that "the vulgar" used the most correct forms of expression, even in the Saxon cities;* but he still maintains with the most triumphant certainty of being right that at Meissen and its vicinity is spoken the best High German;t and that we "in Germany must without doubt conjoin to the very agreeable oral dialect of Dresden, the capital of electoral Saxony, and of the court, those grammatical rules and critical observations which were made at Leipzig many years ago, and have been applied to the written language." Gottsched, like most others, thinks his own age better than those preceding it. "The period of the government of our most illustrious prince, Augustus II., of Saxony," he says, "well deserves to be called the golden age of our language." It was Gottsched's misfortune to have made this complacent statement just at the beginning of a new era which was soon to turn it into ridicule. But all this will not so definitely distinguish Gottsched from his predecessors, as to account for the reputation which he gained. The reason is rather to be looked for in the manner in which Gottsched connected his grammar with literature. Thus it is well worth noticing, that the very title to his German grammar says, "On the models of the best writers of the present and last centuries"—that is, not of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth, but only of the seventeenth and eighteenth. Thus, the long series of grammarians who followed each other in the footsteps of Luther, ends with Gottsched; and in the place which he occupied with them, appears Opitz. The ancient rugged forms of the writers before Opitz, according to Gottsched, may indeed possess more strength; "but fall far below the present style of writing in agreeableness and euphony." multitude of good writings published since the time of Opitz, and with which the eighteenth century especially has enriched almost every one of the arts and sciences, gives to our own times an undeniable privilege to prefer its own methods of syntax to the ancient German ones."** Into the direction indicated by Opitz, therefore, and into the French taste, Gottsched now desired to change the whole literature and literary opinions of Germany. The enterprise was of course doomed to shipwreck upon the opposition of those great German minds, of whose near approach Gottsched had no suspicion. † Pp. 67, 69. "The * Pp. 3, 404. + P. 403. That is, the period from 1694 to the middle of the eighteenth century; for it was at this latter time that these words were written. I P. 19. P. 18. ** P. 401; and compare p. 575. Gottsched's praise of Luther in another place is of course not inconsistent with these views. On the close connection between Gottsched and Opitz, see the excellent observations of Gervinus, "History of German Poetry," vol. 3, (188), p. 199; and vol. 4, (1840), p. 50. But it was not without its influence upon literature; and its conjunction of literature and grammar had a very distinct influence upon the upper grades of schools. The scope of grammatical instruction in these was no longer confined merely to spelling correctly and the use of the native German language in the ordinary concerns of practical life, but special attention was now paid to good taste, to literary criticism, and frequently even to actual composition in prose and verse.* Adelung. The inheritor of Gottsched's fame in the field of German grammar was Johann Christoph Adelung; who was born, in 1724, at Spantekow, near Anklam in Pomerani, studied at Halle, became professor in the gymnasium at Erfurt in 1759, and taught privately at Leipzig from 1763 to 1787, when he was appointed chief librarian at Dresden. He died in 1806.† Adelung devoted the iron industry of a long life to the task of laboring upon the grammar and lexicology of German. A complete list of the titles of his works on this subject would fill several pages. I will name the most important of them. The Grammatical and critical dictionary of the High German language" appeared first, in 1774-86; and the second edition in 1793-1801. The "German grammar for schools,"§ first appeared in 1781, and its sixth edition in 1816. The "Complete system of the German language," came out in 1782, in two large volumes. Lastly, the book "On German style" was published in 1785, and a fourth edition in 1800. Adelung was in most of his writings a follower of Gottsched. Whatever can be said in Gottsched's praise, is applicable to Adelung in a still higher degree. As with Gottsched, so with Adelung, clearness and correctness are the qualities most sought for. Like Gottsched, Adelung lays great stress on taste; and it must be admitted that in all these particulars he surpasses his predecessor. At a more modern period, the late lamented Danzel endeavored to urge again the permanently valuable