A matter of consequenz

Abstract

Summary Accusations of ‘racialism’ against Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1767–1835) theory of language have been based in large measure on remarks in Humboldt (1836) concerning the inferiority of Chinese as an organ of thought. His other comments asserting its excellence are either marginalised or used to suggest that his account of the language is incoherent and irrational. However, when read in the context of the work in which they were originally formulated, Humboldt’s 1826 letter to the Sinologist J.-P. Abel-Rémusat (1788–1832), their coherence becomes apparent. Reacting to a polarisation between Sinologists and Sanskritists in the Société Asiatique of Paris, he rises to the challenge put to him by Rémusat to solve the paradox of how, if synthetic, inflecting languages are to be credited with the development of higher thought, Chinese, the ultimate analytic language, could have produced one of the world’s great civilisations. Humboldt conducts his enquiry in the classical form of a thesis, largely corresponding to Rémusat’s views of the superiority of Chinese; an antithesis, corresponding in part to the strong view of the inferiority of Chinese put forward by Rémusat’s student Eugène Burnouf (1801–1852); and a synthesis, which locates the excellence of Chinese in the realm of ideas and that of the inflecting languages in the realm of thought, then explains how it is that Chinese acquired a structural defect and subsequently turned it into an advantage.