¹ Darwin, C., On the Origin of Species, London, 1859, 422–3, 455–6.Google Scholar

² Hull, D., Darwin and His Critics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973.Google Scholar

³ Lyell, C., The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories of the Origin of Species by Variation, London, 1863, 457.Google Scholar

⁴ Lyell, , op. cit. (3), 460–1.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., 462–3.

⁶ Ibid., 463–5. As cited above, Darwin discussed language in passing in the Origin; he considered it in more detail in The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. The topic of language received fuller treatment in The Descent of Man, where he considered several aspects in the third chapter, entitled ‘Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals’. On the problem of the development of language, he referred the reader to Lyell's chapter on language in the Evidences. He mentioned Schleicher's Die Darwinscbe Theorie only with regard to the problem of the origin of language.

⁷ Lyell, , op. cit. (3), 466–7Google Scholar. Lyell's views on the permanent extinction of languages, as well as species, were commented on by Darwin, in The Descent of Man, 2nd edn, London, 1877Google Scholar, reprinted in The Works of Charles Darwin (ed. Barrett, P. H. and Freeman, R. B.), vols. 21 and 22, New York, 1989, Pt 1, 90, note 67.Google Scholar

⁸ Lyell, , op. cit. (3), 462.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid., 468–70.

¹⁰ Ibid., 454. See also Rudwick, M., ‘Transposed concepts from the human sciences in the early work of Charles Lyell,’ in Images of the Earth: Essays in the History of the Environmental Sciences (ed. Jordanova, L. J. and Porter, R. S.), Chalfont St Giles, 1979, 67–83, on 73.Google Scholar

¹¹ Lyell, , op. cit. (3), 468–9Google Scholar. Lyell's view that language argued against the evolution of man was similar to, and may have been influenced by, the ideas of his contemporary, the Oxford philologist Friedrich Max Müller, who used the evidence of language to oppose the idea that man had evolved from some other animal form, stating in his Lectures on the Science of Language delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain in April, May, & June, 1861, from the 2nd London edn, revised, New York, 1862, 354Google Scholar, that ‘Language is our Rubicon, and no brute will dare to cross it.’ It is possible that Lyell attended these lectures. See also Knoll, E., ‘The science of language and the evolution of mind: Max Müller's quarrel with Darwinism’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences (1986), 22, 3–223.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Dowling, L., ‘Victorian Oxford and the science of language’, Publication of the Modern Language Association (1982), 97, 160–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Huxley, T. H., Collected Essays, 3 vols., London, 1893–1894Google Scholar, reprinted, Hildesheim, 1970, ii (Darwiniana), 80–1.

¹³ Jespersen, O., the noted linguist (1860–1943), in Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin, London, 1922, 71Google Scholar, stated that Schleicher was the culminating figure of the period, marking a transition in the history of linguistics. Robins, R. H., A Short History of Linguistics, Bloomington, 1967, 178Google Scholar, considers Schleicher to be the ‘most influential and historically important’ linguist of his time. Waterman, J., Perspectives in Linguistics, 2nd edn, Chicago, 1970, 31–2Google Scholar, calls Schleicher ‘the greatest methodologist of nineteenth-century linguistics’, and suggests that Schleicher's greatest achievement may have been in the application of his comparative method to the ideas and information of his predecessors. Lehmann, W. (ed. and tr.), A Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics, Bloomington, 1967, 87Google Scholar, suggests that although Schleicher's ideas are generally regarded as totally superseded, ‘in part Schleicher seems supplanted because so many of his ideas were taken over by his successors’. See also Sampson, G., Schools of Linguistics: Competition and Evolution, London, 1980, especially 18–24Google Scholar, for a general discussion of Schleicher's place in nineteenth-century linguistics. Several scholars have particularly focused on Schleicher, including Tort, P. (ed. with Modigliani, D.), Evolutionnisme et linguistique suivi de August Schleicher ‘La theorie de Darwin et la science du langage’; ‘De l'mportance du langage pour l'histoire naturelle de l'homme’, Paris, 1980Google Scholar. In addition to other works cited below by K. Koerner and P. Maher, see Koerner's introduction to his edition of Schleicher, A., Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht linguistische Untersuchungen, Amsterdam, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Maher's introduction to his edition (with Koerner) entitled Linguistics and Evolutionary Theory: Three Essays by August Schleicher, Ernst Haeckel, and Wilhelm Bleek, Amsterdam, 1983Google Scholar. Maher's introduction, written partially in response to the work of Aarsleff, H., e.g. ‘Bréal vs. Schleicher: reorientation in linguistics during the latter half of the nineteenth century’, in From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History, Minneapolis, 1982Google Scholar, indicates the lack of consensus regarding Schleicher's work.

