Most recent scholarship on early modern ideal languages has focussed on experimental attempts by natural philosophers to build a “universal language” consisting of semantically and grammatically unambiguous symbols. Such attempts, cultural historians have argued, evince a desire for total techno-scientific mastery over the world. While this essay gives some attention to the idea that early modern practices of natural-scientific naming involved an act of quasi-authoritarian subjection, the bulk of the article undertakes to spell out some of the egalitarian implications of mid-seventeenth-century thinking about language. Doing so will involve attending to a set of religious and political debates of the 1640s and 1650s which contributed to a republican imaginary and which endowed linguistic speculation with a distinctively radical aura. The works by Ranters and Levellers explored in this article offer strikingly different speculations regarding the forms which a perfect language may take: whereas Ranters such as Abiezer Coppe develop a revolutionary understanding of universality that negates existing linguistic forms and that exposes the continued adherence of mid-century republicanism to modes of charismatic (divinely inspired) spokesmanship, the more explicitly politicized works of the Levellers (notably by John Lilburne) give us a universalism that is tempered by the rootedness of historically grown vernacular linguistic forms.
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1866-5381.2021.02.08 |
Lizenz: | ESV-Lizenz |
ISSN: | 1866-5381 |
Ausgabe / Jahr: | 2 / 2021 |
Veröffentlicht: | 2021-11-24 |
Um unseren Webauftritt für Sie und uns erfolgreicher zu gestalten und
Ihnen ein optimales Webseitenerlebnis zu bieten, verwenden wir Cookies.
Das sind zum einen notwendige für den technischen Betrieb. Zum
anderen Cookies zur komfortableren Benutzerführung, zur verbesserten
Ansprache unserer Besucherinnen und Besucher oder für anonymisierte
statistische Auswertungen. Um alle Funktionalitäten dieser Seite gut
nutzen zu können, ist Ihr Einverständnis gefragt.
Weitere Informationen finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
Notwendige | Komfort | Statistik
Bitte wählen Sie aus folgenden Optionen: