Besides the purely linguistic standpoint, the Delegation considered the whole question of an international auxiliary language from another and an essential point of view. It is natural, and sufficiently well known, that in both the Volapük and Esperanto movements the linguistic issue was mixed up with a large amount of disorder, error, misunderstanding, and illusion. This was due to the fact that these movements were largely directed by scientifically untrained persons, and partly also fell into the hands of fanatics and Utopians. Added to this was the desire to soar to the summits of literature instead of confining themselves to practical matters, and the truly childish confidence which led them to spoil the classics of different nations by translating them into a language intended for other purposes. This latter trait was even more markedly pronounced in the Esperanto than in the Volapük movement. The Delegation, as a commission of serious men of science, has steadily laboured to free the question from all extraneous considerations, of which we have mentioned only the best known, and the standpoint which is taken in the periodical _Progreso_ is in all respects a serious and scientific one. In this way it has been possible to attain finally to a stage at which the whole question can be discussed on its merits. The action of the Delegation marks, therefore, without doubt the beginning of a rational period in the history of the movement for a universal language. Henceforth he who comes to mock will have nothing to say, and the sceptic will have to search for serious and competent reasons if he wishes to maintain his case. The point of view which the Delegation has taken is that the solution of the problem of an international auxiliary language is a purely scientific and technical question. Scientific in a double sense of the word: in the first place, because the living germ of an international language is already to be found in science and as an expression of the civilisation of Europe and America, requiring only an artificial development to bring it to maturity and to give us the international auxiliary language in its final form; in the second place, because the method of artificial development of the international language forms itself the object of a science, and that indeed a new one, namely, the philology of auxiliary language. The question is also a technical one because the result obtained by theory is destined for a practical purpose, namely, the daily use of mankind. Our modern civilisation is signalised by the application of science to practice. We are no longer pure empiricists. Science penetrates into every department of daily life, and all enlightened people are aware that the age of pure empiricism is over.