The conjugation of the auxiliary verb in Mœso-Gothic is as follows. It may be compared with the A. S.§ 89.
§ 94. The points of likeness or difference between two languages, each of the Low Germanic division, may be partially collected from the following comparison between certain Old Frisian and certainAnglo-Saxoninflections.
In the comparison the first point to be noticed is theTransition of Letters.
áin Frisian corresponds toeáin A. S.; asdád,rád,lás,strám,bám,cáp,áre,háp, Frisian;deád,reád,leás,streám,beám,ceáp,eáre,heáp, Saxon;dead,red,loose,stream,tree(boom),bargain(cheap, chapman),ear,heap, English.éFrisian corresponds toa), the A. S.á; asEth,téken,hél,bréd, Fris.;áþ,tácen,hál,brád, Saxon;oath,token,hale,broad, English;—b), to A. S.æ;hér,déde,bréda,Frisian;hær,dæd,brædan, A. S.;hair,deed,roast, English.etoeaandæA. S.—Frisianthet, A. S.þæt, Engl.that, Fris.gers, A. S.gærs, Engl.grass.—Also toeo;prestere, Fr.;preostA. S.,priestEngl.;berchFr.,beorhA. S.;hill(berg, as iniceberg) Engl.;melokFr.,meolocA. S.,milkEngl.itoeoA. S.—Fr.irthe, A. S.eorðe; Fris.hirte; A. S.heorte; Fris.firA. S.feor=in Englishearth,heart,far.já=eoA. S.; asbjada,beódan,bid—thet fjarde,feorðe,the fourth—sják,seóc,sick.ju=yoreoA. S.;rjucht,ryth,right—frjund,freond,friend.Dsz=A. S.cg; Fr.sedza,lidzja; A. S.secgan,licgan; Engl.to say,to lie.Tz,ts,sz,sth=A. S.corce; asszereke, orsthereke, Frisian;cyriceA. S.,churchEngl.;czetelFr.,cytelA. S.,kettleEnglish.chFr.=hA. S., asthjachFr.,þeóhA. S.,thighEngl.—berch,beórh,hill(berg)—dochter,dohtor,daughter, &c.
áin Frisian corresponds toeáin A. S.; asdád,rád,lás,strám,bám,cáp,áre,háp, Frisian;deád,reád,leás,streám,beám,ceáp,eáre,heáp, Saxon;dead,red,loose,stream,tree(boom),bargain(cheap, chapman),ear,heap, English.
éFrisian corresponds toa), the A. S.á; asEth,téken,hél,bréd, Fris.;áþ,tácen,hál,brád, Saxon;oath,token,hale,broad, English;—b), to A. S.æ;hér,déde,bréda,Frisian;hær,dæd,brædan, A. S.;hair,deed,roast, English.
etoeaandæA. S.—Frisianthet, A. S.þæt, Engl.that, Fris.gers, A. S.gærs, Engl.grass.—Also toeo;prestere, Fr.;preostA. S.,priestEngl.;berchFr.,beorhA. S.;hill(berg, as iniceberg) Engl.;melokFr.,meolocA. S.,milkEngl.
itoeoA. S.—Fr.irthe, A. S.eorðe; Fris.hirte; A. S.heorte; Fris.firA. S.feor=in Englishearth,heart,far.
já=eoA. S.; asbjada,beódan,bid—thet fjarde,feorðe,the fourth—sják,seóc,sick.
ju=yoreoA. S.;rjucht,ryth,right—frjund,freond,friend.
Dsz=A. S.cg; Fr.sedza,lidzja; A. S.secgan,licgan; Engl.to say,to lie.
Tz,ts,sz,sth=A. S.corce; asszereke, orsthereke, Frisian;cyriceA. S.,churchEngl.;czetelFr.,cytelA. S.,kettleEnglish.
chFr.=hA. S., asthjachFr.,þeóhA. S.,thighEngl.—berch,beórh,hill(berg)—dochter,dohtor,daughter, &c.
