TO THE STUDY OF
GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
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 primitive and original tongue of any of the British Islands, nor yet of any portion of them. Indeed, of thewholeof Great Britain it is not the language at the present moment. Welsh is spoken in Wales, Manks in the Isle of Man, and Scotch Gaelic in the Highlands of Scotland; besides which there is the Irish Gaelic in Ireland.
§ 2. The next point to be considered is the real origin and the real affinities of the English language.
Itsrealorigin is on the continent of Europe, and itsrealaffinities are with certain languages there spoken. To speak more specifically, the native country of theEnglish language isGermany; and theGermaniclanguages 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 supposed to be known, as well as the different localities upon which they descended.[1]These were as follows:—
First settlement of invaders from Germany.—The account of this gives usA.D.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 ofJutes. 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had established the kingdom of Kent; so that the county of Kent was the first district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany.
Second settlement of invaders from Germany.—A.D.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 ofSaxons. Their leader was Ella. They established the kingdom of the South Saxons (Sussex or Suð-Seaxe); 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 Germany.
Third settlement of invaders from Germany.—A.D.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 or West-Seaxe); 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 Germany.
Fourth settlement of invaders from Germany.—A.D.530, certain Saxons landed in Essex, so that the county of Essex [East-Seaxe] was the fourth district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany.
Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany.—These wereAnglesin Norfolk and Suffolk. The precise date of this settlement is not known. 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 theAngles.
Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany.—A.D.547 invaders from Northern Germany made the sixthpermanent settlement in Britain. The southeastern 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,
§ 4. It would be satisfactory if these details rested upon contemporary evidence. This, however, is far from being the case.
1.The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but traditional.—a.Beda,[2]from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote nearly 300 years after the supposed event,i.e., the landing of Hengist and Horsa, inA.D.449.
b.The nearest approach to a contemporary author is Gildas,[3]andhewrote full 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,[4]Visigoths, and Gepidæ, also in three vessels, to the mouth of the Vistula."—Kemble, "Saxons in England."
b.The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is toldtotidem verbis, by Widukind[5]and others, of the Old Saxons in Thuringia.
c.Geoffry of Monmouth[6]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 toofamiliar 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 lapfull 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."—Kemble, "Saxons in England."
3.There is direct evidence in favour of their having been German tribes in England anterior toA.D.447.—a.At the close of the Marcomannic war,[7]Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain.
b.Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under Valentinian.[8]
c.The Notitia utriusque Imperii,[9]of which the latest date is half a century earlier than the epoch of Hengist, mentions, as an officer of state, theComes littoris Saxonici per Britannias; his government extending along the coast from Portsmouth to the Wash.
§ 5.Inference.—As it is nearly certain, that 449A.D.isnotthe date of the first introduction of German tribes into Britain, we must consider that the displacement of the original British began at anearlierperiod than the one usually admitted, and, consequently, that it was moregradualthan is usually supposed.
Perhaps, if we substitute the middle of thefourth, instead of the middle of thefifthcentury, as the epoch of the Germanic immigrations into Britain, we shall not be far from the truth.
GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—THE GERMANIC AREA OF THE PARTICULAR GERMANS WHO INTRODUCED IT.—EXTRACT FROM BEDA.
§ 6. Out of the numerous tribes and nations of Germany,threehave been more especially mentioned as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of the present English population of Great Britain. These are theJutes, theSaxons, and theAngles.
§ 7. Now, it is by no means certain that this was the case. On the contrary, good reasons can be given for believing that the Angles and Saxons were the same people, and that no such nation as theJutesever left Germany to settle in Great Britain.
§ 8. The chief authority for the division of the German invaders into the three nations just mentioned is Beda; and the chief text is the following extract from his "Ecclesiastical History." It requires particular attention, and will form the basis of much criticism, and frequently be referred to.
"Advenerunt autem de tribus Germaniæ populis fortioribus, id est Saxonibus, Anglis, Jutis. De Jutarum origine sunt Cantuarii, et Victuarii, hoc est ea gens quæ Vectam tenet insulam et ea quæ usque hodie in provincia Occidentalium Saxonum Jutarum natio nominatur, posita contra ipsam insulam Vectam. DeSaxonibus, id est, ea regione quæ nunc Antiquorum Saxonum cognominatur, venere Orientales Saxones, Meridiani Saxones, Occidui Saxones. Porro de Anglis hoc est de illa patria quæ Angulus dicitur, et ab illo tempore usque hodie manere desertus inter provincias Jutarum et Saxonum perhibetur, Orientales Angli, Mediterranei Angli, Merci, tota Northanhymbrorum progenies, id est illarum gentium quæ ad Boream Humbri fluminis inhabitant, cæterique Anglorum populi sunt orti"—"Historia Ecclesiastica," i. 15.
