the principle of economy as a phonetic force

The Principle of Economy as a Phonetic ForceAuthor(s): W. D. WhitneySource: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1869-1896), Vol. 8 (1877), pp.123-134Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935726 .

Accessed: 14/05/2014 11:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toTransactions of the American Philological Association (1869-1896).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.219 on Wed, 14 May 2014 11:23:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935726?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


X.-The Principle of Economy as (z Phonetic Force.

BY- W. 1). WHITNEY,

PROFESSOR IN YALE COLLEGE.

From tle very beginning, early il tills century, of tile scienitific study of Indo-European lalnguag,e, tlie Iistory of tlhe

phlonetic folrmi of words llas takell a leading place as subject of investigation. Anid fromi tlhe beginin, also, lhas beenl recognrized as a )rincipal lfactor ill tllhat history, a telldenlcy to

economyii, to thle savill of eolbrt, ill tlhe work of articulate uttetralnce. It mighllt llt be easy to tell 1precisely low and ,by whlomi the recognitiiol nwas iirst mnade, and by what steps it arrived at distinct formulatiol. Pe'l'raps its itception lay, as iiliuchl as anywhele, in Bopp's demoisl ration of i and u as '' lighlter" vowels tlhan at. As ta malter of scientific history, the (luestionl is Iiot without interest; lbtt I do not lpropose to eltCer into it at the plresent tiime. Enough forl otir lprpose thatt tlhe law of ectonomy, as we mlay call it, thas established itself iln cturiret linllgistic science as tle one most unmIistakably exhibited, and mnost widely and variously active, in time tranis- formations of the extelnal form of speech: some, indeed, are

piCepiared already to pronounce it tlle only existing or possible one. Aimongt tllCese are (as is ;atul'al) included not a tew of tlhose wliose way it is to make eas,y and confident solutions of diffictlt (lqtestiolls. Like every otlier popular dogma, thlis hlas its uIlilntllligent tlartisanls alndl de1fei(ders. It would not be hnard to cite striking examples of sclholars wlhose application of tle law is purelly mlecallaical-wvlo, for example, deduce

empirically tlie lprevailing order of succession of sounids in

ilponetic growth, and tlhen cast about for reasons why tlie laterl s(nid may be declarled easier tlhan tle earlier; or wllo endeavor to account for intrlicate and puzzling phenomiieina, like tile Gelrmaic rotatioll of mutes, by a arbitrary alnd baseless classification of tlme imutes in respect to intrinsic difficulty of utterlace. Thlree is hardly a possible abuse of tlhe principle wlicli has not been exelmplified in recent discus-



W. D. Whitney,

sions of language. And then, by a iiatural reaction, there have been aiid ate those wlio deny not only the exclusive domination of the law, its power as a universal solveiit of

hllonetic difficulties, but also its predominantat importance, if nlot its very existence. Perhiaps, tlerefore, a brief discussion of some of tlie matters inlvolved may be founld not uiitinmely or unldesirablle.

It is evident enou1gh, we may remark at the outset, that tllosc wllo carry tlleir skepticism so far as to refuse to tle

lrilicilple of econlomy at least a First-rate place in tile externlal history of s,eech, display anl ullreasollablelness nlot excelled by that of tlhe most unlenlighlteied partisan of tile principle. Its existence and ceflcts lie upon the very surface of tlhe best understood facts of lallno,ua-e. Nothiill else is lieeded, or cani be devised, to accounlt for the whole body of lphonctic clhanges fallinlg utldet tlle two lLcads of alb'reviation ad ad ssimilation.

And-esplecially if we give tile latter its full extllsion, as will b)e pointed out f'artler oii-this iicludes tile great mass of lphonetic cl:lnges: tliose tlat remain are, wllatever tleir ilol'rtance aiid iiiterest, tile comiparati'vely 'rare exceptionls.

As lucll as tilis, too, may be infelrred oil appealing to wliat we know of tle pl,ocesses of the traiismission, acquisition, and use of speecl. These are matters now sufficiently understood to make tliemi a ftirl test of tile admissibility and adequacy of

aly general principle claimed to exercise a wide influence in linlguistic history.

