| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Ethnology of Europe
Author: Latham, R. G. (Robert Gordon), 1812-1888
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Ethnology of Europe" ***
THE
ETHNOLOGY OF EUROPE.
THE
ETHNOLOGY OF EUROPE.
BY
R. G. LATHAM, M.D.,
ETC.
[Illustration: colophon]
LONDON:
JOHN VAN VOORST, PATERNOSTER ROW.
M.DCCC.LII.
LONDON:
Printed by SAMUEL BENTLEY and Co.,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Preliminary Observations.--The Physical Peculiarities of
Europe.--General Sketch of its Ethnology.--Statement of Problems.--The
Skipetar, or Albanians.--Their Language, Descent.--The Four Tribes.--How
far a Pure Stock.--Elements of Intermixture......1
CHAPTER II.
Spain and Portugal.--The Euskaldunac, or Basques.--The Iberian
Stock.--The Turdetanian Civilization.--Phœnician, Roman, Vandal, Gothic
Elements.--Keltiberians.--The Original Keltæ Iberians.--The Word
“Keltic” of Iberian Origin.--The Arab Conquest.--Expulsion of the
Arabs.--The Jews of Spain.--Gipsies.--Physical and Moral Characteristics
of the Modern Spaniards.--Portugal......21
CHAPTER III.
France.--Iberian Blood in Gaul as well as the Spanish
Peninsula.--Iberians of Gascony, &c.--Ligurians.--How far
Keltic.--Bodencus.--Intermixture.--Roman, German,
Arab.--Alsatia.--Lorraine.--Franche-Comté.--Burgundy, Southern, Western,
and Northern France.--Character of the Kelts.--The Albigensian
Crusade.--Belgium.--Its Elements.--Keltic, German, and
Roman.--Switzerland.--Helvetia.--Romance, French, and German
Languages......47
CHAPTER IV.
Italy.--Ligurians.--Etruscans.--Venetians and
Liburnians.--Umbrians.--Ausonians.--Latins.--Earliest Populations of
North-Eastern Italy.--South Italians.--Italian Origin of the
Greeks.--Sicilians.--Elements of
Admixture.--Herulian.--Gothic.--Lombard.--Arab.--Norman.--Analytical
Sketch of the Population of Modern Italy......80
CHAPTER V.
Importance of Clearness of Idea respecting the Import of the Word
“Race.”--The Pelasgi.--Area of Homeric Greece.--Acarnania not
Hellenic.--The Dorians.--Egyptian, Semitic, and other
Influences.--Historical Greece.--Macedonians.--Greece under Rome and
Byzantium.--Inroads of Barbarians.--The Slavonic Conquest.--Recent
Elements of Admixture......125
CHAPTER VI.
Russian Populations Sarmatian and Turanian.--Samoeids
Turanian.--Ugrians.--Lapps.--Kwains.--Esthonians.--Liefs.--Permians.
--Siranians.--Votiaks.--Tsheremiss, Tshuvatsh, Morduin.--Lithuanians.
--Malorussians and Muscovites.--Their recent Introduction.--The
Skoloti.--Early Displacements.--Ugrian Glosses.--Indian Affinities
of the Lithuanic.--Russian Poland.--Analytical View of the Present
Populations of Russia.--Arkhangel.--Finland.--Esthonia.--Livonia.
--Perm.--Simbirsk, Penza.--Lithuania.--Volhynia.--Kharkhov.--Kosaks.
--Kherson.--Taurida......146
CHAPTER VII.
Wallachia and Moldavia.--Rumanyos.--Descent from the Daci.--Sarmatian
Origin.--Servia.--Montenegro.....182
CHAPTER VIII.
Frisian, Saxon, Dutch, and Gothic Germans.--Germanized
Kelts.--Germanized Slaves.--Prussia.--Isolation of its Areas.--East and
West Prussia.--Prussian Poland.--Pomerania.--Prussian Silesia.--Prussian
Saxony.--Brandenburg.--Uckermark.--South-Western Portion.--Westphalian
and Rhenish Prussia.--Mecklenburg.--Saxony.--Linones of
Luneburg.--Hanover and Oldenburg.--Holland.--Hesse-Cassel,
Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau.--Baden.--Wurtemburg.--Weimar.--Rhenish
Bavaria.--Danubian Bavaria......187
CHAPTER IX.
Great Britain.--Denmark.--The Islands.--The
Vithesleth.--Fyen.--Lauenburg.--Holstein.--Sleswick.--Jutland.--Iceland.
--The Feroe Isles.--Norway.--Sweden.--Lapps.--Kwains.--Gothlanders.
--Angermannians.--Theory of the Scandinavian Population......199
CHAPTER X.
Rumelia.--The Turk Stock.--Zones of Conquest.--Early Intrusions of Turk
Populations Westward.--Thracians.--The Ancient Macedonians.--The Pelasgi
of Macedonia.--Bosnia, Herzegovna and Turkish
Croatia.--Bulgaria......221
CHAPTER XI.
Austria.--Bukhovinia, Gallicia, and Lodomiria.--Bohemia and
Moravia.--Austrian
Silesia.--Dalmatia.--Croatia.--Carniola.--Carinthia.--Styria.--Saltzburg,
the Tyrol, the Vorarlberg.--Upper and Lower Austria.--Hungary......238
ERRATUM. (corrected by etext transcriber.)
Page 3, line 6, _for_ greater _read_ less.
ETHNOLOGY OF EUROPE.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.--THE PHYSICAL PECULIARITIES OF
EUROPE.--GENERAL SKETCH OF ITS ETHNOLOGY.--STATEMENT OF
PROBLEMS.--THE SKIPETAR, OR ALBANIANS.--THEIR LANGUAGE,
DESCENT.--THE FOUR TRIBES.--HOW FAR A PURE STOCK.--ELEMENTS OF
INTERMIXTURE.
The proper introduction to the ethnology of Europe is the following
series of preliminaries:--
1. The physical peculiarities of the quarter of the world so called;
2. A general view of the stocks, families, or races which occupy it;
3. A statement of the chief problems connected with the Natural History
of its populations.
1. The physical conditions of Europe are as remarkable in respect to
their negative as their positive characters; in other words, there is a
great number of points wherein Europe differs from Asia, Africa,
America, and Polynesia, in respect to what it has _not_, as well as in
respect to what it _has_.
These negative points will be treated first.
_a._ No part of Europe lies between the Tropics; so that the luxuriance
of a spontaneous and varied vegetation, with its pernicious tendencies
to incline the habits of its population to idleness, is wanting. The
rank and rapid growth of the plants which serve as food to men and
animals, and which dispense with labour, nowhere occurs.
_b._ No part comes under the class of Steppes; or, at most, but
imperfectly approaches their character. In Asia, the vast table-lands of
the centre, occupied by the Turks and Mongols, have ever been the cradle
of an active, locomotive, hungry, and aggressive population. And these
have seen, with a strong desire to possess, the more favoured areas of
the south; and have conquered them accordingly. The Luneburg Heath, and
parts of Hanover are the nearest resemblances to the great Steppes of
Mongolia, and Independent Tartary; but they are on a small and beggarly
scale. In Russia, where the land is flat and level, the ground is also
fertile, so that agriculture has been practicable, and (being
practicable) has bound the occupant to the soil, instead of mounting him
on fleet horses to wander with his flocks and herds from spot to spot,
to become a shepherd by habit, and a warrior by profession; for in all
countries, shepherds and hunters are marauders on a small, and
conquerors on a large scale.
_c._ Europe is narrowest in its northern parts. This has had the effect
of limiting those populations of the colder climes, whose scanty means
of subsistence at home, incline them to turn their faces southwards,
with the view of conquest, and supply them with numbers to effect their
purpose.
_d._ Its diameter from north to south is less than its diameter from
east to west. This has kept the mass of its population within a similar
climate; or, if not within a similar climate, within a range of
temperature far less wide than that which separates the African, the
American, or the Asiatic of the northern parts of their respective
continents from the Hottentot of the Cape, the Fuegian of Cape Horn, and
the Malay of the Malayan Peninsula. It has given uniformity to its
occupants; since varieties increase as we proceed from south to north,
but not as we go from east to west--or _vice versâ_.
Amongst its positive features the most remarkable are connected with its
mountain-ranges, the extent of its sea-board, and the direction of its
rivers.
_a._ In no country are the great levels more broken by mountains, or the
great mountains more in contiguity to considerable tracts of level
country. The effect of this is to give the different characters of the
Mountaineer and the Lowlander more opportunity of acting and reacting on
each other.
_b._ In no country are the coasts more indented. We may look in vain
for such a sea-board as that of Greece, elsewhere. The effect of this is
to give the different characters of the sailor and landsman, the
producer and the trader, more opportunity of acting and reacting on each
other.
_c._ Its greatest rivers fall into seas navigable throughout the year.
Contrast with this the great rivers of Asia, the Obi, the Lena, the
Yenesey, and others, which for the purposes of navigation are useless;
falling, as they do, into an Arctic sea.
_d._ Our greatest river, the Danube, runs from east to west. This
ensures a homogeneous character for the population along its banks.
Contrast with this the Nile, the Missisippi, and the Yenesey, in all of
which the simple effect of climate creates a difference between the
populations of the source and the embouchure. The great rivers of China
do the same as the Danube; but the Danube differs from them, and from
all other rivers running in a like direction, in emptying itself into an
inland sea; a sea which gives the opportunity of communication not only
with the parts north and south of the rivers which fall into it, but
with those to the east of it also. The Hoang-ho and Kiang-ku empty
themselves into an ocean, that, in these days of steam communication,
leads to America, but which in the infancy of the world led to a
coasting trade only, or, at most, to a large island--Japan. The Baltic
and Mediterranean act, to a certain degree, in the same manner. The one
has Africa, the other Scandinavia, to ensure its being put to the uses
of trade.
In no part of the world do the differences between the varieties of the
human species lie within narrower limits than in Europe. The most
extreme opponents to the doctrine of the unity of our kind have never
made many species out of the European specimens of the genus _Homo_. And
these are by no means of the most satisfactory sort.
They are unsatisfactory for the following reasons. The differences that
are inferred from dissimilarity of language, are neutralised by an
undoubted similarity of physical form. The dissimilarities that are
inferred from peculiarities of physical form are neutralised by
undeniable affinities of speech. Looking to his size and colour, the
Laplander is far, very far, removed from the Fin. Yet the languages
belong to one and the same class. Looking to their tongues, the Basque
of the Pyrenees, and the Skipetar (or Albanian of Albania) are each
isolated populations. Yet their form is but slightly different from
those of the other Europeans.
Now the physical condition of our continent makes the intermixture of
blood, and the diffusion of ideas easy: and, I believe, that the effects
of both are more notable in Europe than elsewhere.
2. The families, stocks, or races, which occupy Europe will be taken in
the order which is most convenient; so that it will be practical rather
than scientific.
_a._ In Malta the language is Arabic, and, of course, to a certain
extent, the blood also. But Malta is European only in respect to its
political relations. Still its population requires notice.
_b._ The Osmanlis, or Turks of Turkey, are Asiatic rather than European;
an intrusive population whose introduction is within its historical
period. I will not say, however, that in the parts between the Dnieper
and Don, members of the same great stock may not have been settled in
the times anterior to history. In the following pages, the Turks of
Europe will be called Osmanlis, or Ottomans: since the word _Turk_ is a
generic name applied to the family to which they, along with the
Independent Tartars, the Uzbeks, the Turcomans, the Turks of Asia Minor,
the Yakuts on the borders of the Icy Sea, and several other great
branches, extending to the frontier of China, and the mouth of the Lena,
belong. The Turk is European, as the New Englander is American; _i.e._,
not strictly so.
_c._ To a certain extent this foreign origin must be attributed to a
member of the next family--the Majiar of Hungary. He conquered his
present occupancy in the tenth century. He differs, however, from the
Turk, in belonging to a class, group, or stock of populations which,
although Asiatic to a great extent, is European as well. This is the
stock which is called--
The Ugrian, a stock which is the only one common to both Europe and
Asia, and contains the Lapps, the Finlanders, the Esthonians, and some
other smaller populations on the European feeders of the Volga. The
particular branch, however, from which the Majiars were derived is
Asiatic.
The next two stocks consist of a single family each, and they are
mentioned together because they are so isolated as to have no known
affinities either with each, or with any other population. These are--
_d._ The Basques of Biscay and Gascony, _i.e._, the Western Pyrenees;
once spread over the whole of the Spanish peninsula, and for that reason
commonly called Iberian--
_e._ The Skipetar, or Albanians of Albania.
I am taking, as aforesaid, the populations in the order of convenience,
and the next is
_f._ The Keltic.[1] This stock was indigenous to the water-systems of
the Loire, the Seine, and the Rhone, in other words, to the whole of
France north of the Garonne; to the south of which river lay the
Iberians. From Gaul it spread to Great Britain. Its present
representatives are the Bretons of Brittany, the Welsh, the Gaels of
Ireland and Scotland, and the Manxmen of the Isle of Man--
_g._ The Gothic or German--
_h._ The Sarmatian, or Slavono-Lithuanic, containing the Slavonians and
Lithuanians of Russia, Poland, Bohemia, Servia, Carinthia, Lithuania,
with other less important areas, and lastly--
_i._ The classical or Greco-Latin stock of Italy and Greece, completing
the list of the European stocks.
These three are more closely allied to each other than any of the
previous ones. They are also nearer the Keltic; so much so, that a
single class has been made out of the four, a class called
Indo-European. The study, however, of the _value_ of classes is in its
infancy. The real fact that they are allied to an extent to which the
others are not, is important.
Such are the _existing_ groups; but when we consider how small is the
number of the Basques, the only present representatives of the great
Iberian class, and that their preservation to the present time is mainly
due to the accidental circumstances of their occupancy of a stronghold
in the Pyrenees, a new series of facts is suggested. The likelihood of
stocks now extinct having once existed, presents itself; and with it, a
fresh question.
The same suggestion arises when we look at the country occupied by the
intrusive families of the Osmanlis and the Majiars of Rumelia and
Hungary. The populations here are comparatively new-comers; yet it was
no uninhabited tracts that they appropriated. Who was there before them?
Perhaps some members of one of the stocks now existing. Perhaps, a
wholly different family now extinct.
Again--the displacements effected by the different European populations,
one with another, have been enormous. See how the Saxons over-ran
England, the Romans Spain and Gaul. How do we know that some small stock
was not annihilated here? History, it may be said, tells us the
contrary. From history we learn that all the ancient Spaniards were
allied to the ancestors of the Basques, all Gaul to those of the
Bretons, all England to those of the Welsh. Granted. But what does
history tell us about Bavaria, Styria, the Valley of the Po, or Ancient
Thrace? In all these parts the present population is known to be recent,
and the older known next to not at all. The reconstruction of the
original populations of such areas as these is one of the highest
problems in ethnology. To what did they belong, an existing stock more
widely extended than now, or a fresh stock altogether?
My own belief is, that the number of European stocks for which there is
an amount of evidence sufficient to make their extinction a reasonable
doctrine, is two--two and no more; and, even with these, the doctrine of
their extinction is only _reasonable_.
_a._ The old Etruscans are the first of these;
_b._ The Pelasgi the second.
Each will be noticed in its proper place.
I have used the word _extinction_. I must now qualify it; reminding the
reader that this very qualification introduces a new and difficult
subject. Extinction often means no more than the abolition of the
outward and visible signs of ethnological difference. A negro marries a
white. In the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh generation, as the case
may be, his descendant is, to all intents and purposes, a white man. Yet
the negro blood is not extinguished. It exists, though in a small
proportion.
Again--a Cornishman loses his native language and speaks English as his
mother tongue. Many generations before he did this he differed from the
Englishman in speech only. Is his British blood extinguished? No. The
chief sign of it has been lost. That is all.
So that--
Stocks may intermix, and--
Stocks may lose their characteristics.
Now both these phenomena are eminently common in European ethnology; and
this is what we expect from history. Two populations, the Roman and the
German, have more than doubled their original areas. Were all the old
inhabitants, male and female, old and young, in the countries that they
appropriated, put to the sword? We hope and believe the contrary. In
most cases we _know_ they were not. Sometimes there was intermarriage.
This produced intermixture. Sometimes the language, religion, laws, and
habits of the conquerors were adopted by the conquered. This was a loss
of characteristics. So far greater than the influences of all the other
populations of Europe have been those of the Germans and the Romans (to
which, for the eastern part of the continent, we must add the Turks),
that for nearly half Europe, whenever the question will be one of great
intermixture, the basis will be Keltic, Iberic, or Sarmatian as the case
may be, with Romans or Germans for the source of the superadded
elements.
3. The chief problems of the present volume will, for the present, only
be stated; the results being reserved for the conclusion. They are two--
_a._ The extent to which what is commonly called Race is the result of
circumstances, or whether circumstances be the effect of race, _i.e._
whether Race (so called) is a cause or an effect?
_b._ The extent to which differences of what is called race is an
element in national likes and dislikes, predilections or antipathies.
It cannot be denied that each of these is a point of practical as well
as theoretical importance.
* * * * *
The areas with which it is most convenient to begin, are those of the
two isolated stocks, the _Skipetar_ (Albanian), and the
_Iberian_,--Albania and the Spanish peninsula. Of these Albania will be
taken first.
Many writers have considered the Albanian and the Iberic stocks to be
the two oldest in Europe; and there is no want of reasonable grounds for
the doctrine. It is not, however, for this reason that they come first
in the list.
Nor is it because the _Skipetar_ of Albania are the more eastern of the
two that they take precedence of the Iberians; although, in the eyes of
such inquirers as deduce the European populations from Asia, their
position on the frontier of Europe gives good grounds for doing so.
The true reason is practical rather than scientific, arising out of the
line of criticism which will be found necessary for the forthcoming
investigation.
It is so convenient to take Gaul next to the Spanish peninsula, Italy
next to Gaul, and Greece next to Italy, that the necessity for breaking
the continuity of the arrangement when we come to Albania must be
avoided; and this is done by dealing with Albania at the very first, and
getting its ethnology disposed of as a preliminary. It could not be
taken in hand after that of Greece, for reasons which will appear when
we come to that country.
The native name of the Albanians is _Skipetar_, or _Mountaineer_, and
this is of some importance; as will be seen in the sequel. The word
_Albanian_ is, I think, Roman. _Arvanitæ_ is the form found in the
Byzantine writers. This is converted by the Turks into _Arnaout_. It is
unlucky that the word is one which appears elsewhere, _viz._, in
Caucasus, where the ancient name of the modern province of Daghestan is
called _Albania_ in the classical writers. So is Scotland; and so also
part of England; _Albyn_ being the Gaelic name out of which our French
neighbours get their _Albion perfide_, for the purposes of rhetoric and
poetry. It cannot be denied that the occurrence of forms so similar is
strange; and it is against the chances that it should be accidental. The
explanation which suggests itself is as follows. Pliny mentions a
people termed _Albanenses_, as one of the Liburnian tribes; whilst
Ptolemy gives us a town called _Albanopolis_ in the _southern_ part of
Illyricum. Now, as we know that the name is not native, as we seek for
it in vain amongst the early Greek writers, and as the opposite coast of
Italy was occupied by the Cisalpine and Cispadane Gauls, we have reasons
for considering _Albyn_ as applied to Scotland, and _Albyn_ as applied
to the mountainous country on the eastern side of the Adriatic and
Ionian seas, to be one and the same word, referable to one and the same
Keltic group of tongues. Hence, it contains the root _Alp=mountain_, and
translates the native name _Skipetar=mountaineer_, &c.
Like all such coincidences it has done mischief in the way of ethnology.
Though few have derived the Skipetar from Scotland, many have done so
from Caucasus--and that on the strength of the name. Yet it is as little
native in the one locality as the other, since no nation of Daghestan
calls itself _Albanian_, a fact which precludes all arguments in favour
of a real community of origin from the similarity of name _in limine_;
or rather a fact which ought to do so, for the Caucasian origin of the
Skipetar still has its supporters.
Their present area extends from Montenegro to the Gulf of Arta; the
northern frontier being Slavonic, the southern Greek. Eastwards it
reaches the back-bone of Turkey, or the watershed between the small
rivers which empty themselves into the Adriatic, and the larger ones
which fall into the Ægean--a very Switzerland for its ruggedness. Hence,
the Skipetar are a nation of Highlanders, more so than any other
population of Europe, since the Basques of the Pyrenees are
inconsiderable in area, and the Swiss are divided between the Germans,
the French, the Roman, and the Italian families. They lie, too, more to
the south than any other mountaineers, and it is not very fanciful to
imagine that if they were Lowlanders, their skin and hair would approach
that of the Greeks, with some of whom they lie under the same parallel.
If so, their mountain _habitat_ counteracts the effect of their southern
sun, by a species of compensation common in many parts of the world.
The testimony of travellers to their belonging to the fair-complexioned
and grey-eyed populations is pretty general, although Skene gives the
Mirdite tribe a swarthy complexion and black eyes. The evidence, too, as
to their bulk and stature varies; some writers giving them spare, light,
and tall forms, others making them shorter, and more square-built than
the Greek. That the eye has less animation, and the countenance less
vivacity (in other words, that the Albanian is heavy-featured as
compared with his quick-witted neighbours) is certain.
Both the men and women are hardy, and expose their bodies freely to the
atmosphere, accustoming themselves to an out-door life amongst their
flocks and herds, and dwelling, when indoors, in rude huts. Like the
Swiss, they willingly let out their valour and hardihood in military
service; and the best and most unscrupulous soldiers of the sultan are
those recruits, who partly by force, partly by pay, are brought from
Albania. Hence we find Albanians far beyond the pale of Albania; in
Greece, in Thrace, in Asiatic Turkey, in Egypt, and even in Persia. The
tribes, too, amongst themselves indulge in the right of private quarrel,
rarely rising to the dignity of warfare, but more like the old
border-feuds of England and Scotland. With the Slavonians of Montenegro,
different from themselves in blood and political relations, the warfare
is more bitter and serious, and the Albano-Slavonic frontier is the
continual scene of aggression and reprisal and intrigue.
It was only under their famous chieftain, George Castriote, or
Scanderbeg, that the Skipetar played the part of a nation of any
importance in European history, and here their actions were what we
expect beforehand--those of brave mountaineers, to whom war is a habit,
and with whom dependence has always been but nominal. To the
intellectual and moral history of Europe they have contributed nothing.
Their alphabet is the Greek, slightly modified, and their literature
either unwritten, or confined to ecclesiastical subjects.
Creeds sit easy upon them. Before the Ottoman conquest they were
Christians, partly of the Greek, partly of the Roman church. At present
they are divided between the three, the majority being Mahometans.
The Skipetar language has long drawn the attention of philologists; for
it has long been known to be as little like the Greek and Slavonic of
the parts around, as it is to the Turkish. The notion that it was a mere
medley of the three soon disappeared; and when the Albanian became
recognised as a separate substantive language, its remarkable isolation
was a source of great doubt and perplexity. The latest author who has
investigated it, Xylander, considers it to be Indo-European, and in this
Prichard agrees with him. I think, however, that it cannot be placed in
that group without enlarging the extent of the class, _i.e._, without
changing the meaning of the term. _Whatever it may be, it is not
intermediate to the Latin and Greek_, a fact of which the import will be
seen when we come to the ethnology of Greece and Italy.
The Skipetar fall into the following divisions, clans, or tribes.
1. The Gheghides, containing--
_a._ The proper Gheghides, the most northern of the Skipetar,
conterminous with the Slavonic countries of Montenegro, Bosnia, and
Herzegovna, bounded on the south by the river Drin--
_b._ The Mirdites, south of the Drin, in the province of Croia, who like
the Gheghides, are Christians.
The Gheghides, as a class, are dark-skinned and black-eyed.
2. The Toskides of Toskuria, or the country between Croia and the
Vojutza, the least mountainous part of Albania and containing the
valleys of the Sternatza and the Beratina, are more light than dark,
with blue or grey eyes.
3. The Liapides of Liapuria, or the valley and water-shed of the
Deropuli and the parts about Delvinaki, are the worst-looking and most
demoralized of the Skipetar. Such at least is their character.
4. The Dzhami of Dzhamuria are the most agricultural. They extend from
the Liapides on the north, to the Greek frontier southward, Parga and
Suli being two of their towns.
The purity of the Albanian blood is considerable; and I believe that, as
the Skipetar were once spread far wider in every direction than they
are to be found at present,[2] and as their frontier has receded, the
amount of Albanian blood beyond Albania is very great, whereas the
foreign blood within Albania itself is but slight. The dark complexions
of the Gheghides may, or may not, be referable to Slavonic intermixture.
The lighter skins of the Toskides may, or may not, indicate purity. It
is worth remarking, however, that the fair complexion is found in the
parts most removed from the frontier, as well as in the parts where the
intermixture (such as it is) has been the least.
The Taulantii and Parthini are the populations of antiquity, whose
localities coincide with that of the Toskides. The colonies of Epidamnus
and Apollonia suggest the notion of Greek, the Via Egnatia of Roman
intermixture.
The Liapides are in the country of the Orestæ and Atintanes, the Gheghs
in that of the Encheleæ, the Mirdites in that of the Pirustæ. In the
northern part of their area was the colony of Epidaurus, and the
Dalmatian frontier.
Hitherto the opportunities of intermixture have been but slight. With
that part, however, of Albania which coincides with the ancient Epirus,
rather than with Southern Illyria the case is different.
In the time of Pyrrhus it was Hellenized, and at the very earliest dawn
of history its population was modified still more considerably. By whom?
By the inhabitants of the opposite coast of Italy, whoever they were.
This is as much as is necessary to say about the Skipetar of Albania at
present. They are the descendants of the Southern Illyrians and the
ancient Epirots--Chaonians, Thesprotians, Molossians, &c. They are pure
in blood, as compared with nine-tenths of the rest of Europe; but still
more or less mixed, the chief foreign elements being ancient Italian,
Greek, and Roman.
CHAPTER II.
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.--THE EUSKALDUNAC, OR BASQUES.--THE IBERIAN
STOCK.--THE TURDETANIAN
CIVILIZATION.--PHŒNICIAN--ROMAN--VANDAL--GOTHIC
ELEMENTS.--KELTIBERIANS.--THE ORIGINAL KELTÆ IBERIANS.--THE WORD
KELTIC OF IBERIAN ORIGIN.--THE ARAB CONQUEST.--EXPULSION OF THE
ARABS.--THE JEWS OF SPAIN.--GIPSIES.--PHYSICAL AND MORAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODERN SPANIARDS.--PORTUGAL.
The western extremity of the Pyrenees, where France and Spain join,
gives us a locality rendered famous by the historical events of San
Sebastian, and the legends of Fuenterabia, with the provinces of Bearn
and Gascony on the French, and Navarre and Biscay on the Spanish, side
of the mountains. Here it is where, although the towns, like Bayonne,
Pampeluna, and Bilbao, are French or Spanish, the country people are
_Basques_ or _Biscayans_--Basques or Biscayans not only in the provinces
of _Biscay_, but in Alava, Upper Navarre, and the French districts of
Labourd and Soule. Their name is Spanish (the word having originated in
that of the ancient _Vascones_), and it is _not_ the one by which they
designate themselves; though, possibly, it is indirectly connected with
it. The _native_ name is derived from the root _Eusk_-; which becomes
Eusk-_ara_ when the language, Eusk-_kerria_ when the country, and
Eusk-_aldunac_ when the people are spoken of; so that the Basque
language of the Biscayans of Biscay is, in the vernacular tongue, the
_Euskara_ of the _Euskaldunac_ of _Euskerria_.
It is not for nothing that this difference of form has been indicated.
In the classical writers we find more than one of the old Spanish
populations mentioned under different derivatives from the same root,
and sometimes a doubt is expressed by the writer in whose pages it
occurs, as to whether there were two separate populations, or only one
denoted by two synonymous names. Thus, side by side with the Bast-_uli_,
we find the Bast-_itani_, and, side by side with the Turd-_uli_, the
Turd-_etani_. Now respecting these last, Strabo expressly says that
whether they were different populations under the same name, or the same
under different ones is uncertain.
That the Euskara is no new tongue may be inferred from the fact of its
falling into dialects; which Humboldt limits to three, whilst others
extend them to five or six.
_a._ The Biscayan proper is spoken in the country of the ancient
Autrigones and Caristii, and it has been proposed to call it the
Autrigonian. It has, less correctly, been called _Cantabrian_, and this
is the name which the national taste best likes; for a descent from the
indomitable Cantabrian that so long and so successfully spurned the yoke
of Rome, and who transmitted the same spirit and the same independence
to the Asturian, is creditable enough to be claimed. Nor is the claim
unfounded; since, in all probability, the ancient Cantabria included
some of the ancestors of the Euskaldunac.
_b._ The Guipuscoan is the western Biscayan.
_c._ The Laburtanian is the Euskarian of France, spoken in the parts
about St. Jean de Luz; and which, in the district of Soule, is supposed
to fall into a sub-dialect.
