Page images
PDF
EPUB

and Sussex. Kingdoms known by two of these names, and also by the name Wessex, now lost, were founded by them. These words-Essex, East-seaxe; Middlesex, Middle-seaxe; Sussex, Suth (south) seaxe'; Wessex, West-seaxe-indubitably point to Saxon origin. Wessex was the most important of these kingdoms, although nearly the last one formed. It extended westward to Damnonia, modern Devon and Cornwall, and northward to the Severn. Sussex lay upon the Channel, between Wessex and Kent. Essex, just north of the Thames, had London for its capital, and was the most unimportant of the Saxon governments. The Angles founded the kingdoms of East-Anglia, Bernicia, Deira, and Mercia, and extended northward to and beyond the Humber. They form‐ ed first the important province of Northanumbria, but divided it afterward into Deira and Bernicia, and again very soon united the two fractions into the first whole.

This, then, was the position of these three invading tribes after they became settled in the country. The Jutes were in the south eastern part of the island, the Saxons in the middle and southern parts, and the Angles in the northern. To designate more specifically by counties: Kent embraced the modern county of Kent, part of Hants, and the Isle of Wight; Sussex, the present counties of Sussex, Surrey, and part of Hants; Wessex, part of Hants, Dorset, Somerset, Wilts, Gloucester, and Buckingham; Essex, modern Essex and Middlesex; East-Anglia, Mercia, and Northanumbria included Norfolk and Suffolk, (North-folk and South-folk,) Cambridge, Lincoln, Northampton, the large and important shires of York and Northumberland, and the other middle and northern counties. This specific division into counties is given for the reason that it is believed that a consideration of the provincial dialects of England may aid in the investigation of the main subject. A search among the dialects of modern Germany, would be fruitless in an endeavor to find one which can with certainty be called the immediate source of the Saxon language or the remote origin of the English. The nearest approach to the English is made in that used by the Frisians. These people dwelt about and between the mouths of the Rhine and the Ems. They have a literature as old as the twelfth century; but, since the fifteenth century, they have been so much encroached upon from all sides that the old Frisian now exists only in isolated spots on the shores of the North Sea, and in some of the islands near that coast. It is only spoken by the peasantry. The local dialects, which are almost numberless,

are unintelligible, except in the small localities where they are found. Some of these people, in what numbers can not now be ascertained, joined the Angles and Saxons in their invasion of England; but their language can not possibly have been the source of the English, though probably aiding in its formation. The Frisians, who joined the invading bands, were of too inconsiderable numbers to have exercised such a controlling influence over the speech of a nation. The origin of the English can not be found in Saxony nor in Denmark, nor among the Frisians. The languages, or rather the dialects, some of which differ so much from each other that they seem to be different tongues, spoken in the countries from where the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, and the Frisians passed over to England, are all cognates of the AngloSaxon and of the English. To none of them, however, can the philologist point and say, That is the parent of the language whose history is discussed. There is a great similarity between all of these and the English, but it is a similarity which only proves a common origin for all, and not that one proceeded from the other. It might as well be argued that the old Dutch spoken in Holland is derived from the Danish, because there are strong points of resemblance between those two descendants of the Teutonic.

The language of England, at the present time, is broken up into dialects, some of which have strongly marked characteristics, apparently indicating, in some instances, differences of origin. If these dialects could be traced through their whole history back to the commencement of their divergence from the original speech, it might be ascertained from whence they sprang. But this is impossible. A dialectial division of the island can be easily made. That is to say, it may be mapped off by certain bounds, within. which well-defined idioms exist strongly allied to each; and that outside of those bounds these idioms do not exist, but others are to be found. These dialects all differ from each other, and yet are so similar as to admit of no question as to their source; which is undeniably the same. If these districts could be made identical with those peopled by the different tribes which invaded England, there would be little difficulty. But this is not the case; nor, indeed, judging by experience and observation, is it to be expected, that a dialect will always survive the effects produced by a lapse of centuries. For, while, under ordinary circumstances, with no disturbing causes, a dialect may become the settled speech of the people of a certain locality, yet there are cases, and not few

in number, where not only dialects, but even languages themselves, have given place to others, not through force, but by some exterior absorbing or controlling power. It is true that in such cases the master language was a cognate of the one which it displaced.

