 Hamann in his Metacritique, despite verbally echoing Herder’s two doctrines in the philosophy of language, espoused a version of broad expressivism. But Herder adopted narrow expressivism, as those two doctrines already seem to imply. Moreover, after much wrestling with the subject, he eventually developed a very attractive version of narrow expressivism. The key work here was again the Critical Forests. By the time of writing this work, Herder was already committed to the two doctrines in question, and, as this would suggest, from the start in the work he was committed to narrow expressivism. However, his commitment to it there was initially unsatisfactory and indeed inconsistent. For one thing, it initially took the implausible form of denying to the non-linguistic arts any capacity to express thoughts autonomously of language by denying that they can express thoughts at all. This was the force of the naive theory recently described that the work initially set out to develop. Adding inconsistency to this unsatisfactoriness, Herder was from the start in the work also committed to saying (far more plausibly) that visual art often does express thoughts—for example, he intervened in a quarrel between Lessing and Winckelmann on the question of whether linguistic art (especially poetry) or visual art (especially sculpture) is expressively superior in ways that tended to support Winckelmann’s case for visual art. This unsatisfactoriness and inconsistency mainly resulted from Herder’s oversight of a single fact: that it is perfectly possible to reconcile narrow expressivism with the attribution of thoughts to non-linguistic art, namely, by insisting that the thoughts expressed by non-linguistic art must be derivative from and bounded by the artist’s capacity for linguistic expression. However, by the time Herder wrote the later parts of the Critical Forests, he had found this solution. Thus in the third part, focusing on a particularly instructive example, he notes that the pictorial representations on Greek coins are typically allegorical in nature. And by the time he writes the fourth part he is prepared to say something similar about much painting as well, writing there, for example, of “the sense, the allegory, the story/history that is put into the whole of a painting” (G2:313). By 1778 he extends this account to sculpture as well. Thus in the essay Sculpture [Plastik] from 1778 he abandons the merely sensualistic conception of sculpture that had predominated in the Critical Forests and instead argues that sculpture is essentially expressive of, and therefore needs to be interpreted by, a soul. But this no longer forces him into unfaithfulness to his principle that thought is essentially dependent on, and bounded by, language, for he now conceives the thoughts that are expressed by sculpture as having a linguistic source: