Explorations in Eurolexicography

2000
Year/Année XIII, no. 2, December 2012
The European Journal/ Die Europäische Zeitschrift/
La Revue Européenne/ Revista Europea/ Rivista Europea
Explorations in Eurolexicography
On the pains of the lexicographer
as seen from his laboratory1
Introduction
Many thanks indeed to the organizers of this international symposium on eurolinguistics and to its
president, P. Sture Ureland, for
inviting me to speak on the subject
of the forthcoming vol. 1 of my European Dictionary.2 To our friend
Sture I am indebted for introducing me to eurolinguistics, and for
encouraging me to cultivate a field
of studies in which I had no particular training.
Obviously, I have to justify myself,
for attempting to compile a dictionary, since, as you know, I am
not a philologist but an historian of
social and political ideas, and since
a serious scholar cannot presume to
plough a field which is not his own,
and in which, in any case, he is not
supposed, from a purely scientific
point of view, to have much to add.
But let me reassure my European colleagues, and the linguists and philologists, in particular. I am not poaching in
a field that is not my own. I have conceived my dictionary with a social and
political aim, i.e., with the aim of influencing European society and civilization,
con il fine di agire sul piano della società e
della civiltà europee, as we say in Italian,
avec le but d’agir sur le plan de la société et
civilization européenne, if you prefer
French. This is the comprehensive idea,
that lies at the origin of my project, and
that justifies me in my endeavour.
And as an historian, let me add, I have
always tried to read my sources in their
original languages. Certainly, I could not
presume to read Plato in Greek, but I
usually read Cicero in Latin, and I try to
read, at least in part, Kant and Hegel in
German.
Heidelberg
Need for a European lexicon
Having become familiar, throughout my
career, with so many texts and with so
many languages, I have obviously
reached my own conclusions.
The first, and most important, is that European, not to say Western civilization,
must be considered as a unified entity, as
I have repeatedly maintained in my papers, delivered in international symposia.
And, regrettably, I have to admit that this
idea, this concept, is still in part alien
even to a large part of the world of learning.
We are certainly the heirs of our national
histories, and all of us have a mother
tongue, that has been shaped through the
centuries within our nations, when there
were very few contacts in our continent.
This represents a severe limitation to our
capacity of expression, but the world has
1
been dramatically changing during the last fifty years, and the
world of learning plods along
with difficulty. This shows, once
more, that philosophy is like the
owl of Minerva in Hegel’s philosophy, the owl that begins flying
only at sunset, when the events
have already taken place (meaning that it is the consciousness of
the past, and not an active intervention on the present).
In sum, European and Western
civilization must be considered in
their entirety, in the Hegelian category of Gesamtheit. Not to understand this, means not to
understand both modern civilization and the world in which we
live. Therefore, ours is a worthwhile effort, even if it doesn’t add
much to the science of linguistics
itself. Nevertheless it adds much,
very much, to European civiliza-
INDEX
V. Merolle
Explorations
p. 1
O. Ermakova
B. F. von Herrmann
p. 8
F. D’Hondt
The Quadruple Alliance
p. 10
L. Fladerer
Michael Denis
p. 13
tion, to the training of young generations, to the ‘advancement of learning‘,
as Lord Francis Bacon would call it, or to
the Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts, as
the title of Lessing‘s work states, or to the
incivilimento, -i.e. civilization, refinement,- to cite from the Italian of the
eighteenth century. And this is exactly
my aim: i.e, Die Bestimmung des
Gelehrten, or the Vocation of the Scholar,
in J. G. Fichte’s words. Whether my efforts are to be successful or not, only time
will tell.
As Hume said of Ferguson’s Civil Society,
which he severely criticized, and whose
publication he even tried to prevent, “we
shall see, by the Duration of its Fame,
whether or not I am mistaken”.3 So we
will eventually see whether, in compiling
this work, a bold endeavour “that hath
made/ Both heaven and earth co-partners
in its toil/ And with lean abstinence,
through many a year”4, I have been mistaken or not.
A difficult work
In the meantime, while working hard
and systematically, I have had to face numerous problems. At a certain moment
I have felt myself “like a man struggling
for life in the water“, as Samuel Johnson
felt, Lord Chesterfield having refused to
help for the compilation of the Dictionary. But Sture, “my master thou, and
guide!”,5 gave me unremitting help, and
offered to print the work that I have completed, as vol. 1 in the series which he
edits for logoı Verlag in Berlin.
Certainly, eight years of work just for vol.
1, which represents the 20% of the
whole, -if the whole will ever be compiled-, are a lot; so many, in fact, that one
man, no matter how hard he worked,
could not hope to achieve his final goal.
But I have done everything myself, with
the occasional advice of colleagues, whose
help I have acknowledged in the preface.
By contrast Samuel Johnson, who codified the English language with his Dictionary, needed nine years, working with
the help of the six ‘harmless drudges’. In
total, sixty three editor-years. And Noah
Webster’s Dictionary (1828) took eighteen years to complete, but was poorly received. Its first edition sold only 2,500
copies, and Webster had to mortgage his
house to develop a second edition
(1840). When he died (1843), plagued
by debts, his efforts were still unrecognized. And the “Webster’s third New International Dictionary of the English
Language, Unabridged (commonly
known as Webster’s third, or W3), 1961,
was edited by Philip Babcock Gove and a
team of lexicographers who spent 757
editor-years and 3,5 million”!6
But, still, the question is: why attempt
such a difficult work, why committ your-
self to such an endeavour, which is quite
impossible for one man?
In our past symposia I have repeatedly explained the reasons for such a work,
adding that the existence of several dictionaries, whose compilers -or, rather,
whose publishers-, maintain that they
are ‘multilingual’, but that, in the reality,
are a mere concocting of words, without
a soul, without a real, conscious aim,7
prove, in itself, the necessity of such a lexicon. After all, nowadays we can no
longer speak of ‘nations’, in Europe and
Samuel Johnson
in the West. It becomes more and more
difficult, as each day passes, to feel Italian or British or German or Spanish,
while communications, thanks mainly to
the internet, go through all boundaries,
and embrace the whole of mankind.
Therefore, in order to communicate,
people are obliged to know more languages, and bilingual dictionaries are like
islands that do not communicate, or
communicate between, not among them.
Consequently, they will soon become
old-fashioned, becoming less and less
useful, for future generations.
Nevertheless, this does not seem to be the
point of view of some publishers, to
whom I have submitted the project. Typical is the exhaustive answer of one of the
principal European publishers, a mainstream dictionaries producer, according
to whom, “the vast majority of our customers are still looking for bilingual reference works (even if the single customer
might speak several languages) and
would not be very willing to pay a higher
price for a dictionary that contains languages they might not even speak”.
I certainly understand the problems of
the publishers, particularly in this difficult moment, the internet being a severe
competitor, which doesn’t leave any real
2
margin for the commerce of books, while
the budget is a pitiless judge. Any investment in this field seems therefore to
promise only an uncertain return: quite
uncertain, I admit.
According to the above cited publisher,
“a dictionary containing 5 languages on
1500 pages would obviously have to
focus on a few essential translations for
each lemma, while you would have various idioms, examples, phrasal verbs, etc,
in a bilingual one, together with grammatical information, phonetics and other
important linguistic information“.
But this is exactly the opposite of my
point of view. It is true that in 1,500
pages there can be no room for idioms,
slang, informal language, of which, however, I have selected and explained numerous examples. But I am not
compiling a bilingual dictionary, even
worse, a monolingual dictionary. I am
compiling a ‘European’ dictionary, in
which the meaning of a word must come
out from its etymology, from its history,
and from its similarity with the same
word in the principal European languages. As for German, this is often difficult, since the roots of that language are
often so distant from the Latin roots
which are the common cement of European languages. And for this our German
friends should blame Arminius and his
ambush of my ancestors, the ancient Romans, at Kalkriese, or Teutoburger Wald.
Nevertheless European languages are progressively unifying, discarding what is not
shared in common, and in the future all
the educated Europeans will be expected
to learn, and to use, a vocabulary that will
be understandable to most of them. If we
continue on the track of slang, idioms,
etc, we will continue to live on separate
islands, and the cultural unification of
our continent, not to say of the west, will
never take place.
But the world is changing. It changes
every day, although, in our daily experience, we don’t realize the extent of this
change. And what can appear as a purely
intellectual analysis of a language of
learning, surely will no longer appear so
to future generations. This means that
my dictionary might be considered today
as an academic work, therefore not able
to meet the demands of the general public, of the market, of the numbers. This
may, in fact, be the case, and I am something of a Cassandra. The task of funding
such a dictionary should be that of the so
called institutions, but my being, by instinct, a contrarian, doesn’t render it
likely that I shall ever meet the favour of
these ‘institutions’, i.e. of the world of
politics, a world, by the way, that I view
with some distaste.
The aim of my dictionary, which is both
‘historical’ (that of demonstrating the
substantial unity of our past history), and
‘cultural‘ and ‘political‘ (of helping to create it), is nevertheless intellectually challenging, although, admittedly, not
particularly appealing to the general public which provides the market for this
work.
Summarizing
Summarizing, a few points can be made.
a) As I have said above, my main aim is
that of influencing European civilization.
Samuel Johnson had a purely linguistic
aim, i.e. that of codifying the English language, since the concept of social sciences
was alien to him and to his century.
When he published his Dictionary, in
1755, Adam Ferguson was just thinking
of his pioneering Essay on the History of
Civil Society which, published eleven
years later (1767), offered insights into
the concept of society, and marked the
origin of the social sciences.
b) European languages are substantially
similar, in the sense that they have a common history. For example, beyond the
cyrillic character Russian language presents us with deep similarities, deeper than
the ordinary reader could believe. Russian history was in fact no more than European history8 until the separation that
ensued after the tragic events of the early
20th century, and that lasted some generations, but that the present generation is
rapidly overcoming.
c) In order to influence European society
and the world of learning, I had obviously to conceive a dictionary which is
‘marketable’. In no case it will in fact exceed 1,500 pages, to which 300 pages of
translations into Russian could be added.
In sum, the size of an ordinary dictionary.
And one should consider that in Europe,
including Russia, there are 600 million
people, among them a large percentage
of knowledgeable people. A sophisticated
world of learning even in America could
not ignore such an instrument of consultation, of communication and of training. And the problem is how to train
intellectuals to be authentically European, beyond a nationalistic mentality
that many, unfortunately, still retain.
This could be facilitated by a new, systematic dictionary, that will boost the idea
of the unity of European languages and
tradition.
In Europe, not to say in the West, people
need understand each other, and it is illusory to think that in the future, i.e. in
three or four generations, people will still
speak in their own elaborated national
languages. The phenomenon of cultural
unification is moving forward relentlessly,
and one cannot ignore it. And a dictionary like this is substantially something
that European civilization needs more
than ever.
d) Therefore, it is a first step towards
more complex dictionaries, that will be
compiled and come into use for the future generations. It is a forerunner, no
doubt, its aim being that of systematically
considering affinities and diversities in
European vocabulary, of helping to find,
and save, what is shared in common.
Hence its social and cultural relevance, in
the widest possible sense.
e) The title of my paper, suggested by our
distinguished colleague and friend P.
Sture Ureland, is Explorations in Eurolexicography. And European lexicography is
certainly a new science, which presents us
with very few studies.
National philologies are, in fact, still predominant, and there remains a lack of
real studies on Europeanism. It is in fact
extremely difficult, even for the few, outstanding scholars, to take into account
the whole of European history and tradition. Nevertheless we should now consider Europe as a unified entity, since the
‘century of nations‘ is over, and we are at
the dawn of a new world. And national
philologies can underlie only in part such
a dictionary as ours, for which an extensive knowledge of European civilization
is nevertheless essential, while we need to
look beyond, not behind, ourselves.
f) Are we trying to elaborate a new language of learning, or are we simply recognizing the movements of the
spontaneaous, uncontrollable forces of
society, in the sense that we limit ourselves to record the vocabulary current
today? Both answers could be justified,
we believe, although the second alternative is more plausible. We are in fact
trying to compile an instrument of consultation, whose aim is that of accompanying the process of unification of the
European languages, that is on its way,
boosting the consciousness we have of it,
rather than that of creating a purely literary language, or an artificial one, as Edmund Burke would call it.
Editorial policy
Along with a particular aim, there must
be, especially in a dictionary, an editorial
policy, whose main lines I will try to explain here.
