ANALYSIS OF THE GERMANIC POPULATIONS OF ENGLAND.--THE JUTE ELEMENT
QUESTIONABLE.--FRISIAN ELEMENTS PROBABLE.--OTHER GERMAN ELEMENTS,
HOW FAR PROBABLE.--FORMS IN -ING.
The present chapter will examine the extent to which certain Germanic
populations mentioned by Beda and other writers as having taken part in
the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Great Britain actually did so; it will also
inquire whether certain other populations _not_ so mentioned may not,
nevertheless, have joined in those invasions, although their share in
them has been unrecorded.
_The Jutes._--Did Jutes, rather than Angles or any other allied
population, effect the conquest and occupancy of parts of Hampshire and
the Isle of Wight as they are said to have done?
Let us suppose the case of an American archæologist, in the absence of
any authentic history, reasoning about the origin of the three
populations of Plymouth, New Jersey, and Portsmouth, three populations
lying within no great distance of each other. He knows that, as a
general rule, they are to be deduced from England; and he studies the
map of England accordingly. On the south-coast he finds a Jersey, which
he reasonably infers is the _Old_ Jersey, the mother-country of the
Americans of the _New_. He also finds a Plymouth, from which he draws
the same equally reasonable inference. Lastly, he sees a town named
Portsmouth--and here he repeats his reasoning--reasoning which is
eminently logical, cogent, and apparently conclusive. It passes without
challenge or objection, and the origin of the three populations
gradually loses its inferential character, and assumes that of a fact
founded upon evidence. A writer who adopts his views, perhaps the very
writer himself, more or less unconsciously, next believes that his
doctrine has an historical rather than a logical basis, and it passes
for a fact founded upon records, or at least on tradition. In such a
case a sentence like the following might easily be written--"they"
(viz., the populations of New Jersey, Plymouth, and Portsmouth) "came
from three of the more powerful populations of England, _i.e._, those of
Jersey, Plymouth, and Portsmouth. From those of Jersey came the men of
New Jersey, from those of Plymouth the men of Plymouth, and from those
of Portsmouth the men of the parts so-called." I say that such a
sentence might be written, might pass as a fact, and whether fact or
not, would contain an argument so legitimate as to stand against nine
hundred and ninety-nine objections out of a thousand. Yet the
thousandth might set it aside, since certain facts might have been
overlooked.
What if the name of an original Indian tribe had been Jersey (or some
name like it), or Portsmouth, or Plymouth? The chances, I admit, are
against such an occurrence. But what if it really happened? It cannot be
denied that it would materially shake the inference. Nay more, however
much that inference took the guise of a tradition or record, it would
shake the statement of the author who made it, however unexceptionable.
Still the doctrine might be correct, and not only correct, but capable
of having its correctness demonstrated. Let the name in question be the
one last mentioned--New Jersey. Let the Old Jersey people of England be
like those of Plymouth, but different from them in some definite
characteristics. Let those characteristics re-appear in the New Jersey
men of America. In such a case, the exceptions taken to the statement
from the present existence of an aboriginal Indian population called
_Nujersi_ (for such we will suppose the name to be) would fall to the
ground.
But what if no ethnological acuteness, no etymological sagacity, no
minute analysis of names, traditions, or dialect had ever succeeded in
detecting such _differentiæ_, so that, despite of the endeavours of
learned antiquarians, the men of New Jersey could not be shewn to differ
from those of Plymouth and Portsmouth, whilst all the while the _Old_
Jersey men did so differ. In such a case the objection that was
originally taken from the previous name of the Indian tribe would stand
valid.
_Mutatis mutandis_, this applies to Beda's statement concerning the
Jutes--the statement being as follows:--"Advenerant autem de tribus
Germaniæ populis fortioribus, id est _Saxonibus_, _Anglis_, _Jutis_. De
_Jutarum_ origine sunt _Cantuarii_ et _Vectuarii_, 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.