As a general statement we may say, that in the transition letters the Frisian corresponds with the A. S. more closely than it does with any other language. It must, moreover, be remarked, that, in such pairs of words asfrjundandfreond, the difference (as far at least as theeandjare concerned) is a mere difference of orthography. Such also is probably the case with the wordsdédanddæd, and many others.
The Anglo-Saxon inflection ofa) Substantives ending in a vowel,b) Substantives ending in a consonant,c) Adjectives with an indefinited) Adjectives with a definite sense,e) Verbs Activef) and verbs auxiliar, may be seen in the comparison between the A. S. and the Icelandic. The corresponding inflections in Frisian are as follows:—
With respect to the masculine substantives terminating in a consonant, it must be observed that in A. S. there are two modes of declension; in one, the plural ends in-s; in the other, in-a. The specimen in§ 83represents the first of these modes only. From this the Frisian is essentially different. With the second it has a close alliance;e.g.:—
In the inflection of the verbs there is between the Frisian and A. S. this important difference. In A. S. the infinite ends in-anmacian, to make,læran, to learn,bærnan, to burn; whilst in Frisian it ends in-a, asmaka,léra,berna.
Infin. Wesa.Pr. Part.Wesande.Past Part.E-wesen.
The Frisian numerals (to be compared with those of the Anglo-Saxons, p.43), are as follows:—Én,twá,thrjú,fjúwer,fíf,sex,sjúgun,achta,njugun,tian, &c. Of these the first three take an inflection, e.g.,En, likeGodeand the adjectives, has both a definite and an indefinite form,en, andthet ene; whilsttwaandthrjúrun as follows:—Nom.andAcc. Neut.twa;Masc.twene;Fem.twa;Dat.twam;Gen.twira.—Nom.andAcc. Neut.thrju;Masc.thre;Fem.thrja;Dat.thrim;Gen.thrira.
In respect to the Pronouns, there is in the Old Frisian of Friesland no dual number, as there is in Anglo-Saxon. On the other hand, however, the Frisians (whilst they have no such form ashis) possess, like the Icelandic, the inflected adjectival pronounsin, corresponding to the Latinsuus: whilst, like the Anglo-Saxons, and unlike the Icelanders, they have nothing to correspond with the Latinse.
§ 95. In Frisian there is between the demonstrative pronoun used as an article, and the same word used as a demonstrative in the limited sense of the term, the following difference of declension:—
THE ARTICLE.
PRONOUN.
The Demonstrative in the limited sense of the word.
The Saxons draw no such a distinction. With them the article and demonstrative is declined as follows:—
§ 96.Specimen of Glossarial affinity.—Taken from Rask's Preface to his Frisian Grammar:—
§ 97. In this Chapter there has been, thus far, an attempt to do two things at once. Firstly, to exhibit thegenerallikeness between stocks, branches, &c.; and secondly, to show thespecialaffinities between certain languages allied to ourown, and of the Gothic Stock. What follows, consists of certain observations upon two or three points of nomenclature.
§ 98.German.—The points to remember concerning this term are—
1. That it is no national name, but a name given by the Latins to the natives of the country called Germania. The wordGermanis foreign to all the Gothic languages.
2. That it was first applied to proper Germanic tribes in the time of Julius Cæsar, and that it served to distinguish the Gothic Germans from the Celtic Gauls.
3. That, anterior to the time of Cæsar, there is no proof of it being applied as a distinctive designation to any of the tribes to whom it was afterwards limited. The first tribe to whom it was applied, was (in the opinion of the present writer) a Gallic tribe.
4. That since the time of Julius Cæsar, its application has been constant,i.e., it has always meant Gothic tribes, or Gothic languages.
5. That sometimes it has been general to the whole nation—Unde fit ut tantæ populorum multitudines arctoo sub axe oriantur, ut non immerito universa illa regio Tanai tenus usque ad occiduum, licet et propriis loca ea singula nuncupentur nominibus, generali tamen vocabulo Germania vocitetur ... Gothi, siquidem, Vandalique, Rugi, Heruli, atque Turcilingi, necnon etiam aliæ feroces ac barbaræ nationes e Germania prodierunt.—Paulus Diaconus.
