and of Germany; and their enthusiasm, backed by an unremitting industry, has given a marked impulse to AngloSaxon literature.

Of their various publications, the Grammar of Rask and the Deutsche Grammatik of Grimm, are certainly the most valuable. Upon these two works, and the influence which they have exerted, I would make a few observations; and if, in so doing, I dwell chiefly on what appear to be their defects, it should be remembered that a mistake becomes the more dangerous, the greater the merit of the work which contains it.

The first of these scholars was a native of Copenhagen, and devoted the whole of a short life to the study of the Northern languages. His knowledge of the Icelandic was accurate and profound; his familiar acquaintance with the kindred dialects may admit of some question. But it was as a philological critic, as one of the most zealous promoters of what may be called comparative philology, that he has the fairest claim to our respect. In this field he was one of the earliest labourers; and the discovery of many a curious analogy was the reward of his zeal and ingenuity. His varied knowledge enabled him to detect, by comparison, minute peculiarities of construction, which would certainly have escaped the notice of one, who had given his attention solely to a particular dialect.

It was with these advantages that he began his AngloSaxon Grammar; and to these he owes whatever success that work has met with. There are few English scholars who can peruse this grammar without benefit; there are probably none, who will rise from its perusal, with any very high notion of its author's candour, or even-so far as regards the Anglo-Saxon dialect-of his scholarship.*

* After the publication of Conybeare's "Illustrations," Rask noticed the longer rhythms of Cadmon, "which had escaped him while engaged in the first edition of his Grammar, not having Cadmon then at hand," &c, Could they have escaped the notice of any one who had read that poet'

The terms in which he speaks of Hickes and Lye are but little to his credit. Without the aid derived from their labours, his book would never have been written; and though, in some cases, his mastery of the Icelandic enabled him to correct their errors, in others, his triumph, though equally loud, is far more questionable.

The Accidence is by far the most valuable portion of his grammar; the Syntax and the Prosody (and more. especially the latter) must, I think, be considered as failures. According to him, the alliterative syllables alone take the accent; all those which precede them, form merely a "complement," and are "toneless." Great care must be taken not to confound this complement with the verse itself, "lest the alliteration, the structure of the verse, and even the sense, be thereby destroyed! Were these strange notions sanctioned by Anglo-Saxon prosody, the jingle of a nursery rhime would be music, compared with the rhythm of Anglo-Saxon verse. He has treated Hickes' theory of a temporal metre with little ceremonyit would be difficult to say which of the two theories be the more futile, the one he has adopted, or that which he repudiates.

The great defect of the Deutsche Grammatik is a want of sound distinction—of a jealous and a penetrating criticism. Words of like ending, or of like beginning, are classed together, many of which we know must belong to different formations, for we can resolve them into their elements, and prove a different construction. We have also a large portion of the work, devoted to the changes of the letters; but the laws, which regulate these changes, are barely glanced at, and it would seem imperfectly understood, for we have letters represented as original, which are certainly corruptions; and others degraded as corruptions, which are, as certainly, original. The declensions again are divided into the weak and the strong, or, as Rask has it, into the simple and the complex; and this has been called a natural division. Had it any claim to such a title it

would be more widely applicable; we have only to test it by some of the kindred languages, to see at once its unsoundness. As an artificial system, it does not possess the ordinary merit of convenience; it is at once cumbrous and imperfect. His arrangement of the conjugations approaches nearer to a natural order, and is far more convenient.

But, with all these defects, the Deutsche Grammatik is a work of surpassing thought and labour. No man that studies the nature and structure of language, can neglect it with safety. It is a mine of learning; and, though we may sometimes quarrel with the arrangement of its materials, we may well be grateful that such masses of knowledge have been arranged at all. In what manner they may be best turned to account in the study of language, is an inquiry of some difficulty, but of far greater interest.

