Although the Middle High German period had thus not succeeded in
effecting any permanent advance in the direction of a uniform literary
language, the desire for a certain degree of uniformity was never
again entirely lost. At the close of the 13th century literature had
passed from the hands of the nobility to those of the middle classes
of the towns; the number of writers who used the German tongue rapidly
increased; later the invention of printing, the increased efficiency
of the schools, and above all the religious movement of the
Reformation, contributed to awakening the desire of being understood
by those who stood outside the dialectic community of the individual.
A single authoritative form of writing and spelling was felt on all
sides to be particularly necessary. This was found in the language
used officially by the various chanceries (_Kanzleien_), and more
especially the imperial chancery. Since the days of Charles IV.
(1347-1378) the latter had striven after a certain uniform language in
the documents it issued, and by the time of Maximilian I. (1493-1519)
all its official documents were characterized by pretty much the same
phonology, forms and vocabulary, in whatever part of Germany they
originated. And under Maximilian's successor, Charles V., the
conditions remained pretty much the same. The fact that the seat of
the imperial chancery had for a long time been in Prague, led to a
mingling of Upper and Middle German sounds and inflections; but when
the crown came with Frederick III. (1440-1493) to the Habsburgs, the
Upper German elements were considerably increased. The chancery of the
Saxon electorate, whose territory was exclusively Middle German, had
to some extent, under the influence of the imperial chancery, allowed
Upper German characteristics to influence its official language. This
is clearly marked in the second half of the 15th century, and about
the year 1500 there was no essential difference between the languages
of the two chanceries. Thuringia, Silesia and Brandenburg soon
followed suit, and even Low German could not ultimately resist the
accepted High German notation (_o_, _o_, _u_, _u_, _ou_, _ie_, &c.).
We have here very favourable conditions for the creation of a uniform
literary language, and, as has already been said, the tendency to
follow these authorities is clearly marked.
In the midst of this development arose the imposing figure of Luther,
who, although by no means the originator of a common High German
speech, helped very materially to establish it. He deliberately chose
(cf. the often quoted passage in his _Tischreden_, ch. 69) the
language of the Saxon chancery as the vehicle of his Bible translation
and subsequently of his own writings. The differences between Luther's
usage and that of the chancery, in phonology and inflection, are
small; still he shows, in his writings subsequent to 1524, a somewhat
more pronounced tendency towards Middle German. But it is noteworthy
that he, like the chancery, retained the old vowel-change in the
singular and plural of the preterite of the strong verbs (i.e.
_steig_, _stigen_; _starb_, _sturben_), although before Luther's time
the uniformity of the modern preterite had already begun to show
itself here and there. The adoption of the language of the chancery
gave rise to the mixed character of sounds and forms which is still a
feature of the literary language of Germany. Thus the use of the
monophthongs _i_, _u_, and _u_, instead of the old diphthongs _ie_,
_uo_ and _ue_, comes from Middle Germany; the forms of the words and
the gender of the nouns follow Middle rather than Upper German usage,
whereas, on the other hand, the consonantal system (_p_ to _pf_; _d_
to _t_) betrays in its main features its Upper German
(Bavarian-Austrian) origin.
The language of Luther no doubt shows greater originality in its style
and vocabulary (cf. its influence on Goethe and the writers of the
_Sturm und Drang_), for in this respect the chancery could obviously
afford him but scanty help. His vocabulary is drawn to a great extent
from his own native Middle German dialect, and the fact that, since
the 14th century, Middle German literature (cf. for instance, the
writings of the German mystics, at the time of and subsequent to
Eckhart) had exercised a strong influence over Upper Germany, stood
him in good stead. Luther is, therefore, strictly speaking, not the
father of the modern German literary language, but he forms the most
important link in a chain of development which began long before him,
and did not reach its final stage until long after him. To infer that
Luther's language made any rapid conquest of Germany would not be
correct. It was, of course, immediately acceptable to the eastern part
of the Middle German district (Thuringia and Silesia), and it did not
find any great difficulty in penetrating into Low Germany, at least
into the towns and districts lying to the east of the Saale and Elbe
(Magdeburg, Hamburg). One may say that about the middle of the 16th
century Luther's High German was the language of the chanceries, about
1600 the language of the pulpit (the last Bible in Low German was
printed at Goslar in 1621) and the printing presses. Thus the
aspirations of Low Germany to have a literary language of its own were
at an early stage crushed. Protestant Switzerland, on the other hand,
resisted the "uncommon new German" until well into the 17th century.
