Opuscula: Essays chiefly Philological and Ethnographical

by R. G. Latham

ON THE AORISTS IN -KA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
MARCH 11, 1853.

A well-known rule in the Eton Greek Grammar may serve to introduce the subject of the present remarks:—"Quinque sunt aoristi primi qui futuri primi characteristicam non assumunt: [a]ἔθηκα] posui, [a]ἔδωκα] dedi, [a]ἥκα] misi, [a]εἴπα] dixi, [a]ἥνεγκα] tuli." The absolute accuracy of this sentence is no part of our considerations: it has merely been quoted for the sake of illustration.

What is the import of this abnormal [a]κ]? or, changing the expression, what is the explanation of the aorist in [a]-κα]? Is it certain that it is an aorist? or, granting this, is it certain that its relations to the future are exceptional?

The present writer was at one time inclined to the doubts implied by the first of these alternatives, and gave some reasons[2] for making the form a perfect rather than an aorist. He finds, however, that this is only shifting the difficulty. How do perfects come to end in [a]-κα]? The typical and unequivocal perfects are formed by a reduplication at the beginning, and a modification of the final radical consonant at the end of words, [a]τύπ(τ)ω], [a]τέ-τυφ-α]; and this is the origin of the [a]χ] in [a]λέλεχα], &c., which represents the [a]γ] of the root. Hence, even if we allow ourselves to put the [a]κ] in [a]ἔθηκα] in the same category with the [a]κ] in [a]ὀμώμοκα], &c., we are as far as ever from the true origin of the form.

In this same category, however, the two words—and the classes they represent—can be placed, notwithstanding some small difficulties of detail. At any rate, it is easier to refer [a]ὀμώμοκα] and [a]ἔθηκα] to the same tense than it is to do so with [a]ὀμώμοκα] and [a]τέτυφα].

The next step is to be sought in Bopp's Comparative Grammar. Here we find the following extract:—"The old Slavonic dakh 'I gave,' and analogous formations remind us, through their guttural, which takes the place of a sibilant, of the Greek aorists [a]ἔθηκα], [a]ἔδωκα], [a]ἧκα]. That which in the old Slavonic has become a rule in the first person of the three numbers, viz. the gutturalization of an original s, may have occasionally taken place in the Greek, but carried throughout all numbers. No conjecture lies closer at hand than that of regarding [a]ἔδωκα] as a corruption of [a]ἔδωσα]," &c.... "The Lithuanian also presents a form which is akin to the Greek and Sanscrit aorist, in which, as it appears to me, k assumes the place of an original s." (vol. ii. p. 791, Eastwick's and Wilson's translation.) The italics indicate the words that most demand attention.

The old Slavonic inflection alluded to is as follows:—

	SINGULAR.	DUAL.	PLURAL.
1.	Nes-och	Nes-ochowa	Nes-ochom.
2.	Nes-e	Nes-osta	Nes-oste.
3.	Nes-e	Nes-osta	Nes-osza.

Now it is clear that the doctrine to which these extracts commit the author is that of the secondary or derivative character of the form of [a]κ] and the primary or fundamental character of the forms in [a]σ]. The former is deduced from the latter. And this is the doctrine which the present writer would reverse. He would just reverse it, agreeing with the distinguished scholar whom he quotes in the identification of the Greek form with the Slavonic. So much more common is the change from k, g and the allied sounds, to s, z, &c., than that from s, z, &c. to k, g, that the à priori probabilities are strongly against Bopp's view. Again, the languages that preeminently encourage the change are the Slavonic; yet it is just in these languages that the form in k is assumed to be secondary. For s to become h, and for h to become k (or g), is no improbable change: still, as compared with the transition from k to s, it is exceedingly rare.

As few writers are better aware of the phænomena connected with the direction of letter-changes than the philologist before us, it may be worth while to ask, why he has ignored them in the present instances. He has probably done so because the Sanscrit forms were in s; the habit of considering whatever is the more Sanscrit of two forms to be the older being well-nigh universal. Nevertheless, the difference between a language which is old because it is represented by old samples of its literature, and a language which is old because it contains primary forms, is manifest upon a very little reflection. The positive argument, however, in favour of the k being the older form, lies in the well-known phænomenon connected with the vowels e and i, as opposed to a, o, and u. All the world over, e and i have a tendency to convert a k or g, when it precedes them, into s, z, sh, zh, ksh, gzh, tsh, and dzh, or some similar sibilant. Hence, as often as a sign of tense consisting of k, is followed by a sign of person beginning with e or i, an s has chance of being evolved. In this case such a form as [a]ἐφίλησα], [a]ἐφίλησας], [a]ἐφίλησε], may have originally run [a]ἐφίληκα], [a]ἐφίληκας], [a]ἐφίληκε]. The modified form in [a]σ] afterwards extends itself to the other persons and numbers. Such is the illustration of the hypothesis. An objection against it lies in the fact of the person which ends in a small vowel, being only one out of seven. On the other hand, however the third person singular is used more than all the others put together. With this influence of the small vowel other causes may have cooperated. Thus, when the root ended in [a]κ] or [a]γ], the combination [a]κ] radical, and [a]κ] inflexional would be awkward. It would give us such words as [a]ἔλεκ-κα], &c.; words like [a]τέτυπ-κα], [a]ἔγραπ-κα], being but little better, at least in a language like the Greek.

The suggestions that now follow lead into a wide field of inquiry; and they may be considered, either on their merits as part of a separate question, or as part of the proof of the present doctrine. In this latter respect they are not altogether essential, i. e. they are more confirmatory if admitted than derogatory if denied. What if the future be derived from the aorist, instead of the aorist from the future? In this case we should increase what may be called our dynamics, by increasing the points of contact between a k and a small vowel; this being the influence that determines the evolution of an s. All the persons of the future, except the first, have [a]ε] for one (at least) of these vowels—

[a]τύψ-σ-ω], [a]τύψ-σ-εις], [a]τύψ-σ-ει], [a]τύψ-ε-τον], &c.

The moods are equally efficient in the supply of small vowels.

The doctrine, then, now stands that k is the older form, but that, through the influence of third persons singular, future forms, and conjunctive forms, so many s-es became developed, as to supersede it except in a few instances. The Latin language favours this view. There, the old future like cap-s-o, and the preterites like vixi (vic-si) exhibit a small vowel in all their persons, e. g. vic-s-i, vic-s-isti, vic-s-it, &c. Still the doctrine respecting this influence of the small vowel in the way of the developement of sibilants out of gutturals is defective until we find a real instance of the change assumed. As if, for the very purpose of illustrating the occasional value of obscure dialects, the interesting language of the Serbs of Lusatia and Cotbus supplies one. Here the form of the preterite is as follows; the Serb of Illyria and the Lithuanic being placed in juxtaposition and contrast with the Serb of Lusatia. Where a small vowel follows the characteristic of the tense the sound is that of sz; in other cases it is that of ch (kh)

		LUSATIAN.	ILLYRIAN.	LITHUANIC.	LETTISH.
Sing.	1.	noszach	doneso, donije	nesziau	nessu.
	2.	noszesze	donese, donije	nesziei	nessi.
	3.	noszesze	donese, donije	nesziei	nesse.
Dual	1.	noszachwe		nesziewa
	2.	noszestaj		neszieta
	3.	noszestaj		neszie
Plur.	1.	noszachmy	donesosmo, donijesmo	neszieme	nessam.
	2.	nosześće	donesoste, donijeste	nesziete	nessat.
	3.	noszachu	donesosze, donijesze	neszie	nesse.

---

[IV.]
METRICA.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CAESURA IN THE GREEK SENARIUS.

FROM THE
TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
JUNE 23, 1843.

In respect to the cæsura of the Greek tragic senarius, the rules, as laid down by Porson in the Supplement to his Preface to the Hecuba, and as recognised, more or less, by the English school of critics, seem capable of a more general expression, and, at the same time, liable to certain limitations in regard to fact. This becomes apparent when we investigate the principle that serves as the foundation to these rules; in other words, when we exhibit the rationale, or doctrine, of the cæsura in question. At this we can arrive by taking cognizance of a second element of metre beyond that of quantity.

It is assumed that the element in metre which goes, in works of different writers, under the name of ictus metricus, or of arsis, is the same as accent in the sense of that word in English. It is this that constitutes the difference between words like týrant and resúme, or súrvey and survéy; or (to take more convenient examples) between the word Aúgust, used as the name of a month, and augúst used as an adjective. Without inquiring how far this coincides with the accent and accentuation of the classical grammarians, it may be stated that, in the forthcoming pages, arsis, ictus metricus, and accent (in the English sense of the word), mean one and the same thing. With this view of the arsis, or ictus, we may ask how far, in each particular foot of the senarius, it coincides with the quantity.

First Foot.—In the first place of a tragic senarius it is a matter of indifference whether the arsis fall on the first or second syllable, that is, it is a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as týrant or as resúme, as Aúgust or as augúst. In the following lines the words [a]ἡκω], [a]παλαι], [a]εἰπερ], [a]τινας], may be pronounced either as [a]ἥκω], [a]πάλαι], [a]εἴπερ], [a]τίνας], or as [a]ἡκώ], [a]παλαί], [a]εἰπέρ], [a]τινάς], without any detriment to the character of the line wherein they occur.

[a]Ἥκω νεκρον κευθμωνα και σκοτου ρυλας.]
[a]Πάλαι κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.]
[a]Είπερ δικαιος εστ' εμος τα πατροθεν.]
[a]Τίνας ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.]

or,

[a]Ἡκώ νεκρον κευθμωνα και σκοτου ρυλας.]
[a]Παλαί κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.]
[a]Ειπέρ δικαιος εστ' εμος τα πατροθεν.]
[a]Τινάς ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.]

Second Foot.—In the second place, it is also matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as Aúgust or as augúst. In the first of the four lines quoted above we may say either [a]νέκρων] or [a]νεκρών], without violating rhythm of the verse.

Third Foot.—In this part of the senarius it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as Aúgust or as augúst; that is, it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the arsis and the quantity coincide. In the circumstance that the last syllable of the third foot must be accented (in the English sense of the word), taken along with a second fact, soon about to be exhibited, lies the doctrine of the penthimimer and hephthimimer cæsuras.

The proof of the coincidence between the arsis and the quantity in the third foot is derived partly from à posteriori, partly from à priori evidence.

1. In the Supplices of Æschylus, the Persæ, and the Bacchæ, three dramas where licences in regard to metre are pre-eminently common, the number of lines wherein the sixth syllable (i. e. the last half of the third foot) is without an arsis, is at the highest sixteen, at the lowest five; whilst in the remainder of the extant dramas the proportion is undoubtedly smaller.

2. In all lines where the sixth syllable is destitute of ictus, the iambic character is violated: as—

[a]Θρηκην περαράντες μογις πολλῳ πονῳ.]
[a]Δυοιν γεροντοίν δε στρατηγειται φυγη.]

These are facts which may be verified either by referring to the tragedians, or by constructing senarii like the lines last quoted. The only difficulty that occurs arises in determining, in a dead language like the Greek, the absence or presence of the arsis. In this matter the writer has satisfied himself of the truth of the two following propositions:—1. That the accentuation of the grammarians denotes some modification of pronunciation other than that which constitutes the difference between Aúgust and augúst; since, if it were not so, the word [a]ἅγγελον] would be sounded like mérrily, and the word [a]ἁγγέλων] like disáble; which is improbable. 2. That the arsis lies upon radical rather than inflectional syllables, and out of two inflectional syllables upon the first rather than the second; as [a]βλέπ-ω], [a]βλεψ-άσ-α], not [a]βλεπ-ώ], [a]βλεψ-ασ-ά]. The evidence upon these points is derived from the structure of language in general. The onus probandi lies with the author who presumes an arsis (accent in the English sense) on a non-radical syllable.

Doubts, however, as to the pronunciation of certain words, leave the precise number of lines violating the rule given above undetermined. It is considered sufficient to show that, wherever they occur, the iambic character is violated.

The circumstance, however, of the last half of the third foot requiring an arsis, brings us only half way towards the doctrine of the cæsura. With this must be combined a second fact arising out of the constitution of the Greek language in respect to its accent. In accordance with the views just exhibited, the author conceives that no Greek word has an arsis upon the last syllable, except in the three following cases:—

1. Monosyllables, not enclitic; as [a]σφών], [a]πάς], [a]χθών], [a]δμώς], [a]νών], [a]νύν], &c.

2. Circumflex futures; as [a]νεμώ], [a]τεμώ], &c.

3. Words abbreviated by apocope; in which case the penultimate is converted into a final syllable; [a]δώμ'], [a]φειδέσθ'], [a]κεντείτ'], [a]εγώγ'], &c.

Now the fact of a syllable with an arsis being, in Greek, rarely final, taken along with that of the sixth syllable requiring an arsis, gives, as a matter of necessity, the circumstance that, in the Greek drama, the sixth syllable shall occur anywhere rather than at the end of a word; and this is only another way of saying, that, in a tragic senarius, the syllable in question shall generally be followed by other syllables in the same word. All this the author considers as so truly a matter of necessity, that the objection to his view of the Greek cæsura must lie either against his idea of the nature of the accents, or nowhere; since, that being admitted, the rest follows of course.

As the sixth syllable must not be final, it must be followed in the same word by one syllable, or by more than one.

1. The sixth syllable followed by one syllable in the same word.—This is only another name for the seventh syllable occurring at the end of a word, and it gives at once the hephthimimer cæsura: as—

[a]Ἡκω νεκρων κευθμώνα και σκοτου πυλας.]
[a]Ἱκτηριοις κλαδοίσιν εξεστεμμενοι.]
[a]Ὁμου τε παιανών τε και στεναγματων.]

2. The sixth syllable followed by two (or more) syllables in the same word.—This is only another name for the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) syllable occurring at the end of a word; as—

[a]Οδμη βροτειων ἅιματων με προσγελα.]
[a]Λαμπρους δυναστας έμπρεποντας αιθερι.]

Now this arrangement of syllables, taken by itself, gives anything rather than a hephthimimer; so that if it were at this point that our investigations terminated, little would be done towards the evolution of the rationale of the cæsura. It will appear, however, that in those cases where the circumstance of the sixth syllable being followed by two others in the same words, causes the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) to be final, either a penthimimer cæsura, or an equivalent, will, with but few exceptions, be the result. This we may prove by taking the eighth syllable and counting back from it. What follows this syllable is immaterial: it is the number of syllables in the same word that precedes it that demands attention.

1. The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by nothing.—This is equivalent to the seventh syllable at the end of the preceding word: a state of things which, as noticed above, gives the hephthimimer cæsura.

[a]Ανηριθμον γελάσμα παμ|μητορ δε γη.]

2. The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by one syllable.—This is equivalent to the sixth syllable at the end of the word preceding; a state of things which, as noticed above, rarely occurs. When, however, it does occur, one of the three conditions under which a final syllable can take an arsis must accompany it. Each of these conditions requires notice.

[a]α]). With a non-enclitic mono-syllable the result is a penthimimer cæsura; since the syllable preceding a monosyllable is necessarily final.

[a]Ἡκω σεβίζων σόν Κλύται|μνηστρα κρατος.]

No remark has been made by critics upon lines constructed in this manner, since the cæsura is a penthimimer, and consequently their rules are undisturbed.

[a]β]). With poly-syllabic circumflex futures constituting the third foot, there would be a violation of the current rules respecting the cæsura. Notwithstanding this, if the views of the present paper be true, there would be no violation of the iambic character of the senarius. Against such a line as

[a]Κα'γω το σον νεμώ ποθει|νον αυλιον]

there is no argument à priori on the score of the iambic character being violated; whilst, in respect to objections derived from evidence à posteriori, there is sufficient reason for such lines being rare.

[a]γ]). With poly-syllables abbreviated by apocope, we have the state of things which the metrists have recognised under the name of quasi-cæsura; as—

[a]Κεντειτε μη φειδέσθ' εγω | 'τεκον Παριν.]

3.—The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by two syllables.—This is equivalent to the fifth syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding: a state of things which gives the penthimimer cæsura; as—

[a]Οδμη βροτειων αἵματῶν | με προσγελα.]
[a]Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ'πρεπον|τας αιθερι.]
[a]Απσυχον εικω πρόσγελω|σα σωματος.]

4. The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by three or more than three syllables.—This is equivalent to the fourth (or some syllable preceding the fourth) syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding; a state of things which would include the third and fourth feet in one and the same word. This concurrence is denounced in the Supplement to the Preface to the Hecuba, where, however, the rule, as in the case of the quasi-cæsura, from being based upon merely empirical evidence, requires limitation. In lines like—

[a]Και τἁλλα πολλ' επέικασαι | δικαιον ην],

or (an imaginary example),

[a]Τοις σοισιν ασπιδήστροφοισ|ιν ανδρασι],

there is no violation of the iambic character, and consequently no reason against similar lines having been written; although from the average proportion of Greek words like [a]επεικασαι] and [a]ασπιδηστροποισιν], there is every reason for their being rare.

After the details just given the recapitulation is brief.

1. It was essential to the character of the senarius that the sixth syllable, or latter half of the third foot, should have an arsis, ictus metricus, or accent in the English sense. To this condition of the iambic rhythm the Greek tragedians, either consciously or unconsciously, adhered.

2. It was the character of the Greek language to admit an arsis on the last syllable of a word only under circumstances comparatively rare.

3. These two facts, taken together, caused the sixth syllable of a line to be anywhere rather than at the end of a word.

4. If followed by a single syllable in the same word, the result was a hephthimimer cæsura.

5. If followed by more syllables than one, some syllable in an earlier part of the line ended the word preceding, and so caused either a penthimìmer, a quasi-cæsura, or the occurrence of the third and fourth foot in the same word.

6. As these two last-mentioned circumstances were rare, the general phenomenon presented in the Greek senarius was the occurrence of either the penthimimer or hephthimimer.

7. Respecting these two sorts of cæsura, the rules, instead of being exhibited in detail, may be replaced by the simple assertion that there should be an arsis on the sixth syllable. From this the rest follows.

8. Respecting the non-occurrence of the third and fourth feet in the same word, the assertion may be withdrawn entirely.

9. Respecting the quasi-cæsura, the rules, if not altogether withdrawn, may be extended to the admission of the last syllable of circumflex futures (or to any other polysyllables with an equal claim to be considered accented on the last syllable) in the latter half of the third foot.

---

REMARKS ON THE USE OF THE SIGNS OF ACCENT AND QUANTITY AS GUIDES TO THE PRONUNCIATION OF WORDS DERIVED FROM THE CLASSICAL LANGUAGES, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL TERMS.

FROM THE
ANNALS AND MAGAZINE OF NATURAL HISTORY,
JUNE, 1859.

The text upon which the following remarks have suggested themselves is the Accentuated List of the British Lepidoptera, with Hints on the Derivation of the Names, published by the Entomological Societies of Oxford and Cambridge; a useful contribution to scientific terminology—useful, and satisfied with being so. It admits that naturalists may be unlearned, and provides for those who, with a love for botany or zoology, may have been denied the advantage of a classical education. That there are many such is well known; and it is also well known that they have no love for committing themselves to the utterance of Latin and Greek names in the presence of investigators who are more erudite (though, perhaps, less scientific) than themselves. As a rule, their pronunciation is inaccurate. It is inaccurate without being uniform—- for the ways of going wrong are many. Meanwhile, any directions toward the right are welcome.

In the realities of educational life there is no such thing as a book for unlearned men—at least no such thing as a good one. There are make-shifts and make-believes ad infinitum; but there is no such an entity as an actual book. Some are written down to the supposed level of the reader—all that are so written being useless and offensive. Others are encumbered with extraneous matter, and, so encumbered, err on the side of bulk and superfluity. Very rarely is there anything like consistency in the supply of information.

The work under notice supposes a certain amount of ignorance—ignorance of certain accents and certain quantities. It meets this; and it meets it well. That the work is both a safe and reliable guide, is neither more nor less than what we expect from the places and persons whence it has proceeded.

It is likely, from its very merits, to be the model on which a long line of successors may be formed. For this reason the principles of its notation (for thus we may generalize our expression of the principle upon which we use the signs of accent and quantity as guides to pronunciation) may be criticised.

In the mind of the present writer, the distinction between accent and quantity has neither been sufficiently attended to nor sufficiently neglected. This is because, in many respects, they are decidedly contrasted with, and opposed to, each other; whilst, at the same time—paradoxical as it may appear—they are, for the majority of practical purposes, convertible. That inadvertence on these points should occur, is not to be wondered at. Professional grammarians—men who deal with the purely philological questions of metre and syllabification—with few exceptions, confound them.

In English Latin (by which I mean Latin as pronounced by Englishmen) there is, in practice, no such a thing as quantity; so that the sign by which it is denoted is, in nine cases out of ten, superfluous. Mark the accent, and the quantity will take care of itself.

I say that there is no such a thing in English Latin as quantity. I ought rather to have said that

English quantities are not Latin quantities.

In Latin, the length of the syllable is determined by the length of the vowels and consonants combined. A long vowel, if followed in the same word by another (i. e. if followed by no consonant), is short. A short vowel, if followed by two consonants, is long. In English, on the other hand, long vowels make long, whilst short vowels make short, syllables; so that the quantity of a syllable in English is determined by the quantity of the vowel. The i in pius is short in Latin. In English it is long. The e in mend is short in English, long in Latin.

This, however, is not all. There is, besides, the following metrical paradox. A syllable may be made long by the very fact of its being short. It is the practice of the English language to signify the shortness of a vowel by doubling the consonant that follows. Hence we get such words as pitted, knotty, massive, &c.—words in which no one considers that the consonant is actually doubled. For do we not pronounce pitted and pitied alike? Consonants that appear double to the eye are common enough. Really double consonants—consonants that sound double to the ear—are rarities, occurring in one class of words only—viz. in compounds whereof the first element ends with the same sound with which the second begins, as soul-less, book-case, &c.

The doubling, then, of the consonant is a conventional mode of expressing the shortness of the vowel that precedes, and it addresses itself to the eye rather than the ear.

But does it address itself to the eye only? If it did, pitied and pitted, being sounded alike, would also be of the same quantity. We know, however, that to the English writer of Latin verses they are not so. We know that the first is short (pĭtied), the latter long (pītted). For all this, they are sounded alike: so that the difference in quantity (which, as a metrical fact, really exists) is, to a great degree, conventional. At any rate, we arrive at it by a secondary process. We know how the word is spelt; and we know that certain modes of spelling give certain rules of metre. Our senses here are regulated by our experience.

Let a classical scholar hear the first line of the Eclogues read—

Patulæ tu Tityre, &c.,

and he will be shocked. He will also believe that the shock fell on his ear. Yet his ear was unhurt. No sense was offended. The thing which was shocked was his knowledge of the rules of prosody—nothing more. To English ears there is no such a thing as quantity—not even in hexameters and pentameters. There is no such thing as quantity except so far as it is accentual also. Hence come the following phænomena—no less true than strange,—viz. (1) that any classical metre written according to the rules of quantity gives (within certain narrow limits) a regular recurrence of accents; and (2) that, setting aside such shocks as affect our knowledge of the rules of prosody, verses written according to their accents only give metrical results. English hexameters (such as they are) are thus written.

In the inferences from these remarks there are two assumptions: 1st, that the old-fashioned mode of pronunciation be adhered to; 2nd, that when we pronounce Greek and Latin words as they are pronounced in the recitation of Greek and Latin poetry, we are as accurate as we need be. It is by means of these two assumptions that we pronounce Tityre and patulæ alike; and I argue that we are free to do so. As far as the ear is concerned, the a is as long as the i, on the strength of the double t which is supposed to come after it. It does not indeed so come; but if it did, the sound would be the same, the quantity different (for is not patulæ pronounced pattule?). It would be a quantity, however, to the eye only.

This pronunciation, however, may be said to be exploded; for do not most men under fifty draw the distinction which is here said to be neglected? Do not the majority make, or fancy they make, a distinction between the two words just quoted? They may or they may not. It is only certain that, subject to the test just indicated, it is immaterial what they do. Nine-tenths of the best modern Latin verses were written under the old system—a system based not upon our ear, but on our knowledge of certain rules.

Now it is assumed that the accuracy sufficient for English Latin is all the accuracy required. Ask for more, and you get into complex and difficult questions respecting the pronunciation of a dead language. Do what we will, we cannot, on one side, pronounce the Latin like the ancient Romans. Do what we will, so long as we keep our accents right, we cannot (speaking Latin after the fashion of Englishmen) err in the way of quantity—at least, not to the ear. A short vowel still gives a long syllable; for the consonant which follows it is supposed to be doubled.

Let it be admitted, then, that, for practical purposes, Tityre and patulæ may be pronounced alike, and the necessity of a large class of marks is avoided. Why write, as the first word in the book is written, Papiliō´nidæ? Whether the initial syllable be sounded papp- or pape- is indifferent. So it is whether the fourth be uttered as -own-, or -onn-. As far as the ear is concerned, they are both long, because the consonant is doubled. In Greek, [a]πᾰππιλλιόννιδαι] is as long as [a]πᾱππιλλιόννιδαι].

Then comes Machā´on, where the sign of quantity is again useless, the accent alone being sufficient to prevent us saying either Mákkaon or Makaón. The a is the a in fate. We could not sound it as the a in fat if we would.

Pīeridæ.—What does the quantity tell us here? That the i is pronounced as the i in the Greek [a]πίονος], rather than as the i in the Latin pius. But, in English Latin, we pronounce both alike. Surely Pī´eris and Pie´ridæ tell us all that is needed.

Cratæ´gī.—Whether long or short, the i is pronounced the same.

Sinā´pis, Rā´pæ, and Nā´pi.—The ( ¯ ) here prevents us from saying Ráppæ and Náppi. It would certainly be inelegant and unusual to do so. Tested, however, by the ear, the words ráppæ and náppi take just the same place in an English Latin verse as rápe-æ and nápe-i. Is any one likely to say sináppis? Perhaps. There are those who say Dianna for Diana. It is very wrong to do so—wrong, not to say vulgar. For the purposes of metre, however, one is as good as the other; and herein (as aforesaid) lies the test. The real false quantities would be Diana and sinnapis; but against these the accent protects us. Nor is the danger of saying sináppis considerable. Those who say Diánna are those who connect it with Anna and would, probably, spell it with two n's.

Cardamī´nĕs.—All that the first ( ¯ ) does here is to prevent us saying cardami´nnes. The real false quantity would be carda´mmines. The accent, however, guards against this.

The second ( ¯ ) is useful. It is certainly better to say cardamín-ees than cardamín-ess, because the e is from the Greek [a]η]. And this gives us a rule. Let the ( ¯ ) be used to distinguish [a]η] from [a]ε], and [a]ω] from [a]ο], and in no other case. I would not say that it is necessary to use it even here. It is better, however, to say Macháōn than Macháōn. By a parity of reasoning, the ( ˘ ), rejected in the work before us, is sometimes useful. Let it be used in those derivatives where [a]ε] replaces [a]η], and [a]ο] replaces [a]ω]; e. g. having written Machaōn, write, as its derivative, Machaōnidæ—i. e. if the word be wanted.

This is the utmost for which the signs of quantity are wanted for English Latin. I do not say that they are wanted even for this.

One of the mechanical inconveniences arising from the use of the signs of quantity is this—when a long syllable is accented, two signs fall upon it. To remedy this, the work before us considers that the stress is to be laid on the syllable preceding the accent. Yet, if an accent mean anything, it means that the stress fall on the syllable which it stands over.

A few remarks upon words like Pīeridæ, where the accent was omitted.—Here two short syllables come between two long ones. No accent, however, is placed over either. Evidently, quantity and accent are so far supposed to coincide, that the accentuation of a short vowel is supposed to make it look like a long one. It is a matter of fact, that if, on a word like Cassiōpe, we lay an accent on the last syllable but one, we shock the ears of scholars, especially metrical ones. Does it, however, lengthen the vowel? The editors of the work in question seem to think that it does, and, much more consistent than scholars in general, hesitate to throw it back upon the preceding syllable, which is short also. Metrists have no such objection; their practice being to say Cassíope without detriment to the vowel. The entomologists, then, are the more consistent.

They are, however, more consistent than they need be. If an accent is wanted, it may fall on the shortest of all possible syllables. Granting, however, that Cassiópe (whether the o be sounded as in nōte or nōt) is repugnant to metre, and Cassíope to theory, what is their remedy? It is certainly true that Cássiope is pronounceable. Pope writes—

"Like twinkling stars the miscellanies o'er."

No man reads this miscéllanies; few read it míscellánies. The mass say mis´cellanies. Doing this, they make the word a quadrisyllable; for less than this would fall short of the demands of the metre. They also utter a word which makes Cas´siope possible. Is Cássiope, however, the sound? Probably not. And here authors must speak for themselves:—

"Take, e. g., Cassiope and Corticea: in words like the former of these, in which the last syllable is long, there is no greater difficulty of pronunciation in laying the stress upon the first syllable than upon the second."

True! but this implies that we say Cássiopé. Is -e, however, one bit the longer for being accented, or can it bear one iota more of accent for being long? No. Take -at from peat, and -t from pet, and the result is pe—just as long or just as short in one case as the other.

The same power of accenting the first syllable is "particularly the case in those words in which the vowel i can assume the power of y. Latin scholars are divided as to the proper accentuation of mulieres, Tulliola, and others: though custom is in favour of mulíeres, mul´ieres appears to be more correct." Be it so. Let mulieres be múlyeres. What becomes, however, of the fourth syllable? The word is no quadrisyllable at all. What is meant is this:—not that certain quadrisyllables with two short vowels in the middle are difficult to accentuate, but that they are certain words of which it is difficult to say whether they are trisyllables or quadrisyllables.

For all practical purposes, however, words like Cassiope are quadrisyllables. They are, in the way of metre, choriambics; and a choriambic is a quadrisyllable foot. They were pronounced Cassíope, &c., by English writers of Latin verses—when Latin verses were written well.

Let the pronunciation which was good enough for Vincent Bourne and the contributors to the Musæ Etonenses be good enough for the entomologists, and all that they will then have to do is not to pronounce cratægum like stratagem, cardamines like Theramenes, and vice versâ. Against this, accent will ensure them—accent single-handed and without any sign of quantity—Cardamínes, Therámenes, cratæ´gum, strátagem.

---

[V.]
CHRONOLOGICA.

ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD [a]ΣΑΡΟΣ].

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
APRIL 11, 1845.

The words [a]σάρος] and sarus are the Greek and Latin forms of a certain term used in the oldest Babylonian chronology, the meaning of which is hitherto undetermined. In the opinion of the present writer, the sarus is a period of 4 years and 340 days.

In the way of direct external evidence as to the value of the epoch in question, we have, with the exception of an unsatisfactory passage in Suidas, at the hands of the ancient historians and according to the current interpretations, only the two following statements:—

1. That each sarus consisted of 3600 years ([a]ἔτη]).

2. That the first ten kings of Babylon reigned 120 sari, equal to 432,000 years; or on an average 43,200 years apiece.

With data of this sort, we must either abandon the chronology altogether, or else change the power of the word year. The first of these alternatives was adopted by Cicero and Pliny, and doubtless other of the ancients—contemnamus etiam Babylonios et eos qui e Caucaso cœli signa observantes numeris et motubus stellarum cursus persequuntur; condemnemus inquam hos aut stultitiæ aut vanitatis aut impudentiæ qui CCCCLXX millia annorum, ut ipsi dicunt, monumentis comprehensa continent.—Cic. de Divinat., from Cory's Ancient Fragments. Again—e diverso Epigenes apud Babylonios DCCXX annorum observationes siderum coctilibus laterculis inscriptas docet, gravis auctor in primis: qui minimum Berosus et Critodemus CCCCLXXX annorum.—Pliny, vii. 56. On the other hand, to alter the value of the word [a]ἔτος] or annus has been the resource of at least one modern philologist.

Now if we treat the question by what may be called the tentative method, the first step in our inquiry will be to find some division of time which shall, at once, be natural in itself, and also short enough to make 10 sari possible parts of an average human life. For this, even a day will be too long. Twelve hours, however, or half a [a]νυχθήμερον], will give us possible results.

Taking this view therefore, and leaving out of the account the 29th of February, the words [a]ἔτος] and annus mean, not a year, but the 730th part of one; 3600 of which make a sarus. In other words, a sarus=1800 day-times and 1800 night-times, or 3600 half [a]νυχθήμερα], or 4 years+340 days.

