A. The Low German DialectsThe Low German dialects, as we have seen, stand nearest to the English and Frisian languages, owing to the total absence of the consonantal shifting which characterizes High German, as well as to other peculiarities of sounds and inflections,e.g.the loss of the nasalsmandnbefore the spirantsf,sandp. Cf. Old Saxonfif(five),us(us),kup(cf. uncouth). The boundary-line between Low and High German, the so-calledBenrather Linie, may roughly be indicated by the following place-names, on the understanding, however, that the Ripuarian dialect (see below) is to be classed with High German: Montjoie (French border-town), Eupen, Aachen, Benrath, Düsseldorf, north of Siegen, Cassel, Heiligenstadt, Harzgerode, to the Elbe south of Magdeburg; this river forms the boundary as far as Wittenberg, whence the line passes to Lübben on the Spree, Fürstenwald on the Oder and Birnbaum near the river Warthe. Beyond this point the Low Germans have Slavs as their neighbours. Compared with the conditions in the 13th century, it appears that Low German has lost ground; down to the 14th and 15th centuries several towns, such as Mansfeld, Eisleben, Merseburg, Halle, Dessau and Wittenberg, spoke Low German.Low German falls into two divisions, a western division, namely, Low Franconian, the parent, as we have already said, of Flemish and Dutch, and an eastern division, Low Saxon (Plattdeutsch, or, as it is often simply called, Low German). The chief characteristic of the division is to be sought in the ending of the first and third person plural of the present indicative of verbs, this being in the former case-en, in the latter-et. Inasmuch as the south-eastern part of Low Franconian—inclusive of Gelderland and Cleves—shifts finalktoch(e.g.ich,mich,auch,-lich), it must obviously be separated from the rest, and in this respect be grouped with High German. Low Saxon is usually divided into Westphalian (to the west of the Weser) and Low Saxon proper, between Weser and Elbe. The south-eastern part of the latter has the verbal ending-enand further shows the peculiarity that the personal pronoun has the same form in the dative and accusative (mik,dick), whereas the remainder, as well as the Westphalian, hasmi,diin the dative, andmi,diormik,dikin the accusative. To these Low German dialects must also be added those spoken east of the Elbe on what was originally Slavonic territory; they have the ending-enin the first and third person plural of verbs.8B. The High German Dialects1.The Middle German Group.—This group, which comprises the dialects of the Middle Rhine, of Hesse, Thuringia, Upper Saxony (Meissen), Silesia and East Prussia to the east of the lower Vistula between Bischofswerder, Marienburg, Elbing, Wormditt and Wartenberg—a district originally colonized from Silesia—may be most conveniently divided into an East and a West Middle German group. A common characteristic of all these dialects is the diminutive suffix-chen, as compared with the Low German form-kenand the Upper German-lein(O.H.G.līn). East Middle German consists of Silesian, Upper Saxon and Thuringian,9together with the linguistic colony in East Prussia. While these dialects have shifted initial Germanicptoph, or even tof(fert=Pferd), the West Middle German dialects (roughly speaking to the west of the watershed of Werra and Fulda) have retained it. If, following a convincing article in theZeitschrift für deutsches Altertum(37, 288 ff.) by F. Wrede, we class East and South Franconian—both together may be called High Franconian—with the Upper German dialects, there only remain in the West Middle German group:10(a) MiddleFranconian and (b) Rhenish Franconian. The former of these,11which with itsdat,wat,allet, &c. (cf. above) and its retention of the voiced spirantb(writtenv) represents a kind of transition dialect to Low German, is itself divided into (α) Ripuarian or Low Rhenish with Cologne and Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) as centres, and (β) Moselle Franconian12with Trier (Treves) as principal town. The latter is distinguished by the fact that in the Middle High German period it shifts Germanic-rp-and-rd-, which are retained in (a), to-rf-and-rt-(cf.werfen,hirtinwithwerpen,hirdin).13The Rhenish Franconian dialect is spoken in the Rhenish palatinate, in the northern part of Baden (Heidelberg), Hesse14and Nassau, and in the German-speaking part of Lorraine. A line drawn from Falkenberg at the French frontier to Siegen on the Lahn, touching the Rhine near Boppard, roughly indicates the division between Middle and Rhenish Franconian.2.The Upper German Group.—The Upper German dialects, which played the most important part in the literature of the early periods, may be divided into (a) a Bavarian-Austrian group and (b) a High Franconian-Alemannic group. Of all the German dialects the Bavarian-Austrian has carried the soundshifting to its furthest extreme; here only do we find the labial voiced stopbwrittenpin the middle of a word, viz. old Bavariankāpamēs, old Alemannickābamēs(“we gave”); here too, in the 12th century, we find the first traces of that broadening ofī,ū,iu(ü) toei,au,eu, a change which, even at the present day, is still foreign to the greater part of the Alemannic dialects. Only in Bavarian do we still find the old pronominal dual formsesandenk(forihrandeuch). Finally, Bavarian forms diminutives in-eland-erl(Mädel,Mäderl), while the Franconian-Alemannic forms are-laand-le(Mädle). On the other hand, the pronunciation of-sas-sch, especially-stas-scht(cf.Last,Haspel, pronouncedLascht,Haschpel), may be mentioned as characteristic of the Alemannic, just as thefortispronunciation of initialtis characteristic of High Franconian, while the other Franconian and Upper German dialects employ thelenis.The Alemannic dialect which, roughly speaking, is separated from Bavarian by the Lech and borders on Italian territory in the south and on French in the west, is subdivided into: (a) Swabian, the dialect of the kingdom of Württemberg and the north-western part of Tirol (cf. H. Fischer,Geographie der schwäbischen Mundart, 1895); (b) High Alemannic (Swiss), including the German dialects of Switzerland, of the southern part of the Black Forest (the Basel-Breisgau dialect), and that of Vorarlberg; (c) Low Alemannic, comprising the dialects of Alsace and part of Baden (to the north of the Feldberg and south of Rastatt), also, at the present day, the town of Basel. Only Swabian has taken part in the change ofitoei, &c., mentioned above, while initial Germanickhas been shifted toch(χ) only in High Alemannic (cf.chalt,chind,chorn, forkalt,kind,korn). The pronunciation ofūasü,ü(HüsforHaus) is peculiar to Alsatian.The High Franconian dialects, that is to say, east and south (or south-Rhenish) Franconian, which are separated broadly speaking by the river Neckar, comprise the language spoken in a part of Baden, the dialects of the Main valley from Würzburg upwards to Bamberg, the dialect of Nuremberg and probably of the Vogtland (Plauen) and Egerland. During the older historical period the principal difference between East and South Franconian consisted in the fact that initial Germanicdwas retained in the latter dialect, while East Franconian shifted it tot. Both, like Bavarian and Alemannic, shift initial Germanpto the affricatepf.Finally, the Bavarian-Austrian dialect is spoken throughout the greater part of the kingdom of Bavaria (i.e.east of the Lech and a fine drawn from the point where the Lech joins the Danube to the sources of the rivers Elster and Mulde, this being the East Franconian border-line), in Austria, western Bohemia, and in the German linguistic “islands” embedded in Hungary, in Gottschee and the Sette and Tredici Communi (cf. above).15The Old High German PeriodThe language spoken during the Old High German period, that is to say, down to about the year 1050, is remarkable for the fulness and richness of its vowel-sounds in word-stems as well as in inflections. Cf.elilenti,Elend;luginari,Lügner;karkari,Kerker;menniskonoslahta,Menschengeschlecht;herzono,Herzen(gen. pl.);furisto,vorderste;hartost, (am)härtesten;sibunzug,siebzig;ziohemes, (wir)ziehen;salbota, (er)salbte;gaworahtos, (du)wirktest, &c. Of the consonantal changes which took place during this period that of the spirant th (preserved only in English) to d (werthan,werdan;theob,deob) deserves mention. It spread from Upper Germany, where it is noticeable as early as the 8th century to Middle and finally, in the 11th and 12th centuries, to Low Germany. Further, the initialhinhl,hn,hr,hw(cf.hwer,wer;hreini,rein;hlahhan,lachen) andwinwr(wrecceo,Recke) disappeared, this change also starting in Upper Germany and spreading slowly north. The most important vowel-change is the so-called mutation (Umlaut),16that is to say, the qualitative change of a vowel (excepti) in a stem-syllable, owing to the influence of aniorjin the following syllable. This process commenced in the north where it seems to have been already fully developed in Low German as early as the 8th century. It is to be found, it may be noted, in Anglo-Saxon, as early as the 6th century. It gradually worked its way southwards to Middle and Upper Germany where, however, certain consonants seem to have protected the stem syllable from the influence ofiin a following syllable. Cf., for instance, Modern High Germandruckenanddrücken;glauben,kaufen,Haupt, words which in Middle German dialects show mutation. Orthographically, however, this process is, during the first period, only to be seen in the change ofătoe; from the 10th century onwards there are, it is true, some traces of other changes, and vowels likeŭ,ō,oumust have already been affected, otherwise we could not account for the mutation of these vowels at a period when the cause of it, theiorj, no longer existed. A no less important change, for it helped to differentiate High from Low German, was that of Germanicē2(a closedē-sound) and ō diphthongs in Old High German, while they were retained in Old Low German. Cf. O.H.G.hēr,hear,hiar, O.L.G.hēr; O.H.G.fuoz, O.L.G.fōt. The final result was that in the 10th century ie (older forms,ia,ea) anduo(olderua,oain Alemannic,uain South Franconian) had asserted themselves throughout all the High German dialects. Again while in Old High German the older diphthongsaiandauwere preserved aseiandou, unless they happened to stand at the end of a word or were followed by certain consonants (h,w,rin the one case, andh,r,l,n,th,d,t,z,sin the other; cf.zēhfromzīhan,zōhfromziohan,verlôs, &c.), the Old Low German shows throughout the monophthongsē(in Middle Low German a closed sound) andō(cf. O.L.G.stēn,ōga). These monophthongs are also to be heard in Rhenish Franconian, the greater part of East Franconian and the Upper Saxon and Silesian dialects of modern times (cf.Stein:SteenorStan;laufen:lofenorlopen).Of the dialects enumerated above, Bavarian and Alemannic, High and Rhenish Franconian as well as Old Saxon are more or less represented in the literature of the first period. But this literature, the chief monuments of which are Otfrid’sEvangelienbuch(in South Franconian), the Old SaxonHeliand(a life of Christ in alliterative verse), the translation of Tatian’sGospel Harmony(East Franconian) and that of a theological tract by Bishop Isidore of Seville and of parts of the Bible (Rhenish Franconian), is almost exclusively theological and didactic in character. One is consequently inclined to attach more value to the scanty remains of theHildebrandsliedand some interesting and ancient charms. The didactic spirit again pervades the translations and commentaries of Notker of St Gall in the early part of the 11th century, as well as a paraphrase of theSong of Songsby an abbot Williram of Ebersberg a little later. Latin, however, reigned supreme throughout this period, it being the language of the charters, the lawbooks (there is nothing in Germany to compare with the laws of the Anglo-Saxons), of science, medicine, and even poetry. It is thus needless to say that there was no recognized literary language (Schriftsprache) during this period, nor even any attempt to form one; at most, we might speak of schools in the large monasteries, such as Reichenau, St Gall, Fulda, which contributed to the spread and acceptance of certain orthographical rules.The Middle High German PeriodThe following are the chief changes in sounds and forms which mark the development of the language in the Middle High German period. The orthography of the MSS. reveals a much more extensive employment of mutation (Umlaut) than was the case in the first period; we find, for instance, as the mutation ofo,ö, ofō,œ,of ū,iu(ü), ofuo,üe, ofou,öu, andeu(cf.höler,bœse,hiuser,güete,böume), although many scribes, and more especially those of Middle and Low German districts, have no special signs for the mutation ofŭ,ū, ando. Of special interest is the so-called “later (or weaker)mutation” (jüngerer oder schwächerer Umlaut) ofăto a very openesound, which is often writtenä. Cf.mähte(O.H.G.mahti),mägede(O.H.G.magadi). The earlier mutation of this sound produced ane(é), a closed sound (i.e.neareri). Cf.geste(O.H.G.gesti).The various Old High German vowels in unstressed syllables were either weakened to an indifferentesound (geben, O.H.G.geban;bote, O.H.G.boto;sige, O.H.G.sigu) or disappeared altogether. The latter phenomenon is to be observed afterlandr, and partly afternandm(cf.ar(e), O.H.G.aro;zal, O.H.G.zala;wundern, O.H.G.wuntarōn, &c.); but it by no means took place everywhere in the same degree and at the same time. It has been already noted that the Alemannic dialect (as well as the archaic poets of the German national epic) retained at least the long unstressed vowels until as late as the 14th century (gemarterōt,gekriuzegōt, &c., and Low and Middle German preserved the weakenedesound in many cases where Upper German dropped it. In this period the beginnings are also to be seen in Low and Middle German (Heinrich von Veldeke shows the first traces of it) of a process which became of great importance for the formation of the Modern German literary language. This is the lengthening of originally short vowels in open syllables,17for example, in Modern High GermanTāges,Wēges,lōbe(Middle High Germantăges,wĕges,lŏbe). In Austria, on the other hand, there began as far back as the first half of the 12th century another movement of equal importance for Modern High German, namely, the conversion of the long vowels,ī,ū,ü, intoei(ou),au,eu(äu).18It is, therefore, in MSS. written in the south-east that we find forms likezeit,lauter(löter),heute, &c., for the first time. With the exception of Low German and Alemannic—Swabian, however, follows in this respect the majority—all the German dialects participated in this change between the 14th and 16th centuries, although not all to the same degree. The change was perhaps assisted by the influence of the literary language which had recognized the new sounds. In England the same process has led to the modern pronunciation oftime,house, &c., and in Holland to that oftijd,huis, &c. F. Wrede (Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertumxxxix. 