Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 2:3 (1975) ► pp.299–333

Schleicher, Čelakovský, and the Family-Tree Diagram

 | University of Alberta
The first family-tree diagram in August Schleicher’s (1821–68) published work appeared in 1853, seven years after his first printed discussion of the family-tree concept. In 1853 there also appeared Čteni o srovnavaci mluvnici slovanské by the Czech scholar František Ladislav Čelakovský (1799–1852); this book also contained a family-tree diagram. Since Čelakovský and Schleicher were contemporaries in Prague for over two years, their interrelationship is of interest: was this rivalry of collaboration? At first sight, a coincidence seems improbable.
In the available work on and by Schleicher, Čelakovský is never mentioned; in the writings on and by Čelakovský, Schleicher’s name is never linked to his. However, the two had very many common interests. Apart from being colleagues at Charles University, they shared the same friends and enemies, were both interested in music and botany, and so on. Moreover, both were working on Slavic Historical Linguistics during the period in question. On the other hand, their personalities were such that the possibility of a mutual antipathy must not be excluded.
Given the background to Čelakovský’s life and work, including the legends of the common origin of the Slavs and the obviously close interrelationships of the Slavic languages; the burgeoning of interest in Slavic history and linguistics, and in Panslavicism; the popularity of genealogy; and the developments in classificatory techniques along natural scientific lines, it is argued that Čela-kovský’s depiction of a family-tree for the Slavic languages could be quite naturally expected from him at this point in time, without any influence from Schleicher. On the other hand, Schleicher’s first family-tree diagrams were the next logical step in his own development. Moreover, the actual form of the diagrams in question suggests that they may indeed have been developed independently. This puzzle in the history of linguistics remains unsolved: collaboration, rivalry, and coincidence are all possible.
Published online: 1 January 1975
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.2.3.03pri
References (163)
References
References introduced by Korr are to the collected correspondence and notes of Celakovský, published as follows:
Korr I = Bilý, František (1854–1920), ed. 1907–09. Korrespondence a zápisky Frant. Ladislava Čelakovského I (= Sbírka pramenův ku poznání literárniho života v Čechách, na Moravě a v Slezsku. III Třída České Akademie Císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění. Skupina II, čislo 10). Prague: Česká Akademie pro vědy, slovesnost a uměni’.Google Scholar
Korr II = Bilý, F., ed. 1910. Korrespondence a zápisky Frant. Ladislava Čelakovského II. (= … čislo 14). Prague: Česká Akademie.Google Scholar
Korr III = Bilý, F., ed. 1912–14. Korrespondence a zápisky Frant. Ladislava Čelakovskéno III. (= …čisla 17, 21). Prague: Česká Akademie.Google Scholar
Korr IV = Bilý, F., and Černý, Václav (1894–1962), eds. 1933–35. Korespondence a zápisky Frant. Ladislava Čelakovského IV Parts I-II1. (= Sbírka pramenů K poznání literárního života československého. III Třída České Akademie věd a umění. Skupina II, čislo 27). Prague: Česká Akademie věd a umění.Google Scholar
See also: Šťastný, Jaroslav (1868-?), comp. 1939. Korespondence a zápisky Frant. Ladislava Čelakovského. Rejštřik [Index]. (= …čislo 28). Prague: Česká Akademie.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Arbuckle, John. 1973 (1970). “August Schleicher and the Linguistics/ Philology Dichotomy: A chapter in the history of linguistics.” Word 26:1.17–31. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auty, Robert. 1956. “Language and Society in the Czech National Revival”. SEER 351.241–48.Google Scholar
. 1970. “Changing Views on the Role of Dobrovský in the Czech National Revival”. Brock & Skilling 1970. 14–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bačkovský, František (1854–1908). 1886. Zevrubné dějiny českého písemnictví doby nové, Díl I: Období předbřeznové [A detailed history of modern Czech literature. Part I: The Pre-March Period]. Prague: F. Dobrý.Google Scholar