6. That sometimes it has been peculiar and distinctive to certain prominent portions of the nation—equi frænisGermanicis,sellisSaxonicisfalerati.
7. That the general power of the word has been, with few exceptions, limited to the Germans of Germany. We do not find either English or Scandinavian writers calling their countrymenGermani.
8. That the two German tribes most generally meant, when the wordGermanis used in a limited sense, are the Franks and the Alemanni.
9. That by a similar latitude the wordsFrancicandAlemannichave been occasionally used as synonymous withGermanic.
10. That the origin of the wordGermani, in the Latin language, is a point upon which there are two hypotheses.
a.That it is connected with the Latin wordGermani=brothers, meaning either tribes akin to one another, or tribes in a degree ofbrotherlyalliance with Rome.
b.That it grew out of some such German word asHerman,Irmin,Wehrmann, or theHerm-inHermunduri,Hermiones, &c.
Neither of these views satisfies the present writer.
For all the facts concerning the wordGermani, see the Introduction to the third edition of the Deutsche Grammar.
§ 99.Dutch.—For the purposes of Philology the meaning given to this word is inconvenient. In England, it means the language of the people of Holland.
In Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, it means the language of the people of Germany ingeneral; and thisgeneralpower of the word is retained even with us in the expression High-Dutch, and Low-Dutch. In the present work the term is avoided as much as possible. Nevertheless, wherever it occurs it means the Dutch of Holland.
The origin of the word has been a subject of much investigation; the question, however, may be considered to be settled by the remarks of Grimm, D. G.—Introduction to the third edition.
1. It was originally no national name at all.
2. In the earliest passage where it occurs, the derivative formþiudiskôcorresponds with the Greek wordἐθνικῶς—The Mœso-Gothic Translation of the New Testament—Galatians, ii. 14.
3. The derivation of the word from the substantiveþiudu=a people,a nation, is undoubted.
4. So also is the derivation of the modern wordDutch, in all its varied forms:—Old High-German,Diutisc; Anglo-Saxon,Þeódisc; Latin,Theodisca,Theudisca,Teutisca; Italian,Tedesco; Danish,Tyske; English,Dutch; the latter part of the word being the adjectival ending-isc=ish.
5. The original meaning beingof, or belonging to, the people, orof, or belonging to, the nation, secondary meanings grew out of it.
6. Of these the most remarkable area) the power given to the word in Ulphilas (heathen), illustrated by the similarly secondary power of the Greekἔθνικος;b) the meaningvernacular,provincialorvulgargiven to it as applied to language.
7. This latter power was probably given to it about the ninth century.
8. That it was not given much before, is inferred from negative evidence. The wordtheotiscais not found in the Latin writers of the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, although there are plenty of passages where it might well have been used had it existed. The terms really used are eitherpatrius sermo,sermo barbaricus,sermo vulgaricus,lingua rustica; or else the names of particular tribes, aslingua Anglorum,Alamannorum.
9. That it was current in the ninth century is evident from a variety of quotations:—Ut quilibet episcopus homilias aperte transferre studeat in rusticam Romanam linguam, autþeotiscam, quo tandem cuncti possint intelligere quæ dicantur.—Synodus Turonensis.Quod in linguaThiudiscascaftlegi, id est armorum depositio, vocatur.—Capit. Wormatiense.De collectis quasTheudiscalingua heriszuph appellat.—Conventus Silvacensis.Sibarbara, quamTeutiscamdicunt, lingua loqueretur.—Vita Adalhardi, &c.—D.G., i. p. 14,Introduction.
10. That its present national sense is wholly secondary and derivative, and that originally it was no more the name of a people or a language than the wordvulgatein the expressionthe vulgate translation of the Scripturesis the name of a people or a language.