The texts to which the present hypothesis applies are certain passages in Eusebius and Syncellus. These are founded upon the writings of Alexander Polyhistor, Apollodorus, Berosus, and Abydenus. From hence we learn the length of the ten reigns alluded to above, viz. 120 sari or 591 years and odd days. Reigns of this period are just possible. It is suggested, however, that the reign and life are dealt with as synonymous; or at any rate, that some period beyond that during which each king sat singly on his throne has been recorded.

The method in question led the late Professor Rask to a different power for the word sarus. In his Ældste Hebraiske Tidregnung he writes as follows: "The meaning of the so-called sari has been impossible for me to discover. The ancients explain it differently. Dr. Ludw. Ideler, in his Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, i. 207, considers it to mean some lunar period; without however defining it, and without sufficient closeness to enable us to reduce the 120 sari, attributed to the ten ancient kings, to any probable number of real years. I should almost believe that the sarus was a year of 23 months, so that the 120 sari meant 240 natural years." p. 32. Now Rask's hypothesis has the advantage of leaving the meaning of the word reign as we find it. On the other hand, it blinks the question of [a]ἔτη] or anni as the parts of a sarus. Each doctrine, however, is equally hypothetical; the value of the sarus, in the present state of our inquiry, resting solely upon the circumstance of its giving a plausible result from plausible assumptions. The data through which the present writer asserts for his explanation the proper amount of probability are contained in two passages hitherto unapplied.

1. From Eusebius—is (Berosus) sarum ex annis 3600 conflat. Addit etiam nescio quem nerum ac sosum: nerum ait 600 annis constare, sosum annis 60. Sic ille de veterum more annos computat.—Translation of the Armenian Eusebius, p. 5, from Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum, p. 439: Paris, 1841.

2. Berosus—[a]σάρος δέ ἐστιν ἕξακόσια καὶ τρισχίλια ἔτη, νῖ ρος δὲ ἕξακόσια, σώσσος ἑξήκοντα].—From Cory's Ancient Fragments.

Now the assumed value of the word translated year (viz. 12 hours), in its application to the passages just quoted, gives for the powers of the three terms three divisions of time as natural as could be expected under the circumstances.

1. [a]Σώσσος].—The sosus=30 days and 30 nights, or 12 hours × 60, or a month of 30 days, [a]μὴν τριακονθήμερος]. Aristotle writes—[a]ἡ μὴν Λακωνικὴ ἕκτον μέρος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἡμέραι ἑξήκοντα].—From Scaliger, De Emendatione Temporum, p. 23. Other evidence occurs in the same page.

2. [a]Νῆρος].—The nerus=10 sosi or months=the old Roman year of that duration.

3. [a]Σάρος].—The sarus=6 neri or 60 months of 30 days each; that is, five proper years within 25 days. This would be a cycle or annus magnus.

All these divisions are probable. Against that of 12 hours no objection lies except its inconvenient shortness. The month of 30 days is pre-eminently natural. The year of 10 months was common in early times. In favour of the sarus of five years (or nearly so) there are two facts:—

1. It is the multiple of the sosus by 10, and of the nerus by 6.

2. It represents the period when the natural year of 12 months coincides for the first time with the artificial one of 10; since 60 months=6 years of 10 months and 5 of 12.

The historical application of these numbers is considered to lie beyond the pale of the present inquiry.

In Suidas we meet an application of the principle recognised by Rask, viz. the assumption of some period of which the sarus is a fraction. Such at least is the probable view of the following interpretation: [a]ΣΆΡΟΙ]—[a]μέτρον καὶ ἁριθμὸς παρὰ Χαλδαίοις, οἳ γὰρ ρκ´ σάροι ποιοῦσιν ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ´, οἳ γίγνονται ιε´ ἔνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἕξ].—From Cory's Ancient Fragments[3].

In Josephus we find the recognition of an annus magnus containing as many [a]ἔτη] as the nerus did: [a] ἔπειτα καὶ δι' ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν εὐχρηστίαν ὧν ἐπενόουν ἀστρολόγιας καὶ γεωμὲτριας πλέον ζῇν τὸν Θεὸν αὐτοῖς παρασχεῖν ἅπερ οὐκ ἧν ἀσφαλῶς αὐτοῖς προειπεῖν ζήσασιν ἑξακοσίους ἐνιαυτούς· διὰ τοσοῦτον γὰρ ὁμέγας ἐνιαυτὸς πληροῦται].—Antiq. i. 3.

The following doctrine is a suggestion, viz. that in the word sosus we have the Hebrew [a]שֵש] = six. If this be true, it is probable that the sosus itself was only a secondary division, or some other period multiplied by six. Such would be a period of five days, or ten [a]ἔׁτηׁ] (so-called). With this view we get two probabilities, viz. a subdivision of the month, and the alternation of the numbers 6 and 10 throughout; i. e. from the [a]ἔτος][4] (or 12 hours) to the sarus (or five years).

---

After the reading of this paper, a long discussion followed on the question, how far the sarus could be considered as belonging to historical chronology. The Chairman (Professor Wilson) thought there could be no doubt that the same principles which regulated the mythological periods of the Hindoos prevailed also in the Babylonian computations, although there might be some variety in their application.

1. A mahayuga or great age of the Hindoos, comprising the four successive yugas or ages, consists of 4,320,000 years.

2. These years being divided by 360, the number of days in the Indian lunar year, give 12,000 periods.

3. By casting off two additional cyphers, these numbers are reduced respectively to 432,000 and 120, the numbers of the years of the saroi of the ten Babylonian kings, whilst in the numbers 12,360 and 3600 we have the coincidence of other elements of the computation.

---

[VI.]
BIBLIOGRAPHICA.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE WORKS ON THE PROVINCIALISMS OF HOLLAND FROM PAPERS BY VAN DEN BERGH AND HETTEMA IN THE TAALKUNDIG MAGAZIJN.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

Van den Bergh, Taal. Mag. ii. 2. 193-210.

Groningen.—Laurman, Proeve van kleine taalkundige bijdragen tot beter kennis van den tongval in de Provincie Groningen.—Groningen 1822.

J. Sonius Swaagman, Comment: de dialecto Groningana, etc.: una cum serie vocabulorum, Groninganis propriorum.—Groning. 1827.

Zaamenspraak tusschen Pijter en Jaap dij malkáár op de weg ontmuiten boeten Stÿntilpoorte.—Groninger Maandscrift, No. 1. Also in Laurman's Proeve.

Nieuwe Schuitpraatjes.—By the same author, 1836.

List van Groningsche Woorden.—By A. Complementary to the works of Laurman and Swaagman. With notes by A. de Jager.—Taalkundig Magazijn, second part, third number, pp. 331—334.

Groninsch Taaleigen door.—J. A. (the author of the preceding list). Taalkundig Magazijn, iv. 4. pp. 657—690.

Raize na Do de Cock.—Known to Van den Bergh only through the newspapers.

Subdialects indicated by J. A. as existing, (a) on the Friesland frontier, (b) in the Fens.

L. Van Bolhuis.—Collection of Groningen and Ommeland words not found in Halma's Lexicon; with notes by Clignett, Steenwinkel, and Malnoe. MS. In the library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Over-ijsel.—J. H. Halbertsma, Proeve van een Woorden boekje van het Overijselsch.—Overijsselschen Almanak voor Oudheid en Letteren, 1836.

M. Winhoff, Landrecht var Auerissel, tweeee druk, met veele (philological as well as other) aanteckeningen door J. A. Chalmot.—Campen, 1782.

T. W. Van Marle, Samensprôke tusschen en snaak zoo as as der gelukkig néèt in te menigte zint en en heeren-krecht déè gien boe of ba zê, op de markt te Dêventer van vergange vrijdag.—Overijselschen Almanak, &c. ut supra.

Over de Twenthsche Vocalen en Klankwijzigingen, door J. H. Behrens.—Taalkundig Magazijn, iii. 3. pp. 332-390. 1839.

Twenther Brutfteleed.—Overijsselschen Almanak.

Dumbar the Younger (?).—Three lists of words and phrases used principally at Deventer. MS. In the library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Drawings of twelve Overijssel Towns. Above and beneath each a copy of verses in the respective dialects. MS. of the seventeenth century. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Gelderland.—H. I. Swaving, Opgave van eenige in Gelderland gebruikelijke woorden.—Taalkundig Magazijn, i. 4. pp. 305.

Ibid.—Ibid. ii. 1. pp. 76-80.

Opmerkingen omtrent den Gelderschen Tongval.—Ibid. ii. 4. pp. 398-426. The fourth section is devoted to some peculiarities from the neighbourhood of Zutphen.

N. C. Kist, Over de ver wisslingvan zedetijke en zinnelijke Hoedanigheden in sommige Betuwsche Idiotismen.—Nieuwe Werken der Maatsch. van Nederl. Letterkund. iii. 2. 1834.

Staaltje van Graafschapsche landtal.—Proeve van Taalkundipe Opmerkingen en Bedenkingen, door T. G. C. Kalckhoff.—Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen for June 1826.

Appendix to the above.—Ibid. October 1826.

Het Zeumerroaisel: a poem. 1834?—Known to Van den Bergh only through the newspapers. Believed to have been published in 1834.

Et Schaassen-riejen, en praotparticken tussen Harmen en Barteld.—Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1835. Zutphen Dialect.

De Öskeskermios.—Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1836. Dialect of Over Veluwe.

Hoe Meister Maorten baordman baos Joosten en schat deevinden.—Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1836. Dialect of Lijm.

Opgave van eenige in Gelderland gebruikelijke woorden ae.—H. I. Swaving.—Taalk. Mag. iv. 4. pp. 307-330.

Aanteekeningen ter verbetering en uitbreiding der opmerkingen omtrent den Geldersehen Tongval.—Taal. Mag. iii. 1. pp. 39-80.

A. Van den Bergh.—Words from the provincial dialects of the Veluwen; with additions by H. T. Folmer.—MS. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Handbook, containing the explanation and etymology of several obscure and antiquated words, &c. occurring in the Gelderland and other neighbouring Law-books.—By J. C. C. V. H[asselt].—MS. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Holland.—Scheeps-praat, ten overlijden van Prins Maurits van Orange.—Huygens Korenbloemem, B. viii. Also in Lulofs Nederlandsche Spraakkunst, p. 351; in the Vaderlandsche Spreekwoorden door Sprenger van Eyk, p. 17, and (with three superadded couplets) in the Mnemosyne, part x. p. 76.

Brederoos Kluchten.—Chiefly in the Low Amsterdam (plat Amsterdamsch) dialect.

Hooft, Warenar met den pot.

Suffr. Sixtinus.—Gerard van Velsen. Amst. 1687.

Bilderdijk, Over een oud Amsterdamsch Volksdeuntjen.—Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen, 1808. Reprinted, with an appendix, at Leyden 1824.

Bilderdijk, Rowbeklag; in gemeen Zamen Amsterdamschen tongval.—Najaarsbladen, part i.

Gebel, Scheviningsch Visscherslied.—Almanak voor Blijgeestigen.

1. Boertige Samenspraak, ter heilgroete bij een huwelijk.

2. Samenspraak over de harddraverij te Valkenburg en aan heet Haagsche Schouw.

3. Boertige Samenspraak tusschen Heeip en Jan-buur.—These three last-named poems occur in Gedichten van J. Le Francq van Berkhey, in parts i. 221, ii. 180, ii. 257 respectively.

Tuist tusschen Achilles en Agamemnon. Schiutpraatje van eenen boer; of luimige vertaling van het 1^e Boek der Ilias, by J. E. Van Varelen.—Mnemosyne, part iv. Dordrecht, 1824.

The same by H. W. and B. F. Tydeman in the Mnemosyne, part iv. Dordrecht, 1824.

Noordhollandsch Taaleigen, door Nicolas Beets.—Taalk. Magaz. iii. 4. pp. 510—516, and iv. 3. pp. 365-372.

List of words and phrases used by the Katwijk Fishermen.—MS. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Dictionary of the North-Holland Dialect; chiefly collected by Agge Roskan Kool.—MS. Ibid.

Zealand.—Gedicht op't innemen van sommige schansen en de sterke stad Hulst, &c. 1642. Le Jeune; Volkszangen, p. 190.

Brief van eene Zuidbevelandsche Boerin, aan haren Zoon, dienende bij de Zeeuwsche landelijke Schutterij. Zeeuwsche Volks-Almanak, 1836.

Over het Zeeuwsche Taaleigen, door Mr. A. F. Sifflé,—Taalkundig Magazijn i. 2. 169—171.

Notes upon the same, by Van A. D, J[ager].—Ibid. p. 175—177.

Taalkundige Aanteekeningen, door Mr. J. H. Hoefft.—Ibid. 1. 3. 248—256.

Collection of words used in Walcheren.—MS. Library of Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Collection of words used in States-Flanders.—MS. Ibid.

North brabant.—J. H. Hoefft, Proeve van Bredaasch taaleigen, &c.—Breda 1836.

J. L. Verster, Words used in the Mayoralty of Bosch.—MS. Library of Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Jewish.—Khootje, Waar binje? hof Conferensje hop de vertrekkie van de Colleesje hin de Poortoegeesche Koffy' uyssie, hover de gemasqwerde bal ontmaskert.—Amsterd.

Lehrrhede hower de vrauwen, door Raphael Noenes Karwalje, Hopper Rhabbijn te Presburg; in Wibmer, de Onpartijdige.—Amst. 1820, p. 244.

Negro[5].—New Testament.—Copenhagen, 1781, and Barby, 1802.

The Psalms.—Barby, 1802.

---

[VII.]
GEOGRAPHICA.

ON THE EXISTENCE OF A NATION BEARING THE NAME OF SERES OR A COUNTRY CALLED SERICA OR TERRA SERICA.

FROM
THE CLASSICAL MUSEUM OF 1846. VOL. 3.

The following train of thought presented itself to the writer upon the perusal of Mr. James Yates's learned and interesting work entitled Textrinum Antiquorum or an account of the art of weaving among the ancients. With scarcely a single exception the facts and references are supplied from that work so that to the author of the present paper nothing belongs beyond the reasoning that he has applied to them.

This statement is made once for all for the sake of saving a multiplicity of recurring references.

The negative assertions as well as the positive ones are also made upon the full faith in the exhaustive learning of the writer in question.

Now the conviction that is come to is this, that no tribe, nation or country ever existed which can be shewn to have borne, either in the vernacular or in any neighbouring language, the name Seres, Serica, or Terra Serica or any equivalent term, a conclusion that may save some trouble to the inquirers into ancient geography.

The nation called Seres has never had a specific existence under that name. Whence then originated the frequent indications of such a nation recurring in the writings of the ancients? The doctrine, founded upon the facts of Mr. Yates and laid down as a proposition; is as follows.—

That the name under which the article silk was introduced to the Greeks and Romans wore the appearance of a Gentile adjective and that the imaginary root of the accredited adjective passed for the substantive name of a nation. Thus, in the original form seric, the -ic had the appearance of being an adjectival termination, as in Medic-us Persic-us &c.; whilst ser- was treated as the substantive name of a nation or people from whence the article in question (i. e. the seric article) was derived. The Seres therefore were the hypothetical producers of the article that bore their name (seric). Whether this view involves more improbabilities than the current one will be seen from the forthcoming observations.—

1. In the first place the crude form seric was neither Latin nor Greek, so that the -ic could not be adjectival.

2. Neither was it in the simpler form ser- that the term was introduced into the classical languages so that the adjectival -ic might be appended afterwards.—

3. The name in question whatever might have been its remote origin was introduced into Greece from the Semitic tongues (probably the Phoenician) and was the word [a]שריק] in Isaiah XIX. 9. where the [a]יק] (the -ic) is not an adjectival appendage but a radical part of the word. And here it may be well to indicate that, except under the improbable supposition that the Hebrew name was borrowed from the Greek or Latin, it is a matter of indifference whether the word in question was indigenous to the Semitic Languages or introduced from abroad, and also that is a matter of indifference whether silk was known in the time of the Old Testament or not. It is sufficient if a term afterwards applied to that article was Hebrew at the time of Isaiah. Of any connection between the substance called [a]שריק] and a nation called Seres there is in the Semitic tongues no trace. The foundation of the present scepticism originated in the observation that the supposed national existence of the Seres coincided with the introduction of the term seric into languages where ic- was an adjectival affix.—

As early as the Augustan age the substantive Seres appears by the side of the adjective Sericus. In Virgil, Horace and Ovid the words may be found and from this time downwards the express notice of a nation so called is found through a long series of writers.—

Notwithstanding this it is as late as the time of Mela before we find any author mentioning with detail and precision a geographical nationality for the Seres. "He (Mela) describes them as a very honest people who brought what they had to sell, laid it down and went away and then returned for the price of it" (Yates p. 184). Now this notice is anything rather than definite. Its accuracy moreover may be suspected, since it belongs to the ambiguous class of what may be called convertible descriptions. The same story is told of an African nation in Herodotus IV. 169.