The Euskarian language has always been the standing point to those
inquirers who have argued backwards, from the existing state of things,
towards the reconstruction of the ethnology and philology of antiquity;
first and foremost of whom, both in date and importance, is Wilhelm von
Humboldt, whose essays on the subject form two of the most classical
monographs in comparative philology. The method he employed was much
more of a novelty then than now. We may guess what it was beforehand. It
was the analysis of local names. In this he was successful. Roots like
_ast_-, _ur_-, and others, found in the ancient names of Spanish and
Portuguese localities, far beyond the present pale of the Euskarian
tongue, he referred to the Basque, and found them significant therein;
thus _uria=town_ or _city_, and _ast=rock_ or _mountain_--whereby
_Asturias_ means the _mountainous country_, and _Astures_ the
_mountaineers_.
His inference was (as might be expected) that the Euskarian was as
little a modern and local tongue as the Welsh; indeed, that it was so
far from anything of the kind, as to be one of the oldest in Europe, and
not only old, but widely-spread also. The whole of the peninsula, France
as far as the Garonne and the Rhone, and even portions of Italy, were,
according to Humboldt, originally Basque; or, as it is more conveniently
called, _Iberic_ or _Iberian_, from the ancient name of Spain--_Iberia_.
So that now we talk of the ancient Vascones, Varduli, Autrigones and
Caristii as particular divisions of the great _Iberic_ stock, under
their ancient names, the Euskaldunac being the same under a modern one;
whilst the Basques and Navarrese are Euskaldunac, under French and
Spanish designations.
The present Euskaldunacs must be a population of as pure blood as any in
Europe, lineal descendants from the Autrigones, Varduli, and Vascones,
and closely related to the Asturians. At any rate they are the purest
blood in the Peninsula. This we infer from their language, and the
mountaineer character of their area. They are the Welsh of Spain.
With the pure Euscaldunac let us now contrast the most mixed portion of
the Peninsular population; which is that of the water-system of the
Guadalquiver, and the parts immediately south and east of it--Seville,
Cordova, Jaen, Grenada, and Murcia, if we take the modern provinces; the
country of the Turdetani and Bastitani, if we look to the ancient
populations--Bætica, if we adopt the general name of the Romans,
Andalusia in modern geography.
The mountain-range between Jaen and Murcia, the Sagra Sierra, was
originally the Mons Oros-_peda_, a fact which I notice, because the
element -_peda_, occurs with a mere difference of dialect in the ancient
name of the mountains of Burgos, Idu-_beda_. So that here, if nowhere
else, we have a geographical name common to the northern and southern
parts of the peninsula--an Iberic gloss in two distant localities. It
was the Iberians of these parts who were the first to receive foreign
intermixture, and the last to lose it, the Iberians of the Bætis, or
Guadalquiver, favoured above all other nations of the peninsula in soil,
in climate, and in situation. Strabo expatiates with enthusiasm almost
unbecoming to a geographer, on their wealth, their industry, their
commerce, and their civilization; and all this is no more than their
physical condition prepares us to expect. Cities to the number of two
hundred and upwards, docks, _anachyses_ (or _locks_), lighthouses,
canals, salt works, mines, agriculture, woven articles, fisheries, an
alphabet, and a literature attest the civilization of the ancient
Turdetanians as known to the writers of the reign of Augustus; at which
time, however, the country was so Romanized that the Iberic tongue was
already superseded by the Latin throughout the whole level country;
Cordova and Seville,--the pre-eminently Roman towns of Spain,--having
been founded by picked bodies of Romans and natives. Hence, in respect
to its date, the Spanish of Andalusia is the oldest daughter of the
Latin.
But the Romans were as little the first intruders who introduced foreign
blood and foreign ideas into Southern Spain as they were the last. Their
predecessors were the Phœnicians--sometimes direct from Tyre and
Sidon, oftener from the Tyrian colony of Carthage. It was through the
accounts of the Phœnicians that the earliest notices of Iberia found
their way into Greece; it was through the Phœnicians that the
Hellenic poets first heard of the columns of Hercules. It was through
the Phœnician--Punic or Tyrian, as the case might be--that the mining
and commercial industry of Turdetania was developed. Through them, too,
probably (but not certainly) came the alphabet. I say _probably_,
because the shape of the letters is Greek or Italian rather than
Phœnician. As the Phœnician settlements seem to have been
factories rather than colonies, and as their marriages must have been
with native women, their influence was moral rather than physical,
_i.e._, they introduced new ideas rather than new blood. Their contact
with the Turdetanians may be spread over some seven centuries--from
about 900 to 200 B.C.
New ideas, too, rather than new blood was what was introduced by the
Romans; the great change which they effected being that of the language
from Iberic to Latin. At the same time, it is by no means safe to say
that the Turdetanian civilization was wholly of foreign origin--half
Roman and half Phœnician. The inland cities could scarcely be the
latter. Yet they existed when Rome first began its conquests. So high do
I put either the actual civilization of the southern Iberians, or (what
is nearly the same thing) the capacity for receiving its elements, that
I doubt whether it stands on a lower level than that of Northern Italy
itself _minus_ its geographical advantages of contiguity to Greece.
Their remote position was a great disadvantage, and so was the
comparative smallness of their sea-board, arising from the unindented
character of the peninsular coast.
Between the garrisons of Rome and Carthage we may safely assume some
intermixture of native African blood--Numidian, Gætulian, or
Mauritanian--Amazirgh, Kabail, or Berber. It is safe, too, not exactly
to exclude Greek influences from Turdetanian Iberia altogether, but to
hold as a general rule that, from the monopolizing character of the
Phœnician commerce--especially the Carthaginian branch of it--the
Greek and Phœnician influences were in the inverse ratio to each
other.
The chief _negative_ fact connected with ancient Bætica is, that none of
its geographical localities end in -_briga_, a remark, of which we shall
soon see the import.
The Roman power in Spain was broken by those populations, who gave to
Spain the important foreign elements of the fifth century. These are
said to be the Alans, the Vandals, the Suevi, and the Goths. Concerning
the first of these there is a doubt. The true Alani were a people from
the parts between the rivers Volga and Jaik to the north, and the range
of Caucasus to the south--people whose nearest neighbours were the
Circassians and Russians, or, at any rate, their ancient equivalents:
people whose affinities were Asiatic; and whose nearest kinsmen were the
Huns, the Avars, the Khazars, and the Turks. Now I do not say that the
presence of such a population in Spain, in the first ten years of the
fifth century (about A.D. 408) is impossible; perhaps, indeed, it is
probable. The Huns, with whom the Alans were allied, were then hanging,
like a cloud charged with thunder, over Europe, about to carry carnage
and desolation as far westward as the plains of Champagne. And the Alans
will help them. So I do not deny that they may have invaded Spain. I
remark, however,--as good authorities have done before me--that, except
in Spain, the Suevi are almost always in alliance with the _Alemanni_; a
nation with a name so like that of the _Alani_, as for confusion to be
likely. Such confusion, I think, existed here: in other words, I believe
that the invaders of Spain were the Suevi and _Alemanni_--not the Suevi
and _Alani_. If the view be wrong, we must admit an
intermixture--inconsiderable, perhaps, in amount--of _Turk_ blood.
The Vandals--for reasons given elsewhere--I believe to have been no
Germans at all, but Slavonians under a German leader, the ancestors of
the present Serbs of Silesia and Lusatia: since the express statement of
Idatius is that they were _Vandali Silingi_. Now the _Silingi_ can
easily be shown to have been the old Silesians. The existence of
Slavonic blood in Spain was first indicated by the present writer; and
as _Andal_-usia took its name from the Vandals in question, the local
ethnologist may be well employed in seeking for Slavonic elements in a
quarter where they have not hitherto been suspected. As the Vandals,
too, of Andalusia were the Vandals of Genseric, Gelimir, and the kings
of northern Africa, it must be Slavonic rather than German blood, which
is not unreasonably supposed to exist amongst some of the mountaineers
of Algeria. Whether the Vandals occupied Andalusia to the comparative
exclusion of the Goths is uncertain.
The Suevi of Spain must have been but little different from those
Burgundian Germans who conquered Germany. They formed part of the same
confederacy, and only differed from their allies in proceeding further
southwards.
The Goths belonged to a different branch. Their epoch is from A.D. 412
to A.D. 711. As the Gothic empire was an extension from that of southern
Gaul, Catalonia may be the province where the Gothic blood is most
abundant. Niebuhr considers that they pressed the Suevi before them into
Portugal and Asturias.
Two other elements require notice, both early, but one insignificant in
amount, and the other obscure and problematical; the Greek and the
Keltic.
From Marseilles, _Greek_ colonists founded Emporia on the coast of
Catalonia, and a few other places of less importance.
But who were the _Keltæ_ of Spain? the population whose name occurs in
the word _Celtici_ and _Celtiberi_, _Keltic Iberians_, or _Iberian
Kelts_? Three considerations come in here.
_a._ First, the external evidence, or the testimony of ancient authors
as to the presence of Kelts in Spain and Portugal.
_b._ Secondly, the internal evidence derived from the remains of
language, the presence of certain customs, and physical appearance.
_c._ The _à priori_ likelihood or unlikelihood of a _Kelt-iberic_
mixture.
The last is considerable.
The evidence that gives us Kelts at all in the Peninsula gives us them
for three-fourths of its area; indeed, Andalusia is the only part
wherein reasons of some sort or other for their presence, cannot be
discovered. We find traces of them in the valleys of the Ebro, the
Guadiana, the Tagus, and the Douro, and we find them also on the high
central table-lands that form the water-shed. Such being the case, what
must be our view of their chronological relations to the Iberi? Are they
the older occupants of Spain and Portugal, or the newer? If the newer,
the displacement must have been enormous. If the older, whence are we
to bring the Iberians? So great are the difficulties of this
alternative, that the fact itself requires extraordinary caution before
we admit it at all. Let us deal with the evidence in this cautious
spirit.
The external evidence is clear and decisive. To go no further than
Strabo, we have Kelts in the north, Kelts between the Guadiana and the
Douro, and Kelts in the interior.
At the head-waters of the Guadiana, Posidonius places the Keltiberians,
in which parts they “increased in numbers, and made the whole of the
neighbouring country _Keltiberic_.” This is the country on each side of
the Sierra de Toledo, or New Castile, the very centre of Spain, and, as
such, an unlikely place for an immigrant population, whether we look to
its distance from the frontier, or to its mountainous aspect. They are
carried, at least, as far north as the mountains of Burgos, and to the
upper waters of the Douro on one side, and the Ebro on the other. So
that Old Castile, with parts of Leon and Aragon, may be considered as
Keltiberic. This is the first division.
In the south of Portugal comes the second, _i.e._, in Alemtejo, or the
parts between the Tagus and the Guadiana. Here are the _Celtici_ of the
classical writers.
The third section is found in the _north_ of Portugal, and in the
neighbourhood of Cape Finisterre. Here Strabo places the Artabri, and
close to them _Celtici_ and _Turduli_ of the same nation with those of
the south, _i.e._, those of Alemtejo. His language evidently suggests
the idea of a migration. Such is the Keltic area as determined by
external evidence, and it cannot be denied that it is very remarkable.
It is of considerable magnitude, but very discontinuous and unconnected.
The internal evidence is wholly of one sort, _viz._, that which we
collect from the names of geographical localities. One of the common
terminations in the map of ancient Gaul is the word -_briga_ (as in
Eburo-_briga_), which takes the slightly different forms of -_briva_,
and -_brica_--Baudo-_brica_, Samaro-_briva_. Now compounds of -_briga_
are exceedingly common in Spain. They occur in all the parts to which
_Celtici_ or _Celtiberi_ are referred, _and in a great many more
besides_. Hence the internal evidence--as far, at least, as the
compounds in -_briga_ are concerned--gives us a larger Keltic area (or
more Keltiberians) than the testimony of authors; indeed it gives us the
whole of the peninsula except Andalusia, a fact which explains the
import of a previous remark as to absence of compounds ending in -_briga_
south of the Sierra Morena. It is rare, too, in Catalonia--perhaps
non-existent.
Tested, however, by the presence of the form in question, Valentia on
the west, and all Portugal (the ancient Lusitania) on the east, were
Keltiberic--as may be seen by reference to any map of ancient Spain.
But there are serious objections to the usual inference from this
compound. It is nearly the only geographical term of which the form is
Keltic. And this is a remarkable instance of isolation. The
terminations -_durum_, -_magus_, and -_dunum_, all of which are far
commoner in Gaul than even -_briga_ itself, are nowhere to be found.
Neither are the Gallic prefixes, such as _tre_-, _nant_-, _ver_-, &c.
Hence, it is strange that, if Spain were Keltic, only one Keltic form
should have come down to us. Where are the rest? I am inclined to
believe that the inference as to such a Spanish name as, _e.g._,
Talo-_briga_, being Keltic, on the strength of such undoubted Gallic
words as Eboro-_briga_, is no better than the assertion that the Jewish
name Samp-_son_ was in the same category with the English names
John-_son_ and Thomp-_son_ would be. Such accidental resemblances are by
no means uncommon. The termination -_dun_ is as common in Keltic, as the
termination -_tun_ is in German. Yet they are wholly independent
formations. At the same time I cannot deny that the internal and
external evidence partially support each other.
But there is another series of facts which goes further still to
invalidate the belief in the existence of Kelts in Spain. It is this.
_Instead of the Kelts of Iberia having been Kelts in the modern sense of
the term, the Kelts of Gallia were Iberians._ This is an unfortunate
circumstance. Writers, speakers, journalists, and orators, Ribbonmen and
Orangemen, who neither know nor care much about the Natural History of
Man, talk about the _Keltic_ stock, or the _Keltic_ race, with a
boldness and fluency that, except in the case of the antagonist term
_Anglo-Saxon_, we meet with nowhere else. To read some of the
dissertations on Irish misgovernment, or Welsh dissent, one might fancy
that an American of Pennsylvania was writing about the aboriginal
Indians, or the enslaved negroes--so much is there made of race, and so
familiar are even the non-ethnological part of the world with the term.
Men know this when they know nothing else.
Great, then, is the actual and practical currency and general
recognition of the word; so great that its historical truth, and its
theoretical propriety are matters of indifference. Be it ever so
incorrect, the time for changing it has gone by. Nevertheless, I think
(nay, I am sure) that the word is misapplied.
I think, that though used to denominate the tribe and nations allied to
the Gauls, it was, originally, no Gallic word--as little native as
_Welsh_ is British.
I also think that even the first populations to which it was applied
were other than _Keltic_ in the modern sense of the term.
I think, in short, that it was a word belonging to the Iberian language,
applied, until the time of Cæsar at least, to Iberic populations.
The name came from the Greeks of the Gulf of Lyons--the Greeks of
Massilia, or of Emporia, more probably the former. Now, as there is
express evidence that a little to the west of Marseilles the Ligurian
and Iberian areas met, the likelihood of the word belonging to the
latter language is considerable.
It is increased by the circumstance of two-thirds, if not more, of the
Keltic portion of Gaul being Iberian. Posidonius places the centre of
the Keltic country in Provence, near the spot where the Roman settlement
of Narbo was built: an Iberian locality. The Kelts of Herodotus are in
the neighbourhood of the _city_ called _Pyrene_; a word which carries us
as far westward as the Pyrenees, although its meaning is different. As
far as they extended beyond the present provinces of Roussillon and
Languedoc, they extended _westwards_; beyond--according to
Herodotus--the Pillars of Hercules, and as far as the frontier of the
extreme Kynetæ. Aristotle knew the true meaning of the word Pyrene,
_i.e._, that it denoted a range of mountains; and he also called Pyrene
“a mountain of Keltica.” By the time of Cæsar, however, a great number
of undoubted Gauls were included under the name _Celtæ_: in other words,
the Iberian name for an Iberian population was first adopted by the
Greeks as the name for _all_ the inhabitants of south-western Gaul, and
it was then extended by the Romans so as to include all the populations
of Gallia except the Belgæ and Aquitanians. The word _Celtæ_ also passed
for a native name--“_ipsorum_ lingua _Celtæ, nostra Galli_ appellantur.”
Upon this Prichard reasonably remarks, that Cæsar would have written
more accurately had he stated that the people whom the Greeks called
Κἑλται were _Galli_ in the eyes of a _Roman_.
But the Greek form for _Galli_ is Γἁλ-αται, a form suspiciously like
Κἑλτ-αι. I admit that this engenders a difficulty, since it shows the
possibility of the two words being the same. At the same time it can
be explained. The ατ in Γἁλ-αται is non-radical. It is the sign of the
plural number, as it is in Irish at the present moment; whereas the τ in
Κελτ-αι is a part of the root.
And now I have given the additional reason for believing that the
so-called Kelts of Spain were no Kelts at all in the modern sense of
the word, but only Iberians; and I further suggest the likelihood of the
word meaning _mountaineer_, or something like it, in which case the
Kelts of South Gaul must be supposed to be (as they are made by
Herodotus and Aristotle) the Pyrenean Iberians, the Celtiberi and
Celtici being also the Highlanders of the great central range of Spain,
of Gallicia, and of Alemtejo. This, however, is only a suggestion.
Perhaps the point is not very important. Whether we look to the amount
of their civilization, to their national temper as shown in the defence
of their independence, or to the extent to which they contributed to the
literature of the Latin language, there are no very striking differences
between the Gaul and the Iberian. Personal heroes like Viriathus and
Vercingetorix occur on both sides; whilst Gaul resisted Cæsar by
instances of endurance behind stone walls scarcely inferior to the
display of obstinate valour at Numantia.
The Gothic conquest of Spain was succeeded, in the eighth century, by
one of equal, perhaps, greater, importance. The line it took was from
south to north; so that its direction was different from that of the
Goths. It was also made by a southern population. The Arabs who effected
the first invasion under Musa, were the Arabs of an army; _i.e._,
almost wholly males; probably, too, they were pretty pure in blood.
Afterwards, however, larger swarms came over from Africa; and it cannot
be doubted that, along with these there were females and families of
mixed African as well as of pure Arab descent. The areas which were
successively appropriated by these invaders are not exactly those that
we expect, _à priori_. Murcia, or the March, was less modified by the
conquest than Valencia and other countries northwards. It was held in a
sort of imperfect independence by Theodemir, and under the name of
_Tadmor_, into which that of the Gothic king was metamorphosed by the
Arabs, long continued to be the most Gothic part of south-eastern Spain.
In contrast to Grenada, and in consonance with what we expect from their
geographical position, were the northern provinces of Asturias, Biscay,
Navarre, and Galicia--Galicia, in respect to its ethnology, belonging
almost as much to Portugal as to Spain. Into Asturias the arms of the
Arab conqueror never penetrated: so that the original nationality was
preserved in the kingdom of Oviedo, under the successors of Pelagius or
Pelayo. Were these brave and independent mountaineers Goths or Romans?
or were they original Iberians? And if of mixed blood, in what
proportion were the different elements? They seem to have been second
in purity of blood to the true and Proper Basques only. They were
somewhat more Romanized than the latter, as is shown by their language;
but both were equally free of Gothic admixture. This view rests partly
on the previous details of their history, and partly on the names of the
kings who succeeded Pelayo. They are not Gothic, like Euric, Wallia, or
Roderic, nor yet Latin, like Pedro; but truly and properly Spanish (with
the exception, perhaps, of Frivila), as Alonzo, Ordonio, Sancho, &c.;
Spanish in the same way that Edward and Richard are German, or Arthur
and Owen, Keltic. Pacheco, perhaps, is the truest Iberian designation.
It occurs in Cæsar, as Paciecus. When the Arabs conquered Spain, their
peculiar civilization was but partially developed. It grew up, to a
great degree, within Spain itself.
The Arab elements belonged to the same class with the Phœnician,
though to a different section of it. So did the Jewish, which were
introduced earlier, and, if not of equal amount, were, at least, of
longer duration. The Jews brought with them the oldest civilization in
the world. But they were important physical influences as well. They
came with their families, and, consequently, were less thrown upon the
necessities of intermixture than the majority of the Arabs. The
intermixture, however, was in both cases considerable. As long as the
Arian kings of the Gothic stock held their sway, the Israelite was
tolerated and something more. His industry was protected, and his
earlier familiarity with letters and the civilizing influences of
commerce respected. The prejudices against intermixture were chiefly on
his side. Orthodoxy, however, introduced persecution. Some of its
earliest enactments forbid Christian wives and Christian mistresses to
Jews, a sure proof of the previous prevalence of an opposite custom. In
the Mahometan parts of the Peninsula, the toleration was considerable
throughout. Lastly must be noticed the great extent to which the pride
in his real or supposed purity of blood characterizes the Hidalgo. This
would not have been the case if purity of blood were the rule, and an
Arab or Jewish cross the exception. The reign of Ferdinand and Isabella
was signalized by the double ejection of the Jews from the Peninsula in
general, and the Arabs from their last possession, the kingdom of
Grenada. Such ejectments are never complete. Each, however, of these was
one of remarkable magnitude.
The Normans, who settled on so many of the coasts of southern Europe,
made a smaller impression on the Iberian peninsula than elsewhere. Still
they must be recognised as an element.
Such is the basis of the Spanish stock, and such the chief superadded
elements--Iberic in the first instance: then Phœnician, Greek, Roman,
Gothic, Vandal, Alan (?), Jewish, Arab, and Norman, to say nothing about
the cases of French and other settlers from the modern kingdoms of
Europe. These elements are differently distributed over the several
provinces; and at the present moment each has some peculiar
characteristics.
The most regular features, and the most purely brunette complexions are
found in Andalusia, conjoined with a gay, pleasure-loving disposition;
not given to the sterner virtues, but with considerable intellectual
capacity, as shown both in art and literature; and, in Andalusia, the
foreign elements are at their _maximum_--chiefly oriental, but partly
(in the belief, at least, of the present writer) Slavonic. Yet it is not
safe to refer the one to the other. The soil and climate of
Andalusia--the favoured valley of the most southern river in Spain--have
also their peculiarities.
In Grenada the habits are ruder, and Grenada is chiefly a mountain
range.
Murcia[3] has the credit of being the Bœotia of Spain. It has less
than its share of Arab, and, perhaps, a considerable amount of Gothic,
blood.
Valencia has been unfavourably described; the physiognomy of its
population being the most Moorish in Spain, and the temper dangerous. It
was from Valencia that the last branch of Arabs was expelled in the
reign of Philip III.--the Little Moors or Moriscoes. Orientals as they
were, the nobles to whom they were serfs, and whose land they
cultivated, could ill afford to lose them. Contrary to what we expect
from their stock, they were signalized by steady industry and
perseverance in agriculture. The present language of Valencia is only
Spanish so far as it is spoken in the Spanish peninsula. It is a
distinct tongue from the _Castilian_; yet not French. It belongs to the
Provençal class--called also Limousin.
It is the same with Catalonia; the least Iberic, the least Arab, but,
perhaps, the most Roman, and the most Gothic of all the Spanish
provinces--_Cat-alonia_ or _Goth-land_--commercial, manufacturing, and
radical, with a political history of its own, and, for a time, an
independent line of sovereigns--the Berengarii.
In respect to language, the standard Spanish is that of the Castiles;
and it is upon the Castilians that our usual notions of a Spaniard are
founded. Decorous, reserved, and unenterprising, the occupant of a
misplaced metropolis, and of an arid table-land, which, for the most
part, is too much a mountain for agricultural, and too little of one for
mining industry, he is a type of the third variety of the Iberic
stock--the Andalusian and Catalonian being the other two.
In the fourth, the mountaineer-character, with its usual spirit of
independence, rude manners, and hardy mode of life, which attains its
height in Navarre and Biscay, is shared in different degrees by the
Galicians, Asturians, northern Arragonese, and the Spaniards of Leon;
the physical appearance changing from dark to light, and from a regular
contour to coarse angular features, with high cheek-bones. In Galicia, a
province of hewers of wood and drawers of water, this is most
remarkable. In Biscay, the comparative lightness of complexion has
engendered the idea of a Norman intermixture.
Though it would be a dangerous overstatement to say that descent,
pedigree, blood, or extraction go for nothing, we cannot consider the
nature of the Spanish national character in general, as exhibited in the
development of its science, art, literature, social institutions, and in
its moral and material influence upon the history of the world, without
seeing that many of the leading features of the drama that the Spaniards
have played upon the theatre of both the Old and New World are
referable to the effect of external circumstances--circumstances which,
in our inability to work out the details of cause and effect, we must be
content to call accidental. Who so likely to be isolated in the
character of their literature, and deficient in comprehensiveness of
thought, as the nation with the smallest sea-board and the most extreme
geographical position in Europe? Who so probable to have spread their
language over half America as the same? Who so fit to be good Catholics
as the favoured of the Pope, the authorized converters of the heathen
Indians, and the people whose national life was a crusade against the
Mahometan on their own soil? Who, too, so born to the pride of purity of
blood? There is much to account for all this, with which descent has
nothing to do, although, perhaps, there is more than the explanation of
all this accounts for.
A ballad literature, rising to the level of the humbler epics, and a
truly home-grown drama, are the self-evolved, indigenous elements of
Spanish literature. Their material influences are to be found in the
histories of America, the Indies, the Philippines, Micronesia, Italy,
and the Mediterranean Islands.
Portugal is Spain with a difference. More purely Iberic, and less
Phœnician, from the first, it was also less Roman, less Arab, and
very slightly Gothic. In Africa and India its influence has been
greater, in America somewhat less than that of Spain. The extent to
which the physical and moral characteristics of the Galicians and
Estremadurans are intermediate and transitional, I am unable to state.
* * * * *
A refinement upon the doctrine of the Keltæ having been Iberian, and of
the Celtiberi having been no Kelts at all, in the usual sense of the
term, will be found when we come to the ethnology of Ireland. It
consists in the possibility of one or both having been _Gaels_--Kelts,
it is true, but not Kelts in the sense given to the word by the
ancients.
CHAPTER III.
FRANCE.--IBERIAN BLOOD IN GAUL AS WELL AS THE SPANISH
PENINSULA.--IBERIANS OF GASCONY, ETC.--LIGURIANS.--HOW FAR
KELTIC.--BODENCUS.--INTERMIXTURE.--ROMAN, GERMAN,
ARAB.--ALSATIA.--LORRAINE.--FRANCHE-COMTÉ.--BURGUNDY, SOUTHERN,
WESTERN, AND NORTHERN FRANCE.--CHARACTER OF THE KELTS.--THE
ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE.--BELGIUM.--ITS ELEMENTS.--KELTIC, GERMAN, AND
ROMAN.--SWITZERLAND.--HELVETIA.--ROMANCE, FRENCH, AND GERMAN
LANGUAGES.
It is convenient to take the ethnology of France next in order to that
of Spain, because we have already seen that, when we examine the
earliest populations of the two countries we shall find that the
_Iberic_ stock was common to the two. Although I find no Gauls in
Iberia, the Iberians in ancient Gaul were numerous; indeed, they occur
in Gascony and Bearn at the present moment.
The predominant stock, however, of Gallia, as is well-known, is the
_Keltic_, still existing, along with its ancient language, and other
characteristics in Brittany.
The Iberians belonged chiefly, though not wholly and exclusively, to
_Aquitania_. In the reign of Augustus this term denoted a _political_,
in that of Julius Cæsar, an _ethnological_ area. The _province_ reached
from the Pyrenees to the Loire; the _Aquitania_ of the true _Aquitani_
from the Pyrenees to the Garonne.
In the present towns of Bazas, Eauze, and Auch, we have the names of the
ancient Vas-_ates_, Elus-_ates_, and Ausci; besides which, the
Soci-_ates_, the Tarus-_ates_, the Garumni, the Bigerriones, the
Preciani, the Gari-_tes_, the Sabuz-_ates_, the Cocos-_ates_, the
Lector-_ates_, and the Tarbelli occupied the present provinces of
Gascony and Bearn in general. It is usual to say that these names are
Iberian. This is scarcely the case. The remarkable peculiarity of them
is as follows: the termination -_at_ is Gallic, and probably the sign of
the plural number, whilst the radical part is not _evidently_ Gallic,
and, probably, not Gallic at all; or (changing the expression) whilst
the Gallic _inflexion_ is common amongst the old names of Gascony, the
Gallic _roots_ (-_magus_, _tre_-, _con_-, &c.) are rare; from which I
infer that the geographical nomenclature of south-western France was
Iberic in respect to its roots, but Gallic in respect to its form; so
that the words in question are Iberic names taken from Gallic
informants. Nothing, however, of great importance depends on this.
In the parts about Baignerres there was a Roman colony, that of the
Convenæ; partly Gallic, partly Iberic, and partly Legionary.[4]
As were Gascony and Bearn, so were Rousillon and the greater part of
Languedoc--Iberic; for the Iberi extended to the Rhone.
Along the frontier of the Iberian area there was certainly intermixture
between the Aquitanians and the true Gauls, and there were also Gallic
settlements, such as Hebro-_magus_, within the Iberian area itself.
