![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
Eighteenth-century scholars writing on languages were obsessed with the génie de la langue. This rather vague but very influential concept entailed a variegated cluster of characteristics ascribed to a particular language, and so highlighted the distinctiveness of an individual language in comparison to others. Because of this, it is especially prominent in texts of scholars defending their own vernacular language or downplaying other vernaculars. In the last decades, much attention has been given to the vicissitudes of this influential idea. Even so, the context from which it originally developed has remained underexposed. It is commonly traced back to the French author Amable de Bourzeys (1606–72), and this attribution has been accepted without further discussion. The present paper reveals the more remote history of the notion génie de la langue. Its main focus is on Early Christian Latin texts as well as Early Modern Neo-Latin texts of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. By demonstrating that the phrase was already used long before the seventeenth century, this paper aims to contribute both to the impressive Beleggeschichte of this influential notion and to the many transformations it underwent throughout history.
I am very much indebted to the stimulating feedback and further references given by Tim Denecker, Gerda Haßler, Lambert Isebaert, Han Lamers, Pierre Swiggers, and two anonymous referees. I am very grateful to the Henry Sweet Society for awarding an earlier version of this paper the Vivien Law Prize 2012. The considerable amount of primary sources compelled me to show more restraint in citing secondary literature.
Notes
1 Gerda Haßler’s and Cordula Neis’ Lexikon sprachtheoretischer Grundbegriffe contains an entry devoted to the ‘besonderer Character einer Sprache’, which offers a list of terms used to describe this idea, among which ‘Lat. Genius linguae, Indoles linguae; dt. Genie der Sprache, Genius der Sprache; engl. genius of a language; frz. génie d’une langue, génie de la langue; ital. genio della lingua’ (Haßler and Neis, 2009: s.v.). For the sake of convenience, I will stick to the French designation ‘génie de la langue’, in which the concept probably became best known. Most sources referred to in this paper are, however, composed in Latin.
2 The French author Antoine de Rivarol (1753–1801) observed in 1784 that ‘[o]n demande souvent ce que c’est que le génie d’une langue, et il est difficile de le dire’ (quoted after Schlaps, 2004). For contemporary definitions, see Haßler and Neis (2009: s.v. ‘besonderer Character einer Sprache’); see also Seidelmannus (1724: 79–81).
3 See, e.g., the references in Schlaps (2004), Trabant (2006: 150–52), Haßler and Neis (2009). Recently, two books on the génie de la langue in France and Italy have appeared (Siouffi, 2010 and Gambarota, 2011; see also Joseph, 2012). The notion of génie de la langue still reverberates in twenty-first-century publications. This in itself suggests that the idea has not lost its relevance to contemporary thinking about language specificity and character (see Haßler, 2011: 66 for some illustrative examples). This is all the more remarkable since there is general consensus that the idea can of course not be used in serious linguistic analysis today.
4 See, e.g., Hüllen (2001) and Schlaps (2004). Haßler (2011: 65) is more cautious, stating that the phrase is at least as early as in 1635 present in France, hence not excluding its presence before that date. Christmann (1976: 68), who was the first to draw attention to Bourzey’s contribution, had however openly stated that earlier attestations could probably be found. To my best knowledge, the hardly cited study of Schneiders (1995: 79–84) is the only work going beyond Christmann (1976) with respect to the roots of génie de la langue.
5 Stankiewicz (1981), whose paper ‘The ‘Genius’ of Language in Sixteenth-Century Linguistics’ has a much wider scope than its title suggests, argues that the uniqueness of individual languages was a central theme in sixteenth-century linguistics. While stating that ‘the terms which seemed most appropriate to encompass the overt and covert properties of a language were ‘genius’ and the expression je ne sai quoi’ (Stankiewicz, 1981: 181), the author regrettably does not offer a single example (see also the criticisms expressed by Schlaps, 2000: 306 and Gambarota, 2011: 236). He only refers to Horace, whom he claims to have used genius in connection with the Greek language. Yet I did not find anything of the like in Horace. See also infra, n. 15.