At present, anld as far back in the life of language as our Ihistorical researclhes carry us, every liviiig tongue lias been

kept in existenice by a process of learning, of appirehenlding and reClroducing wliat was already inl cu'rency. The chiild-

and, ill iis own way andi measure, tlhe adult also-hlears words alid ph11rases wliichl lave come iito use lie kilows not llow, and

which are brought to hlis sensoriulm by a lllysical agency totally obscure to limn; and, wliei lie uniderstandis tleir mIeaning well enoughl to utse tllcm himself, lie reproduces tllemi, as well as lie is able, by a pliysical apparatus wllicll operates, it is true, unider the direction of hlis will, but of wliose construction anid mode of working lie as a child knows nothing, anid as

124



On the Principle of Economy as a Phonetic Force. 125

an adult very little more. By experience, the possessor and manager of this apparatus acquires great dexterity in the execution of familiar movements; any combination of sounds accordant with those to which he is accustomed he becomes able to imitate with wonderful exactness. But he labors under two disabilities, of which one diminishes and the other increases with his growing age. Until experience has

given dexterity, much in utterance is found difficult; the young learner bungles his first speech-imitations terribly, even to the extent of being wholly unintelligible, except to those wlio know him best. Some sounds are harder to catch and reproduce than others; and it would be practicable, and highly interesting, to determiiie by a wide observation and deduction what is the general scale of difficulty of acquisition among alphabetic elements. A certain degree of difference would be found between iiidividuals: whetlier also between communities or races is a much more difficult question: I know of no facts which sliould lead us to expect to find it of appreciable amount. In general, certainly, it would be found that the sounds, and even the combinations, of all the various languages would be learned with practically equal ease, on an average, by speakers of any and every kindred. It is even more in the combinations than in the individual sounds that the difficulty of rcproductionl lies-in the quick and nice transition fioin one articulating position of the organs to another. Tile cliild, like tlhe adult learner of a new language, is "thlick-tongued" at first, and, even when lie can speak correctly, cannot speak rapidly.

And then, tlhe perfection of his conquest of this difficulty ushers in the other. He has begun with being equally awkward, alnd equally alle to overcome lis awkwardness, in dealing witli the pllonetic structure of any language; but wheii lie lias scliooled his organs to the adjustments and clianges required by one system of sounds and combinations, he is less able to adapt them to those required by another; and this new disability, the positive result of habit, grows with every added year of practice, until, after arriving at a certaill (llot exactly definalle) age, one is utterly unable to

17



126

acquire otherwise than rudely the pronunciation of a strange language.

Thus the attitude of every speaker toward the language which he uses is simply tlhis: he hears, by means which he does not comprehend, signs whose reason is a mystery to him, and, by an apparatus of unknown character in his own throat and mouth, reproduces those signs, at first imperfectly, but later with exactness. Of the rationale of the whole

process he is both ignorant and careless; to him the practical result is alone of importance. Wliat he knows and realizes is that by sucli a process of action he makes himself understood

by others, even as he understands them; of the advantage which his own mental acts derive fiom the possession of this ilstrumentality lie is, for the most part, wholly unconscious.

The question is, now, h1ow there should ever come about

any change in the uttered form of the silgns tllhs learned and

reproduced. And I tlink it must lbe sufficiently clear, in the first place,

that to ascribe to sounds themselves an action of change, or a

tendency to variation, in any other than a figurative sense, or for brevity (as when we say that the sun rises), is wholly destitute of reason; it is a retrogression from the scientific method to the mythological. Sounds are the audible results of tlhe acts of human beings, and of acts wliicli lave nio inlstinctive character (tlhoughl, like everything else made habitual, they

may come to be performed with albsence of reflection), but are made by volition, in imiitation of tlie similar acts of others.

Tlicy can stffer nIo alteration wlhicli lias not its ground in tlie action of the humanl will. Aind sucli action is always determined by rmotives-imotives, often, which are not present to tlhe consciousness of tlie actor, but whiclh may nevertheless be

brought to light and demonstrated. Whlat we hlave to seek, therefor, is the motive or the variety of mnotives Iunderlying the acts of men in the phonetic changes of speech. There is no questioil lhere of a differeiice of h1uman capacities, making one individual unable to reproduce with accuracy the sounds made by another. Apart frolm rare individual peculiarities, of, habit oftener tllaln of constitution, of which the effect is

?. D. .Whitney,




completely lost in the accordant action of the community, the form of every word as at present used is capable of being perfectly learned and reproduced, and that from generation to generation; there is in the nature of tllings no necessity that it should ever change; and it never will change if there be not some inducement to its alteration, of a kind that is calculated to affect human action, being either identical or akin with motives that are found operative also in other departments of human action.

