Not so regular is the change of MEANING: Italian piano has at least one meaning (‘soft’ as opposed to ‘loud’) not in the related Latin or French. In the combination piano e forte (soft and loud), piano in due course became the name for a keyboard instrument, the pianoforte, more capable of dynamic variation thancame before it. By abbreviation, this new instrument is now usually called a piano in English and various other languages. The special meaning of the Italian phrase results from its cultural context and the distinctive feature of the instrument it names. The English word still names the same instrument, but the clipping discards ‘and loud’ from the original Italian phrase and hence becomes an arbitrary label and no longer a description. Over the centuries, philologists have learned to trace and tease out such facts and processes as these, and over the last century philology has concerned itself with all such changes and with the linguistic relationships they result in.
Written documents provide the information needed for this study, but, by mapping such relationships, philologists can also reconstruct further relationships among stages of earlier languages that left no written records. Thus, philologists give the name Germanic to the language that is the source of English as Latin is the source of French; but Germanic, unlike Latin, vanished without leaving written testimony. Presentday understanding of the family of INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES therefore results from studies that systematically combine textual analysis and hypothetical reconstruction.
HistoryThe ancient Greeks wrote about their own language, having little interest in comparing Greek with what they considered lesser (barbarian) languages. Roman writers, impressed by such thinking, undertook some comparisons of their Latin with Greek, for though not mutually intelligible, the two have many similarities of VOCABULARY (Latin and Doric Greek both have māter for mother) and of GRAMMAR (both have three grammatical GENDERS and similar declensional systems). From such hints, some Roman writers concluded that Latin had descended from Greek, a view abandoned only with the development of comparative philology around 1800, which demonstrated that Greek and Latin descended collaterally from a putative common ancestor, Indo-European (IE).
In the Middle Ages, Latin ceased to be an everyday spoken language, and the VERNACULARS descended from it, such as French and Italian, grew in prestige. Writers like Dante gave some consideration to the relationship among vernaculars and their kinship with Latin, that is, to comparative and historical concerns. Such consideration, aided from the Renaissance onwards by the publication of many early manuscript texts as printed books, yielded further knowledge of individual language families such as the CELTIC and GERMANIC. But speculation concentrated on vocabulary and took no account of systematic relationships, and hence failed to discern larger ‘genetic’ connections. On the rare occasions where a common parent language was postulated, the language was (for cultural and even doctrinal reasons) usually HEBREW. As late as 1807, the writer Alexander Pirie could maintain that ‘The originality of the Hebrew language being incontrovertible, nothing can be more natural than that all other languages should in some respects be derivatives.’ Such arguments distracted from the successful study of IE, with which Hebrew has no genetic connection.
European IMPERIALISM put 18c scholars in touch with such Asian languages as SANSKRIT, and in 1786 Sir William JONES announced his belief that the grammar of Sanskrit revealed its close affinity with Greek and Latin, suggesting the derivation of all three from ‘some common source … which no longer exists’. Jones's belief, which served to unite previously fragmented studies of individual language families, underwent elaboration in the 19c, especially by F. von Schlegel, Franz Bopp, Rasmus Rask, and Jacob Grimm early in the century and later by A. F. Pott, K. Verner, Ferdinand de Saussure, K. Brugmann, and B. Delbrück.