(1854–1908). 1887. Několik rozprav o Frant. Lad. Čelakovském. Příspěvkem k jeho żivotopisu i k vykladu jeho básní [Some discussion of F. L. Čelakovský. As a contribution to his biography and the exposition of his folksongs]. Prague: Urbánek.Google Scholar
Bečka, Josef (b.1894). 1955. Slavica v české řeči, I: České překlady ze slovanských jazyků do r. 1860 [Slavistics in Czech. I: Czech translations from Slavic languages before 1860]. Prague: Československá Akademie věd.Google Scholar
Benes, Brigit. 1958 Wilhelm von Humboldt, Jacob Grimm, August Schleicher: Ein Vergleich ihrer Sprachauffassungen. Winterthur: P. G. Keller.Google Scholar
Berezin, F. M. comp. 1973. Xrestomatija po istorii russkogo jazykoznanija [Chrestomathy in the history of Russian linguistics]. Moscow: Vysšaja Škola.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard (1887–1949). 1933. Language. New York: H. Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Boduèn de Kurtenè, Ivan Aleksandrovič (= Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Ignacy Niecisław, 1845–1929). 1869–70. “Avgust Šlejxer”. MS, printed in I. A. Boduèn de Kurtenè: Izbrannye trudy po obščemu jazykoznaniju [Collected Works on General Lingusitics] ed. by S. G. Barxudarov et al., vol. 11.35–44. Moscow: Akad. Nauk, 1963.Google Scholar
, 1845–1929). 1904. “Językoznawstwo czyli lingwistyka w wieku XIX.” Szkice językoznawcze [Linguistic sketches], vol. I1, 1–23. Warsaw: P. Laskauer. (E. transl., “Linguistics in the Nineteenth Century”, in A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology ed. by Edward Stankiewicz, 237–54. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1972.)Google Scholar
Bonfante, Giuliano. 1953. “Ideas on Kinship of the European Languages from 1200 to 1800”. Journal of World History 11.679–99 (1954).Google Scholar
Brandl, Vincenc (1834–1901). 1887. Život Pavla Josefa Šafaříka [Life of Pavel Josef Šafařík]. Brno: Matica moravská.Google Scholar
Brock, Peter, and Gordon Skilling, eds. 1970. The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century: Essays presented to Otakar Odložilík in honour of his seventieth birthday. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulič, Sergej Konstantinovič (1859–1921). 1903. “Šlejxer”, Enciklopedičeskij slovar Brokgauza-Efrona vol. 391.691–94, St. Petersburg: F. A. Brockhaus & I. A. Efron.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren (b.1892). 1968. Language and Language Symbolization. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Čapek, Jan Blahoslav 1968. “Istoriko-literaturnaja bogemistika i slavjanove-denie v Karlovom universitete v 1793–1882 godax [Historicoliterary Bohemistics and Slavistics at Charles University from 1793 to 1882]”. Kurz, Vodička & Havrânkovâ 1968. 53–78.Google Scholar
Čelakovský, František Ladislav (1799–1852). 1827. Litevské narodní písně z původního jazyka dle zebrání Rhesy [Lithuanian folksongs from the original language according to Rhesa’s collection]. Prague: Pospíšil.Google Scholar
(1799–1852). 1829. Ohlas písní ruských [Echo of Russian songs]. Prague: Pospíšil.Google Scholar
(1799–1852). 1850. “Odkud berou pocátek početní jména slovanská [Whence the Slavic names for numerals take their origin]” Časopis Českého Musea?.Google Scholar
(1799–1852). 1851. “Nápisy [Inscriptions]”. Lumír 121. 274–75 (24 April 1851).Google Scholar
(1799–1852). 1853. Čtení o srovnavací mluvnici slovanskê na universitě Pražské [Readings on comparative Slavic grammar at Prague University]. Prague: F. Řivnáč.Google Scholar
(1799–1852). 1877. Čtení o počatcích dějin národův slovanských [Readings on the beginnings of the history of the Slavic nations]. Prague: F. Řivnáč.Google Scholar
Čemodanov, N(ikolaj) S(ergeevič). 1956. Sravnitel’noe jazykoznanija v Rossii: Očerk razvitija sravnitel’no-istoričeskogo metoda v russkom jazykoznanii [Comparative linguistics in Russia: Sketch of the development of the comparative-historical method in Russian linguistics]. Moscow: Gos. učeb-no-pedagog. izd-vo.Google Scholar
