Considerations on the Production of an Intrinsic Lexicon

Abstract

“It is a well-known fact that in many respects Hegel speaks his own language, which one by no means immediately understands”¹ remarks Glockner in the introduction to his Hegel Lexicon, without further comment on what an author’s ‘own language’ is or, what would be just as important for us to know, how he has discovered this ‘own language’, how it manifests its individuality. It is reasonable to assume that general usage or what each individual finds out with the aid of general dictionaries was the yardstick by which the differences could be seen. The comparison of the special language usage of one author with general usage (as it is laid down in dictionaries) or with the language of other writers does reveal differences, but also presents the interpreter with the task of regarding interpretation as a ‘translation’. Among people who speak the same language this translation problem is hardly noticed: one speaks approximately — and this is a condition which needs no further mention - the same language. Thus difficulties arise chiefly through the thoughts and ideas of a writer. It is not a question, it seems, of translation, but of the more demanding understanding of a thinker, understanding on the same level. And so (a logical consequence for Glockner), “it soon emerges that the lexification of such a unique mental achievement as Hegelianism can only be carried out by one mind and cannot be divided among many”.²