§ 9. This was written aboutA.D.731, 131 years after the introduction of Christianity, and nearly 300 after the supposed landing of Hengist and Horsa inA.D.449.
It is the first passage which contains the names of either theAnglesor theJutes. Gildas, who wrote more than 150 years earlier, mentions only theSaxons—"ferocissimi illi nefandi nominisSaxones."
It is, also, the passage which all subsequent writers have either translated or adopted. Thus it re-appears in Alfred, and again in the Saxon Chronicle.[10]
§ 10. A portion of these extracts will now be submitted to criticism; that portion being the statement concerning theJutes.
The wordsusque hodie—Jutarum natio nominaturconstitute contemporary and unexceptionable evidence to the existence of a people with a name like that of theJutesin the time of Beda—orA.D.731.
The exact name is not so certain. The termJutnacynfrom the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in favour of the notion that it began with the sounds ofjandu, in other words that it wasJut.
But the termGeatum, which we find in Alfred, favours the form ingfollowed byea.
Thirdly, the formsWihtware, andWihttan, suggest the likelihood of the name beingWiht.
Lastly, there is a passage in Asserius[11]which gives us the formGwith—"Mater" (of Alfred the Great) "quoque ejusdem Osburgh nominabatur, religiosa nimium fœmina, nobilis ingenio, nobilis et genere; quæ erat filia Oslac famosi pincernæ Æthelwulf regis; qui Oslac Gothus erat natione, ortus enim erat de Gothis et Jutis; de semine scilicet Stuf et Wihtgur, duorum fratrum et etiam comitum, qui acceptâ potestate Vectis insulæ ab avunculo suo Cerdic rege et Cynric filio suo, consobrino eorum, paucos Britones ejusdem insulæ accolas, quos in eâ invenire potuerant, in loco qui dicitur,Gwithgaraburghocciderunt, cæteri enim accolæ ejusdem insulæ ante sunt occisi aut exules aufugerant."—Asserius, "De Gestis Alfredi Regis."
Now,Gwith-gara-burghmeans theburgortown oftheWith-ware;[12]these being, undoubtedly, no Germans at all, but the native Britons of the Isle of Wight (Vectis), whose designation in Latin would beVecticolæorVectienses.
This being the case, how can they be descended from German or DanishJutes? and how can we reconcile the statement of Beda with that of Asser?
§ 11. The answer to this will be given after another fact has been considered.
Precisely the same confusion between the sounds ofw,j,g,io,eæ,u, andi, which occurs with the so-calledJutesof the Isle of Wight, occurs with the Jutlanders of the peninsula of Jutland. The common forms areJutland,Jute,Jutones, andJutenses, but they are not the only ones. InA.D.952, we find "Dania cismarina quamVitlandincolæ appellant."—"Annales Saxonici."[13]
§ 12. Putting these facts together I adopt the evidence of Asser as to theGwithwarebeing British, and consider them as simpleVecti-colæ, or inhabitants of the Isle ofWight. They are also theVectuariiof Beda, theWihtwareof the Saxon Chronicle, and theWihtsætanof Alfred.
The Jutes of Hampshire—i.e., the "Jutarum natio—posita contra ipsam insulam Vectam," and theJutnacyn, I consider to have been the same; except that they had left the Isle of Wight to settle on the opposite coast; probably flying before their German conquerors, in which case they would be theexulesof Asser.
The statement of Beda, so opposed to that of Asser, I explain by supposing that it arose out of an inaccurate inference drawn from the similarity of the names of the Isle of Wight and the peninsula of Jutland, since we have seen that in both cases, there was a similar confusion between the syllablesJut-andVit-. This is an error into which even a careful writer might fall. That Beda had no authentic historical accounts of the conquest of Britain, we know from his own statements in the Preface to his Ecclesiastical History,[14]and that hepartially tried to make up for the want of them by inference is exceedingly likely. If so, what would be more natural than for him to conclude that Jutes as well as Angles helped to subdue the country. The fact itself was probable; besides which he saw at one and the same time, in EnglandVitæ(called alsoJutæ), in immediate contact withSaxons,[26]and on the continentJutæ(called alsoVitæ) in the neighborhood of Angles[27]and Saxons. Is it surprising that he should connect them?
