|

Chapter 17 - From Babel to Comparative Philology
Breaking Down of the Theological View
We have now seen the steps by which the sacred theory of
human language had been developed: how it had been strengthened
in every land until it seemed to bid defiance forever to
advancing thought; how it rested firmly upon the letter of
Scripture, upon the explicit declarations of leading fathers of
the Church, of the great doctors of the Middle Ages, of the most
eminent theological scholars down to the beginning of the
eighteenth century, and was guarded by the decrees of popes,
kings, bishops, Catholic and Protestant, and the whole hierarchy
of authorities in church and state.
And yet, as we now look back, it is easy to see that even in
that hour of its triumph it was doomed.
The reason why the Church has so fully accepted the
conclusions of science which have destroyed the sacred theory is
instructive. The study of languages has been, since the Revival
of Learning and the Reformation, a favourite study with the whole
Western Church, Catholic and Protestant. The importance of
understanding the ancient tongues in which our sacred books are
preserved first stimulated the study, and Church missionary
efforts have contributed nobly to supply the material for
extending it, and for the application of that comparative method
which, in philology as in other sciences, has been so fruitful.
Hence it is that so many leading theologians have come to know at
first hand the truths given by this science, and to recognise its
fundamental principles. What the conclusions which they, as well
as all other scholars in this field, have been absolutely forced
to accept, I shall now endeavour to show.
The beginnings of a scientific theory seemed weak indeed,
but they were none the less effective. As far back as 1661,
Hottinger, professor at Heidelberg, came into the chorus of
theologians like a great bell in a chime; but like a bell whose
opening tone is harmonious and whose closing tone is discordant.
For while, at the beginning, Hottinger cites a formidable list
of great scholars who had held the sacred theory of the origin
of language, he goes on to note a closer resemblance to the
Hebrew in some languages than in others, and explains this by
declaring that the confusion of tongues was of two sorts, total
and partial: the Arabic and Chaldaic he thinks underwent only
a partial confusion; the Egyptian, Persian, and all the
European languages a total one. Here comes in the discord;
here gently sounds forth from the great chorus a new note - that
idea of grouping and classifying languages which at a later day
was to destroy utterly the whole sacred theory.
But the great chorus resounded on, as we have seen, from
shore to shore, until the closing years of the seventeenth
century; then arose men who silenced it forever. The first leader
who threw the weight of his knowledge, thought, and authority
against it was Leibnitz. He declared, "There is as much reason
for supposing Hebrew to have been the primitive language of
mankind as there is for adopting the view of Goropius, who
published a work at Antwerp in 1580 to prove that Dutch was the
language spoken in paradise." In a letter to Tenzel, Leibnitz
wrote, "To call Hebrew the primitive language is like calling the
branches of a tree primitive branches, or like imagining that in
some country hewn trunks could grow instead of trees." He also
asked, "If the primeval language existed even up to the time of
Moses, whence came the Egyptian language?"
But the efficiency of Leibnitz did not end with mere
suggestions. He applied the inductive method to linguistic study,
made great efforts to have vocabularies collected and grammars
drawn up wherever missionaries and travellers came in contact
with new races, and thus succeeded in giving the initial impulse
to at least three notable collections - that of Catharine the
Great, of Russia; that of the Spanish Jesuit, Lorenzo Hervas;
and, at a later period, the Mithridates of Adelung. The interest
of the Empress Catharine in her collection of linguistic
materials was very strong, and her influence is seen in the fact
that Washington, to please her, requested governors and generals
to send in materials from various parts of the United States and
the Territories. The work of Hervas extended over the period from
1735 to 1809: a missionary in America, he enlarged his catalogue
of languages to six volumes, which were published in Spanish in
1800, and contained specimens of more than three hundred
languages, with the grammars of more than forty. It should
be said to his credit that Hervas dared point out with especial
care the limits of the Semitic family of languages, and declared,
as a result of his enormous studies, that the various languages
of mankind could not have been derived from the Hebrew.
While such work was done in Catholic Spain, Protestant
Germany was honoured by the work of Adelung. It contained the
Lord's Prayer in nearly five hundred languages and dialects, and
the comparison of these, early in the nineteenth century, helped
to end the sway of theological philology.