part of Gottsched's views. But although his book contains much that is valuable, the reader must be on his guard against its extreme ideas. See the Munich "Literary Advertiser (Gelehrten Anzeiger)," 1848, No. 210, 211. I believe that the introductory words of this section of my own work will secure me against such an error. Gottsched had of course predecessors even in his characteristic opinions. As early as in the philological societies of the seventeenth century, grammar and literary labor were united. We may even detect still earlier, in the sixteenth century, in Clajus and Oelinger, references to literature. Still, it is needless here to prove at length that all this is entirely distinct from that style of literary criticism which Gottsched learned from Horace and the French. The labors of Morhof, Bödiker, and others, form a transition to Gottsched. ↑ Jördens, "Lexicon of German poets and prosemen (Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten)." 1. p. 13; v. p. 700. 1" Grammatisch-kritische Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart." "Deutsche Sprachlehre für Schulen." { "Umstandliche Lehrgebäude der Deutschen Sprache." "Ueber den deutschen Styl." * And moreover, Adelung, as Gottsched had done, devoted much 1 abor to the investigation of the old German literature and language. And they both agree further in this; that there is visible throughout all their works, a consciousness either expressed or implied, of the remarkable importance and ability of their achievements. If either of them goes beyond the other in this particular of a low estimate of previous periods and labors, it is Adelung. There is one important point upon which Gottsched and Adelung apparently differ; but even here, Adelung has in fact only completed what Gottsched had begun. This point is the question, What is the High German language? Adelung himself laid great stress upon the fact that Gottsched had asserted the High German to be the result of the labors of authors, while he himself had earnestly combatted this opinion. But although Adelung was more definite than Gottsched in asserting that language was not a production of authors, and least of all of grammarians, still expressions to the same effect are not wanting in the latter. And both agree in claiming that the Misnian dialect is the proper, authoritative, classical High German. Not, that is, the speech of the lower classes; Gottsched had perceived this:-but that of "the upper classes of Upper Saxony." This doctrine of course brought him into a violent opposition to the whole German literature of the new period, which was now receiving reinforcements from all parts of Germany. And Adelung misapprehended the character of the times no less, when he not only, like others of the grammatical school, looked with cautious wonder upon the great creations of Klopstock, Lessing, and Goethe, but asserted, completely possessed by his delusion, that "in respect to excellence of style, the second quar ter of this century‡ was preeminently distinguished; a period during which appeared in Saxony those good writers who quickly became models for all Germany."§ There is another important point respecting which Gottsched and Adelung are strikingly alike. This was, the effort which they both made to give greater clearness and logical consistency to German grammar, by connecting it with certain general philosophical views, which views themselves, as held by the two men, were closely related. * See Adelung, against Voss; in the department of news, in the "New Leipzig Gazette of Literature (Neues Leipziger Literaturzeitung),” March 31, 1804. † Adelung, "On German Style," ed. 1785, i., 58, 59, and in innumerable other places. See especially the preface of the "Complete System," p. viii. The most violent of the attacks upon this view of Adelung, was that by Joh. Heinr, Voss, in the “Jena Universal Gazette of Literature (Jena Allgem, Literatur-Zeitung)," for January and February, 1801. Viz., from 1725 to 1750. On German Style, ed. 1785, i. 23. And compare $ 19, subsequently; where Adelung measures out to his cotemporaries, but grumblingly, some little praise. Gottsched was a thorough adherent of the Wolfian philosophy, while Adelung rejected all philosophical "sectarianism," declaring in favor of the eclecticism which "preceded the prevalence of Kant's system." He says however, in 1786, "Thus, in recent times, almost every philosopher of acuteness and intellect has his own eclectic system; of which the Leibnitz-Wolfian hypothesis is more or less the basis."