§ 13. If the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight were reallyJutesfromJutland, it is strange that there should be no traces of the difference which existed, then as now, between them and the proper Anglo-Saxons—a difference which was neither inconsiderable nor of a fleeting nature.
The present Jutlanders are not Germans but Danes, and the Jutes of the time of Beda were most probably the same. Those of the 11th century werecertainlyso, "Primi ad ostium Baltici Sinus in australi ripa versus nosDani, quos Juthas appellant, usque ad Sliam lacum habitant." Adamus Bremensis,[15]"De Situ Daniæ" c. 221. Also, "Et prima pars Daniæ, quæ Jutland dicitur, ad Egdoram[28]in Boream longitudine pretenditur ... in eum angulum qui Windila dicitur, ubi Jutland finem habet," c. 208.
At the time of Beda they must, according to the received traditions, have been nearly 300 years in possession of the Isle of Wight, a locality as favourable for the preservation of their peculiar manners and customs as any in Great Britain, and a locality wherein we have no evidence of their ever having been disturbed. Nevertheless, neither trace nor shadow of a trace, eitherin early or modern times, has ever been discovered of their separate nationality and language; a fact which stands in remarkable contrast with the very numerous traces which the Danes of the 9th and 10th century left behind them as evidence of their occupancy.
§ 14. The wordsEnglandandEnglishare derived from theAnglesof Beda. The wordsSussex,Essex,MiddlesexandWessex, from hisSaxons. No objection lies against this; indeed to deny that populations calledAngleandSaxonoccupiedEnglandand spoke theAnglo-Saxonlanguage would display an unnecessary and unhealthy scepticism. The real question concerning these two words consists in the relation which the populations to which they were applied bore to each other. And this question is a difficult one. Did the Angles speak one language, whilst the Saxons spoke another? or did they both speak dialects of the same tongue? Were these dialects slightly or widely different? Can we find traces of the difference in any of the present provincial dialects? Are the idioms of one country of Angle, whilst those of another are of Saxon origin? Was the Angle more like the Danish language, whilst the Saxon approached the Dutch? None of these questions can be answered at present. They have, however, been asked for the sake of exhibiting the nature of the subject.
§ 15. The extract from Beda requires further remarks.
The Angles of Beda.—The statement of Beda respecting the Angles, like his statement concerning the Jutes, reappears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and in Alfred.
Ethelweard[16]also adopts it:—"Anglia vetussita est inter Saxones et Giotos, habens oppidum capitale quodsermone SaxonicoSleswicnuncupatur, secundum vero DanosHathaby."
Nevertheless, it is exceptionable and unsatisfactory; and like the previous one, in all probability, an incorrect inference founded upon the misinterpretation of a name.
In the eighth century therewas, and at the present moment thereis, a portion of the duchy of Sleswick calledAnglenorthe corner. It is really what its name denotes, a triangle of irregular shape, formed by the Slie, the firth of Flensborg, and a line drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick. It is just as Danish as the rest of the peninsula, and cannot be shown to have been occupied by a Germanic population at all. Its area is less than that of the county of Rutland, and by no means likely to have supplied such a population as that of the Angles of England. The fact of its being a desert at the time of Beda is credible; since it formed a sort ofMarchorDebatable Groundbetween the Saxons and Slavonians of Holstein, and the Danes of Jutland.
Now if we suppose that the real Angles of Germany were either so reduced in numbers as to have become an obscure tribe, or so incorporated with other populations as to have lost their independent existence, we can easily see how the similarity of name, combined with the geographical contiguity of Anglen to the Saxon frontier, might mislead even so good a writer as Beda, into the notion that he had found the country of theAnglesin theAngulus(Anglen) of Sleswick.
The trueAngleswere the descendants of theAngliof Tacitus. Who these were will be investigated in §§47-54.
