of the illustration of an ethnological method, take these names along with the observations by which they were preceded, as if they were wholly unexceptionable; and, having done this, ask how far each is known as German. So doing, we must make two divisions:
a. Those which we have no reason to think other than Angle or Saxon.
b. Those which indicate elements of the migration other than Angle or Saxon.
[§ 126]. Patronymics which do not necessarily denote a non-Saxon element.—Of these, the following are so little known, that they may pass as Saxons, simply because we have no grounds for thinking them aught else; the Brentings, Banings, Helsings, Serings, Ardings, Hundings, Blekings, Herelings, Gytings, Scydings, Dylings. The Scyldings and Scefings, belong, in a more positive way, to the Anglo-Saxon division; since their eponymi, Scyld and Sceaf, form a portion of the Anglo-Saxon mythology.
[§ 127]. Patronymics indicating a non-Saxon, rather than a Saxon element.—a. The Wælsings—In the way of tradition and mythology, this is a Frank gentile name.
b. The Myrgings.—Ditto. This is the German form of the Merovingians.
c. The Hocings.—This is the German form of the Chauci, and, as such, a Frisian gentile name.
d. The Dhyrings.—Perhaps Thuringians of Thuringia.
Thus, then, if we still assume that the method in question is unexceptionable, we have, from the evidence of what may be called either the gentile forms, or the patronymics in -ing, reasons for believing that Frank Myrgings, Frisian Hocings, and Thuringian Dhyrings, formed part of the invasion—these, at least; possibly others besides.
And why should the reason be other than unexceptionable? Do we not in North America, believe, that, as a general rule, the families with particular names, coincide with the families so-called in England; that the names of certain places, sometimes, at least, indicate a population originating in places similarly designated here? that the Smiths and Johnstons