Davydov, Ivan Ivanovič (1794–1863). 1854. Opyt obščesravnitel’noj gramma-tiki russkogo jazyka [Sketch of a general comparative grammar of the Russian language]. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg: Imp. Akad. Nauk.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold (1842–1922). 1882. Introduction to the Study of Language: A critical survey of the history and methods of comparative philology of the Indo-European languages. Authorized transl, by Eva Channing. (New ed., Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1974.)Google Scholar
Desnickaja, Agnja Vasil’evna. 1971. “O lingvističeskoj teorii Avgusta Šlejxera (k 150-letiju so dnja roždenija) [On the linguistic theory of August Schleicher (on the 150th anniversary of his birth)]”. VJa 20:6.3–15.Google Scholar
. 1972. “August Schleicher als Sprachtheoretiker”. Spitzbardt 1972. 18–36.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul (1905–64). 1974. “The Foundation of Comparative Linguistics: Revolution or Continuation?” Hymes 1974a.258–306.Google Scholar
Dietze, Joachim. 1965. “Leben und Leistung August Schleichers im Spiegel seiner Briefe an Miklosich”. ZSl 101.533–63.Google Scholar
. 1966. August Schleicher als Slawist: Sein Leben und sein Werk in der Sicht der Indogermanistik. Berlin: Akad. -Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1969. “August Schleicher und dié frühe Baltistik”, ZSl 141.591–97.Google Scholar
. 1972. “August Schleichers Leistung als Slavist”. Spitzbardt 1972. 51–61.Google Scholar
Dlouhý, Jindřich, ed. 1952. Václav Fortunat Durych. Turnov: Ministerstvo informací a osvěty.Google Scholar
Dobrovský, Josef (1753–1829). 1792. Geschichte der böhmischen Sprache und Litteratur Prague: J.G. Calve, (repr., Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1955.)Google Scholar
(1753–1829). 1802. Entwurf eines Pflanzensystems nach Zahlen und Verhältnissen. Der Schlüssel zur Vereinigung der künstlichen Pflanzensysteme mit der natürlichen Methode. Prague: J. G. Calve.Google Scholar
(1753–1829). 1822. Institutiones linguae slavicae dialecti veteris quae quum apud Russos, Serbos aliosque ritus graeci tum apud Dalmatos glagolitas ritus latini Slavos in libris sacris obtinet. Vienna: A. Schmid.Google Scholar
Durych, Václav Michal ( alias Fortunat Durych, 1735–1802). 1777. De slavo-bohemica sacri codicis versione dissertatio. Prague: Ph. Nikesch.Google Scholar
( alias Fortunat Durych, 1735–1802). 1795. Bibliotheca slavica antiquissima dialecti communis et ecclesiasticae universae Slavorum gentis. Vol.I1. Vienna: S. Novakovitsch.Google Scholar
Durychová, Markéta. 1952. “Vědecká činnost Václava Fortunata Durycha [The scientific activity of Václav Fortunat Durych]”. Dlouhý 1952. 17–45.Google Scholar
Eckert, Rainer. 1971. “Zu August Schleichers ‘Litauischer Grammatik”’. Baltistische Studien by R. Eckert, 9–20. Berlin: Akad.-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Einhard (Eginhart, 770–840). 1616. Vita et gesta Karoli Magni imperatoris in-victissimi. Leipzig: H. Grosian. (Earlier ed., Cologne: J. Soter, 1521.)Google Scholar
Fischer, Rudolf (1910–71). 1956. “Erlebnisse August Schleichers in der Bach’-schen Aera.” ZSl 11.101–07.Google Scholar
(1910–71). 1961a. “August Schleicher 19.2.1821 – 6.12.1868. Zum Jahre seines 140. Geburtstages”. WZUL 101.811–15.Google Scholar
(1910–71). 1961b. “Zum Charakterbilde August Schleichers: Ein Sprachgelehrter als Kritiker seiner Wirklichkeit”. Forschungen und Fortschritte 351.115–18.Google Scholar
(1910–71). 1961c. “Zum Leben und Schicksal August Schleichers”. ZSl 61.449–51.Google Scholar
(1910–71). 1962. August Schleicher zur Erinnerung. Berlin: Akad.-Verlag.Google Scholar
(1910–71). 1963. “Zur Erforschung der Sprache der Elbslawen: Ein bisher unver-öffentlicher Brief Schleichers an einen tschechischen Freund”. Forschungen und Fortschritte 371.187–89.Google Scholar
Francev, Vladimir Andreevič (1867–1942). 1901. Ostatki jazyka slavjan polabs-kix sobrannye i ob”jasnennye F. L. Čelakovskim [Remnants of the language of the Polabian Slavs collected and explained by F. L. Čelakovský]. St. Petersburg: Imp. Akad. Nauk.Google Scholar
(1867–1942). 1905. Materialy dlja istorii slavjanskoj filologii: Pis’ma k Vjačeslavu Ganke iz slavjanskix zemel’ [Materials for the history of Slavic philology: Letters to Václav Hanka from Slavic lands]. Warsaw: Tipografija Varšavs-kogo učebnogo okruga.Google Scholar