¹⁴ Waterman, , op. cit. (13), 32.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Schleicher, A., Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen I. Zur vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte, Bonn, 1848, 7–12.Google Scholar

Pei, M. A. and Gaynor, F., A Dictionary of Linguistics, Totowa, 1975Google Scholar, provide the following definitions; the examples are taken from Schleicher. An isolating language is one in which ‘all words are invariable and their interrelationship in the sentence is indicated solely by their relative positions and connective words’. Isolating languages are monosyllabic; Chinese serves as the standard example of an isolating language. An agglutinative language is one ‘which combines into a single word various linguistic elements, each of which has a distinct, fixed connotation and a separate existence’; Turkish is an example of an agglutinative language. Finally, flexional languages are those which express ‘grammatical relations of words and shades or modifications of their meanings by affixing prefixes or suffixes to the roots of the words’. Latin, Greek and German are good examples of flexional languages.

Jespersen, , op. cit. (13), 76Google Scholar, provides a neat summary of Schleicher's classification of languages in terms of meaning and grammatical relation, explaining that in isolating languages ‘meaning is the only thing indicated by sound; relation is merely suggested by word-position’. In agglutinating languages, ‘both meaning and relation are expressed by sound, but the formal elements are visibly tacked on to the root, which is itself invariable’. For flexional languages, ‘the elements of meaning and of relation are fused together or absorbed into a higher unity, the root being susceptible of inward modification as well as of affixes to denote form’.

With regard to this type of classification, Jespersen, , op. cit. (13), 76Google Scholar, has suggested that Schleicher was influenced by Pott, A. F. (1802–1887)Google Scholar and Hegel, G. W. F. (1770–1831)Google Scholar. Robins, , op. cit. (13), 176Google Scholar, also points to the typological systems of von Humboldt, W. (1767–1835)Google Scholar, Schlegel, F. (1772–1829)Google Scholar, Schlegel, A. W. (1767–1845)Google Scholar and Bopp, F. (1791–1867)Google Scholar as possible sources for Schleicher. Schleicher himself refers to both Hegel and Humboldt (Schleicher, , op. cit. this note, 18–19).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Schlcicher, A., Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2 parts, Weimar, 1861–1862, 1–7Google Scholar; Schleicher, A., A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin Languages (tr. Bendall, H., from the 3rd German edn), London, 1874, 1–8Google Scholar. For these and all subsequent passages quoted from the Compendium in English the translation of Bendall has been used. There are some small differences between the two editions, but the ideas expressed are largely the same. Subsequent references to the Compendium will give the page numbers in the German edition first, with corresponding pages in the English edition given second.

¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 1–7; pp. 1–7, quoted passages are on p. 4.

¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 2–7; pp. 2–8. A final note to the Introduction of the third edition stated explicitly that Schleicher was not asserting that the so-called proto-forms had ever existed.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 2; p. 2.

²⁰ Schleicher, A., Zur vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte, Bonn, 1848, 28.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid. Bopp's comparison of the study of language to natural history appears in several of his works, e.g. Bopp, F., Vocalismus oder sprachvergleichenden Kritiken über J. Grimm's deutsche Grammatik and Graff's althochdeutschen Sprachschatz mit Begründung einer neuen Theorie des Ablauts, Berlin, 1836, 1.Google Scholar

²² Schleicher, A., Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht, Bonn, 1850Google Scholar, see e.g. part five of the introduction, ‘Ueber die Sprachen Europas im Allgemeinen’, pp. 28–39; Die Deutsche Sprache, 2nd edn, Stuttgart, 1869 (1st edn 1860), 28, 82, 94.Google Scholar

²³ Schleicher, A., Die Darwinsche Theorie and die Sprachwissenschaft, Weimar, 1863, 3Google Scholar; Schleicher, A., Darwinism Tested by the Science of Language (tr. Bikkers, A. V. W.), London, 1869, 13–14Google Scholar. Subsequent references to Die Darwinsche Theorie will give the page numbers in the German edition first, with the corresponding pages in the English edition given second.

