THE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

BY

ROBERT GORDON LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S.,

LATE FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; FELLOW OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF
PHYSICIANS, LONDON; MEMBER OF THE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
NEW YORK; LATE PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
AND LITERATURE, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.

THIRD EDITION,

REVISED AND GREATLY ENLARGED.

LONDON:

TAYLOR, WALTON, AND MABERLY,

UPPER GOWER STREET, AND IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW.

1850.

LONDON:
Printed by Samuel Bentley & Co.,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

TO

THE REV. WILLIAM BUTCHER, M.A.,

OF

ROPSLEY, LINCOLNSHIRE,

IN ADMIRATION OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS A LINGUIST,

AND AS A TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE REGARD,

The following pages are Inscribed,

BY HIS FRIEND,

THE AUTHOR.

London,

Nov. 4, 1841.

PREFACE

TO THE

SECOND EDITION.

The first edition of the present work was laid before the public, with the intention of representing in a form as systematic as the extent of the subject would allow, those views concerning the structure and relations of the English language, which amongst such scholars as had studied them with the proper means and opportunities, were then generally received; and which, so being received, might take their stand as established and recognized facts. With the results of modern criticism, as applied to his native tongue, it was conceived that an educated Englishman should be familiar. To this extent the special details of the language were exhibited; and to this extent the work was strictly a Grammar of the English Language.

But besides this, it was well known that the current grammarians, and the critical philologists, had long ceased to write alike upon the English, or

indeed upon any other, language. For this reason the sphere of the work became enlarged; so that, on many occasions, general principles had to be enounced, fresh terms to be defined, and old classifications to be remodelled. This introduced extraneous elements of criticism, and points of discussion which, in a more advanced stage of English philology, would have been superfluous. It also introduced elements which had a tendency to displace the account of some of the more special and proper details of the language. There was not room for the exposition of general principles, for the introduction of the necessary amount of preliminary considerations, and for the minutiæ of an extreme analysis. Nor is there room for all this at present. A work that should, at one and the same time, prove its principles, instead of assuming them, supply the full and necessary preliminaries in the way of logic, phonetics, and ethnology, and, besides this, give a history of every variety in the form of every word, although, perhaps, a work that one man might write, would be a full and perfect Thesaurus of the English Language, and, would probably extend to many volumes. For, in the English language, there are many first principles to be established, and much historical knowledge to be applied. Besides which, the particular points both of etymology and syntax are far more numerous than is imagined. Scanty as is the amount of declension and conjugation in current use, there are to be found in every department of our grammars,

numerous isolated words which exhibit the fragments of a fuller inflection, and of a more highly developed etymology. This is well-known to every scholar who has not only viewed our language as a derivative of the Anglo-Saxon, and observed that there are similar relations between many other languages (e. g. the Italian and Latin, the German and Mœso-Gothic, &c.), but who has, also, generalized the phenomena of such forms of relationship and derivation, and enabled himself to see in the most uninflected languages of the nineteenth century, the fragments of a fuller and more systematic inflection, altered by time, but altered in a uniform and a general manner.

The point, however, upon which, in the prefaces both of the first edition of the present work and of his English Grammar, the writer has most urgently insisted is the disciplinal character of grammatical studies in general, combined with the fact, that the grammatical study of one's own language is almost exclusively disciplinal. It is undoubtedly true, that in schools something that is called English Grammar is taught: and it is taught pretty generally. It is taught so generally that, I believe, here are only two classes of English boys and girls who escape it—those who are taught nothing at all in any school whatever, and those who are sent so early to the great classical schools (where nothing is taught but Latin and Greek), as to escape altogether the English part of their scholastic education. But

what is it that is thus generally taught? not the familiar practice of speaking English—that has been already attained by the simple fact of the pupil having been born on English soil, and of English parents. Not the scientific theory of the language—that is an impossibility with the existing text-books. Neither, then, of these matters is taught. Nevertheless labour is expended, and time is consumed. What is taught? Something undoubtedly. The facts, that language is more or less regular (i. e. capable of having its structure exhibited by rules); that there is such a thing as grammar; and that certain expressions should be avoided, are all matters worth knowing. And they are all taught even by the worst method of teaching. But are these the proper objects of systematic teaching? Is the importance of their acquisition equivalent to the time, the trouble, and the displacement of more valuable subjects, which are involved in their explanation? I think not. Gross vulgarity of language is a fault to be prevented; but the proper prevention is to be got from habit—not rules. The proprieties of the English language are to be learned, like the proprieties of English manners, by conversation and intercourse; and the proper school for both, is the best society in which the learner is placed. If this be good, systematic teaching is superfluous; if bad, insufficient. There are undoubted points where a young person may doubt as to the grammatical propriety of a certain expression. In this case let him ask some one older, and more instructed. Grammar,

as an art, is, undoubtedly, the art of speaking and writing correctly—but then, as an art, it is only required for foreign languages. For our own we have the necessary practice and familiarity.

The claim of English grammar to form part and parcel of an English education stands or falls with the value of the philological and historical knowledge to which grammatical studies may serve as an introduction, and with the value of scientific grammar as a disciplinal study. I have no fear of being supposed to undervalue its importance in this respect. Indeed in assuming that it is very great, I also assume that wherever grammar is studied as grammar, the language which the grammar so studied should represent, must be the mother-tongue of the student; whatever that mother-tongue may be—English for Englishmen, Welsh for Welshmen, French for Frenchmen, German for Germans, &c. This study is the study of a theory; and for this reason it should be complicated as little as possible by points of practice. For this reason a man's mother-tongue is the best medium for the elements of scientific philology, simply because it is the one which he knows best in practice.

Now if, over and above the remarks upon the English language, and the languages allied to it, there occur in the present volume, episodical discussions of points connected with other languages, especially the Latin and Greek, it is because a greater portion of the current ideas on philological subjects

is taken from those languages than from our own. Besides which, a second question still stands over. There is still the question as to the relative disciplinal merits of the different non-vernacular languages of the world. What is the next best vehicle for philological philosophy to our mother-tongue, whatever that mother-tongue maybe? Each Athenian who fought at Salamis considered his own contributions to that great naval victory the greatest; and he considered them so because they were his own. So it is with the language which we speak, and use, and have learned as our own. Yet each same Athenian awarded the second place of honour to Themistocles. The great classical languages of Greece and Rome are in the position of Themistocles. They are the best when the question of ourselves and our possessions is excluded. They are the best in the eyes of an indifferent umpire. More than this; if we take into account the studies of the learned world, they are second only to the particular mother-tongue of the particular student, in the way of practical familiarity. Without either affirming or denying that, on the simple scores of etymological regularity, etymological variety, and syntactic logic, the Sanskrit may be their equal, it must still be admitted that this last-named language has no claims to a high value as a practical philological discipline upon the grounds of its universality as a point of education; nor will it have. Older than the Greek, it may (or may not) be; more multiform than the Latin, it may (or may not) be: but equally rich in the attractions

of an unsurpassed literature, and equally influential as a standard of imitation, it neither has been nor can be. We may admit all that is stated by those who admire its epics, or elucidate its philosophy; we may admire all this and much more besides, but we shall still miss the great elements of oratory and history, that connect the ancient languages of Greece and Italy with the thoughts, and feelings, and admiration of recent Europe.

The same sort of reasoning applies to the Semitic languages. One element they have, in their grammatical representation, which gives them a value in philological philosophy, in the abstract, above all other languages—the generality of the expression of their structure. This is symbolic, and its advantage is that it exhibits the naturally universal phenomena of their construction in a universal language. Yet neither this nor their historical value raises them to the level of the classical languages.