The district peopled by the Jutes, and the adjoining one called after the Saxons, and undoubtedly populated by them, do not today present different dialects, or, at least, dialects so dissimilar that it can be well argued they are derived from more than one source. It ought in fairness to be said, that the peopling of Kent by the Jutes is very much doubted by some authors who are entitled to the highest credit. Mr. Latham, in his excellent book on the language of England, very seriously calls in question this generally received historical fact. But, while expressing his doubt, with his usual honest frankness, he admits there are very strong proofs of the Jutish occupation of that part of the island. A fair investigation of the subject must lead to the conclusion that these proofs are almost overwhelming. One of the strongest is this: In the early history of the country, Kent and the adjacent parts of which the kingdom of Kent was formed were divided into districts, for political and judicial purposes, called lathes; a designation equivalent in many respects to the Saxon term hundreds, into which the Saxon part of the island was divided. This name, lathe, for the purposes of division, only obtained in Kent. No aid can be obtained from the name of that part of the country. Kent was a Keltic name, derived from the Cantii, the name of the Keltic tribe who formerly inhabited it. For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed, despite any doubt to the contrary, that Kent was a Jutish kingdom, and that the majoriy of the people who dwelt there after the Kelts were driven out were Jutes. But, if this be done, the fact that no dialect is found there different from that spoken in the Saxon parts of the island, must be accounted for. May not that be done in this manner? Kent, although an important kingdom, was very small in extent of territory, and ultimately became absorbed, with the other governments of England, into the Saxon. The Jutes were surrounded by Saxons, who finally become dominant in the land. The kingdom of Sussex lay on their southern borders, and Wessex and Essex on their northern and western frontiers. The ruling race must have exercised a powerful influence over the circumstances of their conquered neighbors, and most especially on their language. The great mass of that must have given way. Occasional words

remain, enough in number to show the existence at some prior time of another dialect, controlling the speech of the people in one form or another. The influence may have been reciprocal, and undoubtedly was. The Jutes, even if made subservient, were of the same race and blood as their rulers, used essentially the same language, were governed by the same or very similar laws, worshiped the same gods, and had the same manners and customs. There were no antagonisms arising from any differences, except such as originated through defeat or from success. There could have been no difficulty in the two peoples mingling together, nor in the two dialects fusing with each other. This may account for the existence to-day of a dialect common to that part of the island; but it does not give the origin of the present English.

When the three tribes, the Jutes, the Angles, and Saxons, invaded England, they carried with them their different forms of speech, all allied to each other, and all having one common origin. Among the thousands who passed over from the Continent were Frisians and members of other Teutonic tribes. They, too, had their different dialects, each of which, according to the circumstances by which they were surrounded, exercised their influence. This state of things, then, must have existed in the island. In Kent, the south-eastern part, was spoken the Jutish idiom; in the middle, the Saxon proper; and in the northern part, the Anglian ; and interspersed among them all were other dialects more or less powerful and extensive. For a while these nationalities were distinct and independent, and, while in that condition exercised to the fullest extent, with nothing to prevent, except the boundary lines of their respective kingdoms, their own peculiar idioms. In process of time there was a fusion, or, at least, a blending of all these nationalities into one, and eventually the formation of one universal language, now, after the lapse of twelve centuries, assuming the form of the present English. This was not the work of a day nor of a century. The language first formed was not the one now used by those speaking the English. It was the Anglo-Saxon. The very name is significant, formed by a combination of the names of the two nationalities, mainly represented in the people of the island, the Angles and Saxons. This AngloSaxon speech, though not the present English, is its mother. From the time of its formation until it assumed permanent shape, and established itself in the present form of the modern English, it must have undergone many changes and been submitted to various modifications and influences.

THE BREACH OF PROMISE.

Ir was in the early summer, and the sun shone brightly into the dining-room of a fashionable boarding-house, in the great city of B-, glancing on the white damask, glittering silver, and cut glass of a well-spread breakfast-table, lighting up the old massive furniture, heavily carved and antique in shape, till the room, large, cold, and stately under other influences, assumed quite an elegant and even homelike appearance. A well-dressed lady of uncertain age, with nothing distinctive about her but a sharp gray eye, stood inspecting the arrangements of the table, and in her we see Mrs. Mortimer Tudor, sole lessee and manager of this popular establishment. We will give our readers a slight sketch of her life, ere we inspect her domestic economies and trot out her inmates.

This lady was neither tall nor short, and looked very much like a thousand other commonplace females. In youth she had been pretty, and had captivated the dissolute scion of the lofty house of Tudor, when waiting on the elegant Alicia Clementina, his sister, with a new French bonnet. (Truth compels me to state she was a milliner's girl at the time.) The beardless Mortimer, fresh from college, thought her a "fine figure!" He pursued the acquaintance, interspersing it with cards and horses, and finally married her one night, when his few brains were completely muddled by an unusual quantity of punch. His family promptly disowned him, and he shortly afterward ended the chapter by falling headlong down-stairs and breaking his neck. Shocked and appalled, the family buried him in state, and, his death expiating his sins, he was allowed to lay his bones with all the Tudors, under old St. Paul.

Mrs. Mortimer, in her deep grief, was so humble, so unpretending, such a perfect "Uriah Heep" in petticoats, that Mrs. Tudor, Senior, was quite impressed. She thought "the young person had such a proper sense of her position, one might countenance her a little."

There was Aunt Grey's house, large, roomy, and very central; why not let her have it and keep boarders? It was very oldfashioned, furniture and all, out of repair too; but still, if she was a good manager, with the Tudor name and influence, she would get along. So the idea was carried into effect, and they

« PreviousContinue »