§ 100.Teutonic.—About the tenth century the Latin writers upon German affairs began to use not only the wordsTheotiscusandTheotiscé, but also the wordsTeutonicusandTeutonicé. Upon this, Grimm remarks that the latter term sounded more learned; sinceTeutonicuswas a classical word, an adjective derived from the Gentile name of the Teutones conquered by Manus. Be it so. It then follows that the connexion betweenTeutonicusandTheotiscusis a mere accident, the originof the two words being different. The worthlessness of all evidence concerning the Germanic origin of the Teutonic tribes conquered by Marius, based upon the connexion between the wordTeutonand Dutch, has been pointed out by the present writer in the 17th number of the Philological Transactions.[10]All that is proved is this,viz., that out of the confusion between the two words arose a confusion between the two nations. These last may or may not have been of the same race.
§ 101.Anglo-Saxon—In the ninth century the language of England wasAngle, orEnglish. Thelingua Anglorumof Bede is translated by Alfredon englisce. The termSaxonwas in use also at an early (perhaps an equally early) date—fures quosSaxonicedicimus vergeldþeóvas. The compound termAnglo-Saxonis later.—Grimm,Introduction to the third edition ofD.G., p. 2.
§ 102.Icelandic, Old Norse.—AlthoughIcelandicis the usual name for the mother-tongue of the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, the Norwegian philologists generally prefer the termOld Norse.
In favour of this view is the fact that Norway was the mother-country, Iceland the colony, and that much of what is called Old Icelandic was composed in Norway.
Still the reason is insufficient; since the present termIcelandicis given to the language not because Icelandwasthe country thatproduced, but because it is the country that haspreservedit.
This leads to the argument in its most general form—should a language be named from the colony, or from the mother-country? The Norwegians say from the mother-country. Let us consider this.
Suppose that whilst the Latin of Virgil and Cicero in Italy had been changing into the modern Italian, in some old Roman colony (say Sardinia) it had remained either whollyunaltered, or else, altered so little as for the modernSardinian—provided he could read at all—to be able to read the authors of the Augustan age, just like those of the era of Charles Albert; no other portion of the old Roman territory—not even Rome itself—having any tongue more like to that of the Classical writers, than the most antiquated dialect of the present Italian. Suppose, too, that the termLatinhad become obsolete, would it be imperative upon us to call the language of the ClassicsOld Italian,Old Roman, or at leastOld Latin, when no modern native of Rome, Latium, or Italy could read them? Would it be wrong to call itSardinianwhen every Sardecouldread them? I think not.Mutatis mutandis, this is the case with Iceland and Norway.
ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE—GERMANIC ELEMENTS.
§ 103. The population and, to a certain extent, the language of England, have been formed of three elements, which in the most general way may be expressed as follows:—
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.
§ 104. Each of these requires a special analysis, but that of the second will be taken first, and will 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 wholly or partially occupied, and the tribes and nations with which they were conterminous whilst in Germany. 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, the effects and record of which, have in the lapse of time, become fused with those of the more important divisions?
Questions like these require notice, and in a more advanced state of what may be calledminute ethnographicalphilologywill obtain more of it than has hitherto been their share. At present our facts are few, and our methods of investigation imperfect.
§ 105. In respect to this last, it is necessary to distinguish between the opinions based onexternal, and the opinions based oninternalevidence. To the former class belong the testimonies of cotemporary records, or (wanting these) of records based upon transmitted, but cotemporary, evidence. To the latter belong the inferences drawn from similarity of language, name, and other ethnologicaldata. Of such, a portion only will be considered in the present chapter; not that they have no proper place in it, but because the minuter investigation of an important section of these (i.e., the subject of theEnglish dialects) will be treated as a separate subject elsewhere.
§ 106.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=the 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 definitude and preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer (from the termsEnglandandEnglish) it to have been in Britain. Nay more, their historical place amongst the nations of Germany, and within the German area, is both insignificant and doubtful; 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. The following, however, are the chief facts that form the foundation for our inferences.
