An Annotated Chronological Bibliography of Western Histories of Linguistic Thought, 1822–1972

In this portion of the bibliography, which lists items that had previously escaped my notice, roughly the same criteria have been applied as in the earlier sections. Throughout the compilation a number of borderline cases have emerged which did not make a decision easy. Thus studies like Hendrik Bertel-sen’s (1874–1933) 6-volume Danske Grammatikere fra Midten af det syttende til Midten af der attende Aarhundrede (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1915–29), Emile Egger’s (1813–85) 2-volume L’Hellénisme. en France (Paris: Didier, 1369), or Jan Gerard Gerretzen’s 400-page Scholae Hemsterhuisiana (Nijmegen & Utrecht: Dekker & van de Vegt, 1940) contain, in addition to the subject matter announced in their titles, a wealth of information on other trends and scholars of the period in question. The same could be said of a number of other works not included in the bibliography, and it will be up to the scholar treating a particular aspect of or period in the history of linguistics to add secondary sources of information for himself.

I have decided not to list bio-bibliographical reference works and similar books, of which there are scores, e.g., Friedrich August Eckstein’s (1810–85) Nomenciator Philogorum (Leipzig: Teubner, 1871; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), Wilhelm Pökel’s Philologisches Schriftstellerlexikon (Leipzig, 1882; repr., Darmstadt: Wiss.- Buchgesellschaft, 1966), Charles Edward Buckland’s (1847–1941) Dictionary of Indian Biography (London: Sonnenschein, 1906), or the Encyclopédie linguistique (Louvain: Centre international de Dialectologie générale, 1960), compiled by Sever Pop (1901–61) and Rodica Doina Pop (b.1929), to mention just a few.

This book contains the following chaps, of interest to historians of linguistics: “Die historische Entwicklung der Grammatik” (1–61); “Der gegenwärtige [as of 1845] Standpunkt der Grammatik” (62–70), and “Die falschen Richtungen der Syntax” (71–85). The most informative chap, is the first which gives an account of the grammatical work from the Greeks, with the Stoics concluding the first period (1–11), the Alexandrian grammarians (11–17), and the Romans (17–18) to the first half of the 19th century, with accounts of the Renaissance philosophers and grammarians (18–26), the Port-Royal grammar (27) and the national (school) grammars in the 17th and 18th centuries (27–41), with an excursus devoted to the history of Latin grammar (41–52), and the ‘crisis’ of traditional grammatical theory marked by G. Hermann’s De emendanda ratione graecae grammaticae of 1801 (52–61). The second chap, contains an appreciation of the work of the New Philologists, from F. Schlegel and Bopp to Grimm and Humboldt (63–65) and its importance for classical philologist concerned with grammatical analysis (65–70). The book contains no index; there are bibliographical footnotes.

The book is not a history of classical philology but rather a chronological bio-bibliographical account of the more important scholars in the field, from the 15th to the mid-19th century in Europe. It contains, among others, the following chaps.: “Rückblick auf die Humanisten der ersten Periode … [15th – 16th cent.]” (35–44), from Angelo Politiano (1454–94) to Marcus Antonius Muretus (1526–85); “Die Repräsentanten der zweiten Periode” (44–75), from Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484–1558) to Claudius Salmasius (1588–1653): “Nächstfolgende Koryphäen der Philologie” (76–84), from Justus Lipsius (1574–1606) to Hugo Grotius (1583–1645). There follow chaps, on philologists in Germany, The Netherlands and France in the 16th and 17th centuries (84–122), in France, Italy, Spain, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Russia and Greece from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries (129–77), a survey of philological work in Holland, Belgium and Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries (177–200), with a particular chap, on German philological work (200–29). There are copious bibliographical footnotes but no indices.

This in trod, to Bréal’s transl, of the 1st vol. of Bopp’s Vergleichende Grammatik contains much information concerning the history of linguistics, including a brief intellectual biography of Bopp (viii-xv). In particular, B. mentions the findings of the Jesuit Gaston Laurent Coeurdoux (1691–1779) who, in 1767 (19 years before William Jones) stated the similarities between Sanskrit and European languages, especially Latin and Greek (xvi-xviii). He then goes on to relate the development of comparative IE studies from Jones’ observations of 1786 and F. Schlegel’s book of 1808 to the 1816 work of Bopp (xviii-xxx), before analyzing this and subsequent studies by Bopp in relation to those of his contemporaries, in particular Eugène Burnouf (1801–52), Rask, Grimm, Humboldt, and others (xxx-xxxviii). This is followed by an analysis of Bopp’s doctrines, something which B. did still more extensively in his Introduction to the fourth vol. of Bopp’s Comparative Grammar (Paris, 1872; 3rd., 1889), i-xxxii. Cf. also B.’s lecture, “Les progrès de la grammaire comparée”, Mémoires de la Société linguistique de Paris 1.72–89 (1868).