The first enemy, in such a kind of work,
paradoxically is the computer, that has,
by contrast, the incomparable merit of
rendering it possible. Had Samuel Johnson had a computer, he would have
achieved much more, no doubt. Nevertheless, even to the most skilled scholars
it becomes sometimes complicated to
make it work properly.
So, how many times have I written the
Italian adjective maturo, and the software,
that is, needless to say, American, has
changed it into the English mature? As
for the French word dépendance, the
3
computer automatically corrects it into
English dependence. When writing the
Spanish favor, the computer corrects into
favour. So for Italian futuro-future, etc.
And so centre and center, and countless
words.
And still, I confess, I don’t know whether
it is possible to switch the ortographic
corrector off, since a word in English, for
example, is followed by a Spanish or by a
German word, and this changes the rules.
Therefore, I have had to accept the risk,
recording each word as soon as writing it,
and repeatedly checking the spelling. The
publisher, I am sure, from a technical
point of view is much better equipped.
As for Latin, as I have explained in the
preface to the forthcoming vol. I, I have
followed the Oxford method, replacing
the Georges method, that is current in
Italy, Germany, Spain and France. This is
justified by the fact that I am compiling
a dictionary on the basis of English as
langue de départ. And both for Greek and
Latin my strategy has been that of giving
the essential information, because I am
not compiling a dictionary of Greek or
Latin, in which each accent or quantity
of the syllable must be marked. This is,
obviously, also the method of the Oxford
English Dictionary, that I have consulted
in the Cd-Rom, second edition, version
4.
As for the etymologies, mine is a work of
compilation, and cannot be based on
original research, which is impossible,
quite impossible, for one man. No one,
in fact, would be able to consult the scientific literature in the five principal European traditions, adding his own
personal conclusions. Therefore, I have
had to rely upon the current instruments
of consultation and, over the years, texts
like Chantraine, Ernout-Meillet, Glare,
Liddell-Scott, Kluge, Pokorny, Barnhart,
and many others, have filled my shelves.
Often I have been able to consult the
most recent literature, but this has taken
place unsystematically, as I willingly
admit, and as any serious scholar well realizes. Somebody could observe that,
while I was compiling this first part, an
‘historiographic revolution’ has silently
taken place, in this field as in all the other
fields of learning. My answer is that
hopefully after me, if not necessarily with
me, somebody will resume, or rather
continue, this work with the help of a
team of expert etymologists, each of them
trained in his own field of study. Nevertheless today learning advances so rapidly,
that subsequent editions are necessary for
many books, this being the case, in particular, for dictionaries.
Last. This is a work of minute details.
But, how much attention can be expected to be at the command of one
man? How much can an ordinary scho-
lar, working without any help, be reasonably expected to achieve and to do? And
how many scholars, let me ask, would be
able to compile a dictionary like this,
without any faults, if not without any errors? Certainly, as I have told you, a number of distinguished colleagues and
friends have given me their help and advice, but the ultimate responsibility lies
with me. And I am sure that my dictionary marks the beginning of a new series of
dictionaries and the end of bilingual dictionaries that will become less and less
useful, and will be committed to the history of lexicography, to the history of linguistics.
Therefore, to the reviewers I have the following say. The problem is not that of the
details, where they will find much to object to, and maybe even errors. The problem is that of the real aim of the work,
whether it has been achieved or not. And
I am confident that future generations
will recognize my efforts towards giving
my own contribution to the world of
learning and to European civilization.
And I remain convinced that my work
has great potentialities and, for that reason, cannot be doomed to failure.
Real languages
Editorial policy means also, first and foremost, how to render into the four principal European languages the English
entry, which is the basis of the dictionary.
And more than once I have been told, for
example, and by a native speaker, that
“dieses Wort existiert nur in Wörterbüchern”, i.e., “this word exists only in the dictionaries”, in the sense that it is not in
frequent use and, consequently, is
scarcely understandable for any ordinary
speaker. Since I am advocating not only
a language of learning, but also a dictionary of real European languages nowadays,
I have had to reconcile opposite requirements.
For example, consider the entry ancillary.
I have translated it into Spanish as ancilar, dependiente, the first being a literary word, scarcely understandable for the
ordinary Spanish reader, who understands better auxiliar, adicional, subordinado/a, etc. I have rendered it into Italian
as ancillare, into French as ancillaire, in
both cases with a literary word. If by not
recording the Spanish ancilar, and replacing it, e.g., with auxiliar, I would render
the concept more readily understandable,
but I would also discard a word that is actually shared in common. And this is far
from being my aim. Furthermore, auxiliar better renders auxiliary, adicional renders additional, and so on.
Therefore, I have chosen first of all words
that are as similar as possible, although
one may object to their real use in a particular language. Nevertheless languages
evolve, and in Europe we need to know,
and are led every day towards knowing, a
vocabulary which is as much as possible
common to all of us. An approach to the
problem, that would not respond to this
essential need, would be meaningless.
I could continue with the same subject,
giving countless examples of the way in
which I have translated a word, but it
would be pointless, since I would have to
scrutinize each entry. But, in this field,
much is a matter of personal judgement,
and an agreement on particular points is
often difficult to reach.
Noah Webster
Dictionaries
Needless to say, while working I have become an expert on dictionaries, and,
more than once, on subsequent editions
of the same dictionary. So that I could
now review several dictionaries, that I
have consulted with a professional eye.
See, for example, the Collins Spanish Dictionary second ed. (1988, repr. 1991)
and the ninth ed., Collins Spanish Dictionary. Complete & Unabridged (2009).
It is somewhat surprising that in eighteen
years the publisher has been able to publish seven editions of the same dictionary,
but this is perhaps due to the miracle of
computers, thanks to which, with a few,
minor changes, a publisher can boast of
giving to the market yet another edition.
But the so called new editions are, in the
reality, no more than the reprints of previous editions, to which a few entries
have been added, while a few errors have
been corrected. So, for example, Le Petit
Robert, which appears every year with the
year, 2011, 2012, 2013, etc, marked in
red colour on the hard cover. Quite the
opposite is the case of the Webster third.
Unabridged (1961), since the publisher
reprinted the text every ten or fifteen
years with only minor corrections, while
the staff of the Merriam-Webster has
4
been working on a fourth edition (W4)
since 2008 but, this November 2012, a
publication date has not yet been set.
As for the ninth ed. (2009) of the CollinsSpanish, I wonder whether it was really
necessary to change so many translations
in comparison with the second ed. For
example, the English word brasserie, now
in use in English, but of French origin, is
translated into Spanish with brasserie, no
longer with cervecería. But for brasserie
there is no entry at all in the Diccionario
de la Lengua Española of the Real Academia Española (2001), as there is no entry
at all in some other dictionaries that fill
my shelves. The editors nevertheless render brewer with cervecero, and brewery
with cervecería. Under breath they give
aliento, but respiración, the word which is
better understandable to the European
speakers, disappears.
Extensamente is rendered with en líneas
generales, and broadly, de amplias miras,
becomes de miras amplias.
In the name of the equality of sexes the
ed. 2009 never misses the feminine
genus. So with carpintero m, is given also
carpintera f, and so on for many names
and professions that are typical of men.
The same with carrier that is rendered
with transportista m/f, while cartographer
becomes cartógrafo/a.
I am not engaged in social engineering,
but the rendering centre-half, centrehalves, as <medio m/f centro>, appears
rather curious to me. Certainly women
can also play football, but somebody may
judge it unhelpful, or unnecessary, to indicate the feminine genus in such a sport
as boxing, where boxer is rendered as boxeador/a, for example. After all, some
minor but essential difference will continue to exist between men and women,
hopefully at least during this our present
generation.
Similarly, charlatan is rendered with charlatán/ana, and clown with payaso m/f and
clown m/f. But we are kind to women,
and we have found surprising an adjective that we find hard to apply to the
‘kind sex’, because we are cavaliers, to
borrow from Edmund Burke‘s vocabulary.
I have translated the English adjective
conniving as connivente, cómplice, but the
Collins 9th ed. translates it with intrigante, mañoso, neither of which, in my
judgment, renders the meaning, and
mañoso is not recorded in the Diccionario
de la Real Academia Española and in other
dictionaries.
As for cut-off, the entry considers only the
verb/adverb, while the current English
Dictionaries record just the noun, clearly
because, in real English, this word is
mostly used as a noun.
Although it has been impossible to consult the intermediate editions, a conclu-
sion can still be drawn, i.e. that the policy of the editors has been not that of updating, but that of renewing radically the
product. And the editorial policy of the
present author recalls to mind the exhortation of Chancellor Ferrer, in Manzoni’s
The Betrothed, ‘adelante, Pedro, con
juicio. Si puedes’, i.e. “go forward, Peter,
prudently. If you can“.
The Oxford English Dictionary
The Oxford English Dictionary is certainly
a major work, that commands respect, although the saying aliquando dormitat
Homerus can be applied to it, as to any
great work. The general public in Great
Britain is, or was, convinced, until recently, that the Romans were not really settlers, but just guests who, at a certain
moment, left the country with their light
luggage, leaving nothing, or nearly nothing, behind them. But archaeological
discoveries, most of them recent, show
the contrary, while the English vocabulary itself, currently in use, is at least 70%
of Latinate origin, and it is certainly
much more so, if we consider the vocabulary used by more educated people.
Each of us is somehow the product of his
own national history and training, and
risks being partial towards his own origin. So, since I am from Rome, and I
have spent thirty three years of my life
teaching at the university ‘La Sapienza’, I
willingly admit that I could suffer from
partiality towards Latin civilization.
Similarly, this could be the case for the
editors of the Oxford English Dictionary,
who could suffer from partiality towards
Germanic civilization, as I have constantly maintained in my papers. 9 And once
more, here, I review the etymology of a
number of their entries. Many of my
conclusions could be erroneous or perplexing, although, hopefully, useful as a
stimulus to debate. After all, it will be
possible to make some points about the
editorial policy of the OED.
Autarchy: OED records the Greek spelling aujtarciva, but Liddell & Scott, The
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, repr. 1985), and other dictionaries,
more correctly spell aujtavrkeia;
barbecue: the verb is recorded in 1661,
the noun in 1697. The Barnhart (1988),
writes as follows: “Though the verb is recorded earlier than the noun, the OED
states that the verb developed from the
noun”;
brief: OED states: “From official Latin
breve the word entered at an early period
into all the Teutonic languages”. Nevertheless the earlier Greek bracuvı should
be recorded;
calculate: records L calculus, but not Gr
cavlix;
camouflage: according to OED after the
French noun camouflet, but the verb camoufler should be recorded;
canine: according to OED it goes back
to 1623, according to Barnhart to 1607;
canna: records Latin canna, but Greek
kavnna should be added;
cannon: Latin canna and Greek kavnna
should be added;
cant: gives Latin canthus but does not
give Greek kanqovı corner of the eye;
capon: ignores Greek kovptein chop off;
captive: ignores Greek kavptein gulp
down, itself cognate with Latin capio;
carburettor: gives New Latin suffix -uretum, but the Latin urĕre to burn, which is
certainly cognate, should be recorded;
caries: ignores Greek khvr ajkhvratoı inviolate;
carnage: for a more complete etymology
should go back not only to the LL carna-ticum, but also to Latin caro-carnis flesh
and to Greek keivrw cut short;
carnival: according to OED the MedL
forms “appear to originate in a Latin *carnem leva-re or Italian carne levare …. meaning ‘the putting away or removal of flesh
(as food) ….. We must therefore entirely
reject the suggestion founded on another
sense of levare ‘to relieve, ease’, that carnelevarium meant ‘the solace of the flesh
(i.e. body) before the austerities of Lent’”.
This conclusion is highly disputable, because the word leva-re in Latin means ‘to
lift or raise up’, but it had not necessarily
lost this meaning in Medieval Latin or
early Italian. In literary Italian today it
still retains the meaning of ‘to lift or raise
up’ (‘leviamo in alto i nostri cuori’, as in
ecclesiastical Italian, Latin sursum corda).
