exquisite purity, cannot adopt a single word without its bearing the mark of its foreign origin.

125. Finally, it scarcely needs be mentioned, that as genuine English words are for the most part Anglo-Saxon, an agreement of Friesic with English naturally implies an agreement of Friesic with Anglo-Saxon. It is for this reason, that the parallel Anglo-Saxon words are not always cited in the specimens in §§ 95, 97, &c. This comparison would also have taken too much time to pay due attention to the different degrees of development by which words of the same age are often distinguished from one another.

126. All that has been said about the analogy between the AngloSaxon and Friesic, tends to prove that the Friesic tongue is absolutely indispensable in determining, as far as it is now possible, the genuine pronunciation of the Anglo-Saxon; and that preceding writers, in passing over the Friesic, overlooked an important source of knowledge.

127. What is less pardonable in modern Anglo-Saxon scholars, is their complete neglect of English in this respect. Their ignorance of the English, as of the Friesic, will not, I hope, be alleged as an excuse. Is not the English tongue, as to its descent and substance, still a genuine daughter of the Anglo-Saxon? Does she not bear to this very day some features of her fair mother, notwithstanding her foreign ornaments? Do not many Anglo-Saxon vowels still exist in Yorkshire, in Scotland, and in other provincial dialects of England? May not the English alone boast of having preserved the true sound of the old etch (p ih), which has disappeared from the whole continent of Europe, so as not even to leave the means of forming a faint idea of the sound of this consonant, without the aid of the English? Why should we consult only the Gothic, or the Icelandic, which is still more remote from the Anglo-Saxon? Why should that which is unknown be sought amongst the unknown, rather than in that which is known in the remains of the old sounds of the language? With a competent knowledge of the subject, and fair induction, I presume that no source can afford so much light in the pronunciation and other peculiarities of the Anglo-Saxon as the English.

128. Of late, the accent by which some Anglo-Saxon MSS. are marked, is held as one of the most efficient means of ascertaining the true pronunciation of the Anglo-Saxon, and Wilkins and other publishers are to be blamed for omitting them. It is here necessary to state my opinion on this subject. A mark of accent, in modern tongues, may have three applications:-1st. It may denote the stress of the voice on a certain syllable, and this is perhaps the only purpose for which the accent (') may be lawfully used. 2nd. But, improperly and contrary to its original design, it may denote the very nature of the sound of the vowel. And 3rd. it may be used to designate the lengthening of a short vowel, without altering the nature of its sound.

In above and comfort, you hear the short sound of o, and in ghost, potent, low, we have the long sound; but in loose, the very nature of the sound is changed and

varies from o to the French ou, and in for to au. Suppose pótent to be noted by the accent, and the sound of the o to be unknown to you: what will this accent then mean? Will it signify simply the lengthening of the short o? or one of the four or five modifications of the sound of o? and which of the modifications? Or does it mean that ро in potent has the stress? If no one can ascertain to which of these six or seven purposes this single mark is applied, of what use can it be in settling the pronunciation of Anglo-Saxon ?

129. Let us endeavour to illustrate the subject by some instances from Cadmon, published by Mr. Thorpe.

Icelandic þá tune,

Is the a long in þá then, (Cd. Th. p. 20, 11,) [pa, 20, 6,] contrary to the short a in Frs. v. da; Moes. than; Dut. dan then, and agree with the pronounced thau or tav? Or does it denote a inclining to o? Or does it mean a modified a little by i? Is a long in náman, (Cd. Th. p. 9, 11,) contrary to Moes. namo; Frs. v. namme; Icel. namn and nafn, which have all short a ? Or does it mean an inclination of the a to the sound of the old o in ovoμa and nomen ? The same question may be applied to hám, (Cd. Th. p. 108, 33,) Eng. home; and we further ask if the accent, in this instance, can also signify the verging of a to (âi) apparent in Moes. haim abode; Icel. heimr domus; Hesychius eiuades Toiμevwv oikiai; Frs. v. hiem homestead or the land just around a farm-house, enclosed by a ditch. What is the pronunciation of éngel, (Cd. Th. p. 137, 1,) written engel, p. 137, 23? If the e is long, then it is pronounced eengel, contrary to the pronunciation of the continental descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, but agreeing with that of their direct posterity the English in their angel? What is the sound of ý in þýsne this, (Cd. Th. p. 52, 6)? Is it long, and opposed to the present Eng. this, and Frs. v. disse, Asg. bk. 2, 3, 271, 278, thesse; Frs. l. 2, 5, disse? Tell me also the meaning of the accent in lífe, (Cd. Th. p. 103, 4). Is the vowel only lengthened, and life pronounced liife? Or has it the diphthongal nature of the Eng. i in life? Or is it perhaps like ij in Dut. lijf body? If the i in wítan to reproach, (Cd. Th. p. 51, 9,) in wite-hús torture-house, (p. 3, 21,) differ in its sound from i in witan to know, Frs. v. wite, like Icel. víta reprehendere from Icel. vit ratio, has the i then a long sound as wiitan, or like the Dut. ij in wijten imputare, or ei in weitan ?—What do you say of ó in nóm cepit ? Must the only be made long, as noom, or is the o modified as if united with a, as in Frs. v. nóam? Is the ó long in bórd shield, (Cd. Th. p. 193, 28,) contrary to Icel. bord, Dut. bord, both being short like Moes. baurd? Or is it something similar to the Frs. v. ou, or Frs. v. oe in boerd? What is the sound of ô in wôrdum with words? Is the o long as in Dut. woord, opposed to Moes. waurd; Frs. v. wird; Icel. ord? Or is it pronounced like woárden, as the inhabitants of the Friesian towns speak? Or does it denote the stress of the voice falling upon wor? Is ón, (Cd. Th. p. 64, 1,) pronounced oon, contrary to Moes. ana [short a] and Eng. on? Or does it agree with Dut. aan, Frs. v. óan? Finally, what does the accent mean above ræd narration, derived from short a in Moes. rathan numerare, A.-S. rædan to read? Is the vowel long? Or is some sound like Fr. ai in mais designated? As soon as AngloSaxon scholars will answer these questions, and show me the rule which regulates the application of this single mark, in every particular instance, I will gladly observe every accent found in the MSS., and in the mean time I beg to be allowed my own opinion.

