How leaving out explanations kicked historical linguistics upward
Previously on Shells and Pebbles
How many people could read Arabic script in
Germany around 1800? The question struck me in 2006 as I was making my
first steps in intellectual history with a paper on Friedrich Schlegel’s
Über Sprache und Weisheit der Indier (1808).
Schlegel’s
book – now considered a groundbreaking work in comparative linguistics –
includes samples of untranscribed Persian, to show that Persian is part
of the same language family as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and German and
has the same “organic” system of conjugation. You don’t really
need to
know Arabic script to get that point, and for all we know Schlegel had
at best a very limited grasp of Persian. But if you want to test and
elaborate Schlegel’s ideas, well yes, then you need to. The use of Arabic
script in a book for German readers is unmistakably snobbery, but the
real question is whether that snobbery was also useful.
Seven years later I still don’t know the answer to my initial
question, but I can make an educated guess. There was Arab printing
type. Professor Michaelis in Göttingen (actually Schlegel’s
uncle-in-law) was teaching Arab to generations of theology students. The
Austrian mission to the Sublime Porte included a school for translators
– the so-called
Sprachknaben – among whose pupils was Joseph von
Hammer-Purgstall. (At that point Turkish was still written in Arabic.)
Knowledge of oriental languages was an asset, if far from mandatory for
theologians, and many learned pastors dallied in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Wilhelm von Humboldt knew the basics of 33 languages; Adelung and Vater
made a compilation of Paternosters in all the 500 known languages; a
decade later, Goethe wrote
West-Östlicher Divan. Still, there
could have been hardly more than a thousand people capable of reading
Schlegel’s Persian at the time, and these need not have been Schlegel’s
readers.