257 ff.) has suggested that the explanation of the change is to be sought in the apocope and syncope of the finale, and the greater stress which was in consequence put on the stem-syllable. The tendency to a change in the opposite direction, namely, the narrowing of diphthongs to monophthongs, is to be noticed in Middle German dialects,i.e.in dialects which resisted the apocope of the finale, whereie,uo,üebecomeī,ū,ü; thus we have forBrief,brīf, forhuon,hūn, forbrüeder,brüder, and this too was taken over into the Modern High German literary language.19No consonantal change was so widespread during this period as that of initialstoschbeforel,n,m,w,pandt. Cf.slingen,schlingen;swer(e)n,schwören, &c. The formsscht- andschp- are often to be met with in Alemannic MSS., but they were discarded again, although modern German recognizes the pronunciationschp,scht.20With regard to changes affecting the inflections of verbs and nouns, it must suffice here to point out that the weakening or disappearance of vowels in unstressed syllables necessarily affected the characteristic endings of the older language; groups of verbs and substantives which in Old High German were distinct now become confused. This is best seen in the case of the weak verbs, where the three Old High German classes (cf.nerien,salbōn,dagēn) were fused into one. Similarly in the declensions we find an increasing tendency of certain forms to influence substantives belonging to other classes; there is, for instance, an increase in the number of neuter nouns taking-er(-ir) in the plural, and of those which show mutation in the plural on the model of thei-stems (O.H.G.gast, pl.gesti; cf. forms likeban,benne;hals,helse;wald,welde). Of changes in syntax the gradual decay in the use of the genitive case dependent on a noun or governed by a verb (cf. constructions likeeine brünne rotes goldes, ordes todes wünschen) towards the end of the period, and also the disappearance of the Old High German sequence of tenses ought at least to be mentioned.In the Middle High German period, the first classical period of German poetry, the German language made great advances as a vehicle of literary expression; its power of expression was increased and it acquired a beauty of style hitherto unknown. This was the period of theMinnesangand the great popular and court epics, of Walther von der Vogelweide, Hartmann von Aue, Wolfram von Eschenbach and Gottfried von Strassburg; it was a period when literature enjoyed the fostering care of the courts and the nobility. At the same time German prose celebrated its first triumphs in the sermons of Berthold von Regensburg, and in the mystic writings and sermons of Meister Eckhart, Tauler and others. History (Eike von Repkow’sWeltchronik) and law (Sachsenspiegel,Schwabenspiegel) no longer despised the vernacular, and from about the middle of the 13th century German becomes, in an ever-increasing percentage, the language of deeds and charters.It has been a much debated question how far Germany in Middle High German times possessed or aspired to possess aSchriftspracheor literary language.21About the year 1200 there was undoubtedly a marked tendency towards a unification of the literary language on the part of the more careful poets like Walther von der Vogelweide, Hartmann von Aue and Gottfried von Strassburg; they avoid, more particularly in their rhymes, dialectic peculiarities, such as the Bavarian dual formsesandenk, or the long vowels in unstressed syllables, retained in Alemannic, and they do not make use of archaic words or forms. We have thus a right to speak, if not of a Middle High German literary language in the widest sense of the word, at least of a Middle High GermanDichterspracheor poetic language, on an Alemannic-Franconian basis. Whether, or in how far, this may have affected the ordinary speech of the nobility or courts, is a matter of conjecture; but it had an undeniable influence on Middle and Low German poets, who endeavoured at least to use High German forms in their rhymes. Attempts were also made in Low German districts, though at a later stage of this period, to unify the dialects and raise them to the level of an accepted literary language. It will be shown later why these attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, however, the efforts of the High German poets to form a uniform language were also shortlived; by the end of the 13th century theDichtersprachehad disappeared, and the dialects again reigned supreme.Modern High GermanAlthough the Middle High German period had thus not succeeded in effecting any permanent advance in the direction of a uniform literary language, the desire for a certain degree of uniformity was never again entirely lost. At the close of the 13th century literature had passed from the hands of the nobility to those of the middle classes of the towns; the number of writers who used the German tongue rapidly increased; later the invention of printing, the increased efficiency of the schools, and above all the religious movement of the Reformation, contributed to awakening the desire of being understood by those who stood outside the dialectic community of the individual. A single authoritative form of writing and spelling was felt on all sides to be particularly necessary. This was found in the language used officially by the various chanceries (Kanzleien), and more especially the imperial chancery. Since the days of Charles IV. (1347-1378) the latter had striven after a certain uniform language in the documents it issued, and by the time of Maximilian I. (1493-1519) all its official documents were characterized by pretty much the same phonology, forms and vocabulary, in whatever part of Germany they originated. And under Maximilian’s successor, Charles V., the conditions remained pretty much the same. The fact that the seat of the imperial chancery had for a long time been in Prague, led to a mingling of Upper and Middle German sounds and inflections; but when the crown came with Frederick III. (1440-1493) to the Habsburgs, the Upper German elements were considerably increased. The chancery of the Saxon electorate, whose territory was exclusively Middle German, had to some extent, under the influence of the imperial chancery, allowed Upper German characteristics to influence its official language. This is clearly marked in the second half of the 15th century, and about the year 1500 there was no essential difference between the languages of the two chanceries. Thuringia, Silesia and Brandenburg soon followed suit, and even Low German could not ultimately resist the accepted High German notation (ö, ṏ, ü, ṻ, ů, ie, &c.). We have here very favourable conditions for the creation of a uniform literary language, and, as has already been said, the tendency to follow these authorities is clearly marked.In the midst of this development arose the imposing figure of Luther, who, although by no means the originator of a common High German speech, helped very materially to establish it. He deliberately chose (cf. the often quoted passage in hisTischreden, ch. 69) the language of the Saxon chancery as the vehicle of his Bible translation and subsequently of his own writings. The differences between Luther’s usage and that of the chancery, in phonology and inflection, are small; still he shows, in his writings subsequent to 1524, a somewhat more pronounced tendency towards Middle German. But it is noteworthy that he, like the chancery, retained the old vowel-change in the singular and plural of the preterite of the strong verbs (i.e.steig, stigen; starb, sturben), although before Luther’s time the uniformity of the modern preterite had already begun to show itself here and there. The adoption of the languageof the chancery gave rise to the mixed character of sounds and forms which is still a feature of the literary language of Germany. Thus the use of the monophthongsī,ü, andü, instead of the old diphthongsie,uoandüe, comes from Middle Germany; the forms of the words and the gender of the nouns follow Middle rather than Upper German usage, whereas, on the other hand, the consonantal system (ptopf;dtot) betrays in its main features its Upper German (Bavarian-Austrian) origin.The language of Luther no doubt shows greater originality in its style and vocabulary (cf. its influence on Goethe and the writers of theSturm und Drang), for in this respect the chancery could obviously afford him but scanty help. His vocabulary is drawn to a great extent from his own native Middle German dialect, and the fact that, since the 14th century, Middle German literature (cf. for instance, the writings of the German mystics, at the time of and subsequent to Eckhart) had exercised a strong influence over Upper Germany, stood him in good stead. Luther is, therefore, strictly speaking, not the father of the modern German literary language, but he forms the most important link in a chain of development which began long before him, and did not reach its final stage until long after him. To infer that Luther’s language made any rapid conquest of Germany would not be correct. It was, of course, immediately acceptable to the eastern part of the Middle German district (Thuringia and Silesia), and it did not find any great difficulty in penetrating into Low Germany, at least into the towns and districts lying to the east of the Saale and Elbe (Magdeburg, Hamburg). One may say that about the middle of the 16th century Luther’s High German was the language of the chanceries, about 1600 the language of the pulpit (the last Bible in Low German was printed at Goslar in 1621) and the printing presses. Thus the aspirations of Low Germany to have a literary language of its own were at an early stage crushed. Protestant Switzerland, on the other hand, resisted the “uncommon new German” until well into the 17th century. It was also natural that the Catholic Lower Rhine (Cologne) and Catholic South Germany held out against it, for to adopt the language of the reformer would have seemed tantamount to offering a helping hand to Protestant ideas. At the same time, geographical and political conditions, as well as the pronounced character of the Upper German dialects, formed an important obstacle to a speedy unification. South German grammarians of the 16th century, such as Laurentius Albertus, raise a warning voice against those who, although far distant from the proper use of words and the true pronunciation, venture to teachnos puriores Germanos, namely, the Upper Germans.In 1593 J. Helber, a Swiss schoolmaster and notary, spoke of three separate dialects as being in use by the printing presses:22(1)Mitteldeutsch(the language of the printers in Leipzig, Erfurt, Nuremberg, Würzburg, Frankfort, Mainz, Spires, Strassburg and Cologne; at the last mentioned place in the event of their attempting to printOber-Teutsch); (2)Donauisch(the printers’ language in South Germany, but limited to Bavaria and Swabia proper—here more particularly the Augsburg idiom, which was considered to be particularlyzierlich);23(3)Höchst Reinisch, which corresponds to Swiss German. Thus in the 16th century Germany was still far from real unity in its language; but to judge from the number and the geographical position of the towns which printed inMitteldeutschit is pretty clear which idiom would ultimately predominate. During the 17th century men like M. Opitz (Buch von der deutschen Poeterey) and J.G. Schottelius (Teutsche Sprachkunst, 1641, andVon der teutschen Sprachkunst, 1663), together with linguistic societies like theFruchtbringende Gesellschaftand the NurembergPegnitzorden, did a great deal to purify the German language from foreign (especially French) elements; they insisted on the claims of the vernacular to a place beside and even above Latin (in 1687 Christian Thomasius held for the first time lectures in the German language at the university of Leipzig), and they established a firm grammatical basis for Luther’s common language, which especially in the hymnals had become modernized and more uniform. About the middle of the 17th century the disparity between the vowels of the singular and plural of the preterite of the strong verbs practically ceases; under East Middle German influence the finaleis restored to words likeKnabe,Jude,Pfaffe, which in South German had beenKnab, &c.; the mixed declension (Ehre,Ehren;Schmerz,Schmerzen) was established, and the plural in -erwas extended to some masculine nouns (Wald,Wälder);24the use of the mutated sound has now become the rule as a plural sign (Väter, Bäume). How difficult, even in the first half of the 18th century, it was for a Swiss to write the literary language which Luther had established is to be seen from the often quoted words of Haller (1708-1777): “I am a Swiss, the German language is strange to me, and its choice of words was almost unknown to me.” The Catholic south clung firmly to its own literary language, based on the idiom of the imperial chancery, which was still an influential force in the 17th century or on local dialects. This is apparent in the writings of Abraham a Sancta Clara,25who died in 1709, or in the attacks of the Benedictine monk, Augustin Dornblüth, on theMeissner Schriftsprachein 1755.In the 18th century, to which these names have introduced us, the grammatical writings of J.C. Gottsched (Deutsche Sprachkunst, 1748) and J.C. Adelung (Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart, 1774-1786) exercised a decisive and far-reaching influence. Gottsched took as his basis the spoken language (Umgangssprache) of the educated classes of Upper Saxony (Meissen), which at this time approximated as nearly as possible to the literary language. HisGrammardid enormous services to the cause of unification, ultimately winning over the resisting south; but he carried his purism to pedantic lengths, he would tolerate no archaic or dialectical words, no unusual forms or constructions, and consequently made the language unsuited for poetry. Meanwhile an interest in Old German literature was being awakened by Bodmer; Herder