It was also natural that the Catholic Lower Rhine (Cologne) and
Catholic South Germany held out against it, for to adopt the language
of the reformer would have seemed tantamount to offering a helping
hand to Protestant ideas. At the same time, geographical and political
conditions, as well as the pronounced character of the Upper German
dialects, formed an important obstacle to a speedy unification. South
German grammarians of the 16th century, such as Laurentius Albertus,
raise a warning voice against those who, although far distant from the
proper use of words and the true pronunciation, venture to teach _nos
puriores Germanos_, namely, the Upper Germans.
In 1593 J. Helber, a Swiss schoolmaster and notary, spoke of three
separate dialects as being in use by the printing presses:[22] (1)
_Mitteldeutsch_ (the language of the printers in Leipzig, Erfurt,
Nuremberg, Wurzburg, Frankfort, Mainz, Spires, Strassburg and Cologne;
at the last mentioned place in the event of their attempting to print
_Ober-Teutsch_); (2) _Donauisch_ (the printers' language in South
Germany, but limited to Bavaria and Swabia proper--here more
particularly the Augsburg idiom, which was considered to be
particularly _zierlich_);[23] (3) _Hochst Reinisch_, which corresponds
to Swiss German. Thus in the 16th century Germany was still far from
real unity in its language; but to judge from the number and the
geographical position of the towns which printed in _Mitteldeutsch_ it
is pretty clear which idiom would ultimately predominate. During the
17th century men like M. Opitz (_Buch von der deutschen Poeterey_) and
J.G. Schottelius (_Teutsche Sprachkunst_, 1641, and _Von der teutschen
Sprachkunst_, 1663), together with linguistic societies like the
_Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft_ and the Nuremberg _Pegnitzorden_, did a
great deal to purify the German language from foreign (especially
French) elements; they insisted on the claims of the vernacular to a
place beside and even above Latin (in 1687 Christian Thomasius held
for the first time lectures in the German language at the university
of Leipzig), and they established a firm grammatical basis for
Luther's common language, which especially in the hymnals had become
modernized and more uniform. About the middle of the 17th century the
disparity between the vowels of the singular and plural of the
preterite of the strong verbs practically ceases; under East Middle
German influence the final _e_ is restored to words like _Knabe_,
_Jude_, _Pfaffe_, which in South German had been _Knab_, &c.; the
mixed declension (_Ehre_, _Ehren_; _Schmerz_, _Schmerzen_) was
established, and the plural in -_er_ was extended to some masculine
nouns (_Wald_, _Walder_);[24] the use of the mutated sound has now
become the rule as a plural sign (Vater, Baume). How difficult, even
in the first half of the 18th century, it was for a Swiss to write the
literary language which Luther had established is to be seen from the
often quoted words of Haller (1708-1777): "I am a Swiss, the German
language is strange to me, and its choice of words was almost unknown
to me." The Catholic south clung firmly to its own literary language,
based on the idiom of the imperial chancery, which was still an
influential force in the 17th century or on local dialects. This is
apparent in the writings of Abraham a Sancta Clara,[25] who died in
1709, or in the attacks of the Benedictine monk, Augustin Dornbluth,
on the _Meissner Schriftsprache_ in 1755.
In the 18th century, to which these names have introduced us, the
grammatical writings of J.C. Gottsched (_Deutsche Sprachkunst_, 1748)
and J.C. Adelung (_Grammatisch-kritisches Worterbuch der hochdeutschen
Mundart_, 1774-1786) exercised a decisive and far-reaching influence.
Gottsched took as his basis the spoken language (_Umgangssprache_) of
the educated classes of Upper Saxony (Meissen), which at this time
approximated as nearly as possible to the literary language. His
_Grammar_ did enormous services to the cause of unification,
ultimately winning over the resisting south; but he carried his purism
to pedantic lengths, he would tolerate no archaic or dialectical
words, no unusual forms or constructions, and consequently made the
language unsuited for poetry. Meanwhile an interest in Old German
literature was being awakened by Bodmer; Herder set forth better ideas
on the nature of language, and insisted on the value of native idioms;
and the _Sturm und Drang_ led by Goethe encouraged all individualistic
tendencies. All this gave rise to a movement counter to Gottsched's
absolutism, which resulted in the revival of many obsolete German
words and forms, these being drawn partly from Luther's Bible
translation (cf. V. Hehn, "Goethe und die Sprache der Bibel," in the
_Goethe-Jahrbuch_, viii. p. 187 ff.), partly from the older language
and partly from the vocabulary peculiar to different social ranks and
trades.[26] The latter is still a source of linguistic innovations.
German literary style underwent a similar rejuvenation, for we are on
the threshold of the second classical period of German literature. It
had strengthened Gottsched's hand as a linguistic reformer that the
earlier leaders of German literature, such as Gellert, Klopstock and
Lessing, were Middle Germans; now Wieland's influence, which was
particularly strong in South Germany, helped materially towards the
establishment of one accepted literary language throughout all
German-speaking countries; and the movement reaches its culmination
with Goethe and Schiller. At the same time this unification did not
imply the creation of an unalterable standard; for, just as the
language of Opitz and Schottelius differed from that of Luther,
so--although naturally in a lesser degree--the literary language of
our day differs from that of the classic writers of the 18th century.
Local peculiarities are still to be met with, as is to be seen in the
modern German literature that emanates from Switzerland or Austria.
But this unity, imperfect as it is, is limited to the literary
language. The differences are much more sharply accentuated in the
_Umgangssprache_,[27] whereby we understand the language as it is
spoken by educated people throughout Germany; this is not only the
case with regard to pronunciation, although it is naturally most
noticeable here, but also with regard to the choice of words and the
construction of sentences. Compared with the times of Goethe and
Schiller a certain advance towards unification has undoubtedly been
made, but the differences between north and south are still very
great. This is particularly noticeable in the pronunciation of
_r_--either the uvular _r_ or the _r_ produced by the tip of the
tongue; of the voiced and voiceless stops, _b_, _p_, _d_, _t_, _g_ and
_k_; of the _s_ sounds; of the diphthongs; of the long vowels _e_ and
_oe_, &c. (cf. W. Vietor, _German Pronunciation_, 2nd ed., 1890). The
question as to whether a unified pronunciation (_Einheitaussprache_)
is desirable or even possible has occupied the attention of academies,
scholars and the educated public during recent years, and in 1898 a
commission made up of scholars and theatre directors drew up a scheme
of pronunciation for use in the royal theatres of Prussia.[28] This
scheme has since been recommended to all German theatres by the German
_Buhnenverein_. Desirable as such a uniform pronunciation is for the
national theatre, it is a much debated question how far it should be
adopted in the ordinary speech of everyday life. Some scholars, such
as W. Braune, declared themselves strongly in favour of its
adoption;[29] Braune's argument being that the system of modern
pronunciation is based on the spelling, not on the sounds produced in
speaking. The latter, he holds, is only responsible for the
pronunciation of _-chs-_ as _-ks-_ in _wachsen_, _Ochse_, &c., or for
that of _sp-_ and _st-_ in _spielen_, _stehen_, &c. Other scholars,
again, such as K. Luick and O. Brenner, warn against any such attempts
to create a living language on an artificial basis;[30] the
_Buhnendeutsch_ or "stage-German" they regard as little more than an
abstract ideal. Thus the decision must be left to time.
AUTHORITIES.--_General Literature_: J. Grimm, _Geschichte der
deutschen Sprache_ (Leipzig, 1848; 4th ed., 1880); W. Scherer, _Zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_ (Berlin, 1868; 2nd ed., 1878); E.
Forstemann, _Geschichte des deutschen Sprachstammes_ (Nordhausen,
1874-1875); O. Behaghel, _Die deutsche Sprache_ (Leipzig, 1886; 2nd
ed., 1902); the same, "Geschichte der deutschen Sprache," in Paul's
_Grundriss der germanischen Philologie_ (2nd ed.), i. pp. 650 ff.; O.
Weise, _Unsere deutsche Sprache, ihr Werden und ihr Wesen_ (Leipzig,
1898); K. von Raumer, _Geschichte der germanischen Philologie_
(Munich, 1870); J. Grimm, _Deutsche Grammatik_ (4 vols., vols. i.-iii.
in new edition, 1870-1890); Dieter, _Laut- und Formenlehre der
altgermanischen Dialekte_ (2 vols., Leipzig, 1898-1900); F. Kauffmann,
_Deutsche Grammatik_ (2nd ed., 1895); W. Wilmanns, _Deutsche
Grammatik_, so far, vols, i., ii. and iii., 1 (Strassburg, 1893-1906,
vol. i., 2nd ed., 1897); O. Brenner, _Grundzuge der geschichtlichen
Grammatik der deutschen Sprache_ (Munich, 1896); H. Lichtenberger,
_Histoire de la langue allemande_ (Paris, 1895).
_Old and Middle High German Period_: W. Braune, _Althochdeutsche
Grammatik_ (2nd ed., Halle, 1891); the same, _Abriss der
althochdeutschen Grammatik_ (3rd ed., 1900); F. Holthausen,
_Altsachsisches Elementarbuch_ (Heidelberg, 1899); W. Schluter,
_Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altsachsichen Sprache_, i.