It does not need to be pointed out how entirely different all this would be, provided our sounds and their combinations were ilnherently significant; provided we made them as they are because ouIr menltal and physical constitutions are so correlated that. certain particular movements of the mind lead naturally to certain particular movements of the organs of speecli. Tlhen, of course, cliangcs of significance would be the motives tliat led to cliainges of form, and the latter would be the record in wllicll we sliould study the former. It may be added tllat, as eacl person's conceptions are somewhat unlike those of every otller, and are all the time changing with his cliangirng knowledge and character, there could neitller be unity of speecli in a community nor persistency in ain individual; tlle diversities and fluctuations of every language would be illimitable.

As tllings actually arc, it is hard to see wlhat motives can be brought to bear upon the outward framework of language save sucli as are connected, in one way or another, witli ilcreased collvenience of use-all of whiclh may be conven- ietly and fairly sumlmed u1) il the one word "economy." All clanges, indeed, botli internal and external, are for the purpose of increased convenielnce of use; it is niot, however, tlie part of plionctic clianige to provide new material for the expression of tlougllt; but only to take wliat is provided in otllr wvays and work it over into morle manageable sllape. Clianlges'of form are not entirely unprioductive of new material-as wllhen p)llonetic variants of the same word are turnecd to account by being made to fill different offices: but sucli thingls arc not only exceptional, they are also iinorganic, unin-



W. D. Whitney,

tended; they are hlappy accidents. Tile almost exclusive direction of movement in phonetic history is toward' demoli- tion and decay. Words which had been made up of separate elements first lose their etymologic distinctness, then are fused together, and even shrink into fragments of their former selves. Signs of modification and relation, made in the first place by phonetic change out of independent words, are worn out and drop off again. And wliat is tlru of words is also true of the elements wliicll compose tlhem. Mutual

adaptation of sound to sound, witll rejectiol of wlhat will not

adapt, is tlie prevailing law. By processes which are com-

pletely explainable as results of the tendency to economy, wliole classes of sounds are lost from a language or are converted into others.

Just how widely tllis tendency works, wliat are tlle limits to its action, where tlle line is to be drawn between its effects and those of any otlier tendency or tendencies, or whletler tllhere ae such otlier tendencies, no one has the right to claim to decide at present. That there are plheiomena in plionetic history whicli lhave lot yet been traced to tlhe economic force, anid wliicll seei to offer little prospect of ever being so

traced, is true enouglh. But tllis is by nlo means equivalent to saying that they ilever can or will be brought under it. AWile tlhy resist, they forbid us to miaintain witli confidence -still more, witli dogmatism--tlat convenience of use, in the foirm of economy of effort, is the demonlstrated sole force at work, and suggest tlat otller minor tendelcies may be brought to ligllt; but it will be quite time enougll to accept those otlhers wleln they sliall be clearly made out.

The objectionls Iiitlerto raised, in appearance, against tlle principle of econoimy itself llave really only lain against the

misunderstandings and abuses of that plrilciple-wllich are colimmon anid conspicuous enouglh. Let us look to sec some of the tllings involved il it.

In the first place-as a matter so mucli of course tlat it

hardly nlecds to be pointed out-we hlave to avoid carefully aniy views wliicli slould imply a conscious and intended economic acti(on ol1 the part of the users of a language. No