To the statement of Mela we may add a notice from Ammianus Marcellinus of the quiet and peaceable character of the Seres (XXIII. 6.) and a statement from the novelist Heliodorus that at the nuptials of Theagenes and Chariclea the ambassadors of the Seres came bringing the thread and webs of their spiders (Aethiop. X. p. 494. Commelini).

Now notices more definite than the above of the national existence of the Seres anterior to the time of Justinian we have none whilst subsequently to the reign of that emperor there is an equal silence on the part both of historians and geographers. Neither have modern ethnographers found unequivocal traces of tribes bearing that name.

The probability of a confusion like the one indicated at the commencement of the paper is increased by the facts stated in p. 222. of the Textrinum. Here we see that besides Pausanias, Hesychius, Photius and other writers give two senses to the root ser- which they say is (1.) a worm (2.) the name of a nation. Probably Clemens Alexandrinus does the same [a]νῆμα χρυσοῦ καὶ σῆρας Ἰνδικοὺς καὶ τοὺς περιέργους βόμβυκας χαίρειν ἐῶντας]. A passage from Ulpian (Textrinum p. 192) leads to the belief that [a]σῆρας] here means silk-worm. Vestimentorum sunt omnia lanea lineaque, vel serica vel bombycina.

Finally the probability of the assumed confusion is verified by the statement of Procopius [a]αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ μέταξα ἐξ ἧς εἰώθασι τὴν ἐσθῆτα ἐργάζεσθαι, ἣν πάλαι μὲν Ἥλληνες Μηδικὴν ἐκάλουν, τανῦν δὲ σηρικὴν ὀνομάζουσιν]. (De Bell. Persic. I. 20.).

Militating against these views I find little unsusceptible of explanation.—

1. The expression [a]σηρικα δερματα] of the author of the Periplus Maris Erythraei means skins from the silk country.

2. The intricacy introduced into the question by a passage of Procopius is greater. In the account of the first introduction of the silk worm into Europe in the reign of Justinian the monks who introduced it having arrived from India stated that they had long resided in the country called Serinda inhabited by Indian nations where they had learned how raw silk might be produced in the country of the Romans (Textrinum p. 231). This is so much in favor of the root Ser-being gentile, but at the same time so much against the Seres being Chinese. Sanskrit scholars may perhaps adjust this matter. The Serinda is probably the fabulous Serendib.

In the countries around the original localities of the silk-worm the name for silk is as follows—

In Corean	Sir.
Chinese	se.
Mongolian	sirkek.
Mandchoo	sirghe.

It is the conviction of the present writer that a nation called Seres had no geographical existence.

---

ON THE EVIDENCE OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CIMBRI AND THE CHERSONESUS CIMBRICA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

FEBRUARY 9, 1844.

It is considered that the evidence of any local connection between the Cimbri conquered by Marius, and the Chersonesus Cimbrica, is insufficient to counterbalance the natural improbability of a long and difficult national migration. Of such a connection, however, the identity of name and the concurrent belief of respectable writers are primâ facie evidence. This, however, is disposed of if such a theory as the following can be established, viz. that, for certain reasons, the knowledge of the precise origin and locality of the nations conquered by Marius was, at an early period, confused and indefinite; that new countries were made known without giving any further information; that, hence, the locality of the Cimbri was always pushed forwards beyond the limits of the geographical areas accurately ascertained; and finally, that thus their supposed locality retrograded continually northwards until it fixed itself in the districts of Sleswick and Jutland, where the barrier of the sea and the increase of geographical knowledge (with one exception) prevented it from getting farther. Now this view arises out of the examination of the language of the historians and geographers as examined in order, from Sallust to Ptolemy.

Of Sallust and Cicero, the language points to Gaul as the home of the nation in question; and that without the least intimation of its being any particularly distant portion of that country. "Per idem tempus adversus Gallos ab ducibus nostris, Q. Cæpione et M. Manlio, malè pugnatum—Marius Consul absens factus, et ei decreta Provincia Gallia." Bell. Jugurth. 114. "Ipse ille Marius—influentes in Italiam Gallorum maximas copias repressit." Cicero de Prov. Consul. 13. And here an objection may be anticipated. It is undoubtedly true that even if the Cimbri had originated in a locality so distant as the Chersonese, it would have been almost impossible to have made such a fact accurately understood. Yet it is also true, that if any material difference had existed between the Cimbri and the Gauls of Gaul, such must have been familiarly known in Rome, since slaves of both sorts must there have been common.

Cæsar, whose evidence ought to be conclusive (inasmuch as he knew of Germany as well as of Gaul), fixes them to the south of the Marne and Seine. This we learn, not from the direct text, but from inference: "Gallos—a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit." Bell. Gall. i. "Belgas—solos esse qui, patrum nostrûm memoria, omni Galliâ vexatâ, Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi prohibuerunt." Bell. Gall. ii. 4. Now if the Teutones and Cimbri had moved from north to south, they would have clashed with the Belgæ first and with the other Gauls afterwards. The converse, however, was the fact. It is right here to state, that the last observation may be explained away by supposing, either that the Teutones and Cimbri here meant may be a remnant of the confederation on their return, or else a portion that settled down in Gaul upon their way; or finally, a division that made a circle towards the place of their destination in a south-east direction. None of these however seem the plain and natural construction; and I would rather, if reduced to the alternative, read "Germania" instead of "Gallia" than acquiesce in the most probable of them.

Diodorus Siculus, without defining their locality, deals throughout with the Cimbri as a Gaulish tribe. Besides this, he gives us one of the elements of the assumed indistinctness of ideas in regard to their origin, viz. their hypothetical connexion with the Cimmerii. In this recognition of what might have been called the Cimmerian theory, he is followed by Strabo and Plutarch.—Diod. Sicul. v. 32. Strabo vii. Plutarch. Vit. Marii.

The next writer who mentions them is Strabo. In confirmation of the view taken above, this author places the Cimbri on the northernmost limit of the area geographically known to him, viz. beyond Gaul and in Germany, between the Rhine and the Elbe: [a]τῶν δὲ Γερμάνων ὡς εἶπον, ὁὶ μὲν προσάρκτιοι παρηκοῦσι τῷ Ὠκεανῷ.] [a]Γνωρίζονται δ' ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκβολῶν τοῦ Ῥήνου λαβόντες τὴν ἀρχὴν μέχρι τοῦ Ἄλβιος.] [a]Τούτων δὲ εἰσὶ γνωριμώτατοι Σούγαμβροί τε καὶ Κίμβροι.] [a]Τὰ δὲ πέραν τοῦ Ἄλβιος τὰ πρὸς τῷ Ὠκεανῷ ἄγνωστα ἡμῖν ἐστιν.] (B. iv.) Further proof that this was the frontier of the Roman world we get from the statement which soon follows, viz. that "thus much was known to the Romans from their successful wars, and that more would have been known had it not been for the injunction of Augustus forbidding his generals to cross the Elbe." (B. iv.)

Velleius Paterculus agrees with his contemporary Strabo. He places them beyond the Rhine and deals with them as Germans:—"tum Cimbri et Teutoni transcendere Rhenum, multis mox nostris suisque cladibus nobiles." (ii. 9.) "Effusa—immanis vis Germanarum gentium quibus nomen Cimbris et Teutonis erat." (Ibid. 12.)

From the Germania of Tacitus a well-known passage will be considered in the sequel. Tacitus' locality coincides with that of Strabo.

Ptolemy.—Now the author who most mentions in detail the tribes beyond the Elbe is also the author who most pushes back the Cimbri towards the north. Coincident with his improved information as to the parts southward, he places them at the extremity of the area known to him: [a]Καῦχοι οἱ μείζονες μέχρι τού Ἀλβίου ποταμοῦ·] [a]ἐφεξῆς δὲ ἐπὶ αὔχενα τῆς Κιμβρικῆς Χερσονήσου Σάξονες, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν Χερσόνησον·] [a]ὑπερ μὲν τοὺς Σάξονας, Σιγουλώνες ἀπὸ δυσμῶν·] [a]εἶτα Σαβαλίγγιοι εἶτα Κόβανδοι, ὑπὲρ οὓς Χάλοι·] [a]καὶ ἔτι ὑπερτάτους δυσμικώτεροι μὲν Φουνδούσιοι, ἀνατολικώτεροι δὲ Χαροῦδες, πάντων δὲ ἀρτικώτεροι Κύμβροι.]—Ptolemæi Germania.

Such is the evidence of those writers, Greek or Roman, who deal with the local habitation of the Cimbri rather than with the general history of that tribe. As a measure of the indefinitude of their ideas, we have the confusion, already noticed, between the Cimbri and Cimmerii, on the parts of Diodorus, Strabo, and Plutarch. A better measure occurs in the following extract from Pliny, who not only fixes the Cimbri in three places at once, but also (as far as we can find any meaning in his language) removes them so far northward as Norway: "Alterum genus Ingævones, quorum pars Cimbri Teutoni ac Chaucorum gentes. Proximi Rheno Istævones, quorum pars Cimbri mediterranei." (iv. 14.) "Promontorium Cimbrorum excurrens in maria longe Peninsulam efficit quæ Carthis appellatur." Ibid. "Sevo Mons (the mountain-chains of Norway) immanem ad Cimbrorum usque promontorium efficit sinum, qui Codanus vocatur, refertus insulis, quarum clarissima Scandinavia, incompertæ magnitudinis." (iv. 13.) Upon confusion like this it is not considered necessary to expend further evidence. So few statements coincide, that under all views there must be a misconception somewhere; and of such misconception great must the amount be, to become more improbable than a national migration from Jutland to Italy.

Over and above, however, this particular question of evidence, there stands a second one; viz. the determination of the Ethnographical relations of the nations under consideration. This is the point as to whether the Cimbri conquered by Marius were Celts or Goths, akin to the Gauls, or akin to the Germans; a disputed point, and one which, for its own sake only, were worth discussing, even at the expense of raising a wholly independent question. Such however it is not. If the Cimbri were Celts, the improbability of their originating in the Cimbric Chersonese would be increased, and with it the amount of evidence required; since, laying aside other considerations, the natural unlikelihood of a large area being traversed by a mass of emigrants is greatly enhanced by the fact of any intermediate portion of that area being possessed by tribes as alien to each other as the Gauls and Germans. Hence therefore the fact of the Cimbri being Celts will (if proved) be considered as making against the probability of their origin in the Cimbric Chersonese; whilst if they be shown to be Goths, the difficulties of the supposition will be in some degree diminished. Whichever way this latter point is settled, something will be gained for the historian; since the supposed presence of Celts in the Cimbric Chersonese has complicated more than one question in ethnography.

Previous to proceeding in the inquiry it may be well to lay down once for all as a postulate, that whatever, in the way of ethnography, is proved concerning any one tribe of the Cimbro-Teutonic league, must be considered as proved concerning the remainder; since all explanations grounded upon the idea that one part was Gothic and another part Celtic have a certain amount of primâ facie improbability to set aside. The same conditions as to the burden of proof apply also to any hypotheses founded on the notion of retiring Cimbri posterior to the attempted invasion of Italy. On this point the list of authors quoted will not be brought below the time of Ptolemy. With the testimonies anterior to that writer, bearing upon the question of the ethnography, the attempt however will be made to be exhaustive. Furthermore, as the question in hand is not so much the absolute fact as to whether the Cimbri were Celts or Goths, but one as to the amount of evidence upon which we believe them to be either the one or the other, statements will be noticed under the head of evidence, not because they are really proofs, but simply because they have ever been looked upon as such. Beginning then with the Germanic origin of the Cimbro-Teutonic confederation, and dealing separately with such tribes as are separately mentioned, we first find the

Ambrones.—In the Anglo-Saxon poem called the Traveller's Song, there is a notice of a tribe called Ymbre, Ymbras, or Ymbran. Suhm, the historian of Denmark, has allowed himself to imagine that these represent the Ambrones, and that their name still exists in that of the island Amron of the coast of Sleswick, and perhaps in Amerland, a part of Oldenburg.—Thorpe's note on the Traveller's Song in the Codex Exoniensis.

Teutones.—In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names with that of the Cimbri, there is but little. They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. Ptolemy, however, mentions a) the Teutonarii, b) the Teutones: [a]Τευτονοάριοι καὶ Ουίρουνοι]—[a]Φαραδεινῶν δὲ καὶ Συήβων, Τεύτονες καὶ Ἄμαρποι]. Besides this, however, arguments have been taken from a) the meaning of the root teut=people (þiuda, M. G.; þeód, A. S.; diot, O. H. G.): b) the Saltus Teutobergius: c) the supposed connection of the present word Deut-sch=German with the classical word Teutones. These may briefly be disposed of.

a.) It is not unlikely for an invading nation to call themselves the nation, the nations, the people, &c. Neither, if the tribe in question had done so (presuming them to have been Germans or Goths), would the word employed be very unlike Teuton-es. Although the word þiud-a=nation or people, is generally strong in its declension (so making the plural þiud-ôs), it is found also in a weak form with its plural thiot-ûn=Teuton-. See Deutsche Grammatik, i. 630.

b.) The Saltus Teutobergius mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. i. 60) can scarcely have taken its name from a tribe, or, on the other hand, have given it to one. It means either the hill of the people, or the city of the people; according as the syllable -berg- is derived from báirgs=a hill, or from baúrgs=a city. In either case the compound is allowable, e. g. diot-wëc, public way, O. H. G.; thiod-scatho, robber of the people, O. S.; þëód-cyning, þeod-mearc, boundary of the nation, A. S.; þiód-land, þiód-vëgr, people's way, Icelandic;—Theud-e-mirus, Theud-e-linda, Theud-i-gotha, proper names (from þiud-): himil-bërac, velt-përac; friðu-përac, O. H. G.; himinbiörg, valbiörg, Icelandic (from báirgs=hill)—ascipurc, hasalpurc, saltzpurc, &c., O. H. G. (from baúrgs=city). The particular word diot-puruc=civitas magna occurs in O. H. G.—See Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 478.

c. Akin to this is the reasoning founded upon the connection (real or supposed) between the root Teut- in Teuton-, and the root deut- in Deut-sch. It runs thus. The syllable in question is common to the word Teut-ones, Teut-onicus, Theod-iscus, teud-iscus, teut-iscus, tût-iske, dût-iske, tiut-sche, deut-sch; whilst the word Deut-sch means German. As the Teut-ones were Germans, so were the Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the circumstance that the syllable Teut- in Teut-ones and Teut-onicus, as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is wholly unconnected with the Teut- in theod-iscus, and Deut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on the words German and Dutch. In its oldest form the latter word meant popular, national, vernacular; it was an adjective applied to the vulgar tongue, or the vernacular German, in opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary form Teut-onicus came in vogue even with German writers. Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form Romanice, or out of the idea of an historical connection with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear that the present word deut-sch proves nothing respecting the Teutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial the word Teutonicus was used in a general sense, denoting the Germans in general. Certain it is that before his time it meant the particular people conquered by Marius, irrespective of origin or locality.—See Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, i. p. 17, 3rd edit. Martial, xiv. 26, Teutonici capilli. Claudian. in Eutrop. i. 406, Teutonicum hostem.

The Cimbri.—Evidence to the Gothic origin of the Cimbri (treated separately) begins with the writers under Augustus and Tiberius.

Vell. Paterculus.—The testimony of this writer as to the affinities of the nations in question is involved in his testimony as to their locality, and, consequently, subject to the same criticism. His mention of them (as Germans) is incidental.