²⁴ Schmidt, J., ‘Schleicher’, in Portraits of Linguists: A Biographical Source Book for the History of Western Linguistics, 1746–1963 (ed. Sebeok, T. A.), 2 vols., Bloomington, 1966, i, 394.Google Scholar

²⁵ Bowler, P., The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth, Baltimore, 1988, 76–90Google Scholar, described Haeckel as ‘pseudo-Darwinian’. Richards, R., The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin's Theory, Chicago, 1992, 164 and 171–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has argued that Haeckel was actually quite close to Darwin.

²⁶ Schleicher, , Die Darwinsche Theorie, op. cit. (23) p. 4Google Scholar. For all passages quoted from Schleicher in English, the translation of Bikkers has been used; in this case, p. 16.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 5; pp. 16–17.

²⁸ Ibid., pp. 12–13, 19–20; pp. 31–2, 46–7.

²⁹ Ibid., pp. 21–2; pp. 49–51.

³⁰ Ibid., pp. 24–5; pp. 56–7.

³¹ Ibid., pp. 26–8; pp. 60–3.

³² Ibid., p. 29; pp. 65–6.

³³ Wilson, L., ‘Lyell, Charles’, DSB, 16 vols., New York, 1970, viii, 563–76, on 574.Google Scholar

³⁴ Lyell, , op. cit. (3), 469.Google Scholar

³⁵ Lyell, , op. cit. (3), 502, 506.Google Scholar

³⁶ Waterman, , op. cit. (13), 31Google Scholar, believes that Darwin did influence Schleicher. Maher, , ‘More on the history of the comparative methods: the tradition of Darwinism in August Schleicher's work’, Anthropological Linguistics (1966), 8, 1–12Google Scholar, has argued convincingly against this point of view. Among those who, for the most part, accept Maher's position are Koerner, E. F. K., ‘Towards a historiography of linguistics: 19th and 20th century paradigm’, Anthropological Linguistics (1972), 14, 255–80, on 259–61Google Scholar particularly; and Anderson, F. and Bache, C., ‘August Schleicher: towards a better understanding of his concept of language change’, Anthropological Linguistics (1976), 18, 428–37.Google Scholar

³⁷ Temkin, O., ‘The idea of descent in post-Romantic German biology: 1848–1858’, in Forerunners of Darwin, 1745–1859 (ed. Glass, B., Temkin, O. and Straus, W. L. Jr), Baltimore, 1959, 323–55Google Scholar, particularly 327–32. Snelders, H. A. M., ‘Romanticism and Naturphilosophie and the inorganic natural sciences, 1797–1840: an introductory survey’, Studies in Romanticism (1970), 9, 193–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Brett, G. S., ‘Goethe's place in the history of science’, University of Toronto Quarterly (1932), 279–99, especially 290–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lovejoy, A. O., ‘Kant and evolution’, in Forerunners of Darwin, 173–206.Google Scholar

³⁸ von Humboldt, W., Linguistic Variability and Intellectual Development (tr. Buck, G. C. and Raven, F. A.), Philadelphia, 1971.Google Scholar

Scholars have debated the significance of the work of Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) in the development of Schleicher's ideas about language. Important discrepancies between their views and those of Schleicher suggest that the influence may have been that of a catalyst, rather than offering ideas which were adopted by Schleicher. (E.g. Herder's monogenetic theory of language development may have given Schleicher something to think about, even though he had a quite different view himself.) See Waterman, , op. cit. (13), 35–6Google Scholar; Maher, , op. cit. (36), 5–6Google Scholar; Sapir, E., ‘Herder's “Ursprung der Sprache”’, Modern Philology (1907), 5, 109–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robins, , op. cit. (13), 151–3.Google Scholar

Given the atmosphere of German universities during the first half of the nineteenth century, in which Hegelian philosophy attracted many an ardent adherent, it is not hard to believe that Schleicher was influenced by the ideas of Hegel; still, it does seem far-fetched to attempt to attribute Schleicher's linguistic typology solely to Hegelian ideas of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, as has been done by Waterman and others. Furthermore, while the sort of linguistic change which Schleicher described as occurring during the first, or prehistoric, period corresponds somewhat to Hegel's progressive view of history, the changes which languages undergo during Schleicher's second, or historic, period do not appear to fit the Hegelian model of sociocultural evolution, which is based on a notion of improvement. As was mentioned above (note 15), Schleicher himself referred to Humboldt and Hegel.

