAlexandriadeclaredAdam’snamingoftheanimalsproofofapropheticgift。
　　St。JohnChrysostominsistedthatitwasanevidenceofconsummateintelligence。Eusebiusheldthatthephrase“Thatwasthenamethereof“impliedthateachnameembodiedtherealcharacteranddescriptionoftheanimalconcerned。
　　Thisviewwasechoedbyamultitudeofdivinesintheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies。TypicalamongthesewasthegreatDr。
　　South，who，inhissermononTheStateofManbeforetheFall，declaredthat“Adamcameintotheworldaphilosopher，whichsufficientlyappearsbyhiswritingthenatureofthingsupontheirnames。”
　　InthechorusofmodernEnglishdivinesthereappearedoneofeminencewhodeclaredagainstthistheory：Dr。Shuckford，chaplaininordinarytohisMajestyGeorgeII，intheprefacetohisworkonTheCreationandFallofMan，pronouncedthewholetheory“romanticandirrational。”Hegoesontosay：“TheoriginalofourspeakingwasfromGod；notthatGodputintoAdam’smouththeverysoundswhichhedesignedheshoulduseasthenamesofthings；butGodmadeAdamwiththepowersofaman；
　　hehadtheuseofanunderstandingtoformnotionsinhismindofthethingsabouthim，andhehadthepowertouttersoundswhichshouldbetohimselfthenamesofthingsaccordingashemightthinkfittocallthem。”
　　ThisechoofGregoryofNyssawasformanyyearsoflittleavail。
　　HistoriansofphilosophystillbeganwithAdam，becauseonlyaphilosophercouldhavenamedallcreatedthings。Therewas，indeed，onedifficultywhichhadmuchtroubledsometheologians：
　　thiswas，thatfisheswerenotspeciallymentionedamongtheanimalsbroughtbyJehovahbeforeAdamfornaming。Tomeetthisdifficultytherewasmuchargument，andsometheologianslaidstressonthedifficultyofbringingfishesfromtheseatotheGardenofEdentoreceivetheirnames；butnaturallyothertheologiansrepliedthatthealmightypowerwhichcreatedthefishescouldhaveeasilybroughtthemintothegarden，onebyone，evenfromtheuttermostpartsofthesea。Thispoint，therefore，seemstohavebeenleftinabeyance。[418]
　　[418]Forthedangerof“thelittlesystemofthehistoryoftheworld。”seeSayce，asabove。OnDugaldStewart’scontention，seeMaxMuller，LecturesonLanguage，pp。167，168。ForSirWilliamJones，seehisWorks，London，1807，vol。i，p。199。ForSchlegel，seeMaxMuller，asabove。Foranenormouslistofgreattheologians，fromthefathersdown，whodweltonthedivineinspirationandwonderfulgiftsofAdamonthissubject，seeCanonFarrar，LanguageandLanguages。ThecitationfromClementofAlexandriaisStrom……i，p。335。SeealsoChrysostom，Hom。
　　XIVinGenesin；alsoEusebius，Praep。Evang。XI，p。6。ForthetwoquotationsgivenabovefromShuckford，seeTheCreationandFallofMan，London，1763，preface，p。lxxxiii；alsohisSacredandProfaneHistoryoftheWorld，1753；revisededitionbyWheeler，London，1858。FortheargumentregardingthedifficultyofbringingthefishestobenamedintotheGardenofEden，seeMassey，OriginandProgressofLetters，London，1763，pp。14-19。
　　Ithadcontinued，then，theuniversalbeliefintheChurchthatthenamesofallcreatedthings，exceptpossiblyfishes，weregivenbyAdamandinHebrew；butallthistheorywaswhelmedinruinwhenitwasfoundthattherewereotherandindeedearliernamesforthesameanimalsthanthoseintheHebrewlanguage；
　　andespeciallywasthisenforcedonthinkingmenwhentheEgyptiandiscoveriesbegantorevealthepicturesofanimalswiththeirnamesinhieroglyphicsataperiodearlierthanthatagreedonbyallthesacredchronologistsasthedateoftheCreation。