Furthermore, if we consider what the
Carnival in Latin countries is nowadays,
this last meaning becomes apparently
preferable to the other one. The same etymologist of the OED defines the Carnival as “the season immediately preceding
Lent, devoted in Italy and other Roman
Catholic countries to revelry and riotous
amusement, Shrove-tide; the festivity of
this season”. Therefore, the opening statement is contradictory;
castanets: gives Latin castanea but not
Greek kavstana sweet chestnuts and kastaneva chestnut-tree;
cede: gives French céder and Latin cedĕre
give way, but Greek ojdovı give way should
be added;
cerebrum: gives just Latin cerebrum
brain, but cerebrum is cognate with Greek
kavra head and kevraı horn;
chime: gives Latin cymbalum not Greek
kuvmbalon;
circumlocution: should add that L circumlocu-tio is a translation of Greek perivfrasiı;
circumspect: records Latin circumspicĕre
to look around, not Greek skevptomai
look about carefully;
cistern: gives Latin cisterna, cista, not Gr
5
kivsth basket, hamper;
choreography: writes Greek grafiva without the accent on i! i.e, grafia;
cite: gives French citer, Latin cita-re, ignores entirely that it is cognate with Greek
kinevw to set in motion;
clang: gives Latin clangor, and cites Greek
klagghv sharp sound, klavzein make a
sharp sound, but also takes for granted
that it is echoic, and “arose separately in
German“. The etymologist of the Barnhart is not so sure. He writes that it is
“possible“ that clang “is an independent
imitative formation”;
clock: gives late Latin cloc(c)a but not the
probable cognate Gr klwvssein to cluck;
close verb: refers just to Latin claudĕre,
late Latin clu-sa, while, more adequately,
Gr kleivein to bar, from kleivı bar, bolt,
key, should be mentioned;
cloud: is a Germanic word, no doubt,
but OED should add that OE clu-d is cognate with Greek gloutovı;
coax: OED writes as follows: “According
to Johnson 1755-73, ‘a low word’, probably in vulgar use long before it became
usual in literature, which may account for
want of literary evidence for the early history of the senses”. Therefore, it gives no
etymology at all, considering as superfluous any such attempt.
No doubt the etymology remains unclear, but the Italian coazióne, adj & past
part. coàtto, and F coaction, literary words
meaning obligation, deriving from L
cogĕre, coactum, to oblige to do something, appear as cognate with coax;
cochineal: ignores entirely Greek kovkkoı
grain, seed, as of the pomegranate, and
kovkkinoı scarlet. It is unclear whether
Greek is ignored by the etymologists who
have compiled the entries under c, or
whether ignoring Greek is the policy of
the OED;10
codeine (1881); curiously, strangely, gives
Greek kwvdeia not earlier French codéine
(1832), which is its immediate antecedent; a sudden conversion to Greek, such
that the etymologist forgets, or neglects,
even French?
compassion: stops at French compassion,
late Latin compassi-o-nem. Should be
added that the Latin word is a loan translation of Greek sumpavqeia;
compatriot: gives French compatriote,
Latin compatrio-ta, not Greek sumpatriwvteı, but refers to patriota, where it
gives nevertheless Greek etymology;
complete: according to OED first occurs
in 1530, in Palsgr 491/2; according to
Barnhart (1988), “about 1384, in Wycliffe’s writings”;
complex: gives stem of Latin complecti,
com + plecto, but omits Greek plevkw
plait;
complicate: gives Latin com + plicare, but
should refer to plicare, plecto, Greek
plevkw;
concatenation: according to OED it is
from Latin concatenatio, a word which
does not occur at all in Glare, but in
Niermeyer as Late Latin, instead;
concern: gives con- + cernĕre, not Greek
krivnw, separate, distinguish;
concomitant: ignores French concomitant, records Latin concomit-a-ntem, but
Latin comes-comitis should be added;
condescend: again a confusion between
Latin and late Latin: OED writes that it
is from Latin condescendĕre, and that this
word first occurs in Cassiodorus. Since
Cassiodorus lived 485-580, it is clearly
late Latin, or medieval Latin; in fact, the
entry is ignored by Glare, while it occurs
in Niermeyer as late Latin, instead;
condiment: indicates Middle French condiment, from Latin condime-ntum spice,
from condı-re to season or flavour; should
add that condı-re is a variant of condĕre
store up for future use;
condolence: according to OED condolere is Latin, but it is recorded by Niermeyer as late Latin;
condominium: indicates modern Latin
con- + dominium, but a more complete
etymology should be given, adding late
Latin condominium, Latin dominium, dominus, domus, Greek dovmoı and dw'ma
house;
condor: records Spanish cóndor and Peruvian cúntur, but, strangely, omits the
accents;
conflagration: gives Latin conflagra-re, flagra-re, but not Greek flevgw burn, burn
up;
conflict: gives Latin conflict, not Greek
flivbw chafing, rubbing;
confluence: gives late Latin conflue-ntia,
Latin conflue-re, not Greek fluvw and
fluvzw boil over, bubble;
conform: gives French conformer, Latin
conforma-re, con- + forma, not Greek
morfh,v probable root of Latin forma;
congenital: gives Latin congenitus, conwith + genitus born, past part. of gignĕre
to create, to be born, but not Greek givgnomai come into being; under genus it
gives nevertheless Greek gevnoı;
conjoin: gives Latin conjungĕre to join together, not Greek zeuvgnumi yoke, put to;
conjugate verb: gives Latin coniuga-re,
French conjuguer, Latin iugum yoke, not
Greek zugovn yoke;
consider: from Old French considérer,
14c as in Littré; although we have been
unable to consult the Littré, it is unlikely
that Old French uses the accent sur le e;
the Dictionnaire du Moyen Français by A.
J. Greimas and T. M. Keane11 does not
use the accent on the “e”, and writes considerer;
conspicuous: gives just Latin conspicuus,
but ignores Greek skevptomai look about
carefully;
constellation: gives constellati-o-nem as
Latin, but Glare does not record it at all,
not considering it as classical Latin, and
Niermeyer records it as late Latin;
consternation: gives just Latin consternatio, but Greek stovrnumi to lay down, to
level, its probable cognate, should be
added;
constrain: gives Latin constringĕre, but
the Greek cognate strogguvloı, round,
spherical, should be mentioned;
contemplate: gives a history of the word
in English, but not a real etymology; this
is from con- intensive + templum, which
is defined by Glare as “the area of sky or
land defined by the augur, within which
he took the auspices”, its immediate antecedent being the Greek tevmnw cut, divide, and tevmenoı, defined by LiddellScott as “a piece of land cut off and
assigned as an official domain“;
contend: gives Latin contendĕre but not
Greek teivnw to stretch by force;
Vincenzo Merolle
context: gives Latin contextĕre to join by
weaving, con- + texĕre to weave, but ignores Greek tevktwn, carpenter, joiner, and
tevcnh, art, skill;
contrite: gives Latin contrı-tus, con- +
terĕre, but not Greek teivrw oppress, distress;
convenience: gives Latin convenı-re, venıre, but not Greek baivnw to come, its probable cognate;
cooper according to OED it is “apparently of Low German origin”, and goes
back as far as medieval Latin cupa-rius; but
Glare records cupa-rius as classical Latin;
furthermore, since Modern German is
Küfer, why write this word in lower case,
which is grammatically incorrect? One of
the points unclear to the present author,
is why the OED constantly writes the
German substantives in lower case, while
initial letters should be written in capitals;
coracle: writes that it appears in 7c in
Adamnan in the Latinized form curuca,
this notwithstanding it takes for granted
that the word derives from Welsh corwgl
of 16c; its appearing in Latin in 7c should
suggest that it is cognate with Latin co-
6
rium leather and Greek kwvrukoı, while
only in 16c it appears in the Welsh form
corwgl; obviously, OED entirely ignores
this probable derivation;
correct: gives Latin corrigĕre and regĕre,
not Gr ojrevgw reach, stretch out;
cosmology: spells Greek kovsmoı +
logia, while it should be logiva, late
spelling of logeiva with the accent on iv;
cove: according to OED this word is
“common Teutonic”, but the probable
cognates L cuba-re to lie down, to be in
bed or on one’s couch, and Greek guvph
vulture’s nest, should be mentioned;
coverlet: the meaning of coverlet is defined as “the uppermost covering of a bed,
a quilt”. But the early form coverlite appears to represent an OF *covre-lit (from covrir to cover + lit bed). Examples of
coverlit, coverlet occur in 14th-century
Anglo-French, but these may be from
English. (Modern French couvre-lit is a
neologism, suggested perhaps in part by
English coverlet). The variants in let, light, -led, lid, etc, show that at an early
date the composition of the word was
unknown’.
As for the word lit, the OED writes as
follows: ‘lit n obs excl dial. [a. ON lit-r colour.... corresp. etymologically to OE and
early ME wlite]. Meanings: 1) a colour,
dye, hue; also a stain; 2) dye-stuff; also, a
batch of dyeing.
As for the word wlite, the OED gives the
following etymology: “after OE wlite,
OFris wlite, OS wliti etc’, and the meanings: 1) Beauty, splendour; 2) face,
countenance”.
We are not calling into question the ability of the etymologist of the OED, who
could reply that, after all, the meaning
does not necessarily imply etymology, i.e.
the history of a word. Nevertheless the
French word lit is after Latin le-ctus bed
and Greek levktron couch, bed, and the
English cover, French couvrir, is after
Latin cooperı-re to cover;
cress: OE cresse is cognate with Greek
gravstiı grass, green fodder; OED entirely ignores this point, and maintains that
even Romanic words like Italian crescione,
French cresson, MedL crissonus, etc, “are
generally held to be from German,
though popularly associated with Latin
crescĕre to grow”.
Sorry, but the Italian crescione is given by
the most recent Italian dictionaries as deriving from Old French cresson.
Question: the Greek and Latin origin of
this word is just a popular credence, therefore erroneous?
crown: gives Latin coro-na not Greek
korwvnh;
crumb: gives Middle Dutch cru-me,
Dutch kruim, Middle Low German krone, etc, and then writes that “the ulterior
derivation is obscure”. The “ulterior derivation” is in Latin gru-mus, Greek grumeva, then in Indo-European;
crust: gives Latin crusta and Old French
crouste, but not Greek kruvstalloı
rock-crystal;
culvert: according to OED, it is “a word
of obscure origin, used c. 1770 in connexion with canal construction”, and is defined as “a channel, conduit, or tunnelled
drain of masonry or brickwork conveying
a stream of water across or beneath a
canal, railway embankment, or road”.
Nevertheless in French, in XIIc, the word
couvert occurs in the sense of logement, retraite. In XVIc the same word is used in
a technological sense, meaning couverture
du toit. The ultimate source is no doubt
Latin coope-rtus covered, past part. of cooperı-re to cover;
cumin: gives the Latin cumı-num and
Greek kuvminon, and after giving German
translations, OHG chumin, cumin,
MHG kümel, Swedish kummin, etc, adds
that “the word has also come down in the
Romanic languages, Italian cumino, Spanish and Port. comino, OF cumin”, while
the Greek kuvminon “is supposed to have
been a foreign word, cognate in origin
with the Semitic names, Heb. kammôn,
Arabic kammûn and their cognates.”
This statement is surprising. If the word
is first Hebraic, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Romanic, it cannot have “come down in the
Romanic languages“: from Germanic,
obviously, in the intention of the etymologist. It is rather likely that it was introduced into Germanic languages from its
Greek and Latin roots. After all, there are
no records in Anglo-Saxon, but only in
OHG and MHG;
czar: OED makes of it a word which is
substantially Germanic and Slavonic, writing as follows: “The Slavonic word ultimately represents the Latin Caesar, but
came, according to Miklosich, through
the medium of a Germanic language.....
cf Gothic Kaisar, OHG Keisar, etc”.
The point is that the Goths flourished
after the Romans, and Old High German
refers to the period 500-1015 AD.
After Augustus, all the Roman Emperors
had the title Caesar (see, e.g., Suetonius,
AD 69-122, De Vita Caesarum), and the
' ar should be mentioned. AcGreek Kai's
cording to Ernout-Meillet the word Caesar is of Etruscan origin (the Etruscan
flourished 7-1c BC)walk: according to OED “the Teutonic
root *walk has no certain affinities in any
other branch of the Indo-Germanic family; phonologically the Sanskrit valg- to
leap, dance, and Latin valgus bow-legged,
might be related, but there is no clear similarity of meaning.“
I don’t want to turn myself into an etymologist, my training and aim being
quite different, but let me just observe
that the Latin varicare means to spread
one’s leggs wide apart, straddle. Nevertheless in early or Romance Italian, where
the word valico is first recorded in 1313-
19, there is a shift in meaning to cross, go
through. And the English walk is first recorded in G. Chaucer in 1386.
