Methode als Grenze?
When philology and linguistics fell apart in the 19th century, their respective definitions were heavily discussed. Looking at central texts of historical-compara­tive linguistics, philology and modern philology, we examine the question whether these discussions primarily dealt with methodological questions or whether the aims of the disciplines and the definition of their respective objects made the dif­ference. We thus show that while historical-comparative linguistics defines itself through a strong orientation towards natural sciences (both with respect to its object and to its method), philology emphasizes its educational mandate. Within modern philology, there are several discourse formations, reaching from adopting the model of classical philology for modern languages to calls for methodological rig­or like in historical-comparative linguistics. However, the central aspect of the discus­sion is not methodology but rather the question whether modern philology can serve education just as classical philology could. While historical-comparative linguistics represents a closed system in the sense of Luhmann, classical and modern philology aim at the participation of society.