An account of the development of the study of French grammar from the publication of John Palsgrave’s (1480–1554) L’esclaircissement de la langue françoyse (London, 1530) – which B. analyzes in detail with reference to other 16th-century grammars of French (1–6) – to the appearance of Claude Favre de Vaugelas’ (1585–1650) Remarques sur la langue francoise of 1647 (discussed on pp. 35–40). The concluding portion consists of a survey of the theory of the participles in French grammatical treatises by Jacques Dubois (1478–1555), Louis Meigret (fl. 1550), Jean Pillot (b. 1510), Abel Mathieu (fl. 1559), Jean Gamier (d. 1574), Antoine Caucius (fl. 1570–86), Olivier Patru (1604–81), Gilles Menage (b. 1613), Thomas Corneille (1625–1709), and others which were published between 1530 and 1704 (42–48). The study also contains a bibliographic statement (33–34).

This survey of the history of Finno-Ugric linguistics consists of two major sections: I. “Oldest literature: Grammar and lexicography” (1–73), which, according to D., set in with the publication of Bishop Michael Olavi Agricola’s (1508-ca.l557) ABCkirja (Stockholm, 1542), and II. “Comparative linguistics” (74–109), which is devoted to 19th-century work by Finno-Ugrists like János Miklós Revai (1749–1807), Andreas-Johannes Sjögren (1794–1855), Ferdinand Johann Wiedemann (1805–87), Hans Conon von der Gabelentz (1807–74), Pál Hunfalvy (1810–91), Matthias Alexander Castren (1813–52), Anton Reguly (1819–55), Josef (alias József) Budenz (1836–92), Arvid Genetz (1848–1915), and others, covering topics such as “The Finno-Ugric languages compared with Oriental languages” (74–82), “Comparisons with Basque, Greenlandish, and cuneiform scripts” (84–91), etc. Section I consists of chaps, treating the various branches of Finno-Ugric and Altaic, of which the accounts of Finnish (1–14) and Hungarian (47–64) deserve special mention because of the copious bibliographies D. has supplied (14–17 and 64–71, respectively). It has no index, and no comprehensive bibliography, but there are extensive bibliographical footnotes.

This study is not be confused with Loiseau’s Histoire de la langue française, ses origines et son développement jusqu’à la fin du XVI^e siècle (Paris: Thorin, 1881; 2nd rev. ed., 1882), which constitutes a language history, not a history of the study of language.

Even the present one is not a general history of grammatical work performed in France, but a historical account of the discussion and treatment of individual grammatical categories (article, noun, adjective, verb, etc.) in separate chapters, frequently beginning with the views held by the ancients and ending, for the most part, with the presentation of the theories advanced by 18th-century and early 19th-century scholars. There are no indices and no general bibliographies (but only bibliographical footnotes).

This survey of 19th-century IE linguistics was intended by the author to supplement Benfey’s voluminous account of 1869. Although it was translated into English by Ernest Stewart Roberts (1847–1912) – Aryan Philology according to the Most Recent Researches: Remarks, historical and critical (London: Trübner & Co., 1879), xvi +199 pp. – it was soon superseded by Delbrück’s book of 1880 (E. transl., 1882).

This book is not a history of comparative IE linguistics in the 19th century, but a discussion, in 48 brief chaps., of the major and minor issues in the linguistic debate of the second half of the past century, including the status of linguistics as a science (21–32), the original home of the IE peoples (32–74), the earliest European inhabitants (74–86), language classification and typology (86–125), etc. However, in giving a discussion of the various issues in late 19th-century debate, C. reviews the history of each individual topic. Moreover, C. provides a useful account of linguistic scholarship outside the narrow circles of 19th-century German activities, in particular in Italy; note the discussion of the work of Fausto Gherardo Fumi (1840–1915), Francesco d’Ovidio (1841–1925), Domenico Pezzi (1844–1905), Pietro Merlo (1850–88), Luigi Ceci (1859–1927), and others. There is a bibliography (vii-xiii) but no index.

In his effort to redress the history of linguistics, in particular with regard to important discoveries in the field of Indo-Aryan, D. devotes much space to the contributions of Antoine-Léonard de Chézy (1773–1832), François Champollion (1790–1832), Eugène Burnouf (1801–52), and other French scholars of the period, though Alexander Hamilton (1762–1824) and Bopp (27–28 and 29–32, respectively) are mentioned as well.

A brief survey of the history of German grammatical studies from the late 17th century – from 1687, to be exact, which marks the date that the philosopher Christian Thomasius (1655–1728) annouced that he would read his lectures at the University of Leipzig in German rather than in Latin – to the work of Karl Weigand (1804–78), Rudolf Hildebrand (1824–94), Moriz Heyne (1837–1906), and others.

