Two brothers and adventurers of an obscure Saxon tribe raised their
ensign of the White Horse on British land: the visit was opportune, or
it was expected--this remains a state secret. Welcomed by the British
monarch and his perplexed council amid their intestine dissensions, as
friendly allies, they were renowned for their short and crooked swords
called _Seax_, which had given the generic name of Saxons to their
tribe.
These descendants of Woden, for such even the petty chieftains deemed
themselves, whose trade was battle and whose glory was pillage, showed
the spiritless what men do who know to conquer, the few against the
many. They baffled the strong and they annihilated the weak. The Britons
were grateful. The Saxons lodged in the land till they took possession
of it. The first Saxon founded the kingdom of Kent; twenty years after,
a second in Sussex raised the kingdom of the South-Saxons; in another
twenty years appeared the kingdom of the West-Saxons. It was a century
after the earliest arrival that the great emigration took place. The
tribe of the Angles depopulated their native province and flocked to the
fertile island, under that foeman of the Britons whom the bards describe
as "The Flame Bearer," and "The Destroyer." Every quality peculiar to
the Saxons was hateful to the Britons; even their fairness of
complexion. Taliessin terms Hengist "a white-bellied hackney," and his
followers are described as of "hateful hue and hateful form." The
British poet delights to paint "a Saxon shivering and quaking, his
_white hair_ washed in blood;" and another sings how "close upon the
backs of the _pale-faced_ ones were the spear-points."[1]
Already the name itself of _Britain_ had disappeared among the invaders.
Our island was now called "Saxony beyond the Sea," or "West Saxon land;"
and when the expatriated Saxons had alienated themselves from the land
of their fathers, those who remained faithful to their native hearths
perhaps proudly distinguished themselves as "the old Saxons," for by
this name they were known by the Saxons in Britain.
Eight separate but uncertain kingdoms were raised on the soil of
Britain, and present a moveable surface of fraternal wars and baffled
rivals. There was one kingdom long left kingless, for "No man dared,
though never so ambitious, to take up the sceptre which many had found
so hot; the only effectual cure of ambition that I have read"--these are
the Words of Milton. Finally, to use the quaint phrase of the Chancellor
Whitelock, "the Octarchy was brought into one." At the end of five
centuries the Saxons fell prostrate before a stronger race.
But of all the accidents and the fortunes of the Saxon dynasty, not the
least surprising is that an obscure town in the duchy of Sleswick,
_Anglen_, is commemorated by the transference of its name to one of the
great European nations. The _Angles_, or _Engles_, have given their
denomination to the land of Britain--_Engle-land_ is _England_, and the
_Engles_ are the _English_.[2]
How it happened that the very name of _Britain_ was abolished, and why
the Anglian was selected in preference to the more eminent race, may
offer a philosophical illustration of the accidental nature of LOCAL
NAMES.
There is a tale familiar to us from youth, that Egbert, the more
powerful king of the West Saxons, was crowned the first monarch of
England, and issued a decree that this kingdom of Britain should be
called England; yet an event so strange as to have occasioned the change
of the name of the whole country remains unauthenticated by any of the
original writers of our annals.[3] No record attests that Egbert in a
solemn coronation assumed the title of "King of England." His son and
successor never claimed such a legitimate title; and even our
illustrious Alfred, subsequently, only styled himself "King of the West
Saxons."
The story, however, is of ancient standing; for Matthew of Westminster
alludes to a similar if not the same incident, namely, that by "a common
decree of all the Saxon kings, it was ordained that the title of the
island should no longer be Britain, from Brute, but henceforward be
called from the English, England." Stowe furnishes a positive
circumstance in this obscure transaction--"Egbert caused the brazen
image of Cadwaline, King of the Britons, to be thrown down." The decree
noticed by Matthew of Westminster, combined with the fact of pulling
down the statue of a popular British monarch, betrays the real motive of
this singular national change: whether it were the suggestion of Egbert,
or the unanimous agreement of the assembled monarchs who were his
tributary kings, it was a stroke of deep political wisdom; it knitted
the members into one common body, under one name, abolishing, by
legislative measures, the very memory of Britain from the land.
Although, therefore, no positive evidence has been produced, the state
policy carries an internal evidence which yields some sanction to the
obscure tradition.
It is a nicer difficulty to account for the choice of the Anglian name.
It might have been preferred to distinguish the Saxons of Britain from
the Saxons of the Continent; or the name was adopted, being that of the
far more numerous race among these people. Four kingdoms of the octarchy
were possessed by the Angles. Thus doubtful and obscure remains the real
origin of our national name, which hitherto has hinged on a suspicious
fact.
The casual occurrence of the ENGLES leaving their name to this land has
bestowed on our country a foreign designation; and--for the contingency
was nearly occurring--had the kingdom of Northumbria preserved its
ascendancy in the octarchy, the seat of dominion had been altered. In
that case, the Lowlands of Scotland would have formed a portion of
England; York would have stood forth as the metropolis of Britain, and
London had been but a remote mart for her port and her commerce. Another
idiom, perhaps, too, other manners, had changed the whole face of the
country. We had been Northmen, not Southerns; our neighbourhood had not
proved so troublesome to France. But the kingdom of Wessex prevailed,
and became the sole monarchy of England, Such local contingencies have
decided the character of a whole people.[4]
The history of LOCAL NAMES is one of the most capricious and fortuitous
in the history of man; the etymologist must not be implicitly trusted,
for it is necessary to be acquainted with the history of a people as
much as the history of languages, to be certain of local derivations. We
have recently been cautioned by a sojourner in the most ancient of
kingdoms,[5] not too confidently to rely on etymology, or to assign too
positively any reason for the origin of LOCAL NAMES. No etymologist
could have accounted for the name of our nation had he not had recourse
to our annals. Sir WALTER RALEIGH, from his observations in the New
World, has confirmed this observation by circumstances which probably
remain unknown to the present inhabitants. The actual names given to
those places in America which they still retain, are nothing more than
the blunders of the first Europeans, demanding by signs and catching at
words by which neither party were intelligible to one another.[6]