Now, what has just been written has been written with a view towards a special inference, and as the preliminary to a practical deduction; and it would not have been written but for some such ulterior application. If these languages have so high a disciplinal value, how necessary it is that the expression of their philological phenomena should be accurate, scientific, and representative of their true growth and form? How essential that their grammars should exhibit nothing that may hereafter be unlearned? Pace grammaticorum dixerim, this is not the case. Bad

as is Lindley Murray in English, Busby and Lilly are worse in Greek and Latin. This is the comparison of the men on the low rounds of the ladder. What do we find as we ascend? Is the grammatical science of even men like Mathiæ and Zump much above that of Wallis? Does Buttmann's Greek give so little to be unlearned as Grimm's German? By any one who has gone far in comparative philology, the answer will be given in the negative.

This is not written in the spirit of a destructive criticism. If an opinion as to the fact is stated without reserve, it is accompanied by an explanation, and (partially, perhaps) by a justification. It is the business of a Greek and Latin grammarian to teach Greek and Latin cito, tute, ac jucunde,—cito, that is, between the years of twelve and twenty-four; tute, that is, in a way that quantities may be read truly, and hard passages translated accurately; jucunde, that is, as the taste and memory of the pupil may determine. With this view the grammar must be artificial. Granted. But then it should profess to be so. It should profess to address the memory only, not the understanding. Above all it should prefer to leave a point untaught, than to teach it in a way that must be unlearned.

In 1840, so little had been done by Englishmen for the English language, that in acknowledging my great obligations to foreign scholars, I was only able to speak to what might be done by my own countrymen. Since then, however, there has been a good

beginning of what is likely to be done well. My references to the works of Messrs. Kemble, Garnet, and Guest, show that my authorities are now as much English as German. And this is likely to be the case. The details of the syntax, the illustrations drawn from our provincial dialects, the minute history of individual words, and the whole system of articulate sounds can, for the English, only be done safely by an Englishman: or, to speak more generally, can, for any language, only be dealt with properly by the grammarian whose mother-tongue is that language. The Deutsche Grammatik of Grimm is the work not of an age nor of a century, but, like the great history of the Athenian, a κτῆμα εἰς ἀεί. It is the magazine from whence all draw their facts and illustrations. Yet it is only the proper German portion that pretends to be exhaustive. The Dutch and Scandinavians have each improved the exhibition of their own respective languages. Monument as is the Deutsche Grammatik of learning, industry, comprehensiveness, and arrangement, it is not a book that should be read to the exclusion of others: nor must it be considered to exhibit the grammar of the Gothic languages, in a form unsusceptible of improvement. Like all great works, it is more easily improved than imitated. One is almost unwilling to recur to the old comparison between Aristotle, who absorbed the labour of his predecessors, and the Eastern sultans, who kill-off their younger brothers. But such is the case with Grimm and his fore-runners in philology. Germany, that, in

respect to the Reformation, is content to be told that Erasmus laid the egg which Luther hatched, must also acknowledge that accurate and systematic scholars of other countries prepared the way for the Deutsche Grammatik,—Ten Kate in Holland; Dowbrowsky, a Slavonian; and Rask, a Dane.

Nor are there wanting older works in English that have a value in Gothic philology. I should be sorry to speak as if, beyond the writers of what may be called the modern school of philology, there was nothing for the English grammarian both to read and study. The fragments of Ben Jonson's English Grammar are worth the entireties of many later writers. The work of Wallis is eminently logical and precise. The voice of a mere ruler of rules is a sound to flee from; but the voice of a truly powerful understanding is a thing to be heard on all matters. It is this which gives to Cobbett and Priestley, to Horne Tooke as a subtle etymologist, and to Johnson as a practical lexicographer, a value in literary history, which they never can have in grammar. It converts unwholesome doctrines into a fertile discipline of thought.

The method of the present work is mixed. It is partly historical, and partly logical. The historical portions exhibit the way in which words and inflections have been used; the logical, the way in which they ought to be used. Now I cannot conceal from either my readers or myself the fact that philological criticism at the present moment is of an essentially

historical character. It has been by working the historical method that all the great results both in general and special scholarship have been arrived at; and it is on historical investigation that the whole induction of modern philology rests. All beyond is à priori argument; and, according to many, à priori argument out of place. Now, this gives to the questions in philology, to questions concerning the phenomena of concord, government, &c. a subordinate character. It does so, however, improperly. Logic is in language what it is in reasoning,—a rule and standard. But in its application to reasoning and to language there is this difference. Whilst illogical reasoning, and illogical grammar are equally phenomena of the human mind, even as physical disease is a phenomenon of the human body, the illogical grammar can rectify itself by its mere continuance, propagation, and repetition. In this respect the phenomena of language stand apart from the other phenomena of either mind or organized matter. No amount of false argument can make a fallacy other than a fallacy. No amount of frequency can make physical disease other than a predisposing cause to physical disorganization. The argument that halts in its logic, is not on a par with the argument that is sound. Such also is the case with any bodily organ. No prevalence of sickness can ever evolve health. Language, however, as long as it preserves the same amount of intelligibility is always language. Provided it serve as a medium, it does its proper work;

and as long as it does this, it is, as far as its application is concerned, faultless. Now there is a limit in logical regularity which language is perpetually overstepping; just as there is a logical limit which the reasoning of common life is perpetually overstepping, and just as there is a physiological limit which the average health of men and women may depart from. This limit is investigated by the historical method; which shows the amount of latitude in which language may indulge and yet maintain its great essential of intelligibility. Nay, more, it can show that it sometimes transgresses the limit in so remarkable a manner, as to induce writers to talk about the corruption of a language, or the pathology of a language, with the application of many similar metaphors. Yet it is very doubtful whether all languages, in all their stages, are not equally intelligible, and, consequently, equally what they ought to be, viz., mediums of intercourse between man and man; whilst, in respect to their growth, it is almost certain that so far from exhibiting signs of dissolution, they are, on the contrary, like the Tithonus of mythology, the Strulbrugs of Laputa, or, lastly, such monsters as Frankenstein, very liable to the causes of death, but utterly unable to die. Hence, in language, whatever is, is right; a fact which, taken by itself, gives great value to the historical method of inquiry, and leaves little to the à priori considerations of logic.

But, on the other hand, there is a limit in logical regularity, which language never oversteps: and as

long as this is the case, the study of the logical standard of what language is in its normal form must go hand in hand with the study of the processes that deflect it. The investigation of the irregularities of language—and be it remembered that almost all change implies original irregularity—is analogous to the investigation of fallacies in logic. It is the comparison between the rule and the practice, with this difference, that in language the practice can change the rule, which in logic is impossible. I am sure that these remarks are necessary in order to anticipate objections that may be raised against certain statements laid down in the syntax. I often write as if I took no account of the historical evidence, in respect to particular uses of particular words. I do so, not because I undervalue that department of philology, but because it is out of place. To show that one or more writers, generally correct, have used a particular expression is to show that they speak, in a few instances, as the vulgar speak in many. To show that the vulgar use one expression for another is to show that two ideas are sufficiently allied to be expressed in the same manner: in other words, the historical fact is accompanied by a logical explanation; and the historical deviation is measured by a logical standard.

I am not desirous of sacrificing a truth to an antithesis, but so certain is language to change from logical accuracy to logical licence, and, at the same time, so certain is language, when so changed, to be

just as intelligible as before, that I venture upon asserting that, not only whatever is, is right, but also, that in many cases, whatever was, was wrong. There is an antagonism, between logic and practice; and the phenomena on both sides must be studied.

CONTENTS.

AN INTRODUCTION

TO THE STUDY OF

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

PART I.

GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

————

CHAPTER I.

GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—DATE.

[§ 1]. The first point to be remembered in the history of the English Language, is that it was not the original language of any of the British Islands altogether or of any portion of them. Indeed, of the whole of Great Britain it is not the language at the present moment. Welsh is spoken in Wales, Manks in the Isle of Man, Scotch Gaelic in the Highlands of Scotland, and Irish Gaelic in Ireland. Hence, the English that is now spoken was once as foreign to our country as it is at present to the East Indies; and it is no more our primitive vernacular tongue, than it is the primitive vernacular tongue for North America, Jamaica, or Australia. Like the English of Sydney, or the English of Pennsylvania, the English of Great Britain spread itself at the expense of some earlier and more aboriginal language, which it displaced and superseded.