6 Schlaps (2004: 367–68) deliberately limits her scope to ‘the terms ‘genius of language’, ‘génie de la langue’, ‘Geist/Genius/Genie der Sprache’ and ‘Sprachgeist/Sprachgenius’’. She argues that her ‘analysis is a genuinely linguistic one, unlike philosophical approaches in the history of ideas which tend to follow given abstract concepts throughout the history of texts or discourses without adequately discussing the lexemes, and their terminological status, involved. Here, concepts are understood as entities not phenomenologically, but linguistically constituted, therefore to be described linguistically’. Whereas Schlaps may be right in criticizing the terminological blindness in the work of some present-day conceptual historiographers, in my opinion she errs too much in the opposite direction.
7 ‘Hebraica lingua nondum sit ad plenum explicata per Grammaticos tam Iudaeos quam Christianos’ (Bibliander, 1542: 12).
8 ‘Alicubi tamen Hieronymus voluntatem et eruditionem eorum [viz. the manuscripts’ authors] tuetur, et causam interpretationis malae in librariorum incuriam, aut Hebraicae linguae genium transfert’ (Bibliander, 1542: 15).
9 Jerome’s text reads as follows: ‘Multaque sunt nomina quae ita leguntur in Graeco, ut in Hebraico posita sunt, propter interpretandi difficultatem, et ad comparationem linguae Hebraeae, tam Graeci quam Latini sermonis pauperiem’ (Commentarii in Isaiam, lib. 11).
10 Sed non est alienum a genio dictionis Epiphanii, ut eam vocem pro liberos generare usurparit’ (Casaubon, 1614: 69); ‘Totum discrimen in vocibus est, in re nullum est prorsus. Discrimen vocum facit diversus linguarum genius, & in eadem lingua analogiae ratio dissimilis in diversis vocibus’ (Casaubon, 1614: 265); ‘Quod in terminatione nulla est diversitas, genio Syriacae linguae est tribuendum’ (Casaubon, 1614: 387); ‘Syrus interpres in partes trahi non potest, neque Hebraeus: quia apud illos ex ipso genio illarum linguarum necessario committitur homonymia in his vocibus’ (Casaubon, 1614: 388); ‘[…] a se excogitatas Vocalium & Accentuum figuras consonis addiderunt, quique cum eas aliis vocibus analogice, et ex linguae Hebraicae veluti genio ac natura addidissent, in illis certo consilio de industria, alienas, et vocibus ipsis vel maxime abhorrentas adscripsere’ (Cappel, 1624: 83); ‘Argumenta autem potissimum sunt vel ab antiquitate, et Historia petita, vel sunt a rei Grammaticae ratione, sint potius a natura et veluti genio hujus linguae ducta, vel sunt denique (ut sic ea appellem) Theologica, quia iis Theologi potissimum utuntur’ (Cappel, 1624: 187; see also pp. 122; 167). See also De Bolleville (1621: 94): ‘Pour expliquer les frequentes répetitions qui se trouvent dans les Livres de Moïse on a apporté dans l’Histoire Critique plusieurs raisons qui peuvent avoir causé ces sortes de redites dans un Historien. On a eu recours au genie de la Langue Ebraïque qui aime ces sortes de répetitions, comme il est aise de le prouver par les autres Livres de la Bible’, Cameron (1642: 430) and Bangius (1634: lxiv).
11 ‘Adde, non aliunde melius phraseos Hebraicae energiam et proprietatem quam ex lingua peti Chaldaica, ut quae ex illa nata matris suae genium et indolem optime refert’ (De Dieu, 1628: ad lectorem); ‘amaritiem praeceptionum Grammatices degustavit, hoc est, linguarum proprietatem et genium expendit, ex Ebraica veritate ac linguae sanctae indole divinissima vetus instrumentum, novum autem ex Hellenistica, quae ejus ex matre Graeca soboles, exponit’ (Mayerus, 1629: unnumbered); ‘Verum quis non videt, hanc etymologiam esse confictam, et nil nisi insipidam quandam allusionem: quin et linguae Ebraeae genius hoc non admittit’ (Mayerus, 1629: unnumbered); ‘ipsa phrasis et linguae Hebraeae genius indicant’ (De Dieu, 1631: 356); ‘ut propter ipsorum annotationem contra rationem Grammaticam & linguae genium credam ibi affixum esse’ (De Dieu, 1631: 493); ‘iuxta linguae genium’ (Morinus, 1631: 321); ‘Ab Hebraeo enim propius abest, magisque phrasim et genium Hebraicae linguae sapit Samaritica versio quae nobis est prae manibus’ (Morinus, 1631: 371); ‘nobis tamen Orientalium linguarum genium non assequutis, neque in Graecis ita versatis, ut quod semel atque iterum in hoc vel illo authore Graeco occurrit, perspectum habeamus; nihil utilius, ne dicam necessarium, quam linguam Ebraeam Talmudicam et vicinas didicisse’ (L’Empereur, 1637: sig. **2v).