Concluding remarks
To conclude, I shall apologize for my
shortcomings, and shall apologize, once
more and in particular, to my colleagues
the philologists and lexicographers. I
have explained, in my opening pages, the
reasons for my attempt, reasons that are,
at one and the same time, educational,
historical and political. No doubt, European civilization needs a new, more complete instrument of communication, an
instrument that could be conceived by
somebody whose aim is that of influencing European society and civilization.
Philologists and skilled lexicographers
will certainly find inadequacies, limits
and, who knows?, maybe even errors in
my work. After all, de minimis non curat
praetor, but I don’t believe that one man,
even with the generous assistance of distinguished colleagues, could actually do
more. To be pessimistic, this first volume
could mark the burial of a project, which
would then remain as just an attempt towards the creation of a ‘European’ lexicon for the general public. It could on the
other hand represent a substantial step
forward. And I personally cannot believe
that, as a project, it is inevitably doomed
to failure.
VINCENZO MEROLLE
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’
ESSENTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barnhart, R. K., The Barnhart Dictionary
of Etymology (New York, 1988);
Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique
de la langue grecque (Paris, 2009);
Diccionario de la lengua española, Real
Academia Española, vigésima segunda
edición (Madrid, 2001);
A. Ernout-A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine, quatrième édition (Paris, 2001);
Glare, P. G. W., Oxford Latin Dictionary
(Oxford, 1996, repr. 2003);
Klein, E., A Comprehensive Etymological
Dictionary of the English Language (Amsterdam, 1971);
Kluge, F., Etymologisches Wörterbuch der
Deutschen Sprache, 25. Auflage (Berlin/
New York, 2011);
Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961);
Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1966);
Lexer, M., Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch, 3 Bänden (Stuttgart, 1970);
Liddell H. G.-Scott R., Greek-English
Lexicon. With a Revised Supplement
(Oxford, 1996);
Niermeyer J. F. & Van De Kieft C., Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, Brill (Leiden-Boston, 2002);
7
Onions, C. T., The Oxford Dictionary of
English Etymology (Oxford, 1966);
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.,
CDRom, version 4;
Pokorny, J., Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 5.Auflage, 2 Bänden,
Francke (Bern, 2005);
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
(Oxford, 1973);
Skeat, W., An Etymological English Dictionary of the English Language (Oxford,
1910);
Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the
Roman and Byzantine Periods (Hildesheim-New York, 1914, repr. 1975);
Trapp, E., Lexicon zur Byzantinischen
Gräzität (Wien, 2001);
Woodhouse, English-Greek Dictionary
(London, 1932);
Wyld, H. C., The Universal Dictionary of
the English Language, with an updated
Appendix by E. Partridge (Hertfordshire,
1989).
1
This paper was delivered at the University
of Heidelberg for the Eurolinguistic
Symposium held on 22-24 November
2012.
2
C/o logoı Verlag (Berlin, 2013), forthcoming.
3
Hume to H. Blair, in Hume Letters, II, p.
133.
4
Dante, Paradiso, canto 25, strophe 1, line 3,
in H. F. Cary’s translation.
5
Dante, Inferno, canto 1, strophe 27, line 1,
in H. F. Cary’s translation.
6
As from the internet.
7
See V. Merolle, ‘On the reasons for compiling a European Dictionary’, in 2000.
The European Journal, XII, no. 2, Dec.
2011, pp. 4-5, where they are listed. To
them must be added the Merriam-Webster Third, concerning which, “following
the purchase of Merriam-Webster by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc, in 1964, a
three-volume version was issued for many
years as a supplement to the encyclopedia. At the end of vol. three, this edition
included Britannica World Language Dictionary, 474 pages of translations between
English and French, German, Italian,
Spanish, Swedish and Yiddish“ (as from
the internet).
8
I have repeatedly made this point in my
papers. See, e.g., ‘On the Reasons’, pp.
4-5, citing in particular from K. Vossen,
Mutter Latein und ihre Töchter. Europas
Sprachen und ihre Herkunft, 14. Auflage
(Düsseldorf, 1999).
9
See, e.g., ‘A case for ‘European’ Dictionaries‘, in 2.000. The European Journal,
VIII, no. 1, June 2007, pp. 1-3.
10
The last edition of the Shorter Oxford in
two volumes with Greek characters
bears the date 1985, while the fourth
ed. (Oxford, 1993) has no more Greek
characters.
11
Larousse, (Paris, 2001).
Life and activity
of an Austrian Scientist in Russia
in the late 18th century:
Benedict Franz Johann von Herrmann.*
At the beginning of the 18th century the
modern mining industry of Russia was
established and substantially developed
during the century. The richest natural
resources of the Empire were concentrated in the Ural region, which became
the centre of Russian metallurgy, but
the organizational experience of Russian mining was adopted from the leading European countries. Emperor Peter
the Great invited to Russia numerous
foreign specialists, mainly the Saxon,
Dutch and English, as mining engineers, and a number of factories and
plants were built.
By the late 18th–early 19th centuries the
Ural became not only a mining centre
and a strategically important region of
Russia, but also a world leader in ferrous and nonferrous metallurgy. In the
middle of the 18th century 4/5 of Russian iron and 100% of copper were produced in the Ural, and the Russian
Empire got ahead of England and became the second in the world, after
Sweden, in cast iron production. At the
turn of the 18th–19th centuries Russia
took the first place in the world in production of ferrous metals, because it
produced over a third of world smelted
cast iron and about a quarter of world
copper. It was also a time of intensive
geological and scientific studies of mining and active rationalization of this
sphere of industry.
Foreign specialists played a leading role
in the development of Ural. They were
not only mining engineers, but also
scholars, teachers, doctors and pharmacists as well. One of the outstanding
Europeans, who came to the Ural in the
18th century, was the Austrian scientist
Benedict von Herrmann. His scientific
studies and practical activities were extremely valuable for the Ural region and
Russia in general.
Benedict Franz Johann von Herrmann
(in Russian – Ivan Philippovich Guerman) was born in 1755 in Styria, the
largest industrial area of Austria, in the
family of an officer. Herrmann’s parents
died when the son was in infancy, so he
was brought up by some relatives, who
gave him a good education. He studied
at school in Murau for several years,
then at the monastery school. Afterwards he entered the service of the
Duchy of Schwarzenberg in Graz, attending at the same time university lectures. Probably during this period he
decided the main disciplines to which
he was to devote his future life. These
were metallurgy, mineralogy and chem-
Benedict von Herrmann
istry. He also worked hard to learn languages. He spoke fluent German,
Russian, French, Italian and Latin.
In 1777 Herrmann moved to Vienna,
attending university lectures on mineralogy and mining. Three years later he
travelled through Germany, Hungary
and Italy, familiarizing himself with the
metallurgical industry of these states
and gaining the knowledge of leading
members in the Mining Academy of
Shemnitz.
In 1781 he lectured on technology in
the university of Vienna, submitting to
the Government a project to organize
the Chair of technology, but unsuccessfully. Apparently the reason was that he
had fallen into disgrace after a critical
report on his travels through Austria.
After this unsuccessful attempt Herrmann moved to Poland, where he visited the Polish salt industry. His visit to
8
Krakow salt deposits in 1781 was an essential event in his life. He met there a
man called Karosy, who introduced him
to the Court of Saint-Petersburg. Thus
Russia became Herrmann’s second
homeland, where his bright career
began.
An outstanding scholar
The study of metallurgy and mining in
Graz, Vienna and Shemnitz, provided
the basis of Herrmann’s scientific and
practical work in Russia, where he became an outstanding scholar, and organized the mining industry. Gradually
he became one of the first-rate experts
of Ural and Siberian mineral wealth.
According to official calculations, he
devoted 26 years, 9 months and 10 days
to mining, out of the 32 years of his
service in Russia.
His practical work began in 1783,
when he was sent to the Ural by Empress Catherine II, to familiarize himself with the mining industry and to
describe mines and plants. He also had
to choose the place for building a new
steel factory, in fact the first specialized
steel plant in the Ural. It was decided to
build it in Pyshminsk, where there was
a gold-washing plant. Herrmann was
responsible for its construction.
At first the Austrian scientist could
scarcely speak Russian. So he had to
have recourse for assistance to one of
the mining officers of German descent.
At that time almost all the high positions at Pyshminsk gold washing plants
were held by descendants of Saxon masters who worked there by contract since
the beginning of the 18th century. One
of them, Peter Sturm, supported Herrmann for half a week, but he had almost forgotten his native language.
Nevertheless during this short time he
tried to do his best to show the factories to Herrmann. Then he was replaced
by another mining officer.
The reconstruction of Pyshminsk dam
and building of the steel factory began
in 1785. Earlier metallurgy plants had
been converted into gold washing factories in the Ural (Uktuss plant), but
never the contrary had taken place. In
order to make this experiment Herrmann was granted a rank of court
counselor and a post of director of the
factory to be build. About 200 workers
from Yekaterinburg were engaged in the
construction of the steel plant. The
Senate also committed to Herrmann
the management of Yekaterinburg and
Kamensk plants.
According to some historians, Herrmann differed greatly from the Russian and German managers of the old
school. He had a highly organized
mind; he was sensitive and able to hold
back. At first, these qualities of his character couldn’t replace the severity, exactingness and roughness of the former
directors. The factory administrators
sometimes treated him with irony, and
the workers left the premises when they
wanted. Obviously because of this the
Pyshminsk factory started working almost a year later than planned.
The factory was built on the Pyshma
River, not far from Yekaterinburg. The
quality of the steel produced there was
rather good, not worse than that of foreign production. But, unfortunately,
the factory was burned down in 1792.
The reasons were unknown, but it wasn’t a rare case in the 18th century. Steel
production was reorganized on Nizhneistskiy plant.
The Nizhneistskiy Mint
In 1795 Herrmann was engaged in a
new task: he was responsible for the
building of Nizhneistskiy Mint.
A year later, in 1796, he was recalled
from the Ural, returning to Saint-Petersburg, where he combined both scientific and the administrative work. In
1798 he was appointed a member of
Berg-Collegium (Mining governing
body of Russia), in 1799 he became the
inspector of Petersburg Mining School,
and in August 1800 he was sent to supervise the Olonets gun factories as a
head of commission.
In 1801 Herrmann was twice promoted
for his scientific work Compositions of
Siberian mines and factories…and his
contribution to the development of
Ural mining industry.
A year later, when a radical reorganization of the governing bodies of mining
in Russia took place, Herrmann became
a new Yekaterinburg mining chief. By
this time he knew the region well and
had already got the title of academician.
As a mining chief Herrmann had to
solve a main problem. By Government
order, factories had to give up the
labour of the peasants, who were attached to the plants for life (“attached
peasants”), replacing them by the socalled “indispensable workers”, who en-
joyed more freedom and received a status of factory workmen. Executing this
order was difficult in the Ural region,
where ¾ of the population were “attached peasants”. The procedure of replacing them with “indispensable
workers” needed numerous calculations. But, thanks to Herrmann’s orders, this hard work was greatly
facilitated.
During the first years of his management, Herrmann paid much attention
to the development of the gold-mining
industry in the Ural. New factories were
built. He took also measures to provide
Yekaterinburg mint with advanced
equipment.
The first printing house
He introduced a main innovation in
Yekaterinburg. In 1803 he established
the first printing house in the city. Local
documents could be printed. This
measure helped to accelerate their circulation, usually rendered slow by the
bureaucratic system. Furthermore, the
printing office published special literature, including books by Herrmann
himself.
During his service in the Ural region he
cared particularly for the social welfare
of the workers. He published a statute
of food-supply of workers (1780s) and
established hospitals and nursing
homes. He paid attention to the problem of education and public health. For
example, he introduced vaccination
against smallpox. He opened schools
for children of workmen, officials and
mining officers in the Ural region, since
he realized that they would have influenced the development of mining.
The Austrian scientist was an initiator
of the establishment of Mining Council under the Yekaterinburg mining au-
9
thority. The Council consisted of the
managers of the largest factories and
governing officers. It regarded the reconstruction of plants, rationalization
of technology and planning. This was a
progressive measure for the development of the mining industry.
