material. The general qualities which appear to me to place Mr. Bülbring's work far ahead of all those on the same subject which have preceded it, which must make it the standard book for a long time to come are these: the characteristic development, during the whole OE. period, of each dialect is set forth with equal completeness this is not simply a West Saxon grammar with incidental remarks on the other dialects; the relative chronology of the various sound changes is judiciously and convincingly established; the phonetic processes both of isolative and combinative changes are realised and described; processes really different, but often confused formerly, at any rate by terminology, are clearly distinguished and a suitable terminology assigned to each (e. g. cp. chap. X on ebnung und palatalumlaut); finally, the grasp of details in themselves and in their relation to general development is most masterly, and the exposition throughout the book is lucid and concise.

As regards the general arrangement and grouping of material, I think all students will be grateful to the author for the exceedingly convenient way in which he has dealt with the fate and fortunes of each sound in all the dialects in succession, so that without turning backwards and forwards to different parts of the book, we are able to observe the speech tendencies and habits peculiar to each dialect one after the other practically on the same page.

This method of arrangement too tends to preserve proportion and to give a greater sense of unity. A very striking feature in the book is the fact that the greater part of what constitutes a distinct addition to our knowledge of OE. sound laws, is due to the investigations of Mr. Bülbring himself. These results were already known to readers of the valuable monographs which during the last few years have appeared from the author's pen, in the pages of Anglia and Engl. Studien. To mention but a few of these new views I may refer to §§ 209-11 on the real »palatalumlaut<< produced by the groups hs, ht, and hp, where an ingenious suggestion of Cosijn has been further elaborated (cp. also A. beibl. X 1. sc.); to chap. XV: »Jüngere diphthongierung durch palatale; and to chap. XXIII: »Palatalisierung und verwandtes<; and chap. XXIV on Metathesis (see also § 132 anm. and A. beibl. IX 97) in which the r-metathesis is shown to have taken place to a certain extent at least, after the brechung period, in W Sax. and Kt.,

but before this period in the Anglian dialects. This makes intelligible the form iorna (Ri.), eornan (VPs. Ru.1), biorna (Ri. Ru.2), beornan (VPs. Ru.1), which Sievers (Ags. gr.3 § 79 anm. 2) leaves unexplained. I pass now to discuss a few details.

§ 81. Mr. Bülbring does not appear to hold with Streitberg (v. 9 § 71) that the so-called a-umlaut of Idg. u to o was »gemeingermanisch, wahrscheinlich urgermanisch«. The latter view can hardly be right, as is shown by Finnish kulta which is clearly from a Gmc. *guldo. The change must at any rate be later than the common Gmc. period, perhaps affecting only N. and WGmc., though of course the Gothic u proves nothing either way. Against Streitberg's view see Bethge in Dieter's Altgerm. dialekte § 9 anm. 2 and Axel Koch, PBB. 23, 484, etc.

* au

§ 130 anm. I u. 2. The process of brechung of WGmc. a to OE. ea, is conceived of as *a *au etc. it being assumed that the Anglo-Fris. change of a to a did not take place before the brechung combinations.

I am inclined to agree with this view of the case, since in Old Frisian also a is preserved before precisely the same consonantal combinations, which later on, in English, produced brechung: Old Fris. swart, halt, nacht. (Cp. Siebs, Pauls grundr.' I, p. 726.) In Anglo-Fris. therefore r + 7 before other consonants must have been back (guttural) which prevented the characteristic fronting of a. This view is different from that of Sweet (cp. for instance HES. § 427) who believes the Anglo-Fris. a was developed everywhere and that the brechung is the diphthongisation of the front sound through the development of a parasitic back vowel after it.

p. 140. The shortening of vowels in OE. before -ht. Mr. Bülbring holds as against Sweet (HES. § 403) that vowel length was preserved before this combination. His argument that this is proved by IWS. leoht, IKt. hoht, which have not undergone the changes of the short vowels in *cneoht cniht, *wioht wiht seems to me to settle the question. Sievers (Ags. gr.3 § 125) is not very explicit on the matter, but appears to accept Sweet's view that shortening takes place. Sweet himself (loc. cit. and AS. Reader Introd. § 19) considers it probable, but his only argument is that sohte, dohte etc. never have accents in the Mss.

This is scarcely a very strong argument, and if further proof of the vowel length than given by Bülbring were required, I am

able to bring forward two forms from the OE. translation of the Dialogues of Gregory the great: gepóhtes and leóhte (see Hecht's lists of accented words at the end of his edition, Bibl. d. ags. prosa bd. V, 1900). The shortening must however have taken place in early Transition English, since Orm has brohht, brohhte, sohht and lihht.

Chapter XXIII on palatalisierungen und verwandtes, which I have already singled out as worthy of special attention, seems to me by far the best and clearest statement of this difficult subject which we possess and also the completest within such short limits. I do not agree with quite all of Professor Bülbring's views, such as the statement which occurs at various places that Northumbrian did not front k under similar conditions as fully as the Southern Dialects, or again the view that the tš sound (that of Mod. Engl. ch) was already fully developed in OE., but at the same time I fully recognise the immense gain in clearness of view as regards the conditions and the process of palatalisation which results from Mr. Bülbring's work. Perhaps in time I may come round to his way of thinking on all points!