§ 16.The Saxons of Beda.—The Saxons of Beda reached from the country of the Old Saxons[29]on theLippe, in Westphalia, to that of the Nordalbingian[30]Saxons between the Elbe and Eyder; and nearly, but not quite, coincided with the present countries of Hanover, Oldenburg, Westphalia, and part of Holstein. This we may call theSaxon, or (as reasons will be given for considering that it nearly coincided with the country of the Angles) theAnglo-Saxonarea.
§ 17.River-system and sea-board of the Anglo-Saxon area.—As the invasion of England took place by sea, we must expect to find in the invaders a maritime population. This leads to the consideration of the physical character of that part of Germany which they occupied. And here comes a remarkable and unexpected fact. The line of coast between the Rhine and Elbe, the line which in reasoninga priori, we should fix upon as the most likely tract for the bold seamen who wrested so large an island as Great Britain from its original occupants (changing it fromBritaintoEngland), to have proceeded from, isnotthe country of the Anglo-Saxons. On the contrary, it is the country of a similar but different section of the Germanic population, a section which has not received the attention from the English historian which it deserves. The country in question is the area of—
§ 18.The Frisians.—At the present moment the language of the Dutch province of Friesland is materially different from that of the other parts of the kingdom of Holland. In other words it is not Dutch. Neither is it German—although, of course, it resembles both languages. On the other hand, it is more like the English than any other language or dialect in Germany is.
It is a language of considerable antiquity, andalthough at present it is spoken by the country-people only, it possesses a considerable literature. There is theMiddleFrisian of Gysbert Japicx,[17]and theOldFrisian of the Frisian Laws.[18]The older the specimen of the Frisian language the more closely does it show its affinity to the English; hence the earliest Frisian and the Anglo-Saxon are exceedingly alike. Nevertheless they differ.
§ 19. The Frisian was once spoken over a far greater area than at present. It was the original language of almost all Holland. It was the language of East Friesland to a late period. It was, probably, the language of the ancient Chauci. At the present time (besides Friesland) it survives in Heligoland, in the islands between the Ems and Weser, in part of Sleswick, and in a few localities in Oldenburg and Westphalia.
Hence it is probable that the original Frisian, extending to an uncertain and irregular distance inland, lay between the Saxons and the sea, and stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Elbe; a fact which would leave to the latter nation the lower Elbe and the Weser as their water-system: the extent to which they were in direct contact with the ocean being less than we are prepared to expect from their subsequent history.
On the other hand thea prioriprobabilities of there being Frisians as well as Anglo-Saxons amongst the conquerors of Great Britain are considerable.—See §§55,56.
§ 20. The Anglo-Saxon area coincided—
1.Politically.—With the kingdom of Hanover, the duchy of Oldenburg, and parts of Westphalia and Holstein.
2.Physically.—With the basin of the Weser.
It wascertainlyfrom the Anglo-Saxon, andprobablyfrom a part of the Frisian area that Great Britain was first invaded.
This is as much as it is safe to say at present. The preceding chapter investigated thedateof the Germanic migration into Britain; the present has determined theareafrom which it went forth.
OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD SAXON.
§ 21. 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.
There were at leasttwodivisions 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.
§ 22. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there is good reason for believing that thefirstwas spoken in thenorthern, thesecondin thesouthernportion 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.
§ 23. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there is good reason for believing that, whilst theformerwas the mother-tongue of the Angles and the conquerors of England, thelatterwas that of the Cherusci of Arminius, the conquerors and the annihilators of the legions of Varus.[19]
§ 24. Respecting the Saxon of England and theSaxon 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,[20](2) Hildubrand and Hathubrant,[21](3) the Carolinian Psalms.[22]
§ 25. 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.
§ 26. The Saxon of Englandiscalled Anglo-Saxon; a term against which no exception can be raised.
§ 27. The Saxon of the Continentusedto be calledDano-Saxon, andiscalledOldSaxon.
§ 28.Why calledDano-Saxon.—When the poem calledHeliandwas first discovered in an English library, the difference in language between it and the common Anglo-Saxon composition was accounted for by the assumption of aDanishintermixture.
§ 29.Why calledOldSaxon.When the Continental origin of theHeliandwas recognised, the language was calledOldSaxon, because it represented the Saxon of the mother-country, the natives of which were calledOldSaxons by theAnglo-Saxons themselves. Still the term is exceptionable; as the Saxon of the Heliand is probably asister-dialect of theAnglo-Saxon, ratherthantheAnglo-Saxon itself in a Continental locality. Exceptionable, however, as it is, it will be employed.
AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA.
§ 30. Over and above those languages of Germany and Holland which were akin to the dialects of the Anglo-Saxons, cognate languages were spoken in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe isles,i.e., in Scandinavia.
§ 31. 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 theGoths; the termGothicfor the Scandinavian and Germanic languages, collectively, being both current and convenient.
§ 32. Of this greatstockof languages the Scandinavian is onebranch; the Germanic, called also Teutonic, another.
§ 33. 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.
§ 34. The Teutonic branch falls into three divisions:—
1. The Mœso-Gothic.2. The High Germanic.3. The Low Germanic.
1. The Mœso-Gothic.2. The High Germanic.3. The Low Germanic.
1. The Mœso-Gothic.
2. The High Germanic.
3. The Low Germanic.
§ 35. It is in the Mœso-Gothic that the most ancient specimen of any Gothic tongue has been preserved. It is also the Mœso-Gothic that was spoken by the conquerors of ancient Rome; by the subjects of Hermanric, Alaric, Theodoric, Euric, Athanaric, and Totila.
In the reign of Valens, when pressed by intestine wars, and by the movements of the Huns, the Goths were assisted by that emperor, and settled in the Roman province of Mœsia.
Furthermore, they were converted to Christianity; and the Bible was translated into their language by their Bishop Ulphilas.
Fragments of this translation, chiefly from the Gospels, have come down to the present time; and the Bible translation of the Arian Bishop Ulphilas, in the language of the Goths of Mœsia, during the reign of Valens, exhibits the earliest sample of any Gothic tongue.
§ 36. The Old High German, called also Francic[24]and Alemannic,[25]was spoken in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, in Suabia, Bavaria, and Franconia.
The Middle High German ranges from the thirteenth century to the Reformation.
§ 37. The low Germanic division, to which the Anglo-Saxon belongs, is currently said to comprise six languages, or rather four languages in different stages.
I. II.—The Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.III. The Old Saxon.IV. V.—The Old Frisian and Modern Dutch.VI.—The Platt-Deutsch, or Low German.
I. II.—The Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.III. The Old Saxon.IV. V.—The Old Frisian and Modern Dutch.VI.—The Platt-Deutsch, or Low German.
I. II.—The Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.
III. The Old Saxon.
IV. V.—The Old Frisian and Modern Dutch.
VI.—The Platt-Deutsch, or Low German.
§ 38.The Frisian and Dutch.—It is a current statement that the Old Frisian bears the same relation to the Modern Dutch of Holland that the Anglo-Saxon does to the English.
The truer view of the question is as follows:—
1. That a single language, spoken in two dialects, was originally common to both Holland and Friesland.
2. That from the northern of these dialects we have the Modern Frisian of Friesland.
3. From the southern, the Modern Dutch of Holland.
The reason of this refinement is as follows:—
The Modern Dutch has certain grammatical formsolderthan those of the old Frisian;e.g., the Dutch infinitives and the Dutch weak substantives, in their oblique cases, end in-en; those of the Old Frisian in-a: the form in-enbeing the older.
The true Frisian is spoken in few and isolated localities. There is—
1. The Frisian of the Dutch state called Friesland.
2. The Frisian of the parish of Saterland, in Westphalia.
3. The Frisian of Heligoland.
4. The North Frisian, spoken in a few villages of Sleswick. One of the characters of the North Frisian is the possession of a dual number.
In respect to its stages, we have the Old Frisian of the Asega-bog, the Middle Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[31]and the Modern Frisian of the present Frieslanders, Westphalians, and Heligolanders.
§ 39.The Low German and Platt-Deutsch.—The wordsLow-Germanare not only lax in their application, but they areequivocal; since the term has two meanings, ageneralmeaning when it signifies a division of the Germanic languages, comprising English, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Old Saxon, and Frisian, and a limited one when it means the particular dialects of the Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe. To avoid this the dialects in questionare conveniently called by their continental name ofPlatt-Deutsch, just as in England we sayBroadScotch.
§ 40. The most characteristic difference between the Saxon and Icelandic (indeed between the Teutonic and Scandinavian tongues) lies in the peculiar position of the definite article in the latter. In Saxon, the article corresponding with the modern wordthe, isþæt,se,seó, for the neuter, masculine, and feminine genders respectively; and these words, regularly declined, areprefixedto the words with which they agree, just as is the case with the English and with the majority of languages. In Icelandic, however, the article instead of preceding,followsits noun,with which it coalesces, having previously suffered a change in form. The Icelandic article corresponding toþæt,se,seó, ishitt,hinn,hin: from this thehis ejected, so that, instead of the regular inflection (a), we have the forms (b).