128




speaker or set of speakers says: "This word is too long, let us shorten it; this combination is too hard, let us ease it." Such action is totally opposed to all that we know of the past Ihistory and the present use of speech. What we need in order to explain the transformations we see is only a motive of permeating, steady, insidious force,-vhich is all the time

making in a certain direction, though always liable to be rendered nugatory by a resisting force. Of precisely this character is the tendency to ease. It has been fitly compared to the attraction of gravitation, wllich constantly tends to level everythinig hligh, and draw all substances to the common centre: while, nevertheless, whatever occupies a favoring position, lias stamina in itself, or is supported firom beneath, keeps up; and while some tllings even rise, or are projected upward. The economic tendency threatens everything, and reduces whatever is not guarded-or rather, reduces most

rapidly what is least guarded: for notlhing in language is absolutely inlsured against its attacks. Every word which is established in use will answer its purpose practically just as well, evenl if it be not kept up to the full measure of expendi- ture of force witl wllicli it was launchled into life, or which it has tlius far maintaiiied; and relaxation of the tension of effort at any point allows a weakening to slip in. There is no item of tlle elaborate structure of speech which canlot be dispensed with; for language is not so poor as to possess only one way of expressing a thing. In a given word it is, otller thillgs being equal, the accented syllable tllat resists best; among words, it is the fully significant ones, as compared witli the more enclitic connectives; in an inflective system, it is those formative elements of which tlle value is most clearly alpprehended by tle speakers-and so on.

Of far higher importance is it, in the second place, to see cleally that the action of tlle economic tendency is not toward substituting for sounds in use other sounds which in themselves are easier of production: to no small extent, its effect is just tlIe contrary of this. The problems of plhonetics are not going to be lhelped to a solution by establishing a scale of llarder and easier utterances. To draw up such a scale,



IV. D. Whitney,

indeed, would be found a delicate and difficult task. In general, to a given speaker, all the sounds which he is accustomed to make are alike easy; all to which lie is unused are hard, in varying degrees, depending mainly on their distance from what lie already familiarly knows. If we are to make a scale, it can lhardly be otherwise than by tlle method hinted at above-by observing what comes easiest to the unpracticed organs of young clhildren. And we should find, on applying this test, tlat tlle souuds which were dominant in earliest

Indo-European, and lwhicl llphonetic development, through its whole course, has becen turninlg into " lighter" and "weaker"

forms, are those witlh which the untrained speaker at the

present timce naturally begins. We cainnot find a syllable which the illfant (etymologically in-fans) will sooner and mlore readily reproduce tllan pa: yet its a is tle " strongest" of tlec vowels; and the class (surd mlutes) to whlicll its p belongs holds a like ralnk aimong the consonanits. Thle sounds wlhicli tlhe cliild leaves out or mutilates are apt to be tlle fiicatives, the semi-vowels y and v, tle intermediate sliades of vowel utterance. To reverse Kiing Herod's famous deed, and cut off all spealerls except tlose of "three years old and

upward," would go a good way also towards reversing the

alphabetic growtll of ages, and restoring an ancient system. So far as children's imperfections of speecli exert any influence on plionetic progress, tlhy work against the prevailing current. But their ilnfluelce is, in reality, only small. They are learners; imperfection is expected froml tlhem, and while it is excused, it is also lnot imlitated: age brings practice; and, as adults, they lhave learned to speak as adults speak. What determinies til hiistory of growth of language is the convenience of its adult alld l)racticed speakers.

Ald what governs tlhe convenience of adults is-so prevail- ingly tllat we may almost say exclusively-compatibility, ready combinability in the processes of rapid speakinlg: not

facility of production in tlhe coidition of isolated utterance. The succession of different articulating positions, the constant transitions of tlme organs fiom one combination to another- tlese miake a modifying influence of far lhigher importance

130




than the differences of intrinsic ease. Hence, apart from abbreviation, almost all phonetic history consists in adaptation; and this is mostly assimilation, althougli in special cases it may be dissimilation likewise; it may involve omission for tile relief of a difficult combination, or, on the other hand, insertion of a transitional sound- aid so on.

The phenomena ordinarily reckoned as assimilative are too familiar to be worth illustrating; but there are others, less generally recognized as belonging to the same class, to whose consideration a brief space may well be devoted.