* This style of philosophy is closely connected with one of the most prominent traits of Adelung's writings, viz., their clear and intelligible character. Lucidity and industry were his most valuable traits, and I designedly make this additional reference to them, for it was to them that his works owe their great influence upon the schools of the period. But a search after the higher excellences of literary composition, depth of thought and demonstrative correctness of fundamental view, would encounter in Adelung only the most discouraging shallowness. His modest and incontestably truth-loving nature told him that language was neither the work of learned men, nor was its original creation a proof of mental culture. But instead of tracing the course of this great work of nature with that reverence which is the only means of arriving at truth, Adelung knew no better than to utter constant complaints against the original coarseness of the languages. These charges he did not restrict to the limited. department of mere ideas, but extended them to grammatical principles, and to the sounds and the euphony of the language. Here, he received no aid from the monuments of ancient German literature; and no warnings from his knowledge of Greek literature and its Homer. "Coarse, uncouth, vulgar," are the terms which at every third word he applies to the language of those people who have not made that surprising progress in trade or science which distinguished his much praised second quarter of the eighteenth century. Adelung's works show how profound an influence such errors may exert on opinions relating to subsequent periods. No one acquainted with Adelung's works will need any especial proofs of these statements. I will however cite a few of the innumerable passages in point from Adelung's writings, for the information of those less familiar with them. In speaking of the language of the Germans during the first centuries of our era, Adelung says, "A people so uncultivated could have but few ideas, and those mostly material; and their language must therefore be extremely poor. Their vocal organs were coarse and uncouth; and could therefore express the few ideas they * "History of philosophy for amateurs (Geschichte der philosophie für Liebhabe1),” Leipzig, 1786, vol. ii., p. 425. ↑ "Complete System," i., 7; "On German Style," i., 5. had, only by rough and uncouth sounds." But would he not draw an opposite conclusion from the Gothic language, which had then been well-known for a long time? This is what he observes on this head, a few pages further: "As the Gothic language was thent very rough and uncouth, and destitute both of terms for abstract conceptions, and of sufficient flexibility in combining words and sentences," &c. Of the poets of the Hohenstaufen, Adelung says, "They were entirely destitute of invention, wit, enthusiasm, in short of poetical genius." Nor does Luther, whom he finds other reasons for praising, escape without severe reproof from this strict judge. He did, it is true, take great pains in polishing; and approached as nearly as his opportunities admitted, to the strictly Misnian dialect. But if he had only enjoyed more leisure for the purpose, "he would have made further progress, both in orthography and in grammatical correctness. For he is not always consistent in the former; and with regard to the latter, very many faults and incorrectnesses have escaped his observation, even in the German Bible; which must therefore be considered any thing rather than a classic."|| CHAPTER IV. THE BROTHERS GRIMM. A more complete contradiction can scarcely be imagined, than that between the labors of the brothers Grimm and the views of Adelung. As the latter adopted as a basis for his grammatical labors the second quarter of the eighteenth century, viz., the years 1725-50, so the writings of the brothers Grimm may be considered as holding a similar relation to that outburst of real poetry which was inaugurated by Goethe and his friends in 1760-70. The Grimms did not, it is true, endeavor to establish the literature of that period as an infallible standard of language, as Adelung did those of 1725-50; but there is a relation between their principles and those which prevailed in tho literature spoken of, which justifies the parallel. Jacob Grimm was born at Hanau, in 1785; and in the spring of 1802, entered the university of Marburg, and studied law under Savigny, the importance of whose influence upon Grimm's studies is mentioned in the graceful dedication of his Grammar to Savigny. In 1804, Jacob's younger brother Wilhelm, born at Hanau in 1786, also came to Marburg, also to study jurisprudence under Savigny. The brothers pursued their professional studies with pleasure and zeal, ↑ Viz., in the time of Ulfilas. * Complete System," i., 18. "Complete System," i., 23. There is no difficulty in recognizing the truth contained in these expressions; but the unintelligent nature of their views, as taken in connection with other expressions by Adelung, is none the less. Ib., i., 54. I lb., i., 66. |