Nevertheless, Southern Gaul was Northern Spain, and Northern Spain
Southern Gaul.
Provence and Dauphiné differ from Gascony and Languedoc in having had a
_Ligurian_ rather than an Iberian substratum; in having received Roman
influences earlier and more largely, in having been the area of the
Phocæan colony of Massilia, or Marseilles, in and around which city
there must have been a notable tincture of Greek blood.
Who were the Ligurians?
The Phocæan Greeks founded the colony of Marseilles; and it was not long
before the parts along the coast, and to some distance inland, became
imperfectly known. When Prometheus gives to Hercules the details of his
travels westwards, he says that, “You” (Hercules) “shall reach the
fearless people of the Ligyes, where, with all your bravery, you shall
find no fault with their warlike vigour. It is ordained that you shall
leave your arrows behind. But as all the country is soft, you shall be
unable to find a stone. Then Zeus shall see you in distress, and pity
you, and overshadow the land with a cloud, whence a storm of round
stones shall rain down. With these you shall easily smite and pursue the
army of the Ligyes.” Such is the gist of a quotation from a writer so
early as Æschylus, in his drama of the “Prometheus Unbound,” as given by
Strabo.
These Ligyes are the Ligurians, better known as a people of Italy, and
as the coastmen of the Gulf of Genoa. Southwards and eastwards they
extended as far as the Arno, and westwards to the Rhone; where (as
already stated) they came in contact with the Iberians. So that the
ancient Ligurians were a population common to both Gaul and Italy, just
as the Iberians were common to Gaul and Spain. Herodotus places
Marseilles in the country of the Ligyes.
The fact of this tract being known so much earlier than the interior of
Gaul, known too to the Greeks who first, and more than others, used the
term _Kelt_, confirms the view of its _non_-Gallic origin. At any rate,
it makes it either Iberian or Ligurian, and, consequently, only so far
_Keltic_ (in the modern sense of the term) as the Ligurians were
_Keltæ_.
This is the point now under notice. I think that the Ligurians _were_
Kelts.
In the first place, the name seems to have a meaning in the Keltic
tongue; since Prichard suggests that it may have been derived from
_Llygwyr_,[5] which means in Welsh _coastman_.
In my mind it is a _native_ name also; a point upon which Prichard
expresses a doubt, since he writes that, “it does not prove that the
people were Kelts, since the designation is one more likely to have been
bestowed upon them by a neighbouring tribe than assumed by themselves.”
Who, however, could have bestowed it? Scarcely any population of the
interior, since it is _Greeks_ from whom we get it, and the _coast_ was
the part with which they were chiefly acquainted. Had the name been a
late one, and derived from Roman sources, Dr. Prichard’s inference would
have been legitimate. As it is, however, we have nothing but Ligurians
and Iberians from the Pyrenees to the Arno, and as it cannot be both
Iberic and Keltic (_in the modern sense of the word_), it must, if
Keltic, be Ligurian.
Against it lies the evidence of Strabo, who separates the Ligyes from
the Kelts as a distinct race; differing, however, but _little from the
Kelts in their mode of life_. Now with this qualification, and with the
belief that the Kelts whom he contrasted with the Ligyes were, to a
great extent, Iberian, I lay but little stress on the evidence of
Strabo.
Against it, also, in the eyes of more than one good writer, is a very
questionable etymology; which I will give in full, as a lesson of
caution. Pliny says that the river Po in the Ligurian language was
called _Bodencus_, or _bottomless_. Prichard suggests, in a note, that
the true reading may have been _Boden_-los, and asks whether anybody
will venture hence to conjecture that the Ligurians were Germans? Sir
Francis Palgrave, taking Prichard’s suggestion as a _bonâ fide_ reading,
does this; and that with a great degree of confidence. Yet the
termination -_nc_ is found in the country of the Allobroges, or Dauphiné,
_e.g._, Lem-_incum_, Durot-_incum_, Vap-_incum_, and is also Gallic,
_e.g._, Aged-_incum_. It is British as well--Habita-_ncum_.
The reasons, then, _against_ the Keltic origin of the Ligurians are thus
exceptionable. Yet those in favour of it are weak. One thing, however,
they must have been: _a._ Kelts; _b._ Iberians; or _c._ members of a
wholly new, and now extinct, stock. I incline to the first of these
views rather than the second, and the second rather than the third. At
the same time, they were a well-marked variety; otherwise the Romans
would not so invariably have separated them from the Gauls of both Gaul
and Italy.
The primary population, then, of Gaul (supposing the Ligurians to have
been Keltic) was of a twofold character:--
1. Iberic, in Aquitania, and
2. Keltic (in the modern sense of the term) elsewhere--the Keltic
falling into three divisions:--
α. The Belgic--
β. The proper Gallic--
γ. The Ligurian (?).
The history of the displacement and intermixture is complex. Along the
Ibero-Gallic frontier, or in the parts north of the Garonne, and west of
the Rhone, there must have been small and partial quarrels, sufficient
to create intermixture, and a gradual change of the boundaries from the
earliest times. Perhaps, too, it may be added that the Gauls encroached
on the Iberians rather than the Iberians on the Gauls.
Along the valley of the Rhine, or the Germano-Gallic frontier, there was
the same mutual encroachment, but to a far greater degree, and the wars,
of which the conquest of Ariovistus is a sample, introduced German,
and, perhaps Slavonic blood into Gaul in more quarters than one.
At present--
_Alsatia_ contains the least amount of Keltic blood of all the provinces
of France, inasmuch as it is German in language, and French in respect
to its political relations only. The fifth century is the date of its
conquest, and it was by Germans of the High German division from Suabia
and Franconia that it was reduced. Before this it was Romanized. What
was it before its reduction by Rome? Many at once answer “German,”
because its occupants were the _Triboci_, whom Tacitus calls “_haud
dubie Germani_.” For reasons given elsewhere,[6] I believe that they
were Germanized Gauls rather than true Germans.
_Lorraine_, originally Keltic, and afterwards Romano-Keltic, is less
German than Alsatia, but more so than Champagne. Its name,
_Hlothringen_, is German. I cannot, however, say whether the German
blood in Lorraine was introduced from the north or from the south; by
the High Germans of Alsatia and Franche-Comté, or the Low-Germans of
Clovis.
In _Franche-Comté_ the particular descent is from the Sequani, the tribe
which, of all others equally far from the German frontier, was most
Germanized. For when Cæsar was in Gaul, the Sequani called in the Suevi
and Marcomanni of Ariovistus, and gave up one-third of their land as the
price of his tyrannical protection. Now the army of Ariovistus was
mixed, and there is reason for believing that even Slavonians were to be
found in it. At any rate it infused German blood into the Sequani more
than into their neighbours. The process, however, of Romanizing went on
all the same, until the fifth century, when the invasion that gave their
names to the present province and to Burgundy took place. From which
time forwards the ethnology of _Franche_-Comté, or the country of the
_Franks_, is that of--
_Burgundy._--Here the Kelts were the Sequani, and the Germans, certain
High-Germans of Franconia. Sir James Stephen, in his valuable “Lectures
on the History of France,” draws a broad distinction between the German
blood introduced by the Burgundians, and the German blood introduced by
the Franks of Clovis; exaggerating, however, in my mind, the rudeness of
the latter, as well as the cultivation of the former. Speaking of the
Germany of Tacitus, he says, that it better suited the author to
“pourtray the more striking characteristics of the Teutonic tribes
collectively, than to investigate the more minute peculiarities which
distinguished them from each other. Yet we cannot doubt that, even in
his day, they were far more widely discriminated in fact, than in his
delineation of them, as, beyond all controversy, they were so in the age
of Clovis.
“Thus, for example, the Burgundians, before their irruption to Gaul,
were remarkable for their skill as artizans; and in the poems in which,
not long after that event, they were described by Sidonius Apollinaris,
we have the best attestation of their resemblance to the kind and
simple-hearted German of our own days. Thus also the Gothic people,
almost immediately after their settlement in Aquitaine, manifested a
singular aptitude for a yet higher civilization. For, if St. Jerome was
correctly informed, Ataulph their king seriously projected the
substitution of a new Gothic for the old Roman empire; a scheme in which
the character of Julius was to be ascribed to Alaric, that of Augustus
being reserved for the projector himself. Euric, the successor of
Ataulph, filled his court at Toulouse with rhetoricians, poets, and
grammarians; and coveted (and not altogether in vain) the applause of
the Italian critics for the pure Latinity of his despatches.
“The Franks, on the other hand, were a barbarous people, and their
history is in fact a barbaric history. At their entrance into Gaul they
were worshippers of Odin, and believed that the gates of the Walhalla
rolled back spontaneously on their hinges to admit the warrior who had
dyed, with the blood of his enemies, the battle-field on which he had
himself fallen. From their settlements on the lower Rhine they had
sometimes marched to the defence of the Romano-Gallic province, but more
frequently and gladly to the invasion of it. Their appetite for rapine
was insatiate, unrestrained, and irresistible. In war they were the
prototypes of the Norman pirates of a later age, or of the West Indian
buccaneers of more modern times. In peace they were the very counterpart
of the North American Indians, as depicted by the early travellers in
Canada; a comparison which almost every commentator on Tacitus has
instituted and verified.”
Now I have great doubts about the superior civilization of the
conquerors of Burgundy, Alsatia, and Franche-Comté; but these arise from
a view, perhaps, peculiar to myself, of the nature of the Frank
confederacies. I believe the word Frank to have distinguished the
Germans who were independent of Rome from those who were in allegiance
to the empire, and, consequently, that it might be borne by different
divisions of the German stock, and by wholly unconnected alliances. More
than this--if it separated the Romanized from the independent Germans,
it separated, to a certain extent, the rude from the refined, the Pagan
from the Christian. Now, of these two classes, the rude independent
Pagans were the more likely conquerors of Burgundy and Franche-Comté; in
which case the differences of their civilization is likely to have been
inconsiderable. It is true that they may have been Christianized by
time--but so were the Salians of Clovis. On the other hand, their
contact with the undoubtedly Christian Goths of Dauphiné and Languedoc,
had a truly civilizing tendency.
It was the Franks of Franche-Comté, and not the Salians of Clovis,
amongst whom we find the dynasty of the Merovings: Ptolemy, at least,
places the Μαροὑιγγοι in the country of the Burgundians,
anterior to their passage of the Rhine and their conquest of the Gallic
provinces beyond it. Hence, the true _Meroving_ was the Burgundian
princess Chlotilda, the wife of Clovis, rather than Clovis himself.
In _Savoy_ the foreign intermixture has been but small; the population
being, in the more mountainous parts at least, simply Romano-Keltic--and
then more Keltic than Roman.
Dauphiné, Provence, Languedoc, and Gascony carry us to the Ligurian and
Iberian areas.
Between the second and third Punic wars the Ligyes of Gaul were reduced,
rather later than the Ligurians of Italy. They seem from the first to
have been a warlike nation. Æschylus, as has been seen, arms them
against Hercules; and their brothers in the Apennines defended
themselves with valour and obstinacy. The Salyes were their chief tribe.
How far they extended inwards is uncertain. It is only safe to say that
Provence was Ligurian, and Dauphiné Gallo-Ligurian before it became
Romanized: and that the remainder of the ethnological history of the
Ligurians of Gaul is nearly the same as that of the Gallic Iberians.
Next to the Spanish peninsula, the southern provinces of France were the
most deeply tinctured with _Arab_ influences of any part of Europe.
In the parts between the Loire and Garonne, Poitou, Santonge, Limoges,
and Perigord, exhibit, in a modern form, the names of the ancient
Pictones, Santones, Lemovici, and Petrocorii, all of which were Gallic,
though, perhaps, not so typically Gallic as the Parisii, Carnutes,
Turones, and Bituriges of the Isle of France, the Orleannois, Touraine,
and Berri. In these parts the admixture of Roman and Keltic blood, has
been less disturbed by subsequent admixture of Arabs and Goths than
elsewhere; not that even here it is pure. The Franks of the Netherlands,
Lorraine, and the Franks of Burgundy and Franche-Comté must have
seriously tinctured the blood even in these parts. Champagne, too, may
be in the same category.
French Flanders, Artois, and part of Picardy are just more Romano-Keltic
and less German than the French provinces of Belgium. Normandy has its
peculiar and characteristic Scandinavian elements.
If France, then, be essentially and fundamentally Romano-Keltic, it is
the parts of which Orleans is the centre, where the mixture is in the
most normal proportions; as is shown by even the names of the provinces.
Brittany, Normandy, Flanders, Lorraine, Franche-Comté, Burgundy,
Provence, Gascony,--each of these indicates something either more or
less Roman and Keltic than the typical and central parts of the middle
Loire and Seine. Thus,--
1. Brittany is more Keltic, and consequently less Roman.
2. Normandy, is not only Romano-Keltic, but Scandinavian.
3. Flanders, more or less German.
4. Lorraine, the same.
5. Franche-Comté and Burgundy, Frank and Burgundian, _i.e._, German.
6. Provence, inordinately Roman; the basis being Ligurian, and the
superadded elements Gothic and Arab.
7. Gascony--Roman on an Iberian basis.
It is now time to consider the physical and moral characters of the
ancient Kelts. It is just possible that, from the admixture of German
and other blood, the average stature of the Italians may have increased;
so that the difference between a Gaul and an Italian may have been
greater in the time of Cæsar than now. That the stature of the French
and Germans has decreased is improbable. Be this, however, as it may,
the evidence not only of the second-hand authorities amongst the
classics, but of Cæsar himself, is to the effect that the Gauls when
compared with the soldiers that were led against them, were taller and
stouter. “The generality despise our men for their shortness, being
themselves so tall.” Thus writes Cæsar. A good series of measurements
from ancient graves, would either confirm or overthrow this and similar
testimonies. For my own part, I am dissatisfied with them. The habit of
magnifying the thews and sinews of the conquered, is a common habit with
conquerors, and Cæsar had every motive for giving their full value to
his Gallic conquests great as they really were. Again,--we may easily
believe that both the slaves who were bought and sold, and the
individual captives who ornamented the triumph were picked men; as also
would be those who were “butchered to make a Roman holiday” in the
amphitheatres.
Again,--differences of dress and armour have generally a tendency to
exaggerate the size of the wearers; and hence it is that the Scotch
Highlanders, amongst ourselves, are often considered as larger men than
they really are. All who have investigated the debated question as to
the stature of the Patagonians, have recognized in the bulky, baggy
dress, a serious source of error in all measurements taken by the eye
only.
Nevertheless, the external evidence is to the great stature of the
ancient Gauls: evidence which the present size of the French slightly
invalidates. As far, too, as my knowledge extends, the exhumations of
the older skeletons do the same.
As to their hair, whether flaxen, yellow, or red, it was _light_
(ξἁνθος), rather than dark. Livy applies to it the term
_rutilatæ_ suggesting that it was _reddened_ rather than simply _red_,
and Diodorus Siculus expressly states that it was so; artificial means
being used to heighten the natural hue.
A long list of Keltic gods can be made out, if we allow to the Keltic
Pantheon every deity whose name can be found in inscriptions, or whose
_cultus_ has been attributed to the _Galli_. But it is not safe to admit
this.
It is by no means certain that even the Galli of northern Italy held a
common religion with those of Gaul; and still less is it certain that
the numerous tribes like the Scordisci, and others of the Tyrol, Styria,
and Carniola, were Gallic; although both Roman writers call them
_Galli_, and Greek, _Galatæ_. Neither are inscriptions conclusive. I
doubt, indeed, whether they be even _primâ facie_ evidence. We find them
generally, as may be expected, in the neighbourhood of the towns. Of
these many were military posts. Now the cohorts that occupied them were
Dacians, Moors, Germans, Spaniards, Pannonians,--anything, in short, but
Romans. What then are we to say, when an inscription to such a goddess
as Isis is dug up,--as has actually been the case in Britain? Not that
Isis was a British divinity, but that the garrison consisted of her
worshippers. In the way of detail, however,--
_Hesus_ and _Teutates_, as Gallic gods, rest on the authority of Lucan.
_Taranis_, whom he also mentions, has a further claim to notice. By
supposing him to be the God of _Thunder_, we find his name in the
present Welsh _taran_.
“Et quibus immitis placatur sanguine diro
Teutates, horrensque feris altaribus Hesus,
Et Taranis Scythicæ non mitior ara Dianæ.”
_Belenus_ rests on the authority of Ausonius; and as he was worshipped
in the Italian town of Aquileia, he may fairly be considered as common
property to the Galli of Gaul, and the Galli of Italy. At the same time,
Tertullian assigns him to the _Norici_, who were, probably, other than
Gauls; whilst his name has a look suspiciously Slavonic, since _bel_ may
be the first syllable in _bjelibog_, the _white god_.
_Ogmius_ seems to be a true Gallic name, and we learn from Lucian that
his attributes were intermediate to those of Hercules and Mercury.
_Peninus_ was, perhaps, the name of a locality rather than a deity;
although Livy writes _Deus Penninus_. The name evidently contains the
Keltic word _pen_, and signifies probably some sacred mountain-top
amongst the Pennine Alps.
_Andorta_ was a goddess of victory, and _Epona_ one of horses; the
latter belonging to the Gauls of Italy.
All these may fairly be considered Keltic; though the evidence for none
of them is conclusive. The names that are supplied by
inscriptions--names which, like the previous ones, I take from Zeuss
without having examined the details--exhibit a remarkable preponderance
of the termination -_enn_-, or _neh_-. Thus we have Nehal-_ennia_,
Ruma-_nehæ_, Vacalli-_nehæ_, Maviat-_inehæ_, Gesat-_enæ_, Etrai-_enæ_,
Aserici-_nehæ_, and Leher-_ennius_. I can throw no light on the
termination. Two other names ending in -_ast_, Arbog-_ast_ and
Morit-_ast_, seem Slavonic; and, as such, are probably referable to some
garrison.
_Dusius_ has a better claim than any word hitherto mentioned, since it
exists in the present word _deuce_.
It is little, then, that the minute ethnologist can add to the current
description of the ancient _Druidism_, for by that name it is convenient
to express the Paganism of Britain, in which Gaul, to a certain degree,
shared. The Druid as the priest, and the Bard as the poet--such are the
native names in the Gallic religion and literature. That certain deities
were analogous to the Roman Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Jupiter and Minerva,
is expressly stated, but what names each bore, and how close the
parallel ran is unknown. “Deum maxime Mercurium colunt: hujus sunt
plurima simulacra, hunc omnium inventorem artium ferunt, hunc viarum
atque itinerum ducem, hunc ad quæstus pecuniæ mercaturasque habere vim
maximam arbitrantur. Post hunc, Apollinem et Martem et Jovem et
Minervam. De his eandem fere quam reliquæ gentes, habent opinionem:
Apollinem morbos depellere; Minervam operum atque artificiorum initia
transdere; Jovem imperium cœlestium tenere; Martem bella regere.”
Their social constitution was a system of chiefs, retainers, and slaves;
nevertheless, the full development of such a form of government is not
easily to be reconciled with the existence of towns or cities, and such
centres of regular industry as we know the ancient Gauls to have
possessed. Whatever it may have been in the Belgic area, there are good
reasons for believing it to have been considerably modified in the
southern and central parts of Gaul.
The Gauls knew the use of the Greek alphabet, they cultivated land, they
built towns. It is impossible, in the face of this, to allow them a
capacity for civilization less than that of the Iberians, or even than
the Italians themselves, so far as these last were not improved by Greek
and Etruscan influences.
That, contrasted with the Germans, they displayed a great mobility of
temper, is likely enough. To the literature and political power of Rome,
after the reduction of Gaul to a province, they contributed
largely--less, perhaps, than the Spaniards who gave to their conquerors
Seneca and Lucan as writers, and Trajan and Adrian as rulers, but still
largely: for Cornelius Gallus, in the palmy days of Roman literature,
and Ausonius in its decline, as well as others, had Gallic blood in
their veins.
Their aptitude for war can scarcely be measured by the early Gallic
aggressions on the Republic. He is a bold man who would say that the
Teutones and Cimbri were Keltic at all, whilst, in respect to the Galli
of Brennus, the Insubrians, the Cenomani, and other Gauls of the second
Punic war, they were Cisalpine rather than Gallic Kelts. Still, they
were Kelts--though Kelts beyond the pale of the Keltic fatherland. The
same applies to the Boii.
I must now change the subject to remark that those differences of blood
and pedigree, corresponding with (but, by no means, necessarily,
creating) a difference of habits and civilization which the previous
investigations have afforded, are only good up to the thirteenth
century; so that it must not be supposed that those peculiarities
(whatever they were), which the Ligurian and Iberian bases, the earlier
admixture of Romans, the subsequent influence of the Goths, and the
final introduction of Arab and Spanish elements evolved, exist at the
present moment. If it were so, the difference between the northern and
southern French would be greater than it really is. I do not say whether
this is little or much. I only say that, had the original influences and
intermixture taken their course, the present French of Languedoc and
Provence would show certain characteristics which they have now lost,
or, if they retain them, exhibit in a slighter degree. But in the
thirteenth century, the north of France was turned against the south.
There are good writers who put so high a value on the admixture of Arab
and Hispano-Arabic influences as to have persuaded themselves that
Provence and part of Gascony were on the high road to Mahometanism when
the Albigensian crusade arrested their career. One would willingly
believe that there was some reason for one of the most horrible
campaigns of history, which might, as far as a murderous fanaticism can
be put under the shadow of an excuse, palliate its atrocities. The
physical historian, however, looks only to its more material effects;
and these were to replace a vast proportion of the French of the
southern by the French of the northern type and lineage; for this is the
effect of wars of extermination, or (hoping that such have never existed
in the full extent of the dire import of the word) of those conquests
that either lust or fanaticism teaches to simulate them. I shall quote
Sir James Stephen to show that the Albigensian Crusade was of the kind
in question. He has given, with painful eloquence, the sickening details
of the wars under Simon de Montfort:--
“The church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. Those supposed
heretics had been swept away from the soil of France. The rest of the
Languedocian people had been over-whelmed with calamity, slaughter, and
devastation. The estimates transmitted to us of the numbers of the
invaders and of the slain, are such as almost surpass belief. We can
neither verify nor correct them; but we certainly know, that, during a
long succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more
numerous than had ever before been brought together in European warfare
since the fall of the Roman empire. We know that these hosts were
composed of men inflamed by bigotry, and unrestrained by
discipline,--that they had neither military pay nor magazines,--that
they provided for all their wants by the sword, living at the expense of
the country, and seizing at their pleasure both the harvests of the
peasants and the merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of
the landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and castles. In
hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been massacred. There was
scarcely a family of which some member had not fallen beneath the sword
of De Montfort’s soldiers, or been outraged by their brutality. Since
the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the European world had never mourned
over a national disaster so wide in its extent, or so fearful in its
character.”[7]
From the beginning of the thirteenth century to the present time
everything has had a tendency to amalgamate the component ethnological
elements of France--to make it a country of one nation, rather than the
area of many varieties. Its _civil_ history, however, is the source for
our knowledge of all this.
* * * * *
The ethnology of Belgium is comparatively simple. Its elements are the
same as those of Northern France,--Keltic, German, and Roman; for the
analysis (as has perhaps been observed) grows simpler when we passed the
Seine. And this was but natural, as the scene receded from the great
centre of conquest and the great points of international contact.
In Belgium the Roman element is somewhat less, the occupation being
somewhat more imperfect; whilst the Keltic basis is referable to the
Belgic variety--a point in which Picardy, French Flanders, Artois, and
part of Champagne agree.
In Belgium the German element is more uniform, _i.e._, it is more
exclusively referable to a single division of the German stock. No
Goths, no High-German Burgundians are here; but Franks of the Lower
Rhine the followers of Clojo and Clovis; Franks from the Ysel or
_Salian_ Franks; Franks whose chief locality in the country that they
conquered was the parts about Tournay in Hainault; Franks who, if they
differed at all from the Franks of Charlemagne, whose line subsequently
replaced that of Clovis, did so but slightly; Franks, too, of the
Platt-Deutsch division of the German stock, whose nearest
representatives are the Dutch of Holland, and the Low-Germans of Cleves,
Juliers, and Berg. I believe that whether the kings of these Germans
ruled from Tournay or from Aix la-Chapelle, the section to which they
belonged was the same, herein differing from those writers who, because
Charlemagne was an Austrasian, contrast his descent somewhat strongly
with that of Clovis.
To begin, however, with the earliest ethnological history of Belgium, I
remark that the same question which presented itself in the case of
Alsatia re-appears here. Were the oldest known occupants of the country
Gauls, or Germans, or Germanized Gauls? I believe that they were the
latter, though not to any great extent; for it must be remembered that
Treves, Juliers, and Berg, where the modification was considerable, lie
beyond the Belgic frontier. Still, as Tongres (a locality which the
express evidence of Tacitus makes German) is in Belgium, and as Cæsar
calls the Nervii, Pæmani and others, _Germans_ (by which I understand
that they belonged to a Germanic confederacy) the existence of a
considerable and early intrusion of the tribes beyond the Rhine must be
admitted. So that the Romans, when they reduced Belgium, reduced a
country which, like Alsatia, although Gallic, was also _Quasi_-Germanic.
But they reduced it, and they Romanized it; and as we find the more
active emperors coercing the Batavi, Chamavi, and other populations
beyond the Rhine, we may reasonably suppose that they Romanized it
throughout.
The analogue to the Burgundian conquest of Burgundy and Franche-Comté
began in the fourth century, and not with the invasion of Clovis, as is
often imagined. Constantius and Julian had to defend the frontier by
land, and Carausius the Menapian by sea. And Julian was the last emperor
who defended it successfully. At the beginning of the fifth century a
Frank chief, not less formidable than Clovis, although less famous,
Clojo, invaded Gaul, and penetrated as far as the Somme. Hainault,
Brabant, and West Flanders he seems to have permanently reduced; and
what Clojo left undone, Clovis completed.
In the reign of Charlemagne, the process of Germanizing went on, but
soon after his death it came to a close; so that about four hundred
years is the time that must be allowed for the displacement of the
Romano-Belgic language of Belgium, _i.e._, of Antwerp, South Brabant,
Limburg, West Flanders, and Hainault; to which may be added French
Flanders, Artois, and the northern part of Picardy--for to this extent
it seems to have gone when it attained its _maximum_. And, then, a
reaction took place, and the French has encroached ever since. Artois,
French Flanders, and Northern Picardy have been wholly recovered in
respect to their language to France, and the Belgian provinces
partially. Such is the evidence of the _Flemish_ language in Belgium, of
the parts wherein it is still spoken, and of the traces of it in as far
south as the frontier of Normandy.
But it is not the only native language of Belgium--I say _native_,
because the French as it is spoken at Brussels and the towns is, to all
intents and purposes, as foreign a language as English is in Argyle or
Inverness. In Namur, Liege, and Luxembourg, the speech is what is called
_Walloon_, the same word as _Welsh_, and derived from the German root
_wealh_, a _foreigner_. By this designation the Germans of the Flemish
tongue denoted the Romano-Belgic population whose language was akin to
the French, and whom a hilly and impracticable country (the forest
districts of the Ardennes) had more or less protected from their own
arms. Now the Walloon is a form of the Romano-Keltic, so peculiar and
independent, that it must be of great antiquity, _i.e._, as old as the
oldest dialect of the French, and no extension of the dialects of
Lorraine, or Champagne from which it differs materially. It is also a
language which must have been formed on a Keltic basis, a fact which (as
stated elsewhere) is a strong argument against the doctrine of the Belgæ
of Cæsar and Tacitus having been Germans.
The Walloons, then, are Romano-Keltic; whereas the Flemings are Germans,
in speech and in blood--either Romano-Kelts Germanized, or else absolute
Germans; for upon the extent to which the Flemish language is a measure
of German descent, I venture no opinion. We must remember, however, that
as the Franks came from the other side of the Rhine, and from a not very
distant locality, the number of females who accompanied them may have
been considerable. Still, I think, that intermixture was the rule, and
purity of blood the exception.
In stature, the Flemish Belgians are larger men than the French, and, in
the country districts, more frequently fair-complexioned. In certain
families, too, there is a mixture of Spanish blood.
The Walloons are less bulky than the Flemings, dark-eyed and
black-haired.
The particular Germans who reduced the Flemish parts of Belgium, as well
as the north-western parts of France, were the Salii of Saal-land on the
Ysel in the parts about Zutphen and Deventer. But not alone. The Chamavi
of Hamaland were with them; and, probably tribes of Holland and the
Lower Rhine besides. Even there they were not altogether indigenous, as
will be seen when the ethnology of Holland comes under notice.
In the foregoing account Luxembourg, and Limburg, although politically
belonging to Holland, have been considered Belgian.