Scientific and geological knowledge
Herrmann improved the scientific and
geological knowledge about mining. In
1809 he sent a group of 20 young men
– mine surveyor students and graduates
from Petersburg Mining School – to an
expedition around the Yekaterinburg
district in order to do the mapping of
mines and collect all the known rock
samples, for a collection of a “Mineral
cabinet” in Yekaterinburg Mining
School, that he himself had established.
In fact, the state geological service grew
up from this “Mineral cabinet”, that
later was to become a mining museum.
In 1810 Herrmann was recalled once
more to Saint-Petersburg. He left Yekaterinburg forever though formally he
still was a mining chief. His health
began to deteriorate. In 1813 he had to
retire because of illness. The 30th of January 1815 he died in Petersburg.
Benedict von Herrmann was a recognized scholar, and became a corresponding member of the imperial and royal
academies of sciences and societies of
naturalists of Europe: of Saint-Petersburg, Moscow, Berlin, Copenhagen,
Stockholm, Göttingen, Munich,
Prague, Vienna and Graz. His publications numbered 59. 38 of them were in
German, 16 in French and 5 in Russian.
He played a significant role in the development of science. Soon after his arrival to Saint-Petersburg, in 1796, he
submitted to the Academy of Sciences
his works: Compositions of Siberian
Mines and Factories collected by Court
Counselor and Academician Ivan Herrmann, and Mineralogical travel to
Siberia from 1783 to 1796, in German.
His Compositions in 2 volumes was published in 7422 copies, and a year later a
third part of the book was printed. In
this work detailed description of several
factories was combined with statistic
characteristics of other plants.
In the book Description of Plants being
under Yekaterinburg Mining Authority
Rule Herrmann gives a description of 9
government and 113 private factories,
and of Yekaterinburg gold mining. This
work is a valuable source of information
about the geographic location of industry, technical equipment of plants,
number of workers, productivity, etc.
Another relevant work of this talented
Austrian scientist was the Historical tracing of mining production in the Russian
Empire. Herrmann maintained that the
Mediation Rituals and Balance-of-Power Language:
The Quadruple Alliance’s
Italian Investitures (1718-1727)
“Il est impossible que la passion déréglée, et
l’ambition aveugle des Particuliers, puissent
s’opposer longtemps aux Forces des plus
grandes Puissances de l’Europe, unies pour
établir la tranquillité Publique, sur des
Fondements stables et solides.”
Harangue held by the Earl of Stair,
British extraordinary ambassador to
Louis XV, at his entrée publique,
5 February 17191
Early modern diplomacy has a bad reputation in the eyes of both political and
legal historians. With rules of private law2
constantly invoked to cover brutal aggression, as in the case of Frederick the
Great’s invasion of Silesia, treaties be-
periodization of mining history in Russia had the same stages as Ural‘s history
in the whole. The author related its beginning to the 17th century. The history
of Ural metallurgy, according to him,
began at the time of Peter the Great.
Herrmann estimated this period as a
turning point for Ural factories development. In 1810 the Historical tracing…
was presented to the Emperor Alexander I, who rewarded Herrmann with the
Order of Anne of the 1st Grade.
Speaking about Tatishchev and Gennin,
founders of Yekaterinburg, Herrmann
came to the conclusion that the establishment of Ural metallurgy would have
been impossible without the participation of foreigners.
His statistical studies are extremely useful even nowadays. They are the unique
statistical sources of Ural mining history. So, for example, the Statistic description of Russia related to population,
properties of the land, natural products,
agriculture, mining, manufactures and
trade.
The activity of Herrmann in Russia is a
bright example of Russian-European
interaction, a process which was activated from Peter‘s the Great era. The
Austrian scientist was one of the Europeans who brought to Russia modern
Western achievements and ideas. He
was an outstanding personality: a tal-
tween monarchs are seen at best as unprotected contracts between mere physical persons, and not abstract entities.
Promises were constantly broken, alliances only used as soothing words3.
Nevertheless, historiography has conserved the image of one exceptional
episode of concord and tranquillity. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie called the immediate post-Louis XIV era of “Walpole and
Fleury” the “trente heureuses”, stretching
from the Peace of Utrecht (1713) to the
outbreak of the War of the Austrian Succession (1740).
This era was, in reality, far from peaceful,
with the wars of the Quadruple Alliance
(1717-1720), the War of the Polish Suc-
cession (1733-1738) and the end of the
Great Northern War (1700-1721).
Moreover, it took until April 1725 for the
main contenders from the War of the
Spanish Succession (1701-1714) to settle their differences at the so-called “Ripperda” Treaty of Vienna4.
However, in spite of the abovementioned
armed confrontations, none of them
equalled the general European wars of
the 17th century. In view of the bloody
battles it is doubtful whether the lack of
a continental war reflected the “guerre en
dentelle” or softening of military practices5. I argue that the relative stability
was a product of the diplomatic system,
and, more precisely, of its use of interna-
ented and respectable scholar, a honest
and intelligent man. All of Herrmann’s
books were based on archival material
and on his own research. The scientist
always posed new challenges. Even if he
wasn’t always right in his conclusions,
his works are greatly significant for the
development of science and of historical
studies. Additionally, he greatly contributed to Russian mining and to the
development of Ural region. Some historians of Yekaterinburg call the time
when he was the city’s mining chief “the
epoch of Herrmann”.
dine Rossii, (Yekaterinburg, 2007).
Enciclopedicheskiy slovar F.A. Brokgauza
i I.A. Efrona. Vol. 16, (Yaroslavl, 1991).
Korepanov N.S., V provincialnom Yekaterinburge (1781 – 1831), (Yekaterinburg, 2003).
Korepanov N.S. V rannem Yekaterinburge (1723 – 1781), (Yekaterinburg,
1998).
Korepanov N.S., Pervyy vek Yekaterinburga, (Yekaterinburg, 2005).
Kozlov A.G., Tvortsy nauki i tehniki na
Urale. XVII – nachalo XX v. (Sverdlovsk, 1981).
Metallurgi Urala. Enciclopediya, (Yekaterinburg, 2001).
Penzin E.A. I.F., German – uchenyy i
gornyy deyatel // Promishlennyy Ural v period zarozhdeniya i razvitiya kapitalizma, (Sverdlovsk, 1989).
‘Vampreshamer H. Benedict Franz Johann von Herrmann – velikiy avstriets
v Rossii (1755 – 1815)’ // Izvestiya
vyshyh uchebnih zavedeniy. Gornyy zhurnal. Uralskoe gornoe obozrenie. No. 8,
1995.
OLGA ERMAKOVA
Institute of History and Archaeology
Ural branch of the Russian Academy
of Sciences
Yekaterinburg, Russia
Bibliography
Gosudarstvennyy arhiv Sverdlovskoy
oblasti (GASO). F. 24. Op. 12. D. 141,
142, 2412. F. 37. Op. 16. D. 121.
Alekseev V.V., Gavrilov D.V., Mettallurgiya Urala s drevneyshih vremen do
nashih dney (Moscow, 2008).
Alekseeva E.V., Diffuziya evropeyskih innovatsiy v Rossii (XVIII – nachalo XX
v.), (Moscow, 2007).
Blinov V., Korepanov N., Gorod posre-
10
*
This article was prepared with the support of the Federal Target Program
(FTP) “Scientific and scientific-pedagogical staff of the innovative Russia”,
State Contract n. 14.740.11.0209 “Individual in the conditions of socio-cultural transformations of the Russian
society in the 17th – 20th centuries”.
tional law. I propose to look briefly at a
case which contained all possible elements for conflagration: the application
of the Peace of Utrecht to Italy.
I. From Utrecht to London: Balance of
Power
“Tout Prince qui ne regarde les Traités que
comme de vains fantômes qu’un instant critique a produits, & qu’un autre instant
peut détruire arbitrairement au gré de l’intérêt, est non-seulement un ennemi du
genre humain, mais encore un très-mauvais
politique; indépendamment des considérations puisées dans l’amour de la Justice, les
seuls motifs d’intérêt doivent engager les
Princes à observer exactement les Traités; la
mauvaise foi ne peut avoir dans les affaires
d’Etat, qu’un succès court & passager, au
lieu que la réputation bien affermie [...]
Un Prince ne peut violer sa parole, sans perdre sa réputation.”
Réal de Curban, Science du
gouvernement6
Ever since Charles VIII’s 1498 invasion
of Italy, the peninsula had been the theatre of confrontation between France and
Habsburg, wherein the diverse sovereigns
and city-states indiscriminately changed
and swapped alliances. At the Peace of
Utrecht (11 April 1713), the Bourbon
King of Spain, Philip V, was deprived of
his Italian kingdoms of Naples and Sardinia which were acquired by Emperor
Charles VI of Habsburg, Philip V’s rival
during the War of the Spanish Succession. In addition to the Duchy of Milan,
this made Charles VI the preponderant
power in Italy.
However, on 22 August 1717, a Spanish
expeditionary force landed on Sardinia.
Legally Philip V and Charles VI were
under an armistice, signed at Utrecht in
June 1713, and proclaiming the neutrality of Italy. There had been no formal
peace treaty, although the Austrian dominance had been militarily established by
1707, ten years earlier.
Formally France and Britain were under
the obligation to guarantee the Peace of
Utrecht, and, thus, to intervene on
Charles VI’s behalf7. However the Emperor himself had been busy negotiating
an amendment to the Italian settlement.
Duke Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, seen
by Britain as a stabilising buffer between
France and Habsburg, had acquired the
kingdom of Sicily. Charles had made
abundantly clear he wanted an exchange
of the poorer Sardinia for Sicily.
With this movement in the background,
the Farnese dynasty in Parma-Piacenza
called upon Spain to intervene as upholder of the internal Italian balance.
This was not per se an unpleasant
thought to France and Britain, who preferred not to give the Emperor a too
dominant position. Émile Bourgeois has
shown in his monumental Diplomatie secrète au XVIIIe siècle8 that negotiations
were going on with Spain as well as with
Austria. Philip V chose the military option, but did not sideline himself entirely
by doing so. Neither of the intermediary
powers had an interest in seeing Austria
dominate Italy. Moreover, Philip V, as
Louis XIV’s grandson and uncle to the
minor Louis XV, enjoyed considerable
popularity in France9.
In September 1717, Philip of Orléans,
Regent during Louis XV’s minority, sent
out his personal confidant, abbé Dubois,
to London, to negotiate a peace plan with
the de facto chief of the British cabinet,
James Stanhope. A year earlier, both men
had constructed a system of joint leadership of Europe, with the Utrecht treaties
as a basis.
General European peace had been tied to
the succession in France and Spain. In
November 1711, Britain had accepted
Louis XIV’s grandson as King of Spain,
but only if he renounced his rights to the
French throne. In return France recognized the order of succession in Britain,
Charles VI of Habsburg
established by Parliament in the Act of
Settlement. These operations were far
from neutral. France accepted the precedency of treaty law over the internal lois
fondamentales, which excluded any renunciation to a God-established order of
succession, but had to ratify the outcome
of the 1688 Glorious Revolution and the
definitive end of the exiled Catholic Stuart dynasty, which Louis XIV had openly
supported, hosting his fellow monarch at
Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Finally internal
Spanish legal documents, such as the renunciation of Louis XIV’s spouse, Infanta Maria Teresa, or wills of the last
Habsburg king Charles II, and his father
Philip IV, had been pushed aside10. The
change in French policy justified an alliance with an erstwhile enemy. Or, in the
words of James Craggs the Younger, writing at the end of 1718 to Dubois:
11
“Le monde qui s’est revolté contre des
Droits si exorbitans en prevoyant qu’une
puissance si enorme ne pouvoit avec le
tems manquer d’obtenir la monarchie
universelle, a repandu des fleuves de sang
et des tresors de richesses [r°] pour eviter
cet esclavage. Aprés tant de batailles gagnées et perdues, aprés tant de saccagemens de pilleries et de miserès, les
puissances de l’Europe lassées et fatiguées
de tant de maux font un reglement, où le
Roy d’Espagne comme les autres, renonce formellement à toutes ses pretensions sur le Royaume de France, et
cependant non-obstant qu’il ne jouit
de la couronne d’Espagne, de quelque
manière qu’on considère la chose qu’en
vertu de ce bien public qui ne permette
pas que l’Empereur ni le Roi de
France, qui sont incontestablement, l’un
ou l’autre, legitimes pretendants à ce
royaume, l’aient11.”