[§ 2]. The next point involves the real origin and the real affinities of the English Language. Its real origin is on the continent of Europe, and its real affinities are with certain languages there spoken. To speak more specifically, the native country of the English Language is Germany; and the Germanic languages are those that are the most closely connected with our own. In Germany, languages and dialects allied to each other and allied to the mother-tongue of the English have been spoken from times anterior to history; and these, for most purposes of philology, may be considered as the aboriginal languages and dialects of that country.

[§ 3]. Accredited details of the different immigrations from Germany into Britain.—Until lately the details of the different Germanic invasions of England, both in respect to the particular tribes by which they were made, and the order in which they succeeded each other, were received with but little doubt, and as little criticism.

Respecting the tribes by which they were made, the current opinion was, that they were chiefly, if not exclusively, those of the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles.

The particular chieftains that headed each descent were also known, as well as the different localities upon which they descended. These were as follows:—

[§ 4]. First settlement of invaders from Germany.—The account of this gives us the year 449 for the first permanent Germanic tribes settled in Britain. Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet, was the spot where they landed; and the particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of Jutes. Their leaders were Hengist and Horsa. Six years after their landing they had established the kingdom of Kent; so that the county of Kent was the first district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany.

[§ 5]. Second settlement of invaders from Germany.—In the year 477 invaders from Northern Germany made the second permanent settlement in Britain. The coast of Sussex was the spot whereon they landed. The particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of Saxons. Their leader

was Ella. They established the kingdom of the South Saxons (Sussex); so that the county of Sussex was the second district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany.

[§ 6]. Third settlement of invaders from Germany.—In the year 495 invaders from Northern Germany made the third permanent settlement in Britain. The coast of Hampshire was the spot whereon they landed. Like the invaders last mentioned, these tribes were Saxons. Their leader was Cerdic. They established the kingdom of the West Saxons (Wessex); so that the county of Hants was the third district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany.

[§ 7]. Fourth settlement of invaders from Germany.—A.D. 530, certain Saxons landed in Essex, so that the county of Essex was the fourth district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany.

[§ 8]. Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany.—These were Angles in Norfolk and Suffolk. This settlement, of which the precise date is not known, took place during the reign of Cerdic in Wessex. The fifth district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English was the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; the particular dialect introduced being that of the Angles.

[§ 9]. Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany.—In the year 547 invaders from Northern Germany made the sixth permanent settlement in Britain. The south-eastern counties of Scotland, between the rivers Tweed and Forth, were the districts where they landed. They were of the tribe of the Angles, and their leader was Ida. The south-eastern parts of Scotland constituted the sixth district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany.

[§ 10]. It would be satisfactory if these details rested upon cotemporary evidence; in which case the next question would

be that of the relations of the immigrant tribes to each other as Germans, i.e. the extent to which the Jute differed from (or agreed with) the Angle, or the Saxon, and the relations of the Angle and the Saxon to each other. Did they speak different languages?—different dialects of a common tongue!—or dialects absolutely identical? Did they belong to the same or to different confederations? Was one polity common to all? Were the civilizations similar?

Questions like these being answered, and a certain amount of mutual difference being ascertained, it would then stand over to inquire whether any traces of this original difference were still to be found in the modern English. Have any provincial dialects characteristics which are Jute rather than Angle? or Angle rather than Saxon?

It is clear that the second of these questions is involved in the answer given to the first.

[§ 11]. The accredited relations of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons to each other as Germans.—These are as follows:—

1. That the geographical locality of the Jutes was the Peninsula of Jutland.

2. That that of Angles, was the present Dutchy of Sleswick; so that they were the southern neighbours of the Jutes.

3. That that of the Saxons was a small tract north of the Elbe, and some distinct point—more or less extensive—between the Elbe and Rhine.

4. That, although there were, probably, dialectal differences between the languages, the speech of all the three tribes was mutually intelligible.

[§ 12]. Assuming, then, the accuracy of our historical facts, the inference is, that, without expecting to find any very prominent and characteristic differences between the different inhabitants of England arising out of the original differences between the Germanic immigrants, we are to look for what few there are in the following quarters—

1. For the characteristic differentiæ of the Jutes, in Kent, part of Sussex, and the Isle of Wight.

2. For those of the Saxons in Sussex, Essex, Hants (Wessex), and Middlesex.

3. For those of the Angles in Norfolk, Suffolk, Yorkshire, Durham, and Northumberland.

Or, changing the expression:—

1. The differentiæ of the people of Kent, part of Sussex, and the Isle of Wight (if any), are to be explained by the differentiæ of the original Jute immigrants—

2. Those of the rest of Sussex, Wessex, Essex, and Middlesex, by those of the Saxons—

3. Those of the people of Norfolk, &c., by those of the Angles.

Such is our reasoning, and such a sketch of our philological researches—assuming that the opinions just exhibited, concerning the dates, conductors, localities, and order, are absolute and unimpeachable historical facts.

[§ 13]. Criticism of the aforesaid details.—As a preliminary to this part of the subject, the present writer takes occasion to state once for all, that nearly the whole of the following criticism is not his own (except, of course, so far as he adopts it—which he does), but Mr. Kemble's, and that it forms the introduction to his valuable work on the Saxons in England.

1. The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but traditional.—a. Bede, from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote more than 300 years after the supposed event, i.e., the landing of Hengist and Horsa, in A.D. 449.

b. The nearest contemporary author is Gildas, and he lived at least 100 years after it.

2. The account of Hengist's and Horsa's landing, has elements which are fictional rather than historical—a. Thus "when we find Hengist and Horsa approaching the coasts of Kent in three keels, and Ælli effecting a landing in Sussex with the same number, we are reminded of the Gothic tradition which carries a migration of Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Gepidæ, also in three vessels, to the mouths of the Vistula."

b. The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told totidem verbis, by Widukind, and others of the Old Saxons in Thuringia.

c. Geoffry of Monmouth relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the Britons as much land as could be enclosed

by an ox-hide; then, cutting the hide into thongs, enclosed a much larger space than the granters intended, on which he erected Thong Castle—a tale too familiar to need illustration, and which runs throughout the mythus of many nations. Among the Old Saxons, the tradition is in reality the same, though recorded with a slight variety of detail. In their story, a lap-full of earth is purchased at a dear rate from a Thuringian; the companions of the Saxon jeer him for his imprudent bargain; but he sows the purchased earth upon a large space of ground, which he claims, and, by the aid of his comrades, ultimately wrests it from the Thuringians."

3. There is direct evidence in favour of there having been German tribes in England anterior to A.D. 447.—a. At the close of the Marcomannic war, Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain.—Dio Cassius, lxxi. lxiii.

b. Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under Valentinian.

c. The Notitia utriusque imperii, of which the latest date is half a century earlier than the epoch of Hengist, mentions, as an officer of State, the Comes littoris Saxonici per Britannias; his government extending along the coast from Portsmouth to the Wash.