12 ‘At melius multo est ex fontibus ipsis haurire, quam rivulos consectando, dum quis eorum purior sit non satis intelligitur, cuiusque interpretis sequi errorem, quod gravissimis viris accidisse auctor est D. Hieronymus. Deinde nescio quo genio, cuiusque linguae sua est proprietas et loquendi ratio, quae in aliam reddi nullo modo potest, quaque ignorata saepe in transversum discedendum sit ab authoris mente atque sententia. Verum haec obiter’ (Pontacus, 1566: unnumbered praefatio); ‘Suus cuique linguae est genius, de quo Augustinus libro de vera relig. c. 50. Habet, inquit, omnis lingua sua quaedam propria genera locutionem, quae cum in aliam linguam transferuntur, videntur absurda’ (Wissenbachius, 1654: 147).
13 ‘Ipsa locutio diuinarum scripturarum secundum cuius linguae proprietates accipienda sit — habet enim omnis lingua sua quaedam propria genera locutionum, quae cum in aliam linguam transferuntur, uidentur absurda’ (Augustinus Hipponensis, De uera religione, cap. 50; all references to Early Christian Latin texts are after Brepols’ digital Library of Latin Texts <www.brepolis.net>.)
14 See, e.g., Marti (1974: 113–20) and Bartelink (1980: 52–53), who points out that Jerome’s and Augustine’s proprietas is probably a translation of Origenes’ ἰδίωμα (see for Latin and Greek ‘Early Christian linguistics’ Denecker et al., 2012 and Van Rooy, 2013 respectively).
15 Wolfius (1548: 117): ‘Ut enim non dicam, fieri minime posse, ut nescio quis peculiaris Graecae linguae genius, in quo maxima pars suavitatis et oblectationis plurimum inest, in alium sermonem transfundatur: quam multa depravari, quam multa obscurari, denique vel assuta, vel recisa temere a nonnullis […] deprehendi?’. As to nescio quis, compare supra, n. 12 and Joachim du Bellay’s famous phrase ‘je ne scay quoy’, expressing the veiled characteristics of a particular language: ‘d’autant que chacune Langue a je ne scay quoy propre seulement à elle, dont si vous efforcez exprimer le naif en une autre langue, observant la loy de traduyre, qui est n’espacier point hors des limites de l’aucteur, vostre diction sera contrainte, froide et de mauvaise grace’ (Bellay, Deffence et illustration de la langue francoyse, 1548, here quoted after Ford, 2013: 24). As observed by Schneiders (1995: 81–82), Du Bellay elsewhere makes use of the term génie (however not directly linked with ‘langue’).
16 ‘Solus Lutherus verum genium Linguae Germanicae cognoverit, omnes alii ignorarint, o vanissimam superbiam’ (Vischerus and Forerus, 1626: 33–34).
17 It is interesting to note that in a later publication Lipsius connects brevitas once again with genius, although the former is not conceived of as a characteristic of a language but of an author (viz. Seneca): ‘Verba, selecta, propria, significantia: imo quae plus aliquid semper dicunt, quam dicunt. Qui proprius quidam eius Genius videtur, ut in parcimonia verborum mira ἐνέργϵια atque efficacia sit; in brevitate, claritas et splendor’ [‘His words are choice, suitable and significant; they always mean something more than they actually say. And this seems a special genius of his, that in an economy of words he has a wonderful force and efficacy; in brevity he has clearness and brilliance’] (Lipsius, 1604: 57; translation Anderton, 1977: 29). Due to reasons of space, this connection will not be further explored here.