This very detailed account of the history of Finno-Ugric linguistics is subdivided into five chaps.: I. “Martin Fogel[ius, 1634–75] and his research on languages related to Finnish” (183–216); II. “On Georg Stiernhielm’s [1598–1672] linguistic research and, in particular, that concerning the Finnish languages” (217–33); III. “A few notes from G. W. Leibniz’s papers” (234–54); IV. “On the linguistic endeavours of several Finnish scholars at the beginning of the 18th century (Elias Brenner [1647–1717]. Isak Björklund [1686–1740]. Matthias Hallenius [1699–1748]. Johan Welin [d.1744].)” (255–85), and V. “On H[enrik] G[abriel] Porthan’s [1739–1804] efforts pertaining to the Finno-Ugric languages and his connection with Hungarian scholars” (286–343). Additions and corrections” (344–46); “Index of persons” (347–48), and table of contents (349–50). The study includes extensive bibliographical footnotes and excerpts from (often unpublished) documents.

U’s history of philology is preceded by a chap, devoted to the definition and the divisions of philology. The actual account covers the following periods: 1) “Das Altertum” (33–41); 2) “Das Mittelalter” (41–45) 3) “Die Wiedergeburt der klassischen Studien: Die italienische Periode” (45–54); 4) “Französisch-belgische Periode” (54–76); 5) “Niederländisch-englische Periode” (76–97), with addenda concerning philological work in Italy (97–100) and France (100–03), and 6) “Die deutsche Periode” (103–11), with supplements on The Netherlands and Denmark (111–13), France (113–16), Alsatia (116–17) and England (117–21), and a continuation of philological studies in Germany (121–45). Bibliographical footnotes.

This Introduction supplements to a large extent the account given in Delbrück 1880 (3rd ed., 1893) and has been incorporated in Delbrück 1904 and 1919 (see below). It constitutes a brief history of the study of syntax from the Greeks, in particular Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus (3–12), to the late 19th century. After the Ancients D. distinguishes between two periods, an aprioristic one (12–32), extending from the scholastic grammarians over Sanctius and the Port-Royal grammarians to Christian Wolff (1679–1754) and Gottfried Hermann (1772–1848), and the modern one (32–72), which had its beginnings in the philosophy of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel in conjunction with the rediscovery of Sanskrit (32–35 and 36–37, respectively). The 19th-century work on syntax and general linguistic theory is given much attention, in particular the ideas of Humboldt (37–47), Bopp (47–50), Grimm (50–54), Josef Dobrovsky (1753–1829) and Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787–1864) on pp. 54–56, Steinthal (56–59), Whitney (58–59), Schleicher (61–62), Franz von Miklosich (1813–91) – inadvertently omitted in Delbrück 1919 – (62–63), Ludwig Lange (1825–85), and Alfred Ludwig (1832–1912) on pp. 63–64 and 64–66, and, after a brief discussion of the analogy and sound law principles (66–69), the theories of Hermann Paul (69–72). There is no bibliography.

Although the book is essentially an account of the study of (the Rumanian) language in Rumania, it also contains brief statements on a number of other European scholars, e.g., Conrad Gesner (1515–64) and Hieronymus Megiser (1554? -1616) on pp. 13–14, Claude Duret (d.1611) and Andreas Müller (1630? -1694) on pp.15–17, Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro (1735–1809) and Peter Simon Pallas (1741–1811) on pp. 19–24, Johann Christoph Adelung (1734–1806) on pp. 25–30, and the Romance scholars François Raynouard (1761–1836), Friedrich Diez (1794–1876), and Lorenz Diefenbach (1806–81) on pp. 39–43. These and others are treated in the chap. “Limba romăna în occident (1592–1850)” (9–43). The subsequent chaps, are entitled: “Poligloţi români (1625–1723)” (44–68), which relates the work of Nicolae Spatarul Milescu (1625–1714), Dimitrie Cantemir (1663–1723), and others; “lnvĕţ-amintul gramatical în epoca fanarioţilor (1711–1821)” (69–84); “Doi gramatici munteni: Ienăchtiţă Văcărescu [1740–99] şi Iordache Golescu [1768–1848] (1787–1840)” (85–116);* “Şcóla etimológică ardelénă saǔ curentul latinist (1780–1870)” (117–40); “Tenderţa italienistă: Ión Eliad Rădulescu” (141–63); “Şcóla fonética bucovinéna: Arune [Aron] Pumnul [1818–66]” (164–80); “Privire critică asupra lexicografiei române” (181–207), which treats the work of Samuil Klaĭn (Sámuel Klein, 1745–1806), Petr Maĭor (1760 or 61–1821), August Trebonin Laurian (1810–81), Ioan C. Massim (1825–77), Alexandru Cihac (1825–87), and others; “Elemente române m limbile străine” (208–29), and “Starea actuală a filo-logiei române” (230–336), which contains sections devoted to language (233–61), literature (236–308), and various other cultural aspects (308–36). The vol. concludes with a detailed table of contents (337–45), and an index of proper names (347–56). A new ed. is in preparation (Hamburg: H. Buske).