I conclude with the following extract:—"We are ignorant what fasti or even mode of reckoning the revolutions of seasons prevailed in England, previous to the introduction of Christianity. We know not how any event before the year 600 was recorded, or to what period the memory of man extended. There may have been rare annals: there may have been poems: if such there were they have perished, and have left no trace behind, unless we are to attribute to them such scanty notices as the Saxon Chronicle adds to Beda's account. From such sources, however, little could have been gained of accurate information either as to the real internal state, the domestic progress, or development of a people. The dry bare entries of the Chronicles in historical periods may supply the means of judging what sort of annals were likely to exist before the general introduction of the Roman alphabet and parchment, while, in all probability, runes supplied the place of letters, and

stones, or the beech-wood, from which their name is derived, of books. Again, the traditions embodied in the epic, are pre-eminently those of kings and princes; they are heroical, devoted to celebrate the divine or half-divine founders of a race, the fortunes of their warlike descendants, the manners and mode of life of military adventurers, not the obscure progress, household peace, and orderly habits of the humble husband-man. They are full of feasts and fighting, shining arms and golden goblets: the gods mingle among men almost their equals, share in the same pursuits, are animated by the same passions of love, and jealousy, and hatred; or, blending the divine with the mortal nature, become the founders of races, kingly, because derived from divinity itself. But one race knows little of another, or its traditions, and cares as little for them. Alliances or wars alone bring them in contact with one another, and the terms of intercourse between the races will, for the most part, determine the character under which foreign heroes shall be admitted into the national epos, or whether they shall be admitted at all. All history, then, which is founded in any degree upon epical tradition (and national history is usually more or less so founded) must be to that extent imperfect, if not inaccurate; only when corrected by the written references of contemporaneous authors, can we assign any certainty to its records.

"Let us apply these observations to the early events of Saxon history: of Kent, indeed, we have the vague and uncertain notices which I have mentioned; even more vague and uncertain are those of Sussex and Wessex. Of the former, we learn that in the year 477, Ælli, with three sons, Cymen, Wlencing, and Cissa, landed in Sussex; that in the year 485 they defeated the Welsh, and that in 491 they destroyed the population of Anderida. Not another word is there about Sussex before the arrival of Augustine, except a late assertion of the military pre-eminence of Ælli among the Saxon chieftains. The events of Wessex are somewhat better detailed; we learn that in 495 two nobles, Cerdic and Cyneríc, came to England, and landed at Cerdices-ora, where, on the

same day, they fought a battle: that in 501 they were followed by a noble named Port, who, with his two sons, Bieda and Mægla, made a forcible landing at Portsmouth: and that in 508, they gained a great battle over a British king, whom they slew, together with five thousand of his people. In 514 Stuff and Wihtgár, their nephews, brought them a reinforcement of three ships; in 519, they again defeated the Britons, and established the kingdom of Wessex. In 527, a new victory is recorded; in 530, the Isle of Wight was subdued and given to Wihtgár; and in 534, Cerdic died, and was succeeded by Cyneríc, who reigned twenty-six years. In 544, Wihtgár died. A victory of Cyneríc, in 552 and 556, and Ceawlin's accession to the throne of Wessex are next recorded. Wars of the West-Saxon kings are noted in 568, 571, 577, 584. From 590 to 595, a king of that race, named Ceól, is mentioned: in 591, we learn the expulsion of Ceawlin from power; in 593, the deaths of Ceawlin, Cwichelm, and Crida, are mentioned, and in 597, the year of Augustine's arrival, we learn that Ceólwulf ascended the throne of Wessex.

"Meagre as these details are, they far exceed what is related of Northumberland, Essex, or East-Anglia. In 547, we are told that Ida began to reign in the first of these kingdoms, and that he was succeeded in 560, by Ælli: that after a reign of thirty years, he died in 588, and was succeeded by Æþelríc, who again, in 593, was succeeded by Æþelfriþ. This is all we learn of Northumbria; of Mercia, Essex, East-Anglia, and the innumerable kingdoms that must have been comprised under these general appellations, we hear not a single word.

"If this be all that we can now recover of events, a great number of which must have fallen within the lives of those to whom Augustine preached, what credit shall we give to the inconsistent accounts of earlier actions? How shall we supply the almost total want of information respecting the first settlements? What explanation have we to give of the alliance between Jutes, Angles, and Saxon, which preceded the invasions of England? What knowledge will these records

supply of the real number and quality of the chieftains, the language and blood of the populations who gradually spread themselves from the Atlantic to the Frith of Forth; of the remains of Roman cultivation, or the amount of British power with which they had to contend? of the vicissitudes of good and evil fortune which visited the independent principalities before they were swallowed up in the kingdoms of the heptarchy, or the extent of the influence which they retained after the event! On all these several points we are left entirely in the dark; and yet these are facts which it most imports us to know, if we would comprehend the growth of a society which endured for at least 700 years in England, and formed the foundation of that in which we live."—The Saxons in England. Vol. I, pp. 28-32.

[§ 14]. Inference.—As it is nearly certain, that the year 449 is not the date of the first introduction of German tribes into Britain, we must consider that the displacement of the original British began at an earlier period than the one usually admitted, and, consequently, that it was more gradual than is usually supposed.

Perhaps, if we substitute the middle of the fourth, instead of the middle of the fifth century, as the epoch of the Germanic immigrations into Britain, we shall not be far from the truth.

CHAPTER II.

GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—THE IMMIGRANT TRIBES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO EACH OTHER.

[§ 15]. By referring to [§§ 3]-12, it may be seen that out of the numerous tribes and nations of Germany, three in particular have been considered as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of the present English, viz.: the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes.

To criticise the evidence which derives the English in general from the Angles, the particular inhabitants of Sussex, Essex, Middlesex and Wessex, from the Saxons, and the Anglo-Saxon language from the Angle and Saxon would be superfluous; whilst to doubt the truth of the main facts which it attests would exhibit an unnecessary and unhealthy scepticism. That the Angles and Saxons formed at least seven-tenths of the Germanic invaders may be safely admitted. The Jute element, however, requires further notice.

[§ 16]. The Jutes.—Were any of the German immigrants Jutes? If so, what were their relations to the other German tribes?

a. Were there Jutes in England? That there was a Jute element in England is to be maintained, not upon the tradition that one of the three ships of Hengist and Horsa was manned by Jutes, but from the following extract from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:—

Here the words gyt hæt Iútnacynn constitute cotemporary evidence.

Still there is a flaw in it; since it is quite possible that the term Iútnacynn may have been no true denomination of a section of the Germans of England, but only the synonym of a different word, Wiht-sætan. Alfred writes—comon hi of þrym folcum þam strangestan Germaniæ; þæt of Seaxum, and of Angle, and of Geatum. Of Geatum fruman sindon Cantware and Wiht-sætan, þæt is seo þeód se Wiht þæt ealond on eardað—they came of three folk, the strongest of Germany; that of Saxons and of Angles, and of Geats. Of Geats originally are the Kent people and Wiht-set; that is the people which Wiht the Island live on.

This changes the reasoning, and leads us to the following facts.

a. The word in question is a compound=Wight=the name of the isle, + sætan=people; as Somer-set, and Dor-set.

b. The peninsula Jut-land was also called Vit-land, or With-land.

c. The wiht- in Wiht-sætan is, undoubtedly, no such element as the vit- in Vit-land=Jut-land; since it represents the older Celtic term, known to us in the Romanized form Vectis.

Putting all this together, it becomes possible (nay probable) that the whole doctrine of a Jute element in the Anglo-Saxon migration may have arisen out of the fact of there being a portion of the people of Southern England neighbours of the Saxons, and bearing the name Wiht-sætan; a fact which, taken along with the juxtaposition of the Vit-landers (Jut-landers) and Saxons on the Continent, suggested to the writers of a long later age the doctrine of a Jute migration.

[§ 17]. As this last objection impugns the evidence rather than the fact, the following question finds place:—

What were the Jutes of Germany? At present they are the natives of Jutland, and their language is Danish rather than German.

Neither is there reason to suppose that during the third and fourth centuries it was otherwise.

[§ 18]. This last circumstance detracts from the likelihood of the fact; since in no part of Kent, Sussex, Hants, nor even in the Isle of Wight—a likely place for a language to remain unchanged—have any traces of the old Jute been found.

