SvnodofToul was intended to' settle all disputes between ' so sincerely devoted to tlie interests of his native coun
the two kingdoms in regard to political and religious ([uestions, the preparatory Sjniod of Langres had either to recall the Augustinian resolutions of the Synod of Yalencc, or to alter them in such a manner that they might no longer give offence. They could not agree to do the former, and the six canones of Yalencc wcreen- dorscil-, but the expressions against the Synod of Kiersy,
try was Stephen Langton that he hesitated not to act not only in direct opposition to the wishes of his friend, the lioman pontilT, but he even refused to comply with his demand to publish the document containing the an- nouncement of excommunication of the barons who had rebelled against the king, a punishment which Innocent sought to inllict in order to please John, whose warm
hich offended Ilincmar and his followers (capitula partisan he had become after 1213. Langton did not
(piatuor (piic a concilio fratruin nostrorum mnuis pros- ])ecte suscepta sunt propter inutilitatem vel ctiam nox- ietatem et crrorem contrarium veritati [a pio auditu
waver even when threatened witli expulsion from the archiepiscopal see; he was suspended in 1215, but was restored in the year following (in February), and was in
fidelium penitus cxplodimus]) were omitted from the I his place in 1218 on tlie accession of Henry III. From fourth canon. That this was but a half-way and ineffi- ' this time forward Langton busied himself chitlly with cient measure had alreadv been suffitientlv" established the affairs of the Cluirch, instituted many reforms, caused
by Hincniar himself in his work on predestination, cap. 30: if the canons of Yalence were retained.it shoidd be done openlv, and they should be -courageously.defended, and then the protestation against the four principles of Kiersy could not be considered omitted ; but if these were omitted, then it v.ould be consistent to drop the resolutions of the Council of Yalence (comp. Ilincmari
the translation of Bccket's relics into a magnificent shrine of gold, set w-ith precious stones, and introduced into England the mendicant orders. He attended the Latcran Council convened at Eome in 1215, He died July 9,1228.
Langton is generally considered one of the most il- lustrious men of the age in which he Uved. Both as
LANGUAGE
233
LANIADO
an ecclesiastic and a writer he has exerted great in- fluence. Unfortunately, however, his writings, which displaj'ed great learning and ability, are hardly accessi- ble. They have hitherto found no editor, nor has any one, as far as we are aware, ever taken the trouble to ascertain how much the commentaries of Langton differ from the works of that class by medi.Bval Church writ- ers. A few of his theological tracts have been printed, and lists of all the productions known as his are given by Cave and by Tanner. Tlie principal are, De Beiw- dictionibus : — De Maledictionibus : — Summa TheologicB : — Summa ch diversis : — Repetitiones leciionum: — Doai- menta Clericorum: — De sacerdiiiihiis Deiim nescientibus : —De vera Poenifentia: — De Sim'dltndiidbus : — Adam ubi .es; and more particularly his Commentarij (on a large portion of the O.Test,). Dean Hook (in his Lives of the Archbishops of Co nterbiay, vol ii [18l)l],ch. xii) gives references to libraries where some of Langton's writings are still preserved-, and we may add that the library of Canterbury Cathedral contains his j]forals on Joshua, Judges, Kuth, Samuel, Kings, Tobit, Esther, Ezra, Mac- cabees, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the lesser proph- ets (comp. Todd [H. J.], Cataloyue [Lond. 1802], p. Ill sq.). See Fabricius, Bill. Med. yEvi ; Tanner, Biblioth, Britannico-Hibern. ; Oudin, Comment, de Script. Eccles. vol. ii ; Cave, Script, eccles. Hist. Litterar. vol. ii ; Ciaco- nius, VitcR Pontific. et Cardin. vol. ii-, Godwin, De Prce- sulibus AnrjUm Commentni'ius ; Eiifflish Ci/clop.; Hook, Eccles. Biography, vi, 538 sq. ; Milman, Latin Chrktian- ili/. V, 25 sq. ; Inett, Hist, of English Church, vol. iii (see Index) ; Cliurton, Earhj Engl. Ch. p. 355-, Collier, Eccl. Hist, (see Index in vol. viii)-, Hume, llist. of England, vol. i, ch. xi-, and the authorities already cited in the articles Innocent III, and John, king of England. (J.H.W.)
Language ("Vj? [Chald. "'i'bjjfony^K,- nsb, ?/». An indication of the manner in which man m.ay have been led to the formation of a vocabulary is thought to be given in (ien. ii, 19. But it is evident from the whole scriptural account of creation that speech was co- eval with the formation of our first parents. At a later date the origin of the various languages on the earth (see Van den Ilonert, De lingua primreva, L. B. 1738) is ai)parcntly given in connection with the building of the tower of Babel (comp. Kiimer, De Ungnar. in extruenda turri Bubgl. o/7«,Yiteb. 1782) and the dispersion of men ((jJen. xi); but it is probable that the diversities of hu- man speech have rather resulted from than caused the gradual divergence of mankind from a common centre (Ulod. Siculus, i, 8 ; comp. Jerusalem, Fortges. Betracht. Brschvv. 1773, p. 263 sq. ; Eichhorn, Diversitatis linguar. ex iradit. Seinit. origines, Getting. 1788 ; Abbt, Vermisch. /Sf/!/-*/?. vi,9Gsq.). See Tongues, Confusion of. The later Jews inferred from Gen. x that there were gener- ally on earth seventy (nations and) languages (compare Wagenseil, Sota, p. 099; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 754, 1031, 1089: see a list in the Jerusalem Talmud, Megill. fol. 71, ch. ii). Individual tongues are only mentioned incidentally in the Bible, as follows: the Canaanitvih (■|;"33 TiSb, Isa.xix, 18),the67/aA7fP«« (D"''^b3 "Vrb, Dan. i,4), the Arainwiin (r'^'O'nX, familiar to the Assyr- ians [2 Kings xviii, 20], the IMagians [Dan. ii, 4], and the Persian olKcials [Ezra iv, 7] ), the Jewish (':^'^1'l^i^.^ i. e. Hebrew; 2 Kings xviii, 2G ; Neh. xiii, 24; compare Esther viii, 9; Josephus, Apion, ii, 2), the Ashdodite (ni-li-rrx, Neh. xiii, 24) ; in the N. T. the Hebrew, i. e. Sgro-Vhiddee (Ejipatc, 'Eftnn'iari, Acts xxii, 2, etc.), the Greek (I'l'EWtjviKii.'EWiituari, John xix, 20; Acts xxi, 37; Rev. ix, 11), rhe Latin (Poj/tahri, John xix, 20; Luke xxiii, 38), and the Lycaonian {i\.vKnori<jTi, Acts xiv, 11). It is remarkai)le that, in all the inter- course of the Hebrews with foreign nations, mention is very rarely made of an interpreter ((ien. xiii, 23) ; but the passages in 2 Kings xviii, 2(>; Isa. xxxvi, 11. prove that the common Jews of the interior at least did not understand the Aramaean dialect. That the Jews of