Whence, as an affix, in composition,
In the Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish this peculiarity in the position of the definite article is preserved. Its origin, however, is concealed; and an accidental identity with the indefinite article has led to false notions respecting its nature. In the languages in point theiis changed intoe, so that what in Icelandic isitandin, is in Danishetanden.En, however, as a separate word, is the numeralone, and also the indefinite articlea; whilst in the neuter gender it iset—en sol,a sun; et bord,a table: solon,the sun; bordet,the table. From modern forms like those just quoted, it has been imagined that the definite is merely the indefinite article transposed. This it is not.
To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbet's,en=a, and-en=the, arethe same combination of letters, but not the same word.
§ 41. Another characteristic of the Scandinavian language is the possession of apassiveform, or apassivevoice, ending in-st:—ek,þu,hann brennist=I am,thou art,he is burnt;ver brennumst=we are burnt;þér brennizt=ye are burnt;þeir brennast=they are burnt. Past tense,ek,þu,hann brendist;ver brendumst,þér brenduzt,þeir brendust. Imperat.:brenstu=be thou burnt. Infinit.:brennast=to be burnt.
In the modern Danish and Swedish, the passive is still preserved, but without the finalt. In theolderstages of Icelandic, on the other hand, the termination was not-stbut-sc; which-scgrew out of the reflective pronounsik. With these phenomena the Scandinavian languages give us the evolution and development of a passive voice; wherein we have the following series of changes:—1. the reflective pronoun coalesces with the verb, whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that of a middle verb; 2. thecchanges tot, whilst the middle sense passes into a passive one; 3.tis dropped from the end of the word, and the expression that was once reflective then becomes strictly passive.
Now the Saxons have no passive voice at all. That they should have oneoriginatinglike that of the Scandinavians was impossible, inasmuch as they had no reflective pronoun, and, consequently, nothing to evolve it from.
ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.—GERMANIC ELEMENTS.—THE ANGLES.
§ 42. The language of England has been formed out of three elements.
a.Elements referable to the original British population, and derived from times anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
b.Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, or imported elements.
c.Elements introduced since the Anglo-Saxon conquest.
§ 43. Each of these requires a special analysis, but that of the second will be taken first, and form the contents of the present chapter.
All that we have at present learned concerning the Germanic invaders of England, is the geographical area which they originally occupied. How far, however, it was simple Saxons who conquered England single-handed, or how far the particular Saxon Germans were portions of a complex population, requires further investigation. Were the Saxons one division of the German population, whilst the Angles were another? or were the Angles a section of the Saxons, so that the latter was a generic term including the former? Again, although the Saxon invasion may be the one which has had the greatest influence, and drawn the most attention, why may there not have been separate and independent migrations, theeffects and record of which have, in the lapse of time, become fused with those of the more important divisions?
§ 44.The Angles; who were they? and what was their relation to the Saxons?—The first answer to this question embodies a great fact in the way of internal evidence,viz., that they were the people from whomEnglandderives the name it bears =Angle land, i.e.,land of the Angles. Our language too isEnglish, i.e.,Angle. Whatever, then, they may have been on the Continent, they were a leading section of the invaders here. Why then has their position in our inquiries been hitherto so subordinate to that of the Saxons? It is because their importance and preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer them to have been in Britain. Nay more, their historical place amongst the nations of Germany, is both insignificant and uncertain; indeed, it will be seen from the sequel, thatin and of themselveswe know next to nothing about them, knowing them only in theirrelations,i.e., to ourselves and to the Saxons.
§ 45. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name to England, and, as such, the preponderating element in the eyes of the presentEnglish, they were not so in the eyes of the original British; who neither knew at the time of the Conquest, nor know now, of any other name for their German enemies butSaxon. AndSaxonis the name by which the present English are known to the Welsh, Armorican, and Gaelic Celts.
§ 46. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name toEngland, &c., they were quite as little Angles as Saxons in the eyes of foreigncotemporary writers; since the expressionSaxoniæ transmarinæ, occurs as applied to England.