* * * * *
Switzerland, from having a Keltic basis, comes next in order. The
ancient Helvetia is at the present moment partly German, partly French,
partly Italian, and partly Romance; that is, if we look to its languages
and dialects only. Now as the last three tongues are derived from the
Roman, we may express the character of the Swiss tongues in more general
language, and reduce them to two great classes, the Gothic and the
Latin. This, however, will not give us the ethnology of the country,
since the blood is far more mixed than the speech. The analysis of this
is complex.
In the time of Cæsar the term Helvetia coincided with the modern country
of Switzerland sufficiently closely for all practical purposes of
general, perhaps for those of minute, ethnology also.
The Helvetii, also, of Cæsar were Kelts; so that the basis of the
population is Keltic--although the variety of that stock was probably a
very marked one.
The famous _Helvetian migration_ is one of the earliest and greatest
facts in the Swiss history. Orgetorix, a Keltic name, is the king. The
boundaries, on three sides, are well marked, but not on the fourth. The
Jura range separates them from the Sequani of Franche-Comté, the Rhine
from the populations of Baden and Wurtemburg (which Cæsar calls
_German_), and the Rhone and the Lake of Geneva from Savoy, which was
part of the Roman _Provincia_. The boundaries in the direction of the
Tyrol are undescribed, probably because they were unascertained. An
excess of population is the motive for their emigration. It is
undertaken with due foresight. Two years beforehand, they buy up all
kinds of vehicles and beasts of burden, and sow as much corn as the
ground will allow them. Alliances are sought with the neighbouring
powers. The Rauraci, Tulingi, Latobriges, and Boii, are asked to burn
their towns and join the expedition. The parts about Thoulouse are their
object. It is abortive. Cæsar defeats them and breaks it up; the
numbers of its component members being afterwards found to be as
follows:--
Helvetians, from Switzerland 263,000
Tulingians, from Savoy 36,000
Latobrigians 14,000
Rauraci, from Baden 23,000
Boii, from Bavaria 33,000
-------
Total 369,000
Of these, the number of warriors was 110,000, the rest being old men,
women, and children.
But as the historian of these movements is the conqueror of Gaul, we
must expect, ere long, the reduction of Helvetia to a Roman province. It
takes place as a matter of course. It is Cæsar who effects it; and the
process of Romanizing begins. The Roman language, however, I think,
extends itself into Switzerland from three points; from Gaul, from
Italy, and from the Tyrol. Such, at least, is the inference from the
present dialects; since in Tessino and the Valteline we have the
Italian; in Geneva and the Valais, the French; and in the Grisons, the
Romance.
This last requires notice. If we follow the Rhine from the Lake of
Constance, we are carried up into the narrow valley in which it rises,
and here the dialect is neither French nor Italian, but a separate
substantive tongue which, like them, is derived from the Latin, and
accordingly, it is known as the _Romance_ or _Rumonsch_ of the Grisons
or Graubünten. The Inn must then be traced upwards in like manner, when
in the valley of its head-waters, and the water-shed between it and the
Rhine, the Romance will be found again. It is reduced to writing and
spoken in several dialects and subdialects; so as to have all the
appearance of a language of long standing.
Now this, I imagine, represents the Latin of Rhætia--_i.e._, of the
Tyrol and Vorarlberg--rather than that of Gaul, and it was from the
Tyrol and Vorarlberg, conquered in the reign of Augustus by Tiberius and
Drusus, that it was introduced.
In few countries reduced by Rome must the blood on the mother’s side
have been more aboriginal than in Helvetia, and in few countries is the
extent to which the speech is Latin less a measure of the Latinity of
the descent.
Until the fifth century Switzerland was Keltic and Latin, even as France
was; and then mixture set in, partially. The Germans of Suabia and
Franconia, Germans of the High-German division, Germans by whom Alsatia,
Bavaria, Baden, Wurtemburg, Burgundy, and Franche-Comté, were
Germanized--some perfectly, some partially--extended their conquests to
the present cantons of Schwytz, Uri, Unterwalden, and the other cantons
of the German language; the populations of which are Keltic, Roman, and
_German_, those of the rest of Switzerland being simply Keltic and
Roman.
Switzerland, then, is the third country in which the basis is Keltic,
and the superadded elements Roman and German.
CHAPTER IV.
ITALY.--LIGURIANS.--ETRUSCANS.--VENETIANS AND
LIBURNIANS.--UMBRIANS.--AUSONIANS.--LATINS.--EARLIEST POPULATIONS
OF NORTH-EASTERN ITALY.--SOUTH ITALIANS.--ITALIAN ORIGIN OF THE
GREEKS.--SICILIANS.--ELEMENTS OF
ADMIXTURE.--HERULIAN.--GOTHIC.--LOMBARD.--ARAB.--NORMAN.--ANALYTICAL
SKETCH OF THE POPULATION OF MODERN ITALY.
The only part of Italy of which the ethnology is even moderately simple
is the part belonging to Sardinia, or Piedmont. Here the original
occupancy was Ligurian. Eporedia, the modern Ivrea, is particularly
mentioned as a Ligurian town, and, as its name has generally been
considered Keltic, it has supplied one of the arguments in favour of the
Ligurians being a branch of that stock. Bodencomagus, too, has already
been mentioned. The ancient name of the Upper Po, Eridanus, appears to
contain the same root as the name Rhodanus, and, perhaps, as Rhenus;
whilst Scingo-_magus_ and Rigo-_magus_ give us further instances of the
evidently Keltic termination -_magus_. The parts south of the Po, which
alone constituted the true and proper Liguria in the political sense of
the term, were reduced between the second and third Punic wars; the
following being Niebuhr’s account of them:--
“The Ligurian war is not only insignificant, in comparison with others,
but extremely obscure, on account of our want of an accurate
geographical knowledge of the country. It has some resemblance to the
present undertakings against the Caucasian tribes. The Apennines are
not, indeed, as high as the Caucasus, but they offer the same advantages
for their inhabitants to defend themselves. The Ligurians were
ultimately annihilated, which is always the unavoidable fate of such
nations, when a powerful state is bent upon their destruction. The
Ligurian tribes extended in reality as far as the river Rhone; but as
the Romans were chiefly concerned in securing the frontiers of Etruria,
they made themselves masters only of the territory of Genoa. The wars
did not extend beyond the river Varus, or the frontiers of Provence, for
the hostilities against the Salyes in the neighbourhood of Massilia
belong to a later period. The Ligurian tribes defended themselves and
their poverty with such resolute determination, that the Romans, who
could not expect any rich spoils, aimed at nothing short of extirpating
them, or expelling them from their mountains. The consuls, P. Cornelius
Cethegus and M. Bæbius Tamphilus, therefore transplanted 50,000
Ligurians into Samnium, where Frontinus, as late as the second century
of our own era, found their descendants under the name of the Cornelian
and Bæbian Ligurians. The war was brought to a close before that against
Perseus. It was especially for the purpose of exercising control over
Gaul that the high road of Flaminius, which went as far as Ariminum, was
now continued, under the name of _via Flaminia_, as far as Placentia,
and that the whole country south of the Po was so much filled with
colonies, that the Keltic population disappeared.”
But the parts to the north of that river were conquered later, the
Salassi of the valley of Aosta in the reign of Augustus.
How far the population which I consider to have been allied to the
Ligurian on the one side and the Helvetian on the other, may have
extended eastwards, is difficult to say; but the Tyrol was the centre of
a new stock. This stock was the Etruscan. It is needless to say that we
have now before us one of the _vexatœ quœstiones_ of ethnology.
The account of Herodotus is as follows:--
“The Lydians state amongst other things that they colonized Tyrsenia;
saying thus concerning it. In the days of Atys, the son of Manes, their
king, there was a severe famine over the whole of Lydia. For a while
the Lydians bore up; but, afterwards, when it would not cease, they
sought for a remedy. One invented one thing, one another; and then were
found out dice, _astragali_, the top, and all other kind of games; chess
alone being excepted. But when the evil would not abate, but, on the
contrary, pressed all the more, the king having divided the whole body
of Lydians into two parts, allotted to the one of them to stay at home,
and to the other a departure from the country. With the one that had to
stay at home, the king himself remained at the head; with the other his
son Tyrsenus. They then went to Smyrna, and having contrived a ship and
put therein all that was needful for their voyage, they sailed away in
search of a living, until, having passed by many nations, they came to
the Ombriki, where they settled cities, and where they remain to this
day. Instead of Lydians, they changed their name to that of the king’s
son, who led them, and, taking this, were called Tyrseni.”--I. 94.
Few passages of antiquity are better known than this, and the criticism
which has been bestowed upon it is proportionate to the difficulty of
the question upon which it bears. Niebuhr objected to it on negative
grounds; or rather, he affirmed the opinion of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus who had done so before him; as Xanthus, a native Lydian,
and an historian as well, had said nothing about this Tyrsenian
migration. And this objection may be strengthened. The statement that
the Etruscans of Tuscany called themselves _Tyrseni_ is inaccurate. The
native name was _Rasena_; and _Tyrseni_ was only what their neighbours
called them. Yet, according to the Herodotean account, if one name ought
to be more national than another, that name was the one derived from
their princely leader--Tyrsenus. The stoppage, too, of the expedition at
Smyrna, brings the date of the migration inconveniently low.
Prichard admits that “his (Dionysius’s) arguments weigh heavily against
the credibility of this story.” For reasons too lengthy to be given
here, I wholly disbelieve the Lydian tradition. On the contrary, I lay
what many may consider undue stress upon the account of Livy, who says
that “the dominion of the Tuscans was widely extended before the
prevalence of the Roman arms; their power was predominant on the two
seas which embrace Italy on both sides. Of this the names given to these
branches of the Mediterranean afford a proof; for the nations of Italy
have given to one of these seas the name of Tuscan, from the common
appellation of the people, and to the other that of Adriatic, derived
from Adria, a Tuscan colony. The Greeks term them Tyrrhenian and
Adriatic. The Etruscans, in either territory, possessed twelve cities.
Their first settlements were on this side of the Apennines on the lower
sea; they afterwards sent out as many colonies as the original country
contained principal towns, and these colonies occupied all the country
beyond the Po, as far as the Alps, except the corner belonging to the
Veneti. The same people, doubtless, gave origin to some of the Alpine
nations, particularly to the Rhæti; who, by the nature of the country
which they occupy, have been rendered barbarous, and retain nothing of
their ancient character, except their language, and that in a corrupt
state.”
The analysis of this extract will verify its importance. The last
sentence contains a statement in the way of evidence, and an opinion in
the shape of an inference. I admit the former, and demur to the latter.
The statement as to the language of the Rhæti being Etruscan, is that of
an author whose advantages of time, place, and circumstances were great.
As a native of Padua he was as well-placed for knowing how the Rhætian
differed from the Latin as a Lowland Scot is for giving evidence to the
distinct character of the Gaelic. On the other hand, he was the adviser
and reviewer of an antiquarian work of the Emperor Claudius on the very
subject of Etruscan history; so that, his testimony on this point, is
that of no common author. He speaks to what he had the means of knowing,
and he speaks to a cotemporary fact.
But the inference from this similarity of speech is a different matter;
one that the modern investigator, with a wider knowledge of the general
phenomena of ethnological distribution, may venture to correct. The
occupation of a mountain-range by the inhabitants of a plain country is
a reversal of the usual order of events. It is far more likely that the
mountaineers should have become refined under the influences of a
fertile soil, milder climate, and an enlarged commerce, than that the
Etruscans of Etruria should have become rude and barbarous. After all,
however, the question is only one of degree. It is no opinion of Livy’s
that the Rhætian Alps were colonized from the Etrurians of Tuscany.
Their occupants must have been derived from the plains at their foot,
from the Northern Etrurians of the Venetian territory and Lombardy; and
whether these extended a little more or a little less in the direction
of the Tyrol is unimportant. The primary fact is, that, according to the
only cotemporary evidence existing, the Valley of the Adige was as
Etruscan as the Valley of the Arno.
How far the Etrurians south of the Tyrol were indigenous populations,
or how far they were intrusive conquerors, is difficult, perhaps
impossible, to determine. It is difficult, too, to say where they came
in contact with the Ligurians, where they first encroached on the
Umbrians, and what boundary separated them from the Venetians and
Liburnians. Perhaps, we may give them all Lombardy, the western third of
the Venetian territory, Parma, Modena, Bologna, and Ferrara, I think
that in all these parts they were intrusive conquerors, and, _à
fortiori_, that they were intrusive conquerors in Tuscany. In Ferrara,
and the parts due north of the mouth of the Po, they were, for reasons
which will appear in the sequel, _necessarily_ so. In Campania they were
comparatively recent colonists.
The western third of the Venetian territory may easily have been
Etruscan, Rhætian, or Etrusco-Rhætian; the other two-thirds were
_Liburnian_, or _Venetian_, the country of the Veneti and Liburni. The
affinities of these populations, which were closely allied to each
other, was with the Illyrians of Dalmatia. In other words, it was only
in a political point of view that they were Italians at all. For some of
the higher questions of ethnology, however, the _Liburni_ and _Veneti_
are tribes of exceeding importance.
Now, if we are right in supposing the Ligurians to have been Kelts, the
earliest historical occupants of Lombardy, Etruscans, and the
Liburnians and Venetians members of a distinct stock, we have to go far
towards the south before we find the population with which the ideas
suggested by the term _Italian_ are connected; before we find a language
allied to the Latin, or before we find a civilization and polity akin to
that of the Romans. As far as we have gone hitherto, the nations of the
Po and Arno are as little Italian as the Basques are Castilian. They
have been the nation not _out of_ which, but in _spite of_ which Italy
became the country of the Italian language. No immediate affinities have
yet been found for Rome.
Language will be the chief test; and of the languages allied to the
Latin the most northern were the Umbrian and the Latin itself; the
former on the east, the latter on the west coast; the former spoken as
far north as the mouth of the Po (in lat. 45°), the latter no further
than that of the Tiber (in lat. 42°).
The particular division of those ancient Italian populations of which
the language was Umbrian rather than Latin or Oscan, occupied, at the
beginning of the historical period, the present districts of Urbino and
Perugia, but as there is strong _primâ facie_ evidence of their original
area having been much wider, as well as traditions (if not historical
records) of the Umbrians having suffered considerable displacement both
on the north and west, in the direction of Lombardy, and in the
direction of Tuscany, Ferrara, the Romagna, parts of Bologna and Tuscany
may be added to the Umbrian area in its oldest form. Southwards, too, it
may be carried to the March of Ancona, or the northern part of the Upper
Picentine. The ancient Umbrians consisted of separate tribes, of which
the one first known to the Romans was that of the Camertes. Yet they
were, at the earliest times, the cultivators of the soil, and the
builders of cities; and as the Umbrians, in general, passed for the
oldest occupants, their capital Ameria, was one of the oldest cities of
Italy. Pliny gives the date of its foundation as 381 years before the
foundation of Rome.
The Umbrians here meant are the people who used the language of what are
known as the Eugubine Inscriptions, so called from the place of their
discovery, Gobbio, the ancient Iguvium; which the researches of
Grotefend and others have shown to be undeniably akin to the Latin.
From the famous Sabines, in the strict sense of the word, and from the
Sabine population in its purest form, the Italians who may best claim a
descent are those occupants of that part of the states of the church
which lies due north of the Campagna di Roma, and is bounded by the
Tiber, the Teverone, the Nera, and the Apennines, the country people of
the parts about Narri, Otricoli, and Rieti. The Campagna di Roma is
pre-eminently _Latin_.
For the north-western Neapolitans in the Upper Abruzzo, the descent is
from the southern Piceni, the Vestini, the Frentani, the Peligni, the
Marsi, and other less important tribes, which it is difficult to
distribute, _i.e._, to say, how far they approached the Umbrian type in
the north, or the Samnite, in the centre of Italy. It is difficult, too,
to say whether some of them were Latin or Oscan most.
All this is difficult, but, except to the minute ethnologist,
unimportant. It is enough to remember that when we reach the ancient
Samnium and Campania, the type has changed, at least, in respect to
language; for the speech is neither Umbrian nor Latin, though the detail
of the differences and agreements between the Samnite and Campanian
dialects is difficult.
The language itself is the Oscan, or Opican, spoken at different times
as far north as the neighbourhood of Rome, and as far south as Bruttium;
where, however, it was not indigenous. It was common to Samnium and
Campania, but not to Lucania and Apulia, _originally_. The general name
for the nations that spoke it will be _Ausonian_.
The Oscan is known to us from inscriptions, and is, at the least, as
closely allied as the Umbrian to--
_The Latin._--I think the Latin was the language of the _more southern
of the earliest_ inhabitants of Etruria; so that at the time of the
foundation of Rome, important as it was destined to become afterwards,
it was in the position of the Cornish of Cornwall about three centuries
ago. It may also be compared with the modern Frisian of Friesland, a
tongue spoken at present over a small and unimportant area, but one
which was once spread far and wide over northern Germany. If the Welsh
were to reconquer England, or the Frisians Germany, the phenomenon which
I imagine to have been presented by the history of Rome would be
repeated. A people conquered up to a certain point react on their
conquerors, vanquish them, and a fourth of the world besides. This
opinion is, of course, the result of general ethnological reasoning,
rather than the testimony of historians; yet I am not aware of any
undoubted fact that it opposes. It stands or falls by the phenomena it
explains. The chief of these is the peculiar character of the Latin
language.
Is any one prepared to consider it the result of an intermixture of two
or more dialects?
Or to limit its original area to a district not twenty miles across?
For myself I do neither one nor the other. I look upon it as a separate
and independent mode of speech, even as the Umbrian and the Oscan, and,
I cannot think that the Seven Hills of Rome were sufficient to
constitute the area of its development. Yet to these it must be limited;
for the Etruscan reached below Veii, the Oscan to the neighbourhood of
Ardea and Præneste, and the Sabine below Cures; and it must be
remembered that, however like the two dialects may have been, the
_Sabine was not Latin_.
_The Etruscans of Tuscany were an intrusive and foreign population_ (if
this be not admitted the reasoning on it falls to the ground), and the
_earlier tribes that they dispersed were the Italians of the Latin
type_; for assuredly, if such Italians, other than those of Latium, ever
existed it is in the parts north of the Tiber that they are to be sought
in the first instance; since it is there that the evidence of
displacement is strongest. Something earlier than the Etruscans of
Etruria must have existed in the Patrimonio di San Pietro and the
southern part of Tuscany, and these, I imagine to have been Latins--just
as Devonshire was once Cornish, and would have been so again, had the
Cornishmen been to England, what the Romans were to Italy.
At the same time _some_ extension southwards and eastwards must be
allowed; since tradition, perhaps history, makes both the Sabines and
the Volscians more or less intrusive. The main extension, however, of
the populations of the Latin type was Etruria.
And now, before we go to Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, we must revert to
the parts on the Lower Po, the parts which, at the beginning of the
historical period, were occupied by Etruscans, more or less displaced by
Gauls--partially, at first, wholly, afterwards; the Gauls themselves
being about to be superseded by the Romans.
A statement has already been made to the effect that in Ferrara and the
country northwards, the Etruscans were necessarily _intruders_ rather
than aboriginal inhabitants. The reasons for this statement were
reserved. They will now be given.
The earliest populations of the Lower Po must have come under conditions
which, _unless we suppose them to have been intermediate to the Umbrians
and Liburnians_, the ancient Etruscans (unless _they_ were themselves
similarly intermediate) did not meet. They must have connected the
languages allied to the ancient tongues of Central Italy, with those of
ancient Noricum--the former being (as is admitted and generally known)
allied to the Latin, the latter (as is assumed for the present, but as
will be supported by reasons in the sequel) being Slavonic and allied to
the Servian, _i.e._, just what they are now, only in an older stage.
Now, whoever admits the validity of the valuable philological researches
of those scholars, who, by showing the extent to which languages
apparently as different as the German, the Greek, the Latin, the
Lithuanian, or the Russian, are essentially cognate, have reduced the
leading tongues of Europe to a single great class, falling, after the
manner of the classes in zoology and botany, into definite divisions and
subdivisions--a class which, though somewhat inconveniently denominated
Indo-European, is still, as far as it goes, a true and natural
group--must see the necessity of bringing the languages thus allied into
as close geographical contact as possible; since the divisions to which
they, respectively, belong, are the two most allied members of the class
in question. For that the Sarmatian and classical tongues are nearer
each other than the classical and German, the classical and Keltic,
notwithstanding the opinions of several eminent scholars to the
contrary, is a safe assertion; perhaps it is also the preponderating
opinion.
To connect, therefore, the areas where languages thus allied are spoken,
by areas belonging to transitional and intermediate populations is an
ethnological necessity; and, however much subsequent changes may have
obliterated such areas of connexion, however early those changes may
have occurred; however complete they may have been; and however much
they may have been followed up by others, the original continuity must,
_at one time or other, earlier or later_, have had an existence.
Unless we admit this, we must suppose that similar names for similar
objects, and similar inflections for similar moods, tenses, and cases,
have been developed independently of community of origin; a doctrine
upheld by few, and one which would require the most transcendental
philology to support it; a doctrine which, without condemning as
unreasonable, we may fairly say has never much influenced the current
doctrine of ethnologists.
Admitting it, however, we must recognise a long series of difficult
problems; problems that have so rarely been dealt with as to be
considered wholly new and foreign; problems that occur whenever two
allied tongues are separated from each other by any form of speech
_other than intermediate_. The languages thus related may be ever so
like, or ever so unlike; but as long as they are liker to each other
than those which intervene, the problem in question will recur, _viz._,
the reconstruction of the state of things that existed before the
original separation, and which is implied by the existing points of
similarity.
It occurs in Great Britain. No matter how unlike the Scotch Gaelic and
the Welsh may be, they are more like than the English that lies between
them.
It occurs, as will soon be seen, in the ethnology of Greece.
It occurs in the question before us; leading to the inference that if
both the Keltic of the Cisalpine Gauls, and the Etruscan of Circumpadane
Etrurians were less unequivocally Indo-European than the Slavonic of the
Norici and the Umbrian of the Umbri, the original occupants of the
intervening area must have been neither Gauls nor Etrurians, but one of
four things--
1. Members of the class to which the Umbrians belonged--
2. Members of the class to which the Norici belonged--
3. Partly Norici and partly Umbrians--
4. Transitional populations sufficiently different from each to
constitute a third class, but sufficiently allied to each to be more
Norican or more Umbrian than aught else.
Such is the way in which here, as elsewhere, we must attempt the
reconstruction of what may be called _areas of original connection_.
In the present case, then, north-eastern Italy was originally divided
between the true Italians, akin to the Umbri, and the extinct or
modified Slavonians of Liburnia and the country of the Veneti.
Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, to which we may now attend, I imagine, in
the earliest times, to have been occupied _by the ancestors of the
Greeks_, a doctrine to which I direct the careful consideration of
scholars; since it implies a great change in all our preconceived
opinions, and not only makes the Hellenes of Greece as foreign to
Hellas, as the Anglo-Saxons were once to England, but deduces them from
Italy, and that by means of a _maritime_ migration--a maritime migration
which implies not only that they were a population foreign to the Greek
soil, but that their descendants were a mixed stock; since no mode of
migration is less favourable to the purity of the migrant population
than a sea-voyage, where space is limited and females are an
incumbrance. Such was, undoubtedly, the origin of the Greeks of Asia
Minor and the Ægean Islands. Such, I believe, to have been the origin of
the Greeks of Peloponnesus and Northern Hellas.
The observations on the relation between the Slavonic and Latin
languages have prepared the way to this hypothesis, wherein the
necessity of finding a geographical connection between cognate forms of
speech recurs.
Now the connection between the Greek and Latin languages is a fact that
few have denied, and no one has explained. Unless we derive one from the
other, we must refer both to some common source. But the locality of
this mother tongue is difficult to fix--so difficult that no
satisfactory doctrine concerning it has ever been exhibited. Greece is
an eminently small area, and Italy is of no great size; for it must be
remembered that the ancient country of the nations whose language was
allied to the Latin, and, through the Latin, to the Greek, are not found
far north of the Tiber, at the beginning of the truly historical period.
The Valley of the Arno was Etruscan; the Valley of the Po, Gallic,
Etruscan, and Liburnian; so that the northern boundary of the more
western of the two classical languages was the Tiber, and that of the
most eastern one the Ambracian Gulf--for farther than this it is not
safe to carry Ancient Greece. Perhaps it cannot be carried so far.
Be this, however, as it may, the scholar who recognises the fundamental
affinity between the Greek and Latin languages, and at the same time
requires either an _original geographical continuity_ or a _series of
migrations_ to account for it, has a vast mass of difficulties to deal
with: and I cannot think that these have ever been fairly met. The
intervening area which lies between the Hellenes and Italians is of no
ordinary magnitude. It is not only larger than either Greece or Italy
separately, but larger than both put together. It is this if we give it
the most favourable conditions imaginable. It is this if we suppose
that, on the head of the Adriatic Gulf, there existed in early times a
population from which the Italians on one side, and the Greeks on the
other, are descended--at the head of the Adriatic Gulf, and no where
else.
I limit this hypothetical population to a small area, because, as no
trace of its existence can be found, the smaller it is supposed to have
been, the more easily its extinction is accounted for; and I place it in
a locality equidistant to Greece and Italy, because, by so doing, the
amount of its extension is diminished. The more distant we make it, the
more improbable that extension becomes; and the larger it is, the more
improbable its disappearance. I have put it, then, under the most
favourable conditions. Yet, even here, its position is eminently
doubtful. The first nations which we meet with in these quarters are the
Liburnians; and few have a less claim to be considered either Greek or
Italian, or, yet, intermediate to the two.
The bolder doctrine is the assumption of what has been called The
Thraco-Pelasgic stock. This maintains that the extinct populations and
languages of Thrace, Mœsia, and Pannonia were intermediate to those
of the two peninsulas, and that, by a sort of divarication, the western
extension of their southern members peopled Italy, and the eastern,
Greece. This view has the advantage of being difficult to refute--since
it is the current belief that the original languages of the three
countries in question are extinct, and that, as nothing is known about
them, it is as easy to say that they were the mother tongues of the
Greek and Latin as aught else. The assumed displacements, however, are
enormous; besides which, the ancient Thracians must have been more Greek
than were the ancient Italians; which is unlikely.
But the great difficulty in fixing a locality for this Thraco-Pelasgic,
or Helleno-Latin language (call it what we will) lies in a reason which
the reader of the first chapter of this book may, perhaps, anticipate.
It lies in the existence of the Albanian language; a fact, which I said,
on the onset, was one of such importance as to require being treated as
a special and separate preliminary to the ethnology of Greece and Italy,
as well as on its own merits. Whence came this remarkable tongue, and
whence the populations who speak it? For a long time both were
considered recent introductions,--introductions from Caucasus, perhaps,
or from some other locality equally plausible. But this origin is no
longer admitted by any competent investigator; and the modern Skipetar,
or Albanians, are now looked upon as the descendants of the ancient
Illyrians, and of such Epirots as were not truly Greek. So that the
Thraco-Pelasgic hypothesis is materially weakened by the inconvenient
locality, and the impracticable antiquity of this nation. So awkwardly
does it lie, that it fills up full two-thirds of the area required for
the hypothetical tongue in question.
Hence the line of such transitional populations as, by connecting Greece
and Italy, account for the ethnological affinities of their respective
occupants, must not be a straight one. On the contrary, it must trend
_round_ the Albanian country, _viâ_ Macedon, Thrace, Servia, Croatia,
and Carniola.
The assumption of a stream of population from Asia Minor across Turkey,
Servia, and the parts to the north of the Adriatic is the
Thraco-Pelasgian doctrine modified; since it deduces both tongues from a
common source.
The assumption of a similar stream across the islands of the Ægean does
the same. Yet each is beset with difficulties. If one fact be better
supported than another, it is that the Ægean islands and the Asiatic
coast were peopled from Greece rather than _vice versâ_.
So serious, then, are the difficulties involved in the notion of either
a continuous Helleno-Italian population originally extended from Greece
to Italy but subsequently displaced, or an isolated intermediate
locality from which both Hellenes and Italians were given-off as
colonies, that I would rather believe that the likeness between the
Greek and Latin languages proved nothing more than is proved by the
presence of Norman-French words in English (viz., simple intermixture
and intercourse) than admit it. I do not ask the reader to go thus far.
I only request him to compare the size of the Greek and Italian areas
with the size of the parts between them, which are neither one nor the
other. This will lead him to the threshold of the difficulties involved
in the usual views as to the _origin of the Hellenic population within
Hellas itself_; and, provided that he be willing to examine patiently
rather than reject hastily, an apparent paradox, it will also prepare
him for a train of reasoning of which the result will be a Greece, or
Hellas, as different from the Greece or Hellas of the current
historians, as England is different from Britain. By which I mean that,
if, by the term _Greece_ we denote the present kingdom of King Otho,
irrespective of its population, and with a view only to the portion of
the earth’s surface that it constitutes, the Hellenes will come out
Greek, just as the Anglo-Saxons are British, _i.e._, not at all. Instead
of this, the true and primitive Greeks will be the analogues of the now
extinct or modified Britons of Kent and Northumberland, the Hellenes
being those of the Angle, Frisian, and other Germanic conquerors of our
island.
