Progress of Linguistic. Linguistic speculation at of the nine teenth century. XII THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE: HUMBOLDT AND STEINTHAL ABOUT the time when Schleiermacher was meditating on the nature of the æsthetic fact, a movement of thought was gaining ground in Germany which, tending as it did to overthrow the old concept of language, might have proved a powerful aid to æsthetic science. But not only had the æsthetic specialists-if we may so call them-no notion of the existence of this movement, the new philosophers of language never brought their ideas into relation with the aesthetic problem, and their discoveries languished imprisoned within the narrow scope of Linguistic, condemned to sterility. Research into the relations between thought and the beginning speech, between the unity of logic and the multiplicity of languages, had been promoted, like many other things, by the Critique of Pure Reason: the earliest Kantians often tried to apply the Kantian categories of intuition (space and time) and of intellect to language. The first to make the attempt was Roth 1 in 1795; the same who wrote an essay twenty years later on Pure Linguistic. Many other noteworthy books on this subject appeared in quick succession: those of Vater, Bernhardi, Reinbeck and Koch were published one after another in the first ten years of the nineteenth century. In all these treatises the dominating subject is the difference between language 1 Antihermes oder philosophische Untersuchung üb. d. reine Begriff d. menschl. Sprache und die allgemeine Sprachlehre, Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1795. and languages; between the universal language, corresponding with Logic, and concrete, historical languages disturbed by feeling and imagination or whatever other name was applied to the psychological element of differentiation. Vater distinguishes a general Linguistic (allgemeine Sprachlehre), constructed a priori by means of the analysis of the concepts contained in the judgement, from a comparative Linguistic (vergleichende Sprachlehre) which attempts by means of induction to reach probable laws through the study of a number of languages. Bernhardi considers language to be an "allegory of intellect " and distinguishes it as functioning either as the organ of poetry or that of science. Reinbeck speaks of an Esthetic Grammar and a Logical. Koch, more energetic than the others, asserts positively that the character of language is "non ad Logices sed ad Psychologiae rationem revocanda."1 Some few philosophers speculated on language and mythology: for example Schelling considered them to be the products of a pre-human consciousness (vormenschliche Bewusstsein), presenting them, in a fantastic allegory, as diabolic suggestions which precipitate the ego from the infinite to the finite.2 Humboldt. of Even the famous philologist, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Wilhelm von was unable to detach himself entirely from the prejudice of the substantial identity and the purely historical, intellectualism. accidental diversity between logical thought and language. His celebrated dissertation, On the Diversity of Structure of Human Languages (1836),3 is based on the notion of a perfect language split up and distributed amongst particular tongues according to the linguistic or intellectual capacity of various nations. "For," says he, “since disposition towards speech is general in mankind, and all men must necessarily carry within themselves the key to the comprehension of all languages, it follows that the 1 For these writers, see accounts and quotations in Loewe, Hist. crit. gramm. univ., passim, and Pott, introd. to Humboldt, pp. clxxi.ccxii.; cf. also Benfey, Gesch. d. Sprachwiss., introd. 2 In Philos. der Mythologie: cf. Steinthal, Urspr. pp. 81-89. Üb. d. Verschiedenheit d. menschl. Sprachbaues, posthumous work (2nd ed. by A. F. Pott, Berlin, 1880). form of all languages must be substantially equal and all must attain the same general end. Diversity can exist solely in the means, and within the bounds permitted by the attainment of the end." Yet this same diversity becomes a real divergence not only in sounds, but in the use of sound made by the linguistic sense in respect to the form of language, or rather, in respect to its own idea of the form of the determinate language. “Languages being merely formal, the operation of the linguistic sense by itself should produce mere uniformity; the linguistic sense must exact from every tongue the same right and legitimate construction that is found in one of them. In practice, however, the facts are quite otherwise, partly owing to the reaction of sounds, and partly by reason of the individual aspect assumed by the same internal meaning in phenomenal reality." Linguistic force "cannot maintain its equality everywhere or show the same intensity, vivacity or regularity; it cannot be supported by an exactly equal tendency towards the symbolic treatment of thought or by exactly equal pleasure in richness and harmony of sound." These, then, are the causes which produce in human