(Gottingen, 1892); O. Schade, _Altdeutsches Worterbuch_ (2nd ed.,
Halle, 1872-1882); G.E. Graff, _Althochdeutscher Sprachschatz_ (6
vols., Berlin, 1834-1842) (Index by Massmann, 1846); E. Steinmeyer and
E. Sievers, _Althochdeutsche Glossen_ (4 vols., Berlin, 1879-1898);
J.A. Schmeller, _Glossarium Saxonicum_ (Munich, 1840); K. Weinhold,
_Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik_ (3rd ed., Paderborn, 1892); H. Paul,
_Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik_ (5th ed., Halle, 1900); V. Michels,
_Mittelhochdeutsches Elementarbuch_ (Heidelberg, 1900); O. Brenner,
_Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik_ (3rd ed., Munich, 1894); K. Zwierzina,
"Mittelhochdeutsche Studien," in _Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum_,
vols. xliv. and xlv.; A. Lubben, _Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik_
(Leipzig, 1882); W. Muller and F. Zarncke, _Mittelhochdeutsches
Worterbuch_ (4 vols., Leipzig, 1854-1866); M. Lexer,
_Mittelhochdeutsches Handworterbuch_ (3 vols., 1872-1878); the same,
_Mittelhochdeutsches Taschenworterbuch_ (8th ed., 1906); K. Schiller
and A. Lubben, _Mittelniederdeutsches Worterbuch_ (6 vols., Bremen,
1875-1881); A. Lubben, _Mittelniederdeutsches Handworterbuch_ (Norden,
1888); F. Seiler, _Die Entwicklung der deutsch. Kultur im Spiegel des
deutschen Lehnworts_ (Halle, i., 1895, 2nd ed., 1905, ii., 1900).
_Modern High German Period_: E. Wulcker, "Die Entstehung der
kursachsischen Kanzleisprache" (in the _Zeitschrift des Vereins fur
kursachsische Geschichte_, ix. p. 349); the same, "Luthers Stellung
zur kursachsischen Kanzleisprache" (in _Germania_, xxviii. pp. 191
ff.); P. Pietsch, _Martin Luther und die hochdeutsche Schriftsprache_
(Breslau, 1883); K. Burdach, _Die Einigung der neuhochdeutschen
Schriftsprache_, (1883); E. Opitz, _Die Sprache Luthers_ (Halle,
1869); J. Luther, _Die Sprache Luthers in der Septemberbibel_ (Halle,
1887); F. Kluge, _Von Luther bis Lessing_ (Strassburg, 1888) (cf. E.
Schroder's review in the _Gottinger gelehrte Anzeiger_, 1888, 249); H.
Ruckert, _Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache bis zur Mitte
des 18. Jahrhunderts_ (1875): J. Kehrein, _Grammatik der deutschen
Sprache des 15. bis 17. Jahrhunderts_ (Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1863); K. von
Bahder, _Grundlagen des neuhochdeutschen Lautsystems_ (Strassburg,
1890); R. Meyer, _Einfuhrung in das altere Neuhochdeutsche_ (Leipzig,
1894); W. Scheel, _Beitrage zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen
Gemeinsprache in Koln_ (Marburg, 1892); R. Brandstetter, _Die
Rezeption der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache in Stadt und Landschaft
Luzern_ (1892); K. Burdach, "Zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen
Schriftsprache" (_Forschungen zur deutschen Philologie_, 1894); the
same, "Die Sprache des jungen Goethe" (_Verhandlungen der Dessauer
Philologenversammlung_, 1884, p. 164 ff.); F. Kasch, _Die Sprache des
jungen Schiller_ (Dissertation, 1900); F. Kluge, "Uber die Entstehung
unserer Schriftsprache" (Beihefte zur _Zeitschrift des allgemeinen
Sprachvereins_, Heft 6, 1894); A. Waag, _Bedeutungsentwickelung
unseres Wortschatzes_ (Lahr, 1901).
Mention must also be made of the work of the German commission of the
Royal Prussian Academy, which in 1904 drew up plans for making an
inventory of all German literary MSS. dating from before the year 1600
and for the publication of Middle High German and early Modern High
German texts. This undertaking, which has made considerable progress,
provides rich material for the study of the somewhat neglected period
between the 14th and 16th centuries; at the same time it provides a
basis on which a monumental history of Modern High German may be built
up, as well as for a _Thesaurus linguae germanicae_. (R. Pr.)