18 For a case study relevant to the history of linguistics, see Deneire and Van Hal (2006).
19 ‘[…] et conandum ut omnia fideliter, apte, proprie exponantur, servata utriusque sermonis proprietate. Est enim suus cuique linguae Genius. Et sunt Italis quaedam peculiaria, quae si Latine coneris ad verbum reddere, omnem gratiam amittant’ (Dulcis, 1605: 11).
20 ‘Delicatum Romani sermonis genium esse, et in promiscua loquentium scribentiumque turba saepius violari, nemo unus nescit’. On page 86 above, I discussed a passage in Wissenbachius (1654: 147). He makes use of the same collocation as Lipsius. Benedictus (1619: unnumbered Praefatio): ‘Nolim enim tam bene de me sentire, ut contendam me tibi versionem istiusmodi exhibere, quae omnis censurae expers esse possit: quandoquidem ardua res est eadem elegantia, eademque festivitate authorem hunc de Graeca phrasi in Latinam transferre: ita proprius est unicuique linguae genius et inexplicabilis venustas’. See furthermore: ‘Innumera, mihi credite, sunt quae adoptari recusant: quae si in aliam transferre et transformare linguam conamur, vis omnis et venus simul perit: non aliter quam herbae quaedam et arbores, si loco moventur et in aliud migrant solum et caelum, prorsus degenerant, et aut nullos plane fructus, aut pro dulcibus acerbos et amaros gignunt. Sua cuique linguae gratia, suus inest decor et nativa quaedam forma, quam nollo mentiri fuco, nullis exprimere pigmentis vel egregius artifex possit’ (Rubenius, 1615: 220). Finally, one could quote ‘ita unicuique linguae inest suus Genius et proprius lepos, qui si in externum sermonem traducatur, non modo plerumque nullam gratiam, sed saepe etiam risum meretur’ (Lauxmin, 1658: 143–44).
21 Also Schneiders (1995: 36) suggested that Early Christian proprietas and Early Modern genius may have had similar meanings. He however does not further substantiate his fine intuition.
22 Not all contemporary humanists agreed over the principle that a language’s proprietas was basically untranslatable. See, e.g., Bartolomeo Ricci’s (1490–1569) opinion: ‘Nam, quod ad difficillimam translationem, atque propriam venustatem attinet, nihil est tam cuique linguae proprium, tamque in eam natum, atque ingenitum, quod in quamque velis, transferri, atque explicari non possit’ (Ricci, 1560: 88r).
23 ‘[…] sua cuique linguae proprietas est’ (Drusius, 1603: 25); ‘Cuique linguae sua proprietas, suus idiotismus’ (Drusius, 1617: 278). See also Becmanus (1629: 97–98): ‘Nempe cuique linguae propria ac peculiaris quasi congenita est convenientia ac series; quam si mutes, hoc est, si postponas, quae solet praeponere, et contra, iam decus elegantiae tabescat’.
24 Comenius (1657: 587), see also the quote from Dulcis on p. 89. Another word that could be regarded as a synonym for genius is indoles (‘an inborn or native quality, natural quality, nature’), see Comenius (1644: 284–85): ‘Spectandum quidem esse, ut Translatio, quoad ejus fieri per Linguae genium potest, sit ad Verba quam maxime adstricta. Interim, nec consultum fore, ita usquam stricte id assectari, ut propterea, seu Nativa Linguae Latinae elegantia […] seu Germanae propria indoles, negligatur’. See also Bangius (1634: lxiv), the book titles of, e.g., Schudt (1713) and Breitinger (1737: ‘[…] linguae sanctae genium, indolem ac proprietatem […]’) and supra, n. 1, 11, 25, 28, 29. See also the rhetorical question ‘Non est suum cuique linguae idioma?’ in Cueva (1550: 15), suggesting that idioma also interlocks with genius.
25 By way of example, I here offer two examples of the definition of Genius as found in Early Modern dictionaries. Micraelius (1661: 540): ‘GENIUS, δαίμων, spiritus πάρϵδρος seu assessor & custos, qui putatur genitis statim adesse, sive bonus sit et ἀλϵξίκακος atque; ἀγαθοποιός, sive malus ἀλτήριος, ἀλάτωρ. Aliquando tamen genius sumitur pro natura et indole’; Kirschius (1774: 1280): ‘Genius, ii, m. [1)] Geburtsgeist, welcher, nach der Meynung der Heyden, den Menschen von der Geburt an zugesellet wird. Apul. 2) das Glück, der Zustand. Plaut. 3) ein Schutzgott. Genius loci. Seru. 4) die menschliche vom Leibe abgeschiedene Seele. Apul. 5) die natürliche Art, angebohrne Neigung’.