(1867–1942). 1927. Korespondence Pavla Josefa Šafaříka: Vzájemné dopisy J. P. Šafaříka s ruskými učenci [Pavel Josef Šafařík’s correspondence: The reciprocal letters of J. P. Šafařík with Russian scholars]. 21 Vols. Prague: Československá Akademie věd a umění.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1970. Proto-Indoeuropean Trees: The arboreal system of a primitive people. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gebauer, Jan (1838–1907). 1903–16. Slovník staročeský [Old Czech dictionary]. 21 vols. Prague: Unie.Google Scholar
Glaser, Karel (1845–1913). 1885. A. Vaníček. Biographische Skizze. Vienna: C. Konegen.Google Scholar
Grace, George William. 1965. “On the Scientific Status of Genetic Classification in Linguistics”. OL 41.1–14.Google Scholar
Grekov, Boris Dimitr’evič (1882–1953), ed. 1948. Dokumenty k is torii slavjan-ovedenija v Rossii (1850–1912) [Documents for the history of Slavistics in Russia (1850–1912)]. Moscow: Akad. Nauk.Google Scholar
Grund, Antonín (1904–52). 1935. Karel Jaromír Erben. Prague: Melantrich.Google Scholar
Gulya, János. 1974. “Some Eighteenth Century Antecedents of Nineteenth Century Linguistics: The discovery of Finno-Ugrian”. Hymes 1974a. 258–76.Google Scholar
Hanuš, Ignác Jan (1812–69). 1842. Die Wissenschaft des slavischen Mythus im weitesten, den altpreussisch-lithauischen Mythus mitumfassenden Sinne. Nach Quellen bearbeitet, sammt der Literatur der slavisch-preussisch-lithau-ischen Mythologie. Vienna: J. P. Sollinger.Google Scholar
(1812–69). 1855. Život a působení Františka Ladislava Čelakovského [The life and work of F. L. Celakovský]. Prague: K. Bellmann.Google Scholar
Hanuš, Josef (1861–1941). 1896. Život a spisy Václava Bolemíra Nebeského [The life and writings of Václav Bolemír Nebeský]. Prague: Česká Akademie pro vědy, slovesnost a umění.Google Scholar
Harkins, William E. 1970. “The Periodization of Czech Literary History” Brock & Skilling 1970. 3–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hattala, Martin (1821–1903). 1854. Review of Čelakovský 1853. Časopis Českého Musea 28:1.103–42.Google Scholar
Havránek, Bohuslav (b.1893). 1930. “Dobrovského třídění jazyků slovanských [Dobrovský’s tripartition of the Slavic languages]”. Studie a vzpomínky prof A. Novákovi [Studies and presentations to the memory of A[rne] Novák], 60–62. Vyškov.Google Scholar
Hauptová, Zoe. 1964. “Die etymologoschen Arbeiten von J. P. Šafařík”. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Slawistik ed. by Hans Holm Bielfeldt and Karel Horálek, 147–61. Berlin: Akad.-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1963. “On the History of the Comparative Method”, AnL 51:1.-11.Google Scholar
1974. “Fallacies in the History of Linguistics: Notes on the appraisal of the nineteenth century”. Hymes 1974a.346–60.Google Scholar
Horálek, Karel. 1953. “K otázce Dobrovského třídění slovanských jazyků [Concerning the question of Dobrovský’s tripartition of the Slavic languages]”. Josef Dobrovský 1753–1953: Sborník studií k dvoustému výročí narození [Josef Dobrovský 1753–1953: A collection of studies on the bicentennial of his birth] ed. by Bohuslav Havránek and Julius Dolanský, 117–20. Prague: Československá Akademie věd.Google Scholar
. 1962. Úvod do studia slovanských jazyků [Introduction to the study of the Slavic languages]. Ibid.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell, ed. 1974a. Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and paradigms. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
. 1914b. “Introduction: Traditions and paradigms”. Hymes 1974a. 1–40.Google Scholar
Hýsek, Miloslav (1885–1957). 1923. “Vstupní přednáška F. L. Čelakovského na pražské universitě [F. L. Čelakovský’s inaugural lecture at the University of Prague]”. LF 501.250–62Google Scholar
Jähnichen, Manfred. 1967. Zwischen Diffamierung und Widerhall: Tschechische Poesie im deutschen Sprachgebiet 1815–1867. Berlin: Akad.-Verlag.Google Scholar
Jagić, Vatroslav (1838–1923). 1898. “Einige Streitfragen. 3. Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse innerhalb der slawischen Sprachen”. Archiv für slavische Philologie 201.13–48.Google Scholar
(1838–1923). 1910. Istorija slavjanskoj filologii [History of Slavic philology]. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja Akademija Nauk. (Repr., Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1967.)Google Scholar