[§ 19]. On the other hand the fact of Jutes, even though Danes, being members of a Germanic confederation is not only probable, but such was actually the case; at least for continental wars—subactis, cum Saxonibus, Euciis (Eutiis), qui se nobis (i.e., the Franks), propriâ voluntate tradiderunt ... usque in Oceani littoribus dominio nostro porrigitur.—Theodebert to the Emperor Justinian.—

"Quem Geta, Vasco tremunt, Danus, Eutheo,[^[1]] Saxo, Britannus,

Cum patre quos acie te domitasse patet."

Venantius Fortunatus ad Chilpericum regem.[^[2]]

[§ 20]. Inference.—Of the three following views—(1.) that the Jutes of Jutland in the fourth and fifth centuries spoke Saxon; (2.) that they spoke Danish at home, but lost their language after three or four centuries' residence in England; and (3.) that a later historian was induced by the similarity between the term Wiht-sætan, as applied to the people of the Isle of Wight, and Wit-land, as applied to Jutland, combined with the real probability of the fact supposed, to assume a Jute origin for the Saxons of the parts in question, the third is, in the mind of the present writer, the most probable.

[§ 21]. It has already been stated that concerning the Angles and Saxons, no reasonable man will put the question which was put in respect to the Jutes, viz., had they any real place among the Germanic invaders of England? Respecting, however, their relations to each other, and their respective geographical localities whilst occupants of Germany, anterior to

their immigration into Britain, there is much that requires investigation. What were the Saxons of Germany—what the Angles?

[§ 22]. Difficulties respecting the identification of the Saxons.—There are two senses of the word Saxon, one of which causes difficulty by being too limited; the other by being too wide.

a. The limited sense of the word Saxon.—This is what we get from Ptolemy, the first author who names the Saxons, and who gives them a limited locality at the mouth of the Elbe, bounded by the Sigulones, the Sabalingi, the Kobandi, the Chali, the Phundusii, the Harudes, and other tribes of the Cimbric Peninsula, of which the Saxons just occupied the neck, and three small islands opposite—probably Fohr, Sylt, and Nordstand.

Now a sense of the word Saxon thus limited, would restrict the joint conquerors of Britain to the small area comprized between the Elbe and Eyder, of which they do not seem even to have held the whole.

b. The wide sense of the word Saxon.—The reader need scarcely be reminded that the present kingdom of Saxony is as far inland as the northern frontier of Bohemia. Laying this, however, out of the question, as the effect of an extension subsequent to the invasion of Britain, we still find Saxons in ancient Hanover, ancient Oldenburg, ancient Westphalia, and (speaking roughly) over the greater part of the country drained by the Weser, and of the area inclosed by the eastern feeders of the Lower Rhine, the Elbe, and the range of the Hartz.

Now as it is not likely that the limited Saxon area of Ptolemy should have supplied the whole of our Saxon population, so on the other hand, it is certain, that of a considerable portion of the Saxon area in its wider extent tribes other than the Saxons of England, were occupants.

[§ 23]. Difficulties respecting the word Angle.—The reader is referred to an extract from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in [§ 16], where it is stated, that "from the Angles' land (which has since always stood waste betwixt the Jutes and the

Saxons) came the East-Angles, Middle-Angles, Mercians, and all the Northumbrians."

Thus to bring the great Angle population from an area no larger than the county of Rutland, is an objection—but it is not the chief one.

The chief objection to the Angles of England being derived from the little district of Anglen, in Sleswick, lies in the fact of there being mention of Angli in another part of Germany.

[§ 24]. This exposition of the elements of uncertainty will be followed by an enumeration of—

1. Those portions of the Germanic populations, which from their geographical position, are the likeliest, à priori, to have helped to people England.

2. Those portions of the Germanic population, which although not supposed to have contributed in any notable degree to the population of Britain, had such continental relations to the Angles and Saxons, as to help in fixing their localities.

These two scenes of facts, give us what may be called our preliminary apparatus criticus.

[§ 25]. Between the northern limits of the Celtic populations of Gaul and the southern boundary of the Scandinavians of Jutland, we find the area which is most likely to have given origin to the Germans of England. This is best considered under two heads.

a. That of the proper seaboard, or the coast from the Rhine to the Eyder.

b. That of the rivers, i.e., the communications between the ocean and the inland country.

This double division is sufficient, since it is not likely that Britain was peopled by any tribes which were not either maritime, or the occupants of a river.

On the other hand, it is necessary, since although the à priori view is in favour of the coast having supplied the British immigration, the chances of its having proceeded from the interior by the way of the large rivers Rhine, Weser, and Elbe, must also be taken into consideration.

The importance of this latter alternative, will soon be seen.

[§ 26]. The Menapians.—Locality, from the country of the Morini on the French side of the Straits of Dover, to the Scheldt. It is generally considered that these were not Germans but Celts. The fact, however, is by no means ascertained. If Germans, the Menapians were the tribes nearest to Britain. Again, supposing that the present Flemings of Belgium are the oldest inhabitants of the country, their origin is either wholly, or in part, Menapian. Mentioned by Cæsar.

[§ 27]. The Batavians.—Mentioned by Cæsar; locality, from the Maas to the Zuyder Zee. Conterminous with the Menapians on the south, and with the Frisians on the north. If the present Dutch of Holland be the inhabitants of the country from the time of Cæsar downwards, their origin is Batavian.

[§ 28]. The Frisians.—First known to the Romans during the campaign of Drusus—"tributum Frisiis transrhenano populo—Drusus jusserat modicum;"[^[3]] Tacitus, Ann. iv. 72. Extended, according to Ptolemy, as far north as the Ems—τὴν δὲ παρωκεανῖτιν κατέχουσιν ... οἱ Φρίσσιοι, μέχρι τοῦ Αμισίου ποταμοῦ.

Now, as the dialect of the modern province of Friesland differs in many important points from the Dutch of Holland and Flanders; and as there is every reason to believe that the same, or greater difference, existed between the old Frisians and the old Batavians, assuming each to have been the mother-tongues of the present Frisian and Dutch respectively, we may consider that in reaching the parts to the north of the Zuyder-Zee, we have come to a second sub-division of the Germanic dialects; nevertheless, it is not the division to which either the Angles or the Saxons belong, as may be ascertained by the difference of dialect, or rather language.

[§ 29]. The Chauci.—Connected with the Frisii.—Falling into two divisions—the lesser (?) Chauci, from the Ems to the Weser; the greater (?) Chauci from the Weser to the Elbe—μετὰ δὲ τούτους (the Frisians),

Καῦχοι οἱ μικροὶ μέχρι τοῦ Οὐισούργιος ποταμοῦ, εἶτα Καῦχοι οἱ μειζοῦς, μέχρι τοῦ Ἄλβιος ποταμοῦ.

Tacitus describes the Chauci thus:—"Tam immensum terrarum spatium non tenent tantum Chauci, sed et implent; populus inter Germanos nobilissimus."

The Frisians, as has been stated, represent a separate subdivision of the German dialects, as opposed to the ancient Batavian, and the modern Dutch and Flemish. Did the Chauci represent a third, or were they part of the Frisian division?

The latter is the more likely, and that for the following reasons—Vestiges of Frisian dialects are to be found on the Continent, in Oldenburgh, and also in the island of Heligoland.

More important still is the North-Frisian dialect. North of the Elbe, in the Dutchy of Sleswick, and from the Eyder to Tondern, we find a tract of land called, by Saxo Grammaticus, Frisia Minor, and by other writers, Frisia Eydorensis.

Now, as there are no grounds for considering these North Frisians as other than indigenous to the tract in question, we get an additional reason for looking upon the intermediate line of coast as Frisian rather than either Angle or Saxon—or, at least, such parts of it as are not expressly stated to be otherwise.

[§ 30]. Inference.—As the whole coast south of the Elbe seems to have been occupied by tribes speaking either Frisian or Batavian dialects, and as neither of these sub-divisions represents the language of the Angles and Saxons, the original localities of those invaders must be sought for either north of the Elbe, or inland, along the course of the rivers, i.e.—inland.