26 See, e.g., Bochart[us] (1646: 746): ‘Quia non fert linguae Hebraeae genius’; Hottinger (1644: 48): ‘Sed hoc vix videtur ferre genius linguae Aegyptiacae’; Hottinger (1659: 24): ‘Hae tamen Etymologiae omnes incertae sunt, et allusivae potius, quam propriae, tum a genio lingua Hebraeae, quae voces appellativas composita aegre admittit, alienae, tum etiam praeceptis Grammaticis male accomodotae’; Jacobus Gretserius (1611: 138): ‘Nam in his transitionibus ex Graecia in Latium, aut vice versa, non observatur semper idem sonus, sed plerunque mutatio aliqua intervenit, prout fert genius linguae et loquentium voluntas’; Maresius (1673: 125): […]‘quod alias non fert genius linguae Arabicae […]’; Vorstius (1658: 147): ‘ut genius linguae Latinae requirit’.
27 See, e.g., Reuchlin (1514: unnumbered): ‘Postea ut multiloquentis fert linguae consuetudo’; Lorini (1612: 171): ‘quam non ita fert usus Latini nominis lingua’; Chamier (1626: 737): ‘quod non fert linguae sacrae usus’; Calvin (1671: 58): ‘ut fert linguae usus’; Valla (1544: 64): ‘quod Latinitas non patitur’; Rivetus (1625: 128): ‘lingua non fert’.
28 Pontanus (1606: 166): ‘Accedit quod vetus illa Britonum Aremorica lingua vetusque Britannica […] non modo genium atque indolem, sed verba subinde et phrasin quoque Germanicam, ut maxime, redoleant’.
29 Mylius (1612: 81): ‘Primo, quod Celtica lingua sit Graeca antiquior. Secundo, quod vocabula communia magis referunt Celticum quam Graecum genium et indolem’; Mylius (1612: 100): ‘[…] credibilius est plurimas dictionum harum similium habere Latinos ex Celtica, quam Belgas ex lingua Latina, quia inquam genium magis spirant Belgicum, quam Latinum’. Interestingly, Mylius (1612: 72) equates indoles in its turn with ingenium and character (‘[…] simile ingenium, similem characterem, similem indolem’).
30 Elrington (1864: 11–14): ‘coeperit paulatim linguam Germanicam per omnes eius dialectos, Latinam item et Graecam cum Persica conferre, quippe quae cum istis, praesertim cum Germanica nostraque Belgica ingentem, quod experti loquimur, affinitatem habeat, Irlandicae quoque genium explorare cupit, si haec fortassis propius ceteris ad eam accedat’.
31 De Laet (1643: 30–31): ‘Non satis est paucula vocabula sive integra, sive paululum, secundum varias dialectos, detorta reperiri, sed oportet ipsum linguae aut dialecti genium, pronuntiandi rationem, constructionis modum, et inprimis nomina earum rerum quae domesticae et maxime communes illi genti sunt, attendere. Nam alias non difficile est in omnibus linguis reperire vocabula, convenientia aliquo modo cum aliis linguis’.
32 See e.g. a note made by Claude de Saumaise (1588–1653) in a Sulpicius Severus commentary (Hornius, 1654: 61): ‘Caeterum ex colloquio Iosephi cum fratribus patet, plane aliam Aegyptiorum atque Hebraeorum linguam fuisse. Idque etiam ex Glossariis Copticis, et totius linguae genio patet’.
33 See Haßler and Neis (2009) for a thorough discussion of these concepts. I am indebted to Lambert Isebaert and one of the anonymous referees for most of these suggestions for further study.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Toon Van Hal
As a member of the Center for the Historiography of Linguistics at the University of Leuven, Toon Van Hal has a special interest in the (pre)history of comparative linguistics (in sensu largiori). He mainly focuses on the contribution of Early Modern scholars working in the Low Countries or in Germany and missionaries sent to Central Asia and India.
Correspondence to: Toon Van Hal, Faculteit Letteren, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, pb. 3308, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email: [email protected]