set forth better ideas on the nature of language, and insisted on the value of native idioms; and theSturm und Drangled by Goethe encouraged all individualistic tendencies. All this gave rise to a movement counter to Gottsched’s absolutism, which resulted in the revival of many obsolete German words and forms, these being drawn partly from Luther’s Bible translation (cf. V. Hehn, “Goethe und die Sprache der Bibel,” in theGoethe-Jahrbuch, viii. p. 187 ff.), partly from the older language and partly from the vocabulary peculiar to different social ranks and trades.26The latter is still a source of linguistic innovations. German literary style underwent a similar rejuvenation, for we are on the threshold of the second classical period of German literature. It had strengthened Gottsched’s hand as a linguistic reformer that the earlier leaders of German literature, such as Gellert, Klopstock and Lessing, were Middle Germans; now Wieland’s influence, which was particularly strong in South Germany, helped materially towards the establishment of one accepted literary language throughout all German-speaking countries; and the movement reaches its culmination with Goethe and Schiller. At the same time this unification did not imply the creation of an unalterable standard; for, just as the language of Opitz and Schottelius differed from that of Luther, so—although naturally in a lesser degree—the literary language of our day differs from that of the classic writers of the 18th century. Local peculiarities are still to be met with, as is to be seen in the modern German literature that emanates from Switzerland or Austria.But this unity, imperfect as it is, is limited to the literary language. The differences are much more sharply accentuated in theUmgangssprache,27whereby we understand the language as it is spoken by educated people throughout Germany; this is not only the case with regard to pronunciation, although it is naturally most noticeable here, but also with regard to the choice of words and the construction of sentences. Compared with the times of Goethe and Schiller a certain advance towards unification has undoubtedly been made, but the differences between north and south are still very great. This is particularly noticeable in the pronunciation ofr—either the uvularror therproduced by the tip of the tongue; of the voiced and voiceless stops,b,p,d,t,gandk; of thessounds; of the diphthongs; of the long vowelsēandōē, &c. (cf. W. Vietor,German Pronunciation, 2nd ed., 1890). The question as to whether a unified pronunciation (Einheitaussprache) is desirable or even possible has occupied the attention of academies, scholars and the educated public during recent years, and in 1898 a commission made up of scholars and theatre directors drew up a scheme of pronunciation for use in the royal theatres of Prussia.28This scheme has since been recommended to all German theatres by the GermanBühnenverein. Desirable as such a uniform pronunciation is for the national theatre, it is a much debated question how far it should be adopted in the ordinary speech of everyday life. Some scholars, such as W. Braune, declared themselves strongly in favour of its adoption;29Braune’sargument being that the system of modern pronunciation is based on the spelling, not on the sounds produced in speaking. The latter, he holds, is only responsible for the pronunciation of-chs-as-ks-inwachsen,Ochse, &c., or for that ofsp-andst-inspielen,stehen, &c. Other scholars, again, such as K. Luick and O. Brenner, warn against any such attempts to create a living language on an artificial basis;30theBühnendeutschor “stage-German” they regard as little more than an abstract ideal. Thus the decision must be left to time.Authorities.—General Literature: J. Grimm,Geschichte der deutschen Sprache(Leipzig, 1848; 4th ed., 1880); W. Scherer,Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache(Berlin, 1868; 2nd ed., 1878); E. Förstemann,Geschichte des deutschen Sprachstammes(Nordhausen, 1874-1875); O. Behaghel,Die deutsche Sprache(Leipzig, 1886; 2nd ed., 1902); the same, “Geschichte der deutschen Sprache,” in Paul’sGrundriss der germanischen Philologie(2nd ed.), i. pp. 650 ff.; O. Weise,Unsere deutsche Sprache, ihr Werden und ihr Wesen(Leipzig, 1898); K. von Raumer,Geschichte der germanischen Philologie(Munich, 1870); J. Grimm,Deutsche Grammatik(4 vols., vols. i.-iii. in new edition, 1870-1890); Dieter,Laut- und Formenlehre der altgermanischen Dialekte(2 vols., Leipzig, 1898-1900); F. Kauffmann,Deutsche Grammatik(2nd ed., 1895); W. Wilmanns,Deutsche Grammatik, so far, vols, i., ii. and iii., 1 (Strassburg, 1893-1906, vol. i., 2nd ed., 1897); O. Brenner,Grundzüge der geschichtlichen Grammatik der deutschen Sprache(Munich, 1896); H. Lichtenberger,Histoire de la langue allemande(Paris, 1895).Old and Middle High German Period: W. Braune,Althochdeutsche Grammatik(2nd ed., Halle, 1891); the same,Abriss der althochdeutschen Grammatik(3rd ed., 1900); F. Holthausen,Altsächsisches Elementarbuch(Heidelberg, 1899); W. Schlüter,Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altsächsichen Sprache, i. (Göttingen, 1892); O. Schade,Altdeutsches Wörterbuch(2nd ed., Halle, 1872-1882); G.E. Graff,Althochdeutscher Sprachschatz(6 vols., Berlin, 1834-1842) (Index by Massmann, 1846); E. Steinmeyer and E. Sievers,Althochdeutsche Glossen(4 vols., Berlin, 1879-1898); J.A. Schmeller,Glossarium Saxonicum(Munich, 1840); K. Weinhold,Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik(3rd ed., Paderborn, 1892); H. Paul,Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik(5th ed., Halle, 1900); V. Michels,Mittelhochdeutsches Elementarbuch(Heidelberg, 1900); O. Brenner,Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik(3rd ed., Munich, 1894); K. Zwierzina, “Mittelhochdeutsche Studien,” inZeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, vols. xliv. and xlv.; A. Lübben,Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik(Leipzig, 1882); W. Müller and F. Zarncke,Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch(4 vols., Leipzig, 1854-1866); M. Lexer,Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch(3 vols., 1872-1878); the same,Mittelhochdeutsches Taschenwörterbuch(8th ed., 1906); K. Schiller and A. Lübben,Mittelniederdeutsches Wörterbuch(6 vols., Bremen, 1875-1881); A. Lübben,Mittelniederdeutsches Handwörterbuch(Norden, 1888); F. Seiler,Die Entwicklung der deutsch. Kultur im Spiegel des deutschen Lehnworts(Halle, i., 1895, 2nd ed., 1905, ii., 1900).Modern High German Period: E. Wülcker, “Die Entstehung der kursächsischen Kanzleisprache” (in theZeitschrift des Vereins für kursächsische Geschichte, ix. p. 349); the same, “Luthers Stellung zur kursächsischen Kanzleisprache” (inGermania, xxviii. pp. 191 ff.); P. Pietsch,Martin Luther und die hochdeutsche Schriftsprache(Breslau, 1883); K. Burdach,Die Einigung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache, (1883); E. Opitz,Die Sprache Luthers(Halle, 1869); J. Luther,Die Sprache Luthers in der Septemberbibel(Halle, 1887); F. Kluge,Von Luther bis Lessing(Strassburg, 1888) (cf. E. Schröder’s review in theGöttinger gelehrte Anzeiger, 1888, 249); H. Rückert,Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts(1875): J. Kehrein,Grammatik der deutschen Sprache des 15. bis 17. Jahrhunderts(Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1863); K. von Bahder,Grundlagen des neuhochdeutschen Lautsystems(Strassburg, 1890); R. Meyer,Einführung in das ältere Neuhochdeutsche(Leipzig, 1894); W. Scheel,Beiträge zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Gemeinsprache in Köln(Marburg, 1892); R. Brandstetter,Die Rezeption der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache in Stadt und Landschaft Luzern(1892); K. Burdach, “Zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache” (Forschungen zur deutschen Philologie, 1894); the same, “Die Sprache des jungen Goethe” (Verhandlungen der Dessauer Philologenversammlung, 1884, p. 164 ff.); F. Kasch,Die Sprache des jungen Schiller(Dissertation, 1900); F. Kluge, “Über die Entstehung unserer Schriftsprache” (Beihefte zurZeitschrift des allgemeinen Sprachvereins, Heft 6, 1894); A. Waag,Bedeutungsentwickelung unseres Wortschatzes(Lahr, 1901).Mention must also be made of the work of the German commission of the Royal Prussian Academy, which in 1904 drew up plans for making an inventory of all German literary MSS. dating from before the year 1600 and for the publication of Middle High German and early Modern High German texts. This undertaking, which has made considerable progress, provides rich material for the study of the somewhat neglected period between the 14th and 16th centuries; at the same time it provides a basis on which a monumental history of Modern High German may be built up, as well as for aThesaurus linguae germanicae.
A. The Low German Dialects
The Low German dialects, as we have seen, stand nearest to the English and Frisian languages, owing to the total absence of the consonantal shifting which characterizes High German, as well as to other peculiarities of sounds and inflections,e.g.the loss of the nasalsmandnbefore the spirantsf,sandp. Cf. Old Saxonfif(five),us(us),kup(cf. uncouth). The boundary-line between Low and High German, the so-calledBenrather Linie, may roughly be indicated by the following place-names, on the understanding, however, that the Ripuarian dialect (see below) is to be classed with High German: Montjoie (French border-town), Eupen, Aachen, Benrath, Düsseldorf, north of Siegen, Cassel, Heiligenstadt, Harzgerode, to the Elbe south of Magdeburg; this river forms the boundary as far as Wittenberg, whence the line passes to Lübben on the Spree, Fürstenwald on the Oder and Birnbaum near the river Warthe. Beyond this point the Low Germans have Slavs as their neighbours. Compared with the conditions in the 13th century, it appears that Low German has lost ground; down to the 14th and 15th centuries several towns, such as Mansfeld, Eisleben, Merseburg, Halle, Dessau and Wittenberg, spoke Low German.
Low German falls into two divisions, a western division, namely, Low Franconian, the parent, as we have already said, of Flemish and Dutch, and an eastern division, Low Saxon (Plattdeutsch, or, as it is often simply called, Low German). The chief characteristic of the division is to be sought in the ending of the first and third person plural of the present indicative of verbs, this being in the former case-en, in the latter-et. Inasmuch as the south-eastern part of Low Franconian—inclusive of Gelderland and Cleves—shifts finalktoch(e.g.ich,mich,auch,-lich), it must obviously be separated from the rest, and in this respect be grouped with High German. Low Saxon is usually divided into Westphalian (to the west of the Weser) and Low Saxon proper, between Weser and Elbe. The south-eastern part of the latter has the verbal ending-enand further shows the peculiarity that the personal pronoun has the same form in the dative and accusative (mik,dick), whereas the remainder, as well as the Westphalian, hasmi,diin the dative, andmi,diormik,dikin the accusative. To these Low German dialects must also be added those spoken east of the Elbe on what was originally Slavonic territory; they have the ending-enin the first and third person plural of verbs.8
B. The High German Dialects
1.The Middle German Group.—This group, which comprises the dialects of the Middle Rhine, of Hesse, Thuringia, Upper Saxony (Meissen), Silesia and East Prussia to the east of the lower Vistula between Bischofswerder, Marienburg, Elbing, Wormditt and Wartenberg—a district originally colonized from Silesia—may be most conveniently divided into an East and a West Middle German group. A common characteristic of all these dialects is the diminutive suffix-chen, as compared with the Low German form-kenand the Upper German-lein(O.H.G.līn). East Middle German consists of Silesian, Upper Saxon and Thuringian,9together with the linguistic colony in East Prussia. While these dialects have shifted initial Germanicptoph, or even tof(fert=Pferd), the West Middle German dialects (roughly speaking to the west of the watershed of Werra and Fulda) have retained it. If, following a convincing article in theZeitschrift für deutsches Altertum(37, 288 ff.) by F. Wrede, we class East and South Franconian—both together may be called High Franconian—with the Upper German dialects, there only remain in the West Middle German group:10(a) MiddleFranconian and (b) Rhenish Franconian. The former of these,11which with itsdat,wat,allet, &c. (cf. above) and its retention of the voiced spirantb(writtenv) represents a kind of transition dialect to Low German, is itself divided into (α) Ripuarian or Low Rhenish with Cologne and Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) as centres, and (β) Moselle Franconian12with Trier (Treves) as principal town. The latter is distinguished by the fact that in the Middle High German period it shifts Germanic-rp-and-rd-, which are retained in (a), to-rf-and-rt-(cf.werfen,hirtinwithwerpen,hirdin).13The Rhenish Franconian dialect is spoken in the Rhenish palatinate, in the northern part of Baden (Heidelberg), Hesse14and Nassau, and in the German-speaking part of Lorraine. A line drawn from Falkenberg at the French frontier to Siegen on the Lahn, touching the Rhine near Boppard, roughly indicates the division between Middle and Rhenish Franconian.
2.The Upper German Group.—The Upper German dialects, which played the most important part in the literature of the early periods, may be divided into (a) a Bavarian-Austrian group and (b) a High Franconian-Alemannic group. Of all the German dialects the Bavarian-Austrian has carried the soundshifting to its furthest extreme; here only do we find the labial voiced stopbwrittenpin the middle of a word, viz. old Bavariankāpamēs, old Alemannickābamēs(“we gave”); here too, in the 12th century, we find the first traces of that broadening ofī,ū,iu(ü) toei,au,eu, a change which, even at the present day, is still foreign to the greater part of the Alemannic dialects. Only in Bavarian do we still find the old pronominal dual formsesandenk(forihrandeuch). Finally, Bavarian forms diminutives in-eland-erl(Mädel,Mäderl), while the Franconian-Alemannic forms are-laand-le(Mädle). On the other hand, the pronunciation of-sas-sch, especially-stas-scht(cf.Last,Haspel, pronouncedLascht,Haschpel), may be mentioned as characteristic of the Alemannic, just as thefortispronunciation of initialtis characteristic of High Franconian, while the other Franconian and Upper German dialects employ thelenis.