* Şaineanu omits Iancu Văcărescu (1791–1863) and Constantin (Dinicu) Golescu (1777–1830) from his account for no obvious reason; see now the very informative study by Elisabeth Close, The Development of Modern Rumanian: Linguistic theory and practice in Muntenia 1821–1838 (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1974), which contains very detailed accounts of the following poets and scholars: Ion Eliade Rădulescu, 1802–72 (47–134), Barbu Paris Mumuleanu, 1794–1836 (135–60), Iancu Văcărescu (161–77), Constantin Aristia, 1800–1880 (178–97), Grigore Alexandrescu (1812–85) and Cezar Boliac, 1813–81 (198–212), and Constantin Faca, c.1800–1845 (213–18).

This Moscow University inaugural lecture of 1895 presents the development of comparative linguistics from the earliest beginnings, e.g., Hadrianus Relandus (1678–1718), to the last quarter of the 19th century, with particular accounts of F. Schlegel (234–36), Bopp (237–40), Grimm (240–41), Schleicher (241–43), Curtius (243–44), Arthur Amelung (1840–74) on pp. 244–45, followed by a detailed discussion of the neogrammarian doctrines and their opponents (245–56) in view of then present-day issues in IE linguistics. Cf. also Porzeziński 1910.

This acccount of the study of language in the 19th century was aimed at a wider public than the inner circles of contemporary linguists. It deals with the significance of Bopp and Rask as founders of comparative linguistics and gives a survey of the research results of comparative linguistics until the end of the 19th century, with a discussion of Indo-European, its daughter languages and their mutual relationships as well as of a few non-IE languages. Cf. Pedersen 1916 and 1931, for further elaborations.

After having made a plea in favour of a close collaboration between philologists and linguists, S. surveys the development of IE comparative linguistics from Bopp to the end of the 19th century (6–23), with a brief account of Paul Kretschmer’s (1866–1956) Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache of 1896 (23–24).

An account of the medieval grammars of Latin (i.e., Priscian, Donatus, Alexander of Villa-Dei, and others) and their influence on the teaching of grammar in the 16th-18th centuries.