§ 107. 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 thename by which the present English are known to the Welsh, Armorican, and Gaelic Celts.
§ 108. 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 foreign cotemporary writers; since the expressionSaxoniæ trans-marinæ, occurs as applied to England.
§ 109. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name toEngland, &c., the material notice of them as Germans of Germany, are limited to the following facts.
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."[11]
Extract from Ptolemy.—This connects the Angles withtheSuevi, andLangobardi, and places them on the Middle Elbe.
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§ 129.
Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne.—This connects them with the Werini (Varni), and the Thuringians—"Incipit lexAngliorumetVerinorum(Varni); hoc estThuringorum."—Zeuss, 495, and Grimm. G.D.S.
§ 110. These notices agree in giving the Angles a German locality, and in connecting them ethnologically, and philologically with the Germans of Germany. The notices that follow, traverse this view of the question, by indicating a slightly different area, and Danish rather than German affinities.
Extracts connecting them with the inhabitants of the Cimbric Peninsula.—a.The quotation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of§ 16.
b.From Bede; "Porro de Anglis, hoc est illa patria, quæAngulusdicitur, et ab eo tempore usque hodie, manere desertus inter provincias Jutarum et Saxonum perhibetur."—Angl. i. 15.
c.From Alfred, "And be wæstan eald Seaxum is Albe muða þære ea and Frisland. And þanon west norð is þæt land, the manAngle, hæt and Sillende, and summe dæl Dena."[12]—Oros. p. 20.
Also, speaking of Other's voyage,[13]"He seglode to þæm porte þe man hæt Hæþum; se stent betwuhs Winedum and Seaxum, andAngle, and hyrð in on Dene ... and þatwegen dagas ær he to Hædhum come, him wæs on þæt steorbord Gothland and Sillende and iglanda fela. On þæm landum eardodon Engle, ær hi hiðer on land comon."[14]—Oros. p. 23.
d.From Etherwerd, writing in the eleventh century—"Angliavetus sita est inter Saxones et Giotos, habens oppidum capitale, quod sermone SaxonicoSleswicnuncupatur, secundum vero DanosHathaby."[14]
§ 111.The district called Angle.—The district ofAnglen, so called (where it is mentioned at all) at the present moment, is a part of the Dutchy of Sleswick, which is literally anAngle;i.e., a triangle of irregular shape, formed by the Schlie, the Flensborger Fiord, and a line drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick; every geographical name in it being, at present, Danish, whatever it may have been previously. Thus some villages end inbye(Danish=town) as Hus-bye, Herreds-bye, Ulse-bye, &c.; some ingaard(=house), asOegaard; whilst the other Danish forms areskov=wood(shaw),hofved=head,lund=grove, &c. In short it has nothing to distinguish it from the other parts of the peninsula.
§ 112. Add to these the Danish expression, thatDanandAngulwere brothers, as the exponent of a recognised relationship between the two populations, and we have a view of the evidence in favour of the Danish affinity.
§ 113.Inferences and remarks.—a.That whilst the rootAngl-in Tacitus, Ptolemy, Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum, &c., is the name of apeople, the rootAngl-in theAnglenof Sleswick, is the name of a district; a fact which is further confirmed by the circumstance of there being in at least one other part of Scandinavia, a district with a similar name—"Hann átti bu a Halogolandi iAungli."[14]—Heimskringla, iii. 454.
b.That the derivation of theAnglesof England from theAnglenof Sleswick is an inference of the same kind with the one respecting the Jutes (see§ 20), made by the same writers, probably on the same principle, and most likely incorrectly.
c.That the Angles of England were the Angli of Tacitus,Ptolemy, Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum et Werinorum, whatever these were.