But to catch it in its full clearness, the point of view from which the
physical history of the Hellenes is to be contemplated, the critic
should go somewhat further than this, and attempt his own reconstruction
of the state of those European populations which existed when the Greek
and Latin languages, with their several points of likeness and
difference, were first developed.
Let him try to do this by assuming that the necessary movements and
displacements were made by _land_, and he will find that it must be by
ringing changes upon such suppositions as the following--
1. Occupancy of Greece from Italy.
2. Occupancy of Italy from Greece.
3. Extension into Greece, on one side, or--
4. Into Italy, on one side, or--
5. Into both Greece and Italy--from some
common point different from each.
6. Absolute continuity of a Helleno-Latin population
from Calabria to the Morea.
In each of the first two alternatives there is the displacement of some
population earlier than the one--Greek or Italian, as the case may
be--which we supposed to have been immigrant.
In the three next there is the same; with the additional difficulty of
fixing the point from which the migrations diverged.
In the last there is the enormous displacement requisite to account for
the utter absence of any population transitional to the Hellenic and
Italian north of the Po on one side, and the Peneus on the other.
But this--as, indeed, are all the others--is reducible to a question of
displacement.
Now it is the last four of the previous alternatives that are the most
complicated. They are also those to which the current opinions most
incline. The term Thraco-Pelasgic indicates this: since it shows that,
instead of deriving the Greeks from the Italians, or the Italians from
the Greeks, both are deduced from a third population.
Upon this third population we must concentrate our attention; and define
our ideas as to its conditions.
If continuous, it must have been of considerable magnitude: and even if
isolated, it can scarcely have been very small. Now the greater we make
it the more mysterious is its present non-existence.
It must have spoken a language intermediate in character to the Hellenic
and Italian. Unless it did this it is of no avail. To be simply like the
Greek is not enough; nor yet to be what is called Indo-European. It must
be sufficiently transitional in character to act as a link.
It must have been either ancient Albanian, which it cannot have been,
ancient Thracian, which it is unlikely to have been, or, some third
language winding itself into continuity between the most south-western
Thracians and the most north-eastern Illyrians, _i.e._, populations akin
to the Skipetar.
So much for its conditions on the side of Greece. As it approached Italy
they must been equally mysterious. Unless we suppose the Liburnians and
Venetians to have spoken such a tongue it must have lapped round the
area of the northern populations of the Adriatic, so as to be thrown
considerably westwards. But, to all appearances, Circumpadane Etruria
began where the Veneti and Liburni left off.
The special classical scholar best knows how far the Pelasgi--how far,
indeed, any ancient populations--fulfil these conditions. Of course, by
assuming an unlimited amount of displacement and migration they can be
made to do so. But such assumed displacements may be illegitimately
large. Whether they are so or not depends upon the extent to which they
are necessary.
Such is a sketch of the difficulties involved in the hypothesis that
Greece and Italy were appropriated by similar populations by means of
migrations by _land_.
A little consideration will show that by looking to the _sea_ as the
medium of communication we get rid of the gravest of the previous
difficulties; though it must be admitted that we get another in the
place of it. It may fairly be urged that conquests by sea are less
complete and perfect than those by land; so that though they may be
admitted as explanatory of settlements on the coast, they are
insufficient to account for the reduction of the more inland and
mountainous parts of a country. This is an objection as far as it goes:
yet it would be hazardous to say that either Greece was more purely
Hellenic, or Italy more exclusively Italian, at the beginning of their
respective historical areas, than England was Anglo-Saxon in the reign
of Alfred. Yet the Anglo-Saxon conquest was maritime.
That, at the very earliest dawn of the historical period, there was a
great amount of Greek elements in Southern Italy is universally
admitted; the only doubtful point being as to the way of explaining
them. They fall into two classes--
1. Those that are accounted for by colonization from Greece to Italy
within the historical period.
2. Those that are not so explained.
It is the latter upon which a partial confirmation of the doctrine of
the present chapter is based.
_a._ The Æolus of Homer, who in spite of some difficulties of detail, we
must look upon as the eponymus of Æolia, has his residence in the
islands off the south coast of Italy; and, it must be remembered, that,
except so far as this Æolus is the eponymus he is here considered to be,
Homer knows nothing of the Æolians.
_b._ The Ionian Sea is the sea that washes the coasts of Italy, and not
the sea which comes in contact with the shores of _Ionian_ Asia.
_c._ Old geographical names, significant in the Greek language, are
commoner in Southern Italy and Sicily, than in Greece itself; as
Phalacrium Promontorium, Nebrodes Mons, Clibanus Mons, Petra, Xiphonia
Promontorium, Crotalus Fluvius, &c. Nowhere are these commoner than in
the Sicanian country, the part generally considered the most barbarian,
but, more probably, the part where the character of the aborigines
survived longest--Panormus, Ercta, Bathys Fluvius, Cetaria (probably a
fishery), Drepanum, Selinus, Ægithallus. Almost all the islands have
names more or less Greek, Strongyle, Phœnicodes, Ericodes, and a
great number ending in -_usa_, as Pithec-_usa_, &c. Ortygia, is
mentioned by Hesiod.
_d._ The names which, in Greek, end in -οεις take, in Southern Italy,
the older forms in -_ntum_--as Μαλοεις, Maleve_ntum_; Σολοεις,
Solve_ntum_.
_e._ The Greeks themselves recognise the existence of colonies planted
by their forefathers in Italy long anterior to the beginning of the
historical period, _e.g._, that of Cumæ, seventeen generations before
the Trojan war. This may fairly be construed into an admission of their
ignorance as to their origin.
_f._ The epithet _Magna_ in _Magna Græcia_ as applied to Southern Italy,
is an adjective which in every other instance of its use, denotes the
_mother country_--the _colony_ being designated by the contrary epithet
_little_.
_g._ The _cultus_ of the eminently Greek goddess, Demeter, was in the
eminently Sikel district of Henna.
_h._ The recognition of Xuthus, the father of Ion, an eponymus strange
to Hellenic Greece, as one of the six sons of Æolus, in the Sicilian
genealogies, genealogies which are evidently of independent
origin.--“Xuthus was king over the Leontine country which, even now, is
called Xuthia; Agathyrnus, of the Agathyrnian country, who built the
city called after him, Agathyrnus.”--Diod. Sic. v. 8.
The foregoing facts are unimportant and unsatisfactory if taken by
themselves. Neither do they constitute the main argument in favour of
the Italian origin of the Greeks. That lies in the necessity of
effecting a geographical continuity between the Greek and Latin
languages, and the inordinate difficulty of doing so by means of an
extension of either of the areas northwards.
The weightiest objection to it is the following. If the southern
Italians were so closely allied to the Greeks as the present doctrine
makes them, how came the later colonists not to discover the affinity?
Surely the settlers at Croton, Sybaris, Thurii, and the towns of Sicily,
would not have failed to find out that they had cast their lot amongst
cousins and kinsmen of their own stock, if such had actually been the
case. They would have found out that the populations with which they
came in contact spoke Greek--possibly with solecisms--but still Greek. I
reply to this by stating that, if, in (say) the reign of Edward the
Confessor, the English descendants of the Anglo-Saxon conquerors of
Britain in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries had colonized the
coasts of their mother country, they would not, unless they had hit upon
a few exceptional localities, have found out, from the evidence of
language or manners, that they had revisited the land of their fathers.
The language had changed, and the population had been mixed and
displaced. The Franks had conquered the tribes originally akin to the
Saxons. Now that which the Franks did with the Saxons of Germany, the
Lucanians and Bruttians seem to have done with the original Greeks of
Italy. Such is the doctrine; such the chief objection to it; and such
the answer.
Another arises from the following words:--κὑβιττον, λἑπορις, πατἱνη,
κἁτινος, μοἱτον, γἑλυ, and νἑποδες. They are glosses from the Greek
writers of Sicily. They are _not_ Greek. They _are_ Latin--_cubitus_,
_lepus_, _patina_, _catinus_, _mutuum_, _gelu_, _nepotes_. I admit this
to be weighty. Nevertheless, as the Sicilian dialects are considered
to connect the Greek with the Latin, their presence is not conclusive.
Besides this, the Sikeli were, probably, more Italian than the Sikani.
There were Epirote (Skipetar) elements in Southern Italy; since several
names were common to both sides of the Ionian Sea--Chaones, Molossi,
Acheron, Pandosia.
There were Pelasgians (whatever the Pelasgians may have been) also; as
is to be inferred from the mention of the slaves of the colonists being
so called.
The name by which the south Italian stock, the parent stock of the
Hellenes, is best denoted is uncertain. The adjective _Œnotrian_,
from the Œnotri, is suggested.
It is wholly unnecessary to assume the existence of a new stock for the
population of ancient Sicily. The south Italians seem to have extended
themselves to the island, and when we first find them there, we also
find fresh evidence of their Greek character, as has already been shown
in the geographical names of the Sikanian area.
At the same time they must have fallen into two or more well-marked
varieties; varieties which are easily accounted for. There were the
earliest occupants of the island, and there were recent immigrants from
Italy, differing from each other as the present Danes of Iceland do from
the native Icelanders. For in this way I interpret the difference
between the _Sik_-eli and the _Sik_-ani, not doubting that both come
from the same root; although the authority of Thucydides is against this
view.
Thucydides’s account is as follows. In the western part of the island
were the _Sikani_, from the river Sikanus, driven thence by the
Iberians. Then came the Sikeli, driven from Italy by the Opiki. Thirdly,
there were the Elymi of Eryx and Egesta, who were originally Trojans,
but who escaped to Sicily, and settled themselves on the Sikanian
frontier, having built the cities of Eryx and Egesta. A few Phocians
(also from Troy) joined them, having first gone over to Libya. The
Phœnicians held certain settlements on the southern coast; Motye,
Soloeis, and Panormus. Lastly, came the Sikeliôts, or Greeks of Sicily,
whose colonies were as follows--
_a._ Naxos from Khalcis in Eubœa; Leontini and Katana from
Naxos.--Ionic.
_b._ Syracuse from Corinth; Acræ, Casmenæ, and Camarina, from
Syracuse.
_c._ Megara from Megara; Trotilus and Selinus from Megara.--Doric.
_d._ Gela from Rhodes and Crete; Akragas from Gela.--Doric.
_e._ Zankle from the Campanian Cuma, itself Chalcidic in
origin.--Ionic.
A reference to his own text justifies our disbelief in the essential
difference between the Sikani and the Sikeli, implied by Thucydides.
That such was the case was the opinion of only the historian; whilst, on
his own showing, it was not the opinion of the Sicanians themselves.
After the Cyclopes and Læstrygones the “Sikani are the first
inhabitants. As they say themselves, they are even earlier, being
_autokhthones_; but, in real truth, they are Iberians from the river
Sikanus, driven out by the Ligyes; and from them the island as well was
named Sikania, being first called Thrinakria.”[8] The Iberic doctrine is
evidently an inference from the name of the river; an inference which
the incompatible opinion of the Sikanians themselves opposes, and, in my
mind, outweighs. But the objections do not end here. The evidence of
Diodorus is as follows; _i.e._, that Philistus supported the Thucydidean
view, but that Timæus proved him wrong, and clearly showed that they
were Autokhthones. Hence, the testimony that we set against that of
Thucydides is the testimony of an equally competent local antiquary,
though an inferior general historian: for less influence than this
cannot well be attributed to the name of Timæus.
The statement respecting the Phocians is remarkable. It shows the
existence of Greeks anterior to the colonial era; Greeks whose presence
was inexplicable, except under the idea of a return from a doubtful
expedition.
Who the Elymæans really were is uncertain. Assuming that they
constituted a variety of the Sicilian population, and asking whence they
may best be derived, the answer is Sardinia--Middle Italy, and
Mauritania. In this latter case they belong to the original Libyan,
Gætulian, Numidian or Mauritanian stock, rather than the Punic. Or they
may have been Tuscans. Possibly, Phœnicians _direct_ from
Phœnicia, or Canaanites, or Jews.
That true Mauritanians, as opposed to the Phœnicians of Carthage,
existed, in at least one Sicilian locality, is a reasonable inference
from the name of a town on the eastern coast--_Thapsus_. This is a word
which now only occurs on the northern coast of Africa, but has a meaning
in the modern Berber, where _thifsah_ means _sand_; a likely name for
the low coast of the part which Virgil calls _Thapsum jacentem_.
In the Elymæan country were two rivers, one called _Simoïs_, and the
other _Scamander_. How they came to be called so is unknown. The effect
was to engender the story of the Trojan colony; unless, indeed, we
choose to argue that such a phenomenon proves too much, and is evidence
in favour of the reality of a Trojan war, and a subsequent dispersion of
Trojan colonists. Or they have been Sardinian _Tli_-enses.
The Carthaginian blood in Sicily was certainly foreign, and the Elymæan
was probably so. That of the Sikels was allied to the older Sikanian;
perhaps, as the Danish of the Northmen in England was to that of the
Anglo-Saxons. Such were the elements that came _into_ the island. But,
according to our hypothesis, there was an efflux out of it, to Æolian
and Ionian Greece, and, perhaps, to some of those parts of Asia and the
Ægean sea-board, which are claimed by the Hellenes as colonies from
their own shores. Subsequent to this there went on the contest between
the Sikani and Sikeli, even as the struggle between the Danes and
Saxons went on in Alfred’s time; whilst Sikeliot Greeks and
Phœnicians were making settlements on the coasts, and meditating a
contest for the supremacy over both. First from Sicily and Southern
Italy to Greece; then from Greece to Sicily and Southern Italy--such is
the hypothetic line of migration, analogies to which may be found
elsewhere. Sumatra, for instance, and the Malaccan Peninsula are
considered to stand in the same relation. The island (Sumatra) is first
peopled from the Peninsula, the tribes then occupying it being
comparatively rude and savage. But, in the island, civilization
increases, just as the South Italians are supposed to advance in their
social condition when transplanted to Hellenic soil. Thirdly, the
islanders (the Sumatrans), after the development of a powerful kingdom,
make settlements on the mother-country (the Peninsula of Malacca), and
(an important circumstance in our criticism) partly from the effect of
changes upon themselves, and partly from changes in the parent stock, no
recognition of the original affinity takes place. The aborigines of
Malaya look upon their sovereigns of the sea-coast as strangers,
themselves being considered what a Greek would call _barbarians_. The
true affinity is only known to the European ethnologists. So far, then,
is the present hypothesis from being deficient in analogies to support
it.
The historical period begins with the contest between the Greeks and the
Carthaginians as to who should hold in vassalage the Sikeli and Sikani;
with a subordinate series of jealousies between the Doric and Ionic
branches of the Greeks. Until about 300 B.C., the struggle is,
comparatively, uncomplicated. Afterwards, however, the free introduction
of mercenaries from Southern Italy, of Opican, Samnite, and Lucanian
origin, engenders new elements of admixture. The Carthaginian power
attains its height about this time. Then the island becomes the
battle-field between the two republics, and from 250 B.C., to 450 A.D.
(in round numbers), a period of 700 years, Sicily is a Roman province.
That the legionaries and officials were Roman in their political
relations only, is nearly certain. Ethnologically they must have been
chiefly South Italian. And the female part must have been native
Sicilian. What does this mean--Greek, Carthaginian, Sikanian, or
Sikelian? Any one in particular, or a little of each? The paramount fact
for this question is the evidence to the existence of Sikeli and Sikani
up to the reduction of the island. From then we hear no more of them:
not, however, because they are known to have become extinct, but because
their relations to Greece have ceased, and the historians who might
mention them are wanting. Rome had no contemporary literature; and when
it had, the Sicilian was known only as opposed to the Roman; for the
writers use the word _Siculi_, in a general sense, making no distinction
between the _Sikel_, the _Sikan_, and the _Sikeliot_. They were treated,
however, as Greeks, not as barbarians; and the Latin language was not
forced upon them. This is an inference from more than one expression in
Cicero’s Oration against Verres, where they are spoken of as
Greek.--“Novum est in Siculis, quidem, et in omnibus Græcis monstri
simile.”--ii. 11. 65. Again, “Itaque eum non solum patronum istius
insulæ sed etiam _sotera_ inscriptum vidi Syracusis.”--_Ibid._ 63.
If the Romans disturbed the ethnology but little, the question is
reduced to the extent to which the Greek colonies either displaced the
earlier inhabitants, or effected an intermixture. Of Ducetius, a Sikel
king, powerful in the middle of the island, we hear in the times between
Gelon and the Athenian invasion; and of other less important chiefs
(some with Greek names), we hear until the first Punic war. They are
always, however, Sikel. Of the Sikanians, Elymæans, and the so-called
Phocian Greeks, little or nothing is said. At the downfall of the Roman
Empire, Sicily seems to have been Greek in speech, and Sikelo-Sikanian,
strongly crossed with Greek, in blood. Then came the piracies of
Genseric and his Vandals; then the invasion of the Goths of Theodoric;
then the island is reconquered by Belisarius as a general of the
_Eastern_ empire; none of which events were of much ethnological
importance. Not so the events of the ninth century. The Arab conquest
was a physical as well as a moral influence.
[Sidenote: A.D. 827-878.]
“With a fleet of one hundred ships and an army of seven hundred horse,
and ten thousand foot, the Arabs landed at Mazara, but after some
partial victories, Syracuse was delivered by the Greeks, and the
invaders reduced to the necessity of feeding on the flesh of their own
horses; in their turn they were relieved by a powerful reinforcement of
their brethren of Andalusia: the largest and western part of the island
was gradually reduced, and the commodious harbour of Palermo was chosen
for the seat of the naval and military power of the Saracens. Syracuse
preserved about fifty years the faith which she had sworn to Christ and
to Cæsar. In the last and fatal siege, her citizens displayed some
remnant of the spirit which had formerly resisted the powers of Athens
and Carthage. They stood above twenty days against the battering-rams
and catapultæ, the mines and tortoises of the besiegers; and the place
might have been relieved, if the mariners of the imperial fleet had not
been detained at Constantinople in building a church to the Virgin
Mary. The deacon, Theodosius, with the bishop and clergy, was dragged in
chains from the altar to Palermo, cast into a subterranean dungeon, and
exposed to the hourly peril of death or apostasy; his pathetic, and not
inelegant complaint, may be read as the epitaph of his country. From the
Roman conquest to this final calamity, Syracuse, now dwindled to the
primitive isle of Ortygia, had insensibly declined; yet the relics were
still precious; the plate of the cathedral weighed five thousand pounds
of silver; the entire spoil was computed at one million of pieces of
gold (about four hundred thousand pounds sterling), and the captives
must have out-numbered the seventeen thousand Christians who were
transported from the sack of Tauromenium into African servitude. In
Sicily, the religion and language of the Greeks were eradicated; and
such was the docility of the rising generation, that fifteen thousand
boys were circumcised and clothed on the same day with the son of the
Fatimite caliph. The Arabian squadrons issued from the harbours of
Palermo, Biserta, and Tunis; a hundred and fifty towns of Calabria and
Campania were attacked and pillaged; nor could the suburbs of Rome be
defended by the name of the Cæsars and apostles. Had the Mahometans been
united, Italy must have fallen an easy and glorious accession to the
empire of the prophet; but the caliphs of Bagdad had lost their
authority in the west; the Aglabites and Fatimites usurped the provinces
of Africa; their emirs of Sicily aspired to independence, and the design
of conquest and dominion was degraded to a repetition of predatory
inroads.”[9]
A.D. 1029, Aversa was founded; a fact common to the history of both
Sicily and Southern Italy; from which the rule of the Normans in Sicily,
Apulia, and Calabria dates. Its details are those of a romance; the
deeds of a small but unscrupulous body of adventurers, too few to
impress any new character on the stock with which they came in contact.
Still they require mention, though but a handful of men. They were of
mixed blood themselves; Scandinavian on the fathers’, French on the
mothers’, side; French, too, in speech. They were recruited by
heterogeneous accessions from Southern Italy.
“Si vicinorum quis perniciosus ad illos
Confugiebat, eum gratanter suscipiebant:
_Moribus et linguâ_ quoscunque venire videbant
Informant propriâ, gens efficiatur ut una.”[10]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1204.]
The beginning of the thirteenth century sees the break-up of the Norman
power, and Sicily transferred to the empire; one of the more notable
facts of this transfer being the removal of sixty thousand Saracens to
Nocera, in the south of Italy. _Saracen_, however, though it means
Mahometan, by no means, necessarily, means Arab. Then we have the
dominion of the French, ending with the Sicilian Vespers, and the death
of eight thousand of them. Catalonians, Genoese, Modern Greeks, and
Albanians (?) complete the list of the elements of intermixture in
Sicily; notwithstanding which, and notwithstanding all the previous
immigrations, I believe the basis of the stock to be Sikel chiefly, and
next to Sikel, Greek.
[Sidenote: A.D. 400.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 406.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 476-490.]
With continental Italy the elements of admixture, until the time of
Odoacer, were due to the barbarian legions in the service of Rome,
rather than to the inroads of any barbarian conquerors; since Alaric,
with his Visigoths, Radagaisus, with his medley of Slavono-Germans,
Genseric with his Vandals, and Attila with his Huns, made but ephemeral
impressions. Of the army, however, of Radagaisus, a large proportion was
sold as slaves. Odoacer’s conquest was somewhat more permanent; whilst
the elements he introduced are uncertain. Reasons, however, may be given
for referring the Skiri, at least, and possibly the Heruli and Rugii to
the same stock as the Huns and Bulgarians--the Turk, a stock from which
few grafts were transplanted to Italy; though a Bulgarian colony in
Samnium was existing in the time of the Lombards, and possibly a few
other similar offsets besides.
[Sidenote: A.D. 490-553.]
The Gothic conquest, however, was not only permanent, but it was the
first of three from the same stock. Themselves, probably, of mixed
blood, having taken it up during their various settlements on the Lower
and Middle Danube, from the Slavonians and Turks of the countries with
which they came in contact, the Ostrogoths, to the amount of not less
than two hundred thousand, settled in the most favoured parts of the
country, and, dominant as they were amongst a population of serfs, must
have played much the same part in Italy as the Normans did in England.
And when Italy is recovered by Narses and Belisarius, more than one
hundred and fifty years after, they are only ejected from power--not
bodily put out of the land.
As has been stated already, they were only the first of three--we may
say of four--hordes of invaders, each of which was more or less
Germanic; for the Lombard dominion rapidly succeeded the Ostrogoth, and,
besides this, partial invasions of Bavarians, Suabians, and Alemanni
were, for a time, successful. But the Lombards ruled over all Italy with
the exception of the Exarchate of Ravenna, till the conquest by
Charlemagne, and over the present kingdom of Naples, under the name of
the Duchy of Beneventum, until the Norman Conquest. Of all the Germanic
elements, the Lombard is possibly the greatest. But it was no pure
strain.
[Sidenote: A.D. 774.]
The infusion of Slavonic and Turk blood amongst the followers of Alboin
was considerable.
For Calabrian and Apulian Italy the history is nearly the same as that
of Sicily.
Now, if after the sketch of these numerous elements of intermixture we
ask which part of Italy is most Roman, the answer gives but a small
proportion of that illustrious blood. Taking the narrowest view of the
question, and distinguishing the Latin area from the Oscan, Umbrian, and
Etruscan, the amount is inordinately insignificant--and Rome itself was
but a mixture. By generalizing, however, our language, and making
_Roman_ identical with _Italian_, we gain a larger area, coinciding
pretty closely, though not exactly, with the States of the Church. This
is the least mixed part of Italy, as well as the most Italian; the least
mixed because it is south of the pre-eminently German, and north of the
pre-eminently Arab area of invasion, and the most Italian, because the
original basis was Umbrian, and Sabine rather than Etruscan, Gallic,
Ligurian, or Œnotrian.
Piedmont, perhaps, is the next in order of comparative purity; at least,
as far as modern intermixture is concerned: the oldest basis being
Ligurian.
In Lombardy the elements are Umbrian, Etruscan, Gallic, Roman,
Ostrogoth, and Lombard; in the Venetian territory, Umbrian, Etruscan,
Gallic, Roman, Ostrogoth, Lombard, and _Slavonic_ (_Liburnian_); in the
kingdom of Naples, Ausonian and Œnotrian, with Greek, Arab, and
Norman superadditions.
CHAPTER V.
IMPORTANCE OF CLEARNESS OF IDEA RESPECTING THE IMPORT OF THE WORD
“RACE.”--THE PELASGI.--AREA OF HOMERIC GREECE.--ACARNANIA NOT
HELLENIC.--THE DORIANS.--EGYPTIAN, SEMITIC, AND OTHER
INFLUENCES.--HISTORICAL GREECE.--MACEDONIANS.--GREECE UNDER ROME
AND BYZANTIUM.--INROADS OF BARBARIANS.--THE SLAVONIC
CONQUEST.--RECENT ELEMENTS OF ADMIXTURE.
It may safely be said that the difficult question as to the relative
influences of the external effects of soil, climate, physical
conditions, the admixture of foreign blood, and the introduction of
foreign examples on the one side, and those of what is called _race_ on
the other, never rises to a greater degree of importance than it does in
the ethnology of Ancient Greece. For, in our current language, we
consider _race_ to mean certain original differences of organization,
faculties, and capacities stamped upon different divisions of the human
species from the beginning; innate qualities, as distinguished from mere
developments; internal elements of the original material upon which the
external agencies of climate, soil, and examples act in the different
degrees of its receptivity, as contrasted with the various agencies
themselves; and in this current language, many writers, who would shrink
from the conclusions to which the term logically leads, unconsciously
indulge. I say _unconsciously_, because it is nearly certain that, out
of ten writers who talk about _race_, and assign to the word a meaning
essentially the same as the one just exhibited, nine would be unwilling
to deny the unity of our species--unity meaning descent from the same
pair. Yet between this and a system of special interpositions the
advocate of the effects of race has no alternative. How can there be two
original capabilities for the reception of either moral or physical
influences, and the evolution of intellectual phenomena out of them, in
different members of a family descended from a single pair?
All that can have had a beginning since the beginning of the species
itself is the manifestation of the several capacities by outward and
appreciable signs. The capacity itself must have existed from the first;
and the writer who considers that too great weight is attached to
external accidents, and too little to innate qualities, unless he admit
either the doctrine of a multiplicity of protoplasts, or extra-natural
changes in the faculties of the progenitors of certain favoured nations,
when he talks about _race_, only throws back the evolution of the
distinctive characters of the populations he may be considering to some
period more or less early. If the remote ancestors of the Greeks and the
remote ancestors of the Turks be referable to some common parentage, it
is mere verbiage to refer the differences between them to _race_, as an
ultimate and primary cause. It is no cause, but, itself, an effect--an
effect of influences immeasurably early in their actions, but still an
effect. For it is evident that of _race_, as it is called, there can be
but three causes--original difference of parentage, preternatural
changes in the faculties or organization of certain members of one
common family, or the operation of the ordinary agencies of climate,
nutrition, and ideas.
I neither deny nor assert that any one of these three causes is the true
one. I only draw attention to a remarkably common inconsistency. A very
little amount of ethnological literature will satisfy any one who makes
the search that the number of writers who write about _race_, and who
are, nevertheless, wholly unprepared for either of the first two
explanations of its origin, is very great. So that they admit the third,
and the third only. If so, why make so much of the distinction?
In the special question before us we are in great danger of overvaluing
this undefined element; imagining that intellectual pre-eminence of the
highest kind was the original endowment of a section of mankind called
Hellenes. That these Hellenes were so favoured is certain, but that they
were a _race_ at all is doubtful. Unless the necessity of connecting the
Latin and Greek languages in geography as well as in philology have been
overvalued, and, along with it, the difficulty of doing so by any simple
extension of the two areas, the natural inference from the necessary
consequences of a maritime migration follows as a matter of course,
viz., the probability of the blood on the mother’s side having been
different from that of the father--the one Italian, the other native to
the soil. If so, there is an Hellenic language, an Hellenic literature,
an Hellenic influence in the world’s history. But there is no Hellenic
stock. The tongue belongs to Hellas, and the blood to Italy.
Subject, then, to the correctness of the Italian hypothesis, what was
the native stock of Hellas? Pelasgic. What means this? The proper place
for this inquiry is the chapter on the ethnology of Turkey, for in two
Turkish localities only have any Pelasgi existed within the historical
period. A negative statement, however, will find place here. Whatever
the Pelasgi were, they were not, at one and the same time, the earliest
occupants of Hellas, and a population belonging to the same class with
the Hellenes. The reasons which lie against making the Hellenes
aboriginal to Greece lie also against any other Hellenoeid population.
The magnitude of the earliest historical Hellenic area is of importance.
Let Greece under the leadership of Agamemnon be as truly Hellenic as
Kent and Essex were Anglo-Saxon in the reign of Alfred. What does it
prove in the way of the occupants being aboriginal? As little as the
English character of the counties in question at the time referred to.