This voluminous history of Slavic philology is a mine of information on linguistic work done in the Slavic world during the past two or more centuries. It consists of the following major chaps.: I, “Introduction. The Middle Ages. References by historians and poets to the Slavs. Slavic glosses, glossaries, parallel dictionaries” (1–23); II, “Grammatical discussions of Church Slavonic. Grammars and dictionaries. [Juraj] Križanić [1618–83]. Church Slavic and Roman propaganda. Orthographical attempts among the West Slavs, their grammars and dictionaries” (23–58); III, “Slavic questions in Germany. Leibniz, [Johann Gabriel] Sparwenfelt [1655–1727]. Linguistic pursuits of Catherine [the Great]. Questions about [Constantine, St.] Cyril [827–69] and [St.] Methodius [d.855], about Čex and Lex, etc.” (59–81); IV, “New influences on Russia and Bohemia. [August Ludwig von] Schlözer, [Mixail Vasil’evič] Lomonosov [1711–65]. The precursors of Dobrovský. [Václav Fortunát] Durych [1735–1802]” (81–99); V, “Josef Dobrovský [1753–1829]” (100–137); VI, “Polish contemporaries of Dobrovský’s” (138–56), e.g., Adam Naruszewicz (1733–96), Jan Potocki (1761–1815), Samuel Bogumil Linde (1771–1847), and others; VII, “Slavo-Russian philological-historical and bibliographic studies in Russia at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries. The state of science among the Southern Slavs at the time of Dobrovský” (156–85); VIII, “Bartholo-maeus (Jernej) Kopitar [1780–1844]” (185–214); “A[leksandr] X[ristoforovič] Vostokov [1781–1864] and his contemporaries [e.g., Petr Ivanovič Köppen (1793–1864), Carl Philipp Reiff (1792–1872), et al.]. The first kandidaty [graduates] in Slavistics in Poland [e.g., Waclaw Maciejowski (1793–1883)]” (215–37); X, “Bohemian Slavophile patriot-romantics [i.e., Josef Jungmann (1773–1847), Vjačes-lav Hanka (1791–1861), Jan Kollar (1793–1852), Šafářík, František Palacký (1798–1876), František Ladislav Čelakovský (1799–1852), and others]” (237–80); XI, “On the invitation of several Bohemian Slavists to Russia” (280–94); XII, “[Pavel Josef] Šafařík [1795–1861] in Prague. His Drevnosti. His meeting with [Mixail Petrovič] Pogodin [1800–1875] in Prague; their friendship and correspondence. Šafařík’s studies right up to 1848” (294–309); XIII, “The first Russian Slavists sent abroad to study the Slavic world: [izmail Ivanovič] Sresnevskij [1812–80], [Petr Ivanovič] Prejs [1810–46], [Viktor Ivanovič] Grigorovič [1815–76].” (310–45); XIV, “The rule of Serbian Church Slavonic in Serbia. The predecessors of Vuk: Dosifej Obradović [1739–1811], [Stefan] Stratimirović [1757–1836], [Lukian] Musički [1777–1834], and others” (345–65); XV, “Serbian folk poetry and Vuk [Stefanović] Karadžić [1787–1864], the reform of the Serbian literary language and orthography” (366–407); XVI, “Illyrianism and its main literary representatives in Zagreb: [Ljudevit] Gaj [1809–72], St[anko] Vráz [1810–51], [Vjekoslav Alojs] Babukić [1812–75], the Mažuranić brothers [i.e., Anton, 1805–88, and Ivan, 1814–90], [Boguslav] Šulek [1816–95]. The literary movements among the Slovenes” (408–37); XVII, “The Bulgarian Renaissance. [Jurij Ivanovič] Venelin [1802–39]” (437–56); XVIII, “Muscovite Slavophiles. K[onstantin] N[ikoIaevič] Aksakov [1817–60]. The activity of the first Russian professors of Slavistics” (456–84); XIX, “Activity in the area of Slavic ethnography” – compare the work of Ivan Mixajlovič Snegirev (1793–1868), Mixailo Maksimovič (1804–73), Pantelejmon Oleksandrovyč Kuluš (1819–97), and many others – (485–534); XX, “The influence of the historical grammar by Jacob Grimm and his mythological views on [Fedor Ivanovič] Buslaev [1818–97], P[etr Spiridono-vič] Biljarskij [1815–67], P[etr Alekseevič] Lavrovskij [1827–86], A[leksandr Afa-nas’evič] Potebnja[1835–91], A[leksandr Aleksandrovič] Kotljarevskij [1837–81], N[ikolaj Sawič]Tixonravov [1832–93], Or[est Fedorovič] Miller [1833–89], A[lek-sandr Nikolaevič] Pypin [1833–1904], V[ikentij Vasiľevič] Makušev [1837–83], M[arin Stepanovič] Drinov [1838–1906]” (534–80); XXI, “Activity in the area of Slavic bibliography, the history of Slavic literatures, publications of ancient monuments and authors: a) among the Poles and Bohemians” (580–614); XII, “Activity … [ditto]: b) among the Southern Slavs (Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians)” (614–32); XXIII, “Actiyity … [ditto]: c) among the Russians. Investigations in Byzantinology and on the question of Cyril and Methodius” (632–58); XXIV, “Outstanding representatives in Russian literary history and Russian criticism” (658–91); XXV, “Comparative linguistics emerges as a new factor in Slavic grammar: [Franz Xaver von] Miklosich [or Miklošić, 1813–91], [August] Schleicher [1821–68]” (691–718); XXVI, “Slavistics in Prague: the latter years of Šafařík’s activity, the influence of his Glagolitic investigations on the Croats – [Jan] Kukuljević [1816–89], [Franjo] Rački (1828–94), [Ivan] Berčić [1824–70], and others; Čela-kovskij, [Martin] Hattala [1821–1903], the older Bohemian and Lusatian grammarians. From the Southern Slavs: [Fran] Kurelac [1811–74], [Adolf] Veber[-Tkalčević, 1825–89], [Duro] Daničić [1825–82], [lovan] Bošković [1834–92]” (718–47); XXVII, “The friends and pupils of Miklosich in the Austrian provinces – among the Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and Galicians. The older Polish grammarians [e.g., Emil Ogonowski (1833–94) et al.]” (747–66); XXVIII, “Attempts to establish Sanskrit on Slavic soil; grammatical studies involving Lithuanian and other Indo-European languages” (766–85); XXIX, “The new generation of the representatives of Slavistics in Austrian and Russian universities”, e.g., Aleksandr Ivanovič” Smirnov (1842–1905), Polixronij Agapievič Syrku (1855–1905), Konstantin Fedorovič” Radčenko (1872–1908), Lucian Malinowski (1839–98), Ignác Boleslav Mašek (1837–1901), František Prusík (1845–1908), Vatroslav Oblak (1864–1906), and others (785–842), and XXX, “Representatives of the comparative study of the monuments of Old Russian literature and folklore: A[leksandr] N[ikolaevič] Veselovskij [1838–1902], A[leksandr] I[vanovič] Kirpičnikov [1845–1903], I[van] N[ikolaevič] Zdanov [1846–1905], N[ikolaj] P[avlovič] Daškević [1852–1908], [the folkloristic work of Vladimir Bonifaťevič] Antonovič [1834–1905, and of Mixail Petrovič] Dragomanov [1841–95]; and of the legal sphere: V[altazar (Vlasievič)] Bogošić [1834–1908, and Pavl Ivanovič Jakuškin, 1820–72]” (842–77). After the “Concluding words” (878–907), there follow: “Addenda” to individual statements in the text (908–21), “New supplements” (921–32) compiled by P(avel) K(onstantinovič) Simoni (1859–1939), an “Index of proper names” (933–59), and errata and corrigenda (960–61).

