Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T07:23:54.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Imprint of Herder's Linguistic Theory on His Early Prose Style

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Eric A. Blackall*
Affiliation:
Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Extract

Herder's whole attitude to language develops quite coherently out of one single remark. This is the description, early in the Fragmente, of primitive language as “sinnlich.” As a qualification this would hardly have ranked high amongst aesthetic criteria at the time. Indeed it is doubtful whether, when here first enunciated by Herder, it was meant to imply praise or even approval. Having just said: “Bei den Gegenständen fürs Auge muste die Geberdung noch sehr zu Hülfe kommen, um sich verständlich zu machen,” Herder goes on to say of this early stage of language “und ihr ganzes Wörterbuch war noch sinnlich.” The wording of this statement is significant. “Die Geberdung muste noch sehr zu Hülfe kommen … ihr ganzes Wörterbuch war noch sinnlich”—in these two noch's there is the suggestion of imperfection. This is not surprising. Adelung suggests that sinnlich, meaning “based on unclear perceptions” is opposed to vernünftig meaning “based on clear perception.” Sinnlich, for him, implied therefore a certain degree of imperfection. It has been suggested that Herder was merely echoing G. F. Meier's rendering of Baumgarten's term sensi-livus meaning “pertaining to the faculties of sensation.” Poetry, according to Baumgarten, was “oratio perfecta sensitiva.” And this is how Herder's apparently neutral description turns almost imperceptibly into a value-judgment; for it soon becomes apparent that he considers poetry not only as the earliest, but as the highest form of literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , December 1961 , pp. 512 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Note 1 in page 512 Herder, Sämmtliche Werke, ed. Bernhard Suphan (Berlin, 1877-), i, 153. Subsequent references will appear in the text, by volume and page numbers.

Note 2 in page 512 Both in the first and second editions of his dictionary.

Note 3 in page 512 By the late Professor R. T. Clark in his study of Herder (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1955, p. 17). See also Herder himself in the first Kritisches Wäldchen, Suphan rv, 132: “sinnlich, sensitiv”.

Note 4 in page 513 Suphan I, 377; echoing Heinze in the Literaturbriefe.

Note 5 in page 513 Hamann, Briefwechsel (ed. Ziesemer and Henkel, Wiesbaden, 1956) ii, 377; letter dated 12[Aug. 1766] by editors.

Note 6 in page 513 Hamann, Briefwechsel, ii, 381–382; dated [1766?] by editors.

Note 7 in page 514 Hamann, Briefwechsel, Hi, 135; dated 20 Dec [1774] by-editors.

Note 8 in page 514 Elfriede Saffenreuther, Der Prosastil Johann Gottfried Herders in seinen Wandlungen bis zur Weimarer Zeit, typescript diss. Cologne 1941 (full of interesting material presented piecemeal).

Note 9 in page 518 The three versions of this passage are quoted from Suphan's text, vol. v, pp. 239–240, and p. 220. There is also a convenient reprint of the three versions of the essay, by Franz Zinkernagel, Bonn 1912 (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen, No. 107).