³⁹ Bopp, . op. cit. (21), 1–21Google Scholar; Schleicher, , op. cit. (20), 27–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ [Chambers, R.], Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, London, 1844Google Scholar. Schleicher, , Die Darwinsche Theorie, op. cit. (23) 6.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Timpanaro, S., Die Entstehung der Lachmannschen Methode, 2nd edn (tr. Irmer, D., of La genesi del metodo del Lachmann, Florence, 1963) Hamburg, 1971Google Scholar; Grafton, A., ‘Polyhistor into Philolog: notes on the transformation of German classical scholarship, 1780–1850’, History of Universities 1983, 3, 159–92.Google Scholar

⁴² Hoenigswald, H. M., ‘Fallacies in the history of linguistics’, in Hymes, D. (ed.), Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and Paradigms, Bloomington, 1974, 346–58, on 352Google Scholar; ‘On the history of the comparative method’, Anthropological Linguistics (1963), 5, 1–11, on 8Google Scholar; ‘Linguistics’, Dictionary of the History of Ideas, 5 vols., New York 1973, iii, 68Google Scholar. Hoenigswald expresses much the same thoughts in these three articles. Koerner, , op. cit. (36), 261Google Scholar, has also recognized Ritschl's influence on Schleicher. See also Maher, , op. cit. (36).Google Scholar

⁴³ Schleicher, , Die Darwinsche Theorie, op. cit. (23), 11–12Google Scholar; Darwinism, op. cit. (23), 30 (Bikkers' italics).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 29; p. 65.

⁴⁵ Ibid., p. 5; pp. 17–18.

⁴⁶ This whole subject merits further investigation by historians.

⁴⁷ Maher, , op. cit. (36), 7Google Scholar. Aarsleffy, , op. cit. (13), 293–334Google Scholar, argues that Schleicher's organic view of language was ridiculed and rejected by such influential linguists as Michel Bréal (1832–1915) and Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

⁴⁸ Lenoir, T., The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanism in Nineteenth-Century German Biology, Chicago, 1982.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Weismann, A., The Evolution Theory (tr. Thomson, J. A. and Thomson, M. R.), 2 vols., London, 1904, i, 28.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Schleicher, , Die Danvinsche Theorie, op. cit. (23), 8–9Google Scholar; Darwinism, op. cit. (23), 23–5Google Scholar (Bikkers' italics). Uschmann, G., ‘Haeckel, Ernst Heinrich Phillip August’, DSB, 16 vols., New York 1970, vi, 6–11, on 7Google Scholar, explained that ‘following the linguist August Schleicher, Haeckel termed the philosophical system that corresponded to his approach “monism,” the unity of mind and matter, in contrast with dualism, the separation of mind and matter’.

⁵¹ I thank Bob Richards for pointing out this very important difference between Schleicher and Lyell.

⁵² Schleicher, , Die Darwinsche Theorie, op. cit. (23), 6–7Google Scholar; Darwinism, op. cit. (23), 20–1.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., 9–10; 26–8.

⁵⁴ R. Wells suggests that in reality Schleicher was no uniformitarian, because of his separation of the life of language into two distinct periods, implying different processes working within each period. Wells argues that ‘it is one thing to simply say nothing about prehistoric languages, i.e., to limit the scope of one's consideration to the historically documented languages, and another thing to make a positive claim, as Schleicher did, about prehistorical “history”’. Wells, R., ‘Uniformitarianism in linguistics’, Dictionary of the History of Ideas, 5 vols., New York, 1973, iv, 423–30, on 428.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Schleicher, , Die Darwinsche Theorie, op. cit. (23), 7, 11Google Scholar; Darwinism, op. cit. (23), 22, 29–30Google Scholar. Darwin, C., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809–82 (ed. Barlow, N.), New York, 1969, 119Google Scholar. Hull, D., op. cit. (2)Google Scholar, discusses Darwin's professed ‘Baconian’ method and the response of contemporaries to the Origin.

⁵⁶ Schleicher, , Die Darwinsche Theorie, op. cit. (23), 18, 14Google Scholar; Darwinism, op. cit. (23), 43, 35–6Google Scholar. John Brooke pointed out to me that Haeckel similarly postulated specific evolutionary phylogenies, where Darwin and Huxley had been reluctant to speculate.

⁵⁷ Ibid., pp. 19; pp. 44–5.

⁵⁸ Ibid., pp. 5–6; pp. 19–20.

⁵⁹ Lenoir, , op. cit. (48)Google Scholar, documents the adoption of another methodological model, teleomechanism, within the German scientific community.

⁶⁰ Darwin, , Descent, op. cit. (7), 87–92.Google Scholar

⁶¹ It is hoped that questions of interest have been raised here. However, many are outside the scope of this study; e.g. the relationship of the ideas of Schleicher and Haeckel to racist philosophical and social movements.