The Alemannic dialect which, roughly speaking, is separated from Bavarian by the Lech and borders on Italian territory in the south and on French in the west, is subdivided into: (a) Swabian, the dialect of the kingdom of Württemberg and the north-western part of Tirol (cf. H. Fischer,Geographie der schwäbischen Mundart, 1895); (b) High Alemannic (Swiss), including the German dialects of Switzerland, of the southern part of the Black Forest (the Basel-Breisgau dialect), and that of Vorarlberg; (c) Low Alemannic, comprising the dialects of Alsace and part of Baden (to the north of the Feldberg and south of Rastatt), also, at the present day, the town of Basel. Only Swabian has taken part in the change ofitoei, &c., mentioned above, while initial Germanickhas been shifted toch(χ) only in High Alemannic (cf.chalt,chind,chorn, forkalt,kind,korn). The pronunciation ofūasü,ü(HüsforHaus) is peculiar to Alsatian.
The High Franconian dialects, that is to say, east and south (or south-Rhenish) Franconian, which are separated broadly speaking by the river Neckar, comprise the language spoken in a part of Baden, the dialects of the Main valley from Würzburg upwards to Bamberg, the dialect of Nuremberg and probably of the Vogtland (Plauen) and Egerland. During the older historical period the principal difference between East and South Franconian consisted in the fact that initial Germanicdwas retained in the latter dialect, while East Franconian shifted it tot. Both, like Bavarian and Alemannic, shift initial Germanpto the affricatepf.
Finally, the Bavarian-Austrian dialect is spoken throughout the greater part of the kingdom of Bavaria (i.e.east of the Lech and a fine drawn from the point where the Lech joins the Danube to the sources of the rivers Elster and Mulde, this being the East Franconian border-line), in Austria, western Bohemia, and in the German linguistic “islands” embedded in Hungary, in Gottschee and the Sette and Tredici Communi (cf. above).15
The Old High German Period
The language spoken during the Old High German period, that is to say, down to about the year 1050, is remarkable for the fulness and richness of its vowel-sounds in word-stems as well as in inflections. Cf.elilenti,Elend;luginari,Lügner;karkari,Kerker;menniskonoslahta,Menschengeschlecht;herzono,Herzen(gen. pl.);furisto,vorderste;hartost, (am)härtesten;sibunzug,siebzig;ziohemes, (wir)ziehen;salbota, (er)salbte;gaworahtos, (du)wirktest, &c. Of the consonantal changes which took place during this period that of the spirant th (preserved only in English) to d (werthan,werdan;theob,deob) deserves mention. It spread from Upper Germany, where it is noticeable as early as the 8th century to Middle and finally, in the 11th and 12th centuries, to Low Germany. Further, the initialhinhl,hn,hr,hw(cf.hwer,wer;hreini,rein;hlahhan,lachen) andwinwr(wrecceo,Recke) disappeared, this change also starting in Upper Germany and spreading slowly north. The most important vowel-change is the so-called mutation (Umlaut),16that is to say, the qualitative change of a vowel (excepti) in a stem-syllable, owing to the influence of aniorjin the following syllable. This process commenced in the north where it seems to have been already fully developed in Low German as early as the 8th century. It is to be found, it may be noted, in Anglo-Saxon, as early as the 6th century. It gradually worked its way southwards to Middle and Upper Germany where, however, certain consonants seem to have protected the stem syllable from the influence ofiin a following syllable. Cf., for instance, Modern High Germandruckenanddrücken;glauben,kaufen,Haupt, words which in Middle German dialects show mutation. Orthographically, however, this process is, during the first period, only to be seen in the change ofătoe; from the 10th century onwards there are, it is true, some traces of other changes, and vowels likeŭ,ō,oumust have already been affected, otherwise we could not account for the mutation of these vowels at a period when the cause of it, theiorj, no longer existed. A no less important change, for it helped to differentiate High from Low German, was that of Germanicē2(a closedē-sound) and ō diphthongs in Old High German, while they were retained in Old Low German. Cf. O.H.G.hēr,hear,hiar, O.L.G.hēr; O.H.G.fuoz, O.L.G.fōt. The final result was that in the 10th century ie (older forms,ia,ea) anduo(olderua,oain Alemannic,uain South Franconian) had asserted themselves throughout all the High German dialects. Again while in Old High German the older diphthongsaiandauwere preserved aseiandou, unless they happened to stand at the end of a word or were followed by certain consonants (h,w,rin the one case, andh,r,l,n,th,d,t,z,sin the other; cf.zēhfromzīhan,zōhfromziohan,verlôs, &c.), the Old Low German shows throughout the monophthongsē(in Middle Low German a closed sound) andō(cf. O.L.G.stēn,ōga). These monophthongs are also to be heard in Rhenish Franconian, the greater part of East Franconian and the Upper Saxon and Silesian dialects of modern times (cf.Stein:SteenorStan;laufen:lofenorlopen).
Of the dialects enumerated above, Bavarian and Alemannic, High and Rhenish Franconian as well as Old Saxon are more or less represented in the literature of the first period. But this literature, the chief monuments of which are Otfrid’sEvangelienbuch(in South Franconian), the Old SaxonHeliand(a life of Christ in alliterative verse), the translation of Tatian’sGospel Harmony(East Franconian) and that of a theological tract by Bishop Isidore of Seville and of parts of the Bible (Rhenish Franconian), is almost exclusively theological and didactic in character. One is consequently inclined to attach more value to the scanty remains of theHildebrandsliedand some interesting and ancient charms. The didactic spirit again pervades the translations and commentaries of Notker of St Gall in the early part of the 11th century, as well as a paraphrase of theSong of Songsby an abbot Williram of Ebersberg a little later. Latin, however, reigned supreme throughout this period, it being the language of the charters, the lawbooks (there is nothing in Germany to compare with the laws of the Anglo-Saxons), of science, medicine, and even poetry. It is thus needless to say that there was no recognized literary language (Schriftsprache) during this period, nor even any attempt to form one; at most, we might speak of schools in the large monasteries, such as Reichenau, St Gall, Fulda, which contributed to the spread and acceptance of certain orthographical rules.
The Middle High German Period
The following are the chief changes in sounds and forms which mark the development of the language in the Middle High German period. The orthography of the MSS. reveals a much more extensive employment of mutation (Umlaut) than was the case in the first period; we find, for instance, as the mutation ofo,ö, ofō,œ,of ū,iu(ü), ofuo,üe, ofou,öu, andeu(cf.höler,bœse,hiuser,güete,böume), although many scribes, and more especially those of Middle and Low German districts, have no special signs for the mutation ofŭ,ū, ando. Of special interest is the so-called “later (or weaker)mutation” (jüngerer oder schwächerer Umlaut) ofăto a very openesound, which is often writtenä. Cf.mähte(O.H.G.mahti),mägede(O.H.G.magadi). The earlier mutation of this sound produced ane(é), a closed sound (i.e.neareri). Cf.geste(O.H.G.gesti).
The various Old High German vowels in unstressed syllables were either weakened to an indifferentesound (geben, O.H.G.geban;bote, O.H.G.boto;sige, O.H.G.sigu) or disappeared altogether. The latter phenomenon is to be observed afterlandr, and partly afternandm(cf.ar(e), O.H.G.aro;zal, O.H.G.zala;wundern, O.H.G.wuntarōn, &c.); but it by no means took place everywhere in the same degree and at the same time. It has been already noted that the Alemannic dialect (as well as the archaic poets of the German national epic) retained at least the long unstressed vowels until as late as the 14th century (gemarterōt,gekriuzegōt, &c., and Low and Middle German preserved the weakenedesound in many cases where Upper German dropped it. In this period the beginnings are also to be seen in Low and Middle German (Heinrich von Veldeke shows the first traces of it) of a process which became of great importance for the formation of the Modern German literary language. This is the lengthening of originally short vowels in open syllables,17for example, in Modern High GermanTāges,Wēges,lōbe(Middle High Germantăges,wĕges,lŏbe). In Austria, on the other hand, there began as far back as the first half of the 12th century another movement of equal importance for Modern High German, namely, the conversion of the long vowels,ī,ū,ü, intoei(ou),au,eu(äu).18It is, therefore, in MSS. written in the south-east that we find forms likezeit,lauter(löter),heute, &c., for the first time. With the exception of Low German and Alemannic—Swabian, however, follows in this respect the majority—all the German dialects participated in this change between the 14th and 16th centuries, although not all to the same degree. The change was perhaps assisted by the influence of the literary language which had recognized the new sounds. In England the same process has led to the modern pronunciation oftime,house, &c., and in Holland to that oftijd,huis, &c. F. Wrede (Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertumxxxix. 257 ff.) has suggested that the explanation of the change is to be sought in the apocope and syncope of the finale, and the greater stress which was in consequence put on the stem-syllable. The tendency to a change in the opposite direction, namely, the narrowing of diphthongs to monophthongs, is to be noticed in Middle German dialects,i.e.in dialects which resisted the apocope of the finale, whereie,uo,üebecomeī,ū,ü; thus we have forBrief,brīf, forhuon,hūn, forbrüeder,brüder, and this too was taken over into the Modern High German literary language.19
No consonantal change was so widespread during this period as that of initialstoschbeforel,n,m,w,pandt. Cf.slingen,schlingen;swer(e)n,schwören, &c. The formsscht- andschp- are often to be met with in Alemannic MSS., but they were discarded again, although modern German recognizes the pronunciationschp,scht.20With regard to changes affecting the inflections of verbs and nouns, it must suffice here to point out that the weakening or disappearance of vowels in unstressed syllables necessarily affected the characteristic endings of the older language; groups of verbs and substantives which in Old High German were distinct now become confused. This is best seen in the case of the weak verbs, where the three Old High German classes (cf.nerien,salbōn,dagēn) were fused into one. Similarly in the declensions we find an increasing tendency of certain forms to influence substantives belonging to other classes; there is, for instance, an increase in the number of neuter nouns taking-er(-ir) in the plural, and of those which show mutation in the plural on the model of thei-stems (O.H.G.gast, pl.gesti; cf. forms likeban,benne;hals,helse;wald,welde). Of changes in syntax the gradual decay in the use of the genitive case dependent on a noun or governed by a verb (cf. constructions likeeine brünne rotes goldes, ordes todes wünschen) towards the end of the period, and also the disappearance of the Old High German sequence of tenses ought at least to be mentioned.
In the Middle High German period, the first classical period of German poetry, the German language made great advances as a vehicle of literary expression; its power of expression was increased and it acquired a beauty of style hitherto unknown. This was the period of theMinnesangand the great popular and court epics, of Walther von der Vogelweide, Hartmann von Aue, Wolfram von Eschenbach and Gottfried von Strassburg; it was a period when literature enjoyed the fostering care of the courts and the nobility. At the same time German prose celebrated its first triumphs in the sermons of Berthold von Regensburg, and in the mystic writings and sermons of Meister Eckhart, Tauler and others. History (Eike von Repkow’sWeltchronik) and law (Sachsenspiegel,Schwabenspiegel) no longer despised the vernacular, and from about the middle of the 13th century German becomes, in an ever-increasing percentage, the language of deeds and charters.
It has been a much debated question how far Germany in Middle High German times possessed or aspired to possess aSchriftspracheor literary language.21About the year 1200 there was undoubtedly a marked tendency towards a unification of the literary language on the part of the more careful poets like Walther von der Vogelweide, Hartmann von Aue and Gottfried von Strassburg; they avoid, more particularly in their rhymes, dialectic peculiarities, such as the Bavarian dual formsesandenk, or the long vowels in unstressed syllables, retained in Alemannic, and they do not make use of archaic words or forms. We have thus a right to speak, if not of a Middle High German literary language in the widest sense of the word, at least of a Middle High GermanDichterspracheor poetic language, on an Alemannic-Franconian basis. Whether, or in how far, this may have affected the ordinary speech of the nobility or courts, is a matter of conjecture; but it had an undeniable influence on Middle and Low German poets, who endeavoured at least to use High German forms in their rhymes. Attempts were also made in Low German districts, though at a later stage of this period, to unify the dialects and raise them to the level of an accepted literary language. It will be shown later why these attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, however, the efforts of the High German poets to form a uniform language were also shortlived; by the end of the 13th century theDichtersprachehad disappeared, and the dialects again reigned supreme.