Four centuries--or even less--of migration may easily have given us all
the phenomena that occur; for the area is smaller than the kingdom of
Wessex, or Northumberland, and the country but little more
impracticable.
Hence, if we sufficiently recognise the smallness of the Hellenic area,
no difficulties against the doctrine of an original non-Hellenic
population will arise on the score of its magnitude. It was as easily
convertible from non-Hellenic to Hellenic as Cumberland and
Northumberland have been from British to English.
And that that area was actually very small indeed is evident to any
inquirer who will take up the measure of it without any prepossessions
in favour of its magnitude, and limit his Hellas to those parts only
which can be shown to have been Greek; in order to do which he must
draw no undue inferences in favour of the identity of the Hellenic and
Phrygian languages from the negative fact of Homer saying nothing about
interpreters; build nothing on the ubiquity of the Pelasgi, every one of
whose migrations is as unsupported by historical evidence, as the
migration of Æneas to Italy, or that of Antenor to Venice; and, lastly,
satisfy himself with the “Catalogue of the Ships,” as the earliest
geographical notice of ancient Greece. I think that this list is more
likely to contain populations which were not Hellenic than to omit any
that were; and, with the single exception of the Acarnanians, I imagine
that this is the current opinion. The Acarnanians alone of all the
Hellenes are said to have taken no part in the Trojan war; and on the
strength of their non-intervention we hear of them some nine hundred
years afterwards, putting in a claim for the good offices of the Romans,
the supposed descendants of those Trojans whom the other Hellenes so
cruelly conquered, and the Acarnanians so generously left alone. Yet it
by no means follows that because the Acarnanians were Greeks during the
Peloponnesian war, they were Greeks in the ninth century B.C., any more
than it follows that because the men of Monmouth are English at the
present moment they were so during the heptarchy. What should we say to
the writer who, in the reign of Queen Victoria, should say that the only
people of England who took no part in the wars of the Saxons against the
Britons were the Cornishmen? Surely we should accuse him of an
anachronism, and suggest the fact of his Cornishmen having been at the
time in question, no Saxons at all, but _Britons_. The same reason
applies to the statements concerning the Acarnanians; inasmuch as it is
highly probable that they are absent from the Homeric list of Greeks,
because they were other than Greek in respect to their nationality. It
was only when the Greek frontier extended itself northwards that they
became Hellenized. Then, too, it was that the later writers who fancied
that they must always have been what they were in their own days,
superadded the doctrine of their having been Hellenic to the fact of
their non-appearance in the Homeric catalogue. For it must be remembered
that, even in the third century B.C.--nay even at the present
moment--the Acarnanians are a frontier population, in contact with the
non-Hellenic Illyrians of old, and the non-Hellenic Skipetars of the
nineteenth century. It must also be remembered that notice of their
absence from Troy is nowhere to be found in the Homeric poems. No
passage runs to the effect “that the Acarnanians alone took no share in
the war under the walls of sacred Ilion, but remained ingloriously at
home.” If it were so, the previous hypothesis would be futile.
Upon the whole, I think that Acarnania was in the same category with the
nearly opposite island of Corcyra--Greek in the time of the historian,
but not Greek in the time of the Homeric poems.
So little, however, depends upon this view of the character of the
earliest Acarnanians that the notice of them is rather an episodical
piece of detail, than anything affecting the general question of the
size of Homeric Greece. It may have contained Acarnania, and still have
been small enough for the purposes suggested, _i.e._, small enough to
have been converted from non-Hellenic to Hellenic within a very few
centuries.
On the eastern side of Greece the most northern members of the
confederation are the Thessalians and Perrhæbi; but whether the latter
were Hellenic is uncertain. We may admit them, however, to have been so.
Macedon and Thrace were, certainly, _non_-Hellenic; so much so, that it
is only by first peopling them with Pelasgi, and then making the Pelasgi
what may be called Hellenoeid--or Greek-like--that the semblance of any
close ethnological affinity with the true and undoubted Greeks of the
Homeric confederacy can be obtained.
If we leave the continent and turn to the islands, the greater part of
the Cyclades and Sporades are in the same predicament with Acarnania. In
the “Catalogue of the Ships,” Crete, Rhodes, Syme, Carpathus, Cos,
Nisuros, and the Calydnian Islands are alone named.
Such are the reasons for believing that the true and undoubted Hellenic
area, was, at the time of the Homeric poems, quite small enough to have
received the whole of its population from some other country, and that
by means of boats and ships.
The two elements of the Hellenic population in its simplest form,
are--1. The native; 2. The Italian; either of which may have been more
or less mixed; though the proof of it is impracticable, and the analysis
out of the question.
One of the tribes of the ancient Skipetar area was the Hylleis; and one
of the Doric heroes was Hyllus. I connect these names, the latter being
the eponymus to the former. When the Dorians conquer Peloponnesus,
Hyllus assists them. This suggests the likelihood of those immigrants
whose first settlements were on the northern side of the Saronic Gulf,
and who from thence effected conquests southwards and elsewhere, having
done so in alliance with certain members of the Illyrian, Epirote, or
Skipetar stock. If so, the Dorian conquests were only partially
Hellenic, so that there is, at least, an element of intermixture here.
Others are referable to the eastern coast. Asia Minor, Egypt, and
Phœnicia all contributed to mix the Hellenic blood. In respect to
Asia Minor we may relegate the account of the descent of Pelops on
Peloponnesus to the region of unsatisfactory traditions, and still have
a large amount of facts in favour of the infusion of Eastern blood from
this quarter being considerable. These lie in the character of the
islanders of the Ægean. Whatever else they may have been, they were
partially Carian on one side, and partially Greek on the other.
The claims of Egypt to have contributed to the Greek stock have been
closely criticized by Colonel Mure. His broad position, that the
introduction of foreign settlers is generally followed by visible and
definite influences on the language, is carried to, perhaps, an undue
extent, since, to take an example from our own history, the effect of
the Danes in England is by no means commensurate with their real
importance as invaders. Or, perhaps, his views are limited to the
criticism of a nation’s literature; in which case a foreign settlement,
which gave nothing new to the speech of the people, to their arts, to
their records, or to their mythology, would, to the historian of its
literature, be no foreign settlement at all. The ethnologist is, to a
certain degree, in the same position; but only to a certain degree. At
any rate, however, the fact of an Egyptian element in the early Hellenic
population is an important point in the ancient commerce of the
Mediterranean, even if it be nothing more.
I admit the likelihood sagaciously suggested by Colonel Mure, of the
parts between Syria and Egypt being, in reality, Semitic[11] rather than
Egyptian, yet passing for Egyptian in the eyes of a Greek; so that much
which is really Phœnician, or Jewish, may have been considered as
Coptic. Nevertheless, a few fragmentary facts seem to indicate a true
introduction of Egyptian ideas and blood.
_a._ The name of the city _Thebæ_, common to both Greece and Egypt, is
one of these.
_b._ The reproach cast in the teeth of Achilles in respect to
Penthesilea by Thersites, which can only be alluded to here, but which
is explained in Herodotus[12] by a reference to Egyptian manners is
another.
_c._ The word _Barbaros_, which the evidence of Herodotus, combined with
the fact of the native name of the Africans immediately to the south of
Egypt being _Berber_ at the present moment, induces me to consider it
as an absolute Egyptian word.
_d._ The word _Africa_ is easily explained by supposing that the
Egyptians took it from the _Afer_ nations of Abyssinia, and so gave it
the Greeks, but it is not explicable by deducing it from a Semitic
source.
_e._ The names _Iolchos_ and _Colchis_.--How comes Jason, in sailing
from a part of Thessaly named _Iolchos_, to reach a part of Asia with a
name all but identical? or, changing the expression, how comes the
Colchos of the Black Sea which Jason visits, to have had a name so like
that of the birthplace of the hero who visits it? These things, however
little they may be set down to the chapter of accidents, are rarely
accidental. Yet they cannot be connected with each other. The evidence,
however, of Herodotus to the existence of Egyptian customs in Colchis
(evidence which, although it will not prove the identity of the Georgian
stock with the Egyptian, suggests the idea of a partial settlement)
supplies an explanation. Both _Colchos_ and _Iolchos_ may have been
Egyptian.
Farther remarks upon the assumption that the Phœnicians only (and not
the Egyptians) were a maritime people, will occur in the ethnology of
Crete.
The influences from Syria and Palestine were either Phœnician or
Jewish, and by no means exclusively Phœnician. The selling of the
sons and daughters of Judah into captivity beyond the sea, is a fact
attested by Isaiah. Neither do I think that the eponymus of the Argive
_Danai_ was other than that of the Israelite tribe of Dan; only we are
so used to confine ourselves to the soil of Palestine in our
consideration of the history of the Israelites, that we treat them as if
they were _adscripti glebœ_, and ignore the share they may have taken
in the ordinary history of the world. Like priests of great sanctity,
they are known in the holy places only--yet the seaports between Tyre
and Ascalon, of Dan, Ephraim, and Asher, must have followed the history
of seaports in general, and not have stood on the coast for nothing.
What a light would be thrown on the origin of the name _Pelop_-o-nesus,
and the history of the _Pelop_-id family, if a _bonâ fide_ nation of
_Pelopes_, with unequivocal affinities, and cotemporary annals, had
existed on the coast of Asia! Who would have hesitated to connect the
two? Yet with the Danai and the tribe of Dan this is the case, and no
one connects them.
In these remarks I by no means say that the resemblance is not
accidental; although my opinion is against it being so. I only say that
a conclusion which would have been suggested if the tribe of Dan had
been Gentiles has been neglected because they were Jews.
That the alphabet and the weights and measures of Greece are
Phœnician is likely enough; indeed, from the extent to which the
habit of circumcision was strange to the Hellenes, the evidence is in
favour of the coasts of Phœnicia, and the Philistine country having
supplied a larger immigration than those of the Holy Land. In respect to
the infusion itself of Semitic blood, whatever may have been the details
of its origin, it was considerable; and has generally been admitted to
have been so.
The absolute admixture of Thracian and Phrygian blood on the soil of
Hellas, anterior to the Macedonian conquest, is a complex question.
If the Pelasgi belonged to either of these families, it was, of course,
exceedingly great. But the ethnological position of the Pelasgi has yet
to be considered. Even if they did not, an important question still
stands over; since the influence of the Thracian bards and the Phrygian
musicians, however much it has been either wholly or partially doubted
by late writers, was admitted by the ancient Greeks themselves. Then
there is the Trojan war, an event, which, however fabulous in its
details, has some basis in fact. Lastly, there is the belief at the
beginning of the historical period of the existence of Thracians in
Bœotia. All, however, upon these points that is indicated at present
is the caution against excluding Thracian blood from Hellas on the mere
strength of its barbaric character. It is also added that, until the
ethnology of Thrace has been dealt with, the evidence in favour of the
Italian origin of the Greek language is incomplete.
The extent of the Hellenic area at the date of the Homeric “Catalogue of
Ships,” has been given. The majority of the Ægean islands were, then,
other than Greek. On the coasts, however, of Asia Minor portions of what
was afterwards Ionia had been colonized. Teos, for instance, and Smyrna
are mentioned by name; on the other hand, the division of the colonized
portions into _Æolia_, _Ionia_, and _Doris_ is unnoticed--probably it
was unknown and non-existent. There are Dorians, however, in Crete. The
Hellenes are simply a population of Thessaly, the Pelasgi allied to the
Trojans, and circumscribed in area. Danaoi, Argeoi, and Achaioi are the
nearest approaches to an equivalent to the subsequent term _Hellenes_.
From the Homeric age until the approach of the Persian war, our notices
of the Hellenes are so nearly limited to the Greeks of Asia, that the
state of Thessaly, Bœotia, Attica, and the Peloponnesus--European and
Continental Greece--is obscure; Athens, however, and Sparta are the
parts that then command notice; not Miletus, Smyrna, or Lesbos.
_Hellas_, too, as a collective name, has been developed. On the coast of
Asia there is an Æolis, a Doris, and an Ionia, all of which the Hellenes
look upon as settlements from corresponding parts of Greece, and there
is division of the Hellenes themselves, of considerable political
importance, into two classes--the Dorian and Ionian. These differences
between their own age and the Homeric, the great historians of the
Golden Age of Greek literature explained as they best could. Are we
bound to admit their explanation? Not for the Pelasgi, because we can
get no definite doctrine at all concerning them. Nor yet, in my mind,
for the Doric, Æolic, and Ionic migrations in their details. I cannot
believe that the Ionic dialect ever came out of Greece; holding, that
nothing but a most undue deference to authority and opinion can deduce
it directly from any older form of the Attic. And this is but one
objection out of many. Indeed I submit to the reader’s consideration the
doctrine that the differences expressed by the terms in question, are
best explained and accounted for by supposing, either--
1. A difference between the original Italian populations; or--
2. A difference in the elements which were supplied in Greece itself.
Thus--admixture and alliance with the original population of Thessaly
and South Macedon, rather than with that of Epirus may have determined
the Æolian character; admixture and alliance with the South Epirotes
rather than the Thessalians, the Doric; Semitic elements the Ionic. In
the first and last instances, there may also have been a different
starting-point from Italy; the Ionians being derived from the coast that
gave its name to the Ionian Sea, the Æolians from the district to which
Æolus was the eponymus.
That such results as these, wearing, perhaps, the garb of paradoxes, are
in strong contrast to the recognized doctrines of the best Greek
historians is undoubted. No reader, however, should dismiss them until
he has satisfied himself that he has discussed the question
ethnologically as well as historically; until he has clearly seen the
extent whereto the reasoning which the palæontological geologist applies
to the antiquities of the earth’s crust (reasoning wholly independent of
historical testimony) is applicable to the archæology of the human
species also; and (lastly and most especially) until having fully
appreciated the necessity of making the geographical and philological
connections of the Latin and Greek languages coincide, he has
experienced the difficulty of doing so in the face of the phenomena
presented by the present distribution of the Skipetar, Dalmatian,
Croatian, and other interjacent populations.
There is, then, a Greek language, a Greek literature, a Greek influence
in literature; all beyond doubt. But there is no equally undoubted Greek
stock. As far as there is such an entity, the speech is in Hellas, and
the blood in Italy.
Up to a certain time the Hellenic influence has a northern direction,
and acts upon certain populations originally barbarous, so as
imperfectly to Hellenize them. Such is the case with Ætolia and Macedon.
Afterwards, however, the direction of these influences changes, and
Ætolia and Macedon contribute to dis-Hellenize (if so hybrid a word may
be allowed) Greece. Before they do this, however, they have been taken
out of the category of barbarism; just as would be the case if
Anglo-Saxon England were reconquered by the half-Anglicized Ireland of
the nineteenth century, and just as would _not_ have been the case had
it been conquered by the Ireland of Brian Ború. Rome, too, respected the
land that she had reduced; so that the physical history of Greece
remains but slightly altered until the period of the Gothic, Hun, and
Slavonic invasions. And even Alaric but ravaged the soil and destroyed
life. We nowhere find proofs of any introduction of Gothic blood. Nor
yet of Hun. It is the Slavonic stock that has given Greece its greatest
foreign element.
Why is it that when we compare a map of Modern with one of Ancient
Greece, such a small proportion of the old classical names, either
modified or unmodified in form, can be found? Such is, undoubtedly, the
case. Yet subject to Turkey as Greece was until the present century, the
majority of the new names is not Turkish. On the contrary, they are
chiefly Slavonic. The language of the later Byzantine writers explains
this.[13]
As early as the last quarter of the sixth century (A.D. 582), the
movements set in towards Greece; Thrace and Macedon being overrun by
Slavonians. The details here, however, are obscure, and there is an
occasional confusion of the Slaves with the Avars. The latter nation,
however, seems to have made no notable settlement in Southern Greece at
least. In the latter half of the seventh century, Thessaly, Epirus,
several of the islands, and parts of Asia Minor were overrun. In the
ninth, Macedon is called Slavonia (Σκλαβἱνια). In the
eleventh, Athens is sacked, and the inhabitants driven to take refuge in
the isle of Salamis. Under Constantine Porphyrogeneta, the presence of
an Hellenic population is an exception. “In Macedon,” he writes, “the
Scythians dwell, instead of the Macedonians.” Again, “the whole country
is Slavonized.”
But the most remarkable passage is the following, which shows that a
Slavonic population is so far the rule that where an approach to the
ancient population is found it is dealt with as a remarkable phenomenon;
and that by a Greek writer:--“It must be known that the inhabitants of
the settlement (κἁστρον) Maina, are not of the race of the
aforesaid Slaves, but of the old Romans, and even till the present time,
they are called by their neighbours _Hellenes_, from having been
originally Pagans and idolatrers like the old Hellenes.”--De Adm. Imp.
I. 50.
Latin writers, equally with the Greek, considered Greece to be
Slavonic:--“Inde (_i.e._, Sicilia) navigantes venerunt ultra mare Adrium
ad urbem _Manafasiam_ in Sclavinica terra.”--From a Journal of St.
Willibald, the writer of which, by Manafasia, means Napoli di _Malvasia_
in the Morea.
More than this. The details of some of these Slavonic populations are
given; so that we know that there were Ezeritæ and Milengi in the
Morea, with Dragovitæ, Sagudatæ, Velegezetæ, Verzetæ, and others in
Northern Greece.
In diminished numbers, the representatives of the old Laconians exist at
the present time. A.D. 1573, they had fourteen, they have now but three,
villages--Prasto, or the ancient Prasiæ, Kastanitza, and Silina. With
the exception of their dialect, the Romaic of modern Hellas is said to
be spoken with considerable uniformity over the whole of Greece.
Without investigating the difficult question as to the proportion of
Slavonic elements, it may fairly be said that Ancient Greece is the area
of a greatly, and Modern Greece that of an inordinately, mixed stock. To
this mixture, Italians, Albanians, and other populations of modern
Europe have added.
CHAPTER VI.
RUSSIAN POPULATIONS, SARMATIAN AND TURANIAN.--SAMOEIDS
TURANIAN.--UGRIANS.--LAPPS.--KWAINS.--ESTHONIANS.--LIEFS.
--PERMIANS.--SIRANIANS.--VOTIAKS.--TSHEREMISS, TSHUVATSH,
MORDUIN.--LITHUANIANS.--MALORUSSIANS AND MUSCOVITES.--THEIR
RECENT INTRODUCTION.--THE SKOLOTI.--EARLY DISPLACEMENTS.--UGRIAN
GLOSSES.--INDIAN AFFINITIES OF THE LITHUANIC--RUSSIAN POLAND.--ANALYTICAL
VIEW OF THE PRESENT POPULATIONS OF RUSSIA.--ARKHANGEL.--FINLAND.
--ESTHONIA.--LIVONIA.--PERM.--SIMBIRSK, PENZA.--LITHUANIA.--VOLHYNIA.
--KHARKHOV.--KOSAKS.--KHERSON.--TAURIDA.
Without asking too minutely what are the real boundaries of Europe on
its eastern side, we shall find it convenient to carry them as far as
the Volga and the Ural Mountains; by doing which we include the
Government of the Don Kosaks, Astrakan, Orenburg, Perm, Vologda, and the
whole of Arkhangel. This is being inordinately liberal; but it is as
well to be so, because three divisions of the population of European
Russia are common to the two continents; and hence the history of more
than one of the areas under consideration will be incomplete unless we
trace its occupants to their original home on the other side of the Ural
Mountains. One of these areas is the important country of Hungary; so
far, at least, as it is possessed by the Asiatic Majiars.
The great primary divisions of the human species to which the population
of European Russia is referable, are only two in number; but then each
of them is a class of great extent and generality; falling into
divisions and subdivisions. These are the Sarmatian and the Turanian;
_Sarmatian_ meaning the Slavonian and Lithuanian families collectively,
and _Turanian_ the Ugrian and Turk. A few months ago a third class would
have been requisite, the Samoeid; in order to include the occupants of
the Valley of the Lower Petshora and the coasts of the Arctic Sea, in
the eastern parts of the government of Arkhangel. But it has been shown
by Gabelentz, from an analysis of the Samoeid language that it belongs
to the same class with the Fin, Lapp, Permian, Siranian, Votiak, and
other Ugrian tongues.
The present distribution of the Ugrian populations is not only a point
of importance for its own sake, but is an indispensable preliminary for
the inquiry into the earlier ethnology of Russia.
The Lapp branch of the Ugrian stock is common to Russia and Scandinavia,
so that it will be noticed again when Norway and Sweden come under
consideration. It is chiefly in their dialect and creed that the two
divisions differ; the imperfect Christianity of the Russian Lapps being
that of the Greek Church, and their speech, although, I believe,
intelligible to a Norwegian Lapp, being stamped with several well-marked
peculiarities. It is the structure of their language that shows them to
belong to the same stock as the Kwains of Finland, the difference of
their complexion and stature being considerable; for the Lapp is
dark-haired, dark-eyed, swarthy-skinned, under-sized, and weak-built, as
is the Samoeid also. The Lapp chiefly occupies the country to the west,
the Samoeid that to the east of the White Sea.
Finland is the country of a people whom it is best to call Kwains; since
Kwain is the native name, and Fin is a term which, from being often
applied to the Lapps of Finmark, creates confusion. If this designation
be too strange, _Finlander_ should be strictly adhered to. Viborg and
Olonetz are parts of the Kwain area, with but little variation on the
part of their occupants. St. Petersburg was a part of Finland until the
time of Peter the Great, and Esthonia is Ugrian at the present time. No
new inhabitants of Esthonia, but, on the contrary, its oldest occupants,
the Rahwas, closely allied to the proper Finlanders of Finland, form
the third section of the great Ugrian stock. _Liv_onia, or _Lief_-land,
takes its name from an Ugrian tribe, the _Liefs_, a tribe which from
being pressed upon by the Lithuanians of Courland, is nearly extinct as
a separate substantive population.
In Courland the most western Ugrians came in contact with the
Lithuanians; not, as is reasonably believed, exactly on the banks of the
Dwina, but within the Province; in other words, the ancient Ugrians of
these parts extended over the whole of Livonia, and also a little beyond
it. Courland, however, is, upon the whole, essentially a Lithuanic area.
In Vologda and Perm, two closely allied members of a fresh branch of
Ugrians present themselves, the Siranians and the Permians; the latter
greatly reduced and Russianized. Perm is bounded by the Ural Mountains,
along the ridge of which are the Voguls, and, east of the Voguls, the
Ostiaks of the Obi. But as these belong to Asia, it is sufficient to say
that they are Ugrian. The Votiaks take their name from the river Viatka,
as does the government they inhabit.
Kazan, Novgorod, Simbirsk, and Saratov, like Viatka and Perm, are truly
Ugrian areas, though the intrusion of both Turk and Russian elements has
left the original populations in a fragmentary state. They are
represented, however, by the Tsheremiss, the Tshuvatsh and the Morduin;
the Tshuvatsh being a problematical population from the extent to which
their language presents a mixture of Turk elements, and the Morduins
falling into three divisions--the Mokshad, the Ersad, and the Karatai.
The absolute and undoubted area, then, of the Ugrians of Russia, as it
exists at the present moment, notwithstanding encroachments from both
the Turks of the east, and the Russians of the south and west, reaches
as far south as the government of Saratov.
The present distribution of the Lithuanian populations, is second only
in importance to that of the Ugrians. Livonia is the most convenient
starting-point. Here it is spoken at present; though not aboriginal to
the province. The Polish, German, and Russian languages have encroached
on the Lithuanian, the Lithuanian on the Ugrian. It is the Lett branch
of the Lithuanian which is spoken by the Letts of Livonia (Liefland)
_but not by the Liefs_. The same is the case in Courland. East Prussia
lies beyond the Russian empire, but it is not unnecessary to state that,
as late as the sixteenth century, a Lithuanian tongue was spoken there.
Vilna, Grodno, and Vitepsk are the proper Lithuanian provinces. There,
the original proper Lithuanic tongue still survives; uncultivated, and
day by day suffering from the encroachment of the Russian, but, withal,
in the eyes of the ethnologist, the most important language in Europe.
The _Tartar_ provinces come next, or, to speak more correctly, the
_Turk_. _Tartar_, however, is the usual term, and as _Tartary_ is the
recognised name of the country to the east of the Caspian, it is not
likely to be got rid of; nor yet to be changed into the more correct
form _Tahtah_. The stock, however, is that to which the Ottoman Turks of
Turkey, along with numerous other powerful and important populations,
belong. Kasan, Oremberg, and Astrakhan are the chief Turk provinces. A
portion, too, of New Russia is Turk. The date of their introduction is
the thirteenth century; the empire to which they belonged being that of
the successors of Zengis Khan.
The peculiarities of the distribution of the Turks of Russia is
explained by their history. Of Southern Russia, as well as of the
south-eastern provinces, they were once the exclusive masters. This
makes the Russian population of Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, the Don Kosak
country, and the greater part of Taurida, of recent origin; indeed, it
is not only recent but mixed, and it is called _New_ Russian.
Podolia, Kiev, Pultava, Kharkhov, are what is called Malorussian, or
_Little_ Russian. The dialect differs notably from that of the
Muscovite of the central governments, and has its affinities in a
different direction, since it very closely resembles the Russniak of
Gallicia. And in Gallicia it probably originated. At the same time the
three dialects, the Russniak, the Maloruss, and the Muscovite (or Great
Russian) are mutually intelligible. Between these two branches of the
Russian family a strong national antipathy exists.
In Volhynia the dialect is the White Russian, and so it is in those
parts of Lithuania where the Lithuanian is out of use.
The true and proper Russian of Great Russia, or Muscovy, the language of
the capitals, and the language which the conquests of Russia have
extended over all Northern Asia, and even into North-western America,
circumscribed, as it has been shown to be, by the languages and dialects
which have just been enumerated, is still spoken over a vast area--over
all the central provinces of Russia, as well as on the Baltic and the
Euxine, at St. Petersburg and at Odessa. It is generally, too, the
language of the towns. But, for a language of so vast an area, it falls
into a remarkably small number of dialects. In Olonetz it is mixed with
the Fin, since the Fin is the original language of that government; and,
in Vladimir, the Suzdal dialect exhibits certain peculiarities; but,
with these, and, perhaps, a few other exceptions, the uniformity is
complete.
This is _primâ facie_ evidence of its introduction being recent; a fact
which the whole history of ancient Russia confirms; indeed, it is highly
probable that no truly Slavonic nation (not even the Malorussians)
occupied any portion of their present possessions anterior to the fourth
century of the Christian era. If so, how was the area first filled? By
the Lithuanians and the Ugrians; by the Lithuanians extending from the
west eastwards, and by the Ugrians extending from the east westwards. By
this hypothesis the two populations met in some of the central
provinces, though it is difficult to fix the absolute points of contact.
Nor were the Slavonians even the first invaders who disturbed this
distribution; since Turk populations _different from and earlier than
the Turks of the thirteenth century_ were settled in Southern Russia in
the fifth century B.C., _i.e._, at the very beginning of the historical
period. Neither do I press the absolute exclusion of stocks other than
the Lithuanian and the Ugrian so strongly as to deny the likelihood of
the aborigines of the Crimea and some of the neighbouring districts
having been members of the same stock as the Circassians and the other
tribes of Caucasus. Little, however, depends on this.
Upon the early exclusion of the Slavonians a great deal depends; a great
deal affecting not only the ethnology of Russia itself, but that of the
whole area, real or imaginary, of the Slavonic stock; that of the parts
west of the Elbe, that of Bohemia and Dalmatia, that of Wallachia and
Hungary, that of Northern Greece, that of North-eastern Italy, that of
even the Tyrol, Bavaria, and Switzerland. And the original extent of the
Lithuanic area is more important still. Armenian, Persian, and Indian
archæology are involved in it. It is not difficult to see how this
happens. There are vast tracts of country along the Elbe, the Oder, the
Vistula, and the Danube that good authorities deny to have been
originally Slavonic. “They were German,” it is said, “or if not German,
Keltic, or, perhaps, they belonged to some extinct stock.” “If so,” it
is reasonably asked, “whence came the Slavonians, and where is the
cradle of so vast a family?”
A common answer is “Russia.” But what if Russia be Ugrian, or if not
Ugrian, Lithuanic? Surely the question is important.
Then as to the Lithuanians. They and the Slavonians are branches of the
same Sarmatian family; so, of course, their languages, though different,
are allied. But next to the Slavonic what tongues are nearest the
Lithuanic? Not the speech of the Fin, the German, or the Kelt, though
these are the nearest in geography. The Latin is liker than any of
these; but the likest of all is the ancient sacred language of
India--the Sanskrit of the Vedas, Puranas, the Mahabharata, and the
Ramayana. And what tongue is the nearest to the Sanskrit? Not those of
Tibet and Armenia, not even those of Southern India. Its nearest
parallel is the obscure and almost unlettered languages of Grodno,
Wilna, Vitepsk, Courland, Livonia, and East Prussia. There is a
difficult problem here; a problem which every fact which brings the
Lithuanic and Sanskrit areas nearer to each other, advances towards its
solution.