Strabo.—Over and above the references already made, Strabo has certain specific statements concerning the Cimbri: a.) That according to a tradition (which he does not believe) they left their country on account of an inundation of the sea. This is applicable to Germany rather than to Gaul. This liability to inundations must not, however, be supposed to indicate a locality in the Cimbric Chersonese as well as a German origin, since the coast between the Scheldt and Elbe is as obnoxious to the ocean as the coasts of Holstein, Sleswick and Jutland. b.) That against the German Cimbri and Teutones the Belgæ alone kept their ground—[a]ὥστε μόνους (Βέλγας) ἀντέχειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Γερμάνων ἔφοδον, Κίμβρων καὶ Τευτόνων.] (iv. 3.) This is merely a translation of Cæsar (see above) with the interpolation [a]Γερμάνων]. c.) That they inhabited their original country, and that they sent ambassadors to Augustus— [a]καὶ γὰρ νῦν ἔχουσι τὴν χώραν ἣν εἶχον πρότερον καὶ ἕπεμπσαν τῷ Σεβαστῷ ιἑρώτατον παρ' αὐτοῖς, λέβητα, αἰτούμενοι φιλίαν καὶ ἀμνηστίαν τῶν ὑπουργμένων· τυχόντες δὲ ὧν ἠξίουν ἀφῇραν]. (B. i.) Full weight must be given to the definite character of this statement.

Tacitus.—Tacitus coincides with Strabo, in giving to the Cimbri a specific locality, and in stating special circumstances of their history. Let full weight be given to the words of a writer like Tacitus; but let it also be remembered that he wrote from hearsay evidence, that he is anything rather than an independent witness, that his statement is scarcely reconcileable with those of Ptolemy and Cæsar, and that above all the locality which both he and Strabo give the Cimbri is also the locality of the Sicambri, of which latter tribe no mention is made by Tacitus, although their wars with the Romans were matters of comparatively recent history. For my own part, I think, that between a confusion of the Cimbri with the Cimmerii on the one hand, and of the Cimbri with the Sicambri on the other, we have the clue to the misconceptions assumed at the commencement of the paper. There is no proof that in the eyes of the writers under the Republic, the origin of the Cimbri was a matter of either doubt or speculation. Catulus, in the History of his Consulship, commended by Cicero (Brutus, xxxv.), and Sylla in his Commentaries, must have spoken of them in a straightforward manner as Gauls, otherwise Cicero and Sallust would have spoken of them less decidedly. (See Plutarch's Life of Marius, and note.) Confusion arose when Greek readers of Homer and Herodotus began to theorize, and this grew greater when formidable enemies under the name of Sicambri were found in Germany. It is highly probable that in both Strabo and Tacitus we have a commentary on the lines of Horace—

Te cæde gaudentes Sicambri
Compositis venerantur armis.

"Eumdem (with the Chauci, Catti, and Cherusci) Germaniæ sinum proximi Oceano Cimbri tenent, parva nunc civitas, sed gloria ingens: veterisque famæ lata vestigia manent, utrâque ripâ castra ac spatia, quorum ambitu nunc quoque metiaris molem manusque gentis, et tam magni exitus fidem—occasione discordiæ nostræ et civilium armorum, expugnatis legionum hibernis, etiam Gallias affectavêre; ac rursus pulsi, inde proximis temporibus triumphati magis quam victi sunt." (German. 38.)

Justin.—Justin writes—"Simul e Germaniâ Cimbros—inundâsse Italiam." Now this extract would be valuable if we were sure that the word Germania came from Justin's original, Trogus Pompeius; who was a Vocontian Gaul, living soon after the Cimbric defeat. To him, however, the term Germania must have been wholly unknown; since, besides general reasons, Tacitus says—"Germaniæ vocabulum recens et nuper additum: quoniam, qui primum Rhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint, ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani vocati sint: ita nationis nomen, non gentis evaluisse paullatim, ut omnes, primum a victore ob metum, mox a seipsis invento nomine Germani vocarentur." Justin's interpolation of Germania corresponds with the similar one on the part of Strabo.

Such is the evidence for the Germanic origin of the Cimbri and Teutones, against which may now be set the following testimonies as to their affinity with the Celts, each tribe being dealt with separately.

The Ambrones.—Strabo mentions them along with the Tigurini, an undoubted Celtic tribe—[a]Κατὰ τὸν πρὸς Ἄμβρωνας καὶ Τωϋγενοὺς πόλεμον].

Suetonius places them with the Transpadani—"per Ambronas et Transpadanos." (Cæsar, § 9.)

Plutarch mentions that their war-cries were understood and answered by the Ligurians. Now it is possible that the Ligurians were Celts, whilst it is certain that they were not Goths.

The Teutones.—Appian speaks of the Teutones having invaded Noricum, and this under the head [a]Κέλτικα].

Florus calls one of the kings of the Teutones Teutobocchus, a name Celtic rather than Gothic.

Virgil has the following lines:—

... late jam tum ditione premebat
Sarrastes populos, et quæ rigat æquora Sarnus;
Quique Rufas, Batulumque tenent, atque arva Celennæ;
Et quos maliferæ despectant mœnia Abellæ:
Teutonico ritu soliti torquere cateias.
Tegmina queis capitum raptus de subere cortex,
Æratæque micant peltæ, micat æreus ensis.—Æn. vii. 737-743.

Now this word cateia may be a provincialism from the neighbourhood of Sarraste. It may also (amongst other things) be a true Teutonic word. From what follows it will appear that this latter view is at least as likely as any other. The commentators state that it is vox Celtica. That this is true may be seen from the following forms—Irish: ga, spear, javelin; gaoth, ditto, a dart; goth, a spear (O'Reilly); gaothadh, a javelin; gadh, spear; gai, ditto; crann gaidh, spear-shaft (Begly)—Cornish: geu, gew, gu, gui=lance, spear, javelin, shaft (Pryce)—Breton: goas, goaff (Rostremer).

The Cimbri—The Teutones.—Of either the Cimbri separately or of the Cimbri and Teutones collectively, being of Gallic origin, we have, in the way of direct evidence, the testimonies exhibited above, viz. of Sallust, Cicero, Cæsar, Diodorus. To this may be added that of Dion Cassius, who not only had access to the contemporary accounts which spoke of them as Gauls, but also was enabled to use them critically, being possessed of information concerning Germany as well as France.

Of Appian the whole evidence goes one way, viz. that the tribes in question were Gauls. His expressions are: [a]πλεῖστον τι καὶ μαχιμώτατον]—[a]χρῆμα Κελτῶν εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὴν Γαλατίαν εἰσέβαλε]. (iv. 2.) In his book on Illyria he states that the Celts and Cimbri, along with the Illyrian tribe of the Autariæ, had, previous to the battle against Marius, attacked Delphi and suffered for their impiety. ([a]Ἰλλυρ. δ.] 4.)

Quintilian may be considered to give us upon the subject the notions of two writers—Virgil, and either Cæsar or Crassus. In dealing, however, with the words of Quintilian, it will be seen that there are two assumptions. That either Cæsar or Crassus considered the Cimbri to be Gauls we infer from the following passage:—"Rarum est autem, ut oculis subjicere contingat (sc. vituperationem), ut fecit C. Julius, qui cum Helvio Manciæ sæpius obstrepenti sibi diceret, jam ostendam, qualis sis: isque plane instaret interrogatione, qualem se tandem ostensurus esset, digito demonstravit imaginem Galli in scuto Mariano Cimbrico pictam, cui Mancia tum simillimus est visus. Tabernæ autem erant circum Forum, ac scutum illud signi gratiâ positum." Inst. Orat. vi. 3. 38. Pliny tells the story of Crassus (39. 4.). Although in this passage the word upon which the argument turns has been written galli, and translated cock, the current interpretation is the one given above.—Vid. not. ed. Gesner.

In the same author is preserved the epigram of Virgil's called Catalecta, and commented on by Ausonius of Bordeaux. Here we learn that T. Annius Cimber was a Gaul; whilst it is assumed that there was no other reason to believe that he was called Cimber than that of his being descended from some slave or freedman of that nation:—"Non appareat affectatio, in quam mirifice Virgilius,

Corinthiorum amator iste verborum,
Ille iste rhetor: namque quatenus totus
Thucydides Britannus, Atticæ febres,
Tau-Gallicum, min-, al- spinæ male illisit.
Ita omnia ista verba miscuit fratri.

Cimber hic fuit a quo fratrem necatum hoc Ciceronis dictum notatum est; Germanum Cimber occidit."—Inst. Orat. viii. 3. cum not.

Dic, quid significent Catalecta Maronis? in his al-
Celtarum posuit, sequitur non lucidius tau-,
Et quod germano mistum male letiferum min-.—Auson.

Undoubtedly the pronunciation here ridiculed is that of the Gauls, and it is just possible that in it is foreshadowed the curtailed form that the Latin tongue in general puts on in the present French. Again, the slave whose courage failed him when ordered to slay Caius Marius is called both a Gaul and a Cimbrian by Plutarch, as well as by Lucan. In the latter writer we have probably but a piece of rhetoric (Pharsalia. lib. ii.)

Amongst tribes undoubtedly Gallic the Nervii claimed descent from the Teutones and Cimbri. The passage of Tacitus that connects the Nervii with the Germans connects them also with the Treveri. Now a well-known passage in St. Jerome tells us that the Treveri were Gauls:—[a]Νέρβιοι ἠσαν δὲ Κίμβρων καὶ Τευτόνων ἀπόγονοι].—Appian, iv. 1. 4. "Treveri et Nervii circa adfectationem Germanicæ originis ultrò ambitiosi sunt, tamquam, per hanc gloriam sanguinis, a similitudine et inertiâ Gallorum separentur." German. 28. Finally, in the Life of Marius by Plutarch we have dialogues between the Cimbri and the Romans. Now a Gallic interpreter was probable, but not so a German one.

Such are the notices bearing upon the ethnography of the Cimbri. Others occur, especially amongst the poets; of these little or no use can be made, for a reason indicated above. Justin speaks of embassies between Mithridates and the Cimbri. Suetonius connects the Cimbri with the Gallic Senones; he is writing however about Germany, so that his evidence, slight as it is, is neutralized. Theories grounded upon the national name may be raised on both sides; Cimbri may coincide with either the Germanic kempa=a warrior or champion, or with the Celtic Cymry=Cambrians. Equally equivocal seem the arguments drawn from the descriptions either of their physical conformation or their manners. The silence of the Gothic traditions as to the Cimbri being Germanic, proves more in the way of negative evidence than the similar silence of the Celtic ones, since the Gothic legends are the most numerous and the most ancient. Besides this, they deal very especially with genealogies, national and individual. The name of Bojorix, a Cimbric king mentioned in Epitome Liviana (lxvii.), is Celtic rather than Gothic, although in the latter dialects proper names ending in -ric, (Alaric, Genseric) frequently occur.

Measuring the evidence, which is in its character essentially cumulative, consisting of a number of details unimportant in themselves, but of value when taken in the mass, the balance seems to be in favour of the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones being Gauls rather than Germans, Celts rather than Goths.

An argument now forthcoming stands alone, inasmuch as it seems to prove two things at once, viz. not only the Celtic origin of the Cimbri, but, at the same time, their locality in the Chersonese. It is brought forward by Dr. Pritchard in his 'Physical History of Mankind,' and runs as follows:—(a.) It is a statement of Pliny that the sea in their neighbourhood was called by the Cimbri Morimarusa, or the dead sea=mare mortuum. (b.) It is a fact that in Celtic Welsh mor marwth=mare mortuum, morimarusa, dead sea. Hence the language of the Cimbric coast is to be considered as Celtic. Now the following facts invalidate this conclusion:—(1.) Putting aside the contradictions in Pliny's statement, the epithet dead is inapplicable to either the German Ocean or the Baltic. (2.) Pliny's authority was a writer named Philemon: out of the numerous Philemons enumerated by Fabricius, it is likely that the one here adduced was a contemporary of Alexander the Great; and it is not probable that at that time glosses from the Baltic were known in the Mediterranean. (3.) The subject upon which this Philemon wrote was the Homeric Poems. This, taken along with the geography of the time, makes it highly probable that the original Greek was not [a]Κίμβροι], but [a]Κιμμέριοι]; indeed we are not absolutely sure of Pliny having written Cimbri. (4.) As applied to Cimmerian sea the epithet dead was applicable. (5.) The term Morimarusa=mare mortuum, although good Celtic, is better Slavonic, since throughout that stock of languages, as in many other of the Indo-European tongues (the Celtic and Latin included), the roots mor and mori mean sea and dead respectively:—"Septemtrionalis Oceanus, Amalchium eum Hecatæus appellat, a Paropamiso amne, qua Scythiam alluit, quod nomen ejus gentis linguâ significat congelatum, Philemon Morimarusam a Cimbris (qu. Cimmeriis) vocari scribit: hoc est mare mortuum usque ad promontorium Rubeas, ultra deinde Cronium." (13.)

One point, however, still remains: it may be dealt with briefly, but it should not be wholly overlooked, viz. the question, whether over and above the theories as to the location of the Cimbri in the Cimbric Chersonese, there is reason to believe, on independent grounds, that Celtic tribes were the early inhabitants of the peninsula in question? If such were actually the case, all that has preceded would, up to a certain point, be invalidated. Now I know no sufficient reasons for believing such to be the case, although there are current in ethnography many insufficient ones.

1. In the way of Philology, it is undoubtedly true that words common to the Celtic tribes occur in the Danish of Jutland, and in the Frisian and Low German of Sleswick and Holstein; but there is no reason to consider that they belong to an aboriginal Celtic tribe. The à priori probability of Celts in the peninsula involves hypotheses in ethnography which are, to say the least, far from being generally recognized. The evidence as to the language of aborigines derived from the significance of the names of old geographical localities is wanting for the Cimbric Chersonese.

2. No traditions, either Scandinavian or German, point towards an aboriginal Celtic population for the localities in question.

3. There are no satisfactory proofs of such in either Archæology or Natural History. A paper noticed by Dr. Pritchard of Professor Eschricht's upon certain Tumuli in Jutland states, that the earliest specimens of art (anterior to the discovery of metals), as well as the character of the tumuli themselves, have a Celtic character. He adds, however, that the character of the tumuli is as much Siberian as Celtic. The early specimens of art are undoubtedly like similar specimens found in England. It happens, however, that such things are in all countries more or less alike. In Professor Siebold's museum at Leyden, stone-axes from tumuli in Japan and Jutland are laid side by side, for the sake of comparison, and between them there is no perceptible difference. The oldest skulls in these tumuli are said to be other than Gothic. They are, however, Finnic rather than Celtic.

4. The statement in Tacitus (German. 44.), that a nation on the Baltic called the Æstii spoke a language somewhat akin to the British, cannot be considered as conclusive to the existence of Celts in the North of Germany. Any language, not German, would probably so be denoted. Such might exist in the mother-tongue of either the Lithuanic or the Esthonian.

It is considered that in the foregoing pages the following propositions are either proved or involved:—1. That the Cimbri conquered by Marius came from either Gaul or Switzerland, and that they were Celts. 2. That the Teutones and Ambrones were equally Celtic with the Cimbri. 3. That no nation north of the Elbe was known to Republican Rome. 4. That there is no evidence of Celtic tribes ever having existed north of the Elbe. 5. That the epithet Cimbrica applied to the Chersonesus proves nothing more in respect to the inhabitants of that locality than is proved by words like West Indian and North-American Indian. 6. That in the word cateia we are in possession of a new Celtic gloss. 7. That in the term Morimarusa we are in possession of a gloss at once Cimmerian and Slavonic. 8. That for any positive theory as to the Cimbro-Teutonic league we have at present no data, but that the hypothesis that would reconcile the greatest variety of statements would run thus: viz. that an organized Celtic confederation conterminous with the Belgæ, the Ligurians, and the Helvetians descended with its eastern divisions upon Noricum, and with its western ones upon Provence.

ADDENDA.

JANUARY 1859.

(1)

In this paper the notice of the Monumentum Ancyranum is omitted. It is CIMBRIQVE ET CHRIIDES ET SEMNONES ET EJVSDEM TRACTVS ALII GERMANORVM POPVLI PER LEGATOS AMICITIAM MEAM ET POPVLI ROMANI PETIERVNT. This seems to connect itself with Strabo's notice. It may also connect itself with that of Tacitus. Assuming the CHARIIDES to be the Harudes, and the Harudes to be the Cherusci (a doctrine for which I have given reasons in my edition of the Germania) the position of the Cimbri in the text of Tacitus is very nearly that of them in the Inscription. In the inscription, the order is Cimbri, Harudes, Semnones; in Tacitus, Cherusci, Cimbri, Semnones. In both cases the 3 names are associated.