[§ 31]. The Saxons and Nordalbingians.—North of the Elbe, and south of the Eyder (as stated in [§ 22]), we meet the Saxons of Ptolemy; but that in a very circumscribed locality.

In the ninth century, the tribes of these parts are divided into three divisions:—

a. The Holtsati=the people of Holstein. Here holt=wood, whilst sat is the -set in Somer-set and Dor-set.

b. The Thiedmarsi=the people of Ditmarsh.

c. The Stormarii=the people of Stormar.

Besides the names of these three particular divisions the tribes between the Elbe and Eyder were called by the general name of Nordalbingii=i.e. people to the north of the Elbe.

[§ 32]. The people of Anglen—North of the Nordalbingii; Anglen being the name of a district between the Schlie and Flensburg.

[§ 33]. The Jutes.—In Jut-land, north of the Angles and the Northfrisians.

[§ 34]. The Saxons of Holstein, how large their area?—There is no reason for considering the Nordalbingian Holtsati, Thiedmarsi and Stormarii as other than Saxons; although the fact of the Northfrisians to the north, and of the Frisians of Hanover to the south of them, is a slight complication of the primâ facie view.

Neither is it necessary to identify the two divisions, and to consider the Saxons as Frisians, or the Frisians as Saxons, as is done by some authors.

It is only necessary to perceive the complication which the existence of the Northfrisians introduces, and to recognise the improbability of parts of the present dutchies of Holstein and Sleswick having constituted the whole of the Anglo-Saxon area.

In other words, we have to ascertain in what direction the Germanic population represented by the Saxons at the mouth of the Elbe extended itself—for some further extension there undoubtedly must have been.

[§ 35]. This brings us to the other series of preliminary facts, viz.: the consideration of the more important tribes of the middle and lower courses of the three great rivers, the Rhine, the Weser, and the Elbe.

[§ 36]. The Germans of the Middle Rhine.—Of the Germans of the Lower and Middle Rhine, it is only necessary to mention one—

The Franks.—We shall see that, taking the two terms in their widest sense, the Franks and the Saxons were in contact, a fact which makes it necessary to notice at least some portion of the Frank area.

a. Salian Franks.—If the element Sal- represent the -sel, in the name of the Dutch river Y-ssel, the locality of the Salian Franks was Overyssel and Guelderland, whilst their ethnological relations were most probably with the Batavians.

b. Chamavi.—In the Tabula Peutingeriana we find—Chamavi qui Elpranci (leg. et Franci). They were conterminous with the Salii—Ὑπεδεξάμην μὲν μοῖραν τοῦ Σαλίων ἔθνους, Χαμάβους δὲ ἐξήλασα.—Julian, Op. p. 280.—D.N.

The following extract is more important, as it shows that a Roman communication at least took place between the Rhine and Britain: Χαμάβων γὰρ μὴ βουλευομένων, ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν τὴν τῆς Βρεταννίκης νήσου σιτοπομπίαν ἐπὶ τὰ Ῥωμάϊκα φρούρία διαπέμπεσθαι.—Eunap. in Except. leg. ed., Bonn, p. 42.—D.N.

The name Chamavi is still preserved in that of the district of Hameland, near Deventer.—D.N. and G.D.S.

The Bructeri, Sigambri, and Ripuarian Franks bring us to the Franks of the Middle Rhine, a portion of the division which it is not necessary to follow.

[§ 37]. The Thuringians.—First mentioned in the beginning of the fourth century. Locality, between the Hartz, the Werra a feeder of the Weser, and the Sala a feeder of the Elbe. As early as the sixth century the Thuringians and Saxons are conterminous, and members of the same confederation against the Franks.—D.N.

[§ 38]. The Catti.—Locality, the valley of the Fulda, forming part of the Upper Weser. Conterminous with the Thuringi (from whom they were separated by the river Werra) on the east, and the Franks on the west. The modern form of the word Catti is Hesse, and the principality of Hesse is their old locality.—G.D.S.

[§ 39]. Geographical conditions of the Saxon area.—Southern and northern limits.—The Saxons were in league with the Thuringians and Jutes against the Franks.

By the Jutes they were limited on the north, by the Thuringians on the south-east, and by the Franks on the south-west; the middle portion of the southern frontier being formed by the Catti between the Franks and Thuringians.

This gives us a southern and a northern limit.

Western limit.—This is formed by the Batavians and Frisians of the sea-coast, i.e., by the Batavians of Holland, Guelderland, and Overyssel, and, afterwards, by the Frisians of West and East Friesland, and of Oldenburg.

Here, however, the breadth of the non-Saxon area is uncertain. Generally speaking, it is broadest in the southern, and narrowest in the northern portion. The Frisian line is narrower than the Batavian, whilst when we reach the Elbe the Saxons appear on the sea-coast. Perhaps they do so on the Weser as well.

[§ 40]. Eastern limit.—Preliminary remark.—Before the eastern limit of the Saxons is investigated, it will be well to indicate the extent to which it differs from the southern.

a. The Thuringians, Catti (or Hessians), and Franks, on the southern boundary of the Saxon area were Germans. Hence the line of demarcation between their language was no broad and definite line, like that between the English and the Welsh, but rather one representing a difference of dialect, like that between the Yorkshire and the Lowland Scotch. Hence, too, we ought not only not to be surprised, if we find dialects intermediate to the Frank and Saxon, the Saxon and Thuringian, &c., but we must expect to find them.

b. The same is the case with the Batavian and Frisian frontier.—We really find specimens of language which some writers call Saxon, and others Dutch (Batavian).

The eastern frontier, however, will be like the frontier between England and Wales, where the line of demarcation is broad and definite, where there are no intermediate and transitional dialects, and where the two contiguous languages belong to different philological classes.—The languages to the east of the Saxon area will be allied to the languages of Russia, Poland, and Bohemia; i.e., they will be not Germanic but Slavonic.

Note.—The northern frontier of the Saxon area is intermediate in character to the western and southern on one hand, and to the eastern on the other; the Danish of the Cimbric Peninsula being—though not German—Gothic.

We begin at the northern portion of the Saxon area, i.e., the south-eastern corner of the Cimbric Peninsula, and the parts about the Town of Lubeck; where the Dutchies of Mecklenburg Schwerin and Holstein join. The attention of the reader is particularly directed to the dates.

[§ 41]. Slavonians of Holstein, Mecklenburg, and Lauenburg.—The Polabi—From po=on, and Labe=the Elbe. Name Slavonic. Germanized by the addition of the termination—ing, and so become Po-lab-ing-i; just as in Kent we find the Kent-ing-s. Conterminous with the Nordalbingian Stormarii, from whom they are divided by the river Bille, a small confluent of the Elbe. Capital Ratzeburg. First mentioned by writers subsequent to the time of Charlemagne.—D.N.

[§ 42]. The Wagrians.—North of the Polabi, and within the Cimbric Peninsula, divided from the Danes by the Eyder, from the Non-Danish Nordalbingians by the Trave. Capital Oldenburg. The Isle of Femern was Wagrian. Authorities—chiefly writers of and subsequent to the time of Charlemagne. In one of these we learn that the town of Haðum (Sleswick) lies between the Angles, the Saxons, and the Wends.

Now, Wend is the German designation of the Slavonians; so that there must have been Slavonians in the Cimbric Peninsula at least as early as the ninth century.—D.N.

[§ 43]. Obotriti, written also Obotritæ, Abotriti, Abotridi; Apodritæ, Abatareni, Apdrede, Afdrege, and for the sake of distinction from a people of the same name, Nort-Obtrezi, occupants of the western part of Mecklenburg, and extended as far east as the Warnow, as far south as Schwerin. Called by Adam of Bremen, Reregi. The Obotrites were allies of the Franks against the Saxons, and after the defeat and partial removal of the latter, were transplanted to some of their localities.—"Saxones transtulit" (i.e., Charlemagne), "in Franciam et pagos transalbianos Abodritis dedit."—Eginhart Ann. A.D. 804.—D.N.

