205, 30 f. pet heo (nl. seo prýness) pæt lác pæt hie purh done halzan heahenzel ærest æteowde mantum wundorlic tácn, pæt hie pat mannum to fylzenne on cydde fordzelædde & zebringe, lat. ut (Trinitas) munera quae per summum suae sedis ministrum conferre dignatus est, ad certum usque finem perducat. Die beiden belege für n. s. f. hie (vgl. oben zu 65, 13 f.) fehlen im Glossar und bei Hardy § 124. Neben zebrinze, welches in dem zu erwartenden präsens steht, ist forđzelædde in fordzelæde zu ändern (so schon Cosijn in seinem handexemplar). Aber auch cydde kann nicht richtig sein. Ich vermute on cydde fordzelæde & zebrinze: cydde würde als cydde verlesen und dann das folgende wort scheinbar dementsprechend in ein präteritum geändert. on cydde heißt hier wohl zur kenntnis', wie auch sonst (to cyppe & zeswutulunze brohte Lchd. 3, 432, 12).

205, 34 đære nihte und 245, 11 pisse nihte sind wohl nicht mit Morris und Hardy s. 64 als dative, sondern als genitive zu fassen; der dativ ist niht 215, 15. Wülfing, Synt. Alfr. 1, § 93 zählt ähnliche belege dem dativ zu, aber es muß auffallen, daß auch unter den dortigen Beda-belegen dreimal nihte begegnet. Bei Alfred gibt es (vom adverbialen nihtes abgesehen) keinen zweifellosen genitiv beleg, der dativ ist aber ausnahmslos niht; im Vesp. Ps. steht als dativ nur nacht, næht (neunmal), als genitiv einmal nachte (adverbial naehtes, nehtes), vgl. ferner zb. nihte 'noctis' Wr.-W. 251, 25, gegen on pisse niht 101, 13, to niht passim; nur, anscheinend unter dem einfluß von dæze: on daze ond ná on nihte bei Elfric, Hom. 1, 36, 281). Zum genitiv gehört wohl auch sumre nihte Greg. Dial, 228, 14. Andere zeitangebende genitive sind pas zeares Chron. 871 (bis), pas ilcan wintra ebd. 878, und auch in anderen germanischen dialekten ist der temporale genitiv bekanntlich ganz üblich.

205, 36 Nis eow das weorces pearf. Eine ungelenke wiedergabe des lat. 'Non est uobis . . . opus'.

207, 27 he is ... mid hsomize wuda oferwexen, lat. cornea silua tegitur. In Cosijns handexemplar und jetzt auch bei Toller, Suppl., findet sich die besserung bromize, welche, obgleich sie dem lat. 'cornea' nicht entspricht, unzweifelhaft richtig ist.

1) Noch klarer liegt dieser einfluß zutage in þy ilcan nihte Greg. Dial. 112, 26; by afterfylgendan nihte 318, 6.

298

211, 2 on.

J. H. Kern, Altenglische Varia

S. zu 197, 19.

215, 14 zehwepre. 1. ze hwepre ‘und doch'. Dieser beleg für hwepre fehlt im Glossar.

221, 3 þær hæpene men er deoflum onzuldon. Cosijn bessert mit recht on guldon, denn wir brauchen hier das imperfektive (iterative) guldon: 'in denen heiden früher den teufeln opferten'. onzildan III. bei Bosw.-Toller ist zu streichen.

225, 28 f. pet him was azhweper on weorce, se pot he lenz from Cristes onsyne wære, dat he pone zesawe. Nach weorce ist eine mit ze pat he anfangende lücke anzunehmen, denn es fehlt die alternative, vgl. lat. dubitauit paene quid mallet, quia nec hos deserere nec a Christo uolebat diutius separari (Sulpicii Seueri Epist. III, ed. Halm, § 12). Etwa [ze pet he hie forlete].

237, 3 alæde ponne line of dare ceastre Blickl. MS., lat hine of pære c. Cambr. Ms., lat. erue eum de carcere. M. e. hat Hardy s. 123 vollständig unrecht, wenn er behauptet, læt entspreche dem lat. 'erue' besser als alæde, vgl. übrigens útalædep of pyssum carcerne 231, 6, ähnl. 241, 1 und alæde ... of pæm carcerne 231, 18 f.

245, 25 hie (Cambr. Ms.), 1. hit (nl. das wasser, nicht die bildsäule), wie ferner in derselben zeile und z. 33 richtig steht. Groningen, August 1918. J. H. Kern.

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE EARLY NEW ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION (ESPECIALLY IN THE 15th CENTURY).

In a book entitled the Pronunciation of English Vowels, published in 1914, I have tried to ascertain the development of the English vowels - mainly in uninfluenced position during the period 1400—1700.

For this purpose I have, in the first place, adduced and discussed a great number of spellings from original letters and documents of the 15th cent., most of them written in London or in the neighbourhood of London. For the sake of comparison and corroboration of my results, spellings have also been quoted from numerous literary works of the 15th cent. and from such MSS. or printed sources of the 16th cent. as had been examined by previous writers.

