894 Reviews In BabeVs Shadow: Language, Philology, and theNation inNineteenth-Century Germany. By Tuska Benes. (Kritik: German Literary Theory and Cultural Studies) Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 2008. xii+418 pp. $54.95. ISBN 978-0-8143-3304-4. Der romantischeMythos vom Ursprung der Sprache: Friedrich Schlegels Suche nach der indogermanischen Verbindung. By Chen Tzoref-Ashkenazi. Trans, fromHebrew byMarkus Lemke. (Schriftenreihe des Minerva Instituts fur deutsche Geschichte, Universitat Tel Aviv, 29) Gottingen: Wallstein. 2009. 29. ISBN 978-3-8353-0472-7. These two books are closely interrelated inmethod and subject-matter, indeed Chen Tzoref-Ashkenazi quotes with approval from Tuska Benes's original disser tation of 2001. That said, one author (Benes) has a linguistician's training, while Tzoref-Ashkenazi is a historian. Both deal with potentially contentious material: notions of linguistic and national origins, migrations of peoples and languages, notably the rise and progress of theGermanic tribes and their tongues, tomention the salient points of both books. These ideas are all too commonly judged on the basis of their later aberrations, not on their actual historical merits. Benes and Tzoref-Ashkenazi both avoid such reductionism, defending Herder and Friedrich Schlegel against misappropriations made at a later juncture and placing discussion of the termAryan1 in its context. Thus, both take a stand against Edward Said's simplifications, such as the imputation of populism' to Herder or even 'racism' to Schlegel. They tacitly accept that orientalist ideas gathered around 1800 were supplied by imperial or colonial systems (Said), but leave itat that.They do not take sides on the polemic, initiated by nineteenth-century German Sanskrit scholars, that British oriental studies were 'inferior', because driven by politics and trade, whereas theirGerman equivalents represented 'pure scholarship' (Bonn and Berlin versus Haileybury). They are equally useful in their informativeness, although Benes devotes one section only to what is the substantive part of Tzoref-Ashkenazi's study. Benes examines in a wide sweep the process whereby the eighteenth century's preoccu pations with 'Ursprache', the origin of language, the Golden Age, the genealogy of 'Kulturnation' and national character, become defined in terms of linguistic spaces and political entities. Thus what Herder expresses as an aspiration of human progress takes on a different complexion when measured against the realities of the years 1805-15 and beyond. Yet Benes is insistent thatphilological scholarship proper, certainly for the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century, was pre cisely that: crude applications of Tndogermanic' or 'Aryan' or 'Urvolk' came only later. She identifies threemajor areas or models for philological endeavour that contribute to the definition of a nation: the Indian, theGermanic, theGreek, and their various interrelations. Out of speculations, such as Friedrich Schlegel's on primeval language and religion, came the important linguistic distinction between inflecting, 'organic' languages (later defined as Indogermanic) and 'mechanical', ag glutinating (Semitic); or Bopp's tripartite classification of languages; or Klaproth's MLR, 105.3, 2010 895 notion of tindogermanisch> as a linguistic and geographical location. JacobGrimm, not surprisingly, is themain representative of theGermanic school, with his em phasis on the organic growth of language and its function in defining national and historical patrimony. The Greek model Benes associates largelywith Humboldt's idea of ,through the incorporation ofGreek culture into a reformed edu cation system, orwith Boeckh's and Droysen's use ofGreek history as a pattern for nation-building. Thiersch's and Karl Otfried Muller's Hellenism seeks to freeGreek language and culture from the oriental' contamination that the early Sanskritists had made somuch of. Out of the confluence of these threemodels, overlapping in time and subject, the discipline of comparative philology was established. An evaluative element creeps in around mid-century that identifiesAryan' as super ior to 'Semitic' (Lassen, Max Miiller, Renan) and unwittingly provides support forGobineau's theory of racial inequality. Similarly, Benes traces the course of Neogrammarian linguistics, with its emphasis on the individual speaker, not the community, the psychological linguistics that so influenced Nietzsche (language as subjective impulse), and takes us up to Saussure's theory of the linguistic sign. Only then does she discuss the distortions that these various theories underwent in the twentieth century. Tzoref-Ashkenazi's study is focused on Friedrich Schlegel's (full title...