De _Saxonibus_, 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 eo tempore usque hodie manere desertus inter provincias Jutarum et
Saxonum perhibetur, _Orientales Angli_, _Mediterranei Angli_, _Mercii_,
tota _Nordhumbrorum_ progenies, id est illarum gentium, quæ ad boream
Humbri fluminis inhabitant, ceterique Anglorum populi sunt orti."--Beda
1, 15.
Angles, Saxons, and Jutes occurred within comparatively narrow limits
in Great Britain, and, within equally narrow limits, Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes occurred in Northern Germany and Denmark.
The Angles of England undoubtedly came from Germany; so did the Saxons.
But did the _Jutes_? Let us look to the different forms their name took;
and also to those of that of the Jutes of Jutland; and, when we have
seen that occasionally they both took the same, let us ask whether the
objection which has just been suggested against the supposed American
speculations do not apply to the real English one.
The Jutes of England were called _Jutna-cyn_, or the _Jute-kin_; their
locality was the Isle of Wight, and from that island they were called
_Wiht_-ware, _Vect_-ienses or _Vecti_-colæ. Beda himself identifies
these two populations, saying that the _Vect-uarii_ (_Wiht-ware_), "who
held the Isle of Wight, were of Jute origin." And, lest this be
insufficient, both the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Alfred repeat (or
rather translate) the assertion:--
1
Of Jotum comon Cantware and | Of Jutes came the Kent-people,
Wihtware, þæt is seo mæiað, þe nú | and the Wiht-people, that is the
eardeþ on Wiht, and that cynn on | race which now dwells in Wiht,
West-Sexum ðe man gyt hæt | and that tribe amongst the
Jútnacynn. | West-Saxons which is yet called
| the Jute tribe.
2
Comon di of þrym folcum þa | Came they of three folk the
strangestan Germaniæ; þæt of | strongest of Germany; that of the
Seaxum, and of Angle, and of | Saxons, and of Angle, and of the
Geatum; of Geatum fruman sindon | Geats. Of the Geats originally
Cant-wære and Wiht-sætan, þæt is | are the Kent-people and the
seo þeód se Wiht þat ealond on | Wiht-settlers, that is the people
eardað. | which Wiht the Island live on.
Now this name _Wiht_ never came from the Jutes at all; since it existed
three hundred years before their supposed advent, as the word
_Vectis_=_the Isle of Wight_; and was a British, rather than a German,
term.
And the _Wiht-ware_ were, partially at least, no Germans but Britons,
and as Britons, rather than as Jutlanders, did they stand in contrast
with the Saxons of the neighbourhood. The proof of this is in Asser, who
says that Alfred's mother "Osburg nominabatur, religiosa nimium fæmina,
Nobilis ingenio, nobilis et genere; quæ erat filia Oslac--qui Oslac
Gothus erat natione, ortus enim erat de Gothis et Jutis; de semine
scilicit Stuf et Wihtgar--qui acceptâ potestate Vectis Insulæ--paucos
Britannos, ejusdem insulæ accolas, quos in eâ invenire potuerant, in
loco qui dicitur _Gwitigaraburgh_ occiderunt, cæteri enim accolæ ejusdem
insulæ ante sunt occisi aut exules aufugerant."--Asserius, _De Gestis
Alfredi Regis_.
So that Gwit-_garaburg_ is now _Caris-brook_, and _Caris-brook_ in the
time of Stuf and Wihtgar, was the last stronghold of the _Gwitæ_,
_Vitæ_, _Vecticolæ_ or _Vectienses_, who were simply Britons confounded
with _Jut-æ_.
Who then were the _Jutnacyn_, who lived in Hampshire, as opposed to
those of Carisbrook in the Isle of Wight? I imagine, without pressing
the point, or supposing that anything important depends on it, that they
were the _Exules_ of Asser, the remnants who escaped from the
exterminating swords of Stuf and Wihtgar, in their conquest of the
island. That they existed in the time of Beda is true; not however as
Danes from Jutland, but as Britons from the land of the _Wiht-ware_.