§ 47.Who were the Angles?—Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name toEngland, &c., the notices of them as Germans in Germany, are extremely limited.
Extract from Tacitus.—This merely connects them with certain other tribes, and affirms the existence of certain religious ordinances common to them:—
"Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat: plurimis ac valentissimis nationibus cincti, non per obsequium sed prœliis et periclitando tuti sunt. Reudigni deinde, et Aviones, etAngli, et Varini, et Eudoses, et Suardones, et Nuithones, fluminibus aut silvis muniuntur: nec quidquam notabile in singulis, nisi quod in commune Herthum, id est, Terram matrem colunt, eamque intervenire rebus hominum, invehi populis, arbitrantur. Est in insula Oceani Castum nemus, dicatumque in eo vehiculum, veste contectum, attingere uni sacerdoti concessum. Is adesse penetrali deam intelligit, vectamque bobus feminis multâ cum veneratione prosequitur. Læti tunc dies, festa loca, quæcumque adventu hospitioque dignatur. Non bella ineunt, non arma sumunt, clausum omne ferrum; pax et quies tunc tantùm nota, tunc tantùm amata, donec idem sacerdos satiatam conversatione mortalium deam templo reddat; mox vehiculum et vestes, et, si credere velis, numen ipsum secreto lacu abluitur. Servi ministrant, quos statim idem lacus haurit. Arcanus hinc terror, sanctaque ignorantia, quid sit id, quod tantùm perituri vident."[32]
Extract from Ptolemy.—This connects the Angles with theSuevi, andLangobardi, and places them on the MiddleElbe.—Ἐντὸς καὶ μεσογείων ἐθνῶν μέγιστα μέν ἐστι τό τε τῶν Σουήβων τῶν Ἀγγειλῶν, οἵ εἰσιν ἀνατολικώτεροι τῶν Λαγγοβάρδων, ἀνατείνοντες πρὸς τὰς ἄρκτους μέχρι τῶν μέσων τοῦ Ἄλβιος ποταμοῦ.
Extract from Procopius.—For this see §55.
Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne.—This connects them with the Werini (Varni) and the Thuringians—"Incipit lexAngliorumetWerinorumhoc estThuringorum."
§ 48. These notices agree in giving the Angles aGermanlocality, and in connecting them ethnologically, and philologically with theGermansof Germany. And such was, undoubtedly, the case. Nevertheless, it may be seen from §15that aDanishorigin has been assigned to them.
The exact Germanic affinities of the Angles are, how ever, difficult to ascertain, since the tribes with which they are classed are differently classed. This we shall see by asking the following questions:—
§ 49. What were theLangobardi, with whom the Angles were connected by Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either theHigh-German, or Mœso-Gothic division, rather than to theLow.
§ 50. What were theSuevi, with whom the Angles were connected by Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either theHigh-German or Mœso-Gothic division rather than to theLow.
§ 51. What were theWerini, with whom the Angles were connected in theLeges Anglorum et Werinorum? Without having any particulardatafor connecting the Werini (Varni,Οὐάρνοι) with either the High-German, orthe Mœso-Gothic divisions, there are certain facts in favour of their beingSlavonic.
§ 52. What were theThuringians, with whom the Angles are connected in theLeges Anglorum? Germanic in locality, and most probably allied to the Goths of Mœsia in language. If not, High-Germans.
§ 53. Of the Reudigni, Eudoses, Nuithones, Suardones, and Aviones, too little is known in detail to make the details an inquiry of importance.
§ 54. The reader has now got a general view of the extent to which the position of the Angles, as a German tribe, is complicated by conflicting statements; statements which connect them with (probably)High-German Thuringians, Suevi, and Langobardi, and with (probably)SlavonicWerini, or Varni; whereas in England, they are scarcely distinguishable from theLow-German Saxons. In the present state of our knowledge, the only safe fact seems to be, that of the common relation of bothAnglesand Saxons to the presentEnglishof England.
This brings the two sections within a very close degree of affinity, and makes it probable, that, just as at present, descendants of the Saxons are English (Angle) in Britain, so, in the third and fourth centuries, ancestors of the Angles were Saxons in Germany. Why, however, the one name preponderated on the Continent, and the other in England is difficult to ascertain.
§ 55. The Frisians have been mentioned as a Germanic populationlikelyto have joined in the invasion of Britain; thepresumptionin favor of their having done so arising from their geographical position.