Modern High German
Although the Middle High German period had thus not succeeded in effecting any permanent advance in the direction of a uniform literary language, the desire for a certain degree of uniformity was never again entirely lost. At the close of the 13th century literature had passed from the hands of the nobility to those of the middle classes of the towns; the number of writers who used the German tongue rapidly increased; later the invention of printing, the increased efficiency of the schools, and above all the religious movement of the Reformation, contributed to awakening the desire of being understood by those who stood outside the dialectic community of the individual. A single authoritative form of writing and spelling was felt on all sides to be particularly necessary. This was found in the language used officially by the various chanceries (Kanzleien), and more especially the imperial chancery. Since the days of Charles IV. (1347-1378) the latter had striven after a certain uniform language in the documents it issued, and by the time of Maximilian I. (1493-1519) all its official documents were characterized by pretty much the same phonology, forms and vocabulary, in whatever part of Germany they originated. And under Maximilian’s successor, Charles V., the conditions remained pretty much the same. The fact that the seat of the imperial chancery had for a long time been in Prague, led to a mingling of Upper and Middle German sounds and inflections; but when the crown came with Frederick III. (1440-1493) to the Habsburgs, the Upper German elements were considerably increased. The chancery of the Saxon electorate, whose territory was exclusively Middle German, had to some extent, under the influence of the imperial chancery, allowed Upper German characteristics to influence its official language. This is clearly marked in the second half of the 15th century, and about the year 1500 there was no essential difference between the languages of the two chanceries. Thuringia, Silesia and Brandenburg soon followed suit, and even Low German could not ultimately resist the accepted High German notation (ö, ṏ, ü, ṻ, ů, ie, &c.). We have here very favourable conditions for the creation of a uniform literary language, and, as has already been said, the tendency to follow these authorities is clearly marked.
In the midst of this development arose the imposing figure of Luther, who, although by no means the originator of a common High German speech, helped very materially to establish it. He deliberately chose (cf. the often quoted passage in hisTischreden, ch. 69) the language of the Saxon chancery as the vehicle of his Bible translation and subsequently of his own writings. The differences between Luther’s usage and that of the chancery, in phonology and inflection, are small; still he shows, in his writings subsequent to 1524, a somewhat more pronounced tendency towards Middle German. But it is noteworthy that he, like the chancery, retained the old vowel-change in the singular and plural of the preterite of the strong verbs (i.e.steig, stigen; starb, sturben), although before Luther’s time the uniformity of the modern preterite had already begun to show itself here and there. The adoption of the languageof the chancery gave rise to the mixed character of sounds and forms which is still a feature of the literary language of Germany. Thus the use of the monophthongsī,ü, andü, instead of the old diphthongsie,uoandüe, comes from Middle Germany; the forms of the words and the gender of the nouns follow Middle rather than Upper German usage, whereas, on the other hand, the consonantal system (ptopf;dtot) betrays in its main features its Upper German (Bavarian-Austrian) origin.
The language of Luther no doubt shows greater originality in its style and vocabulary (cf. its influence on Goethe and the writers of theSturm und Drang), for in this respect the chancery could obviously afford him but scanty help. His vocabulary is drawn to a great extent from his own native Middle German dialect, and the fact that, since the 14th century, Middle German literature (cf. for instance, the writings of the German mystics, at the time of and subsequent to Eckhart) had exercised a strong influence over Upper Germany, stood him in good stead. Luther is, therefore, strictly speaking, not the father of the modern German literary language, but he forms the most important link in a chain of development which began long before him, and did not reach its final stage until long after him. To infer that Luther’s language made any rapid conquest of Germany would not be correct. It was, of course, immediately acceptable to the eastern part of the Middle German district (Thuringia and Silesia), and it did not find any great difficulty in penetrating into Low Germany, at least into the towns and districts lying to the east of the Saale and Elbe (Magdeburg, Hamburg). One may say that about the middle of the 16th century Luther’s High German was the language of the chanceries, about 1600 the language of the pulpit (the last Bible in Low German was printed at Goslar in 1621) and the printing presses. Thus the aspirations of Low Germany to have a literary language of its own were at an early stage crushed. Protestant Switzerland, on the other hand, resisted the “uncommon new German” until well into the 17th century. It was also natural that the Catholic Lower Rhine (Cologne) and Catholic South Germany held out against it, for to adopt the language of the reformer would have seemed tantamount to offering a helping hand to Protestant ideas. At the same time, geographical and political conditions, as well as the pronounced character of the Upper German dialects, formed an important obstacle to a speedy unification. South German grammarians of the 16th century, such as Laurentius Albertus, raise a warning voice against those who, although far distant from the proper use of words and the true pronunciation, venture to teachnos puriores Germanos, namely, the Upper Germans.
In 1593 J. Helber, a Swiss schoolmaster and notary, spoke of three separate dialects as being in use by the printing presses:22(1)Mitteldeutsch(the language of the printers in Leipzig, Erfurt, Nuremberg, Würzburg, Frankfort, Mainz, Spires, Strassburg and Cologne; at the last mentioned place in the event of their attempting to printOber-Teutsch); (2)Donauisch(the printers’ language in South Germany, but limited to Bavaria and Swabia proper—here more particularly the Augsburg idiom, which was considered to be particularlyzierlich);23(3)Höchst Reinisch, which corresponds to Swiss German. Thus in the 16th century Germany was still far from real unity in its language; but to judge from the number and the geographical position of the towns which printed inMitteldeutschit is pretty clear which idiom would ultimately predominate. During the 17th century men like M. Opitz (Buch von der deutschen Poeterey) and J.G. Schottelius (Teutsche Sprachkunst, 1641, andVon der teutschen Sprachkunst, 1663), together with linguistic societies like theFruchtbringende Gesellschaftand the NurembergPegnitzorden, did a great deal to purify the German language from foreign (especially French) elements; they insisted on the claims of the vernacular to a place beside and even above Latin (in 1687 Christian Thomasius held for the first time lectures in the German language at the university of Leipzig), and they established a firm grammatical basis for Luther’s common language, which especially in the hymnals had become modernized and more uniform. About the middle of the 17th century the disparity between the vowels of the singular and plural of the preterite of the strong verbs practically ceases; under East Middle German influence the finaleis restored to words likeKnabe,Jude,Pfaffe, which in South German had beenKnab, &c.; the mixed declension (Ehre,Ehren;Schmerz,Schmerzen) was established, and the plural in -erwas extended to some masculine nouns (Wald,Wälder);24the use of the mutated sound has now become the rule as a plural sign (Väter, Bäume). How difficult, even in the first half of the 18th century, it was for a Swiss to write the literary language which Luther had established is to be seen from the often quoted words of Haller (1708-1777): “I am a Swiss, the German language is strange to me, and its choice of words was almost unknown to me.” The Catholic south clung firmly to its own literary language, based on the idiom of the imperial chancery, which was still an influential force in the 17th century or on local dialects. This is apparent in the writings of Abraham a Sancta Clara,25who died in 1709, or in the attacks of the Benedictine monk, Augustin Dornblüth, on theMeissner Schriftsprachein 1755.
In the 18th century, to which these names have introduced us, the grammatical writings of J.C. Gottsched (Deutsche Sprachkunst, 1748) and J.C. Adelung (Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart, 1774-1786) exercised a decisive and far-reaching influence. Gottsched took as his basis the spoken language (Umgangssprache) of the educated classes of Upper Saxony (Meissen), which at this time approximated as nearly as possible to the literary language. HisGrammardid enormous services to the cause of unification, ultimately winning over the resisting south; but he carried his purism to pedantic lengths, he would tolerate no archaic or dialectical words, no unusual forms or constructions, and consequently made the language unsuited for poetry. Meanwhile an interest in Old German literature was being awakened by Bodmer; Herder set forth better ideas on the nature of language, and insisted on the value of native idioms; and theSturm und Drangled by Goethe encouraged all individualistic tendencies. All this gave rise to a movement counter to Gottsched’s absolutism, which resulted in the revival of many obsolete German words and forms, these being drawn partly from Luther’s Bible translation (cf. V. Hehn, “Goethe und die Sprache der Bibel,” in theGoethe-Jahrbuch, viii. p. 187 ff.), partly from the older language and partly from the vocabulary peculiar to different social ranks and trades.26The latter is still a source of linguistic innovations. German literary style underwent a similar rejuvenation, for we are on the threshold of the second classical period of German literature. It had strengthened Gottsched’s hand as a linguistic reformer that the earlier leaders of German literature, such as Gellert, Klopstock and Lessing, were Middle Germans; now Wieland’s influence, which was particularly strong in South Germany, helped materially towards the establishment of one accepted literary language throughout all German-speaking countries; and the movement reaches its culmination with Goethe and Schiller. At the same time this unification did not imply the creation of an unalterable standard; for, just as the language of Opitz and Schottelius differed from that of Luther, so—although naturally in a lesser degree—the literary language of our day differs from that of the classic writers of the 18th century. Local peculiarities are still to be met with, as is to be seen in the modern German literature that emanates from Switzerland or Austria.
But this unity, imperfect as it is, is limited to the literary language. The differences are much more sharply accentuated in theUmgangssprache,27whereby we understand the language as it is spoken by educated people throughout Germany; this is not only the case with regard to pronunciation, although it is naturally most noticeable here, but also with regard to the choice of words and the construction of sentences. Compared with the times of Goethe and Schiller a certain advance towards unification has undoubtedly been made, but the differences between north and south are still very great. This is particularly noticeable in the pronunciation ofr—either the uvularror therproduced by the tip of the tongue; of the voiced and voiceless stops,b,p,d,t,gandk; of thessounds; of the diphthongs; of the long vowelsēandōē, &c. (cf. W. Vietor,German Pronunciation, 2nd ed., 1890). The question as to whether a unified pronunciation (Einheitaussprache) is desirable or even possible has occupied the attention of academies, scholars and the educated public during recent years, and in 1898 a commission made up of scholars and theatre directors drew up a scheme of pronunciation for use in the royal theatres of Prussia.28This scheme has since been recommended to all German theatres by the GermanBühnenverein. Desirable as such a uniform pronunciation is for the national theatre, it is a much debated question how far it should be adopted in the ordinary speech of everyday life. Some scholars, such as W. Braune, declared themselves strongly in favour of its adoption;29Braune’sargument being that the system of modern pronunciation is based on the spelling, not on the sounds produced in speaking. The latter, he holds, is only responsible for the pronunciation of-chs-as-ks-inwachsen,Ochse, &c., or for that ofsp-andst-inspielen,stehen, &c. Other scholars, again, such as K. Luick and O. Brenner, warn against any such attempts to create a living language on an artificial basis;30theBühnendeutschor “stage-German” they regard as little more than an abstract ideal. Thus the decision must be left to time.
Authorities.—General Literature: J. Grimm,Geschichte der deutschen Sprache(Leipzig, 1848; 4th ed., 1880); W. Scherer,Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache(Berlin, 1868; 2nd ed., 1878); E. Förstemann,Geschichte des deutschen Sprachstammes(Nordhausen, 1874-1875); O. Behaghel,Die deutsche Sprache(Leipzig, 1886; 2nd ed., 1902); the same, “Geschichte der deutschen Sprache,” in Paul’sGrundriss der germanischen Philologie(2nd ed.), i. pp. 650 ff.; O. Weise,Unsere deutsche Sprache, ihr Werden und ihr Wesen(Leipzig, 1898); K. von Raumer,Geschichte der germanischen Philologie(Munich, 1870); J. Grimm,Deutsche Grammatik(4 vols., vols. i.-iii. in new edition, 1870-1890); Dieter,Laut- und Formenlehre der altgermanischen Dialekte(2 vols., Leipzig, 1898-1900); F. Kauffmann,Deutsche Grammatik(2nd ed., 1895); W. Wilmanns,Deutsche Grammatik, so far, vols, i., ii. and iii., 1 (Strassburg, 1893-1906, vol. i., 2nd ed., 1897); O. Brenner,Grundzüge der geschichtlichen Grammatik der deutschen Sprache(Munich, 1896); H. Lichtenberger,Histoire de la langue allemande(Paris, 1895).
Old and Middle High German Period: W. Braune,Althochdeutsche Grammatik(2nd ed., Halle, 1891); the same,Abriss der althochdeutschen Grammatik(3rd ed., 1900); F. Holthausen,Altsächsisches Elementarbuch(Heidelberg, 1899); W. Schlüter,Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altsächsichen Sprache, i. (Göttingen, 1892); O. Schade,Altdeutsches Wörterbuch(2nd ed., Halle, 1872-1882); G.E. Graff,Althochdeutscher Sprachschatz(6 vols., Berlin, 1834-1842) (Index by Massmann, 1846); E. Steinmeyer and E. Sievers,Althochdeutsche Glossen(4 vols., Berlin, 1879-1898); J.A. Schmeller,Glossarium Saxonicum(Munich, 1840); K. Weinhold,Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik(3rd ed., Paderborn, 1892); H. Paul,Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik(5th ed., Halle, 1900); V. Michels,Mittelhochdeutsches Elementarbuch(Heidelberg, 1900); O. Brenner,Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik(3rd ed., Munich, 1894); K. Zwierzina, “Mittelhochdeutsche Studien,” inZeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, vols. xliv. and xlv.; A. Lübben,Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik(Leipzig, 1882); W. Müller and F. Zarncke,Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch(4 vols., Leipzig, 1854-1866); M. Lexer,Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch(3 vols., 1872-1878); the same,Mittelhochdeutsches Taschenwörterbuch(8th ed., 1906); K. Schiller and A. Lübben,Mittelniederdeutsches Wörterbuch(6 vols., Bremen, 1875-1881); A. Lübben,Mittelniederdeutsches Handwörterbuch(Norden, 1888); F. Seiler,Die Entwicklung der deutsch. Kultur im Spiegel des deutschen Lehnworts(Halle, i., 1895, 2nd ed., 1905, ii., 1900).