I do not profess to say why there was the double form _Vit_, and
_Jut_--nor should I have identified them myself. It is not I who have
done this, but Beda and Alfred; as must be admitted by any one who
cannot shew a difference between the _Wiht-ware_ and the
_Jutna-cyn_--both authors deriving each from the _Jutes_.
Neither can I say how _Jutland_ came to be called _Vit-land_; I can only
say that the change is no _assumption_. In a document of A.D. 952 we
find it so called--Dania Cismarina quam _Vitland_ appellant.--_See_
Zeuss in _v_.
As stated above, all this falls to the ground if any separate
substantive reasons for considering the _Wiht-ware_ to be _Jutlanders_
can be shewn. But such are wanting. If either they or the Jutnacyn of
the opposite coast of Hants were Danes in the time of Alfred and Beda,
where were the signs of their origin? Not in their language; since no
mention is made of the Danish in Beda's list of British tongues. Not in
the names of geographical localities. Neither -_ware_, nor -_burgh_, (in
_Gwith -wara -burg_) are Danish terms. Where are such signs now? The
Danish termination for towns and villages is -_by_. There is no such
ending in either Hampshire or the Isle of Wight.
Did Jutes rather than Angles or any other allied population effect the
conquest and occupancy of Kent, as they are said to have done?
It is only the Jute origin of the _Jutnacyn_ or _Wihtware_ of Hants that
the preceding reasoning impugns. The Jute origin of the Cantware, or
people of Kent, is a separate question.
I only suspect error here: the reasons for doing so being partly of a
positive, partly of a negative nature:--
1. As far as traditions are worth anything, they make Hengist a
_Frisian_ hero.
2. No name of any Kentish King is Danish.
3. No Danish forms for geographical localities occur in the county.
That the Kentish population has certain peculiarities is highly
probable; and it is also probable that similar peculiarities on the
part of the population of Hants brought the two within the same
category. And hence came the extension of the Jute hypothesis to the
_Cantware_.
_Were there Frisians in England?_--The presumption is in favour of the
affirmative; since the Frisians were eminently the occupiers of the
German sea-coast.
Again--
1. A native tradition makes Hengist a Frisian.
2. Procopius writes that "three numerous nations occupy Brittia--the
Angili, the Phrissones, and the Britons."--B. G., iv. 20.
3. In one of Alfred's engagements against the Danes the vessels are said
to have been "shapen neither like the Frisian nor the Danish," and that
there were killed in the engagement "Wulfheard the Frisian, and Æbbe the
Frisian, and Æthelhere the Frisian--and of all the men, Frisians and
English, seventy-two."--Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 897.
In Mr. Kemble's "Saxons in England," a fresh instrument of criticism is
exhibited. A local name like that of the present town of _Kettering_ is
in Anglo-Saxon _Cytringas_. Here the -_as_ is the sign of the plural
number, and the -_ing_- a sort of Anglo-Saxon patronymic, or, (if this
expression be exceptional) a Gentile form. Hence, _Cytr-ing-as_ means
the _Cytrings_, and is the name of a _community_--_i.e._, it is a
political or social rather than a geographical term.
Now nearly two hundred such terms occur in the Anglo-Saxon Chartas as
names of places.