§ 114. What were theLangobardi, with whom the Angles were connected by Tacitus? The most important facts to be known concerning them are, (1) that the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to theHigh-German, or Mœso-Gothic division, rather than to theLow; (2) that their original locality either reached or lay beyond the Elbe; a locality, which, in the tenth century, wasSlavonic, and which, in the opinion of the present writer, we have no reason to consider to have been other than Slavonic during the nine preceding ones.—That they were partially, at least, on this side of the Elbe, we learn from the following:—"Receptæ Cauchorum nationes, fracti Langobardi, gens etiam Germanis feritate ferocior; denique usque ad flumen Albim ... Romanus cum signis perductus exercitus."[15]—Velleius Paterc. ii. 106.
§ 115. What were theSuevi, with whom the Angles were connected by Tacitus? The most important facts to be known concerning them are, (1) that the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to theHigh-German or Mœso-Gothic, division, rather than to theLow; (2) that their original locality either reached or lay beyond the Elbe; a locality, which, in the tenth century, wasSlavonic, and which, in the opinion of the present writer, we have no reason to consider to have been other than Slavonic during the nine preceding ones. In other words, what applies to the Langobardi applies to the Suevi also.
What the Suevi were, the Semnones were also, "Vetustissimos se nobilissimosque Suevorum Semnones memorant." Tac. Germ., 39. Speaking, too, of their great extension, he says,centum pagi ab iis habitantur.[15]
Velleius states that there were Suevi on the west of the Middle Elbe, Ptolemy, that there were Suevi to the east of it,i.e., as far as the River Suebus (Oder?).—Καὶ τὸ τῶν Σουήβων τῶν Σεμνόνων, οἵτινες διήκουσι μετὰ τὸν Ἄλβιν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰρημένου μέρους(the middle Elbe)πρὸς ἀνατολὰς μέχρι τοῦ Σουήβου ποταμοῦ.[16]
In the letter of Theodeberht to the Emperor Justinian, we find theNorth-Suevians mentioned along with the Thuringians, as having been conquered by the Franks; "Subactis Thuringis ...Norsavorumgentis nobis placata majestas colla subdidit."[16]
§ 116. 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, or the Mœso-Gothic divisions, there are in favour of their being Slavonic in locality, the same facts as applied to the Suevi and Langobardi, with the additional one, that the name probably exists at present in the RiverWarnow, of Mecklenburg Schwerin, at the mouth of which (Warnemunde) the town of Rostock stands.
§ 117. What were theThuringians, with whom the Angles are connected in theLeges Anglorum, &c.; Germanic in locality, and most probably allied to the Goths of Mœsia in language.
§ 118. Of the Reudigni, Eudoses, Nuithones, Suardones, and Aviones, too little is known in detail to make the details an inquiry of importance. Respecting them all, it may be said at once, that whatever may be the Germanic affinities involved in their connection with the Suevi, Langobardi, Angli, &c., they are traversed by the fact of their locality being in the tenth century Slavonic.
§ 119. The last tribe which will be mentioned, is that of theAngrarii, most probably another form of theAngrivariiof Tacitus, the name of the occupants of the valley of the Aller, the northern confluent of the Weser.
As this word is compound (-varii=ware=inhabitants), the root remainsAngr-, a word which only requires therto becomelin order to makeAngl-. As both the locality and the relation to the Saxons, make theAngrivarianlocality one of the best we could assume for theAngles, the onlydifficulty lies in the change fromrtol. Unfortunately, this, in the Saxon-German, is an unlikely one.
§ 120. The last fact connected with the Angles, will be found in a more expanded form in the Chapter on the Dialects of the English Language. It relates to the distribution over the conquered parts of Britain. Their chief area was the Midland and Eastern counties, Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Leicestershire, &c., rather than the parts south of the Thames, which were Saxon, and those north of the Wash, where Danish influences have been considerable.
§ 121. 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)SlavonicVarni, Eudoses, Suardones, &c.; 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 bothAngleand Saxon, 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.
§ 122. By considering the Angles as Saxons under another name (orvice versâ), and by treating the statement as to the existence of Jutes in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight as wholly unhistorical, we get, as a general expression for the Anglo-Germanic immigration, that it consisted of the closely allied tribes of the North-Saxon area, an expression that implies a general uniformity of population. Is there reason to think that the uniformity was absolute?