Modern High German Period: E. Wülcker, “Die Entstehung der kursächsischen Kanzleisprache” (in theZeitschrift des Vereins für kursächsische Geschichte, ix. p. 349); the same, “Luthers Stellung zur kursächsischen Kanzleisprache” (inGermania, xxviii. pp. 191 ff.); P. Pietsch,Martin Luther und die hochdeutsche Schriftsprache(Breslau, 1883); K. Burdach,Die Einigung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache, (1883); E. Opitz,Die Sprache Luthers(Halle, 1869); J. Luther,Die Sprache Luthers in der Septemberbibel(Halle, 1887); F. Kluge,Von Luther bis Lessing(Strassburg, 1888) (cf. E. Schröder’s review in theGöttinger gelehrte Anzeiger, 1888, 249); H. Rückert,Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts(1875): J. Kehrein,Grammatik der deutschen Sprache des 15. bis 17. Jahrhunderts(Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1863); K. von Bahder,Grundlagen des neuhochdeutschen Lautsystems(Strassburg, 1890); R. Meyer,Einführung in das ältere Neuhochdeutsche(Leipzig, 1894); W. Scheel,Beiträge zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Gemeinsprache in Köln(Marburg, 1892); R. Brandstetter,Die Rezeption der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache in Stadt und Landschaft Luzern(1892); K. Burdach, “Zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache” (Forschungen zur deutschen Philologie, 1894); the same, “Die Sprache des jungen Goethe” (Verhandlungen der Dessauer Philologenversammlung, 1884, p. 164 ff.); F. Kasch,Die Sprache des jungen Schiller(Dissertation, 1900); F. Kluge, “Über die Entstehung unserer Schriftsprache” (Beihefte zurZeitschrift des allgemeinen Sprachvereins, Heft 6, 1894); A. Waag,Bedeutungsentwickelung unseres Wortschatzes(Lahr, 1901).
Mention must also be made of the work of the German commission of the Royal Prussian Academy, which in 1904 drew up plans for making an inventory of all German literary MSS. dating from before the year 1600 and for the publication of Middle High German and early Modern High German texts. This undertaking, which has made considerable progress, provides rich material for the study of the somewhat neglected period between the 14th and 16th centuries; at the same time it provides a basis on which a monumental history of Modern High German may be built up, as well as for aThesaurus linguae germanicae.
(R. Pr.)
1K. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer,Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, 3rd ed., by E. Steinmeyer, 1892, No. lxvii.2For a detailed description of the boundary line cf. O. Behaghel’s article in Paul’sGrundriss, 2nd ed., pp. 652-657, where there is also a map, and a very full bibliography relative to the changes in the boundary.3Cf. J. Grimm,Deutsche Grammatik, 3rd ed., i. p. 13; F. Kluge,Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 6th ed., pp. 75 ff.; K. Luick, “Zur Geschichte des Wortes ‘deutsch,’” inAnzeiger für deutsches Altertum, xv., pp. 135, 248; H. Fischer, “Theotiscus, Deutsch,” in Paul and Braune’sBeiträge, xviii. p. 203; H. Paul,Deutsches Wörterbuch(1897), p. 93.4Cf. P. Kretschmer,Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache(Göttingen, 1896), who holds the mingling of Celtic and Germanic elements in southern and south-western Germany responsible for the change. It might also be mentioned here that H. Meyer (Zeitschrift f. deut. Altertum, xlv. pp. 101 ff.) endeavours to explain the first soundshifting by the change of abode of the Germanic tribes from the lowlands to the highlands of the Carpathian Mountains.5Of writers who have made extensive use of dialects, it must suffice to mention here the names of J.H. Voss, Hebel, Klaus Groth, Fritz Reuter, Usteri, G.D. Arnold, Holtei, Castelli, J.G. Seidl and Anzengruber, and in our own days G. Hauptmann.6Cf. F. Staub and L. Tobler,Schweizerisches Idiotikon(1881 ff.); E. Martin and F. Lienhart,Wörterbuch der elsässischen Mundarten(Strassburg, 1899 ff.); H. Fischer,Schwäbisches Wörterbuch(Tübingen, 1901 ff.). Earlier works, which are already completed, are J.A. Schmeller,Bayrisches Wörterbuch(2nd ed., 2 vols., Munich, 1872-1877); J.B. Schöpf,Tiroler Idiotikon(Innsbruck, 1886); M. Lexer,Kärntisches Wörterbuch(1862); H. Gradl,Egerländer Wörterbuch, i. (Eger, 1883); A.F.C. Vilmar,Idiotikon von Kurhessen(Marburg, 1883) (with supplements by H. von Pfister); W. Crecelius,Oberhessisches Wörterbuch(Darmstadt, 1890-1898). Professor J. Franck is responsible for aRheinisches Wörterbuchfor the Prussian Academy.7Cf. the article “Mundarten” by R. Loewe in R. Bethge,Ergebnisse und Fortschritte der germanistischen Wissenschaft(Leipzig, 1902), pp. 75-88; and F. Mentz,Bibliographie der deutschen Mundartforschung(Leipzig, 1892). Of periodicals may be mentioned Deutsche Mundarten, by J.W. Nagl (Vienna, 1896 ff.);Zeitschrift für hochdeutsche Mundarten, by O. Heilig and Ph. Lenz (Heidelberg, 1900 ff.), continued asZeitschrift f. deutsche Mundarten, Verlag des Allgemeinen Deutschen Sprachvereins. Owing to its importance as a model for subsequent monographs J. Kinteler’sDie Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus(Leipzig, 1876) should not be passed unnoticed.8Cf. especially H. Tümpel, “Die Mundarten des alten niedersächsischen Gebietes zwischen 1300 und 1500” (Paul und Braune’s Beiträge, vii. pp. 1-104);Niederdeutsche Studien, by the same writer (Bielefeld, 1898); Bahnke, “Über Sprach- und Gaugrenzen zwischen Elbe und Weser” (Jahrbuch des Vereins für niederdeutsche Sprachforschung, vii. p. 77).9Upper Saxon and Thuringian are sometimes taken as a separate group.10Cf. W. Braune, “Zur Kenntnis des Fränkischen” (Beiträge, i. pp. 1-56); O. Böhme,Zur Kenntnis des Oberfränkischen im 13., 14. und 15. Jahrh.(Dissertation) (Leipzig, 1893), where a good account of the differences between the Rhenish Franconian and South Franconian dialects will be found.11Cf. C. Nörrenberg, “Lautverschiebungsstufe des Mittelfränkischen” (Beiträge, ix. 371 ff.); R. Heinzel,Geschichte der niederfränkischen Geschäftssprache(Paderborn, 1874).12This is also the dialect of the so-called Siebenbürger Sachsen.13Cf. E. Sievers,Oxforder Benediktinerregel(Halle, 1887), p. xvi.; J. Meier, Jolande (1887), pp. vii. ff.; O. Böhme, l.c. p. 60.14Lower Hesse (the northern and eastern parts) goes, however, in many respects its own way.15On the High German dialects cf. K. Weinhold,Alemannische Grammatik(Berlin, 1863); F. Kauffmann,Geschichte der schwäbischen Mundart(Strassburg, 1870); E. Haendcke,Die mundartlichen Elemente in den elsässischen Urkunden(Strassburg, 1894); K. Weinhold,Bairische Grammatik(1867); J.A. Schmeller,Die Mundarten Baierns(Munich, 1821); J.N. Schwäbl,Die altbairischen Mundarten(München, 1903); O. Brenner,Mundarten und Schriftsprache in Bayern(Bamberg, 1890); J. Schatz,Die Mundart von Imst(Strassburg, 1897); J.W. Nagl,Der Vocalismus der bairisch-österreichischen Mundarten(1890-1891); W. Gradl,Die Mundarten Westböhmens(Munich, 1896); P. Lessiak, “Die Mundart von Pernegg in Kärnten” (Paul and Braune,Beiträge, vol. xxviii.).16Cf., for a hypothesis of twoUmlautsperiodenduring the Old High German time, F. Kauffmann,Geschichte der schwäbischen Mundart(Strassburg, 1890), S. 152.17Cf. W. Wilmanns,Deutsche Grammatik, i. (2nd edition) pp. 300-304.18Wilmanns, l.c. pp. 273-280. It might be mentioned that, in Modern High German, these new diphthongs are neither in spelling nor in educated pronunciation distinguished from the older ones.19Cf. Wilmanns, pp. 280-284.20Ibid. pp. 129-132.21Cf. K. Lachmann,Kleinere Schriften, i. p. 161 ff.; Müllenhoff and Scherer’sDenkmäler(3rd ed.), i. p. xxvii.; H. Paul,Gab es eine mhd. Schriftsprache?(Halle, 1873); O. Behaghel,Zur Frage nach einer mhd. Schriftsprache(Basel, 1886) (Cf. Paul and Braune’sBeiträge, xiii. p. 464 ff.); A. Socin,Schriftsprache und Dialekte(Heilbronn, 1888); H. Fischer,Zur Geschichte des Mittelhochdeutschen(Tübingen, 1889); O. Behaghel,Schriftsprache und Mundart(Giessen, 1896); K. Zwierzina,Beobachtungen zum Reimgebrauch Hartmanns und Wolframs(Haile, 1898); S. Singer,Die mhd. Schriftsprache(1900); C. Kraus,Heinrich von Veldeke und die mhd. Dichtersprache(Halle, 1899); G. Roethe,Die Reimvorreden des Sachsenspiegels(Berlin, 1899); H. Tümpel,Niederdeutsche Studien(1898).22For literature bearing on the complicated question of theDruckersprachen, readers are referred to the article “Neuhochdeutsche Schriftsprache,” by W. Scheel, in Bethge’sErgebnisse ... der germanistischen Wissenschaft(1902), pp. 47, 50 f. Cf. also K. von Bahder,Grundlagen des nhd. Lautsystems(1890), pp. 15 ff.23A GermanPriamelmentions as an essential quality in a beautiful woman: “die red dort her von Swaben.”24Cf. for a detailed discussion of the noun declension, K. Boiunga,Die Entwicklung der mhd. Substantivflexion(Leipzig, 1890); and, more particularly for the masculine and neuter nouns, two articles by H. Molz, “Die Substantivflexion seit mhd. Zeit,” in Paul and Braune’sBeiträge, xxvii. p. 209 ff. and xxxi. 277 ff. For the changes in the gender of nouns, A. Polzin,Geschlechtswandel der Substantiva im Deutschen(Hildesheim, 1903).25Cf. C. Blanckenburg,Studien über die Sprache Abrahams a S. Clara(Halle, 1897); H. Strigl, “Einiges über die Sprache des P. Abraham a Sancta Clara” (Zeitschr. f. deutsche Wortforschung, viii. 206 ff.).26Cf. F. Kluge,Etymologisches Wörterbuch(6th ed.), pp. 508 ff. One can speak of:Studenten-, Soldaten-, Weidmanns-, Bergmanns-, Drucker-, Juristen-, und Zigeunersprache, und Rotwelsch. Cf. F. Kluge,Die deutsche Studentensprache(Strassburg, 1894);Rotwelschi. (Strassburg, 1901); R. Bethge,Ergebnisse, &c., p. 55 f.27Cf. H. Wunderlich,Unsere Umgangssprache(Weimar, 1894).28Cf. Th. Siebs,Deutsche Bühnenaussprache(2nd ed., Berlin, 1901), and the same writer’sGrundzüge der Bühnensprache(1900).29W. Braune,Über die Einigung der deutschen Aussprache(Halle, 1905); and the review by O. Brenner, in theZeitschrift des allgemeinen deutschen Sprachvereins, Beihefte iv. 27, pp. 228-232.30Cf. K. Luick,Deutsche Lautlehre mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sprechweise Wiens und der österreichischen Alpenländer(1904); O. Brenner, “Zur Aussprache des Hochdeutschen” l.c., pp. 218-228.
1K. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer,Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, 3rd ed., by E. Steinmeyer, 1892, No. lxvii.
2For a detailed description of the boundary line cf. O. Behaghel’s article in Paul’sGrundriss, 2nd ed., pp. 652-657, where there is also a map, and a very full bibliography relative to the changes in the boundary.