But besides the simple form in -_ing_ (Anglo-Saxon -_ing-as_) there is a
series of compounds in -_wíc_, -_ham_, -_weorð_, -_tun_, -_hurst_, &c.,
as Bill-_ing_, Billing-_ham_, Billing-_hay_, Billing-_borough_,
Billing-_ford_, Billing-_ton_, Billing-_ley_, Billings-_gate_,
Billing-_hurst_, &c., most of which it is safe to say mean the -_hurst_,
the -_town_, &c., of the _Billings_. Now--
1. The distribution of these forms, either simple or compound, over the
counties of England is as follows. There are in--
York, 127; Norfolk, 97; Lincolnshire, 76; Sussex, 68; Kent, 60; Suffolk,
56; Essex, 48; Northumberland, 48; Gloucester, 46; Somerset, 45;
Northampton, 35; Shropshire, 34; Hants, 33; Oxford, 31; Warwick, 31;
Lancashire, 26; Cheshire, 25; Wilts, 25; Devon, 24; Bedford, 22; Berks,
22; Nottingham, 22; Cambridge, 21; Leicester, 19; Durham, 19; Stafford,
19; Surrey, 18; Bucks, 17; Huntingdon, 16; Hereford, 15; Derby, 14;
Worcester, 13; Middlesex, 12; Hertford, 10; Cumberland, 6; Rutland, 4;
Westmoreland, 2; Cornwall, 2; Monmouth, 0.
In valuing this list the size of the county must be borne in mind.
Subject to this qualification, the proportion of the forms in -_ing_, is
a measure of the Germanism of the population. It is at the _maximum_ in
Kent and Norfolk, and at the _minimum_ in Cornwall and Monmouth.
2. The simple forms (_e.g._, _Billings_) as opposed to the compounds
(Billing-_hay_) bear the following proportions:--
In Essex as 21 to 48 | In Northumberl. as 4 to 35
" Kent 25 -- 60 | " Nottinghamsh. 3 -- 22
" Middlesex 4 -- 12 | " Northamptonsh. 3 -- 48
" Hertford 3 -- 10 | " Derbyshire 2 -- 14
" Sussex 24 -- 68 | " Dorsetshire 2 -- 21
" Surrey 5 -- 18 | " Cambridgeshire 2 -- 21
" Berks 5 -- 22 | " Oxfordshire 2 -- 31
" Norfolk 24 -- 96 | " Gloucestersh. 2 -- 46
" Suffolk 15 -- 56 | " Bucks 1 -- 17
" Hants 3 -- 16 | " Leicestershire 1 -- 19
" Hunts 6 -- 33 | " Devonshire 1 -- 24
" Lincolnshire 7 -- 76 | " Wilts 1 -- 25
" Yorkshire 13 -- 127 | " Warwickshire 1 -- 31
" Bedfordshire 4 -- 22 | " Shropshire 1 -- 34
" Lancashire 4 -- 26 | " Somersetshire 1 -- 34
Now the simple forms Mr. Kemble considers to have been the names of the
older and more original settlements with the "further possibility of the
settlements distinguished by the addition of -_hám_, -_wic_, and so
forth, to the original names, having being filial settlements, or, as it
were, colonies, from them."--_Saxons in England_, i. 479.
3. The same names appear in different localities, _e.g._:
Æscings in Essex, Somerset, Sussex.
Alings " Kent, Dorset, Devon, Lincoln.
Ardings " Sussex, Berks, Norths.
Arlings " Devon, Gloucester, Sussex.
Banings " Herts, Kent, Lincoln, Salop.
Beádings " Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Isle of Wight, &c.
This leads to the doctrine that either one community was deduced from
another, or that both were deduced from a third; this being more
especially the case when--
4. The name is found in Germany as well as in Britain. This happens
with--
The _Walsingas_ inferred from _Walsing_-ham,
" _Harlingas_ " _Harling_,
" _Brentingas_ " _Brenting_-by,
" _Scyldingas_ " _Skelding_,
" _Scylfingas_ " _Shilving_-ton
" _Ardingas_ " _Arding_-worth
" _Heardingas_ " _Harding_-ham
" _Baningas_ " _Banning_-ham
" _Thyringas_ " _Thoring_-ton, &c.
If all these names are to be found not only in Germany but in the
_Angle_ part of it, the current opinion as to the homogeneous character
of the Anglo-Saxon population stands undisturbed. Each, however, is
found _beyond_ the Angle area, and so far as this is the case, we have
an argument in favour of our early population having been slightly
heterogeneous.