Dubois and Stanhope grasped the conceptual consequences of this basic consensus. Philip V and Charles VI both
resented the Peace of Utrecht. The former had become King of a diminished
Spain, whereas the latter only managed
to acquire the Spanish Netherlands12 and
parts of Italy. In their eyes, the struggle
was still on. However if either of the antagonists chose to take up the fight again,
he would have to face both the strongest
army and the strongest fleet in Europe:
“Il est de nôtre interest et de notre situation de ne vouloir jamais la guerre que
pour procurer la paix […] Nous sommes
son [France’s] amie la plus puissante, la
plus naturelle et dont elle doit avoir la
moindre jalousie, lorsqu’elle ne songe
qu’à être la mediatrice des troubles de
l’Europe et à borner les veües des autres
Princes13.”
Consequently Stanhope and Dubois realised they could impose a norm hierarchy.
This gave them a discursive advantage for
the years ahead. Whereas Spanish and
Imperial diplomats quarrelled over titles
and in reality unrealistic claims, France
and Britain were redistributing the cards.
After a long and tiresome process, the
Austrian ambassador Penterriedter signed
the Treaty of London on 2 August 1718.
This “Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance”
foresaw an alliance between France, the
Maritime Powers (Britain and the Republic of the United Provinces) and Austria, in order to compel Philip V to
abandon Sardinia and Sicily, which he
had invaded as well, in July 1718. Sicily
would then be swapped for Sardinia, as
Vienna had demanded for years.
Interestingly this was as far as Charles VI
could get. The Quadruple Alliance’s article V brought the Duchy of Parma-Piacenza and the Grand-Duchy of Tuscany,
both ruled by dynasties threatened with
extinction, into the Spanish sphere of influence. Don Carlos, son born out of
Philip V’s marriage to Elisabeth Farnese,
was designated as new ruler, thus installing a new separate branch of the
Bourbons.
In other words: if Philip V ceased his invasion, which was a violation of the
Utrecht settlement, and acceded to the
Quadruple Alliance, he would be… rewarded for the whole operation. The
only loser was Victor Amadeus of Savoy,
who reluctantly acceded to the Treaty in
November 1718.
II. Making the system work: mediation
“Le bien de l’Europe en vouloit une [Loi]
[…] autorisée par le le consentement reciproque des deux Concurrens, & maintenuë
par des Garans tells qu’on ne pût pas l’enfraindre impunément.”
French declaration of War against
Spain, 9 January 171914
Militarily the War of the Quadruple Alliance was very short-lived. At the time
the Treaty of London was signed, Admiral Byng sunk the Spanish fleet off the
coast of Sicily (Battle of Cape Passaro, 11
August 1718). In April 1719, a French
army invaded the Basque country, forcing Philip V to accede to the Treaty in
February 1720.
The Treaty of London called upon all
parties to gather for a conference under
the direction of France and Britain as
mediators. What seemed a small affair
(settling the details between Philip V
and Charles VI) finally took more than
14 years. Don Carlos was only installed
as Duke of Parma in 1732. The prime
mover, or stalling factor, was short-term
political interest. However, the legal
structure of the affair provided sufficient complexity to prohibit a quick
outcome.
Parma-Piacenza and Tuscany were fiefs of
the Holy Roman Empire. For Charles
VI, the acknowledgement of this status
was a precondition to signing the
Quadruple Alliance. Consequently,
France and Britain agreed to describe theses territories as “Sacri Romani Imperii
feudus masculines” (art. V15). This implied that, at the extinction of the male
line of the ruling dynasty, the Emperor
would be allowed to appoint a new vassal as he pleased. Nevertheless the treaty
had made this choice in his stead, designating Don Carlos.
Spain and Austria put as many obstacles
before the resolution of the problem as
they possibly could. Charles waited to
issue the expectative letters of eventual investiture (the document confirming Don
Carlos would be appointed at the incumbents’ decease) until the end of 1723. In
January 1724, after two years of entertaining an impressive assembly of European diplomats, and after both Stanhope
and Dubois had disappeared, the Congress of Cambrai could open.
Although Philip V had been the aggressor
in 1717-1718, France and Britain had always occupied a position in the middle
of the game. Not devoid of any personal
interest in the outcome, the mediators
had switched alliances between Charles
VI and his competitor. Once Philip adhered to the Treaty of London both
France and Britain concluded an alliance
with him, promising to act as supporters
at the conference, turning the negotiation
Philip V of Spain
into a verbal war machine against the
Emperor16. Louis XV was even betrothed
to Philip’s daughter. Preferably negotiations should last as long as the accumulation of Franco-British support could
continue to grow.
Nevertheless, whereas the mediators had
drawn profit from their discursive advantage as far as the precedency of treaties
over national norms was concerned, they
were pinned down by the Imperial
plenipotentiaries concerning their obligations as guarantees. Penterriedter, who
had signed the Treaty of London, approved the conservation of its acquis as
the maximal outcome of the negotiating
process, and, thus, a quick termination
of the talks17.
Once this proved impossible, the court
of Vienna decided to clutter the agenda
with two intervening themes. First, it
asked for international confirmation of
the new East India Company, created in
the Austrian Netherlands. Second, if the
mediators had “taken care to establish the
succession of other princes, why [not] by
that of the Emperour, who has no male
successor, nor likely to have any” ?
Charles had settled his succession in the
Habsburg lands by his 1713 Pragmatic
Sanction. Bringing this text to the external forum and asking for the others’ consent, would equal the confirmation of the
British 1688 settlement, the separation of
the crowns of France and Spain, and, finally Don Carlos’ transfer to Italy. Succession issues had such far-reaching
12
consequences for the European system,
that it was impossible to settle them legitimately through mere national norms.
III. From break-up to reconciliation:
ambition tamed in a legal web
As the conference lingered on, producing
innovative legal distinctions on terminology (“Garants”, “Mediators”, or “Contracting Parties18”), the titles both
contenders would be allowed to claim, or
the extent of the Savoyard and Spanish
accessions, Spain abandoned the mediators en rase campagne, and concluded the
so-called “Ripperda” Treaties with
Charles VI in April and May 1725. Although the preamble appealed to the
spirit of the Utrecht treaties, recalling the
separation of the crowns of France and
Spain, the text in itself was an overt violation of the principles of balance of
power, and of its Franco-British genesis,
expressed in the Cambrai mediation.
Twelve years after Utrecht Charles VI finally concluded peace, definitively abandoning Spain. The Emperor accepted
everything he had been fighting at the
conference, e.g. allowing Don Carlos
into Italy. In return for lavish subsidies
and the opening of the Spanish colonies
to the East India Company, he even
promised the hand of one of his daughters to Philip V’s son. Consequently,
there existed a risk that Don Carlos
would one day become an 18th century
version of Charles V, standard image of
the universal monarchy, an antithesis to
the Franco-British system.
The “trente heureuses” could well have
ended here. In reaction to the threat of a
hybrid Austro-Spanish renaissance,
France and Britain assembled the league
of Hannover (August 172519). Charles VI
lured the Russian Czarina into the Ripperda Treaty. Nevertheless, the union between Madrid and Vienna was mainly
based on money, whereas the tranquillity
of Europe rested on a common legal
structure. Once Philip, whose silver fleet
was blocked in the West Indies by the
British, was unable to provide the necessary funds, the Emperor became evasive
on the concerted marriage. Furthermore,
as had been the case in 1717-1718,
diplomatic channels remained open all
the time. Consequently, the mediation
system resurfaced. Cardinal Fleury,
Dubois’ successor as chief of French
diplomacy, brought the Emperor to the
signature of preliminaries in Paris (May
1727), which, again, led to a congress,
this time in Soissons.
Conclusion: Balance of Power, Mediation, or the Law’s essential role
Judging this complex episode from a distance, we cannot but assert the unique
role of legal argumentation in postponing a major European war for 23 years.
Klassische und moderne Sprachen
in der Wahrnehmung des Jesuiten
Michael Denis
Abstract
Right through the eighteenth century the
Order of the Jesuits produced a number of
men variously distinguished in all areas of
liberal education, who deeply influenced
the intellectual culture of central Europe.
Among these, the priest Michael Denis
(1720-1800) played an important role as
translator, teacher, poet and librarian, publishing his works in both Latin and
German.
This article deals with the importance of
the use of Latin for Denis‘ self-image as
an intellectual, in the context of the Catholic Enlightenment. His unfinished autobiography, Commentariorum de vita
sua libri quinque, shows how throughout
the eighteenth century Latin was the language linking all members of the res publica litterarum, whereas writing in
German represented a kind of patriotic
protest against the cultural predominance
of France and Italy.
The conclusion is that Latin remains im-
Philip’s pretentions on Italy had not
changed when Spain went to war against
Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession. France’s reluctance to recognize
Charles VI’s Pragmatic Sanction turned
its 1727 promise, repeated in 1738, into
a paper one. Yet the essence of the Peace
of Utrecht, the separation of the major
crowns on the continent, organising a
multipolar system, which had precedency
over internal norms, structured the nature of diplomatic exchange. It took the
negotiators (mostly trained on the job,
but assisted by skilled jurists and
archivists) much more than mere cordial
sentiment to channel adverse sentiments
into a common accepted vector: the law.
Fuelled by centuries of common European legal culture, they constructed and
managed a multipolar system of normative hierarchy, reconciling internal sovereignty with the necessity of international
fundamental principles.
bourg (München, 2010), 472 pp.
4
F. DHONDT, “Law on the diplomatic stage:
the 1725 Ripperda Treaty” in: V. DRAGANOVA
et al. (ed.), Inszenierung des Rechts - Law on
Stage [6 Jahrbuch Junge Rechtsgeschichte Yearbook of Young Legal Historians 2010],
Martin Meidenbauer (München, 2011), 303324.
5
3.100 (Habsburg) resp. 2.000 (Spain) casualties in armies not exceeding 20.000 men,
D. CHANDLER, The Art of Warfare in the Age
of Marlborough, Batsford (London, 1976),
317 pp. at 305.
6
G. DE BURLÉ RÉAL DE CURBAN, La science
du gouvernement, t. 5: contenant le droit des
gens, Qui traite les Ambassades; de la Guerre;
des Traités; des Titres; des Prérogatives; des
Prétentions, & des Droits respectifs des Souverains, Les libraires associés (Paris, 1764),
870 pp. at 570.
7
E.g. Addison (Secretary of State for the Southern Department) to Bubb, Whitehall, 30 July
1717, NA, SP, 94 (Spain), 87, s.f.: “Si vous apprenés […] que cette Expedition est dessinée
contre la Sardaigne ou le Royaume de Naples,
ou que vous ayés juste sujet de le conjecturer,
vous luy remontrerés combien Sa Maté est intéressée dans la neutralité et le repos de l’Italie par
l’Article de Garantie du Traité d’Utrecht, et luy
representerés en même tems comme la Couronne de France est engagée dans la dite Garantie, et comment les diverses Puissances et Etats
qui sont Parties dans le Traité susdit ressentiront
la Violation qu’on en fera.”
8
E. BOURGEOIS, La diplomatie secrète au
XVIIIe siècle, Armand Colin (Paris, 19091911), 3 v.
9
To ensure domestic support, Dubois and
Stanhope preferred to blame Philip’s prime
minister, Cardinal Giulio Alberoni.
FREDERIK DHONDT
Research Foundation Flanders/
Ghent University
1
National Archives, State Papers, 78 (France),
163, f. 60v°.
2
S. RICHTER, Fürstentestamente der Frühen
Neuzeit: Politische Programme und Medien intergenerationeller Kommunikation [Schriftenreihe der Historischen Kommission bei der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften;
80], Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (Göttingen,
2009), 541 pp.
3
K. FREHLAND-WILDEBOER, Treue Freunde?:
Das Bündnis in Europa 1714-1914, Olden-
13
portant and beneficial in modern times,
and should not be reduced merely to an
instrument of classical studies.
Gottsched und Maria Theresia
Als Johann Christoph und Louise Gottsched 1749 nach Wien reisten, um den
Hof für die Gründung einer Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu gewinnen, wurde
das Ehepaar von Kaiserin Maria Theresia
in Privataudienz empfangen. Aus dem
Briefwechsel der Louise kennen wir die
10
F. DHONDT, “From Contract to Treaty: the
Legal Transformation of the Spanish Succession (1659-1713)”, Journal of the History of
International Law XIII (2011), No. 2, 347375.