§ 123. The following series of facts, when put together, will prepare us for a fresh train of reasoning concerning the different geographical and ethnological relations of theimmigrants into England, during their previous habitation in Germany.
1. The termination-asis, like the-sin the modern English, the sign of the plural number in Anglo-Saxon.
2. The termination-ingdenotes,in the first instance, a certain number of individuals collected together, and united with each other as a clan, tribe, family, household.
3. In doing this, it generally indicates a relationship of apersonalorpoliticalcharacter. Thus twoBaningasmight be connected with each other, and (as such) indicated by the same term from any of the following causes—relationship, subordination to the same chief, origin from the same locality, &c.
4. Of thesepersonalconnections, the one which is considered to be the commonest is that ofdescentfrom a common ancestor, so that the termination-ingin this case, is a realpatronymic.
5. Such an ancestor need not be real; indeed, he rarely if ever is so. Like theeponymusof the classical writers, he is the hypothetical, or mythological, progenitor of the clan, sept, or tribe, as the case may be;i.e., as Æolus, Dorus, and Ion to the Æolians, Dorians, and Ionians.
Now, by admitting these facts without limitation, and by applying them freely and boldly to the Germanic population of England, we arrive at the following inferences.
1. That where we meet two (or more) households, families, tribes, clans, or septs of the same name (that name ending in-ing), in different parts of England, we may connect them with each other, either directly or indirectly; directly when we look on the second as an offset from the first; indirectly, when we derive both from some third source.
2. That when we find families, tribes, &c., of the same name, both in Britain and in Germany, we may derive the English ones from the continental.
Now neither of these views is hypothetical. On the contrary each is a real fact. Thus in respect to divisions of the population, designated by names ending in-ing, we have
1. In Essex, Somerset, and Sussex,—Æstingas.
2. In Kent, Dorset, Devonshire, and Lincoln,—Alingas.
3. In Sussex, Berks, and Northamptonshire,—Ardingas.
4. In Devonshire, Gloucestershire, and Sussex,—Arlingas.
5. In Herts, Kent, Lincolnshire, and Salop,—Baningas.
6. In Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, and the Isle of Wight,—Beadingas.
7. In Kent, Devonshire, Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Salop, and Somerset,—Beringas.
8. In Bedford, Durham, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Salop, Sussex, and the Isle of Wight,—Billingas, &c.—the list being taken from Mr. Kemble, vol. i. p. 64.
§ 124. On the other hand, the following Anglo-Saxon names in-ing, reappear in different parts of Germany, sometimes in definite geographical localities, as the occupants of particular districts, sometimes as mentioned in poems without further notice.
1.Wælsingas,—as the Volsungar of the Iceland, and the Wælsingen of the German heroic legends.
2.Herelingas,—mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon poem known by the name of the Traveller's Song, containing a long list of the Gothic tribes, families, nations, &c.
3.Brentingas.—Ibid.
4.Scyldingas.—Ibid.
5.Scylfingas.—Ibid.
6.Ardingas.
7.Baningas, Traveller's Song, mentioned as the subjects of Becca.
8.Helsingas.—Ibid.
9.Myrgingas.—Ibid.
10.Hundingas.—Ibid.
11.Hocingas.—Ibid.
12.Seringas.—Ibid.
13.Dhyringas=Thuringians. (?)
14.Bleccingas.
15.Gytingas.
16.Scydingas.
17.Dylingas.
§ 125. We will still, for argument's sake, and for the sakeof the illustration of an ethnological method, take these names along with the observations by which they were preceded, as if they were wholly unexceptionable; and, having done this, ask how far each is known asGerman. So doing, we must make two divisions:
a.Those which we have no reason to think other than Angle or Saxon.
b.Those which indicate elements of the migration other than Angle or Saxon.