The book is full of highly ingenious and suggestive elucidation of what many would regard as minor details and pass by without explanation. A couple of examples will suffice. § 179 anm. 2. The difference between OE. fiellan (WGmc. *fallian) and tellan (WGmc. talljan) is explained by assuming that the gemination in the latter word is only of WGmc. origin, whereas that of *fallian arose already in Gmc. itself from In. Therefore at the time of primitive OE. brechung, the two forms had a different pronunciation, the older of *fallian having »eine velare, vielleicht auch labiale nebenartikulation« which produced brechung, while in the case of tellan (*telljan) the more recent / did not possess the necessary back quality.

§§ 354 and 395. The second u in OE. fultum is regarded as a WGmc. shortening from *fulltaum. Sweet in Anglia III p. 151 had already established that this word was a compound, on the ground of the Erfurt fulteam, but he regards the form as due to an OE. shortening through an intermediate from fultem "whose short vowel was assimilated to the root one". Bülbring's suggestion is I think far more probable, though fulteam itself presents some difficulty, unless we regard it as a new formation.

Another possibility is that the second element fultum is the Gmc. weak grade of the root *teum, taum.

In bringing to a close this very imperfect account of a remarkable book, I cannot help saying that I feel that the author has probably reached the extreme limit of knowledge concerning OE. sounds which is to be derived from the Mss. Professor Bülbring has wrested from the old written records perhaps the last secret which they will yield up to us. The art of applying practical phonetics to the interpretation of the symbols of OE. in which Sweet has been the pioneer, has never perhaps been so skilfully practised as by Mr. Bülbring, and I believe he has said about the last word that it will be possible to say from this point of view. In any case, whatever new methods the genius of the future historian of our language may devise, it will be difficult to add much of vital importance to our knowledge of the character and laws of growth of the long silent Old English Speech.

Liverpool, Feb. 7th 1902.

Henry Cecil Wyld.

Eduard Sokoll, Lehrbuch der altenglischen (angelsächsischen) sprache, mit berücksichtigung der geschichtlichen entwicklung dargestellt. (Die kunst der polyglottie. Eine auf erfahrung begründete anleitung, jede sprache in kürzester zeit . . . durch selbstunterricht zu erlernen. 69. teil.) Wien, Pest und Leipzig, A. Hartleben, o. j. VIII + 183 ss. Preis geb. M. 2,00.

Sokoll will mit seinem büchlein dem über die landläufigen kenntnisse im Lateinischen und Griechischen verfügenden anfänger ein hilfsmittel zum selbststudium in die hand geben, das ihn befähigen soll, später die ausführlichere grammatik von Sievers mit nutzen und verständnis durchzuarbeiten. Er hat sich also bei der abfassung desselben nicht von dem bestreben leiten lassen, eine neue, selbständige darstellung der ae. grammatik zu bieten, vielmehr seine aufgabe in einer eigentümlichen, dem speciellen pädagogischen zweck angepassten anordnung und zubereitung des stoffes gesehen. Was sein büchlein vor anderen voraus hat, ist die weitgehende rücksichtnahme auf die historische entwicklung. Der darstellung der lautlehre schickt er einen besonderen, s. 17-49 umfassenden abschnitt über die vorgeschichte des Altenglischen

vom Indogermanischen bis zum Urenglischen voraus, während umgekehrt in der formenlehre jedem einzelnen kapitel die nötigen anmerkungen über die geschichtliche entstehung dieser formen angehängt sind. Der gedanke einer solchen verbindung der beschreibung der thatsachen mit ihrer erklärung scheint mir ein glücklicher, die im wesentlichen an Streitberg's Urgermanische grammatik sich anlehnende auswahl der sprach vergleichenden erörterungen im ganzen besonnen und massvoll. Wenn die reichhaltigkeit des an diesen historischen partien gebotenen hin und wieder dem anfänger vielleicht einen etwas verwirrenden eindruck machen könnte, so gestattet ja die disposition, solche stellen vorläufig zu überschlagen. Die thatsachen der ae. grammatik sind korrekt und in geschickter ordnung vorgeführt; mit selbständigem urteil hat der verf. auch die neuere forschung seit dem erscheinen der dritten auflage von Sievers' grammatik berücksichtigt; nur Bülbring's untersuchungen hätten vielleicht noch intensiver benutzt werden dürfen. In hergebrachter weise stellt Sokoll das Westsächsische in den vordergrund, zumal in der flexionslehre, wo fast ausschliesslich die ws. formen gegeben werden, während bei der behandlung der laute öfter auf die abweichungen des kentischen und der anglischen dialekte verwiesen wird. Bei der wichtigkeit dieser letzteren für die heutige englische schriftsprache ist ein solches verhalten zu bedauern und hoffentlich auch in zukunft nicht mehr. möglich. Im übrigen darf aber Sokoll's anleitung empfohlen werden. Ich notiere nur noch einige kleine versehen zur verbesserung. S. 14 § 42 ist (deutsches j)< zu streichen, da doch dieses nie die geltung einer gutturalen spirans hat. S. 51, § 122, 1 lies clad statt clād. S. 97, § 237 sind die substantiva auf -5, wie hiez »heu«, zu streichen und von den wo-stämmen zu den io-stämmen zu versetzen. S. 139, z. 6 v. o. lies »ziehen<<

statt »>zeihen«.

Basel.

Gustav Binz.

LITTERATUR.

Chaucer-Schriften.

R. E. G. Kirk, Enrolments and Documents from the Public-Record Office, The Town Clerk's Office, Guildhall, London, and other Sources; Comprising all Known Records Relating to Geoffrey