11
Craggs to Dubois, Whitehall, 26 November 1718 OS, NA, SP, 78, 162, f. 393v°394r°.
12
K. VAN GELDER, “L’empereur Charles VI
et “l’héritage anjouin” dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux (1716-1725)”, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, LVIII (2011), No. 1,
53-79
13
Craggs to Dubois, Whitehall, 26 November 1718 OS, cited, f. 392v°.
14
Manifeste du Roi de France sur le sujet de
Rupture entre la France & l’Espagne, Paris, 8
January 1719, J. DUMONT, Corps Universel
Diplomatique du droit des gens, Pieter Husson
& Charles Levier (Amsterdam, 1731), VIII/2,
nr. II, 3-6.
15
Treaty between Charles VI, Louis XV and
George I, London, 2 August 1718, CUD,
VIII/1, nr. CCII, 531-541.
16
Treaty between George I, Philip V and
Louis XV, Madrid, 13 June 1721, CUD,
VIII/2, nr. XV, 34-36.
17
Polwarth (British plenipotentiary) to Carteret (Secretary of State for the Southern
Department), Cambrai, 27 August 1722,
NA, SP, 78, 171, f. 22r°.
18
Polwarth and Whitworth to Carteret,
Cambrai, 31 January 1724, NA, SP, 78,
173, f. 53v°.
19
F. DHONDT, “So Great A Revolution:
Charles Townshend and the Partition of the
Austrian Netherlands, September 1725”,
Dutch Crossing, XXXVI (March 2012), No.
1, 50-68.
charmanten Worte, mit denen die Regentin den vor ihr knieenden Fürsten der Literatur willkommen hieß. Ich zitiere: „Ich
sollte mich scheuen mit dem Meister der deutschen Sprache, deutsch zu reden. Wir Oesterreicher haben eine sehr schlechte Sprache.“
Louise Gottsched berichtet weiter: „Auf
meines Mannes Versicherung, daß er schon
vor 14 Tagen, das reine und vollkommene
Deutsch bewundert hätte, als ihre Majestät,
bey der Eröffung des Landtages, ihre Stände,
gleich der Göttin der Beredsamkeit angeredet.
Hier erwiederte Sie: So? haben sie mich belauscht ... Es ist gut, daß ich das nicht gewußt
habe, sonst wäre ich stecken geblieben.“
Knapp zwanzig Jahre später haben offensichtlich auch die Österreicher ihre Liebe
zum Deutschen entdeckt. Michael Denis
(1729-1800), der im Zentrum unserer
Überlegungen stehen soll, notiert 1772 im
Vorwort zu einer Ausgabe von deutschsprachigen Schülergedichten: „Noch
wäre nebst einigen französischen und italienischen ein ebenso großer Vorrath lateinischer Ausarbeitungen in den Händen der
Herausgeber ... Allein es scheint, die lateinische Sprache werde unter uns bald eben so
leicht ihre Liebhaber zählen können als es vor
nicht gar vielen Jahren die Muttersprache
konnte.“
Lateinische Autoren mit einem Blick für
die Realität hatten im ausgehenden 18. Jahrhundert erkannt, in den Kreis einer Minderheit geraten zu sein. Es ist völlig klar,
dass das Ringen der Sprachen, besser ihrer
Proponenten um die beherrschende Stellung im Europa des 18. Jahrhunderts hier
nicht nachgezeichnet werden kann: Ein
Projekt dieser Art müsste ökonomische
Parameter umfassen, poetologische Untersuchungen anstellen, müsste sich mit der
Frage auseinandersetzen, welche Impulse
die aufblühenden Naturwissenschaften der
Sprachenwahl gaben und schließlich auch
den politisch-ideologischen Sitz im Leben
von Sprachen und ihrer institutionalisierten Vermittler aufspüren. Vielleicht gelingt
es aber, im Blick auf eine Person das Größere und Allgemeine schärfer zu fassen.
Michael Denis ist ein Mann, der fasziniert,
gehört er doch zur seltenen Spezies des
Grenzgängers in mehrerer Hinsicht. Geboren in Schärding, als jene Stadt noch zu Bayern gehörte, beendete er sein Leben als
Hofrat und Direktor der Hofbibliothek
in der Residenzstadt Wien. Fasziniert vom
intellektuellen Kosmos jesuitischer Geistigkeit seit dem Besuch des Jesuitengymnasiums in Passau, trat er 1747 in der
österreichischen Ordensprovinz der Gesellschaft bei. Der junge Jesuit Denis wirkte als Lehrer der Grammatik und Rhetorik in Graz und Klagenfurt in einer beinahe
ausschließlich lateinisch geprägten Gemeinschaft. Trotzdem trat er während des
Siebenjährigen Kriegs als deutscher Dichter hervor: Seine Kriegslieder mit dem
Titel Poetische Bilder der meisten kriegerischen Vorgänge in Europa seit 1756 wettei-
ferten mit dem Preußen Johann Wilhelm
Gleim.
Deutsche Poesie, lateinische Dichtung,
Ossiangedichte
Deutsche Poesie und lateinische Dichtung
bildeten fortan die beiden Konstanten im
Selbstverständnis des Denis. Den heute
kaum mehr nachvollziehbaren Ruf, einer
der größten Dichter und der größte Jesuit
Deutschlands zu sein, erwarb er sich allerdings durch eine weitere Grenzüberschreitung, indem er die Ossiangedichte des
Schotten MacPherson übersetzte. Damit
hatte der tief im Humanismus verwurzelte
Denis die Begeisterung für altkeltische Bardenlinteratur in ganz Deutschland angefacht eine Strömung, der sich auch ein
Herder nicht entziehen konnte. Dass der
selbst in anagrammatischer Verrätselung
als Sined publizierende Denis die Grenzen
zwischen Übersetzung und eigener Lyrik
verwischte, gehört zum Typikon dieses empfindsamen, sich mit seinen Vorbildern
völlig identifizierenden Dichters. Denis,
nun eine Größe im literarischen Österreich, wurden daraufhin als Jesuit ans aufklärerisch geprägte Theresianum berufen,
Michael Denis
wo er seinen aus der Elite der Monarchie
stammenden Zöglingen jene Deutschkompetenz vermitteln sollte, deren Fehlen Maria Theresia offenbar als schmerzhaft empfunden hatte. Nach der für ihn
traumatischen Auflösung des Ordens 1773
überschritt er eine weitere, freilich auf Landkarten nicht sichtbare Grenze: Aus dem
Lehrer und Dichter wurde der Wissenschafter und Bibliothekar.
Doch trotz der reichlich genossenen kaiserlichen Huld war Denis sensibel genug, um
die Bedrohung nicht zu übersehen, die
von Seiten des Staates gegen die jesuitischen Institutionen wie Gymnasium oder
Universität, damit verbunden gegen die
praktizierte Latinitas, ausging. Mussten
nicht Gottscheds Bemühungen, das Französische ganz aus Deutschland zu verdrängen, auch das in einem nationalen Kontext
nicht zu verortende Lateinische schwer gefährden? Waren die Worte des GottschedSchülers Christof Gottlieb Klemm, es
14
würde die „Litteratur ... zu einem höheren
Grade der Vollkommenheit gebracht werden,
wenn man die Wissenschaften in keiner toden, sondern in der Muttersprache vortrüge“,
nicht direkt gegen das Monopol des Lateinischen auf dessen Status als Wissenschaftssprache gerichtet? Hatte nicht der oberste
Bildungsreformer, Joseph von Sonnenfels,
Latein als nutzlos für Leben und Geschäft
kritisiert? Denis sieht die Gefahr und notiert in seinen Lesefrüchten (227): „Was gewinnet man dadurch, daß man es [sc. Latein] so sehr verfallen läßt, daß man gerne
vom Sprechen und Schreiben abgeht?“ Denis,
der selbst als Anwalt der Muttersprache
im Epizentrum einer bildungspolitischen
Umwälzung stand, hat freilich niemals aus
opportunistischen Erwägungen (bei einem
österreichischen Hofrat ein wahrlich singuläre Haltung!) seine intellektuelle Prägung
aus dem Lateinischen verleugnet. Sein
Rückblick auf die Welt in Form einer als
Zwiesprache mit sich selbst konzipierten
und daher zu Lebzeiten nicht veröffentlichten Autobiographie hat der Initiator des
Deutschunterrichts in Österreich demnach
auch in lateinischer Sprache verfasst. Diese
„Commentariorum de Vita Sua Libri V“
dokumentieren die Welt eines katholischen
Humanisten und dessen Bewertung der
Sprachen, besonders des Lateinischen. Es
gilt nun zu versuchen, die implizite und für
die Epoche aussagekräftige Einschreibung
der klassischen Sprache in den Lebensentwurf des Autors freizulegen.
Die Poetik des Horaz
In der Vorrede zitiert er aus der Poetik des
Horaz den Vers neve minor, neu sit quinto
productior actu / fabula, um die Gliederung seiner Vita in fünf Kapitel zu begründen. Die Selbstansprache im Lateinischen wie auch der Bezug auf Horaz
signalisiert den Willen des Autors, seinem
„Kunstwerk“ Leben auch im Nachhinein
gegen die herrschenden Strömungen die
Dignität der Form und der Ordnung zu
verleihen. Die Struktur des lateinischen
Dramas spiegelt sich in der Gliederung
seines Lebens wider. Bereits im 1. Akt über
die Kindheit tritt das Leitmotiv der starken
Neigung zur Wissenschaft hervor. Der lektürewütige Junge stillt seine historischen
Interessen durch das Studium mythologischer Lehrbücher und Tabellen in Deutsch
oder in deutscher Übersetzung. Als er 1743
an den Blattern erkrankt und nach 11 Tagen der Blindheit sein Augenlicht wieder
erlangt, wird er sich am Blütenduft erfreuen und sich parallel dazu den Büchern,
konkret dem Studium der Poetik zuwenden. Die Darstellung dieses sinnlichen Zugangs zum Wissen ist fore-shadowing der
Karriere des älteren Denis als Wissenschafter, dessen Interessen von der Literatur bis
zur Insektenkunde reichen werden. So ist
es in sich schlüssig, wenn Denis besonders
jene Momente in seinem Leben emotional
anreichert, die für die Selbstbestimmung
als Gelehrter maßgeblich zu sein scheinen:
der Tod des Bruders Aloys, der dem kleinen Michael die Lauretanische Litanei lateinisch vorsagte, der Besuch des Lehrers
Hofbauer, die im Jesuitengymnasium gewonnenen Preise.
Dem Selbstverständnis des Denis als Gelehrter, der auch gefühlsmäßig in der Welt
der res publica litterarum beheimatet ist, entspricht die hohe Aufmerksamkeit, die er
der lateinischen Sprache zumißt. Über den
Vater, der ein reines Latein zu schreiben
versteht, den Bruder Aloys, bis zum Lehrer
Hofbauer, mit dem er sein erstes Lateinlehrbuch studiert, reicht der Bogen jener
Persönlichkeiten, deren lateinischer Humanismus ihn tief prägen. Vater, Bruder
und erster Lehrer bedeuten für ihn im
Rückblick Heimat und Wärme, Wissen
und Bildung. Die Mutter spielt dagegen als
prägende Kraft keine Rolle. Gerade weil
Latein Vatersprache ist, stellt ihre Pflege in
allen Lebensphasen einen Akt der Beheimatung dar. Sie kann für Denis, den Autor der Empfindsamkeit, ihre Rolle als
Sprache der Sozialisation nie einbüßen.
Die kommunikative Kraft der Latinitas
unterstreicht er denn auch in der Schilderung seines Noviziats: Die Rolle seines Vaters wird vom Novizenmeister Johannes
Baptist Premlechner übernommen, er ist
eleganter graece et latine doctus. In den Ordensmitgliedern erkennt er seine neuen
Brüder, die auf vielen Gebieten der Wissenschaften Führendes leisten werden. Selbstredend eint das Lateinische den Kreis
der jungen Leute, die sich, aus dem vielsprachigen Mitteleuropa kommend, für
ein Leben im Orden entschlossen haben.