130. Far* from depreciating the use of marks of accents, I am fully * As the sounds were more numerous than the letters, especially in the earliest state of the language, when the system of the vowels was more developed, and the letters fewer, being

convinced of their being indispensable in the dead languages; but if two marks are used to denote the spiritus, and three the accent, in Greek, ['''``]—and these are far from conveying a just idea of the pronunciation of this language-how could a single mark effect this in Anglo-Saxon? And how is this single mark used? It is sometimes inserted, and sometimes omitted, even in MSS. boasting of some accuracy in this respect, as the MSS. of Cadmon. I will not mention other MSS., as Beowulf in the British Museum, Vitellius A. xv., in which three marks [^] are employed with so much confusion, that the grammarian, in using them, has not only confounded the ideas of emphasis, the nature of sound, and the simple lengthening of sound, as perhaps all who have used the accents in Anglo-Saxon MSS. have done, but he has often misapplied the marks. Several attempts have been made in our day to invent proper signs, and to define the true force of each; but, as if it were to increase the confusion, the two principal advocates of accents, Rask and Grimm, differ in the import they ascribe to the same sigu.

131. It may be here asked, whether the authors themselves made use of accents, or their copiers, or if a later hand added them? Finally, whether it was the hand of a genuine Anglo-Saxon, or whether, after the Danish conquest, it was some writer who had a strong tincture of Danish pronunciation that accented the MSS. Should I live to make my intended inquiries on the changes of the vowels, I may perhaps throw some light on the subject.

132. Since the pronunciation of the old languages depends on the sound of the letters, it is important to inquire what these letters were.

I answer, that the old Saxon letters were Runic. Rhabanus Maurus has left a Runic alphabet of the Marcomanni, called by some Nordmanni and Northalbingii,* located on the northern banks of the Elbe, and thus on the same spot that the allies of the Angles, the Saxons, inhabited. On comparing the form of these letters with the Runic alphabet of the Anglo-Saxons, we shall perceive, on the whole, a striking resemblance, which is to me a convincing proof that the Anglo-Saxons brought with them the Runic alphabet into Britain. That these letters were once in common use among them, has been lately proved by the discovery of two sepulchral stones at Hartlepool, bearing Runic inscriptions.§

only sixteen Runes, it is evident that many letters must have had a donble and even a triple sound. When, in process of time, the sounds which were sensibly distinct approached each other, the evil became still worse. Thus the e in red became in time the representative of éo in réod arundo: of ea in réad ruber, and of æ in ræd, Old Eng. rede consilium. This fully proves the necessity of marks to guide the pronunciation.

е

* Consult Ueber Deutsche Runen von W. C. Grimm, Göttingen, 1821, in general, and p. 149 in particular.

+ Hickes's Gram. Goth. et Anglo-Saxonica, in the Thes. L. L. Sept. tom. i. p. 135, 136. An accurate delineation of these stones is to be found in the Gentleman's Magazine, Sept. 1833, p. 219.

§ Annuente Deo, Mr. Halbertsma intends to add in another publication, a second and third part to what is here given: the second on the sound of each Anglo-Saxon Letter-and the third part on the practical application of the preceding rules relative to the vowels, diphthongs, and Consonants.