Janko wsky, Kurt R. 1972. The Neogrammarians: A re-evaluation of their place in the development of linguistic science. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jolly, Julius (1849–1932). 1875. “Ueber den Stammbaum der indogermanischen Sprachen”. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 81:15–39, 190–205.Google Scholar
Jungmann, Josef (Jakub, 1777–1847). 1836. Slovník česko-německý [ Czech-German dictionary]. Prague: V. Špinka.Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K. 1972. “Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: 19th and 20th century Paradigms”. AnL 14:7.255–80.Google Scholar
Kollár, Jan (1793–1852). 1830. Rozpravy o jmenách, počátkách i starožitnostech národu slavského a jeho kmenů [Discussions of the names, beginnings and antiquities of the Slavic nation and of its peoples]. Prague: Universická tiskárna.Google Scholar
(1793–1852). 1836. “O literárnej vzájemnosti mezi kmeny a nárečími slávskími”. Hronka 1:2.39–53, and Květy 31.58–87, 91–94. (G. transl., Ueber die literarische Wechselseitigkeit zwischen den verschidenen Stämmen und Nationen der slavischen Nation. Pest, 1837; 2nd rev. ed., Leipzig: O. Wigand, 1844.)Google Scholar
Kurz, Josef, Felix Vodička, and Zdenka Havránková, eds. Slovanská filologie na universitě Karlové [Slavic philology at Charles University]. Prague: Universita Karlová.
Lane, George S. 1959. Review of Otto Höfler, “Stammbaumtheorie, Wellentheorie, Entfaltungstheorie”. PBB(T) 771.30–66, 424–76 (1955); 781.1–44 (1956). Lg 351.315–32.Google Scholar
Lefmann, Salomon (1831–1912). 1870. August Schleicher: Eine Skizze. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Leroy, Maurice. 1963. Les grands courants de la linguistique moderne. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. (Transl. by Glanville Price, Main Trends in Modem Linguistics. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1967.)Google Scholar
Leskien, August (1840–1916). 1876. Die Deklination im Slavisch-litauischen und Germanischen. Leipzig: S. Hirzel (Repr., Leipzig: Zentral-Antiquariat der DDR, 1963.)Google Scholar
Lomonosov, Mixail Vasil’evič (1711–65). 1952 [1755] “Materiały k ‘Rossijskoj grammatike’ [Materials for ‘A Russian Grammar’]”. Polnoe sobranie so-činenij [Complete collection of works], VII1: Trudy po filologii [Works on philology] ed. by S. I. Vavilov and T. P. Kravec, 595–760. Moscow: Akad. Nauk.Google Scholar
Machek, Václav (b.1894). 1968. Etymologický slovník jazyka českého [Etymological dictionary of the Czech language]. 2nd ed., Prague: Československá Akademie věd.Google Scholar
Maher, John Peter. 1966. “More on the History of the Comparative Method: The tradition of Darwinism in August Schleicher’s work”. AnL 8:1.1–12.Google Scholar
Malý, Jakub (Josef Dominik, 1811–85). 1853. “Krátký nástin života a působení Frant. Lad. Čelakovského [A short sketch of the life and work of F. L. Čelakovský]”. (= Preface to Čelakovský 1853, ix-xii.)Google Scholar
Mann, Stuart E. 1958. “Václav Hanka’s Forgeries”. SEER 361.491–96.Google Scholar
Metcalf, George J. 1974. “The Indo-European Hypothesis in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”. Hymes 1974a.233–57.Google Scholar
Miklosich, Franz (Xaver, Ritter von, 1813–91). 1845. Radices linguae slove-nicae veteris dialecti. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar
, Ritter von, 1813–91). ed., 1847. Vitae sanctorum: E codice antiquissimo paleoslovenice, cum notis criticis et glossario. Vienna: Wenedikt.Google Scholar
, Ritter von, 1813–91). 1852. Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen, I1: Vergleichende Lautlehre der slavischen Sprachen. Vienna: W. Braumüller.Google Scholar
Mounin, Georges. 1967. Histoire de la linguistique des origines au XXe siècle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. (3rd ed., 1974.)Google Scholar
Murko, Matthias ( alias Matija Murko, 1861–1952). 1897. Deutsche Einflüsse auf die Anfänge der böhmischen Romantik. Graz: Verlagsbuchhandlung Styria.Google Scholar
Nehring, Wladislaus (1813–1909). 1911. “Slavische Philologie”. Festschrift zur Feier des hundertjährigen Bestehens der Universität Breslau, I1: Geschichte der Universität Breslau 1811–1911 ed. by Georg Kaufmann, 418–26. Breslau: F. Hirt.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1844–1900). 1887. Der Wille zur Macht, eine Auslegung alles Geschehenes. Stuttgart: M. Brahn. (E. transl, by W. Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingsdale, The Will to Power. New York: Random House, 1967.)Google Scholar