[§ 44]. The Lini—Slavonians on the left bank of the Elbe, and the first met with on that side of the river. Occupants of Danneburg, Luchow and Wustrow, in Luneburg. By the

writers subsequent to the time of Charlemagne the Smeldengi (a German designation), and the Bethenici are mentioned along with the Lini (or Linones). Of this Slavonic a Paternoster may be seen in the Mithridates representing the dialect of the neighbourhood in Luchow in A.D. 1691. It is much mixed with the German. About the middle of the last century this (Cis-Albian Slavonic) dialect became extinct.—D.N.

[§ 45]. The Warnabi or Warnavi.—Locality. Parts about Grabow, Valley of the Elbe. This is the locality of the Varini of Tacitus, the Οὐΐρούνοι of Ptolemy, and the Werini of later writers, a tribe connected with the Angli, and generally considered as Germanic.—D.N.

[§ 46]. Morizani.—The district round the Moritz Lake.—D.N.

[§ 47]. Doxani.—Locality; the valley of the Dosse.—D.N.

[§ 48]. Hevelli.—Locality; the valley of the Hevel. These are the Slavonians of Brandenburg and Mittelmark.—D.N.

[§ 49]. Slavonians of Altmark.—In Altmark, as in Lunenburg, though on the German side of the Elbe we find the names of the places Slavonic, e.g., Klotze, Wrepke, Solpke, Blatz, Regatz, Colbitz, &c.; so that Altmark, like Lunenburg, was originally a Cis-Albian Slavonic locality.

[§ 50]. South of the Hevel we meet with the Sorabian, or Sorb Slavonians, the descendants of whom form at the present time part of the population of Lusatia and Silesia. It is not, however, necessary to follow these further, since the German frontier now begins to be Thuringian rather than Saxon.

[§ 51]. Saxon area.—From the preceding investigations we determine the area occupied by the Saxons of Germany to be nearly as follows:

a.—Ethnologically considered.—Tract bounded on the north by the North Frisian Germans and Jute Danes of Sleswick; on the north and north-east by the Slavonians of the Elbe, sometimes Trans-Albian like the Wagrians and Obotrites; sometimes Cis-Albian, like the Linones and the Slaves of Altmark; on the south by the Thuringians, Catti, and Franks; on the west by the Franks, Batavians, and Frisians.

b. Considered in relation to the ancient population that it

comprised.—The country of the Saxons of Ptolemy; the Angli of Tacitus; the Langobardi of Tacitus; the Angrivarii; the Dulgubini; the Ampsivarii (?); the Bructeri Minores (?); the Fosi, and Cherusci; and probably part of the Cauci. Of populations mentioned by the later writers (i.e. of those between the seventh and eleventh centuries), the following belong to this area—the Stormarii, Thietmarsi, Hotsati (=the Nordalbingii, or Nordleudi), the Ostfali, (Osterluidi), Westfali, Angarii, and Eald-Seaxan (Old Saxons).

c. Considered in relation to its modern population.—Here it coincides most closely with the kingdom of Hanover, plus parts of the Dutchies of Holstein and Oldenburg, and parts of Altmark? Brunswick? and Westphalia, and minus the Frisian portion of East Friesland, and the Slavonic part of Luneburg.

d. River system.—By extending the Saxons of Westphalia as far as Cleves (which has been done by competent judges) we carry the western limit to the neighbourhood of the Rhine. This, however, is as far as it can safely be carried. In the respect to the Upper Ems, it was probably Saxon, the lower part being Frisian. The Weser is pre-eminently the river of the Saxons, with the water-system of which their area coincides more closely than with any other physical division. The Elbe was much in the same relation to the Germans and Slavonians, as the Rhine was to the Germans and the Gauls. Roughly speaking, it is the frontier—the Cis-Albian Slaves (the Linones and the Slavonians of Altmark) being quite as numerous as the Trans-Albian Germans, (the people of Stormar, Ditmarsh, and Holstein). The Eyder was perhaps equally Danish, Frisian, and Saxon.

e. Mountains.—The watershed of the Weser on the one side, and of the Ruhr and Lippe on the other, is the chief high land contained within the Saxon area, and is noticed as being the line most likely to form a subdivision of the Saxon population, either in the way of dialect or political relations—in case such a subdivision exists, a point which will be considered in the next chapter.

CHAPTER III.

OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED, OLD SAXON.

[§ 52]. The area occupied by the Saxons of Germany has been investigated; and it now remains to ask, how far the language of the occupants was absolutely identical throughout, or how far it fell into dialects or sub-dialects. In doing this, it may as well be asked, First, what we expect, à priori; Second, what we really find.

[§ 53]. To the Saxon area in Germany, there are five philological frontiers, the Slavonic, the Frisian, the Batavian, the Frank, and the Thuringian, to which may probably be added the Hessian; in each of which, except the Slavonic, we may expect that the philological phenomenon of intermixture and transition will occur. Thus—

a. The Saxon of Holstein may be expected to approach the Jute and Frisian.

b. That of South Oldenburg and East Friesland, the Frisian and Batavian.

c. That of Westphalia, the Batavian and Frank.

d, e. That of the Hessian and Thuringian frontiers, the Hessian and Thuringian.

Finally, the Saxon of the centre of the area is expected to be the Saxon of the most typical character.

[§ 54]. Such is what we expect. How far it was the fact is not known for want of data. What is known, however, is as follows.—There were at least two divisions of the Saxon; (1st) the Saxon of which the extant specimens are of English origin, and (2nd), the Saxon of which the extant specimens are of continental origin. We will call these at present the Saxon of England, and the Saxon of the Continent.

[§ 55]. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there is good reason for believing that the first was spoken in the northern, the second in the southern portion of the Saxon area, i.e., the one in Hanover and the other in Westphalia, the probable boundaries between them being the line of highlands between Osnaburg and Paderborn.

[§ 56]. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there is good reason for believing that, whilst the former was the mother-tongue of the Angles and the conquerors of England, the latter was that of the Cherusci of Arminius, the conquerors and the annihilators of the legions of Varus.

[§ 57]. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, it is a fact that whilst we have a full literature in the former, we have but fragmentary specimens of the latter—these being chiefly the following: (1) the Heliand, (2) Hildubrand and Hathubrant, (3) the Carolinian Psalms.

[§ 58]. The preceding points have been predicated respecting the difference between the two ascertained Saxon dialects, for the sake of preparing the reader for the names by which they are known. Supposing the nomenclature to be based upon any of the preceding facts, we might have the following nomenclature:—

Of these names the last would be the best for strictly scientific purposes, or for the purposes of investigation; since the fact upon which it is based is the most undeniable.

Such is what the nomenclature might be, or, perhaps, ought to be. What it is is another question.

[§ 59]. The Saxon of England is called Anglo-Saxon; a term against which no exception can be raised.

[§ 60]. The Saxon of the Continental used to be called Dano-Saxon, and is called Old Saxon.

[§ 61]. Why called Dano-Saxon.—When the poem called Heliand was first discovered (and that in an English library), the difference in language between it and the common Anglo-Saxon composition was accounted for by the assumption of a Danish intermixture.

[§ 62]. Why called Old Saxon.—When the Continental origin of the Heliand was recognised, the language was called Old Saxon, because it represented the Saxon of the mother-country, the natives of which were called Old Saxons by the Anglo-Saxons themselves. Still the term is exceptionable; the Saxon of the Heliand is most probably a sister-dialect of the Anglo-Saxon, rather the Anglo-Saxon itself is a continental locality. Exceptionable, however, as it is, it will be employed.