§ 126.Patronymics which do not necessarily denote a non-Saxon element.—Of these, the following are so little known, that they may pass as Saxons, simply because we have no grounds for thinking them aught else; the Brentings, Banings, Helsings, Serings, Ardings, Hundings, Blekings, Herelings, Gytings, Scydings, Dylings. The Scyldings and Scefings, belong, in a more positive way, to the Anglo-Saxon division; since their eponymi, Scyld and Sceaf, form a portion of the Anglo-Saxon mythology.
§ 127.Patronymics indicating a non-Saxon, rather than a Saxon element.—a.The Wælsings—In the way of tradition and mythology, this is aFrankgentile name.
b.The Myrgings.—Ditto.This is the German form of the Merovingians.
c.The Hocings.—This is the German form of the Chauci, and, as such, a Frisian gentile name.
d.The Dhyrings.—Perhaps Thuringians of Thuringia.
Thus, then, if we still assume that the method in question is unexceptionable, we have, from the evidence of what may be called either thegentile forms, or thepatronymicsin-ing, reasons for believing that FrankMyrgings, FrisianHocings, and ThuringianDhyrings, formed part of the invasion—these, at least; possibly others besides.
And why should the reason be other than unexceptionable? Do we not in North America, believe, that,as a general rule, the families with particular names, coincide with the families so-called in England; that the names of certain places,sometimes, at least, indicate a populationoriginatingin places similarly designated here? that the Smiths and Johnstonsare English in origin, and that O'Connors and O'Neils are Irish? We certainly believe all this, and, in many cases, we believe it, on the ground of the identity of name only.
§ 128.Exceptions.—Still there are exceptions. Of these the most important are as follows:—
1. The termination-ingis sometimes added to an undoubtedly British root, so as to have originated within the island, rather than to have been brought from the continent,e.g., theKent-ings=the people of Kent. In such a case, the similarity to a German name, if it exist at all, exists as an accident.
2. The same, or nearly the same, name may not only occur in different parts of one and the same division of the Germanic areas, but in different ones,e.g., the Dhyringsmaydenote the Thuringians of Thuringia; but they may also denote the people of a district, or town, in Belgium, designated asDorringen.[17]
Still as a method, the one in question should be understood; although it has been too short a time before the learned world to have borne fruit.
N.B.—What applies to the coincidence ofgentileorpatronymicnames on the two sides of the water, applies also to dialects;e.g., if (say) the Kentish differed from the other dialects of England, just in the same way, and with the same peculiar words and forms, as (say) the Verden dialect differed from the ones of Germany, we might fairly argue, that it was from the district of Verden that the county of Kent is peopled. At present we are writing simply for the sake of illustrating certain philological methods. The question of dialect will be treated in Part VII.
§ 129.German tribes where there is no direct evidence as to their having made part of the population of England, but where theà prioriprobabilities are strongly in their favour.This applies to—a.The Batavians. No direct evidence, but greatà prioriprobability.
b.The Frisians.—Greatà prioriprobability, andsomething more;Βριττίαν δὲ τὴν νῆσον ἔθνη τρία πολυανθρωπότατα ἔχουσι, βασιλεύς τε ἑῖς αὐτῶν ἑκάστῳ ἐφέστηκεν, ὀνόματα δὲ κεῖται τοῖς ἔθνεσι τούτοις Ἀγγίλοι τε καὶ Φρίσσονες καὶ οἱ τῇ 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.[18]—Procop. B. G. iv. 20.
§ 130. I believe, for my own part, there were portions in the early Germanic population of Britain, which were not strictly either Angle or Saxon (Anglo-Saxon); but I do this without thinking that it bore any great ratio to the remainder, and without even guessing at what that ratio was, or whereabouts its different component elements were located—the Frisians and Batavians being the most probable. With this view, there may have been Jutes as well; notwithstanding what has been said in§§ 16-20; since the reasoning there is not so against a Jute elementin toto, as against that particular Jute element, in which Beda, Alfred, and the later writers believed and believe.