We arc woint to call our lhuman slpechl " articulate," and to regard tle fact that it is so as its most fnlldamental and distinctive characteristic. Andi tliis with good reasonl; only there are few who can tell wliat they really mean by articulate; and eveln lanlly most reputable authorliities arc unclear or mistakenl il their apprehension of the term. Articulation does not at all signify production by certain definite successive positions and actions of tlle organs: all utterance, humlan or brute, is of that nature; musical utteraince would admit the same definition. Articulatioll is in reality wllat its etymology makes it: the breaking up of tlle stream of utterance into distinct parts, into articuli or 'joints'-which joints are tile syllables: articulate and syllabic are essentially synoniymolus witll eacli other. Aiid tlec syllalic effect is produced by tlhe constant alterniation of closer and opener utteCrances; tlic closer, or conlsolnants, serve as separators, and at the same time connllectors, of the opener aiid fuller vocal tones, or vowels. The vowels are tlhe maini audible substance; but tlle aid of the consonliats is required to give it articulate cllaracter: these divide it iiito individual parts, separate, but iindefinitely combinable. Hence tle transition from the close or conso- nantal positions to the vowel positions, and tlle contrary, is constant; and it is a fact of the very first consequenlce in the phlonetic history of speecli. For, in its performanlce, an obvious advantage is gainled by making tle tlransitional movemenlt shorter, by reducing tlle vibrating distance of tlle orgals: tliat is to say, by slhutting less closely the organls whicl, h]ave illmediatcly to opeii again, and by openilng less



W. D. Whitney,

widely the organs which have immediately to close again. It is only when we give it this interpretation that we can accept as of any force or value the principle often laid down--that the utterances least remote from the medial or neutral position of ordinary breathing are easiest to make. That utterances of tlis class are easier in themselves, or in isolated use, is

disproved by the testimony of young speakers, of early alpha- bets, and of the ruder existing alpliabets. But when the power of swift and ready utterance is acquired, implying a

degree of rapidity and accuracy of movement in the organs of spcccll wllicll appears wonderful and almost incredible to one who looks at it closely enough to see what it is, then the amount of departure eacl way from tlhe iedial position becomes an element of importance. Tlhen the medial sounds, tlhoughl harder for the untrained speaker to catch aind imitate, are found by tlle advanced and dexterous speaker a lightening of Iis task. No other reasonl than tlis, I believe, can be

given why tile a-sound (of far), whicli is the openest of the vowels, tends always to pass into the closer i and u, cither

directly or thlrougll tle intermediate e and o; while, by an

app)arently contrary but really coincident tendency, the mutes arc coiiverted into fricatives: and so the medial classes of the

alphlabet are filled up. Slharpness of distinction and full resoinance of tone tihus give way to greater pliancy, smooth- liess, and ease. And tlhe movement is evidently capable of

being carried to tlhe extreme of indistinctness and dimness; tlhere is no necessary limit to the destructive action of the ecoinomic teldenlcy; as it may strip a language once highly syinthetic of nearly all its inflectional apparatus, so it may also reduce a clear and full plionetic structure to something app)roaching the mulmblilng murmur of one who is trying to

speak faster than hlis organs will let him. There is not in tle phonetic llistory of our family of

languages a movement of more constant actioni and wider reach than this. And its essentially assimilative character is obvious. It is a mutual assimilation of vowel and consonant: each great class exerts an influence to draw the otlher toward itself; the vowels are made somewhat closer or more coinso-

132




nantal, while the consonants are made somewhat opener or more vowel-like. I have pointed out in another place (above, p. 57) that a similar assimilative character belongs also to the ordinary interclhanges of surd and sonant; thus, and thus

only, are they to be brought under the action of the economic

tendency; they stand in no natural and inherent relation of comparative ease or difficulty.

In the tllird place, wllile we may expect considerable accordance among different languages in the wider and more