These scholars concentrated on refining knowledge of the relationship of later languages (such as French and Italian) with their earlier written forms (such as Latin), the relationship of these earlier written forms (such as Latin and Sanskrit) with each other, and the relationship of them all with the unrecorded ‘common source’, whether the lost Germanic original of the Scandinavian, GOTHIC, GERMAN, and English languages, or the lost Indo-European original of Germanic, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit. These relationships are usually set out in a form devised by A. Schleicher, resembling a genetic ‘family tree’ owing much to biological classification and Darwinism. The materials for establishing such a schematic form are the usual objects of language study: VOCABULARY, GRAMMAR (especially MORPHOLOGY), and sounds with their orthographic equivalents, as in the French and Italian words derived from Latin (above). However, vocabulary is at once the most tempting and the most treacherous evidence for the study, because, unlike sounds or grammatical forms, WORDS readily migrate from one language to another. Currently, linguists generally prefer the synchronic study of spoken language to the diachronic comparison of words in texts, and have tended to regard philology as pre-scientific. Others have sought to bring elements of old and new together in panchronic studies that give equal importance to past and present. However regarded, philology (in association with traditional grammar and ETYMOLOGY) has built a formidable edifice which few scholars ignore when writing about or teaching the history of languages. See LANGUAGE FAMILY, MURRAY, SEMANTIC CHANGE, SEMANTICS, SWEET.
A term derived from the Greek φίλος "lover" and λόγος "speech, word." In time this meaning of "lover of the word, fond of literature or study" came to be applied especially to lovers of the languages of Greece and Rome and then to include their whole culture.
In the early Alexandrian age, the philologists safeguarded the textual purity of the ancient Greek epic and dramatic writers and set up canons of criticism. Suetonius tells us that Crates brought philology from Greece to Rome in 169 b.c. Here philological study for a time concerned itself with older Latin writers, such as Plautus and Terence, whose texts were particularly liable to corruption at the hands of theatrical producers. This interest spread to other writers, such as Virgil; commentaries on him by Servius and Donatus are still extant. Christian writers, such as St. Jerome, were well acquainted with the general principles of textual criticism. Cassiodorus established a monastery where the principal work was the copying of religious and secular manuscripts. Even pagan authors were copied, and writers such as Isidore of Seville attempted a reconciliation of pagan and Christian thought. Irish monks preserved classical texts during the barbarian invasions and re-Christianized Europe afterward largely through their monastic centers of prayer, learning, and classical culture.
With the rise of scholastic philosophy in the 11th century, the texts of Aristotle attracted philologists. For well over a century before the fall of Constantinople, Greek scholars had been teaching in Italy. With the invention of printing and the spread of learning a great need arose for accurate texts of the classics. During the Reformation, both Catholic and Protestant scholars used the same Biblical and patristic texts to vindicate their stands. Later the Maurist Benedictines and the Jesuit Bollandists widened the scope of philology by using such auxiliary sciences as chronology, diplomatics, and palaeography. (see mabillon, jean; bollandists.)
Richard bentley showed how literature and classical antiquity opened up new vistas in scholarship. After him Friedrich Wolf (1759–1824) attempted a new science of philology, naming it Altertumswissenschaft. He pleaded for an encyclopedic view of all antiquity, defining the 24 divisions of the field: metrics, grammar, history, geography, mythology, public and private law, religion, etc. This concept influenced the chief manuals of A. Boeckh (1785–1867), I. von Müller (1830–1917) for classical philology, L. Geiger (1856–1943) and E. Kuhn (1846–1920) for Indo-Iranian, J. Bühler (1837–98) for Sanskrit, H. Paul (1846–1921) for Germanic, and G. Gröber (1844–1911) for Romance. It underlies L. Traube's (1861–1907) concept of medieval Latin philology.
Bibliography: j. e. sandys, History of Classical Scholarship (New York 1958). c. h. haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, Mass. 1927). u. von wilamowitzmoellendorff, Geschichte der Philologie (3d ed. Leipzig 1959).
[r. t. meyer]
phi·lol·o·gy / fəˈläləjē/ • n. the branch of knowledge that deals with the structure, historical development, and relationships of a language or languages. ∎ literary or classical scholarship. DERIVATIVES: phil·o·lo·gi·an / ˌfiləˈlōjēən/ n. phil·o·log·i·cal / ˌfiləˈläjikəl/ adj. phil·o·log·i·cal·ly / ˌfiləˈläjik(ə)lē/ adv. phi·lol·o·gist / -jist/ n.