languages that diversity which manifests itself in every branch of the civilization of nations. But reflexion on languages "ought to reveal to us a form which of all possible forms best fits the purpose of language" and approaches most closely to its ideal; and "the merits and defects of existing languages must be estimated by their nearness or remoteness from this form." Humboldt finds the nearest approximation to such an ideal in the Sanskrit tongues, which can therefore be used as a standard of comparison. Setting Chinese apart in a class by itself, he proceeds to the division of the possible forms of language into inflective, agglutinative and incorporative; types which are found combined in various proportions in every real language.1 He also inaugurated the division of languages into inferior and superior, unformed and formed, according to the way in which verbs are 1 Verschiedenheit, etc., pp. 308-310. treated. He was never able to rid himself of a second prejudice connected with the first, namely that language exists as something objective outside the talking man, unattached and independent, and waking up when needed for use. But Humboldt opposes Humboldt: amongst the old Language as dross we detect the brilliant gleams of a wholly new activity. Internal form. concept of language. Certainly his work is for this very reason not always free from contradictions and from a kind of hesitation and awkwardness which appear characteristically in his literary style and make it at times laboured and obscure. The new man in Humboldt criticizes the old man when he says, "Languages must be considered not as dead products but as an act of production. . . . Language in its reality is something continually changing and passing away. Even its preservation in writing is incomplete, a kind of mummification it is always necessary to render the living speech sensible. Language is not a work, ergon, but an activity, energeia. . . . It is an eternally repeated effort of the spirit in order to make articulated tones capable of expressing thought." Language is the act of speaking. True and proper language consists in the very act of producing it by means of connected utterance; that is the only thing that must be thought of as the starting-point or the truth in any inquiry which aims at penetrating into the living essence of language. Division into words and rules is a lifeless artifice of scientific analysis."1 Language is not a thing arising out of the need of external communication; on the contrary, it springs from the wholly internal thirst for knowledge and the struggle to reach an intuition of things. "From its earliest commencement it is entirely human, and extends without intention to all objects of sensory perception or internal elaboration. . . . Words gush spontaneously from the breast without constraint or intention : there is no nomad tribe in any desert without its songs. Taken as a zoological species, man is a singing animal which connects 1 Verschiedenheit, etc., pp. 54-56. Language and art in Hum boldt. its thoughts with its utterances." 1 The new man leads Humboldt to discover a fact hidden from the authors of logico-universal grammars: namely the internal form of language (innere Sprachform), which is neither logical concept nor physical sound, but the subjective view of things formed by man, the product of imagination and feeling, the individualization of the concept. Conjunction of the internal form of language with physical sound is the work of an internal synthesis; " and here, more than anywhere else, language by its profound and mysterious operation recalls art. Sculptor and painter also unite the idea with matter, and their efforts are judged praiseworthy or not according as this union, this intimate interpenetration, is the work of true genius, or as the idea is something separate, painfully and laboriously imposed upon the matter by sheer force of brush or chisel." 2 But Humboldt was content to regard the procedure of artist and speaker as comparable by analogy, without proceeding to identify them. On the one hand, he was too one-sided in his view of language as a means for the development of thought (logical thought); on the other, his own æsthetic ideas, always vague and not always true, prevented his perception of the identity. Of his two principal writings on Esthetic, that on Beauty Masculine and Feminine (1795) seems to be wholly under the influence of Winckelmann, whose antithesis between beauty and expression is revived, and the opinion expressed that specific sexual characters diminish the beauty of the human body and that beauty asserts itself only by triumphing over differences of sex. His other work, which is inspired by Goethe's Hermann und Dorothee, defines art as "representation of nature by means of fancy; the representation being beautiful, just because it is the work of fancy," a metamorphosis of nature carried to a higher sphere. The poet reflects the pictures of language, itself a complex of abstractions. In his 1 Verschiedenheit, etc., pp. 25, 73-74, 79. 2 Op. cit. pp. 105-118. s Zimmermann, G. d. A. pp. 533-544. 3 |