Now dialect is a term merely relative. The Gothic is a dialect of the Indo-European language; the Anglo-Saxon is a dialect of the Gothic. When we compare the IndoEuropean languages, we seize the points of resemblance, and pass slightly over those of difference. When we

compare the Gothic languages, we find many of these points of difference become leading features-such as are, in many cases, strikingly characteristic of these new dialects. The same thing is to be expected, and certainly takes place in comparing our English dialects. To argue then from such a knowledge as we can now obtain of any parent language, to the peculiarities of a dependent dialect, requires the greatest caution. In studying the AngloSaxon, we can only look upon the Deutsche Grammatik as

* The nouns of all the Indo-European languages may, I think, be ranged under a very small number of declensions. I will venture to answer for the Sanscrit, the Greek, the Latin, the Slavish dialects, and the Gothic. Even the anomalies of the Celtic may be reduced (in part at least) under the same laws. The distinctions between the declensions are essential, and deeply rooted in the very structure of these languages.

a collection of useful hints-hints not to be adopted at once and without reflection, but to be worked out and tested, by a careful examination of Anglo-Saxon authorities.

After the publication of these two books, Mr. Thorpe, the friend of Rask and translator of his Grammar, returned to England. To this gentleman we owe the version of Cadmon, which was published about four years ago by the Society of Antiquaries. Another gentleman, who had, I believe, been admitted to the intimacy of Grimm, distinguished himself about the same time by his zealous admiration of that scholar; and expressed his opinion of English scholarship in terms, that were, to say the least, somewhat unguarded. An answer soon appeared, and "the Controversy" followed.* In the warmth of this dispute extreme opinions have been advanced on both sides; some of which I think, the writers themselves would, upon reflection, see reason at least to modify.

May we not appreciate the learning of Hickes, the masterly command of idiom shown by Lye, and the elegant scholarship of Conybeare, and yet acknowledge the many grammatical errors, of which these writers have been guilty? May we not admire the patient investigation of Grimm, and the quicker but less sound perception of Rask, without blinding ourselves to their faults, or embarking with them in ill-considered theory or vague generalization? Of these two parties, the "new Saxonists" have been ́ The peculiar notions certainly the most enterprising. which they maintain, and act upon, have been thus stated by one of their earliest and most zealous advocates. persons who have had much experience of Anglo-Saxon MSS. know how hopelessly incorrect they in general are; when every allowance has been made for date and dialect, and even for the etymological ignorance of former times, we are yet met at every turn with faults of grammar, with omissions or redundancies of letters and words, which can

"All

* The papers on this subject appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine at various times during the last two years.

only be accounted for on the supposition, that professional copyists brought to their task (in itself confusing enough) both lack of knowledge, and lack of care. A modern edition made by a person really conversant with the language which he illustrates, will, in all probability, be much more like the original than the MS. copy, which even in the earliest times was made by an ignorant and indolent transcriber. But while he makes the necessary corrections, no man is justified in withholding the original readings : for, although the laws of a language, ascertained by wide. and careful examination of all the cognate tongues, of all the hidden springs and ground-principles on which they rest in common, are like the laws of the Medes and Persians and alter not, yet the very errors of the old writer are valuable, and serve sometimes as guides and clues to the inner being and spiritual tendencies of the language ¡tself."

That I differ from several of the opinions here advanced, may be partly gathered from what has gone before. But I think it due to a gentleman, who has laid Anglo-Saxon literature under some obligation, to state my reasons more fully; and as the question is one of great importance, and as a very loose meaning is sometimes given to the words, "correct copy" and "original readings," perhaps I shall be excused, if I enters omewhat minutely into the points at issue.

Our modern editors take the liberty (without any warning to the reader) of altering the text in three particulars. They change the accents,* which in certain cases are used to distinguish the long vowels; they compound and resolve words; and they alter the stops and pauses—or in other words the punctuation and versification—at their pleasure. With respect to the accents, Rask professes to have

* In the following remarks, the word accent has the same meaning, as is generally given it by our Anglo-Saxon editors. Much confusion might have risen if we had ventured upon a change of phraseology.