3Cf. J. Grimm,Deutsche Grammatik, 3rd ed., i. p. 13; F. Kluge,Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 6th ed., pp. 75 ff.; K. Luick, “Zur Geschichte des Wortes ‘deutsch,’” inAnzeiger für deutsches Altertum, xv., pp. 135, 248; H. Fischer, “Theotiscus, Deutsch,” in Paul and Braune’sBeiträge, xviii. p. 203; H. Paul,Deutsches Wörterbuch(1897), p. 93.
4Cf. P. Kretschmer,Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache(Göttingen, 1896), who holds the mingling of Celtic and Germanic elements in southern and south-western Germany responsible for the change. It might also be mentioned here that H. Meyer (Zeitschrift f. deut. Altertum, xlv. pp. 101 ff.) endeavours to explain the first soundshifting by the change of abode of the Germanic tribes from the lowlands to the highlands of the Carpathian Mountains.
5Of writers who have made extensive use of dialects, it must suffice to mention here the names of J.H. Voss, Hebel, Klaus Groth, Fritz Reuter, Usteri, G.D. Arnold, Holtei, Castelli, J.G. Seidl and Anzengruber, and in our own days G. Hauptmann.
6Cf. F. Staub and L. Tobler,Schweizerisches Idiotikon(1881 ff.); E. Martin and F. Lienhart,Wörterbuch der elsässischen Mundarten(Strassburg, 1899 ff.); H. Fischer,Schwäbisches Wörterbuch(Tübingen, 1901 ff.). Earlier works, which are already completed, are J.A. Schmeller,Bayrisches Wörterbuch(2nd ed., 2 vols., Munich, 1872-1877); J.B. Schöpf,Tiroler Idiotikon(Innsbruck, 1886); M. Lexer,Kärntisches Wörterbuch(1862); H. Gradl,Egerländer Wörterbuch, i. (Eger, 1883); A.F.C. Vilmar,Idiotikon von Kurhessen(Marburg, 1883) (with supplements by H. von Pfister); W. Crecelius,Oberhessisches Wörterbuch(Darmstadt, 1890-1898). Professor J. Franck is responsible for aRheinisches Wörterbuchfor the Prussian Academy.
7Cf. the article “Mundarten” by R. Loewe in R. Bethge,Ergebnisse und Fortschritte der germanistischen Wissenschaft(Leipzig, 1902), pp. 75-88; and F. Mentz,Bibliographie der deutschen Mundartforschung(Leipzig, 1892). Of periodicals may be mentioned Deutsche Mundarten, by J.W. Nagl (Vienna, 1896 ff.);Zeitschrift für hochdeutsche Mundarten, by O. Heilig and Ph. Lenz (Heidelberg, 1900 ff.), continued asZeitschrift f. deutsche Mundarten, Verlag des Allgemeinen Deutschen Sprachvereins. Owing to its importance as a model for subsequent monographs J. Kinteler’sDie Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus(Leipzig, 1876) should not be passed unnoticed.
8Cf. especially H. Tümpel, “Die Mundarten des alten niedersächsischen Gebietes zwischen 1300 und 1500” (Paul und Braune’s Beiträge, vii. pp. 1-104);Niederdeutsche Studien, by the same writer (Bielefeld, 1898); Bahnke, “Über Sprach- und Gaugrenzen zwischen Elbe und Weser” (Jahrbuch des Vereins für niederdeutsche Sprachforschung, vii. p. 77).
9Upper Saxon and Thuringian are sometimes taken as a separate group.
10Cf. W. Braune, “Zur Kenntnis des Fränkischen” (Beiträge, i. pp. 1-56); O. Böhme,Zur Kenntnis des Oberfränkischen im 13., 14. und 15. Jahrh.(Dissertation) (Leipzig, 1893), where a good account of the differences between the Rhenish Franconian and South Franconian dialects will be found.
11Cf. C. Nörrenberg, “Lautverschiebungsstufe des Mittelfränkischen” (Beiträge, ix. 371 ff.); R. Heinzel,Geschichte der niederfränkischen Geschäftssprache(Paderborn, 1874).
12This is also the dialect of the so-called Siebenbürger Sachsen.
13Cf. E. Sievers,Oxforder Benediktinerregel(Halle, 1887), p. xvi.; J. Meier, Jolande (1887), pp. vii. ff.; O. Böhme, l.c. p. 60.
14Lower Hesse (the northern and eastern parts) goes, however, in many respects its own way.
15On the High German dialects cf. K. Weinhold,Alemannische Grammatik(Berlin, 1863); F. Kauffmann,Geschichte der schwäbischen Mundart(Strassburg, 1870); E. Haendcke,Die mundartlichen Elemente in den elsässischen Urkunden(Strassburg, 1894); K. Weinhold,Bairische Grammatik(1867); J.A. Schmeller,Die Mundarten Baierns(Munich, 1821); J.N. Schwäbl,Die altbairischen Mundarten(München, 1903); O. Brenner,Mundarten und Schriftsprache in Bayern(Bamberg, 1890); J. Schatz,Die Mundart von Imst(Strassburg, 1897); J.W. Nagl,Der Vocalismus der bairisch-österreichischen Mundarten(1890-1891); W. Gradl,Die Mundarten Westböhmens(Munich, 1896); P. Lessiak, “Die Mundart von Pernegg in Kärnten” (Paul and Braune,Beiträge, vol. xxviii.).
16Cf., for a hypothesis of twoUmlautsperiodenduring the Old High German time, F. Kauffmann,Geschichte der schwäbischen Mundart(Strassburg, 1890), S. 152.
17Cf. W. Wilmanns,Deutsche Grammatik, i. (2nd edition) pp. 300-304.
18Wilmanns, l.c. pp. 273-280. It might be mentioned that, in Modern High German, these new diphthongs are neither in spelling nor in educated pronunciation distinguished from the older ones.
19Cf. Wilmanns, pp. 280-284.
20Ibid. pp. 129-132.
21Cf. K. Lachmann,Kleinere Schriften, i. p. 161 ff.; Müllenhoff and Scherer’sDenkmäler(3rd ed.), i. p. xxvii.; H. Paul,Gab es eine mhd. Schriftsprache?(Halle, 1873); O. Behaghel,Zur Frage nach einer mhd. Schriftsprache(Basel, 1886) (Cf. Paul and Braune’sBeiträge, xiii. p. 464 ff.); A. Socin,Schriftsprache und Dialekte(Heilbronn, 1888); H. Fischer,Zur Geschichte des Mittelhochdeutschen(Tübingen, 1889); O. Behaghel,Schriftsprache und Mundart(Giessen, 1896); K. Zwierzina,Beobachtungen zum Reimgebrauch Hartmanns und Wolframs(Haile, 1898); S. Singer,Die mhd. Schriftsprache(1900); C. Kraus,Heinrich von Veldeke und die mhd. Dichtersprache(Halle, 1899); G. Roethe,Die Reimvorreden des Sachsenspiegels(Berlin, 1899); H. Tümpel,Niederdeutsche Studien(1898).
22For literature bearing on the complicated question of theDruckersprachen, readers are referred to the article “Neuhochdeutsche Schriftsprache,” by W. Scheel, in Bethge’sErgebnisse ... der germanistischen Wissenschaft(1902), pp. 47, 50 f. Cf. also K. von Bahder,Grundlagen des nhd. Lautsystems(1890), pp. 15 ff.
23A GermanPriamelmentions as an essential quality in a beautiful woman: “die red dort her von Swaben.”
24Cf. for a detailed discussion of the noun declension, K. Boiunga,Die Entwicklung der mhd. Substantivflexion(Leipzig, 1890); and, more particularly for the masculine and neuter nouns, two articles by H. Molz, “Die Substantivflexion seit mhd. Zeit,” in Paul and Braune’sBeiträge, xxvii. p. 209 ff. and xxxi. 277 ff. For the changes in the gender of nouns, A. Polzin,Geschlechtswandel der Substantiva im Deutschen(Hildesheim, 1903).
25Cf. C. Blanckenburg,Studien über die Sprache Abrahams a S. Clara(Halle, 1897); H. Strigl, “Einiges über die Sprache des P. Abraham a Sancta Clara” (Zeitschr. f. deutsche Wortforschung, viii. 206 ff.).
26Cf. F. Kluge,Etymologisches Wörterbuch(6th ed.), pp. 508 ff. One can speak of:Studenten-, Soldaten-, Weidmanns-, Bergmanns-, Drucker-, Juristen-, und Zigeunersprache, und Rotwelsch. Cf. F. Kluge,Die deutsche Studentensprache(Strassburg, 1894);Rotwelschi. (Strassburg, 1901); R. Bethge,Ergebnisse, &c., p. 55 f.
27Cf. H. Wunderlich,Unsere Umgangssprache(Weimar, 1894).
28Cf. Th. Siebs,Deutsche Bühnenaussprache(2nd ed., Berlin, 1901), and the same writer’sGrundzüge der Bühnensprache(1900).
29W. Braune,Über die Einigung der deutschen Aussprache(Halle, 1905); and the review by O. Brenner, in theZeitschrift des allgemeinen deutschen Sprachvereins, Beihefte iv. 27, pp. 228-232.
30Cf. K. Luick,Deutsche Lautlehre mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sprechweise Wiens und der österreichischen Alpenländer(1904); O. Brenner, “Zur Aussprache des Hochdeutschen” l.c., pp. 218-228.
GERMAN LITERATURE.Compared with other literatures, that of the German-speaking peoples presents a strangely broken and interrupted course; it falls into more or less isolated groups, separated from each other by periods which in intellectual darkness and ineptitude are virtually without a parallel in other European lands. The explanation of this irregularity of development is to be sought less in the chequered political history of the German people—although this was often reason enough—than in the strongly marked, one might almost say, provocative character of the national mind as expressed in literature. The Germans were not able, like their partially latinized English cousins—or even their Scandinavian neighbours—to adapt themselves to the various waves of literary influence which emanated from Italy and France and spread with irresistible power over all Europe; their literary history has been rather a struggle for independent expression, a constant warring against outside forces, even when the latter—like the influence of English literature in the 18th century and of Scandinavian at the close of the 19th—were hailed as friendly and not hostile. It is a peculiarity of German literature that in those ages when, owing to its own poverty and impotence, it was reduced to borrowing its ideas and its poetic forms from other lands, it sank to the most servile imitation; while the first sign of returning health has invariably been the repudiation of foreign influence and the assertion of the right of genius to untrammelled expression. Thus Germany’s periods of literary efflorescence rarely coincide with those of other nations, and great European movements, like the Renaissance, passed over her without producing a single great poet.
This chequered course, however, renders the grouping of German literature and the task of the historian the easier. The first and simplest classification is that afforded by the various stages of linguistic development. In accordance with the three divisions in the history of the High German language, there is an Old High German, a Middle High German and a New High German or Modern High German literary epoch. It is obvious, however, that the last of these divisions covers too enormous a period of literary history to be regarded as analogous to the first two. The present survey is consequently divided into six main sections:
I. The Old High German Period, including the literature of the Old Saxon dialect, from the earliest times to the middle of the 11th century.
II. The Middle High German Period, from the middle of the 11th to the middle of the 14th century.
III. The Transition Period, from the middle of the 14th century to the Reformation in the 16th century.
IV. The Period of Renaissance and Pseudo-classicism, from the end of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th.
