F. Max Müller and the Development of Linguistic Science

Abstract

Summary The article examines the voluminous work of Friedrich Max Müller (18231900), a German scholar who had chosen England as his home in 1846 and lived there for 54 years until his death. Basically a Sanskritist, whose studies, however, spilled over into numerous adjoining disciplines, Müller was both highly praised and severely criticized during his life-time. Almost immediately after his death silence settled upon him. The author argues that Müller’s outstanding achievements, firmly acknowledged by authoritative critics in his time, should make him important enough for us to study his amazingly wide-ranging work very carefully again. Müller’s contribution to linguistic science and to human knowledge is particularly significant. He began his work in the pioneering stage of linguistics and, for fear of losing sight of the larger framework, deliberately avoided concentrating on one single specialty of study. Instead, starting with books, translations, and editions involving Sanskrit, he enlarged his scope into Indian history, philosophy and religion. He conducted, and published extensively on, comparative studies in philology, religion and mythology and undertook to explore the interrelationship of thought and language. His writings on German literature and his translation of Kant’s “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” were acclaimed as solid accomplishments, no less thorough than his many volumes dealing with a large variety of aspects concerning Indian language, literature, history, and religion. Müller never thought of himself as a linguist in the technical sense of the word. Instead, he attempted to apply his linguistic knowledge within the larger framework of the “science of man”. He worked to achieve an overall foundation, for which it became necessary to transcend disciplinary boundaries. Such an objective was unavoidably accompanied by the risk of spreading oneself too thin. At least part of the criticism he drew was on that score. The author concludes that, if we would ask not so much for what Müller did as a linguist but what he did for linguistics, we would even today gain significant insights from his work.