Und war es nicht ein ungarischer Husar,
ein Exponent einer damals noch feindlichen Armee, der unvermittelt gleichsam als
deus ex machina im harten Winter 1742 ins
Haus des 13-jährigen Gymnasiasten getreten war und ihm nach der Überprüfung seiner Lateinkenntnisse eine glänzende Karriere vorhergesagt hatte? In den
zentralen Lebenspunkten konvergieren
gleichsam unter der Schutzmantelmadonna des Lateinischen Gefühl, Wissenschaftlichkeit sowie der mit ihr einhergehende Nutzen. Die Liebe zu den litterae
hilft ihm ja nicht nur, dichterisch den Tod
des Bruders zu bewältigen und den Lockungen der Jugend gegenüber resistent zu
bleiben, sondern legt ganz wesentlich auch
den Grundstein für seine Akzeptanz innerhalb des Ordens und nach dessen Auflösung für die Laufbahn als Hofbibliothekar.
Ästhetik und Nutzen sind es gleichermaßen, die den leidenschaftlichen Lehrer zur
Komposition und Inszenierung lateinischer Schulstücke anspornen. Diese gelten als Erscheinungsform der Rhetorik und
münden damit in die Technik, sich in der
Welt zu bewähren. Gespeist ist diese Haltung aus dem Jesuitenorden, dessen Bildungstradition wesentlich von der antiken
Rhetorik, namentlich vom Verständnis der
Kunst als kreativer Imitation des Anerkannten im Hinblick auf den Nutzen für die
Gegenwart beeinflußt war. Was hat nun
Denis tatsächlich gelesen, welche Autoren
werden in der Autobiographie genannt?
Neben den unvermeidlichen Grammatiklehrbüchern finden wir die Klassiker Cicero, Nepos, Curtius, Seneca und Plinius,
von den Dichtern besonders Vergil und
den über alles geschätzten Horaz. Gleichberechtigt die Neulateiner Bidermann,
Pontanus, Barclay mit seiner Argenis, Ertels Austriana und Sautel. Als Zwischenergebnis bleibt festzuhalten: 1) Latein reicht
als literarisches Phänomen von der Antike
bis in die Gegenwart (das Griechische
spielt demgegenüber keine Rolle); 2) Latein steht für die Zugehörigkeit zu einer in
sich homogenen, übernationalen Welt der
Gebildeten; 3) Latein ist Sprache der Gegenwart, ihre Beherrschung ist utilitär und
ästhetisch motiviert. In der polyglotten
Welt des Habsburgerreiches dient sie der
Kommunikation, keinesfalls einer idealisierenden Rückkehr in ein verloren geglaub-
Kaiserin Marie Therese
tes Reich der Ideale; 4) Latein dient nicht
zur Heranbildung von Altertumswissenschaftlern oder Klassischen Philologen
eine Berufsgruppe, die in seinen Commentarii völlig fehlt.
Latein und Deutsch
Die aus der Autobiographie abgeleitete
Haltung gegenüber dem Lateinischen ist
nun mit den Aussagen zu anderen modernen Sprachen abzugleichen. Dabei lässt
sich als Grundstrategie eine sorgsame Trennung von Latein und Deutsch hinsichtlich
ihrer Funktionen erkennen, die eine Pflege
beider Sprachen erlaubt und erfordert. So
appelliert er an die Studenten des Theresianum: „Ich schließe meine Rede, indem ich Ihnen noch einmal die Erlernung der lateinischen Sprache als eine Sache von größter
Wichtigkeit auf das eifrigste empfehle; doch
unter dem Bedingnisse, daß sie auf die Muttersprache allzeit die vornehmste Mühe verwenden.“ Deutsch zu fördern repräsentiert
15
für Denis angesichts der Kriege gegen
Frankreich einen Akt des Patriotismus, wobei das Beweisziel klar ist: ‚Wir‘ stehen den
Franzosen und Italienern in nichts nach!
Seine Polemik richtet sich beispielsweise
gegen französische Hauslehrer, von denen
die Kultur Österreichs abgewertet und die
Klassik unter dem Deckmantel der Pedanterie verunglimpft werde (JF 173). Diese
Gesinnung entspringt keinem unreflektierten Chauvinismus, sondern dem Gespür des Dichters für die noch im Fluss befindliche
Normierung
einer
Muttersprache, die einer Förderung bedarf. So entschuldigt er sich in der Vorrede
zu seinen Lesefrüchten, diese seien „ ... in
einer Sprache aufgesetzet, wie man sie von der
Mitte des nun ausgehenden Jahrhundert her
führte, weil ich mich an die allerneueste nicht
wohl mehr gewöhnen kann.“ Wenn die
Wahl der Sprachebene in der Muttersprache einer individuellen Entscheidung unterliegt, kann das nur bedeuten, dass ihre
Kodifizierung im Gegensatz zu den Konkurrenten auf europäischer Ebene noch
nicht abgeschlossen ist. Die Förderung des
Deutschen im Hinblick auf die bereits gesicherte Stellung anderer Sprachen darf jedoch nicht in ein Abschieben des Lateinischen münden: „Die lateinische Sprache
war eine wahre Brücke, über welche man zu
allen Völkern gelangen konnte; ... Sie war ein
Band, das alle Gelehrte Europens unter sich
verknüpfte. Wird man künftig jedem in seiner Muttersprache zuschreiben?“ Latein hat
seinen Wert als lingua franca und ist darin
den Nationalsprachen konkurrenzlos überlegen. Das zweite Motiv seiner Apologie
für die Latinitas bezieht sich auf die Lektüre der Klassiker. Genügt hier nicht eine
passive Sprachkompetenz? Denis widerspricht mit einem ästhetischen Einwand:
„Trauriges, unfruchtbares Lesen eines Classikers mit dem Wörterbuche an der Hand, wo
die Aufmerksamkeit mehr auf dem Wortverstand, als auf ästhetische Schönheiten gehen
muss.“ Hier spricht nach wie vor der jesuitische Praktiker der Bühne, der im Sinne
der antiken Rhetorik Sprache als Performanz und nicht als Exerzierfeld für trokkene Analyse begreift. Wie auch immer
man des Denis Plädoyer für eine aktive
Zweisprachigkeit von Latein und Deutsch
auch beurteilen mag, so muss man ihm
konzidieren, begriffen zu haben, dass die
Dominanz von Sprachen allzeit ein Politikum ist und der herrschenden Ideologie
auf dem Fuße folgt. So räsoniert er über
den Verfall des Lateinischen: „Wenn man
nun über diesen Verfall reifer nachdenket,
kann man sich eines Gedankens kaum erwehren. Bekannt ist, wie enge die lateinische
Sprache mit unserem ganzen Religionswesen
in den verschiedensten Schichten zusammenhängt. Wie wenn es nun durch ihre Vernachlässigung in die Flanke der Religion gehen
sollte?“
LUDWIG FLADERER
Universität Graz
Directory of Scholars
in European Studies
Dear Colleague,
We are a little team of scholars working for the compilation of a
Directory of Scholars in European Studies, which has the aim of
boosting and systematizing the study of European history and of
contributing to the cultural and political union of our continent.
The Directory will be online, with free access, and will constitute a
network of scholars which, we believe, will somehow influence the
future of our civilization, promoting suitable cultural activities.
We would be happy should you agree to join our Directory, along
with the colleagues who have already given their assent. You should
be as kind as to let us know, in four or five lines, your university affiliation, field of interest, e.mail for further communications on the
part of the editorial board and of colleagues, and your postal address.
To your e.mail we will forward all the communications about the
activities that our society will promote and our journal (2.000.
The European Journal: see all the past issues on the internet).
Yours sincerely
Cher/ère collègue,
Nous sommes une petite équipe d’universitaires qui travaillent
pour la compilation d’un Directory of Scholars in European Studies, dans le but de promouvoir et systématiser l’étude de l’histoire
européenne et de contribuer à l’union culturelle et politique de
notre continent.
Le Directoire sera en ligne, avec accès gratuit, et constituera un
réseau d’érudits qui, nous le croyons, influencera dans une certaine mesure l’avenir de notre civilisation, en promouvant des activités culturelles appropriées.
Nous serions heureux que vous acceptiez de vous joindre aux collègues qui ont déjà adhéré au Directoire, ou Annuaire. Pourriezvous avoir l’obligeance de nous indiquer, en quatre ou cinq lignes,
The journal appears twice a year, in June and December. The publisher
is the ‘Milton School of Languages’ srl, Viale Grande Muraglia 301,
00144 ROMA. Cost of each issue € 10, $ 10, £ 7 The subscription (individuals €25, $25, £15; institutions and supporting € 50, $50, £35),
can be sent to the ‘Milton School of Languages’, from any post office,
in Italy, to our ‘conto corrente postale’ no. 40792566, with a ‘bollettino postale’. From outside Italy it is possible to make direct transfer of
money to our postal account IBAN: IT-72-X-07601-03200000040792566, or to send a cheque to the ‘Milton School Publishers’ plc. We do not have the capacity to accept credit card payments.
Please, take out a subscription to the journal. Help us find a subscriber.
*** *** ***
To contributors: essays should not exceed 3000 words, reviews should
not exceed 700 words. They can be sent via e-mail to the editor, in Viale
Grande Muraglia 301, 00144 ROMA, E-mail [email protected].
Stampato nel mese di dicembre 2012
dalla tipografia Città Nuova della P.A.M.O.M.
Via Pieve Torina, 55 - 00156 Roma - tel. 066530467
e-mail: [email protected]
votre université, votre champ de recherche, votre e.mail ainsi que votre
adresse postale pour communications de la part du comité éditorial et
des collègues? À votre e.mail nous ferons suivre toute communication sur les activités que notre société va promouvoir et notre revue
(2.000. The European Journal: voir sur internet tous les numéros
précédents).
Cordialement
Vincenzo Merolle
P.S.: The Directory is now on the internet under
www.directoryeuropeanstudies.com. The e.mail address
is [email protected]; all the correspondence should be sent to this address.
Directory of Scholars in European Studies
Editor: Vincenzo Merolle (Rome, ‘La Sapienza’), private office: viale
Grande Muraglia 301, 00144 Roma, e.mail [email protected]; co-editors: Andreas Golob (Graz), [email protected]; Andreas Golob
(Graz), [email protected]; Erhard Steller, Köln [email protected].
Editorial Board: Tatiana Artemyeva (St Petersburg), Riccardo Campa
(Siena), Francis Celoria (Keele), Annie Cointre (Metz), Desmond Fennell (Dublin), Harald Heppner (Graz), F.L. van Holthoon (Groningen),
Vincent Hope (Edinburgh), Serge Soupel (Paris, Sorbonne Nouvelle), P.
Sture Ureland (Mannheim).
Editorial Associates: Federico Bonzi (Napoli), [email protected];
Olga Ermakova (Yekaterinburg), [email protected]; Sabine Kraus
(Montpellier), [email protected]; Elisabeth Lobenwein (Salzburg), [email protected]; Katherine Nicolai (Edinburgh), [email protected]; Tatiana O. Novikova (St. Petersburg),
[email protected]; Marine Riva-Ganofski (Oxford), [email protected]; Simona Seghizzi (Roma, ‘La Sapienza’),
[email protected] .
2
000. The European Journal / La Revue Européenne
Editor/Directeur: VINCENZO MEROLLE - Università di Roma “La Sapienza”
Board of Editors/Expertenbeirat: VINCENT HOPE (Edinburgh) / CAIRNS CRAIG
(Aberdeen), HORST DRESCHER (Mainz) / SERGE SOUPEL (Paris III)
Editorial Associates/ Secrétariat de Rédaction : ELIZABETH DUROT (Paris
III), HARALD HEPPNER (Graz), Ronnie YOUNG (Glasgow)
Consulting Editors/Comité de Lecture: FRANCIS CELORIA (Keele) / ANNIE
COINTRE (Metz) / DESMOND FENNELL (Dublin) / MICHAEL FRY
(Edinburgh) / FRITS L. VAN HOLTHOON (Groningen) / P. STURE
URELAND (Mannheim)
http//www.Europeanjournal.it
Web-Editors: Kerstin Jorna (Perth), Claudia Cioffi (Roma)
Direttore Responsabile: RICCARDO CAMPA - Università di Siena
Publisher/Verleger: Milton School of Languages s.r.l.; Publisher & Editorial
Offices/ Rédaction: Viale Grande Muraglia 301, 00144 ROMA; E-mail
[email protected]; tel 06/5291553
Reg. Tribunale di Roma n. 252 del 2/6/2000