(2)

I would now modify the proposition with which the preceding dissertation concludes, continuing, however, to hold the main doctrine of the text, viz. the fact of the Cimbri having been unknown in respect to their name and locality and, so, having been pushed northwards, and more northwards still, as fresh areas were explored without supplying an undoubted and unequivocal origin for them.

I think that the Ambrones, the Tigurini, and the Teutones were Gauls of Helvetia, and South Eastern Gallia, and that the alliance between them and the Cimbri (assuming it to be real) is primâ facie evidence of the latter being Galli also. But it is no more.

That the Cimbri were the Eastern members of the confederation seems certain. More than one notice connects them with Noricum. Here they may have been native. They may also have been intrusive.

Holding that the greater part of Noricum was Slavonic, and that almost all the country along its northern and eastern frontier was the same, I see my way to the Cimbri having been Slavonic also. That they were Germans is out of the question. Gauls could hardly have been so unknown and mysterious to the Romans. Gaul they knew well, and Germany sufficiently—yet no where did they find Cimbri.

The evidence of Posidonius favours this view. "He" writes Strabo "does not unreasonably conceive that these Cimbri being predatory and wandering might carry their expeditions as far as the Mæotis, and that the Bosporus might, from them, take its name of Cimmerian, i. e. Cimbrian, the Greeks calling the Cimbri Cimmerii. He says that the Boii originally inhabited the Hercynian Forest, that the Cimbri attacked them, that they were repulsed, that they then descended on the Danube, and the country of the Scordisci who are Galatæ; thence upon the Taurisci," who "are also Galatæ, then upon the Helvetians &c."—Strabo. 7, p. 293.

For a fuller explanation of the doctrine which makes the Cimbri possible Slavonians see my Edition of Prichard's origin of the Celtic nations—Supplementary Chapter—Ambrones, Tigurini, Teutones, Boii, Slavonic hypothesis &c.

---

ON THE ORIGINAL EXTENT OF THE SLAVONIC AREA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
FEBRUARY 8, 1850.

The current opinion, that a great portion of the area now occupied by Slavonians, and a still greater portion so occupied in the ninth and tenth centuries, were, in the times of Cæsar and Tacitus, either German, or something other than what it is found to be at the beginning of the period of authentic and contemporary history, has appeared so unsatisfactory to the present writer, that he has been induced to consider the evidence on which it rests. What (for instance) are the grounds for believing that, in the first century, Bohemia was not just as Slavonic as it is now? What the arguments in favour of a Germanic population between the Elbe and Vistula in the second?

The fact that, at the very earliest period when any definite and detailed knowledge of either of the parts in question commences, both are as little German as the Ukraine is at the present moment, is one which no one denies. How many, however, will agree with the present writer in the value to be attributed to it, is another question. For his own part, he takes the existence of a given division of the human race (whether Celtic, Slavonic, Gothic or aught else) on a given area, as a sufficient reason for considering it to have been indigenous or aboriginal to that area, until reasons be shown to the contrary. Gratuitous as this postulate may seem in the first instance, it is nothing more than the legitimate deduction from the rule in reasoning which forbids us to multiply causes unnecessarily. Displacements therefore, conquests, migrations, and the other disturbing causes are not to be assumed, merely for the sake of accounting for assumed changes, but to be supported by specific evidence; which evidence, in its turn, must have a ratio to the probability or the improbability of the disturbing causes alleged. These positions seem so self-evident, that it is only by comparing the amount of improbabilities which are accepted with the insufficiency of the testimony on which they rest, that we ascertain, from the extent to which they have been neglected, the necessity of insisting upon them.

The ethnological condition of a given population at a certain time is primâ facie evidence of a similar ethnological condition at a previous one. The testimony of a writer as to the ethnological condition of a given population at a certain time is also primâ facie evidence of such a condition being a real one; since even the worst authorities are to be considered correct until reasons are shown for doubting them.

It now remains to see how far these two methods are concordant or antagonistic for the area in question; all that is assumed being, that when we find even a good writer asserting that at one period (say the third century) a certain locality was German, whereas we know that at a subsequent one (say the tenth) it was other than German, it is no improper scepticism to ask, whether it is more likely that the writer was mistaken, or that changes have occurred in the interval; in other words, if error on the one side is not to be lightly assumed, neither are migrations, &c. on the other. Both are likely, or unlikely, according to the particular case in point. It is more probable that an habitually conquering nation should have displaced an habitually conquered one, than that a bad writer should be wrong. It is more likely that a good writer should be wrong than that an habitually conquered nation should have displaced an habitually conquering one.

The application of criticism of this sort materially alters the relations of the Celtic, Gothic, Roman and Slavonic populations, giving to the latter a prominence in the ancient world much more proportionate to their present preponderance as a European population than is usually admitted.

Beginning with the south-western frontier of the present Slavonians, let us ask what are the reasons against supposing the population of Bohemia to have been in the time of Cæsar other than what it is now, i. e. Slavonic.

In the first place, if it were not so, it must have changed within the historical period. If so, when? No writer has ever grappled with the details of the question. It could scarcely have been subsequent to the development of the Germanic power on the Danube, since this would be within the period of annalists and historians, who would have mentioned it. As little is it likely to have been during the time when the Goths and Germans, victorious everywhere, were displacing others rather than being displaced themselves.

The evidence of the language is in the same direction. Whence could it have been introduced? Not from the Saxon frontier, since there the Slavonic is Polish rather than Bohemian. Still less from the Silesian, and least of all from the Bavarian. To have developed its differential characteristics, it must have had either Bohemia itself as an original locality, or else the parts south and east of it.

We will now take what is either an undoubted Slavonic locality, or a locality in the neighbourhood of Slavonians, i. e. the country between the rivers Danube and Theiss and that range of hills which connect the Bakonyer-wald with the Carpathians, the country of the Jazyges. Now as Jazyg is a Slavonic word, meaning speech or language, we have, over and above the external evidence which makes the Jazyges Sarmatian, internal evidence as well; evidence subject only to one exception, viz. that perhaps the name in question was not native to the population which it designated, but only a term applied by some Slavonic tribe to some of their neighbours who might or might not be Slavonic. I admit that this is possible, although the name is not of the kind that would be given by one tribe to another different from itself. Admitting, however, this, it still leaves a Slavonic population in the contiguous districts; since, whether borne by the people to whom it was applied or not, Jazyg is a Slavonic gloss from the Valley of the Tibiscus.

Next comes the question as to the date of this population. To put this in the form least favourable to the views of the present writer, is to state that the first author who mentions a population in these parts, either called by others or calling itself Jazyges, is a writer so late as Ptolemy, and that he adds to it the qualifying epithet Metanastæ ([a]Μετανάσται]), a term suggestive of their removal from some other area, and of the recent character of their arrival on the Danube. Giving full value to all this, there still remains the fact of primary importance in all our investigations on the subject in question, viz. that in the time of Ptolemy (at least) there were Slavonians on (or near) the river Theiss.

At present it is sufficient to say that there are no à priori reasons for considering these Jazyges as the most western of the branch to which they belonged, since the whole of the Pannonians may as easily be considered Slavonic as aught else. They were not Germans. They were not Celts; in which case the common rules of ethnological criticism induce us to consider them as belonging to the same class with the population conterminous to them; since unless we do this, we must assume a new division of the human species altogether; a fact, which, though possible, and even probable, is not lightly to be taken up.

So much for the à priori probabilities: the known facts by no means traverse them. The Pannonians, we learn from Dio, were of the same class with the Illyrians, i. e. the northern tribes of that nation. These must have belonged to one of three divisions; the Slavonic, the Albanian, or some division now lost. Of these, the latter is not to be assumed, and the first is more probable than the second. Indeed, the more we make the Pannonians and Illyrians other than Slavonic, the more do we isolate the Jazyges; and the more we isolate these, the more difficulties we create in a question otherwise simple.

That the portion of Pannonia to the north of the Danube (i. e. the north-west portion of Hungary, or the valley of the Waag and Gran) was different from the country around the lake Peiso (Pelso), is a position, which can only be upheld by considering it to be the country of the Quadi, and the Quadi to have been Germanic;—a view, against which there are numerous objections.

Now, here re-appears the term Daci; so that we must recognise the important fact, that east of the Jazyges there are the Dacians (and Getæ) of the Lower, and west of the Jazyges the Daci of the Upper Danube. These must be placed in the same category, both being equally either Slavonic or non-Slavonic.

a. Of these alternatives, the first involves the following real or apparent difficulty, i. e. that, if the Getæ are what the Daci are, the Thracians are what the Getæ are. Hence, if all three be Slavonic, we magnify the area immensely, and bring the Slavonians of Thrace in contact with the Greeks of Macedonia. Granted. But are there any reasons against this? So far from there being any such in the nature of the thing itself, it is no more than what is actually the case at the present moment.

b. The latter alternative isolates the Jazyges, and adds to the difficulties created by their ethnological position, under the supposition that they are the only Slavonians of the parts in question; since if out-lyers to the area (exceptional, so to say), they must be either invaders from without, or else relics of an earlier and more extended population. If they be the former, we can only bring them from the north of the Carpathian mountains (a fact not in itself improbable, but not to be assumed, except for the sake of avoiding greater difficulties); if the latter, they prove the original Slavonic character of the area.

The present writer considers the Daci then (western and eastern) as Slavonic, and the following passage brings them as far west as the Maros or Morawe, which gives the name to the present Moravians, a population at once Slavonic and Bohemian:—"Campos et plana Jazyges Sarmatæ, montes vero et saltus pulsi ab his Daci ad Pathissum amnem a Maro sive Duria ... tenent."—Plin. iv. 12.

The evidence as to the population of Moravia and North-eastern Hungary being Dacian, is Strabo's [a]Γέγονε ... τῆς χόρας μερισμὸς συμμένων παλαιοῦ·] [a]τοὺς μὲν γὰρ Δάκους προσαγορεύουσι, τοὺς δὲ Γέτας, Γέτας μὲν πρὸς τὸν Πόντον κεκλιμένους, καὶ πρὸς τὲν ἕω, Δάκους δὲ τοὺς εἰς τἀνάντια πρὸς Γερμανίαν καὶ τὰς τοῦ Ἴστρου πήγας].—From Zeuss, in vv. Getæ, Daci.

In Moravia we have as the basis of argument, an existing Slavonic population, speaking a language identical with the Bohemian, but different from the other Slavonic languages, and (as such) requiring a considerable period for the evolution of its differential characters. This brings us to Bohemia. At present it is Slavonic. When did it begin to be otherwise? No one informs us on this point. Why should it not have been so ab initio, or at least at the beginning of the historical period for these parts? The necessity of an answer to this question is admitted; and it consists chiefly (if not wholly) in the following arguments;—a. those connected with the term Marcomanni; b. those connected with the term Boiohemum.

a. Marcomanni.—This word is so truly Germanic, and so truly capable of being translated into English, that those who believe in no other etymology whatever may believe that Marc-o-manni, or Marchmen, means the men of the (boundaries) marches; and without overlooking either the remarks of Mr. Kemble on the limited nature of the word mearc, when applied to the smaller divisions of land, or the doctrine of Grimm, that its primary signification is wood or forest, it would be an over-refinement to adopt any other meaning for it in the present question than that which it has in its undoubted combinations, Markgrave, Altmark, Mittelmark, Ukermark, and the Marches of Wales and Scotland. If so, it was the name of a line of enclosing frontier rather than of an area enclosed; so that to call a country like the whole of Bohemia, Marcomannic, would be like calling all Scotland or all Wales the Marches.

Again, as the name arose on the western, Germanic or Gallic side of the March, it must have been the name of an eastern frontier in respect to Gaul and Germany; so that to suppose that there were Germans on the Bohemian line of the Marcomanni, is to suppose that the march was no mark (or boundary) at all, at least in an ethnological sense. This qualification involves a difficulty which the writer has no wish to conceal; a march may be other than an ethnological division. It may be a political one. In other words, it may be like the Scottish Border, rather than like the Welsh and the Slavono-Germanic marches of Altmark, Mittelmark and Ukermark. At any rate, the necessity for a march being a line of frontier rather than a large compact kingdom, is conclusive against the whole of Bohemia having been Germanic because it was Marcomannic.

b. The arguments founded on the name Boiohemum are best met by showing that the so-called country (home) of the Boii was not Bohemia but Bavaria. This will be better done in the sequel than now. At present, however, it may be as well to state that so strong are the facts in favour of Boiohemum and Baiovarii meaning, not the one Bohemia and the other Bavaria, but one of the two countries, that Zeuss, one of the strongest supporters of the doctrine of an originally Germanic population in Bohemia, applies both of them to the firstnamed kingdom; a circumstance which prepares us for expecting, that if the names fit the countries to which they apply thus loosely, Boiohemum may as easily be Bavaria, as the country of the Baiovarii be Bohemia; in other words, that we have a convertible form of argument.

ADDENDA (1859).

(1)

Too much stress is, perhaps, laid on the name Jazyges. The fact of the word Jaszag in Magyar meaning a bowman complicates it. The probability, too, of the word for Language being the name of a nation is less than it is ought to be, considering the great extent to which it is admitted.

(2)

The statements respecting Bohemia are over-strong. Some portion of it was, probably, Marcomannic and German. The greater part, however, of the original Boio-hem-um, or home of the Boii, I still continue to give to the country of the Boian occupants—Baio-var-ii=Bavaria; the word itself being a compound of the same kind as Cant-wære=inhabitants of Kent. (See Zeuss in v. Baiovarii).

---

ON THE ORIGINAL EXTENT OF THE SLAVONIC AREA.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

MARCH 8, 1850.

The portion of the Slavonic frontier which will be considered this evening is the north-western, beginning with the parts about the Cimbric peninsula, and ending at the point of contact between the present kingdoms of Saxony and Bohemia; the leading physical link between the two extreme populations being the Elbe.

For this tract, the historical period begins in the ninth century. The classification which best shows the really westerly disposition of the Slavonians of this period, and which gives us the fullest measure of the extent to which, at that time at least, they limited the easterly extension of the Germans, is to divide them into—a. the Slavonians of the Cimbric peninsula; b. the Slavonians of the right bank of the Elbe; c. the Slavonians of the left bank of the Elbe; the first and last being the most important, as best showing the amount of what may be called the Slavonic protrusion into the accredited Germanic area.

a. The Slavonians of the Cimbric Peninsula.—Like the Slavonians that constitute the next section, these are on the right bank of the Elbe; but as they are north of that river rather than east of it, the division is natural.

The Wagrians.—Occupants of the country between the Trave and the upper portion of the southern branch of the Eyder.

The Polabi.—Conterminous with the Wagrians and the Saxons of Sturmar, from whom they were separated by the river Bille.

b. Slavonians of the right bank of the Elbe.—The Obodriti.—This is a generic rather than a specific term; so that it is probable that several of the Slavonic populations about to be noticed may be but subdivisions of the great Obotrit section. The same applies to the divisions already noticed—the Wagri and Polabi: indeed the classification is so uncertain, that we have, for these parts and times, no accurate means of ascertaining whether we are dealing with sub-divisions or cross-divisions of the Slavonians. At any rate the word Obotriti was one of the best-known of the whole list; so much so, that it is likely, in some cases, to have equalled in import the more general term Wend. The varieties of orthography and pronunciation may be collected from Zeuss (in voce), where we find Obotriti, Obotritæ, Abotriti, Abotridi, Apodritæ, Abatareni, Apdrede, Abdrede, Abtrezi. Furthermore, as evidence of the generic character of the word, we find certain East-Obotrits (Oster-Abtrezi), conterminous with the Bulgarians, as well as the North-Obotrits (Nort-Abtrezi), for the parts in question. These are the northern districts of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, from the Trave to the Warnow, chiefly along the coast. Zeuss makes Schwerin their most inland locality. The Descriptio Civitatum gives them fifty-three towns.

In the more limited sense of the term, the Obotrits are not conterminous with any German tribe, being separated by the Wagri and Polabi. Hence when Alfred writes Norðan Eald-Seaxum is Apdrede, he probably merges the two sections last-named in the Obotritic.

Although not a frontier population, the Obotrits find place in the present paper. They show that the Wagri and Polabi were not mere isolated and outlying portions of the great family to which they belonged, but that they were in due continuity with the main branches of it.

