Part 18

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's _Evangelienbuch_ (in South Franconian), the Old Saxon _Heliand_ (a life of Christ in alliterative verse), the translation of Tatian's _Gospel 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 the _Hildebrandslied_ and 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 the _Song of Songs_ by 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 of _o_, _o_, of _o_, _oe_, _of u_, _iu_ (_u_), of _uo_, _ue_, of _ou_, _ou_, and _eu_ (cf. _holer_, _boese_, _hiuser_, _guete_, _boume_), although many scribes, and more especially those of Middle and Low German districts, have no special signs for the mutation of _u_, _u_, and _o_. Of special interest is the so-called "later (or weaker) mutation" (_jungerer oder schwacherer Umlaut_) of _a_ to a very open _e_ sound, which is often written _a_. Cf. _mahte_ (O.H.G. _mahti_), _magede_ (O.H.G. _magadi_). The earlier mutation of this sound produced an _e_(_e_), a closed sound (i.e. nearer _i_). Cf. _geste_ (O.H.G. _gesti_).

The various Old High German vowels in unstressed syllables were either weakened to an indifferent _e_ sound (_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 after _l_ and _r_, and partly after _n_ and _m_ (cf. _ar(e)_, O.H.G. _aro_; _zal_, O.H.G. _zala_; _wundern_, O.H.G. _wuntaron_, &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 (_gemarterot_, _gekriuzegot_, &c., and Low and Middle German preserved the weakened _e_ sound 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,[17] for example, in Modern High German _Tages_, _Weges_, _lobe_ (Middle High German _tages_, _weges_, _lobe_). 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, _i_, _u_, _u_, into _ei_ (_ou_), _au_, _eu_ (_au_).[18] It is, therefore, in MSS. written in the south-east that we find forms like _zeit_, _lauter_ (_loter_), _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 of _time_, _house_, &c., and in Holland to that of _tijd_, _huis_, &c. F. Wrede (_Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum_ xxxix. 257 ff.) has suggested that the explanation of the change is to be sought in the apocope and syncope of the final _e_, 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 final _e_, where _ie_, _uo_, _ue_ become _i_, _u_, _u_; thus we have for _Brief_, _brif_, for _huon_, _hun_, for _brueder_, _bruder_, 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 initial _s_ to _sch_ before _l_, _n_, _m_, _w_, _p_ and _t_. Cf. _slingen_, _schlingen_; _swer_ (_e_) _n_, _schworen_, &c. The forms _scht_- and _schp_- are often to be met with in Alemannic MSS., but they were discarded again, although modern German recognizes the pronunciation _schp_, _scht_.[20] With 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_, _salbon_, _dagen_) 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 the _i-_ stems (O.H.G. _gast_, pl. _gesti_; cf. forms like _ban_, _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 like _eine brunne rotes goldes_, or _des todes wunschen_) 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 the _Minnesang_ and 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's _Weltchronik_) 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 a _Schriftsprache_ or literary language.[21] About 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 forms _es_ and _enk_, 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 German _Dichtersprache_ or 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 the _Dichtersprache_ had 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 (_o_, _o_, _u_, _u_, _ou_, _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 his _Tischreden_, 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 language of 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 monophthongs _i_, _u_, and _u_, instead of the old diphthongs _ie_, _uo_ and _ue_, 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 (_p_ to _pf_; _d_ to _t_) 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 the _Sturm 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 teach _nos 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, Wurzburg, Frankfort, Mainz, Spires, Strassburg and Cologne; at the last mentioned place in the event of their attempting to print _Ober-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

## particularly _zierlich_);[23] (3) _Hochst 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 in _Mitteldeutsch_ it 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, and _Von der teutschen Sprachkunst_, 1663), together with linguistic societies like the _Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft_ and the Nuremberg _Pegnitzorden_, 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 final _e_ is restored to words like _Knabe_, _Jude_, _Pfaffe_, which in South German had been _Knab_, &c.; the mixed declension (_Ehre_, _Ehren_; _Schmerz_, _Schmerzen_) was established, and the plural in -_er_ was extended to some masculine nouns (_Wald_, _Walder_);[24] the use of the mutated sound has now become the rule as a plural sign (Vater, Baume). 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,[25] who died in 1709, or in the attacks of the Benedictine monk, Augustin Dornbluth, on the _Meissner Schriftsprache_ in 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 Worterbuch 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. His _Grammar_ did 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 the _Sturm und Drang_ led 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 the _Goethe-Jahrbuch_, viii. p. 187 ff.), partly from the older language and partly from the vocabulary peculiar to different social ranks and trades.[26] The 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 the _Umgangssprache_,[27] whereby 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 of _r_--either the uvular _r_ or the _r_ produced by the tip of the tongue; of the voiced and voiceless stops, _b_, _p_, _d_, _t_, _g_ and _k_; of the _s_ sounds; of the diphthongs; of the long vowels _e_ and _oe_, &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.[28] This scheme has since been recommended to all German theatres by the German _Buhnenverein_. 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;[29] Braune's argument 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-_ in _wachsen_, _Ochse_, &c., or for that of _sp-_ and _st-_ in _spielen_, _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;[30] the _Buhnendeutsch_ or "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. Forstemann, _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's _Grundriss 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, _Grundzuge der geschichtlichen Grammatik der deutschen Sprache_ (Munich, 1896); H. Lichtenberger, _Histoire de la langue allemande_ (Paris, 1895).