[§ 63]. The data for the study of the Old Saxon are as follows:—

1. Abrenuntiatio Diaboli, e Codice Vaticano.—Graff, Diutisca, ii. 191.

2. Confessionis Formulæ, e Codice Essensi.—Lacomblet, Archiv, für Geschichte des Niederrhins, 1, 4-9.

3. Fragmentum de Festo omnium Sanctorum, e Codice Essensi.—Ibid.

4. Rotulus redituum Essensis.—Ibid.

5. The Frekkenhorst Roll.—Denkmäler von Dorow, 1, 2, 1.

6. Glossæ Saxonicæ, e Codice Argentorat.—Diutisca, 192.

7. T. Lipsii; Epist. cent. III. ad Belgas pertinentium, Ep. 44.

8. Hildebrand.—Heroic fragment, in alliterative metre.

9. The Carolinian Psalms.—A translation of the Psalms, referred to the time of Charlemagne; sometimes considered to be old Batavian.

10. Heliand, a Gospel Harmony in alliterative metre, and the chief Old Saxon composition extant.

SPECIMEN.

[§ 64]. Heliand, pp. 12, 13. (Schmeller's Edition.)

Luc. II. 8-13.

CHAPTER IV.

AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA.

[§ 65]. The last chapter has limited the Anglo-Saxon area to the northern part of the Saxon area in general. Further details, however, upon this point, may stand over until the general affinities of the English language have been considered.

[§ 66]. Over and above those languages of Germany and Holland which were akin to the dialects of the Angles and the Saxons, cognate languages were spoken in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe isles, i.e., in Scandinavia.

[§ 67]. The general collective designation for the Germanic tongues of Germany and Holland, and for the Scandinavian languages of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe Isles, is taken from the name of those German tribes who, during the decline of the Roman Empire, were best known to the Romans as the Goths; the term Gothic for the Scandinavian and Germanic languages, collectively, being both current and convenient.

[§ 68]. Of this great stock of languages the Scandinavian is one branch; the Germanic, called also Teutonic, another.

[§ 69]. The Scandinavian branch of the Gothic stock comprehends, 1. The dialects of Scandinavia Proper, i.e., of Norway and Sweden; 2. of the Danish isles and Jutland; 3. of Iceland; 4. of the Feroe Isles. On the side of Lapland the languages of this branch come in contact with the Laplandic and Finlandic; whilst in Sleswick they are bounded by the Low German.

SPECIMENS.

Icelandic (Fareyïnga-Saga—Ed. Mohnike).

Ok nú er þat eitthvert sinn um sumarit, at Sigmundr mælti til þóris: "Hvat mun verða, þo at við farim í skóg þenna, er hèr er norðr frá garði?" þórir svarar: "á því er mèr eingi forvitni," segir hann. "Ekki er mèr svâ gefit," segir Sigmundr, "ok þángat skal ek fara." "þú munt ráða hljóta," segir þûrir, "en brjótum við þa boðorð fóstra míns." Nu fóru þeir, ok hafði Sigmundr viðaröxi eina i hendi sèr; koma i skóginn, ok í rjôðr eitt fagurt; ok er þeir hafa þar eigi leingi verit, þá heyra þeir björn mikinn harðla ok grimligan. þat var viðbjörn mikill, úlfgrár at lit. þeir hlaupa nu aptra á stiginn þan, er þeir hölðu þángat farit; stigrinn var mjór ok þraurigr, ok hleypr þórir fyrir, en Sigmundr síðar. Dýrit bleypr nú eptir þeim á stiginn, ok verðr því þraungr stigrinn, ok brotna eikrnar fyrir þvi. Sigmundr snyr þá skjótt út af stignum millum trjánna, ok biðr þar til er dyrit kemr jafn-fram honum. þa höggr hann jafnt meðal hlusta á dŷrinu með tveim höndum, svâ at exin sökkr. En dŷrit fellr áfram, ok er dautt.

Feroic.

Nú vär so til ajna Ferina um Summari, at Sigmundur snakkaji so vi Towra: "Kvat man bagga, towat vìd färin uj henda Skowin, uj èr hèr noran-firi Gärin?" Towrur svärar, "Ikkji hävi e Hu at forvitnast ettir tuj," sìir han. "Ikkji eri e so sintur," sìir Sigmundur, "og häar skäl e fara." "Tù fert tå at råa," sìir Towrur, "men tå browtum vid Forbo Fostirfäjir mujns." Nù fowru tajr, og Sigmundur heji ajna öksi til Brennuvì uj Hondini; tajr koma in uj Skowin, og å ajt väkurt rudda Plos men ikkji häva tajr veri här lájngji, firin tajr hojra kvödtt Brak uj Skownun, og bråt ettir sujgja tajr ajna egvulia stowra Bjödn og gruiska. Tä vä ajn stowr Skowbjödn grågulmut å Litinun. Tair lejpa nù attir å Råsina, sum tajr höddu gingji ettir; Råsin vär mjåv og trong; Towrur lejpur undan, og Sigmundur attanå. Djowri leipur nù ettir tajmum å Råsini; og nù verur Råsin trong kjå tuj, so at Ajkjinar brotnavu frå tuj. Sigmundur snujur tå kvikliani útäf Råsini inimidlum Trjini, og bujar här til Djowri kjemur abajnt han. Tå höggur han bajnt uj Ojrnalystri å Djowrinum vi båvun Hondun, so at öxin sökkur in, og Djowri dettir bajnt framettir, og er standejt.

Swedish.

Och nu var det engång on sommaren, som Sigmund sade till Thorer: "Hvad månde väl deraf warda, om vi åter gå ut i skogen, som ligger der norr on gården?" "Det är jag alldeles icke nyfiken att veta," svarade Thor. "Icke går det så med mig," sade Sigmund, "och ditret mäste jag." "Du kommer då att råda," sade Thor, "men dermed öfverträda vi vår Fosterfaders bud." De gingo nu åstad, och Sigmund bade en vedyxa i handen; de kommo in i skogen, och strat derpå fingo de se en ganska stor och vildsinnt björn, en dråpelig skogsbjörn, varg-grå till färgen. De sprungo då tillbaka på samma stig som de hade kommit dit. Stigen var smal och trång; och Thorer sprang fråmst, men Sigmund efterst. Djuret lopp nu efter dem på stigen, och stigen blef trång för detsamma, så att träden sönderbrötos i dess lopp. Sigmund vände då kurtigt retaf från stigen, och ställde sig mellan träden, samt stod der, tills djuret kom fram midt för honom. Då fattade han yxan med begge händerna, och högg midt emellan öronen på djuret, så att yxan gick in, och djuret störtade framåt, och dog på stället.

Danish.

Og nu var det engang om Sommeren, at Sigmund sagde til Thorer: "Hvad mon der vel kan flyde af, om vi end gaae hen i den Skov, som ligger her nordenfor Gaarden?" "Det er jeg ikken nysgjerrig efter at vide," svarede Thorer. "Ei gaar det mig saa," sagde Sigmund, "og derud maa jeg." "Du kommer da til at raade," sagde Thorer, "men da overtræde, vi vor Fosterfaders Bud." De gik nu, og Sigmund havde en Vedöxe i Haanden; de kom ind i Skoven, og strax derpaa saae de en meget stor og grum Björn, en drabelig Skovejörn, ulvegraa af Farve. De löb da tilbage ad den samme Sti, ad hvilken de vare komne derhen. Stien var smal og trang; og Thorer löb forrest, men Sigmund bagerst. Dyret löb nu efter dem paa Stien, og Stien blev trang for det, og Træerne brödes i dets. Löb Sigmund dreiede da nu hurtig ud af Stien, og stillede sig imellem Træerne, og stod der indtil Dyret kom frem lige for ham. Da fattede han öxen med begge Hænder, og hug lige imellem örerne paa Dyret, saa at öxen sank i, og Dyret styrtede fremad, og var dödt paa Stedet.