One of the presumptions in favour of the view in question has been
noticed, viz., the uniformity of the Russian dialects. Another is
derived from the fact of both the Lithuanians and Ugrians having
suffered from the encroachment of the Russians ever since the beginning
of the historical era. The advance has always been on one side. The Russ
has pressed northward, westward, and eastward; the Ugrians and
Lithuanians have retreated. But, better than mere presumptions there is
evidence--historical and internal.
In Herodotus’s account of Scythia, the governments of Kherson,
Ekaterinoslav, with parts of Kiev, Poltava, and Kharkhov, are occupied
by a nation called the _Skoloti_. The informants of Herodotus, it is
true, called them _Scythæ_, but _Skolotoi_ was what they called
themselves; and _Skolotoi_ is the name that is most conveniently used
when we wish to be specific. Their area coincides nearly with that of
New Russia; nearly also with the Steppe district, as opposed to the fat
black soils of the Middle Dneiper, if we consider it in respect to its
physical geography. And this seems to determine the ethnology; since the
Skoloti fall in two or more divisions, one nomadic, the other
agricultural; the latter lying to the north of the former, just as is
the case with the fertile lands as opposed to the bleak Steppes. The
Royal Skoloti occupy the Crimea. The names of this family in detail are
Alazones, Kallipidæ, Skythæ (Skoloti) Arotêres, Skythæ Georgi, and
Skythæ Basileioi. But besides there is in the separate and disconnected
population, _viz._, the Skythæ Apostantes, or the Seceding Skythians.
For the Skoloti a Slavonic origin has been claimed, and there is
undoubtedly one decided fact in favour of their being so. But there is
certainly no more. On the other hand, their Asiatic origin and their
distribution connect them with the great Turk stock of Independent
Tartary and a vast portion of Central Asia besides.
Furthermore, their eponymus is _Targ_-itaus, whose three sons are
Leipoxais, Arpoxais, and Koloxais. The tradition concerning these as
given by Herodotus is a tradition current among the Kherghis Turks at
the present time. Lastly, the only word of the few glosses of the
Skolotic language that can be explained by any known tongue in a plain
straightforward manner, and without an undue amount of philological
manipulation is the word _oior=man_, which is Turk throughout all the
dialects of the Turk stock. The one decided fact in favour of a
Sarmatian origin is the statement that certain Sauromatæ beyond the Don
spoke the Skythian language. It should be added, however, that they
spoke it with solecisms (σολοἱκοντες). Now it will readily be
admitted that a Sarmatian population protruded as it were from the Lower
Danube to the parts beyond the Donetz (Tanaïs), and thus isolated from
its fellows, was just in the position to speak the language of the
dominant occupants, and to speak it badly. Isolated, such Sarmatians
undoubtedly were.
They were also mixed. The special statement of Herodotus is that they
were descended, on one side, from the Skythæ of the country, on the
other, from an invading body of Amazons. An explanation of this will be
offered when the ethnology of Thrace comes under notice.
A second argument of far less value lies in the names of two Skoloti of
rank--Aria-_pithes_, and Sparga-_pithes_. They are evidently compounds,
whilst the latter name occurs in Persian, and the element -_pith_- (_bed_)
in Armenian. This is a complication, since it suggests another class of
affinities. _Valeat quantum._ The gloss _oior_, the descent from
Targitaus, the legends of Koloxais, and the Asiatic origin stand against
it. Besides which, a little ingenuity will explain away the root -_pith_.
It may have been a _title_, as it actually is in Armenian, and, if so, a
word belonging to the language of Herodotus’s informant, rather than to
the Skolotic. Or the same class of Turk intrusions which introduced it
into Europe, may have done the same in Persia; and this is not unlikely.
It was just as much a proper name amongst the Massagetæ as it was
amongst the Skoloti.
Turk invasion is the rule in Russia, and that of the Skoloti is the
earliest on record. And it is in the very earliest records that it
appears. The reasons for making it Turk have been considered; and it
cannot have been Turk without having been comparatively recent.
Consequently, there was a displacement of an earlier population, as is
shown by the existence of an isolated population of Sauromatæ beyond the
Donetz--in the country of the Don Kosaks.
But what are the reasons for supposing the Skolotic area of Herodotus to
have been originally either Ugrian or Lithuanic, or, if not either
exclusively, divided between the two? In the first place there are
Ugrians as far south as the governments of Astrakhan and Simbirsk at the
present moment; and that _in situ_, so to say, or in the position of
indigenous occupants of their present localities rather than that of a
newly introduced population. In the next place, there is more than one
geographical term in the Skythian geography of the early writers which
seems to belong to the Ugrian class of tongues; from which we may infer
that, even if the informants of Herodotus did not take their
geographical terms from the Ugrians themselves, they took them from a
population with which the Ugrian area was conterminous.
1. The name Rhox-_olani_, occurring in Strabo, has long been considered
Ugrian. No other class of languages forms the plural in _-laine_;
several of the Ugrians do so.
2. The term _Rhipæan_, as applied to the Rhipæan Mountains, is Ugrian.
_Rhip=mountain_ in Ostiak.
3. The country of the _Neuri_ was bounded by a lake, at the head of the
river Tyras. There are certain geographical difficulties here, which
this is no time to investigate. A _swamp_ or _fen_ is a more likely
explanation. With this meaning, the word is Ugrian; and, at the present
moment, the town of _Narym_ in Siberia means, in Ostiak, the _Fens_.
Then comes the Lithuanian question; upon which the reasoning is far more
elaborate; consisting chiefly in the exposition of an undoubted fact,
and the suggestion of a new interpretation of it. No two parts of the
world are so distant but what they may illustrate each other’s
ethnology; and, in the present case, the ancient geography of Kherson
and the Crimea is explained by that of Persia, Cabul, and Hindostan.
It has long been known that the ancient, sacred, and literary language
of Northern India has its closest grammatical affinities in Europe. With
none of the tongues of the neighbouring countries, with no form of the
Tibetan of the Himalayas, of the Burmese dialects of the north-east,
with no Tamul dialect of the southern part of the Peninsula itself, has
it half such close resemblances as it has with a distant and
disconnected language spoken on the Baltic--the Lithuanian.
As to the Lithuanian, it has, of course, its closest affinities with the
Slavonic tongues of Russia, Bohemia, Poland, and Servia, since the
Slavonic and Lithuanic are two branches of the same Sarmatian stock. But
when we go beyond the Sarmatian stock, and bring into the field of
comparison the other tongues of Europe, the Latin, the Greek, the
German, and the Keltic, we find that, though the Lithuanic is more or
less clearly connected with all of them, it is, beyond comparison, far
liker the old Indian or Sanskrit.
Such is the undoubted fact, for which there are many doubtful
explanations. Of these, the most unscientific is the most current.
1. The area of Asiatic languages in Asia allied to the Sanskrit is
smaller than the area of European languages allied to the Lithuanic;
and--
2. The class or genus to which the two tongues equally belong, is
represented in Asia by the Sanskritic division only; whereas in Europe
it falls into three divisions, each of, at least, equal value with the
single Asiatic one--the Gothic, the Sarmatian, the Classical (Latin and
Greek)--to which, if we extend the value of the term “Indo-European,”
the Keltic may be added.
The botanist who, finding in Asia, extended over a comparatively small
area, a single species, belonging to a genus which covered two-thirds of
Europe, should pronounce the _genus_ to be Asiatic, would be in the same
position as an ethnologist who should derive the Indo-European stock of
languages from India. Except so far as he might urge that everything
came from the East, and so convert the specific question into an
hypothesis as to the origin of vegetation in general, he would forfeit
his character as a botanical logician. Neither would the zoologist who,
_mutatis mutandis_, deduced the larger from the smaller, the complex
from the simple, fare much better. Now it is a sad truth, that what no
naturalist could attempt, philologists and ethnologists do with
complacency; for so general is the acquiescence in the Eastern origin of
the Indo-European tongues, that the possibility of every phenomenon
connected with the Sanskrit and its allied dialects in Asia being
explicable by means of a simple Sarmatian conquest from Southern Russia
seems never to have been entertained.
The only part, however, of this complicated question which requires
further consideration in a work like the present, is the necessity of
bringing the Lithuanic and Indian areas as near each other as possible;
a necessity which, by itself, justifies the assumption of a southward
extension of the former. Hence, in addition to their present districts,
the governments of Volhynia, Podolia, Kiev, Kherson, and the Taurida,
are assigned to it. From these, either as _indigenæ_, or as the invaders
of a country originally Ugrian, they conquered certain portions of Asia,
just as the Majiars conquered Hungary, and just as the Greeks, some
centuries later, conquered Hindostan. Their language was what afterwards
became known as the Sanskrit, the Zend, the Persepolitan, and the Pali.
Their occupancy ended when that of the Skoloti began; and it began some
time anterior to the date of the earliest Sanskrit record. Such is the
hypothesis; one which will, probably, find more favour with the
naturalist than with the scholar. A subordinate reason for bringing the
Lithuanians beyond their present area, will be given when the ethnology
of Gallicia comes under notice.
_Russian Poland._--When domestic faction and foreign intrigue succeeded
in effecting the partition of the ancient and powerful kingdom of
Poland, it disturbed a hitherto natural division, by dividing the _Lekh_
division of the Slavonic branch of the Sarmatian stock between Russia,
Austria, and Prussia.
_Lekh_ is the name best suited for ethnological purposes, because it
connects the modern kingdom of Poland with the country of the ancient
and powerful Lygii, a name “widely spread over numerous states. It will
be sufficient to name the most powerful, the Arii, the Manimi, the
Helvecones, the Elysii, the Naharvali.”[14]
The religion of the first, and the warlike customs of the last of these
nations, are noticed somewhat in detail; for the Naharvali celebrated
certain rites within a holy grove, and with a priest in a woman’s dress.
One of their deities was named _Alcis_; two others were the analogues of
Castor and Pollux.
The fierce and powerful Arii stained their bodies, and with black
shields chose the darkest nights for their terrible attacks.
That _Tshekh_ and _Lekh_ were the respective leaders of the Bohemians
and Poles, is, with each nation, a native tradition. It is also under
the name of Lekh that the latter are noticed by the oldest Slavonic
historian--the monk Nestor.
The Naharvali were probably Lithuanians of East Prussia, rather than
true Poles.
The Arii, according to the Lithuanic hypothesis of the Sanskrit
language, may have been something much more important, _viz._, the
Median _Arii_ of the Asiatic invasion; in which case they were
themselves either Lithuanian rather than Polish, or else (as is likely)
the migration was Slavono-Lithuanic, instead of exclusively Lithuanic.
Upon the Lekh origin of the Helvecones, Manimi, and Elysii, there are no
refinements.
Of the Polish area the eastern and northeastern parts seem to be the
most recent, since, within the historical period, it has encroached upon
that of the Lithuanians of Grodno and the Baltic provinces, and upon
that of the Russniaks of Gallicia. In character, the language approaches
the Tshekh of Bohemia, and the Sorabian of Lusatia and Saxony in the
south and west. It was extended in the direction of the Elbe, as will
be seen in the chapter on Prussia.
Unless it can be shown that the text of Tacitus is conclusive as to the
Lygii having been Germans rather than what the name, place, and the
belief of the Poles themselves suggest, the Poles of south-western
Poland (at least) form the purest population which has been met with
since we left the Basques; so that as far as it has been mixed at all,
it has been through elements superadded to the original Lekh stock
rather than through those of anything anterior to it. The Mongol
invasions touched it; but that is all. The Roman and German conquests
never reached it. Upon Russia, until the last century, it encroached.
Hence, the elements of admixture that remain are Jewish, German, and
others even less important still.
The language is a separate substantive tongue; the most cultivated of
all the Slavonic forms of speech. From the Lithuanian it is broadly
separated; less so from the Muscovite and Malorussian; but less still
from the Bohemian and Sorabian.
A short analytical sketch of the component parts of the Russian
populations will now be given.
The western half of the government of Arkhangel is Lapp, the eastern,
Samoeid.
The Russian Lapps are all more or less Christianized. Reindeer and fish
are their chief aliments, their habits being migratory.
Except in language, the Samoeid of the Arctic Circle differs but little
from the Lapp, and even this difference has lately been shown to be less
than was previously supposed. In manners they are somewhat ruder; whilst
their Christianity is far more incomplete. Indeed, the old Shamanistic
Paganism is their dominant religion. This they share with the Ostiaks,
their neighbours on the south. But the most important fact connected
with the Samoeids is their distribution and affinities. Along with
populations more or less closely allied to them, they originally covered
the whole of the vast region of Siberia; a region even at present
occupied by them partially, and in detached localities, though the
greater part of it is in possession of Mongol, Turk, and Tungusian
populations--populations whose primary homes were in Central, rather
than Northern Asia, but who have in all cases pressed northwards, and,
in some, reached as far as the shores of the Arctic Sea. But as their
occupation is incomplete, isolated fragments of the original populations
still remain. Some of these are absolutely Samoeid, _i.e._, belonging to
the same division of the same branch of the Ugrian stock. Others belong
to different divisions. All, however, agree in speaking a language more
akin to each other than to the Turks, Mongols, and Tungusians, by whom
they are surrounded or separated.
The particular affinities of the Samoeids are with the Koibal, Kamash,
and other tribes of Southern Siberia on the upper part of the Yenesey
and on the very frontier of the Chinese empire.
Between these and the Samoeids of Arkhangel the population belongs to
the class called _Yeneseian_. Now the language of the Yeneseians, though
less like that of either of the Samoeid branches, than they are to each
other, is still Ugrian rather than Turk, Mongol, or Tungusian. The same
remark applies to a population as far east as the Kolyma, the Jukahiri.
It is more Ugrian than Turk; yet the Yakut Turk of the Lena, rather than
any Ugrian tongue, is the language with which it is in geographical
contact. Lastly, it should be added that, according to a table of
Ermann’s, the language of the Ugrian Ostiaks of the Obi, is more like
that of the Kamskadales of Kamskatka than it is to the Turk tongues by
which it is most immediately bounded. The inferences from all this are
enormous extension and subsequent displacement of the Ugrian family.
The Lapps and Samoeids alone, of all the European populations, have
been considered _savages_. They, too, only have been classed amongst the
so-called inferior races. And it is undoubtedly true, that if we look to
Europe alone, the line of demarcation which separates them from the
Finlander (Ugrian as he is), and _a fortiori_ from the Scandinavian and
Slavonian is clear and trenchant. But Europe alone must not be looked
to; neither must the Lapp and Samoeid be considered to cover the whole
of their original area. Encroachment has taken place from the south,
whereby the transitional varieties have become either extinct or
amalgamate.
This is what we infer from the broken-up character of the Ugrian area in
Siberia, as well as from the fact of the southern Samoeids, the
Yeneseians, the Ostiaks, and several other populations being
transitional in form and manner to the Ugrian of the _Arctic_ and the
Ugrian of the Southern, or _Danubian_, types.
The true Kwain of Finland, as contrasted with the Lapp, is light-haired,
grey-eyed, and well-grown. The admixture of Swedish blood is
considerable. A poem, approaching the character of the epic, and, at any
rate, national and heroic, favourably represents the early capacity of
the Kwain for appreciating song and music; and, in confirmation of the
doctrine of a considerable displacement of the more southern members of
the Lapp and Samoeid families, its subject is the conquest of Finland
by the ancestors of its present occupants. The later civilizational
influences are Swedish. So, too, is their Protestant and Lutheran
Christianity. A sturdy tenacity of temper, combined with considerable
bravery and power of endurance, has fairly been attributed to the
Kwains. In Karelia the Swedish elements diminish. In Olonetz the Russian
increase.
Of the government of St. Petersburg the original inhabitants were the
Kwains of Ingria. In Esthonia the type changes. The population calls
itself Rahwas, speaks a language akin to, but different from, the Kwain,
a language, too, which from falling in, at least, two well-marked
varieties, the Esthonian proper and the Esthonian of Dorpat, presents
internal evidence of being no newly introduced form of speech, but, on
the contrary, an old and original tongue.
In Livonia, or Lief-land, the oldest population was _Lief_; and the
Liefs were Ugrians. A few only now remain. The first displacement was at
the hands of the Lithuanian Letts, who are, at present, the chief
population; themselves becoming, day by day, more and more
Germanized--and, when not German, Slavonic.
Here, as in Finland, though in a less degree, there is a Swedish
intermixture; indeed in one of the small islands of the Oesel
Archipelago, the Isle of Worms, the population is Swede. In the Isle of
Aaland it is Swedish, with a Ugrian basis.
Courland is Lithuanian, having once, in its eastern parts at least, been
Ugrian; as was the whole of Liefland (Livonia). The river Salis runs
across Liefland, and divides the northern half from the southern. This
(there or thereabouts) constitutes the frontier. At Dorpat--which is a
town of Liefland--the proper Esthonian changes its character, and so do
several of the legends and traditions. Now, as the Dorpatians and the
Liefs agree in those points wherein the Esthonians of the coast and
Dorpatians differ, the following hypothesis has been suggested,
_viz._:--that when the Letts of Courland first pressed upon the Liefs of
Livonia, these latter moved northwards towards Dorpat, then occupied by
the typical Esthonians. These being displaced by the immigrant Liefs
pressed the other Esthonians into South Finland.
Such displacements, however, of a population already settled and at
peace, by some other weaker than itself, in consequence of aggressions
from a third body of invaders, are commoner upon paper than in reality.
The real fact seems to be that the country about Dorpat is intermediate
in character to the Lief and Esthonian areas. From the mouth of the
river Salis to Pabask, the present Liefs are the occupants of the
sea-coast; probable descendants of the ancient _Lemovii_, the _m_ being
changed into _v_. That the -_ov_- is no part of the original word is shown
by the forms _Lami_, and _Lam_-otina, _Læm_-onii, and _Lam_-methin.
Nestor’s form more closely approaches the present, and is _Lib’_.
Judging from geographical names, as we find them on the common maps,
Courland, as compared with Liefland, seems the more Germanized country
of the two.
Courland and Liefland are the areas of the Lett, or Lettonian division
of the Lithuanic stock; Vilna and Grodno are Proper
Lithuanian--Lithuanian Proper and Samogitian. The later intrusions are
from Poland. The Russian elements, too, of Vilna and Grodno have been
Polonized; unless we prefer to say that the Pole elements have been
Russianized. This means that when the language of Lithuania is neither
the true Polish nor the true Lithuanic, it is what is called _White_
Russian, a Poloniform dialect of the Russ. The geographical names in
Vilna are easily distinguished from the Muscovite. The derivatives in
-_skaja_, so common in St. Petersburg and Novogorod, are replaced by
forms in -_ichki_.
The Lithuanian nations of the Jaczwingi and Pollexiani extended, at the
beginning of the historical period, as far south as the Marsh of Pinsk,
at the head-waters of the Pripecz, so that the northern part of Minsk
was Lithuanic in the tenth century. All prolongations beyond this are
ethnological rather than historical, _i.e._, they rest on inference
rather than testimony.
The eastern part of Minsk, on the strength of the word Narym[15] is
considered to have been Ugrian. The whole government is at present
Russian, with (as is supposed) a Lithuanic and Ugrian basis; the Neuri,
whether Ugrians, Lithuanians, or Ugro-Lithuanians having formed a
portion of its oldest population.
Volhynia is considered to have been originally Lithuanic, for two
reasons--the necessity of bringing down the early Lithuanic area as far
in one direction as Gallicia, and as far in another as the Lower Don.
Podolia is Maloruss, or Russniak, its present population having been an
extension of the Gallician Russniaks. It is considered to have been
originally Lithuanic, from the necessity of bringing that area towards
the Lower Don.
Kherson and Ekaterinoslav are eminently heterogeneous. Ugrian, perhaps,
at first: they then became Lithuanic, then Skolotic, Hun, Avar, Alan,
Khazar, Mongol, and Russian, not to mention recent colonies of Germans
and Armenians. The extent to which the heterogeneous population of
these parts differs from that of the more Slavonic governments of
Russia, and approaches that of the true Turk areas is shown by the name
_Little Tartary_, and _New Russia_, by which they are often designated.
Taurida is a study of itself. It may have been Ugrian at first. The
points of resemblance between the ancient Tauri and Thracians of Thrace
I refer to a common Sarmatian origin. But what does this mean? Sarmatian
blood from the Lower Danube, or Sarmatian blood from Lithuania? or both?
Then there were displacements effected by the tribes of
Caucasus--Abasgi, in the classical times, Circassians under the
Byzantine Empire. Then Greek colonies. Then Skolotic conquests. Then the
other varieties of Turk occupancy. Besides this, comes that of the Goths
of Lower Danube, and lastly, the Greeks of Byzantium, the Genoese of
Kaffa, and the Mongols.
In Bessarabia, Turks and Moldavians are the predominant population.
Divided between Getæ and Skoloti, at the beginning of the historical
period, it has since had its full share of foreign invasion. The
particular Turk population, however, is that of the _Budziaks_; such
being the name of the so-called Tartars of Bessarabia. The date of their
introduction is probably that of the Crimean Turks. Another variety
consists in a more recent colony of Nogays, from the government of
Astrakhan.
The Russians Proper, like those of New Russia, are the latest elements
of all. Hence, the view of the Bessarabian population is that it is Turk
on the eastern, and Moldavian on the western frontier, with Slavonic and
German superadditions.
_Kosak_ is a word which is now generally admitted to be of Turk origin.
In its present signification it has a military or political rather than
an ethnological sense. It means a horse-soldier owing military service
to the Russian Empire.
His locality, his semi-feudal duties, and his blood, all vary. The
Kosaks of the Don are chiefly Malorussian, with considerable Turk, some
Circassian, and also some Mongol, intermixture.
But besides the true Kosak of the Don there is a Kalmuk colony in the
country as well; an offset from the greater settlement on the Volga.
These are true Mongols in manners, in physiognomy, and, to a great
extent, in creed. They are also the most south-western members of the
family to which they belong. Their introduction is recent; for it must
be remembered that the so-called Mongol conquest of Russia, although
effected by the successors of Zingis-Khan, was _Turk_ rather than true
Mongolian, the previously conquered Turks of Tartary and Siberia being
the chief agents.
Voronej is the country of the ancient Budini and Geloni, the country of
the _forest_ rather than the _steppe_, both in the days of Herodotus and
at the present time. The Geloni, I think, like the proper Skoloti, were
Turks, intrusive upon a previously Ugrian population--a Ugrian
population continued southwards from the governments of Penza, Simbirsk,
and Saratov.
North and east of Tambov the original Ugrian population is no longer a
matter of inference. In Penza the geographical names betray the recent
occupancy of Ugrians of the Morduin branch. In Nizhni Novogorod,
Simbirsk, and Kasan, the Morduins still exist; falling into three
divisions, and speaking a peculiar language. On the Oka they call
themselves Ersad, on the Sura Mokshad. In the neighbourhood of Kasan
they are called by the Turks Karatai. Imperfectly Christianized they
still retain much of their original Shamanism; are well-grown, in
respect to size and stature, thin-bearded, and with brown rather than
either black or flaxen hair. In A.D. 1837, their numbers were about
92,000.
The next Ugrian family in the same governments is that of the
_Tsheremiss_, on the _left_ bank of the Volga. Smaller in stature than
the Morduins, they have but little beard, smooth skins, light hair, and
flat faces. Imperfectly Christianized, and imperfectly agricultural:
they still retain much of their original Paganism as well as of their
nomadic habits. Their language belongs to the second class of Ugrian
tongues spoken in these south-western portions of the Ugrian area. On
the _right_ bank of the Volga, and opposite the Tsheremiss are the
Tshuvatsh also in the governments of Simbirsk, Kasan, and Saratov. Of
the three families they are the most numerous, exceeding 300,000. Their
hair is often black, and somewhat curly; and if the Morduin recede from
the proper Ugrian type and approach the Slavonians, the Tshuvatsh do the
same in respect to the Turks. Their language, too, contains an
inordinate proportion of Turk words: indeed, by several good
authorities, it has been considered an intermediate or transitional form
of speech.
The Ugrians are the oldest occupants of the government of Kasan, the
Turks the most numerous.
Of the same date with those of the Crimea, they represent the Mongol
conquerors of the thirteenth century. Mixed in blood, Mahometan in
creed, the Tartars of Kasan are “of middle stature and muscular, but not
fat. Their heads are of an oval shape; their countenances of fresh
complexion, and fine regular features; their eyes, mostly black, are
small and lively; their noses arched and thin as well as their lips.
Their hair is generally dark, and their teeth strong; their gesture full
of dignity and grace. The same remarks apply to the females, but the
expression of their countenances is lost through their manner of life,
and the natural attractiveness of their persons is lessened by ornament
and paint.”[16]
Their civilization is on a level with that of the Osmanli.
The Turk area extends eastwards, the Ugrian is continued north and
north-west. The Udmart, or Udy of the river Viatka, are the _Votiaks_ of
the Russians and the Ari of the Turks, imperfect Christians,
agriculturalists rather than nomades, and with more red-haired
individuals amongst them than any other population. Eminently unmixed,
they live not only in separate houses but in separate villages.
The Uralian range itself is the occupancy of the _Vogul_, and here the
type changes. The flatness of feature increases; the stature diminishes;
the habits are ruder. Hunting is the chief means of subsistence. Both in
this respect and in language, the affinities of the Voguls are, with
the Asiatic rather than the European Ugrians--the Ostiaks rather than
the Permians.
The Votiaks, on the other hand, lead through the Permians and Siranians
to the Finlanders. The former of these give their name to the government
of Perm, the Biarmaland of the old Norse Sagas. They are now nearly
Russianized; but tumuli, Arabic coins, an ancient alphabet, and an early
Christianity, attest their capacity for civilization. The Siranians of
the government of Vologda are closely allied to the Permians, and not
very far removed from the Kwains.
Two other populations require notice. The Bashkirs of Orenburg deeply
indent the southern part of Perm. Imperfect Mahometans, they speak
Turkish, but depart widely in their physiognomy from the Turks of Kasan;
so much so that Klaproth and others consider them to be Ugrians who have
changed their language. They are, more probably, Ugrian on the mother’s
side only, the Turks having intruded. During summer they wander either
to hunt or to tend their herds and flocks; in winter they unwillingly
fix themselves to some locality under the covert of a forest, and reside
in houses. The Metsheriak, the Teptiar, and some other tribes, are Turks
belonging to the same group. They belong, however, to Orenburg and
Siberia rather than to European Russia.
The Ostiaks occupy part of the government of Perm, the part that lies
beyond the Uralian range, and which is, consequently, Asiatic. They are
hunters and fishers, less in size and more imperfectly Christianized
than the Voguls. I believe them to have been the gold-keeping _griffins_
(_Gryphes_) of Herodotus; though, to do this, the story of their
relations to the Arimaspi must be supposed to have arisen in Armenia--no
unlikely quarter, considering the probable line of the gold trade. A
curious passage in Moses of Chorene tells us that the root _Astyag_, in
the Old Armenian, signifies a _dragon_: and that _Astyages_, the Mede,
was, in the eyes of an Armenian, Astyages _Draco_. Now, the locality of
the Ostiaks is nearly that of the Uralian gold-mines, while just below
them were the _Tsheremiss_, whose name in the mouths, first of a
Skolotian and then of a Greek, might easily become _Arimasp_. The Greek
could not pronounce the _tsh_; and as numerous Turkish words end
in -_asp_, the -_p_ might have been added on the principle which in
English converts _asparagus_ into _sparrowgrass_.
We have thus been brought round to the Finlanders of Finland.
With the reasons already given for considering the Russian in general to
be a population of comparatively recent introduction, with the evidence
in favour of the Skoloti having been intrusive Turks; and with the
necessity of bringing the Lithuanians as far south as the Asiatic
frontier, it is, surely, not too much to assert the doctrine that the
original Russia was divided between two populations--one akin to the
Permian, one to the Lithuanian. The line which divided them is, perhaps,
an insoluble problem. Pskov and Smolensko, at least, may be given to the
latter; Vladimir, Kostroma, Yaroslav, Moskow, and Tambov, to the
former--Tula, Orlov, Koursk, Riazan, Tshernigov, Kharkhov, and Poltava,
being left undistributed.
Further details respecting the Turk intrusions into Eastern Europe still
stand over.
So do certain further questions respecting the Asiatic conquests of the
Sarmatians.
They will be considered in the ethnology of Turkey.
The origin of the name Russ, however, requires a present notice. The
word itself is Ugrian, but it became attached to the empire of Russia
through the conquests of the Swedes. Certain Swedes, in the ninth
century, having invaded the country of the (then) Ugrian _Rhoxolani_,
extended their conquests so far southwards as to reach the Black Sea on
the one side, and the Caspian on the other. They were objects of terror
to the Byzantians; and in a curious passage of Constantine
Porphyrogeneta we learn that the Falls of the Dnieper had two names,
one _Russ_, and one _Slavonic_--_Russ_ meaning _Swedish_ or _Norse_. So
that an undetermined amount of Swedish blood must be given to the
Muscovite and Malorussian areas, as well as to the Baltic Provinces; and
a time must be recognized when the word _Russ_ meant the _Norse_
conqueror of the parts on the Dnieper and Volga, in opposition to the
conquered _Slavonian_. At the same time the Norse _Russ_ was _Russian_
only as an Anglo-Saxon of Kent was a _Briton_. He was a settler in the
land of the older Slavonians and the still older Ugrian _Rhoxolani_.