V. The Classical Period of Modern German literature, from the middle of the 18th century to Goethe’s death in 1832.
VI. The Period from Goethe’s death to the present day.
I. The Old High German Period (c.750-1050)
Of all the Germanic races, the tribes with which we have more particularly to deal here were the latest to attain intellectual maturity. The Goths had, centuries earlier, under their famous bishop Ulfilas or Wulfila, possessed the Bible in their vernacular, the northern races could point to theirEdda, the Germanic tribes in England to a rich and virile Old English poetry, before a written German literature of any consequence existed at all. At the same time, these continental tribes, in the epoch that lay between the Migrations of the 5th century and the age of Charles the Great, were not without poetic literature of a kind, but it was not committed to writing, or, at least, no record of such a poetry has come down to us. Its existence is vouched for by indirect historical evidence, and by the fact that the sagas, out of which the German national epic was welded at a later date, originated in the great upheaval of the 5th century. When the vernacular literature began to emerge from an unwritten state in the 8th century, it proved to be merely a weak reflection of the ecclesiastical writings of the monasteries; and this, withvery few exceptions, Old High German literature remained. Translations of the liturgy, of Tatian’sGospel Harmony(c.835), of fragments of sermons, form a large proportion of it. Occasionally, as in the so-calledMonsee Fragments, and at the end of the period, in the prose of Notker Labeo (d. 1022), this ecclesiastical literature attains a surprising maturity of style and expression. But it had no vitality of its own; it virtually sprang intoexistenceat the command of Charlemagne, whose policy with regard to the use of the vernacular in place of Latin was liberal and far-seeing; and it docilely obeyed the tastes of the rulers that followed, becoming severely orthodox under Louis the Pious, and consenting to immediate extinction when the Saxon emperors withdrew their favour from it. Apart from a few shorter poetic fragments of interest, such as theMerseburg Charms(Zaubersprüche), an undoubted relic of pre-Christian times, theWessobrunn Prayer(c.780), theMuspilli, an imaginative description of the Day of Judgment, and theLudwigslied(881), which may be regarded as the starting point for the German historical ballad, the only High German poem of importance in this early period was theGospel Book(Liber evangeliorum) of Otfrid of Weissenburg (c.800-870). Even this work is more interesting as the earliest attempt to supersede alliteration in German poetry by rhyme, than for such poetic life as the monk of Weissenburg was able to instil into his narrative. In fact, for the only genuine poetry of this epoch we have to look, not to the High German but to the Low German races. They alone seemed able to give literary expression to the memories handed down in oral tradition from the 5th century; to Saxon tradition we owe the earliest extant fragment of a national saga, theLay of Hildebrand(Hildebrandslied,c.800), and a Saxon poet was the author of a vigorous alliterative version of the Gospel story, theHeliand(c.830), and also of part of the Old Testament (Genesis). This alliterative epic—for epic it may be called—is the one poem of this age in which the Christian tradition has been adapted to German poetic needs. Of the existence of a lyric poetry we only know by hearsay; and the drama had nowhere in Europe yet emerged from its earliest purely liturgic condition. Such as it was, the vernacular literature of the Old High German period enjoyed but a brief existence, and in the 10th and 11th centuries darkness again closed over it. The dominant “German” literature in these centuries is in Latin; but that literature is not without national interest, for it shows in what direction the German mind was moving. TheLay of Walter(Waltharilied,c.930), written in elegant hexameters by Ekkehard of St Gall, the moralizing dramas of Hrosvitha (Roswitha) of Gandersheim, theEcbasis captivi(c.940), earliest of all the Beast epics, and the romantic adventures ofRuodlieb(c.1030), form a literature which, Latin although it is, foreshadows the future developments of German poetry.
II. The Middle High German Period (1050-1350)
(a)Early Middle High German Poetry.—The beginnings of Middle High German literature were hardly less tentative than those of the preceding period. The Saxon emperors, with their Latin and even Byzantine tastes, had made it extremely difficult to take up the thread where Notker let it drop. Williram of Ebersberg, the commentator of theSong of Songs(c.1063), did certainly profit by Notker’s example, but he stands alone. The Church had no helping hand to offer poetry, as in the more liberal epoch of the great Charles; for, at the middle of the 11th century, when the linguistic change from Old to Middle High German was taking place, a movement of religious asceticism, originating in the Burgundian monastery of Cluny, spread across Europe, and before long all the German peoples fell under its influence. For a century there was no room for any literature that did not place itself unreservedly at the service of the Church, a service which meant the complete abnegation of the brighter side of life. Repellent in their asceticism are, for instance, poems likeMemento mori(c.1050),Vom Glauben, a verse commentary on the creed by a monk Hartmann (c.1120), and a poem on “the remembrance of death” (Von des todes gehugede) by Heinreich von Melk (c.1150); only rarely, as in a few narrative Poems on Old Testament subjects, are the poets of this time able to forget for a time their lugubrious faith. In theEzzolied(c.1060), a spirited lay by a monk of Bamberg on the life, miracles and death of Christ, and in theAnnolied(c.1080), a poem in praise of the archbishop Anno of Cologne, we find, however, some traces of a higher poetic imagination.
The transition from this rigid ecclesiastic spirit to a freer, more imaginative literature is to be seen in the lyric poetry inspired by the Virgin, in the legends of the saints which bulk so largely in the poetry of the 12th century, and in the general trend towards mysticism. Andreas, Pilatus, Aegidius, Albanius are the heroes of monkish romances of that age, and the stories of Sylvester and Crescentia form the most attractive parts of theKaiserchronik(c.1130-1150), a long, confused chronicle of the world which contains many elements common to later Middle High German poetry. The national sagas, of which the poet of theKaiserchronikhad not been oblivious, soon began to assert themselves in the popular literature. The wanderingSpielleute, the lineal descendants of the jesters and minstrels of the dark ages, who were now rapidly becoming a factor of importance in literature, were here the innovators; to them we owe the romance ofKönig Rother(c.1160), and the kindred stories ofOrendel,OswaldandSalomon und Markolf(Salman und Morolf). All these poems bear witness to a new element, which in these years kindled the German imagination and helped to counteract the austerity of the religious faith—the Crusades. With what alacrity the Germans revelled in the wonderland of the East is to be seen especially in theAlexanderlied(c.1130), and inHerzog Ernst(c.1180), romances which point out the way to another important development of German medieval literature, the Court epic. The latter type of romance was the immediate product of the social conditions created by chivalry and, like chivalry itself, was determined and influenced by its French origin; so also was the version of theChanson de Roland(Rolandslied, c. 1135), which we owe to another priest, Konrad of Regensburg, who, with considerable probability, has been identified with the author of theKaiserchronik.
The Court epic was, however, more immediately ushered in by Eilhart von Oberge, a native of the neighbourhood of Hildesheim who, in hisTristant(c.1170), chose that Arthurian type of romance which from now on was especially cultivated by the poets of the Court epic; and of equally early origin is a knightly romance ofFloris und Blancheflur, another of the favourite love stories of the middle ages. In these years, too, the Beast epic, which had been represented by the LatinEcbasis captivi, was reintroduced into Germany by an Alsatian monk, Heinrich der Glichezære, who based hisReinhart Fuchs(c.1180) on the FrenchRoman de Renart. Lastly, we have to consider the beginning of theMinnesang, or lyric, which in the last decades of the 12th century burst out with extraordinary vigour in Austria and South Germany. The origins are obscure, and it is still debatable how much in the German Minnesang is indigenous and national, how much due to French and Provençal influence; for even in its earliest phases the Minnesang reveals correspondences with the contemporary lyric of the south of France. The freshness and originality of the early South German singers, such as Kürenberg, Dietmar von Eist, the Burggraf of Rietenburg and Meinloh von Sevelingen, are not, however, to be questioned; in spite of foreign influence, their verses make the impression of having been a spontaneous expression of German lyric feeling in the 12th century. TheSpruchdichtung, a form of poetry which in this period is represented by at least two poets who call themselves Herger and “Der Spervogel,” was less dependent on foreign models; the pointed and satirical strophes of these poets were the forerunners of a vast literature which did not reach its highest development until after literature had passed from the hands of the noble-born knight to those of the burgher of the towns.
(b)The Flourishing of Middle High German Poetry.—Such was the preparation for the extraordinarily brilliant, although brief epoch of German medieval poetry, which corresponded to the reigns of the Hohenstaufen emperors, Frederick I.Barbarossa, Henry VI. and Frederick II. These rulers, by their ambitious political aspirations and achievements, filled the German peoples with a sense of “world-mission,” as the leading political power in medieval Europe. Docile pupils of French chivalry, the Germans had no sooner learned their lesson than they found themselves in the position of being able to dictate to the world of chivalry. In the same way, the German poets, who, in the 12th century, had been little better than clumsy translators of French romances, were able, at the beginning of the 13th, to substitute for Frenchchansons de gesteepics based on national sagas, to put a completely German imprint on the French Arthurian romance, and to sing German songs before which even the lyric of Provence paled. National epic, Court epic and Minnesang—these three types of medieval German literature, to which may be added as a subordinate group didactic poetry, comprise virtually all that has come down to us in the Middle High German tongue. A Middle High German prose hardly existed, and the drama, such as it was, was still essentially Latin.
The first place among the National or Popular epics belongs to theNibelungenlied, which received its present form in Austria about the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries. Combining, as it does, elements from various cycles of sagas—the lower Rhenish legend of Siegfried, the Burgundian saga of Gunther and Hagen, the Gothic saga of Dietrich and Etzel—it stands out as the most representative epic of German medieval life. And in literary power, dramatic intensity and singleness of purpose its eminence is no less unique. The vestiges of gradual growth—of irreconcilable elements imperfectly welded together—may not have been entirely effaced, but they in no way lessen the impression of unity which the poem leaves behind it; whoever the welder of the sagas may have been, he was clearly a poet of lofty imagination and high epic gifts (seeNibelungenlied). Less imposing as a whole, but in parts no less powerful in its appeal to the modern mind, is the second of the German national epics,Gudrun, which was written early in the 13th century. This poem, as it has come down to us, is the work of an Austrian, but the subject belongs to a cycle of sagas which have their home on the shores of the North Sea. It seems almost a freak of chance that Siegfried, the hero of the Rhineland, should occupy so prominent a position in theNibelungenlied, whereas Dietrich von Bern (i.e.of Verona), the name under which Theodoric the Great had been looked up to for centuries by the German people as their national hero, should have left the stamp of his personality on no single epic of the intrinsic worth of theNibelungenlied. He appears, however, more or less in the background of a number of romances—Die Rabenschlacht,Dietrichs Flucht,Alpharts Tod,Biterolf und Dietlieb,Laurin, &c.—which make up what is usually called theHeldenbuch. It is tempting, indeed, to see in this very unequal collection the basis for what, under more favourable circumstances, might have developed into an epic even more completely representative of the German nation than theNibelungenlied.
While the influence of the romance of chivalry is to be traced on all these popular epics, something of the manlier, more primitive ideals that animated German national poetry passed over to the second great group of German medieval poetry, the Court epic. The poet who, following Eilhart von Oberge’s tentative beginnings, established the Court epic in Germany was Heinrich von Veldeke, a native of the district of the lower Rhine; hisEneit, written between 1173 and 1186, is based on a French original. Other poets of the time, such as Herbort von Fritzlar, the author of aLiet von Troye, followed Heinrich’s example, and selected French models for German poems on antique themes; while Albrecht von Halberstadt translated about the year 1210 theMetamorphosesof Ovid into German verse. With the three masters of the Court epic, Hartmann von Aue, Wolfram von Eschenbach and Gottfried von Strassburg—all of them contemporaries—the Arthurian cycle became the recognized theme of this type of romance, and the accepted embodiment of the ideals of the knightly classes. Hartmann was a Swabian, Wolfram a Bavarian, Gottfried presumably a native of Strassburg. Hartmann, who in hisErecandIwein,GregoriusandDer arme Heinrichcombined a tendency towards religious asceticism with a desire to imbue the worldly life of the knight with a moral and religious spirit, provided the Court epic of the age with its best models; he had, of all the medieval court poets, the most delicate sense for the formal beauty of poetry, for language, verse and style. Wolfram and Gottfried, on the other hand, represent two extremes of poetic temperament. Wolfram’sParzivalis filled with mysticism and obscure spiritual significance; its flashes of humour irradiate, although they can hardly be said to illumine, the gloom; its hero is, unconsciously, a symbol and allegory of much which to the poet himself must have been mysterious and inexplicable; in other words,Parzival—and Wolfram’s other writings,WillehalmandTiturel, point in the same direction—is an instinctive or, to use Schiller’s word, a “naïve” work of genius. Gottfried, again, is hardly less gifted and original, but he is a poet of a wholly different type. HisTristanis even more lucid than Hartmann’sIwein, his art is more objective; his delight in it is that of the conscious artist who sees his work growing under his hands. Gottfried’s poem, in other words, is free from the obtrusion of those subjective elements which are in so high a degree characteristic ofParzival; in spite of the tragic character of the story,Tristanis radiant and serene, and yet uncontaminated by that tone of frivolity which the Renaissance introduced into love stories of this kind.
ParzivalandTristanare the two poles of the German Court epic, and the subsequent development of that epic stands under the influence of the three poets, Hartmann, Wolfram and Gottfried; according as the poets of the 13th century tend to imitate one or other of these, they fall into three classes. To the followers and imitators of Hartmann belong Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, the author of aLanzelet(c.1195); Wirnt von Gravenberg, a Bavarian, whoseWigalois(c.1205) shows considerable imaginative power; the versatile Spielmann, known as “Der Stricker”; and Heinrich von dem Türlin, author of an unwieldy epic,Die Krone(“the crown of all adventures,” c. 1220). The fascination of Wolfram’s mysticism is to be seen inDer jüngere Titurelof a Bavarian poet, Albrecht von Scharfenberg (c.1270), and in the still laterLohengrinof an unknown poet; whereas Gottfried von Strassburg dominates theFlore und Blanscheflurof Konrad Fleck (c.1220) and the voluminous romances of the two chief poets of the later 13th century, Rudolf von Ems, who died in 1254, and Konrad von Würzburg, who lived till 1287. Of these, Konrad alone carried on worthily the traditions of the great age, and even his art, which excels within the narrow limits of romances likeDie HerzemoereandEngelhard, becomes diffuse and wearisome on the unlimited canvas ofDer TrojanerkriegandPartonopier und Meliur.