A brief survey (first presented as a public address in 1902) of origin and development of English philology and linguistics, from the work of Orrm (11th century) to the works of 19th-century scholars, with an emphasis on problems of dictionary making and the edition of literary texts. There are few bibliographical footnotes.

First ed., 1880; however, the 1919 ed. may rightly be regarded as a new book, with some 75 pp. more than the 4th ed. (Delbrück 1904); see also Delbrück 1893 (above). The vol. contains the following chaps. – to mention the historical portion only: “Das Altertum” (1–23); “Von den Römern bis zur klassischen Periode” (24–38); “Die klassische Periode der Sprachwissenschaft [1786–1819]” (39–90); “Von Bopp bis Schleicher und Curtius” (91–107), and “Von Schleicher and Curtius bis zur Gegenwart” (108–55), a chap, in which mention is made of Saussure’s Cours (p. 114). Index of names (xiii-xvi); no bibliography.

This (unplublished) study investigates the contributions by English scholars to the scientific study of languages between 1500 and 1700; it contains a bibliography of the works published during this period and detailed analyses of a number of studies, in particular textbooks and dictionaries.

Not a fully-fledged history of linguistics in Germany but a collection of informative articles written by B. between 1882 and 1926, and edited by Hans Bork, who also prepared a detailed index (186–91). The vol. includes the following major chaps.: I, “Von [Martin] Opitz [1597–1639] bis [Johann Christoph] Gottsched [1700–1766]” (1–25); II, “Hamann – Herder – Goethe” and their linguistic views (26–69); III, “Die Brüder Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm und Karl Lachmann [1793–1851]” (70–102); IV, “Die Fort- und Umbildung der Sprachbetrachtung Jacob Grimms” (103–30); V. “Wilhelm Scherer [1841–86]” (131–63), and VI, “Rudolf Hildebrand [1824–94]” (164–84).

This survey of Latin grammatical study from the 5th century B.C. till (and including) Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 B.C.) contains the following chaps.: I, “Le origine greche” (3–15); II, “Nel secondo secolo avanti Cristo” (17–59), III, “Nel primo secolo avanti Cristo” (61–99); IV, “Marco Terenzio Varrone” (101–46), with an appendix, “La cronologia delle opere Varrione” (149–66). Index of names (161–65) extensive bibliographical footnotes.

This survey of philological study from antiquity to the beginning of the 20th century consists of the following chaps.: “Filologia greca” (185–206); “Filologia romana” (206–36); “Dal antichità alľUmanesimo” (236–49); “Umanesimo e filologia italiana” (249–66); “Filologia umanistica italiana” (266–89); “La filologia italiana e francese dei secoli XVI e XVII” (289–305); “Periodo olandese e inglese” (305–11); “La filologia in Francia e in Italia nel Settecento” (311–21), and “ĽOttocento tedesco” (321–56). Bibliography for each individual chap. (357–64); index of names (367–85).

The study delineates the various 18th-century views regarding origin and development of language, tracing it back to earlier theories. K. distinguishes 3 major lines of thought: .1) the ‘traditional’ one which regards language as a divine gift to mankind and tries to trace all languages back to Hebrew, e.g., the works of Claude Duret (d. 1611), Samuel Bochart (1599–1667), Augustin Calmet (1672–1757), Nicholas Sylvestre Bergier (1718–90), and others (1–12); 2) the ‘conventional theory’ which contends that language is an invention of man endowed with reason (13–19), e.g., the Port-Royal Grammar of 1660 and the tradition it established, compare the work of Pierre Restaut (1696–1764), César Chesneau Dumarsais (1676–1754), and others; and 3) the ‘sensationalist theory’, of which K. distinguishes two lines (a) “Condillac and his group” (23–35), which includes Rousseau, and (b) “[Charles] de Brosses [1709–77] and his followers” (35–48), with which K. associates the work of Antoine Court de Gébelin (1725–84). After a brief conclusion (49–50), there follows a bibliography of primary (51–52) and secondary (52–54) sources.

The book is essentially a history of linguistics beginning with the Sanskrit grammarians and the Greeks – and including a brief account of the Arab grammarians – up to a critical tracing of the development of comparative linguistics in the 19th and structuralist trends (including a systematic presentation of the views of Saussure, the ‘schools’ of Prague, Geneva, and Copenhagen, and the theories of Karl Bühler [1879–1963]) in the 20th century. M. excludes American structuralism. Each chap, has a brief bibliography appended; the vol. concludes with an E. summary (201–08). Cf. the reviews by Zygmunt Rysiewicz in BSL 44, No.129.21–23 (1947–48); Paul L(ucian) Garvin in AmA 52.405–07 (1950), and Constantin Regamey in Anthropos 45.904–06 (1950).

E. transi., Introduction to the Study of Language, by Marsha Brochwicz. The Hague: Mouton; Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1973, 204 pp.

A survey of linguistic studies from the Renaissance to about 1820, with particular emphasis on the development in Sweden during that time. After a general chap, giving the major lines of development on the Continent (in which it is shown how much orthodox theological constraints hampered progress until the 18th century), there follow four major chaps, delineating stages in the history of language study in Sweden: 1) The orthodox trend (1500–1700), pp. 63–82; 2) Gothic in the centre of research (from 1600 onwards), pp. 83–128; 3) scientific criticism (from 1700 onwards), pp. 129–72, and 4) the world language problem (from 1800 onwards), pp. 173–200, with an appendix (201–03), consisting of a table of those scholars who noted changes within a number of languages and set up rules to account for these, from Theodor Bibliander in 1548 to Jacob Grimm in 1822. The book concludes with a G. summ., “Studien zur allgemeinen und schwedischen Geschichte der älteren Sprachvergleichung (bis 1827)” (204–11) and a bibliography of primary (212–18) and secondary (218–20) sources. Swedish scholars who played a significant role in the history of IE linguistics are, inter alia: Johan Thomas Bureus (1568–1652), Georg Stiernhielm (1598–1672), Olaf Rudbeck father (1630–1702) and son (1660–1740), Johan Ihre (1707–80), and Matthias Norberg (1747–1826). Cf. the review by Assar Janzén in ScS 28.154–57 (1956).

The first portion of the book constitutes a survey of linguistic studies from the early 19th century to 1950 (viz. Stalin’s debunking of Marrism in the “Prawda” of 20 June and 4 July 1950, which had been preceded by Arnold Stepanovič Čikobava’s paper, “Concerning a few questions of Soviet linguistics”, in the same newspaper on 9 May 1950). It includes the following chaps.: “Die historischvergleichende Sprachwissenschaft” (2–6); “Versuche einer theoretischen Begründung [of linguistics] in Deutschland” (6–35), in which the work of Humboldt, Stein thai, Paul, Wundt, Cassirer, Bühler, and others are discussed, and “Theoretische Bestrebungen der Gegenwart” (44–49), in which post-Saussurean structuralism and Bloomfieldian “Vulgärmaterialismus” are criticized. There is no comprehensive bibliography and no index.

The study consists of the following chaps.: I, “Martin Fogel [1634–75]” (7–23); II, “G.W.Leibniz” (24–31); III, “Johann Philipp von Strahlenberg [1676–1747]” (32–50); IV, “Johann Eberhard Fischer [1697–1771]” (51–100), and “Das Sibirische Vokabular” (101–17). Bibliography (118–24).

R. gives an account of the 19th-century debate between classical philologists and comparative linguists over the scientific treatment of language, delineating in particular the difficulties the first (and partly also the second) generation of compara-tivist linguists encountered in their efforts to establish Sanskrit and Indo-European studies as university subjects.

Cf. also the same author’s paper, “Klassieke filologie contra vergelijkende taal-wetenschap”, Hand VlFC 1959.119–24.

History of linguistics written in Armenian from the early beginnings to the 20th century; vol.11 is entitled “The 20th century and Soviet linguistics”. For details, cf. the reviews by Vlad Banaţeanu in SCL 14.143–45 (1963); L. Motalová and Ladislav Zgusta in AO 31.511–15 (1963), and A. I. Movestjan in VJa 14:5. 133–37 (1965).