There is, however, something more than mere presumption upon this point.
Archbishop Usher, amongst the earlier historians, andMr. Kemble amongst those of the present day, as well as other intermediate investigators, have drawn attention to certain important notices of them.
The main facts bearing upon this question are the following:—
1. Hengist, according to some traditions, was a Frisian hero.
2. Procopius wrote as follows:—Βριττίαν δὲ τὴν νῆσον ἔθνη τρία πολυανθρωπότατα ἔχουσι, βασιλεύς τε εἶς αὐτῶν ἑκάστῳ ἐφέστηκεν, ὀνόματα δὲ κεῖται τοῖς ἔθνεσι τούτοις Ἀγγίλοι τε καὶ Φρίσσονες καὶ οἱ τῂ νήσῳ ὁμώνυμοι Βρίττωνες. Τοσαύτη δὲ ἡ τῶνδε τῶν ἐθνῶν πολυανθρωπία φαίνεται οὖσα ὥστε ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος κατὰ πολλοὺς ἐνθένδε μετανιστάμενοι ξὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ παισὶν ἐς Φράγγους χώρουσιν.—Procop. B. G. iv. 20.
3. In the Saxon Chronicle we find the following passage:—"That same year, the armies from among the East-Anglians, and from among the North-Humbrians, harassed the land of the West-Saxons chiefly, most of all by their 'æscs,' which they had built many years before. Then king Alfred commanded long ships to be built to oppose the æscs; they were full-nigh twice as long as the others; some had sixty oars, and some had more; they were both swifter and steadier, and also higher than the others. They were shapen neither like theFrisiannor the Danish, but so as it seemed to him that they would be most efficient. Then some time in the same year, there came six ships to Wight, and there did much harm, as well as in Devon, and elsewhere along the sea coast. Then the king commanded nine of the new ships to go thither, and they obstructed their passage from the port towards the outer sea. Then went they with three of their ships out against them; and three lay in the upper part of the port in the dry; the men were gonefrom them ashore. Then took they two of the three ships at the outer part of the port, and killed the men, and the other ship escaped; in that also the men were killed except five; they got away because the other ships were aground. They also were aground very disadvantageously, three lay aground on that side of the deep on which the Danish ships were aground, and all the rest upon the other side, so that no one of them could get to the others. But when, the water had ebbed many furlongs from the ships, then the Danish men went from their three ships to the other three which were left by the tide on their side, and then they there fought against them. There was slain Lucumon the king's reeve, and Wulfheard theFrisian, and Æbbe theFrisian, and Æthelhere theFrisian, and Æthelferth the king's 'geneat,' and of all the men,Frisiansand English, seventy-two; and of the Danish men one hundred and twenty."
§ 56. I believe then, that, so far from the current accounts being absolutely correct, in respect to the Germanic elements of the English population, theJutes, as mentioned by Beda, formednopart of it, whilst theFrisians,notso mentioned,were a real constituent therein; besides which, there may, very easily, have been other Germanic tribes, though in smaller proportions.
THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH.
§ 57. The languages of Great Britain at the invasion of Julius Cæsar were of the Celtic stock.
Of the Celtic stock there are two branches.
1. The British or Cambrian branch, represented by the present Welsh, and containing, besides, the Cornish of Cornwall (lately extinct), and the Armorican of the French province of Brittany. It is almost certain that the old British, the ancient language of Gaul, and the Pictish were of this branch.
2. The Gaelic or Erse branch, represented by the present Irish Gaelic, and containing, besides, the Gaelic of the Highlands of Scotland and the Manks of the Isle of Man.
§ 58. Taken altogether the Celtic tongues form a very remarkable class. As compared with those of the Gothic stock they are marked by the following characteristics:—
The scantiness of the declension of Celtic nouns.—In Irish there is a peculiar form for the dative plural, ascos=foot,cos-aibh=to feet(ped-ibus); and beyond this there is nothing else whatever in the way ofcase, as found in the German, Latin, Greek, and other tongues. Even the isolated form in question is not found in theWelsh and Breton. Hence the Celtic tongues are pre-eminently uninflected in the way ofdeclension.
§ 59. Theagglutinate character of their verbal inflections.—In Welsh the pronouns forwe,ye, andthey, areni,chwyi, andhwyntrespectively. In Welsh also the root =loveiscar. As conjugated in the plural number this is—