At the opening of his preface, Brugmann first explains why this book was needed. In doing so, he gives a candid assessment of the Compendium read in this site’s Schleicher feature.
“An excellent book” — but already dated
Wurde doch das vortreffliche Schleicher’sche Compendium… bereits im J. 1876… von den beiden Herausgebern einer völligen Umarbeitung bedürftig erachtet.
(Indeed, even Schleicher’s excellent Compendium… had already, by 1876… been judged by its two [posthumous] editors to be in need of a complete rewrite.)
Brugmann calls Schleicher’s book “vortrefflich” — excellent, outstanding — in a plainly generous compliment. This isn’t criticism for its own sake. He is simply stating a plain fact: no matter how excellent a book is, twenty years of scholarly progress make a rewrite unavoidable. Even though Schleicher himself kept revising the book right up until his death, those two revisions had already fallen behind.
Where he places his own book
Brugmann then explains his own manner of writing, comparing it to both of his two predecessors.
Meine Darstellungsweise hält etwa die Mitte zwischen derjenigen der Bopp’schen Vergleichenden Grammatik… und derjenigen des Schleicher’schen Compendiums… Sie sucht die Vorzüge beider zu vereinigen.
(My manner of presentation holds roughly a middle course between that of Bopp’s Comparative Grammar… and that of Schleicher’s Compendium… It seeks to unite the merits of both.)
Just before this sentence, Brugmann explains the difference between the two methods: Bopp’s Comparative Grammar is a single, flowing account that lets the particulars of each individual language dissolve into the Indo-Germanic whole. Schleicher’s Compendium, by contrast, keeps individual language grammars nearly independent, stringing them together one after another.
Three writers, three styles
By Brugmann’s own account, each of these two styles carries its own strengths and weaknesses. Bopp’s “dissolving” style makes the connections across the whole language family easy to see, but individual details can get buried. Schleicher’s “strung together” style makes the particulars of each language easy to follow, but the connections between languages become harder to see. Brugmann states that he tried to unite the merits of both.
Placing himself as an heir, not a critic
What stands out in this passage is that Brugmann treats his predecessors not as relics to be surpassed, but as precedents worth consulting, each with its own distinct merit. The Neogrammarians are often remembered as a movement that emphasized a sharp break with earlier generations. But reading this preface, Brugmann’s own sense of himself seems far more grounded — a question of how to recombine the inheritance of those who came before him, rather than how to overthrow it.
Summary
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| On Schleicher | “An excellent book” — but one that could no longer keep pace with twenty years of progress |
| Self-positioning | A middle course between Bopp’s flowing account and Schleicher’s strung-together grammars |
| Stance | Treats predecessors as precedents to inherit from, not obstacles to overcome |
In a nutshell — Brugmann positioned his own book candidly, not as a revolutionary work built from a blank slate, but as an attempt to unite two traditions, Bopp’s and Schleicher’s.