Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Rise and Destruction of aConcept¹ Maimonides Lectureon6June, 2017 1Introduction: The Origin of Languageand the Shift of Credibility The lingua Adamica seems, at first glance, to be astrangeand merelyacademic sub- ject.² However,one has to consider that the idea of the divineorigin of languagewas the common theory in the Western tradition from the first century CE until the first half of the eighteenth century.So, for 1700 years, the theory of the lingua Adamica was aremarkablystable view of the notion of languageand of its origin and poten- tial. Yetfrom 1740/50onwards, the question of how languages had emergedwas dis- cussed anew.Discussions of the genealogyoflanguageled into aset of complicated arguments. In particular, the question of whether logic—which is evidentlydepend- ent on languageand syntax—has atemporalindex provoked unsolvable paradoxes. It is obvious that the question of whether therewas atime when logic wasnot valid does not make anysense. Sensualist accounts of the origin of languages mayper- haps have been capable of explaining the origin and etymology of single words, but they wereunable to deliveraplausible account of how syntax and logic emerged. That is why, just at the apex of the discussions about the natural origin of language, the Berlin pastor Johann Peter Süßmilch (whose work on demographic statistics an- ticipated thatofMalthus)wroteabooklet in 1766 entitled Essay on aProof That the First Language Had Its Origin Not from Mankind, Butfrom the Creator.³ His argument was preciselythis: that there is no plausible argument that can explain how logic could develop naturally. And indeed, the discussion on the origin of languages ended without aresult:in1832, the ‘Société Linguistique’ in Paris declaredinits stat- utes that it would not permit anydiscussion of the origin of language. The first part of this lecturehas alreadybeen published;see Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, “Lingua Adamica and Speculative Philology: Philo to Reuchlin,” in Forthe Sake of Learning:EssaysinHonor of Anthony Grafton,eds.Ann Blair and Anja-Silvia Goeing (Leiden: Brill, 2016): 572–580.The English translation of this lecturewas aided by MillayHyatt and AndrewJohnston. Allison P. Coudert,ed., TheLanguage of Adam – Die Sprache Adams (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999). Philologicallyand philosophically, this book (including my own paper in it) does not really achieveits goal. Johann Peter Süßmilch, Versuch eines Beweises,daß die erste Sprache ihren Ursprung nicht vom Menschen, sondern allein vom Schöpfer erhalten habe (Berlin: Buchladen der Realschule, 1766;reprint- ed Köln: Themen, 1998). OpenAccess. ©2017 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110527971-018 248 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann Anydiscussion of the subject of the lingua Adamica inevitably leadstoasecond, even more intriguing question: how is it possiblethat philosophical and theological truths maylose their believability?Inwhat wayare they true? Is it plausible to say that Kant’stranscendental philosophy, Hegel’sobjective idealism, or Wittgenstein’s theory of Sprachspiele (‘languagegames’)istrue? Or is it more convenienttosay that they are plausible? But what can that mean?Plausibility does not mean any- thing more thanmeeting with approval.Isapproval sufficient for the claim of phil- osophical truth, which arguments had in the past?The question that is most intrigu- ing within the subject of the lingua Adamica can thus be phrased: how did the idea of the divine origin of languageachieve and lose its credibility?HereIpresent the first part of this history of truth claims: the rise of concessionstothe truth in philosophers from Philo to Reuchlin. 2The Rise of Credibility: from Philo to Reuchlin 2.1 Philo’sCosmic and Earthly Adam Fewbooks have been provided with so manycommentaries as the Book of Genesis; I think it is by far the most discussed book in the world. The reason for this astonish- ing fact is possiblythatGenesis contains an account of the becomingofthe world, of the creation of men, of the beginning of human wisdom, and of the origin of evil. All this is told in abrief, concise story,without anyphilosophical pretensions. Yetno other story has provoked so manyphilosophicalinterpretations. One of them is the subject of this paper,viz.the idea of the lingua Adamica:can such adiscussion can be classified as philosophical at all, or is it merelyavain speculation? The Book of Genesis has two accounts of man’screation. The first is: ‘Letusmakeman in our image,after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air,and over the cattle, and over all earth, and over every creepingthing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the imageofGod he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26f.) The second account contains Adam’screation from dust and Eve’screation from Adam’srib: Then the Lord God formed aman of dust fromthe ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became alivingbeing. (Genesis 2:7) […] So the Lord caused adeep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its placewith flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had takenfromthe man he formed into awoman and brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and Lingua Adamica and Philology: The Riseand Destruction of aConcept 249 flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was takenout of Man.’