The book contains brief biobibliographical accounts of the following scholars: A. X. Vostokov (1781–1864), I. I. Sreznevskij (1812–80), A. A. Potebnja (1835–91), F. F. Fortunatov (1848–1914), A. A. Saxmatov (1864–1920), J. Baudouin de Courtenay (1845–1929), Aleksej Ivanovič Sobolevskij (1856–1929), Grigorij Andreevič Il’inskij (1876–1936), Boris Mixajlovič Ljapunov (1862–1943), and others (5–76). These are followed be three more chaps.: “Other workers in Slavic linguistics” (77–83), consisting of very short notes on 31 scholars; “Outstanding foreign Slavic linguists” (84–118), with brief statements on 55 scholars, and “Actual problems of Slavic linguistics” (119–38), mainly devoted to diachronic Slavistics. Bibliographical footnotes; no index.

This survey of linguistic work done from the 1940’s to the mid-1960’s contains valuable bibliographical information and discussion of matters concerning applied linguistics, machine translation, lexicology, foreign language teaching, etc. Classified bibliography (328–34 [= 50–56 of sep. ed.]), supplements (335–44 [= 57–66]), and Fr. summ. (345–46 [= 67–68]).

Cf. the reviews Maria José de Moura Santos in BJR 11/12.75–78 (1965); Joaquim Mattoso Câmara Jr. (1904–70) in ELing 1:1, 41 (1966), and Georges Gougenheim (1900–1972) in BSL 62:2/1967, p. 65 (1968).

A history of the genera verbi as a linguistic category since the Stoics: I, “The concept of aspect in practical manuals and in a few theoretical works up unto the newest times” (8–58); in this chap. Sz. delineates the main epochs in European linguistic thought, including the Port-Royal grammar. II, “An attempt at an analysis of modern theories of voice”, with particular emphasis on Slavic languages (59–104), in which the theories of Schuchardt, Vossler, Meyer-Lübke, Jespersen, Meillet, Benveniste, Stefanini, and others and, in particular, the work of Witold Doroszewski are analyzed. The study concludes with a brief Fr. summ., “La catégorie de la voix du verbe” (105), a bibliography (106–13), and an index of names (114–17).

Cf. the review by Kristine Heltberg in Linguistics 113.124–26 (Oct. 1973).

A (somewhat personal) account of the study of language in Germany from the Renaissance to the first half of the 20th century, including the work of Vossler, Saussure (on pp. 139–40), Trier, Weisgerber, and others. It contains useful biographical information on many linguists of the German-speaking areas. A brief bibliography (151–52) and an index of names (153–55) conclude the book.

Cf. the reviews by Ernst Alfred Philippsen in JEGP 71.559–61 (1972); Ulrich Pretzel in LB 62.414–20 (1972), and Wolfgang Emmerich in Germanistik 13 (1972), p. 14.

A survey of linguistic theories from the Neogrammarians to Transformational Generative Grammar. The book consists of the following major chaps.: I, “Die Sprachwissenschaft vor de Saussure: Die Junggrammatiker” (11–19); II, “Ferdinand de Saussure” (20–41), including a brief criticism of the ‘Geneva School’ (40–41); III, “Der europäische Strukturalismus” (42–80), covering the Prague school, functio-nalism, an account of Weisgerber’s theories by Volker Heeschen (54–69), and the Glossematic theory; IV, “Bloomfield und die Distributionalisten” (81–98), and V, “Die generative Grammatik” (99–142). Notes (143–45); bibliography (146–52).

This anthology reprints excerpts from the earliest records of Sanskrit scholarship from the 7th century up to the time of Humanism (4–26), followed by sections headed “The Foundation of Western Scholarship” (30–45), represented by Jean François (de) Pons (1698–1752) and Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765–1837); “The Romantic Period” (49–64), represented by August Wilhelm (von) Schlegel and Wilhelm von Humboldt; “The Golden Days” (70–134), represented by Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar (1837–1925) and Franz Kielhorn (1840–1908); “The Sceptics and their Critics” (138–204), represented by William Dwight Whitney (1827–94), Bruno Liebich (1862–1939), Otto Boethlingk (1815–1904), and Georg Bühler (1837–98); “The Transition” (207–59), represented by Bernhard Geiger (1881–1964), and “The Modern Period” (264–525), with selections from the work of Leonard Bloomfield, Barend Faddegon (1874–1955), Kshitish Chandra Chatteriji (1896–1961), Paul Thieme (b. 1905), Pierre Boudon, K. A. Subramania Iyer (b. 1896), John Brough (b. 1917), Yutaka Ojihira (b. 1923), and Louis Renou (1896–1966). A bibliography (526–37), and indices of names (539–43), Sanskrit terms (544–49), and sutras (550–57) complete the volume.

Cf. the reviews by Luigi Romeo in Colorado Research in Linguistics No. 4, R1-R15 (May 1973); by George Cardona in Language Sciences 26.43–47 (Aug. 1973), by T(ai) S(Hung) Paik in Lg 50:3.391–98 (Sept. 1974), and by Peter H(enry) Salus in CJL 20:1.104–08 (Spring 1975).