^{Note 1 in page 123} Zs. f. dt. Phil., i (1869), p. 288; cf. his Kleine alts. u. altndfr. Gramm. (Paderb., 1873), p. 2.

^{Note 2 in page 123} Lambel, Ein neuentdecktes Blatt einer Heliandhandschr., Wien, 1881 (repr. from Sitzungsber. d. kais. Akad. d. Wiss., 1880).

^{Note 3 in page 123} Zangemeister u. Braune, Bruchstücke d. alls. Bibeldichtung, Heidelberg, 1894 (reprinted from Neue Heidelberg. Jahrbücher, Vol. iv).

^{Note 1 in page 124} Cf., e. g., Koegel, Gesch. d. dt. Lit., i, 1, p. 281; Braune, Bruchst. d. alts. Bibeldicht, p. 212.

^{Note 2 in page 124} l. c., p. 283 seq., and Erg. heft, p. 21 seq.

^{Note 3 in page 124} l. c., p. 220.

^{Note 4 in page 124} Germania 37 (1892), p. 368 seq., in a review of Gallée's Alts. Gramm., written before the Vatican fragments were discovered. In P.-B. Beitr. 12 (1886), p. 358, Kauffmann advanced the opinion that the Cottonianus was written in Eastern Westphalia, and that Paderborn might have been the home of the poet.

^{Note 5 in page 124} Zeitschr. f. dt. Alt. 40 (1896), p. 160–184. Cf. H. Tümpel, Niederdt. Studien (Bielefeld, 1898), p. 130–133.

^{Note 1 in page 125} Zs. f. dt. Alt. 43 (1899), p. 333–360. Cf. Roethe, “Heliand und Sachsenspiegel,” in the Anzeiger of the same vol., p. 387–390.

^{Note 2 in page 125} See especially H. Hartmann, Grammatik d. ältesten Mundart Merseburg's. i. (Dissert.) Norden, 1890.

^{Note 1 in page 126} Cf. Jostes, l. c., p. 164.

^{Note 1 in page 127} Cf. Richthofen, Altfries. Wörterbuch. s. v. burch; Koegel, Gesch. d. dt. Lit., i, 1, 244; Siebs, Ztschr. f. dt. Phil., 29, 413.

^{Note 2 in page 127} Richthofen, Fries. Rechtsquellen (Berlin, 1840), pp. 3 and 4: Colnaburch het bi alde tidem Agrippina (Emsigo ms.) = Colnaburch hit bi alda tidon Agrip (Rüstringer ms.) = Colene het bi alde tidem Agripina (Hunsigo ms.).

^{Note 1 in page 129} fon in the Rüstringer, Brokmer, Emsigo, Fivelgo, and Hunsigo mss., fan in the two printed texts from Westerlauwer Friesland. See Richthofen, Altfries. Wörlerb. s. v. fan.

^{Note 2 in page 129} Altsächs. Elementarbuch, § 127.

^{Note 3 in page 129} Jostes (l. c., p. 77) says: “The number of reasons therefore which point for the origin of the Heliand toward the East is quite considerable, whereas such as would speak for the West do not in reality exist” (“während solche, die für den Westen sprechen, in Wirklichkeit gar nicht vorhanden sind”). This statement, it seems to me, would be more correct if Jostes had reversed the terms East and West.

^{Note 1 in page 130} Viz., forms like ik kos or kost I could, plur. kossen or kosten (subj. kös, pl. kösten) and ik begos I began.

^{Note 2 in page 130} See on the above preterits my introduction to Bauer's Dictionary of the Waldeck Low German dialect (which is to appear within a few months in the series of dictionaries published by the Low German Dialect Society), p. 69.*

^{Note 3 in page 130} It happens that no preterit of kunnan, unnan, or munan occurs in the Prague or Vatican fragments. But since Cottonianus and Monacensis are, as to the st, in complete harmony, there can be no doubt that the si-forms belong to the original.

^{Note 1 in page 131} Niederd. Studien, p. 131.

^{Note 2 in page 131} ōthar is both in C and in M by far the most frequent form. In M it occurs, according to Schmeller's. Glossar. Saxon., 91 times. The regular Low German form andar (which however occurs, besides ōthar, also in Old Frisian) is found only in two instances (andran 1263, ander 1444) in C alone, and cannot be ascribed to the original. A third form athar or adar, which occurs twice in C (athres 1478, adron 1536), three times in M (adrum 1271, athrana 1434, adrom 2985), and once in Gen. (aar 211), looks like a combination of the two other forms and is perhaps merely a graphical variant of ōthar.

^{Note 1 in page 132} As regards the former boundary between Franconian, Saxon, and Frisian, I may refer to K. v. Richthofen's map, “Friesland im 9. Jahrh.,” in his Untersuchungen zur friesischen Rechtsgeschichte, Vol. 2 (also published separately in Zwei Karten von Friesland im 9. und im 13. Jahrh., von K. v. Richthofen. Berlin, 1882). Maps of the modern Dutch dialects are found in Jellinghaus, Die niederländ. Volksmundarten (Norden, 1892), and in Paul's Grundriss d. german. Philologie, Vol. i, 2nd ed. (Nr. 4, Strassb., 1899).