Varnahi.—This is the form which the name takes in Adam of Bremen. It is also that of the Varni, Varini, and Viruni of the classical writers; as well as of the Werini of the Introduction to the Leges Angliorum et Werinorum, hoc est Thuringorum. Now whatever the Varini of Tacitus may have been, and however much the affinities of the Werini were with the Angli, the Varnahi of Adam of Bremen are Slavonic.

c. Cis-Albian Slavonians.—Beyond the boundaries of the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg, the existence of Germans on the right bank of the Elbe is nil.

With Altmark the evidence of a Slavonic population changes, and takes strength. The present Altmark is not German, as Kent is Saxon, but only as Cornwall is, i. e. the traces of the previous Slavonic population are like the traces of the Celtic occupants of Cornwall, the rule rather than the exception. Most of the geographical names in Altmark are Slavonic, the remarkable exception being the name of the Old March itself.

The Slavono-German frontier for the parts south of Altmark becomes so complex as to require to stand over for future consideration. All that will be done at present is to indicate the train of reasoning applicable here, and applicable along the line of frontier. If such was the state of things in the eighth and ninth centuries, what reason is there for believing it to have been otherwise in the previous ones? The answer is the testimony of Tacitus and others in the way of external, and certain etymologies, &c. in the way of internal, evidence. Without at present saying anything in the way of disparagement to either of these series of proofs, the present writer, who considers that the inferences which have generally been drawn from them are illegitimate, is satisfied with exhibiting the amount of à priori improbability which they have to neutralize. If, when Tacitus wrote, the area between the Elbe and Vistula was not Slavonic, but Gothic, the Slavonians of the time of Charlemagne must have immigrated between the second and eighth centuries; must have done so, not in parts, but for the whole frontier; must have, for the first and last time, displaced a population which has generally been the conqueror rather than the conquered; must have displaced it during one of the strongest periods of its history; must have displaced it everywhere, and wholly; and (what is stranger still) that not permanently—since from the time in question, those same Germans, who between A.D. 200 and A.D. 800 are supposed to have always retreated before the Slavonians, have from A.D. 800 to A.D. 1800 always reversed the process and encroached upon their former dispossessors.

ADDENDA (1859).

(1)

The details of the Slavonic area to the south of Altmark are as follows.

Brandenburg, at the beginning of the historical period, was Slavonic, and one portion of it, the Circle of Cotbus, is so at the present moment. It is full of geographical names significant in the Slavonic languages. Of Germans to the East of the Elbe there are no signs until after the time of Charlemagne. But the Elbe is not even their eastern boundary. The Saale is the river which divides the Slavonians from the Thuringians—not only at the time when its drainage first comes to be known, but long afterwards. More than this, there were, in the 11th and 12th centuries, Slavonians in Thuringia, Slavonians in Franconia—facts which can be found in full in Zeuss vv. Fränkische und Thüringische Slawen—(Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme).

Saxony brings us down to the point with which the preceding paper concluded viz: the frontier of Bohemia. This was in the same category with Brandenburg. In Leipzig Slavonic was spoken A. D. 1327. In Lusatia it is spoken at the present moment. When were the hypothetical Germans of all these parts eliminated, or (if not eliminated) amalgamated with a population of intruders who displaced their language, not on one spot or on two, but every where?

If the Slavonians of the time of Charlemagne were indigenous to the western portion of their area, they were, a fortiori, indigenous to the eastern. At any rate, few who hold that the German populations of Bohemia, Mecklenburg, Luneburg, Altmark, Brandenburg, Saxony, Silesia, and Lusatia are recent, will doubt their being so in Pomerania.

In his Edition of the Germania of Tacitus the only Germans east of the Elbe, Saale and the Fichtel Gebirge, recognised by the present writer are certain intrusive Marcomanni; who (by hypothesis) derived from Thuringia, reached the Danube by way of the valley of Naab, and pressed eastward to some point unknown—but beyond the southern frontier of Moravia. Here they skirted the Slavonic populations of the north, and formed to their several areas the several Marches from which they took their name.

As far as we have gone hitherto we have gone in the direction of the doctrine that the Slavonians of Franconia, Thuringia, Saxony, Altmark, Luneburg, Mecklenburg, Holstein, and Brandenburg &c. were all old occupants of the districts in which they were found in the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries; also that the present Czekhs of Bohemia and Moravia, the present Serbs of Lusatia and Brandenburg, the present Kassubs of Pomerania, and the present Slovaks of Hungary represent aboriginal populations. We now ask how far this was the case with the frontagers of North-eastern Italy, and the Slavonians of Carinthia and Carniola. The conclusion to which we arrive in respect to these will apply to those of Bosnia, Servia, and Dalmatia.

That the Carinthians and Carniolans were the descendants of the Carni of the Alpes Carnicæ would never have been doubted but for the following statements—"The Krobati who now occupy the parts in the direction of Delmatia are derived from the Unbaptized Krobati, the Krovati Aspri so-called; who dwelt on the otherside of Turkey, and near France, conterminous with the Unbaptized Slaves—i. e. the Serbi. The word Krobati is explained by the dialect of the Slaves. It means the possessors of a large country"—Constantinus Porphyrogeneta—De Adm. Imp. 31. ed. Par. p. 97.

Again—"But the Krobati dwelt then in the direction of Bagivareia" (Bavaria) "where the Belokrobati are now. One tribe ([a]γενεὰ]) separated. Five brothers led them. Clukas, and Lobelos, and Kosentes, and Muklô, and Krobatos, and two sisters, Tuga and Buga. These with their people came to Delmatia—The other Krobati stayed about France, and are called Belokrobati, i. e. Aspri Krobati, having their own leader. They are subject to Otho the great king of France and Saxony. They continue Unbaptized, intermarrying" ([a]συμπενθερίας καὶ ἀγάπας ἔχοντες]) "with the Turks"—c. 30. p. 95.—The statement that the Kroatians of Dalmatia came from the Asprocroatians is repeated. The evidence, however, lies in the preceding passages; upon which it is scarcely necessary to remark that bel=white in Slavonic, and aspro=white in Romaic.

So much for the Croatians. The evidence that the Servians were in the same category, is also Constantine's.—"It must be understood that the Servians are from the Unbaptized Servians, called also Aspri, beyond Turkey, near a place called Boiki, near France—just like the Great Crobatia, also Unbaptized and White. Thence, originally, came the Servians"—c. 32. p. 99.

In the following passages the evidence improves—"The same Krobati came as suppliants to the Emperor Heraclius, before the Servians did the same, at the time of the inroads of the Avars—By his order these same Krobati having conquered the Avars, expelled them, occupied the country they occupied, and do so now"—c. 31. p. 97.

Their country extended from the River Zentina to the frontier of Istria and, thence, to Tzentina and Chlebena in Servia. Their towns were Nona, Belogradon, Belitzein, Scordona, Chlebena, Stolpon, Tenen, Kori, Klaboca—(c. 31. p. 97. 98). Their country was divided into 11. Supan-rics ([a]Ζουπανιας]).

They extended themselves. From the Krobati "who came into Dalmatia a portion detached themselves, and conquered the Illyrian country and Pannonia" (c. 30 p. 95).

The further notices of the Servians are of the same kind. Two brothers succeeded to the kingdom, of which one offered his men and services to Heraclius, who placed them at first in the Theme Thessalonica, where they grew homesick, crossed the Danube about Belgrade, repented, turned back, were placed in Servia, in the parts occupied by the Avars, and, finally, were baptized. (c. 32. p. 99.)

It is clear that all this applies to the Slavonians of Croatia, Bosnia, Servia, and Slavonia—i. e. the triangle at the junction of the Save and Danube. It has no application to Istria, Carniola, Carinthia, and Styria. Have any writers so applied it? Some have, some have not. More than this, many who have never applied it argue just as if they had. Zeuss, especially stating that the Slavonic population of the parts in question was earlier than that of Croatia, still, makes it recent. Why? This will soon be seen. At present, it is enough to state that it is not by the direct application of the passage in Porphyrogeneta that the antiquity of the Slavonic character of the Carinthians, Carniolans, and Istrians is impugned.

The real reason lies in the fact of the two populations being alike in other respects. What is this worth? Something—perhaps, much. Which way, however, does it tell? That depends on circumstances. If the Croatians be recent, the Carinthians should be so too. But what if the evidence make the Carinthians old? Then, the recency of the Croatians is impugned. Now Zeuss (vv. Alpenslawen, Carantani, and Creinarii) distinctly shews that there were Slavonians in the present districts before the time of Heraclius—not much before, but still before. Why not much? "They came only a little before", inasmuch as Procopius "gives us nothing but the old names Carni, and Norici". But what if these were Slavonic?

The present meaning of the root Carn- is March, just as it is in U-krain. In a notice of the year A. D. 974 we find "quod Carn-iola vocatur, et quod vulgo vocatur Creina marcha", the Slavonic word being translated into German. Such a fact, under ordinary circumstances would make the Carn- in Alpes Carn-icæ, a Slavonic gloss; as it almost certainly is. I do not, however, know the etymologist who has claimed it. Zeuss does not—though it is from his pages that I get the chief evidence of its being one.

Croatia, Bosnia, and Servia now come under the application of the Constantine text.

Let it pass for historical; notwithstanding the length of time between its author and the events which it records.

Let it pass for historical, notwithstanding the high probability of Crobyzi, a word used in Servia before the Christian æra, being the same as Krobati.

Let it pass for historical, notwithstanding the chances that it is only an inference from the presence of an allied population on both sides of Pannonia.

Let it pass for historical, notwithstanding the leadership of the five brothers (one the eponymus Krobatos) and the two sisters.

Let it do this, and then let us ask how it is to be interpreted. Widely or strictly? We see what stands against it viz: the existing conditions of three mountainous regions exhibiting the signs of being the occupancies of an aboriginal population as much as any countries on the face of the earth.

What then is the strict interpretation? Even this—that Heraclius introduced certain Croatians from the north into the occupancies of the dispossessed Avars apparently as military colonies. Does this mean that they were the first of their lineage? By no means. The late emperor of Russian planted Slavonic colonies of Servians in Slavonic Russia. Metal upon metal is false heraldry; but it does not follow that Slave upon Slave is bad ethnology.

With such a full realization of the insufficiency of the evidence which makes Bohemia, Carinthia, Servia &c. other than Slavonic ab initio, we may proceed to the ethnology of the parts to the west, and southwest—the Tyrol, Northern Italy, Switzerland, Bavaria, and Wurtemberg. In respect to these, we may either distribute them among the populations of the frontier, or imagine for them some fresh division of the population of Europe, once existent, but now extinct. We shall not, however, choose this latter alternative unless we forget the wholesome rule which forbids us to multiply causes unnecessarily.

Let us say, then, that the southern frontier of the division represented by the Slavonians of Carniola was originally prolonged until it touched that of the northernmost Italians. In like manner, let the Styrian and Bohemian Slaves extend till they meet the Kelts of Gaul. With this general expression I take leave of this part of the subject—a subject worked out in detail elsewhere (Edition of Prichard's Eastern origin of the Celtic Nation, and The Germania of Tacitus with Ethnological Notes,—Native Races of the Russian Empire &c.).

The northern and eastern frontiers of the Slavonians involve those of (1) Ugrians, (2) the Lithuanians.

In respect to the former, I think a case can be made out for continuing the earliest occupancy of the populations represented by the Liefs of Courland, and the Rahwas of Estonia to the Oder at least; perhaps further. This means along the coast. Their extent inland is a more complex question. The so called Fin hypothesis in its full form is regarded, by the present writer, as untenable. But between this and a vast extension of the Fin area beyond its present bounds there is a great difference. It is one thing to connect the Basks of Spain with the Khonds of India; another to bring the Estonians as far west as the Oder, or even as the Elbe. It is one thing to make an allied population occupant of Sweden, Spain, and Ireland; another to refer the oldest population of western Russia to the stock to which the eastern undeniably belongs. This latter is a mere question of more or less. The other is a difference, not of kind, but of degree. With this distinction we may start from the most southern portion of the present Ugrian area; which is that of the Morduins in the Government of Penza. Or we may start from the most western which is that of the Liefs of Courland. What are the traces of Fin occupancy between these and the Vistula and Danube—the Vistula westward, the Danube on the South. How distinct are they? And of what kind? We cannot expect them to be either obvious or numerous. Say that they are the vestiges of a state of things that has passed away a thousand years, and we only come to the time of Nestor. Say that they are doubly so old, and we have only reached the days of Herodotus; in whose time there had been a sufficient amount of encroachment and displacement to fill the southern Governments of Russia with Scythians of Asiatic origin. The Britons were the occupants of Kent at the beginning of our æra. How faint are the traces of them. We must regulate, then, our expectations according to the conditions of the question. We must expect to find things just a little more Ugrian than aught else.

From that part of Russia which could, even a thousand years ago, exhibit an indigenous population we must subtract all those districts which were occupied by the Scythians. We do not know how much comes under this category. We only know that the Agathyrsi were in Hungary, and that they were, probably, intruders. We must substract the Governments of Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, and Taurida at the very least—much of each if not all. That this is not too much is evident from the expressed opinions of competent investigators. Francis Newman carries the Scythia of Herodotus as far as Volhynia, and, in Volhynia, there were Cumanian Turks as late as the 11th century. Say, however that the aborigines were not Fins. At any rate they were not the ancestors of the present Russians—and it is the original area of these that we are now considering. In the North there were Fins when Novorogod, and in the East Fins when Moscow, was founded. In Koursk, writes Haxthausen, there is a notable difference in the physiognomy of the inhabitants; the features being Fin rather than Slavonic.

I now notice the name of Roxolani. Prichard and, doubtless, others besides see in this a Fin gloss, the termination -lani being the termination -lainen in Suomelainen, Hamelainen and several other Fin words, i. e. a gentile termination. It does not follow from this that the people themselves were Fins. It only follows that they were in a Fin neigbourhood. Some one who spoke a language in which the form in -lain- was used to denote the name of a people was on their frontier, and this frontier must have been South of that of the Roxolani themselves—else how did it come to the ears of the Greeks and Romans? If this were not the case, then was the name native, and the Roxolani were Ugrian. In either case we have a Fin gloss, and a Fin locality suggested by it. Now the country of the Roxolani either reached, or approached, the Danube.

In the account of Herodotus a population named Neuri occupied a marshy district at the back of the Scythian area; probably the marshes of Pinsk. This is, perhaps, a Fin gloss. The town of Narym in the Ostiak country takes its name from the marshes round it.

The Lithuanian language avoids the letter f.—using p. instead; sometimes m. The Greek [a]φιλεω] is mylu in Lithuanic. The name, then, that a Fin locality would take in the mouth of a Lithuanian would not be Finsk but Minsk, or Pinsk, and these are the names we find on what I think was, at one time, the Finno-Lithuanic frontier.

I should add that the Kour- in Kour-sk seems to be the Kour- in Kour-land, the Kor- in Kor-alli (a Fin population of the Middle Ages), and the Car- in the eminently, and almost typically, Fin Karelians.

This is not much in the way of evidence. Much or little, however, it is more than can be got for any other population. Much or little it is got at by a very cursory investigation. No special research has been instituted. No tumulus has been appealed to. No local dialect has been analysed. No ordnance map has been pored over. All this will, doubtless, be done in time, and if, when it has been done, no confirmation of the present doctrine be found, the propounder will reconsider it. If the evidence point elsewhere he will abandon it. At present he brings the early Fin frontier to Minsk and Pinsk:

There it touched that of the Lithuanians. To make these the most eastern members of the Sarmatian stock is, at the first view, to fly in the face of the testimony of their present position. They are, in one sense, the most western. The Germans of Prussia touch them on the side of Europe. Between them and the Fins of Asia, the vast Russian area of the Governments of Smolensko, Novogorod &c. intervene. Speaking laxly, one may say that all Russia lies beyond them. Nevertheless, it is with the Fins of Estonia that they are also in contact; whilst the explanation of the German and Russian contact is transparently clear. The Germans (as a matter of history) cut their way through whole masses of Slavonians in Pomerania, before they reached them; so displacing the Slavonians to the west of them. The Russians (again a matter of history) pressed up to them by a circuit from the south and west. The Lithuanians have kept their position—but one population has stretched beyond, and another has pressed up to them. Their language is eminently akin to the Sanskrit. Their physiognomy is the most Fin of any thoroughly European population.

