City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 5-2018 Symbols Purely Mechanical: Language, Modernity, and the Rise of the Algorithm, 1605–1862 Jeffrey M. Binder The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/3509 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] SYMBOLS PURELY MECHANICAL: LANGUAGE, MODERNITY, AND THE RISE OF THE ALGORITHM, 1605-1862 by JEFFREY M. BINDER A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in English in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 ii © 2018 JEFFREY M. BINDER All Rights Reserved iii Symbols Purely Mechanical: Language, Modernity, and the Rise of the Algorithm, 1605-1862 by Jeffrey M. Binder This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in English in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _____________________ _____________________________________________ Date Alexander Schlutz Chair of Examining Committee _____________________ _____________________________________________ Date Eric Lott Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Alexander Schlutz Matthew K. Gold Joshua Wilner THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv ABSTRACT Symbols Purely Mechanical: Language, Modernity, and the Rise of the Algorithm, 1605-1862 by Jeffrey M. Binder Advisor: Alexander Schlutz In recent decades, scholars in both Digital Humanities and Critical Media Studies have encountered a disconnect between algorithms and what are typically thought of as “cultural” concerns. In Digital Humanities, researchers employing algorithmic methods in the study of literature have faced what Alan Liu has called a “meaning problem”—a difficulty in reconciling computational results with traditional forms of interpretation. Conversely, in Critical Media Studies, some thinkers have questioned the adequacy of interpretive methods as means of understanding computational systems. This dissertation offers a historical account of how this disconnect came into being by examining the attitudes toward algorithms that existed in the three centuries prior to the development of the modern computer. Bringing together the histories of semiotics, poetics, and mathematics, I show that the present divide between algorithmic and interpretive methods results from a cluster of assumptions about historical change that developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and that implicates attempts to give meaning to algorithms in the modern narrative of technological progress. My account organizes the early-modern discourse on algorithms into three distinct intellectual traditions that arose in subsequent periods. The first tradition, which reached its v peak in the mid-seventeenth century, held that the correspondence between algorithm and meaning was guaranteed by divine providence, making algorithms a potential basis for a non- arbitrary mode of representation that can apply to any field of knowledge, including poetics as well as mathematics. A second tradition, most influential from the last decades of the seventeenth century to around 1800, denied that the correspondence between algorithm and meaning was pre-ordained and sought, instead, to create this correspondence by altering the ways people think. Finally, starting in the Romantic period, algorithms and culture came to be viewed as operating autonomously from one another, an intellectual turn that, I argue, continues to inform the way people view algorithms in the present day. By uncovering this history, this dissertation reveals some of the tacit assumptions that underlie present debates about the interface between computation and culture. The reason algorithms present humanists with a meaning problem, I argue, is that cultural and technical considerations now stand in different relations to history: culture is seen as arising from collective practices that lie beyond the control of any individual, whereas the technical details of algorithms are treated as changeable at will. It is because of this compartmentalization, I maintain, that the idea of progress plays such a persistent role in discussions of digital technologies; similarly to the Modernist avant garde, computing machines have license to break with established semantic conventions and thus to lead culture in new directions. As an alternative to this technocratic arrangement, I call for two complementary practices: a philology of algorithms that resituates them in history, and a poetic approach to computation that embraces misalignments between algorithm and meaning. vi Acknowledgements To begin with, I would like to thank my advisor, Alexander Schlutz, who has always been willing to hear me ramble on about obscure topics, whose suggestions have always been spot on, and who believed in this unusual project from the beginning. I owe a great deal to Matthew K. Gold, who has advocated tirelessly for my work while pushing me to clarify my arguments and strengthen my theoretical positioning. My thanks also go out to Joshua Wilner for reading drafts on short notice and for providing stimulating discussions about the history of mathematics. I would additionally like to thank David S. Reynolds, who provided mentorship and feedback on some sections of the dissertation. My gratitude is also due to Alan Vardy, who has encouraged me throughout my time in the PhD program, Gerhard Joseph, who provided some early pointers that shaped the direction my work took, and David Greetham, whose erudition and critical sophistication has been a model for my scholarship. My debts also extend to the people I met while in the MA program at NYU, including Bill Blake, Collin Jennings, Lisa Gitelman, and John Guillory; my time at NYU inspired my interest in the critical study of technology, the Enlightenment, and the history of disciplinarity. Bringing this project to fruition would not have been possible without the support and friendship of my wonderful fellow students at the Graduate Center, who are far too many to name here. Without the supportive community I found at CUNY, the process of writing would have been far drearier. I presented portions of this project at three conferences. I read a very early version of the Coleridge section at the 2015 CUNY English Student Association Conference: Trance in New York City; I included some of the material from the Condillac and Herder sections in my vii presentation at the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies 2018 conference in Orlando, FL; and I spoke about Stanhope and Coleridge at the American Comparative Literature Association 2018 conference in Los Angeles, CA. My gratitude goes out to the other participants on these panels as well as to those in the audience for their helpful feedback. I will also be presenting a paper based on the Wordsworth section at the North American Society for the Study of Romanticism conference in Providence, RI in June 2018; I am grateful to the organizers for their interest in my work. On a more personal note, I would like to thank my partner, Ann Marie Genzale, who put up with my obsessiveness over the past two years with patience and love. She was there to jolt me out of my writing trance now and again to go for a run or to go out for dinner, and she was always willing to listen when I was frustrated. We will finally take a non-work-related trip soon! I must also acknowledge my cat Rory for providing critical emotional support, even if she sometimes tried to wedge her head between my hand and keyboard. Finally, this project would never have left the launch pad without the love and support of my parents, who never stopped believing in me through all the turns my career has taken. It is to them I owe my love of learning and eagerness to follow curiosity wherever it takes me, for which I will never cease to be grateful. viii Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Beyond Reading and Writing .................................................................................................................................... 1 The Power of “Instrumental Operation” ................................................................................................................. 13 The Enlightenment Reasoning Machine ................................................................................................................. 21 From a “Knack” to a Science ................................................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 1: The Dream of a Real Character ........................................................................................................... 44 Idols and Hieroglyphs .............................................................................................................................................. 44 The Wound of Babel ............................................................................................................................................... 51 John Wilkins: Characters Answerable to the Nature of Things ..............................................................................