But the period which intervened between Leibnitz and this
modern development was a period of philological chaos. It began
mainly with the doubts which Leibnitz had forced upon Europe, and
ended only with the beginning of the study of Sanskrit in the
latter half of the eighteenth century, and with the comparisons
made by means of the collections of Catharine, Hervas, and
Adelung at the beginning of the nineteenth. The old theory that
Hebrew was the original language had gone to pieces; but nothing
had taken its place as a finality. Great authorities, like
Buddeus, were still cited in behalf of the narrower belief; but
everywhere researches, unorganized though they were, tended to
destroy it. The story of Babel continued indeed throughout the
whole eighteenth century to hinder or warp scientific
investigation, and a very curious illustration of this fact is
seen in the book of Lord Nelme on The Origin and Elements of
Language. He declares that connected with the confusion was the
cleaving of America from Europe, and he regards the most terrible
chapters in the book of Job as intended for a description of the
Flood, which in all probability Job had from Noah himself. Again,
Rowland Jones tried to prove that Celtic was the primitive
tongue, and that it passed through Babel unharmed. Still another
effect was made by a Breton to prove that all languages took
their rise in the language of Brittany. All was chaos. There was
much wrangling, but little earnest controversy. Here and there
theologians were calling out frantically, beseeching the Church
to save the old doctrine as "essential to the truth of
Scripture"; here and there other divines began to foreshadow the
inevitable compromise which has always been thus vainly attempted
in the history of every science. But it was soon seen by thinking
men that no concessions as yet spoken of by theologians were
sufficient. In the latter half of the century came the bloom
period of the French philosophers and encyclopedists, of the
English deists, of such German thinkers as Herder, Kant, and
Lessing; and while here and there some writer on the theological
side, like Perrin, amused thinking men by his flounderings in
this great chaos, all remained without form and void.
Nothing better reveals to us the darkness and duration of
this chaos in England than a comparison of the articles on
Philology given in the successive editions of the Encyclopæ dia
Britannica. The first edition of that great mirror of British
thought was printed in 1771: chaos reigns through the whole of
its article on this subject. The writer divides languages into
two classes, seems to indicate a mixture of divine inspiration
with human invention, and finally escapes under a cloud. In the
second edition, published in 1780, some progress has been made.
The author states the sacred theory, and declares: "There are
some divines who pretend that Hebrew was the language in which
God talked with Adam in paradise, and that the saints will make
use of it in heaven in those praises which they will eternally
offer to the Almighty. These doctors seem to be as certain in
regard to what is past as to what is to come."
This was evidently considered dangerous. It clearly outran
the belief of the average British Philistine; and accordingly we
find in the third edition, published seventeen years later, a new
article, in which, while the author gives, as he says, "the best
arguments on both sides," he takes pains to adhere to a fairly
orthodox theory.
This soothing dose was repeated in the fourth and fifth
editions. In 1824 appeared a supplement to the fourth, fifth, and
sixth editions, which dealt with the facts so far as they were
known; but there was scarcely a reference to the biblical theory
throughout the article. Three years later came another
supplement. While this chaos was fast becoming cosmos in Germany,
such a change had evidently not gone far in England, for from
this edition of the Encyclopæ dia the subject of philology was
omitted. In fact, Babel and Philology made nearly as much trouble
to encyclopedists as Noah's Deluge and Geology. Just as in the
latter case they had been obliged to stave off a presentation of
scientific truth, by the words "For Deluge, see Flood" and "For
Flood, see Noah," so in the former they were obliged to take
various provisional measures, some of them comical. In 1842 came
the seventh edition. In this the first part of the old article on
Philology which had appeared in the third, fourth, and fifth
editions was printed, but the supernatural part was mainly cut
out. Yet we find a curious evidence of the continued reign of
chaos in a foot-note inserted by the publishers, disavowing any
departure from orthodox views. In 1859 appeared the eighth
edition. This abandoned the old article completely, and in its
place gave a history of philology free from admixture of
scriptural doctrines. Finally, in the year 1885, appeared the
ninth edition, in which Professors Whitney of Yale and Sievers of
Tubingen give admirably and in fair compass what is known of
philology, making short work of the sacred theory - in fact,
throwing it overboard entirely.
|