Orientalism - autonomous learning

132
ORIENT ALiSM
Orientalist Structures and Restructures
133
of praise-not unambiguously, and not in the cursory way that I
am now describing-is their profound relation to modernity, a relation
that is given them by their practice of philology.
Philology problematizes-itself, its practitioner, the present. It
embodies a peculiar condition of being modem and European,
since neither of those two categories has true meaning without
being related to an earlier alien culture and time. What Nietzsche
also sees is philology as something born, made in the Viconian
sense as a sign of human enterprise, created as a category of human
discovery, self-discovery, and originality. Philology is a way of
historically setting oneself off, as great artists do, from one's time
and an immediate past even as, paradoxically and antinomically,
one actually characterizes one's modernity by so doing.
Between the Friedrich August Wolf of 1777 and the Friedrich
Nietzsche of 1875 there is Ernest Renan, an Oriental philologist,
also a man with a complex and interesting sense of the way philology
and modem culture are involved in each other. In L'Avenir de la
science (written in 1848 but not published till 1890) he wrote that
"the founders of modem mind are philologists." And what is modem
mind, he said in the preceding sentence, if not "rationalism, criticism,
liberalism, [all of which] were founded on the same day as
philology?" Philology, he goes on to say, is both a comparative
discipline possessed only by moderns and a symbol of modem (and
European) superiority; every advance made by humanity since the
fifteenth century can be attributed to minds we should call philological.
The job of philology in modern culture (a culture Renan
calls philological) is to continue to see reality and nature clearly,
thus driving out supernaturalism, and to continue to keep pace with
discoveries in the physical sciences. But more than all this, philology
enables a general view of human life and of the system of things:
"Me, being there at the center, inhaling the perfume of everything,
judging, comparing, combining, inducing-in this way I shall arrive
at the very system of things." There is an unmistakable aura of
power about the philologist. And Renan makes his point about
philology and the natural sciences:
To do philosophy is to know things; following euvier's nice
phrase, philosophy is instructing the world in theory. Like Kant
I believe that every purely speculative demonstration has no more
validity than a mathematical demonstration, and can teach us
nothing about existing reality. Philology is the exact science of
mental objects [La philologie est la science exacte des choses de
l'esprit]. It is to the sciences of humanity what physics and
chemistry are to the philosophic sciences of bodies. 24
I shall return to Renan's citation from euvier, as well as to the
constant references to natural science, a little later. For the time
being, we should remark that the whole middle section of L'Avenir
de la science is taken up with Renan's admiring accounts of philology,
a science he depicts as being at once the most difficult of all
human endeavors to characterize and the most precise of all
diSciplines. In the aspirations of philology to a veritable science
of humanity, Renan associates himself explicitly with Vico, Herder,
Wolf, and Montesquieu as well as with such philological nearcontemporaries
as Wilhelm von Humboldt, Bopp, and the great
Orientalist Eugene Burnouf (to whom the volume is dedicated).
Renan locates philology centrally within what he everywhere refers
to. as the march of knowledge, and indeed the book itself is a manifesto
of humanistic meliorism, which, considering its subtitle
("Pensees de 1848") and other books of 1848 like Bouvard et
Pecuchet and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis /;Jonaparte, is no
mean irony. In a sense, then, the manifesto generally and Renan's
accounts of philology particularly-he had by then already written
the massive philological treatise on Semitic languages that had
earned him the Prix Volney-were designed to place Renan as an
intellectual in a clearly perceptible relationship to the great social
issues raised by 1848. That he should choose to fashion such a relationship
on the basis of the least immediate of all intellectual
disciplines (philology), the one with the least degree of apparent
popular relevance, the most conservative and the most traditional,
suggests the extreme deliberateness of Renan's position. For he
did not really speak as one man to all men but rather as a reflective,
specialized voice that took, as he put it in the 1890 preface, the
inequality of races mid the necessary domination of the many by
the few for granted as an antidemocratic law of nature and society.2~
But how was it possible for Renan to hold hjmself and what he
was saying in such a paradoxical position? For what was philology
on the one hand if not a science of all humanity, a science premised
on the unity of the human species and the worth of every human
detail, and yet what was the philologist on the other hand if notas.Renan
himself proved with his notorious race prejudice against
the very Oriental Semites whose study had made his professional
name26-a harsh divider of men into superior and inferior races, a