Nonnenmacher, Elisabeth. 1960. “F. L. Čelakovskýs Ergänzungen zu J. Jungmanns ‘Slownjk česko-něměcký’ (1835–1839)”. WSlav 51.347–55.Google Scholar
Nonnenmacher-Pribić, Elisabeth. 1962. “František Ladislav Čelakovský, erster Professor der Slavistik der Universität Breslau”. Schlesische Friedrich-Wilhelm Universität. Jahrbuch 71.201–23.Google Scholar
N[ovotný], E[duard] (1833–76). 1869. “August Schleicher”. Světozor 31.31–34.Google Scholar
Ovsjaniko-Kulikovskij, Dmitri Nikolaevič (1853–1920). 1900. “Bopp i Slějxer (Epizod iz istorii nauki o jazyke) [Bopp and Schleicher (An episode from the history of the science of language)]”, Žizn’ November 1900. 267–301.Google Scholar
Palacký, František (1798–1876). 1830. “Die slawischen Volksstämme in Europa.” Jahrbücher des bǒhmischen Museums 1:1.79–95.Google Scholar
(1798–1876). 1832. “O rozličnosti národův, zvlaště v Evropě a v Azii [On the difference between peoples, particularly in Europe and in Asia]”. Časopis Českého Musea 31.257–82. (Repr. in Palacký 1873. 3–28.)Google Scholar
(1798–1876). 1861. “Rodopis někdy pánův z Cimburka [The genealogy of erstwhile gentlemen from Cimburk]”. Slovník naučný 21.122–24. (Repr. in Palacký 1873. 414–23.)Google Scholar
(1798–1876). 1873. Radhost: Sbírka spísův drobných k oboru řeči a liter, české, krasovědy, historie a politiky [Radhost: A collection of minor writings in the sphere of the Czech language and literature, aesthetics, history and politics]. Prague: B. Tempský.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann (1846–1921). 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle/S.: M. Niemeyer. (5th ed., 1920.)Google Scholar
Paul, Karel (b. 1883). 1923. “P. J. Šafařík, F. L. Čelakovský a J. K. Chmelens-ký”. LF 501.235–42.Google Scholar
(b. 1883). 1961. J. P. Šafařík, život a dílo [J. P. Šafařík, life and work]. Prague: Československá Akademie věd.Google Scholar
Pisani, Vittore. 1955. “August Schleicher und einige Richtungen der heutigen Sprachwissenschaft”. Lingua 41.337–68. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Presl, Jan Svatopluk (1791–1849). 1820. Flora čechica: Indicatis medicinalibus, oeconomicis technologicisque plantis. Prague: Calve.Google Scholar
(1791–1849), and Karel Bořivoj Presl. 1848. Třicet a dva obrazy k prvopočátkům rostlinosloví [Thirty and two illustrations for the elementals of botany]. Prague: Knízecé arcibiskupská tiskárna.Google Scholar
Presl, Karel Borivoj. (1794–1852). 1832–58. Symbolae botanicae; sive, Descriptions et icones plantarum novarum aut minus cognitarum. Prague: F. Tempský.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard (1876–1938). 1939. A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Baltimore, Md.: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Pulgram, Ernst. 1953. “Family Tree, Wave Theory, and Dialectology”. Orbis 21.67–72.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1973. “The History of Language Classification”. Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.111: Diachronic, Areal and Typological Linguistics, 3–41. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rösel, Hubert. 1956. “Die Anfänge der Slawistik in Deutschland”. Wissenschaftliche Annalen (Berlin) 51.611–20.Google Scholar
. 1957. Dokumente zur Geschichte der Slawistik in Deutschland, I1: Die Universitäten Berlin und Breslau im 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Akad.-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schleicher, August (1821–68). 1846. “Ueber den Wert der Sprachvergleichung. Eine Rede, vorgetragen am 27. Juni 1846 in der acad. Aula zu Bonn.” Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 71:25–27 (1850).Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1848. Zur vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte. Bonn: H. B. König.Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1850. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht. Ibid. (New ed., Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1976.)Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1851a. “Erotické epigrammy [Erotic epigrams]”. Lumír 11.169. (Translation of Srṅgāratilaka).Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1851b. Ueber die Stellung der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft in mehrsprachigen Ländern: Eine Rede beim Antritte der neuerrichteten Lehrkanzel der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft und des Sanskrit. Prague: J. G. Calve.Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1852a. “Briefe an den Sekretär über die Erfolge einer nach Litauen unternommenen wissenschaftlichen Reise”. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse; Sitzungsberichte 91.524–58.Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1852b. Die Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache, erklärend und vergleichend dargestellt. Bonn: H. B. König.Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1853a. “Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes”. Allgemeine Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Literatur 1853. 786–87.Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1853b. “O jazyku litevském, zvláště ohledem na slovanský [On the Lithuanian language, especially with reference to Slavic]”. Časopis Českého Musea 271.320–34.Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1853c. “Lituanica”. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse; Sitzungsberichte 111.76–156.Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1856–57. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. 21 vols. Prague: J. G. Calve.Google Scholar
(1821–68). 1860. Die deutsche Sprache. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta. (2nd ed., prepared by Johannes Schmidt, 1869; 5th ed., 1888.)Google Scholar
Schmidt, Johannes (1843–1901). 1869. “Schleicher”. KZ 181.315–20. (Repr. in Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 61.251–56 (1870) and Portraits of Linguists ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. 11.374–95. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1966.)Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo (Ernst Mario, 1842–1927). 1925. Der Individualismus in der Sprachforschung (= Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien. Philosophischhistorische Klasse; Sitzungsberichte, 204:2.1–21.) Leipzig & Vienna: Höl-der-Pichler-Temsky.Google Scholar
Skaličká, Vladimír 1968. “Istorija izučenija jazykoznanija v Pražskom universi-tete s načala do 1918 goda [The history of the study of linguistics at Prague University from the beginning to 1918]”. Kurz, Vodička & Havránková 1968. 35–52. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slavík, Václač Otokar (1835–1914). 1914. Karla Aloisa Vinařického korrespon-dence a spisy pamětní: Na pamatku stých jeho narozenin, III: Korres-pondence od roku 1849–1859 [Karel Alois Vinařický’s correspondence and memoranda: In commemoration of the centennial of his birth, III. Correspondence 1849–1859]. Prague: Česká Akademie pro vědy, slovesnost a umění.Google Scholar
Součková, Milada (b.l899). 1958. The Czech Romantics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Southworth, Franklin G. 1964. “Family-tree Diagrams”. Lg 401.557–65.Google Scholar
Spitzbardt, Harry, ed. 1972. Synchronischer und diachronischer Sprachvergleich: Bericht über die wissenschaftliche Arbeitstagung zu Ehren des 150. Geburtstages von August Schleicher. Jena: Friedrich Schiller Universität.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm (1864–1925). 1897. “Schleichers Auffassung von der Stellung der Sprachwissenschaft”. IF 71.360–72.Google Scholar
Szyjkowski, Marjan (1883–1951). 1935. Polská účast v českém národním obrození II [Polish participation in the Czech National Revival II]. Prague: Štatná tiskárna.Google Scholar
Šafařík, Pavel Josef (1795–1861). 1826. Geschichte der slawischen Sprachen und Litteratur nach allen Mundarten. Ofen [Buda]: Königlich-Ungarische Universität.Google Scholar
(1795–1861). 1835. “O národech kmene litovského [On the peoples of the Lithuanian nation]”. Časopis Českého Musea 61.292–315.Google Scholar
(1795–1861). 1836–37. Slovanské starožitnosti [Slavic antiquities]. Prague: J. Spurný. (Repr., Prague: F. Tempský, 1862–63.)Google Scholar
(1795–1861). 1842. Slovanský národopis [Slavic ethnography]. Prague: F. Tempský. (Repr., Prague: Československá Akademie věd, 1955.)Google Scholar
