The Darwinians and Language 527 
indicated in the extract given above. He appended to the pamphlet 
a genealogical tree of the Indo-Germanic languages which, though to 
a large extent confirmed by later research, by the dichotomy of each 
branch into two other branches, led the unwary reader to suppose 
their phylogeny (to use Professor Haeckel’s term) was more regular 
than our evidence warrants. 
Without qualification Schleicher declared languages to be “natural 
organisms which originated unconditioned by the human will, de- 
veloped according to definite laws, grow old and die; they also are 
characterised by that series of phenomena which we designate by the 
term ‘Life.’ Consequently Glottic, the science of language, is a 
natural science; its method is in general the same as that of the 
other natural sciences.” In accordance with this view he declared? 
that the root in language might be compared with the simple cell in 
physiology, the linguistic simple cell or root being as yet not diffe- 
rentiated into special organs for the function of noun, verb, ete. 
In this probably all recent philologists admit that Schleicher went 
too far. One of the most fertile theories in the modern science of 
language originated with him, and was further developed by his pupil, 
August Leskien®, and by Leskien’s colleagues and friends, Brugmann 
and Osthoff. This was the principle that phonetic laws have no ex- 
ceptions. Under the influence of this generalisation much greater 
precision in etymology was insisted upon, and a new and remarkably 
active period in the study of language began. Stated broadly in 
the fashion given above the principle is not true. A more accurate 
statement would be that an original sound is represented in a given 
dialect at a given time and in a given environment only in one way; 
provided that the development of the original sound into its repre- 
sentation in the given dialect has not been influenced by the working 
of analogy. 
It is this proviso that is most important for the characterisation 
of the science of language. As I have said elsewhere, it is at this 
point that this science parts company with the natural sciences. 
“If the chemist compounds two pure simple elements, there can be 
but one result, and no power of the chemist can prevent it. But the 
minds of men do act upon the sounds which they produce. The 
result is that, when this happens, the phonetic law which would have 
1 Die Darwinsche Theorie, p. 6 f. 2 op. cit. p. 23. 
3 Die Declination im Slavisch-litanischen und Germanischen, Leipzig, 1876; Osthoft 
and Brugmann, Morphologische Untersuchungen, 1. (Introduction), 1878. The general 
principles of this school were formulated (1880) in a fuller form in H. Paul’s Prinzipien 
der Sprachgeschichte, Halle (3rd edition, 1898). Paul and Wundt (in his Vélkerpsychologie) 
deal largely with the same matter, but begin their investigations from different points of 
view, Paul being a philologist with leanings to philosophy and Wundt a philosopher 
interested in language. 