1. The Saxons* spoke the Old-Saxon, now called Low-German, or Platt-Deutsch.

2. The German confederacy, known under the name of Saxons, occupied the greater part of Low, Platt, or Northern Germany. They were divided into-1. Eastphalians, on the eastern borders of the Weser; 2. Westphalians, on the Western borders of the Weser down to the Rhine and the North Sea; 3. Angrivarians, situated between the Eastphalians and Westphalians, and the borders of the North Sea; 4. North-Albingians, from the north of the river Elbe to Denmark; 5. Trans-Albingians, comprising the whole country from the Elbe to the river Oder, with the exception of those districts occupied by the Wends or Sorbians, near the Baltic, and in the neighbourhood of the Oder. These Saxons, or Old-Saxons, chiefly remaining in their ancient localities, retained their low, soft, or Old-Saxon dialect in great purity. The AngloSaxons, a branch of the Old-Saxons, wrote and matured their language in England; hence it differs from the tongue of their continental progenitors. The Old-Saxon, now called Low or Platt-German, seems to have descended to the present day with few alterations, and those only such as time always produces; but as we have no specimen of it earlier than the Heliand in the 9th century, we do not know the exact form of the Old-Saxon from which the Anglo-Saxon was derived. This LowGerman, so called from being the vernacular language of Platt, or LowGermany, or of the common people, is, even in the present day, very extensive, being spoken by the lower classes in the greater part of Westphalia, in Hanover, Holstein, Sleswick, a part of Jutland, in Mecklenburg, Magdenburg, Brandenburg, Pomerania, the kingdom of Prussia, and as far north as Livonia and Esthonia.t

3. The origin and ancient history of the Saxons are enveloped in much darkness. The Fosi mentioned by Tacitust were most likely Saxons,

Those who wish for a full view of Low-German literature, may consult-Geschichte der Nieder-Sächsischen oder Plattdeutschen Sprache von M. Joh. Fried. August Kinderling, Magdeburg, 1800.--Bücherkunde der Sassisch-Niederdeutschen Sprache, von Dr. Karl, F.A. Scheller, Braunschweig, 1826.

+ Melis Stoke says,

Oude Boeken horic ghewaghen,
Dat al tlant, beneden Nimaghen,
Wilen Neder Zassen hiet;
Also alst de stroem versciet
Vander Mazen en vanden Rine.

Die Scelt was dat Westende sine,
Also als si valt in de zee,
Oest streckende min no mee,
Dan toter Lavecen of ter Elven.
Huydecoper's edition, lib. i. v. 41, p. 9.

De Moribus Ger. cap. xxxvi.

*

Verbal English.

Old books hear I mentioning,
That all the land below Nimeguen,
Formerly (was) called Low-Saxony.
So as the stream flows

Of the Maas, and of the Rhine.

The Scheld that was its western end (boundary),
So as it falls into the sea,

Eastward stretching less or more
(Than) to the Lavecen or the Elbe.

M

for Ptolemy, who wrote in the beginning of the 2nd century, mentions the Saxons, and assigns to them nearly the same situation as Tacitus.

4. The Anglo-Saxons, as has just been stated, were a branch of the Saxons, who, for distinction, are denominated Old-Saxons. In the short account of the Anglo-Saxons will be found most of what is known concerning the origin and progress of this people. It is there ascertained that the Saxons were a confederacy of different tribes united for mutual defence against the Romans. Two of these were the Angles and Jutes, who, in A.D. 449, were among the first and chief settlers in Britain.

5. Subsequently to this emigration, the Saxons, remaining on the continent, were in a constant state of warfare with the Francs. These OldSaxons preserved their freedom till about A.D. 785, when, after a gallant opposition of thirty-three years, they were subdued by Charlemagne, who, by much cruelty, forced them to embrace Christianity. Charlemagne would scarcely have succeeded in inducing the Saxons to submit, if their celebrated duke Wittekind, who was never entirely subdued, had not terminated the cruelties of Charlemagne by consenting to be baptized. Wittekind, by treaty, remained in possession of the greater part of Saxony till his death in 807.

6. From Wittekind, not only the German Emperors of the Saxon line, Henry I., Otto I. and II., and Henry II., from A.D. 918 to 1024, and the house of Hanover, the royal family of Great Britain, but also the present king of Saxony, and the other princes of the house of Saxony, take their origin.

7. The most flourishing period of the Platt-Deutsch was just before the Reformation. Luther was accustomed to speak and write in HighGerman, in which dialect appeared his version of the Scriptures. As Luther's translation soon came into general use throughout Germany, the high dialect of his translation was not long before it prevailed over all the Low-German dialects. The influence of the Reformation in preventing the further cultivation of the Platt or Low-German, and in confining its use only to the lower orders, is regretted by all who are acquainted with its beauties. The most learned agree, that while the Low-German or Platt-Deutsch is equal to the High in strength and compositive power, the Platt is much softer and richer. The true old German freedom, sincerity, and honesty, can have no better medium to express its full mental and political independence, its genuine and confidential feelings of the heart, than its old, unsophisticated, open, Low-German dialect.

8. Where the High-German is obliged to employ most of the organs of speech to pronounce words, such as ochse ox, flachs flax, wachs wax, the Platt-German with the greatest ease says oss, flass, wass. The High

* Cellarius, lib. II. cap. v. p. 303.

+ Anglo-Saxon, Eald-Seaxan Old-Saxons, Chr. 449, Ing. p. 14, 22. See also the ANGLOSAXON DICTIONARY, under the word Searan.

+ III. § 1—8.