The Cryptic Mnemonist: Mnemosyne and the Ontology of Mind in the Works of Antoine Fabre d’Olivet
Among the effaced luminaries of turn-of-the-century hermetic philosophy, few can rival the syncretic boldness and poetic metaphysical tact of Antoine Fabre d’Olivet (1767–1825). Often dismissed by academicians as a mere mystic or dilettante, d’Olivet’s oeuvre belies both the neglect and the label. He was one of the earliest thinkers to attempt a full-scale synthesis of Pythagorean numerology, Hebrew linguistics, and Christian Neoplatonism, bound together by a speculative anthropology with ambition not seen since Jacob Boehme. What escapes casual scrutiny, however, is a subtle—but potent—conception interred within his lesser-read “Langue Hébraïque Restituée” (1815): the role of mnemonic structures as the primal vehicle of metaphysical being. In this article, I shall explore this minor detail—not for its literality, but for its implications about the ontology of consciousness as envisaged in d’Olivet’s philosophical grammar.
To understand the seed of this idea we must begin, paradoxically, with language itself—not as instrument or system, but as metaphysical participant. D’Olivet’s core contention in “Langue Hébraïque Restituée” is that the Hebrew tongue, cleansed of accumulated corruption and restored to its so-called ‘radical’ phonetic purity, represents not merely the original language of man but the ontic echo of divine emanation. In disclosing the meaning of roots via their “radicines,” d’Olivet argues that this primeval speech embodies cosmogenic truths—a view not far divorced from the mythic doctrines of Orpheus or the Vedic notion of Vac.
Where the doctrine turns from the merely mystical to the philosophically interesting is in his assertion that these “radical phonemes” mirror not an externally imposed taxonomy, but rather the internal mnemonic landscape of the human soul. The soul, for d’Olivet, is not a blank receptacle waiting to be inscribed by external sense data—as the empiricists would have it—but a pre-structured, hieroglyphically coded memory-organ, resonant from birth with divine syntactical forms.
Herein lies the conceptual inversion: language does not so much function to facilitate memory as reality arises through memory-structures embedded in language. That is, Mnemosyne precedes Logos; or rather, Logos is only the expression (the ‘pneuma’) of a deeper mnemonic ontology. This places d’Olivet in uneasy opposition to both Enlightenment rationalism and its Romantic counter-currents: he insists on neither tabula rasa nor pure inner revelation, but instead posits a preternatural inheritance of symbolic structure shaped by metaphysical memory.
This metaphysical mnemonicism becomes clear when he dissects the Semitic root of the word “Adam”: A-D-M, which he glosses as “the being formed in the image of divine likeness.” Each phoneme within it represents, he claims, a mnemic resonance—“A” for active principle, “D” for delimitation or formation, “M” for maternal or containing form. Thus to remember (in Hebrew zakar) is, under d’Olivet’s etymology, to re-invoke the divine topology of soul and cosmos. We see here a Platonic strain heightened by gnostic anxieties—the fragment of memory is the fragment of being.^1
If one follows this schema to its likely terminus, it suggests that language, particularly the original ‘radical’ language, is not only a phenomenological organ (as in later Husserlian terms) but an ancestral archive of ontic forms. To speak truly, or rather to re-engage in radical speech, is to reassemble the occluded architecture of one’s metaphysical identity. Not coincidentally, d’Olivet refers often to the biblical prophets not as mere seers but as ‘choirs of memory,’ through whom properly harmonised tones (i.e., phonically transmitted metaphysical data) congeal into temporally potent revelations.
But why have scholars bypassed this strikingly original doctrine? The usual explanations—his esotericism, his protean writing style, his apocalyptic Christianity—do not suffice. Rather, it seems the contemporary philosophical palate is ill-suited to such frameworks wherein language is less abstraction than sacrament, and memory more than the inert indexing of past experience. D’Olivet’s mnemonic radicalism, paradoxically, reverses the project of modern epistemology: knowledge is not acquired but recollected, and even this recollection is linguistic in essence and divine in provenance.
What implications might this have for philosophy of mind? If indeed the mind is an organ structured not by neural patterns but by inherited symbolic memory—a position curiously echoed in the archetypal psychology of Carl Jung—then consciousness itself may be better understood as the recursion of mnemonic phonetic structures. This is to suggest that the experience of ‘self’ arises in an act of memetic enunciation: we ‘speak’ ourselves into being by reviving ancestral codices that, though buried, remain dormant and accessible in the recesses of the phoneme.
Curiously, this aligns—if only obliquely—with the most daring interpretations of sapiential religion. In the Kabbalistic tradition, the ineffable name of God (יהוה) is not a representation but a vibratory method of synchronizing one’s inner speech with the divine syntax of Being itself.^2 D’Olivet’s own mystical Pythagoreanism makes similar claims for vowel-sounds—each representing metaphysical movement, harmonizing the soul toward its divine order.
Indeed, the question arises: might not the fragmentation of modern consciousness be attributed to the loss of these radical roots, the severing of memory from its linguistic anchor? Consider the contemporary subject, adrift in lexical vulgarity, phonetic simulacra, and syntactic entropy—perhaps he has not merely lost language, but the capacity to re-enter the archaic memory where being was unified speech.^3 D’Olivet’s remedy is not nostalgia but radical restitution: a project of phonological recollection so total in scope that it reanimates the ontological ground beneath thought itself.
Let us now consider this idea within a framework suitable for contemporary metaphysics. If Being is Memory-as-Syntax, as d’Olivet implies, then temporality itself must be conceived not as the linear unfolding of events but as the revelation (or perhaps, the audio-liturgical unveiling) of preexistent symbolic structures. This enjoins a reinterpretation of historicity as mnemonic liturgy—where history is read as a failed or fragmentary recollection of a spectral totality.^4
D’Olivet, so often derided for his idiosyncrasies, may thus represent not the detritus of antiquated hermeticism, but a precursor to a future metaphysics: one in which mind, language, and memory are not discrete faculties but a single choral entelechy. To bring forth thought is to remember ancient speech; to remember is to incarnate metaphysical truth.
By Martijn Benders – Philosophy Dep. of the Moonmoth Monestarium
language, memory, metaphysics, mysticism, ontology, phonology, forgotten philosophers
—
^1 Fabre d’Olivet, Antoine. *Langue Hébraïque Restituée*, 1815. Paris: Chez L’auteur. See esp. pp. 112–117, where he outlines the “existential phonemes.”
^2 Scholem, Gershom. *Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism*. New York: Schocken, 1946. See his comments on the divine Name and mystical speech.
^3 Abrams, M.H. *The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition*. Oxford University Press, 1953. For a broader cultural context on the collapse of symbolic memory.
^4 Henry Corbin, *Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth: From Mazdean Iran to Shi’ite Iran*. Princeton University Press, 1977. On the metaphysical resurrection of memory-images through sacred language.