general results of pllonetic clihange, there is nothing il tlhe law of economy wliicli should nleccssitate a correspondence in details. Tle miinor movemeiits depend ol lpcculiarities of labit whichl carl ilcitller be prescribed Inor foreseeni, because they involve as an elemellt the freedom of lllmanl action. Sucli peculiarities may be initiated no one knlows whly or hlow -by accident, as we say: and, fiom -wholly illsigllificant beginnin-gs, tley may grow, with tile aid of circumstances alld unlder the salping influenice of otlher habits, into solmetlling very definite anld marked; and, in tlleir turnl, tley may exert a shlaingl influence on other hablits, and lead to colsequences wlliclI sliall seem quite out of proportion to their own import- ancc. In learninig hlow movemnts of tills character go on, tile miniute study of living modes of utterance, especially in wllat we call their dialectic varieties, will doubtless be of essential assist- ance; it is pelllaps the most imlportant result for the study of laniguage w\licli is to be expected froml the modern science of phonology. But neither this nor anythinlg else will do imore than cllenale us to follow witli fuller appreciation tlle recorded facts of linguistic history. The varieties of linguistic growth will always be of the same character as other varieties of histor- ical developmenlt: incorporations of the varieties of human character and capacity, working themselves out under direction of the varieties of circumstance; to be traced out with more or less thorough comprehension, but not to be determined d priori.

If the law of economy be properly understood, it will be found fairly liable to none of the objections brought against it, alnd possessed of ncarly all tlhe importance ever claimed in

18



4Franklin Carter, 4Franklin Carter,

its bellalf. At present there appears to be no prospect that

any otlier having the tithe of its importance will ever be put alongside it. We have, however, only to wait patiently to see what, in this respect, the future will bring forth, content with

noting tile absence thus far of any hostile or rival principle.

XI.-Did Der Von Kiirenberg Compose the Present Form of the Nibelungenlied ?*

BY FRANKLIN CARTER,

PROFESSOR OF TIIE GERNMAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGEF

In 1857 tlh late Moritz Haupt, then Professor in tile

university at Berlin, published under the title " Des Miine-

sangs Friihling," thle edition of the early lyric poems of

the Minnesalnger which Lachmann had projected, and uponl which he liad expended, during the latter part of his life, a

good deal of labor. The book appeared as the combined work of Lachmanli and Haupt. In this volume there are

fifteen strophes under the title " Der von Kiirenberg," taken with their title from the manuscript of early German songs in tlhe National Library at Paris. Thirteen of these strophes are in tlhe metre of the Nibelungenlied, and there has been for

some years a growing tendency among tle litt6rateurs and

scholars of Germany to impute tlhe authorship of this poem, as we have it, to the von Kiirenberg who is supposed to have writteln-these strophes. Among those who have been

leading champions of this opinion are Pfeiffer, Professor in

the Vienna University, who died in 1868, and Bartsch, still

Professor in Heidelberg. It was in 1862, in a session of the

Imperial Academy at Vienna, that Franz Pfeiffer advanced his "scientific" proofs for this authorship of the poem, and

*This paper was prepared for the Society's meeting in 1876, but the writer

was uiable to attend the meeting.

its bellalf. At present there appears to be no prospect that

any otlier having the tithe of its importance will ever be put alongside it. We have, however, only to wait patiently to see what, in this respect, the future will bring forth, content with

noting tile absence thus far of any hostile or rival principle.

XI.-Did Der Von Kiirenberg Compose the Present Form of the Nibelungenlied ?*

BY FRANKLIN CARTER,

PROFESSOR OF TIIE GERNMAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGEF

In 1857 tlh late Moritz Haupt, then Professor in tile

university at Berlin, published under the title " Des Miine-

sangs Friihling," thle edition of the early lyric poems of

the Minnesalnger which Lachmann had projected, and uponl which he liad expended, during the latter part of his life, a

good deal of labor. The book appeared as the combined work of Lachmanli and Haupt. In this volume there are

fifteen strophes under the title " Der von Kiirenberg," taken with their title from the manuscript of early German songs in tlhe National Library at Paris. Thirteen of these strophes are in tlhe metre of the Nibelungenlied, and there has been for

some years a growing tendency among tle litt6rateurs and

scholars of Germany to impute tlhe authorship of this poem, as we have it, to the von Kiirenberg who is supposed to have writteln-these strophes. Among those who have been

leading champions of this opinion are Pfeiffer, Professor in

the Vienna University, who died in 1868, and Bartsch, still

Professor in Heidelberg. It was in 1862, in a session of the

Imperial Academy at Vienna, that Franz Pfeiffer advanced his "scientific" proofs for this authorship of the poem, and

*This paper was prepared for the Society's meeting in 1876, but the writer

was uiable to attend the meeting.

134 134



the principle of economy as a phonetic force

Documents