There were no Slavonians, in situ, to the East of the Lithuanic area; none originally. By encroachment and change of place there are, in later times, many. There are, as aforesaid, all the Russians of the present moment. The question, however, before us is the original area, the primordial situs.

The westward extension of the Lithuanians is a matter upon which I do not press the details. I think that the Vistula may have been to them and the Slavonians what the Rhine was to the Gauls and Germans. The main question is how far can we bring them south? What justifies us in making them reach the Carpathians? At present we find them in Livonia, Courland, East Prussia, Vilna, and Grodno; but further south than Grodno nowhere; nowhere, at least, with the definite characteristics of name and language. Every inch that is given them south of Grodno must have its proper evidence to support it.

The Gothini of Tacitus are the first population that we may make Lithuanic. What says Tacitus? They were not Germans; their language proved this. They were not Sarmatians. The Sarmatians imposed a tribute upon, as on men of another stock—tributa ut alienigenis imponunt. The Quadi did the same. If neither Germans nor Sarmatians what were they? Members of a stock now extinct? The rule against the unnecessary multiplication of causes forbids us to resort to this supposition. Do so once and we may always be doing it. Were they Fins? Say that they were, and what do we gain by it? We may as well prolong the Lithuania area from Grodno as the Fin from Pinsk. Nay, better. That Grodno is Lithuanian we know. That Pinsk was Fin we infer. Were they Scythians? We know of no Scythians beyond the Maros; so that the reasoning which told against the Fin hypothesis tells equally against the Turk. Beyond the Germans, the Slavonians, the Fins, the[6]Turks, and the Lithuanians we have nothing to choose from; and I submit that the minimum amount of assumption lies with the population last named.

Now comes the name of their Language. The Language of the Gothini was Gallica—Osos Pannonica, Gothinos Gallica arguit non esse Romanos. I have given reasons elsewhere (Germania of Tacitus with Ethnological notes) for translating Gallica Gallician,—not Gallic. Say, however, that the latter is the better translation; Gothini would still be the name of the people.

There is a country, then, of the Gothini sufficiently far south to be in contact with the Quadi and Sarmatæ—the Quadi in Moravia and Upper Hungary, the Sarmatæ in the parts between the Theiss and the Danube. Gallicia meets these conditions. It was a mining country. Gallicia is this. It was on the Upper Vistula—probably at its head-waters. At the mouth of the same river the name re-appears, in that of the Gothones, Guttones, Gythones &c. of the Amber country. These were either the nearest neighbours of the Aestyii, or the Aestyii themselves under a name other than German—for Aestyii is an undoubted German gloss, just like Est- in Est- onia.

Are we justified in identifying these two populations on the strength of the name? No. What we are justified in doing, however, is this. We are justified in placing on the frontier of both a language in which the root Goth- was part of a national name.

At the beginning of the historical period these Gothones were the Lithaunians of East Prussia, and their neighbours called them Guddon. They were the congeners of those Lithuanians whose area, even now, extents as far south as Grodno.

It is easy to connect the Gothones with Grodno; but what connects Grodno with Gothinian Gallicia? What can connect it now? All is Polish or Russian. What are the proofs that it was not so from the beginning? The following—the populations between Grodno and the frontier of Gallicia, appear, for the first time in history in the 13th century; but not as Poles, nor yet as Russians, but as Lithuanians—"cum Pruthenica et Lithuanica lingua habens magna ex parte similitudinem et intelligentiam"—"lingua, ritu, religione, et moribus magnam habebat cum Lithuanis, Pruthenis et Samogitis" (the present Lithuanians of East Prussia) "conformitatem".

We cannot bring these quite down to Gallicia; and this is not to be wondered at. The first notice we have of them is very nearly the last as well. The narrative which gives us the preceding texts is the narrative of their subjugation and extinction.

What was the name of this people? I premise that we get it through a double medium, the Latin, and the Slavonic—the latter language always being greatly disguised in its adaptation to the former. The commonest form is Jaczwingi (Lat.) Jatwyazi (Slavonic); then (in documents) Getuin-zitæ, a word giving the root Gothon-. Finally, we have "Pollexiani Getharum seu Prussorum gens".

Such are the reasons for connecting the Gothini of the Marcomannic frontier with the Gothini of the Baltic, and also for making both (along with the connecting Jaczwingi) Lithuanians. This latter point, however, is unessential to the present investigation; which simply considers the area of the Slavonians. For the parts north of the Carpathians, it was limited by a continuous line of Gothini, Getuinzitæ, and Gothones. Whatever those were they were not Slavonic.

Such is the sketch of the chief reasons for believing that originally the Vistula (there or thereabouts) was the boundary of the Slavonians on the North East; a belief confirmed by the phenomena of the languages spoken, at the present moment, beyond that river. They fall into few dialects; a fact which is prima facie evidence of recent introduction. The Polish branch shews itself in varieties and subvarieties on its western frontier; the Russian on its southern and south-eastern. The further they are found East and North, the newer they are.

I may add that I find no facts in the special ethnology of the early Poles, that complicate this view. On the contrary, the special facts, such as they are, are confirmatory rather than aught else of the western origin and the eastern direction, of a Polish line of encroachment, migration, occupancy, displacement, invasion, or conquest. Under the early kings of the blood of Piast (an individual wholly unhistoric), the locality for their exploits and occupancies is no part of the country about the present capital, Warsaw; but the district round Posen and Gnesen; this being the area to which the earliest legends attach themselves.

Where this is not the case, where the Duchy of Posen or Prussian Poland does not give us the earliest signs of Polish occupancy, the parts about Cracow do. At any rate, the legends lie in the west and south rather than in the east; on the Saxon or the Bohemian frontier rather than the Lithuanic.

The Slavonic area south of the Carpathians gives us a much more complex question—one, indeed, too complex to investigate it in all its bearings.

That there were both Slavonians and Lithuanians in Dacia, Lower Mœsia, Thrace, and, even, Macedon is nearly certain—and that early. Say that they were this at the beginning of the historical period. It will, by no means, make them aboriginal.

Such being the case I limit myself to the statement that, at the beginning of the historical period, the evidence and reasoning that connects the Thracians with the Getæ, the Getæ with the Daci, and the Daci with the Sarmatian stock in general is sufficient. Whether it makes them indigenous to their several areas is another question. It is also another question whether the relationship between them was so close as the current statements make it. These identify the Getæ and Daci. I imagine that they were (there or thereabouts) as different as the Bohemians and the Lithuanians—the Getic Lithuanians, and the Dacian (Daci=[a]Τζαχοι]) Czekhs; both, however being Sarmatian.

I also abstain from the details of a question of still greater importance and interest viz: the extent to which a third language of the class which contains the Slavonian and Lithuanic may or may not have been spoken in the parts under notice. There was room for it in the parts to the South of the Fin, and the east of the Lithuanic, areas. There was room for it in the present Governments of Podolia, and Volhynia, to say nothing of large portions of the drainage of the Lower Danube. The language of such an area, if its structure coincided with its geographical position would be liker the Lithuanic and the most eastern branch of the Slavonic than any other Languages of the so-called Indo-European Stock. It would also be more Sarmatian than either German or Classical. Yet it would be both Classical and German also, on the strength of the term Indo-European. It would be the most Asiatic of the tongues so denominated; with some Ugrian affinities, and others with the languages in the direction of Armenia, and Persia. It would be a language, however, which would soon be obliterated; in as much as the parts upon which we place it were, at an early date, overrun by Scythians from the East, and Slavonians from the West. When we know Volhynia, it is Turk, and Polish,—anything but aboriginal. Such a language, however, might, in case the populations who spoke it had made early conquests elsewhere, be, still, preserved to our own times. Or it might have been, at a similarly early period, committed to writings; the works in which it was embodied having come down to us. If so, its relations to its congeners would be remarkable. They would only be known in a modern, it only in an ancient, form. Such being the case the original affinity might be disguised; especially if the transfer of the earlier language had been to some very distant and unlikely point.

I will now apply this hypothetical series of arguments. It has long been known that the ancient, sacred, and literary language of Northern India has its closest grammatical affinities in Europe. With none of the tongues of the neighbouring countries, with no form of the Tibetan of the Himalayas or the Burmese dialects of the north-east, with no Tamul dialect of the southern part of the Peninsula itself has it half such close resemblances as it has with the distant and disconnected Lithuanian.

As to the Lithuanian, it has, of course, its closest affinities with the Slavonic tongues of Russia, Bohemia, Poland, and Servia, as aforesaid. And when we go beyond the Sarmatian stock, and bring into the field of comparison the other tongues of Europe, the Latin, the Greek, the German, and the Keltic, we find that the Lithuanic is more or less connected with them.

Now, the botanist who, found in Asia, extended over a comparatively small area, a single species, belonging to a genus which covered two-thirds of Europe (except so far as he might urge that everything came from the east, and so convert the specific question into an hypothesis as to the origin of vegetation in general) would pronounce the genus to be European. The zoologist, in a case of zoology, would do the same.

Mutatis mutandis, the logic of the philologue should be that of the naturalist. Yet it is not.

1. The area of Asiatic languages in Asia allied to the ancient Language of India, is smaller than the area of European languages allied to the Lithuanic; and—

2. The class or genus to which the two tongues equally belong, is represented in Asia by the Indian division only; whereas in Europe it falls into three divisions, each of, at least, equal value with the single Asiatic one.

Nevertheless, the so-called Indo-European languages are deduced from Asia.

I do not ask whether, as a matter of fact, this deduction is right or wrong. I only state, as a matter of philological history, that it is made, adding that the hypothesis which makes it is illegitimate. It rests on the assumption that it is easier to bring a population from India to Russia than to take one from Russia to India. In the case of the more extreme language of which it takes cognisance this postulate becomes still more inadmissible. It assumes, in the matter of the Keltic (for instance), that it is easier to bring the people of Galway from the Punjab, than the tribes of the Punjab from Eastern Europe. In short, it seems to be a generally received rule amongst investigators, that so long as we bring our migration from east to west we may let a very little evidence go a very long way; whereas, so soon as we reverse the process, and suppose a line from west to east, the converse becomes requisite, and a great deal of evidence is to go but a little way. The effect of this has been to create innumerable Asiatic hypotheses and few or no European ones. Russia may have been peopled from Persia, or Lithuania from Hindostan, or Greece from Asia, or any place west of a given meridian from any place east of it—but the converse, never. No one asks for proofs in the former case; or if he do, he is satisfied with a very scanty modicum: whereas, in the latter, the best authenticated statements undergo stringent scrutiny. Inferences fare worse. They are hardly allowed at all. It is all "theory and hypothesis" if we resort to them in cases from west to east; but it is no "theory" and no "hypothesis" when we follow the sun and move westwards.

Let the two lines be put on a level, and let ethnographical philology cease to be so one-sided as it is. Let the possibility of a Western origin of the Sanskrit language take its natural place as the member of an alternative hitherto ignored. I do not say what will follow in the way of historical detail. I only say (in the present paper at least) that the logic of an important class of philological questions will be improved. As it stands at present, it is little more than a remarkable phenomenon in the pathology of the philological mind, a symptom of the morbid condition of the scientific imagination of learned men.

Turning westwards we now take up the Slovenians of Carinthia and Styria on their western frontier, not forgetting the southermost of the Czekhs of Bohemia. How far did the Slavonic area extend in the direction of Switzerland, Gaul, and Italy?

In the Tyrol we have such geographical names as Scharn-itz, Gshnitz-thal, and Vintsh-gau; in the Vorarlberg, Ked-nitz and Windisch-matrei. Even where the names are less definitely Slavonic, the compound sibilant tsh, so predominant in Slavonic, so exceptional in German, is of frequent occurrence. This, perhaps, is little, yet is more than can be found in any country known to have been other than Slavonic.

Again—a Slavonic population in the Vorarlberg and Southern Bavaria best accounts for the name Vind-elicia.

If the Slavonians are aboriginal, and if the Czekhs are the same, the decisive evidence that, within the historical period, they have both receded is in favor of their respective areas having originally been greater than they are at present. Such being the case, we may bring them both further south and further west. How far? This is a question of minute detail, not to be answered off-hand. The rule of parsimony, however, by which we are forbidden to multiply stocks unnecessarily, carries them to the frontier of the Gauls in one direction, and the Italians on the other.

If so, there may have been Slavonians on the frontier of Liguria. More than this the Rhæti may have been Slavonic also. But many make the Etruscans Rhætian. Is it possible however, that even the Etruscans were Slavonic?

I know of numerous opinions against their being so. I know of no facts.

---

ON THE TERMS OF GOTHI AND GETÆ.

OBSERVATIONS LAID BEFORE THE ETHNOLOGICAL SECTION, AT THE MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, HELD AT BIRMINGHAM 1849.

So far from the Gothi and Getæ being identical there is no reason to believe that any nation of Germany ever bore the former of these two names until it reached the country of the population designated by the latter. If so, the Goths were Gothic, just as certain Spaniards are Mexican and Peruvian; and just as certain Englishmen are Britons i.e. not at all.

The Goths of the Danube, etc. leave Germany as Grutungs and Thervings, become Marcomanni along the Bohemian and Moravian frontiers, Ostrogoths and Visigoths, on the Lower Danube (or the land of the Getæ), and Mœsogoths (from the locality in which they become Christian) in Mœsia.

What were the Goths of Scandinavia? It is not I who am the first by many scores of investigators to place all the numerous populations to which the possible modifications of the root G—t apply in the same category. I only deny that that category is German. Few separate the Jutes of Jutland, from the Goths of Gothland. Then there is the word Vitæ; which is to Gut-, as Will-iam is to Gul-ielmus, a form that was probably Lithuanic.

If J+t, as it occurs in the word Jute, be, really, the same as the G+t in Got or Goth, we have a reason in favour of one of the earlier Danish populations having been Lithuanic.

The four islands of Sealand, Laaland, Moen, and Falster formed the ancient Vithesleth. This division is of considerable import; since the true country of Dan, the eponymus of the Danes, was not Jutland, nor yet Skaane, nor yet Fyen. It was the Four Islands of the Vithesleth:—"Dan—rex primo super Sialandiam, Monam, Falstriam, et Lalandiam, cujus regnum dicebatur Vithesleth. Deinde super alias provincias et insulas et totum regnum."—Petri Olai Chron. Regum Daniæ. Also, "Vidit autem Dan regionem suam, super quam regnavit, Jutiam, Fioniam, Withesleth, Scaniam quod esset bona."—Annal. Esrom. p. 224.

That the Swedes and Norwegians are the newest Scandinavians and that certain Ugrians were the oldest, is undoubted. But it by no means follows that the succession was simple. Between the first and last there may have been any amount of intercalations. Was this the case? My own opinion is, that the first encroachments upon the originally Ugrian area of Scandinavia were not from the south-west, but from the south-east, not from Hanover but from Prussia and Courland, not German but Lithuanic, and (as a practical proof of the inconvenience of the present nomenclature) although not German, Gothic.

Whether these encroachments were wholly Lithuanic, rather than Slavonic as well, is doubtful. When the archæology of Scandinavia is read aright, i. e. without a German prepossession, the evidence of a second population will become clear. This however, is a detail.

The Gothic historian Jornandes, deduces the Goths of the Danube first from the southern coasts of the Baltic, and ultimately from Scandinavia. I think, however, that whoever reads his notices will be satisfied that he has fallen into the same confusion in respect to the Germans of the Lower Danube and the Getæ whose country they settled in, as an English writer would do who should adapt the legends of Geoffrey of Monmouth respecting the British kings to the genealogies of Ecbert and Alfred or to the origin of the warriors under Hengist. The legends of the soil and the legends of its invaders have been mixed together.

Nor is such confusion unnatural. The real facts before the historian were remarkable. There were Goths on the Lower Danube, Germanic in blood, and known by the same name as the older inhabitants of the country. There were Gothones, or Guttones, in the Baltic, the essential part of whose name was Goth-; the -n- being, probably, and almost certainly, an inflexion.

Thirdly, there were Goths in Scandinavia, and Goths in an intermediate island of the Baltic. With such a series of Goth-lands, the single error of mistaking the old Getic legends for those of the more recent Germans (now called Goths), would easily engender others; and the most distant of the three Gothic areas would naturally pass for being the oldest also. Hence, the deduction of the Goths of the Danube from the Scandinavian Gothland.

---