⁴ (Genesis 2:21–23) In between standsthe passageconcerning the lingua Adamica in Genesis2:18 – 20: And the LordGod said, it is not good that the man should be alone; Iwill makehim ahelp meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every livingcreature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to the cattle, and to the fowlofthe air,and to every beast of the field; but for Adam therewas not found ahelp to meet for him. Philo of Alexandria conceivedthe first (and,moreover,avery long lasting) interpre- tation of these passages. In his commentary on the Book of Genesis, he interprets Adam in atwofold way. The Adam created in God’simageisidentifiedwith the Pla- tonic cosmic man, the androgynous macro-cosmos who is the archetype of the word; the spiritual Adam, ‘he that was after the imagewas an idea or type or seal, an object of thought,incorporeal, neither male nor female, by nature incorruptible.’⁵ In oppo- sition to this pure, spiritual, supra-individual, androgynous Adam, the individual Adam is composed of soul and body. His bodywas created, though Philo does not sayfrom where. The Adam who was made from dust and whose wife was formed from his rib is composed of bodilyand spiritual parts, and this bodilyAdam is the one who fell into sin. His soul, however,partakes of the eternal Father and Ruler of all: Forthat which He breathed in was nothingelse than aDivine breath that migratedhither from that blissful and happy existencefor the benefit of our race, to that end that,evenifitismortal in respects of its visible part,itmay be in respect of the part which is invisible be rendered im- mortal.⁶ The earthlyAdam was created by the hand of God. Because of this immediate crea- tion, he is ‘aborn ruler and master’⁷ of all beings, and, before his fall, he named all things, thanks to divine grace. In the process of naming,Adam had insight into the inner essence of things. His names denote the signatures of the thingsand indicate the archetypes of creation before they werecalled into extra-mental existence. Their power can be evoked again by their Adamic names: ‘Man’ in Hebrew: ish; ‘woman’ in Hebrew: isha;Vulgate: vir, virago. Philo, De creatione mundi. On the creation,inPhilo, Works,trans.Francis H. Colson and George H. Whitaker,vol. 1(London: Loeb Classical Library,1929): 134. Ibidem,135. Ibidem,83. 250 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann Forthe native reasoning powerofthe soul beingstill unalloyed, and no infirmity or disease or evil affection havingintruded itself, he receivedthe impressions made by bodies and objects in their sheer reality,and the titles he gave werefullyapposite, for right well did he divine the char- acterofthe creatures he was describing, with the result that their natures were apprehended as soon as their names were uttered.⁸ 2.2 Dénis Pétau on Philo and Chrysostomus Before the nineteenth century,Philo wasnot accepted as part of the Jewishtradition. Instead, from the time of St.Jerome onwards, he was counted as one of the Church Fathers, because he taught alogos theology that was close to the Gospel of St.John and to the spirituality of St.Paul. He was part of the Christian tradition, before the Hamburgphilologist Johann Albert Fabricius destroyed the pious myth,⁹ and so it is obvious whythe Jesuit Dénis Pétau(1583–1652), one of the great importanttheolo- gians, philologists,chronologists, and intellectual historians of the seventeenth cen- tury,summarised Philo’stheory in his Dogmata Theologica (1644). However,his in- terpretation gave Philo anew slant: it was not so much the participation in the divine wisdomthat he attributed to Adam, but rather the more rational interpretation that Adam had command over the animals. Philo Judaeus says in his De mundi opificio: God let Adam give perfect names to all the animals. These names encompassed wisdom and the dignity to rule. Adam was wise because he learned by himself and was not taught by anyone, onlyaccompanied by an act of divine grace, and that was the reasonwhy he was king. It is the task of leaders and princestogivepropernames to all their subjects.¹⁰ Pétaualso quotes the Church Father John Chrysostom,who shares Philo’s(and Pé- tau’s) interpretation of the lingua Adamica as wisdom and command over the ani- mals.