^{Note 1 in page 133} E. Wadstein, Kleinere altsächs. Sprachdenkmäler (Norden, 1899), Nr. ii.

^{Note 2 in page 133} Ibid., Nr. iii.

^{Note 3 in page 133} E. g., the Confession was written in a Westphalian convent (Essen); see Wadstein, l. c., p. 124.

^{Note 1 in page 135} The loss of n before th is generally regarded as a peculiarity of Saxon as well as of Anglo-Frisian, and in every Old Saxon grammar (e. g., Holthausen's recently published Altsächs. Elementarbuch, § 191) words like ōthar, sōth, kūth are quoted as genuine Saxon. Yet in Middle Low German and in the Modern Low German dialects only the word for ‘south’ (MLG. sūden) has this syncope, and here it is shared by Middle High German. The phonetic law, therefore, which does away with n before th, is not Saxon but Frisian. Cf. Bauer's Wald. Wtb. (see above, p. 130, note), p. 70* seq., and Bremer in Paul's Grundriss, iii², p. 866.

^{Note 2 in page 135} The former alternative seems to me the more probable, and I trust that the theory set forth here may perhaps serve to weaken some of the objections which have been raised against Koegel's views (Paul's Grundriss, ii, 1, p. 175 seq. of the first edition). We may, e. g., readily admit that the vocabulary of the Hildebrandslied agrees as much with Anglo-Saxon as with Old Saxon (see especially F. Kauffmann in Philolog. Studien, Festgabe für Sievers, p. 127 seq.). Considering the near relationship of Anglo-Saxon and Frisian this would not militate against Old Saxon origin, if we assume that Old Saxon heroic poetry preserved largely the vocabulary of its Frisian models.

^{Note 1 in page 136} These dates have been ascertained by P. Kauffmann in Festgabe für Sievers, p. 136 seq.

^{Note 2 in page 136} Cf. Sijmons, in Paul's Grundriss, iii², p. 656. Kauffmann has recently (Zs. f. dt. Phil. 31, 1899, p. 5) suggested that the Siegfried legend may have been combined with the story of the Burgundians as late as in the tenth century. His chief reason is that the obvious diversity in character between the two ought to prevent us from dating their union too far back. But do the two differ more fundamentally than the mythical and the historical elements in the Beowulf epic? It seems to me that stronger reasons would be required to convince us that a combination which heretofore has been regarded as one of the characteristic features of Early Germanic epic poetry, could militate against an early date.

^{Note 1 in page 137} Liber Evangeliorum, i, 1, 33–36.

^{Note 2 in page 137} See for the particulars Sijmons, l. c., pp. 632 and 663.

^{Note 1 in page 138} Sijmons, l. c., p. 725. I should like to say, however, that even in this case the evidence of Saxon origin is far from being conclusive. It is true that in most of the later versions the scene is laid in Westphalia. But there remains the possibility that the legend was fixed only later on in a certain locality, or that the scene was changed to Saxony. In the earliest version (Deor's Complaint) there is no indication of Saxon origin, and even in the Vølundarkvitha the local names are partly fictitious. I do not see why under these circumstances the legend should not have originally been Rhinefrankish or Frisian. [I have not been able to consult the recent discussion of the Wieland legend by Jiriczek in his Deutsche Heldensagen.]

^{Note 2 in page 138} From alliterative formulas, which occur frequently in the Old Frisian laws, Koegel, Gesch. d. dt. Lit., i, 1, 242 seq., has attempted to reconstruct portions of a Frisian legal poetry. We need not follow Koegel in these experiments. But we may justly hold with Müllenhoff (Beovulf, p. 105) that the important part which alliteration plays in the legal prose of the Frisians, favors the view that it had also taken a firm hold of their poetry. See on this question especially Siebs in Zs. f. dt. Phil. 29, p. 405 seq.

^{Note 1 in page 139} Cf. Müllenhoff, Beovulf, pp. 104–108.

^{Note 2 in page 139} Publ. of the Mod. Lang. Assoc., vii (1892), pp. 181–185.

^{Note 3 in page 139} Zs. f. dt. Alt. 12, p. 273 seq.

^{Note 4 in page 139} See Müllenhoff, Zs. f. dt. Alt. 12, p. 315, and Sijmons, l. c., p. 716.

^{Note 1 in page 140} See on Bernlēf especially Müllenhoff, Beovulf, p. 105, and Koegel, Gesch. d. dt. Lit. i, 1, 141 seq. and 283.

^{Note 2 in page 140} More exactly: those Frisian and Franconian forms which belonged to the original text of the poem and are accordingly found in most of our mss. The preponderance of Franconian forms in V calls for a different explanation. If we may assume with Müllenhoff (Denkm., i³, p. xxvii seq.; cf. Koegel, Gesch. d. dt. Lit., i, 2, p. 558 seq.) that Rheno-Franconian was spoken at the Carlovingian court, it seems possible to suggest that perhaps a copy of the poem was rewritten in Franconian dialect (without, however, effacing every trace of Saxon and Frisian) for the emperor Ludwig the Pious, and that from this manuscript the Vatican fragments were copied.