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。”