Secondly I have subjected to a detailed and individual examination all statements bearing on the matter which are to be found in orthoepistical works from the 16th cent. to the beginning of the 18th cent. Of the 60 and odd grammatical works I have used, I had to consult the originals (in the British Museum and the Bodleian Library) for about 50, the number of reprints not being so numerous as they are now.

The chief results arrived at can be briefly summed up as follows:

(1) The sound-changes to which the present day pronunciation of Standard English owes its characteristic features had begun as early as in the 15th cent. As we have to allow some time for the development of the advanced forms of pronunciation which are found in the 15th cent., it seems even probable that the beginning of the earliest changes known as the 'great vowel shift' (viz. the palatalisation of ū, the reduction ou and au, the passing of, ō into [i:,] [u:], and the

of ai,

diphthongization of i, u) dates as far back as the latter half of the 14th cent.

(2) Contrary to what has been supposed by most previous writers, a Continental pronunciation of the English vowels cannot have existed in the Elizabethan period. The testimonies which have been quoted hitherto in support of this theory are drawn solely from a small number of early English Grammarians and are flatly contradicted by the evidence of the spellings and the French Grammarians. This contradiction is, however, to a great extent only apparent. In their attempts to analyse the sounds the English orthoepists were led astray by a host of theoretical considerations. They continually mixed up sounds and letters, diphthongs and digraphs, and some of them even recommended in their works theoretical forms of pronunciation which were not sanctioned by common usage. On a closer scrutiny none of the statements which have been quoted as infallible testimonies of Continental forms of pronunciation appear to be wholly conclusive.

Up to the present the conclusions at which I have arrived have not been confuted, although doubts have been expressed as to the correctness of several details 1). Thus Dr. K. Brunner

1) The review Prof. Schröer has written of my book in Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1916, pp. 175 ff., hardly deserves the name of a criticism. Alone, among all students of early NE. sound-history, S. cherishes the fond belief that rhymes, puns, and modern dialects are more reliable guides to the early NE. pronunciation than the combined evidence of the phonetic spellings and the early orthoepists. He boldly asserts that the knowledge we possess of the former of these criteria will scatter the conclusions I have arrived at, but he does not adduce any proofs whatever in support of his loose conjecture. The investigations into rhymes and dialects which I know of tend to substantiate my views rather than the opposite. S. is not willing to admit that a pronunciation was in common use, even if it is evidenced in numerous phonetic spellings from different sources (as for instance won for one), and in his opinion orthoepistical statements do not carry any weight except 'wenn sie wirklich klar und eindeutig (!!) sind'. It is therefore not surprising that S. speaks of the sources I have used comprising practically all early grammars and spelling-books known to us, as well as thousands of original letters and documents dürftigen Fundamente des Verfassers'. He also tries to imply that the con

as 'die

in his review of my book (Archiv 135) arrives at the conclusion that my results will in all probability prove to be correct. Dr. H. Bradley (Shakespeare's England II, p. 574) remarks that the views held by previous writers are 'contested with great ability' in my English Vowels. In his recently published Short History of English, Prof. Wyld is of the opinion that my work has to a great extent put the whole matter of the early English pronunciation on a new footing'. He is inclined to agree in the main with my opinion concerning the early Grammarians, but thinks we are not justified in holding that the present pronunciation was practically arrived at as early as the end of the 17th cent. As I have tried to make clear in an article in Anglia (1914, p. 431). I do not hold, however, that the many words or groups of words which have been subjected to combinatory sound-change were pronounced then exactly as they are now, only that the general pronunciation of the vowels did not materially differ from the present one. So in this respect I do not think there exists any essential difference of opinion between Prof. Wyld and me. W. generalizes too much when saying that I dispute the existence of more than one type of pronunciation at the same time in early Modern E. (Class Dialect and Standard English in Mackay Miscellany, 1914, p. 284). For several sounds (e. g. è nnd ai) I have assumed the existence of two pronunciations,

clusions I have arrived at by a minute and individual examination of every piece of evidence are based on such scraps of evidence as have been thought useful to prove a certain theory. In spite of the elaborate references (whether these are to the original editions or to reprints, appears clearly from Abbreviations of Sources examined' pp. VIII-X), S. thinks it very difficult to verify my statements. (The references to Gill's and Cooper's rules on the pronunciation of a, ai which are missing, according to S., are found in their due places, pp. 188 f., 194 f.). It is true that testimonies from grammars which are extant in reprint, have as a rule not been reproduced verbatim, but this is in strict accordance with the plan and scope of my work which is no primer written for the benefit of those who are desirous of acquiring some knowledge of the rudiments of English sound-history, but a somewhat minute investigation, the study of which presupposes a fairly intimate knowledge of the subject and the literature thereon. S's. comments on my discussion of Cooper's evidence bearing on the pronunciation of a, shows that he has no notion of the difficulties we are confronted with in attempting to trace the development of a and ai in early NE. On this point the rules of our grammarians are certainly neither 'klar' nor eindeutig'.