Organizing Knowledge: Comparative Structures of Intersubjectivity in Nineteenth-Century Historical Dictionaries Kelly M. Kistner A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: Gary G. Hamilton, Chair Steven Pfaff Katherine Stovel Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Sociology ©Copyright 2014 Kelly M. Kistner University of Washington Abstract Organizing Knowledge: Comparative Structures of Intersubjectivity in Nineteenth-Century Historical Dictionaries Kelly Kistner Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Gary G. Hamilton Sociology Between 1838 and 1857 language scholars throughout Europe were inspired to create a new kind of dictionary. Deemed historical dictionaries, their projects took an unprecedented leap in style and scale from earlier forms of lexicography. These lexicographers each sought to compile historical inventories of their national languages and were inspired by the new scientific approach of comparative philology. For them, this science promised a means to illuminate general processes of social change and variation, as well as the linguistic foundations for cultural and national unity. This study examines two such projects: The German Dictionary, Deutsches Worterbuch, of the Grimm Brothers, and what became the Oxford English Dictionary. Both works utilized collaborative models of large-scale, long-term production, yet the content of the dictionaries would differ in remarkable ways. The German dictionary would be characterized by its lack of definitions of meaning, its eclectic treatment of entries, rich analytical prose, and self- referential discourse; whereas the English dictionary would feature succinct, standardized, and impersonal entries. Using primary source materials, this research investigates why the dictionaries came to differ. This has been framed with reference to the different social structures in which the relevant philologists (and scientists in general) were embedded in each society at the time. It is argued that the German dictionary reflects romanticist notions of scientific knowledge and its attainment, and the nascent professionalization of German science. The legacy of criticism towards the work showcases how romanticist ideals were unsustainable amidst the continued expansion of the German middle class and increased academic segmentation. British philology was far less professionalized, offering fewer resources alongside fewer boundaries to participation. To smooth over differences in skill and to gain legitimacy from outside owners of resources, the production of English dictionary is characterized by a high degree of standardization and corroboration.Together the dictionaries illuminate an era facing the challenges of democratizing knowledge and its creation. They showcase the social and historical basis for different models of knowledge production, their advantages and limitations, and can provide insights for understanding contemporary trends in scientific collaborations. Table of Contents: Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 Chapter 2 – Science, Philology, and Evolution in Lexicography 7 Chapter 3 – The German Dictionary under Jacob Grimm 17 Chapter 4 – Contextual Analysis of the Grimms’ Dictionary in the Romantic Era 44 Chapter 5 – “A New English Dictionary on Historical-Principles,” or “The Oxford 54 English Dictionary” Chapter 6 -– The OED in Context 103 Chapter 7 – Conclusion and Discussion 121 Works Cited 131 Acknowledgements: I am sincerely thankful for the excellent guidance (and patience) offered by committee advisors Gary Hamilton, Kate Stovel, Simon Werrett, and Steve Pfaff. Additionally, for their valuable input and encouragement throughout several phases of this research, I must thank Lowell Hargens, Bruce Hevly, and Jane K. Brown. Beverly Hunt and Jennifer Compton at Oxford University Press, as well as the staff at the Bodleian Library Special Collections reading room, offered invaluable assistance with primary sources. Financial assistance for research and language training was awarded through a Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowship, a Chester Fritz Grant from the University of Washington Graduate School, and a DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) research scholarship. Chapter 1 – Introduction The early nineteenth century was an era of rapid and drastic social change. The Napoleonic Wars had recently ended, revolutions in France and America were still a recent memory, and global ties were expanding while colonial outposts were acquiring degrees of independence. It was an unprecedented age of information and global connections – general education and literacy rates were higher than ever, new copyright legislation and deregulation of the printing industry allowed texts to be cheaply reproduced and sold on a mass scale, and the rapid expansion of railways facilitated quicker and more frequent travel and postal delivery. In light of the uncertainty and unexpected outcomes these changes brought about, there was a greater demand to understand the trajectory of these changes and find a sense of continuity and community in an increasingly globalized world. Whereas earlier philosophies often sought to explain social life with reference to assumed characteristics of human nature, a more dynamic science of social life was sought, built on the empirical study of variation and historical change. The value that the scientific study of social life posed, particularly to the extent it might prove practically useful in maintaining social order and coherence, helped to raise the prestige and institutionalization of science during this time in relation to more established classical forms of education and knowledge authority (Ben-David 1971). However, the practice and professionalization of science would be differently organized and integrated across European societies at the time, thus variably shaping the opportunities and approaches of scientific practice. It was within this context that comparative philology emerged as a scientific approach to the study of language and predecessor to modern linguistics. It diverged from earlier forms of philology focused on classical literature in that it emphasized a wider spectrum of cultural material, including the modern languages and vernacular, and a narrower unit of analysis – the words themselves. It was thus a science of language rather than the study and appreciation of literature. It was a forerunner of many social sciences and its emphasis on models of change paralleled burgeoning thought in the natural sciences, as well. But, for comparative philologists, the understanding of language was a means, and not an end in itself. Language was thought to represent more than just the spoken or written word, but just what it represented was a topic of 1 debate amongst European philosophers of the eighteenth century (Aarsleff [1967] 1979). By the early nineteenth century, comparative philology represented a bridging of materialist and idealist ontology into a full-fledged theoretical and methodological paradigm for the study of language. It was primarily an inductively-driven science, emphasizing empirical evidence as a means to identify affinities between nations and among peoples. In this era of heightened nationalism and globalization, the practitioners of comparative philology hoped to illuminate the foundations for cultural unity and divergence, but also, the field held promise for strengthening national bonds and preserving cultural histories while also securing their future. With this potential and within this context, comparative philologists throughout Europe were inspired to create a new and ambitious kind of dictionary that would that would take an historical inventory of a living language. These “historical dictionaries” took an unprecedented leap in style and scale. Their makers’ sought to empirically document the actual usage of words and phrases and their meanings over time, including those long since obsolete. This style was greatly differentiated from earlier traditions in lexicography, where dictionaries, glosses, and vocabularies tended to offer either select lists of “hard words” for educating boys and ladies, or were akin to etiquette books, including only what the lexicographer considered “correct” usage or that of the “best” authors. 1 While some of these earlier forms included examples of word usage from written texts, accurate textual evidence was foundational to the historical dictionary’s intent to record and showcase the processes of historical change in a language. It was from this evidence that further information pertaining to sense variation and etymological progression was to be derived. This dissertation examines two of these dictionaries - the Deutsche Wörterbuch and what became the Oxford English Dictionary.2 While both the German and British historical-dictionary makers were disposed towards similar goals and adherents of the same theoretical and methodological tradition in philology – and at a time when it held a certain paradigmatic coherence – as their initial volumes were published, both of the dictionaries would be markedly different in style. The German dictionary offered eclectic, though long-winded and often speculative, narratives on the progression of each word’s history, whereas the English dictionary 1 For an overview of the history of English lexicography, see Murray (1900), in addition to several of the works compiled in Osselton (1995) – especially essays 1, 3, 11, and