Talvj (= Teresa Albertina Luisa von Jacob Robinson, Mrs., 1797–1870). 1850. Historical View of the Languages and Literatures of the Slavic Nations, with a Sketch of the Popular Poetry. New York: G. P. Putnam. (Transl, into G. by B. K. Brühl, Uebersichtliches Handbuch einer Geschichte der slavischen Sprachen und Literatur. Nebst einer Skizze ihrer Volkspoesie. Leipzig: C. Geibel, 1852.)Google Scholar
Trnka, Bohumil (b.l895). 1952. “Zur Erinnerung an August Schleicher”. ZPhon 61.134–42.Google Scholar
Uschmann, Georg. 1967. “Zur Geschichte der Stammbaumdarstellungen”. Gesammelte Vorträge über moderne Probleme der Abstammungslehre ed. Manfred Gersch, vol.21.9–30. Jena: Friedrich Schiller Universität.Google Scholar
. 1972. “August Schleicher und Ernst Haeckel”. Spitzbardt 1972. 62–70.Google Scholar
Vaníček, Alois (1825–83). 1869. “Erinnerungen an Prof. Dr. August Schleicher in Prag”. Bohemia vol.161. (Repr. in Glaser 1885. 55–66.)Google Scholar
Vasmer, Max (1886–1962). 1930. “Slavische Philologie”. Aus 50 Jahren deutscher Wissenschaft ed. by Gustav Abb, 241–49. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1886–1962). 1939. Bausteine zur Geschichte der deutsch-slavischen geistigen Beziehungen. Berlin: Akad. der Wiss. in Komm, bei W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vejvara, Josef (1869-?). 1913. “Pozůstalostní spisy Antonie Celakovské a prof. Fr. Lad. Čelakovského [The wills of Antonia Celakovská and Prof. F. L. Čelakovský]”. Osvěta 1913. 778–84.Google Scholar
Vladyka, Josef. 1949. F. L. Čelakovský, český milý svaté Rusi [F. L. Čela-kovský, a Czech friend of Holy Rus’]. Prague: Práce.Google Scholar
Volf, Miroslav. 1936. Josef Dobrovský: Návrh soustavy rostlinné a rostlinopis-ný materiál z pozůstalosti. [Josef Dobrovský: ‘Entwurf eines Pflanzensystems’, and botanical materials from the heritage of his works]. Prague: Melantrich.Google Scholar
Waterman, John T. 1970. Perspectives in Linguistics. 2nd enl. ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Weingart, Miloš (1890–1939). 1931. “Slovanská filologie v československé literatuře [Slavic philology in Czechoslovak literature]”, Československá vlastivěda, X: Osvěta [Czechoslovak National Lore, X: Education] ed. by Otakar Kádner, 317–75. Prague: Sfinx.Google Scholar
Wollman, Frank (1888–1969). 1961. “Slovanství Šafaříkovo a Ševčenkovo [The Slavicism of Šafařík and Sevčenko]”. Slavia 301.548–66.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Kaplan, Judith R.H.
2018. The global lexicostatistical database: A total archive of linguistic prehistory. History of the Human Sciences 31:5 ► pp. 106 ff. DOI logo
Morrison, David A.
2016. Genealogies: Pedigrees and Phylogenies are Reticulating Networks Not Just Divergent Trees. Evolutionary Biology 43:4 ► pp. 456 ff. DOI logo
Swiggers, Pierre & Toon Van Hal
2014. Morphologie du langage et typologie linguistique. In History of Linguistics 2011 [Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 123], ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Gontier, Nathalie
2011. Depicting the Tree of Life: the Philosophical and Historical Roots of Evolutionary Tree Diagrams. Evolution: Education and Outreach 4:3 ► pp. 515 ff. DOI logo
Koerner, E.F.K.
2006. Schleicher, August (1821–1868). In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
O'Hara, Robert J.
2006. Trees of History in Systematics, Historical Linguistics, and Stemmatics: A Working Interdisciplinary Bibliography. SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo
van Pottelberge, Jeroen
2003. Die ursprünglichen fragestellungen hinter August schleichers Stammbaum-Theorie und Johannes Schmidts Wellen-Metapher. Historiographia Linguistica 30:3 ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo
Minaka, N.
1998. Most parsimonious estimation of molecular phylogenies. Japanese Journal of Biometrics 19:Special_Issue ► pp. S49 ff. DOI logo
Toman, Jindřich
1989. Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Ed. by Henry M. Hoenigswald & Linda F. Wiener. Historiographia Linguistica 16:1-2 ► pp. 194 ff. DOI logo
Priestly, T. M. S.
1977. The History of Linguistics in Russia. Historiographia Linguistica 4:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.