CHAPTER VII.
WALLACHIA AND MOLDAVIA.--RUMANYOS.--PHYSICAL APPEARANCE.--DESCENT
FROM THE DACI.--SARMATIAN ORIGIN.--SERVIA.--MONTENEGRO.
_Wallachia and Moldavia._--The Wallachians and Moldavians are in the
same relations to the Romans and ancient Daci as the French are to the
Romans and Kelts, or the Spaniards to the Romans and Iberians. Like the
degenerate Greeks of the Byzantine empire, they call themselves _Roman_;
and their language, like the _Rumonsch_ of the Grisons and the _Romaic_
of modern Hellas, is Romane.
As the two principalities represent only a portion of the ancient Dacia,
the ethnological and political divisions differ; for, though all
Wallachians and all Moldavians are _Rumanyos_ the whole of the Rumanyos
are not Wallachian and Moldavian. They are also indigenous to
Transylvania and Bukhovinia. In Bulgaria, Thrace, and Macedonia, there
are, probably, intruders. Light made, with dark skins, black eyes, and
prominent features, they stand in strong contrast to both the Russians
and the Slovaks, with which they are in geographical contact. Nor is it
safe to refer this to Roman blood, since, according to Mr. Paget, the
Dacians of Trajan’s column have similar features--at least as far as the
profile goes, and as far as the description of a Transylvanian _Rumanyo_
applies to those of Wallachia and Moldavia.
Of all the districts on the Danube, Wallachia and Moldavia have been the
least disturbed during the last sixteen centuries. This, though it is
saying but little for a country in the most afflicted part of Europe, is
the inference from the continued existence of their language. Displaced
in all the other Danubian provinces it is still the native tongue to
upwards of 200,000 protected and half independent Rumanyi.
In detail, the ancient inhabitants of Wallachia were the Potulatensii,
the Sensii, the Salrensii, the Kiageisi, and the Piephagi of Strabo.
In Moldavia, there had been a displacement as early as the time of
Herodotus.
The Skoloti of Russia reached the Carpathians, inasmuch as they were
conterminous with the Agathyrsi, and the Agathyrsi were on the Maros,
_i.e._, in Transylvania.
Whether the Skoloti extended thus far westward, when Trajan conquered
Decebalus is uncertain. I think that during the interval between the
time of Herodotus and the Dacian war, the Skoloti had either retired or
become amalgamated; so that the Dacian population lay in one large
uniform mass from the _Vallum Romanum_ in Hungary to the _Solitude of
the Getæ_ in Bessarabia. The reasons for this are drawn from the
language.
1. This is uniform throughout, and uniformity of speech in the case of
exotic languages, is _primâ facie_ evidence of the uniformity in both
the tongue which is introduced and the original tongue of the country.
For identical fruits we must have like stocks as well as like grafts.
The Roman in a Keltic country becomes French; in an Iberic, Spanish.
2. The terminations -_ensii_ and -_dava_ are common to the whole Dacian
area--Predan-_ensii_, Rhatac-_ensii_, Alboc-_ensii_, Burid-_ensii_,
Potulat-_ensii_, Satr-_ensii_, S-_ensii_, Cot-_ensii_,
Cauco-_ensii_--Comi-_dava_, Perobori-_dava_, Rhami-_dava_, Neter-_dava_,
Burri-_dava_, Argi-_dava_, &c.
Of the uniformity of language no country, of which the early history is
equally obscure, shows stronger proofs than ancient Dacia.
The reasons for believing this to have been Sarmatian will be given in
the sequel.
Tolerably pure, for a Danubian population, the Rumanyos of Wallachia are
Romano-Slavonic. In Moldavia there is a trace of Turk (Skolotic) blood.
_Servia._--Our divisions are political; so Servia, as an independent
principality, must be dealt with by itself; and as, from their
complexity, the Austrian and Ottoman empires are reserved for the last,
it will be separated from the areas with which it is most immediately
connected--Southern Hungary and Bosnia.
Bounded by the rivers Drin and Timoc, the present principality coincides
nearly, though not quite, with the Roman Province of Mœsia Superior.
The valley of the Margus is the famous _Plain of the Triballi_
(Τριβαλλἱκον πἑδιον); the mountains, those of the Macedonian, Illyrian,
and Bulgarian frontiers.
There is the special evidence of Strabo that the Triballi and Mœsi
were Thracians, and that the Thracians and Dacians spoke the same
language. On the other hand, we learn from the same writer, that
immediately to the west of the Triballi, the Thracian type ended and the
Illyrian began. Without at present asking what this class may be, it is
important to know that three such large groups are reducible to any
single class at all. Neither is internal evidence wholly wanting for
Upper Mœsia, the only portion of the Lower Danube now under notice.
There is but a short list of geographical names: it contains, however, a
Thermi-_dava_ and a Pic-_ensii_.
We know almost as much of the wars of the Macedonians against the
Triballi, as of those of the Romans against the Mœsi. Philip and
Alexander each imperfectly reduced them. The reign of Augustus is
signalized by the Dalmatian and Pannonian triumphs. Upper Mœsia was
reduced at the same time.
_Montenegro._--In the small Republic of Montenegro, of which the
southern side is bounded by Albania, the population is Slavonic,
differing from that of Bosnia and Hertzegovna only in being independent
of the Porte, and Christian instead of Mahometan. The impracticable
character of the country, and the martial spirit of its occupants, have
preserved this single spot free from Turkish conquest. How far the blood
is pure is doubtful: since the influence of the Roman conquest of
Dalmatia, as well as that of the Greek settlements about Epidaurus is
undetermined, neither is there any clear line of demarcation between the
earliest ancestors of the Skipetar and the early ancestors of Slavonians
in regard to their respective frontiers, north and south. It is
probable, indeed, that the very earliest occupants of the Montenegro
(_Czernogora_, or, _Black Mountain_) may have belonged to the former
population; at present, however, the antipathy between the two nations
is extreme; and in no part of the whole Slavonic area are the Slavonic
characteristics more marked than in Montenegro.
CHAPTER VIII.
FRISIAN, SAXON, DUTCH, AND GOTHIC GERMANS.--GERMANIZED
KELTS.--GERMANIZED SLAVES.--PRUSSIA.--ISOLATION OF ITS AREAS.--EAST
AND WEST PRUSSIA.--PRUSSIAN POLAND.--POMERANIA.--PRUSSIAN
SILESIA.--PRUSSIAN SAXONY.--BRANDENBURG.--UCKERMARK.--SOUTH-WESTERN
PORTION.--WESTPHALIAN AND RHENISH
PRUSSIA.--MECKLENBURG.--SAXONY.--LINONES OF LUNEBURG.--HANOVER AND
OLDENBURG.--HOLLAND.--HESSE-CASSEL, HESSE-DARMSTADT,
NASSAU.--BADEN.--WURTEMBURG.--WEIMAR.--RHENISH BAVARIA.--DANUBIAN
BAVARIA.
As a general rule the Germanic, or Gothic, stock has not only held its
own area from the earliest time, but has encroached on that of others,
so that although there are many parts of Europe, which, once the
occupancy of non-Germanic populations, have now become more or less
German, the converse rarely, if ever, can be shown to have taken place.
Hence, almost all the districts which were originally German, are German
now. The chief exception, if it be one, occurs in Belgium, where the
Gallo-Roman family, has, _perhaps_, encroached on the Gothic.
But, though the Old Germany be Germanic still, there is a great part of
the Modern Germany which was not so even at the beginning of the
historical period. Some portion of the present area was Keltic, and a
still greater was Sarmatian. Besides which, the original population of
no inconsiderable section is uncertain. All this somewhat reduces the
simplicity of the ethnology. And to this, it must be added, that the
Teutonic (or German) branch of the great Gothic stock falls into some
important divisions. The Frisians of Friesland represent one of these,
our Anglo-Saxon ancestors another, the Old Saxons of Westphalia a third,
the Low Dutch of Holland a fourth, the High Dutch of Bavaria a fifth,
the Goths of the Old Ostrogoth and Visigoth conquests a sixth. Now the
intestine movements of these different divisions have always been great;
so that, although we shall rarely hear of any Germanic population having
been overlaid by Slavonians or Kelts, the phenomenon of Saxons
superseded by Low Dutch, Low Dutch by High and other similar
displacements will be common.
The divisions, then, of the Germanic area are as follows:--
1st. There is the pure and proper country of the indigenous Germans,
wherein all the important elements of admixture are limited to the
different divisions and subdivisions of the Germanic family.
2nd. There is the area which was originally Sarmatian falling into--
_a._ The Lithuanic, and--
_b._ The Slavonic districts.
3rd. There is the tract which was originally Keltic.
4th. The parts whose original ethnology is uncertain.
The details of the different political divisions supply us with the
commentary on this classification.
_Prussia._--The kingdom of Prussia well illustrates the difficulty of
making ethnology and politics agree. It falls into two parts separated
from each other. Of these the first, with the possible exception of its
south-western corner, was wholly Sarmatian in the tenth century; as
Sarmatian as England was Keltic, or Spain Iberic. The population, too,
was referable to both branches of the Sarmatian stock--the Slavonic as
well as the Lithuanic.
In East Prussia it is easily seen that the geographical names are not
German. Neither are they Russian. The Old Prussian, a member of the
Lithuanic family of languages, was spoken here as late as the sixteenth
century, remains of which, in the shape of a catechism, are extant. This
is the language of the ancient _Æstyi_, or _Men of the East_, which
Tacitus says was akin to the British, an error arising from the
similarity of name, since a Slavonian (if such were the original source
of his information) would call the two languages by names so like as
_Prytskaia_ and _Brytskaia_, and a German (if the authority were
Germanic) by names so like as _Pryttisc_ and _Bryttisc_. The Guttones,
too, of Pliny, whose locality is fixed from the fact of their having
been collectors of the amber of East Prussia and Courland, were of the
same stock. The name by which they were known to the Slavonians within
the historical period was _Guddon_=_Gothones_, _Guttones_.
In West Prussia the extermination or amalgamation of the native
Lithuanians was earlier. We have no specimens of their language. We
know, however, that the country took its name from them. They seem to
have been the most western members of their family. The southern
frontier of the present Prussia is Polish.
Prussian Poland--the Duchy of Posen--is now, as it always has been,
Sarmatian, Slavonic, Lekh, Lygian.
Pomerania, too, retains vestiges of its Slavonic population in the
_Kaszeb_, _Kassubes_, or _Kassubitæ_, occupants of the peninsula and
islands at the mouth of the Oder. The name, too, of the province at
large, is Slavonic; _po_=_on_+_more_=_sea_=_coast_-_land_.
The Isle of Rugen was one of the last strongholds of Slavonic Paganism,
as is shown by its numerous antiquities, and by the evidence of history.
The famous temple of the _Obotrite_ Slavonians was there; though
Mecklenburg rather than Pomerania was the part of the continent to which
they belonged.
In Prussian Silesia, the _Serskie_ of Lower and the _Srbie_ of Upper
Lusatia, still Slavonic, retain their language, and represented the
older population of the whole country.
The Saale was the original boundary between the Germans and the Slaves,
all between Thuringia and Poland belonging to that stock. Certain as
this is from the accounts of the conquest under the Carlovingian empire,
the details are difficult for Prussian Saxony, Altmark, and Brandenburg.
The _Hevelli_ were on the Hevel: the _Stoderani_, _Brizani_,
_Bethenici_, _Dossani_, and _Smeldingi_ filled up much of the valleys of
the Oder and the Elbe: we cannot, however, fill up the whole tract. Yet,
the names of the _Marches_, or _Borders_, show that the encroachment was
gradual. First, and nearest to Germany, is the _old_ march (_Altmark_);
after this, the Middle march (Mittel mark); and then the March of the
Ukrians (Uckermark), all originally frontiers between the encroaching
Germans and the retiring Slavonians, and all frontiers within the
historical period.
But _Ucker_-mark was a Border, or Debatable land in the eyes of the
Slavonians, as well as their conquerors; and the name of its original
occupants signified _Borderers_. The _kr_-is the _kr_-in U-_krain_-, as
well as in the word _Grenz_, which, though German at present, is in
origin, Slavonic. The form _Uckri_, _Ucrani_, and _Uncrani_, indicate
this. Perhaps, though only _perhaps_, this Ukrian March--this
Brandenburg Ukraine--may have separated the most western Lithuanians of
Prussia from the Slavonians of the water-system of the Oder; if so, the
word is an instrument of criticism, as it certainly is in many other
interesting instances.
In part of the circle of Kotbus, the Sorabian of Silesia is still
spoken.
The south-western districts of Prussia east of the Saale, Hesse, an
outlying portion of Hanover, and Weimar, along with a narrow strip on
the Brunswick frontier, are the only parts of the western half of the
Proper Brandenburg Prussia that began with being Germanic; and even here
there seems to have been intermixture. The Hanoverian frontier seems to
have been wholly Slavonic.
Of Rhenish Prussia, Westphalia was originally Saxon--not exactly Angle
or Anglo-Saxon, but slightly differing from the Anglo-Saxon in language.
It was _Old_-Saxon. The Old-Saxon language, however, is extinct, and the
blood considerably mixed. Encroachment and conquest of Low Dutch and
High Dutch Germans from the South, in the ninth and tenth centuries,
effected this. There were, also, a few Slavic colonies. Otherwise the
blood is German; though neither wholly Dutch nor wholly Saxon. The old
tribes of Westphalian Prussia were the Chamavi, Bructeri, and
Angrivarii.
In Berg, Cleves, and the parts about Cologne, the Ubii, Tenchteri,
Sicambri, and other allied tribes, were, probably, Dutch rather than
Saxon, and Low Dutch rather than High. On the French frontier there is a
Keltic basis; Cologne claims a notable amount of Roman blood.
_Mecklenburg._--The great Slavonic nation of Mecklenburg was the
Obotrites; after them the Wilzi, the Tollenzi, and the Rethrarii of the
old pagan town of _Rethre_. The dukes of Mecklenburg alone, of all the
numerous dynasts of Germany, are of Slavonic extraction.
_Saxony._--Either conquered from Westphalian Saxony, or settled by Saxon
colonies, the kingdom to which Dresden is the metropolis, originally the
country of the Semnones, is German only in language. In blood it belongs
to the same division with Silesia; indeed the _Sorabian_ frontier (for
so the _Srbie_, and _Serskie_ may conveniently be called) extended as
far westwards as the Saale.
_Hanover._--From Hanover, the north-east quarter (there or thereabouts)
must be deducted as Slavonic. Luneburg took its name from the Slavonic
Linones, whose language was spoken in a few villages as late as the last
century.
The remaining three-fourths are German; and from the extent of the
kingdom and the irregularity of its outline, four out of the six
divisions of the old Germanic populations may have been contained in it.
From the Ems to the Elbe, extended to an undetermined distance inland,
the ancient tribes were the Chauci and Frisii, who were _Frisians_.
Embden is the capital of East Friesland, where the Frisian language was
general until the seventeenth century, and where, in one or two
localities, it is still spoken at the present moment.
A line drawn from the Dutch district of Drenthe to the Hartz would pass
through the country of the _Old_ Saxons; one from Hamburg to Minden,
through that of the _Anglo_-Saxons. The Longobardi, Chatti, and
Cherusci, some portions of whom, whether High or Low, were _Dutch_,
extended towards the Hartz. Soon after this the Slavonic area began.
_Oldenburg._--Undoubtedly Frisian in its northern, Oldenburg was either
Frisian or Old Saxon in its southern, parts.
_Holland._--If the Dutch of Holland be the indigenous dialect of any
part of that country, it is only so for the southern third of it. The
_Frisians_ are the oldest occupants.
_Hesse-Cassel_, _Hesse-Darmstadt_, and _Nassau_, the two former, the
localities of the _Chatti_, take us from the Saxons and Frisians to the
true Dutch or Germans. At present their language is High German.
Probably, it was so at the beginning. I do not, however, pretend to say
where the Low-Dutch form of speech originated. It has encroached upon
the Frisian and Saxon; and, in all the parts where it is now spoken,
with the exception, perhaps, of the parts below Cologne, is of foreign
origin. On the other hand, however, the High German of Franconia,
Suabia, and Bavaria has encroached on it.
Weimar, Gotha, Saxe-Meiningen, Schwartzburg, Coburg, and the
south-western corner of Prussia, are considered to form the area of the
ancestors of those Germans who, in the second, third, and fourth
centuries played so conspicuous a part on the Lower Danube, under
Alaric, Theodoric, and others. The following is submitted as a sketch of
their history. As the Hermunduri of the country in which the Albis (the
Saale rather than the Bohemian Elbe) rises, they are known to Tacitus;
but their power, as elements of the great empire of Maroboduus has been
felt by the Romans of Rhætia and Vindelicia nearly a century earlier.
Encroaching southwards, and crossing the watershed of the Elbe and
Danube (the Fichtelgebirge) they displace the probably Slavonic
occupants of the valley of the Naab; press on further both southwards
and eastwards; form, along their line, with the nations to the north, a
_March_, but not of a character so hostile as to exclude the formation
of confederacies formidable to Rome, under the name of Marcomanni; make
their permanent settlements on the northern side of the Lower Danube;
harass the Roman provinces, Thrace and Mœsia, until, themselves
harassed by the Huns, they cross the Danube and effect settlements in
Mœsia, where they become Arian Christians, and read the Gospel of
Ulphilas, in their native tongue. Portions retrace their steps, still
marking their way by conquest. Ataulphus in Gaul, Wallia in Spain,
Theodoric in the Italy of the sixth, and Alaric in the Italy of the
fifth century, all having been Goths of this division. They leave
Germany as Grutungs and Thervings (Thuringians), become Marcomanni along
the Bohemian and Moravian frontiers, Goths,[17] Ostrogoths and
Visigoths, on the Lower Danube (or the land of the _Getæ_), and
Mœsogoths (from the locality in which they became Christian) in
Mœsia.
Wurtemburg, Baden, and Hohenzollern coincide with the _Agri Decumates_
of the Roman writers. The original inhabitants, I believe, to have been
Slaves and Kelts; then Kelts more exclusively (the Gauls of the western
bank of the Rhine having encroached); then a heterogeneous mass of
Gauls, Boii, Suevi, and Vindelicians, occupying a sort of Debatable Land
between the Roman and non-Roman areas; lastly Alemanni and Suevi, the
latter being Germans, the former a mixture of populations with the
Germanic element preponderating. From these are descended the present
occupants.
Bavaria, like Prussia, falls into two divisions; the Bavaria of the
Rhine, and the Bavaria of the _Danube_. In Rhenish Bavaria the descent
is from the ancient Vangiones and Nemetes, either Germanized Gauls, or
Gallicized Germans, with Roman superadditions. Afterwards, an extension
of the Alemannic and Suevic populations from the right bank of the Upper
Rhine completes the evolution of their present Germanic character.
Danubian Bavaria falls into two subdivisions.
North of the Danube the valley of the Naab, at least, was originally
Slavonic, containing an extension of the Slavonic population of Bohemia.
But disturbance and displacement began early. The Thervings and Grutungs
from the north of the Fichtelgebirge made their way to the Danube along
these lines.
In the third and fourth centuries, the Suevi and Alemanni extended
themselves from the upper Rhine.
The western parts of Bavaria, on the Wurtemburg frontier, perhaps as
Slavonic as the valley of the Naab, differ, in their subsequent history,
by having witnessed displacements from the south and west, from the
Helvetians of Switzerland, and the Boii of Gaul, rather than from the
Germans on the north. The later changes are the same in both cases.
The north-western parts of Bavaria were probably German from the
beginning.
South of the Danube the ethnology changes. In the first place the Roman
elements increase; since Vindelicia was a Roman Province. What, however,
was the original basis? Probably, Slavonic on its eastern, Helvetian or
Keltic on the western side. Its present character has arisen from an
extension of the Germans of the upper Rhine.
CHAPTER IX.
GREAT BRITAIN.--DENMARK.--THE ISLANDS.--THE
VITHESLETH.--FYEN.--LAUENBURG.--HOLSTEIN.--SLESWICK.--JUTLAND.--ICELAND.
--THE FEROE ISLES.--NORWAY.--SWEDEN.--LAPPS.--KWAINS.--GOTHLANDERS.
--ANGERMANNIANS.--THEORY OF THE SCANDINAVIAN POPULATION.
As the ethnology of the British Islands is made the subject of a
separate volume,[18] the present notice will be confined to the simple
statement of the Irish, the Scotch Gaels, the Manksmen, and the Welsh
being Kelts, and the English, Germans; the Keltic populations being
indigenous, the German, intrusive.
Scandinavia comes next in order, the arrangement being strictly natural;
since, whatever may have been the original population of Denmark,
Norway, and Sweden, the present is of Germanic origin, and speaks a
language belonging to the great Gothic class; the Danish and Swedish
being mutually intelligible.
_The Islands._--The Danish Islands fall into two groups, one containing
the Isle of Fyen, the other the ancient _Vithesleth_, or the four
islands of Sealand, Laaland, Moen, and Falster. This division is
ancient, and in the eyes of some of the older writers of considerable
import; since the true country of _Dan_, the eponymus of the _Danes_,
was not Jutland, not yet Skaane (the southern part of Sweden), nor yet
Fyen. It was the Four Islands of the Vithesleth:--“Dan--rex primo super
Sialandiam, Monam, Falstriam, et Lalandiam, cujus regnum dicebatur
_Vithesleth_. Deinde super alias provincias et insulas et totum
regnum.”--Petri Olai Chron. Regum Daniæ. Also, “Vidit autem Dan regionem
suam, super quam regnavit, Jutiam, Fioniam, _Withesleth_, Scaniam, quod
esset bona.”--Annal. Esrom. p. 224.
That this word _Vithesleth_ is a compound, that its first element is a
Gentile name, and that the population which bore it was other than the
modern Danes will be suggested in the sequel. At present it is enough to
remember that the existing population of the four eastern islands is
Germanic on a hitherto unvestigated basis. The men of the _Vith_-es-leth
it is convenient to call _Vitæ_.
In Fyen the Gothic elements are the same as in the Vithesleth, the
_differentiæ_ consisting in the difference of the original basis,
provided that such existed. This may or may not have been the case;
since it by no means follows that because the islands of the Vithesleth
differed from Fyen, that difference was ethnological. It may have been
only political.
_Lauenburg._--In the tenth century Lauenburg is Slavonic; its occupants
being a population called _Po-labi_; called also _Po_-lab-ingii. As _po_
means _on_, and _Laba_ is the Slavonic form for the _Elbe_, the name is
a compound, like _Pomerania_ (_on the sea_). The _Polabi_, then, were
the Slavonians of the Elbe. They were an extreme population; since the
river Bille divided them from the Germans of Stormar, Holstein, and
Ditmarsh. But though the _Polabi_ of Lauenburg were a frontier
population they were not isolated. They were in geographical continuity
with the Linones of Luneburg, and the Obotrites of Mecklenburg. Reduced
by the Carlovingian Franks, Lauenburg became Low German; as it is at the
present time.
_Holstein._--The name of the duchy is German, and derived from a German
population--the _Holsati_. But the Holsati were neither the only
occupants, nor the only Germans of these parts. The Stormarii of
Stormar, and the Dietmarsi of Ditmarsh are equally mentioned by the
writers of the eighth century. Earlier still we hear of the Sabalingii
and Sigulones. The Holsati, Dietmarsi, and Stormarii, were either Angles
or Frisians.
So much for the western half of the duchy. The eastern was Slavonic;
even as Lauenburg was Slavonic, the particular population being that of
the _Wagri_. They are a frontier population; and this may, _possibly_,
be denoted by the name, which contains the same elements as that of the
_Ucri_ of _Ucker_mark, and the Malorussians of the _Ukr_aine.
_Sleswick._--With Slavonians on the Baltic, and Frisians on the
Atlantic, the original ethnology of Sleswick seems to have been that of
the sister duchy. In Sleswick, however, the Frisian population still
exists, extended from Husum to Tondern. In Sleswick also we have a
portion of the Jute population of Jutland.
_Jutland._--If the combination, _J_+_t_ as it occurs in the word _Jute_,
being the same as the _G_+_t_ in _Got_, or _Goth_, we have a reason in
favour of one of its earlier populations having been Lithuanic.
Then we have the Slavonians of Holstein and Sleswick to the south. How
far these extended northwards is uncertain. Between the two, however, I
believe that eastern Jutland, at least, was Sarmatian before it was
German.
The next elements were Frisian; since traces of the Frisian occupancy
are found as far north as the Liimfjord--and beyond it.
The present language is Danish.
Originally the area of the non-Germanic _Jutæ_, Jutland, took its first
Germanic population from the Frisian area, its second from that of the
early Scandinavians. Where this was, and what the Jutæ were, however,
are complex questions which will be noticed towards the end of the
chapter.
_Iceland._--The Icelanders are one of the purest populations in the
world. Foreign elements arising out of the admixture of any population
antecedent to the present there are none. Foreign elements in the
original stock are but few; since it was from Norway and not from
Denmark that, in the ninth century, the island was peopled; and the
Norwegians are the purest portion of the Scandinavian stock. As a
general rule, the islanders are somewhat taller than the Norsemen of the
continent. In the other external points of appearance they are similar.
But an observation of Dr. Schleisner’s respecting their animal heat is
important. “The internal warmth of the human body is between 36.50° and
37° centigrade, and this passes for being the general temperature in all
latitudes, and in all climates, for all human beings, except new-born
children. But with a very delicate thermometer, well-fitted for the
purpose and which had previously been tried by other excellent
instruments, I have found from experiments on twelve healthy individuals
that the temperature within the cavity of the mouth was as follows:--
AGE. DEGREES.
23 37.3°
18 37.5°
17 37.2°
19 37.5°
24 37.°
20 36.5°
18 37.8°
17 37.6°
19 36.8°
37 37.4°
23 37.5°
20 37.2°
Average 37.27° centigrade.”[19]
As far as this differs from that of the Norwegians--a point upon which
our information is so incomplete as to make the previous table
suggestive rather than conclusive--the difference must be put down to
climate and similar external influences, rather than to that of what is
called _race_.
The Icelandic language has altered so little within the last one
thousand years that it is nearly the same as that of the old Sagas and
poems; Sagas and poems which every Icelander can read. On the other
hand, the change on the continent has been so great that no modern
dialect of Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, is intelligible to an Icelander.
Neither is any dialect that of the old Scandinavian literature.
_Feroe Isles._--Here the population is from Norway, as pure as that of
Iceland; and the form of speech is Icelandic also. The popular songs of
the Feroe Islanders have drawn considerable attention, and been well
illustrated. They read the critic a lesson of caution, in showing the
extent to which a foreign subject may be thoroughly naturalized; so much
so as to wear the appearance of being indigenous. Yet the subjects are
those of the Nibelungen-Lied, and, as such, continental in their origin;
in their immediate origin, Scandinavian, in their remote origin, German.
_Norway._--The population of Norway is essentially Lapp and Norwegian,
with the addition of a few Kwain settlements.
The Norwegian calls the Lapplander a _Fin_, so that the district or
_march_ of the Lapp population of Norway is called Fin-mark. But it is
found considerably southwards as well.
The following table shows the distribution of the Fin (Lapp) population
of Norway in 1724, 1845, and four intermediate periods:--
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| |1724.|1756.|1768.|1825.|1835.| 1845.|
| +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|Finmark |2825 |3210 |3260 | - | - |12,506|
|Nordland |3928 | - | - | - | - | 1735|
|North Trondjem | 478 | - | - | - | - | 181|
|South Trondjem | - | - | - | - | - | 75|
|Hedemarken[20] | - | - | - | - | - | 41|
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
No census was taken for the years and districts to which no number is
assigned. The table, however, invalidates the current notion that all
the so-called savage races are in a state of decrease.
In the copper districts of the north of Norway there is a considerable
number of Kwain settlers, chiefly employed as steady and industrious
labourers in the mines. There is also a Kwain colony in the districts of
Soloers called _Finskoven_ (the _Fin Wood_) in the southern part of
Norway and on the frontier of Sweden.
The rest of the population is of the same Germanic origin as the Danes
and Swedes; though purer than either. The recent and superadded elements
are but few, German being the chief; and Bergen and Christiania being
the towns where they are commonest. Of the Danish elements no account is
taken; the two populations being so closely allied. Jewish blood is
non-existent; owing to rigorous laws of exclusion, ill-assorted with the
liberal constitution of the most republican government in Europe.
A Lapp population common to Russia and Norway is common to Sweden also;
the districts in the last-named countries being called _Lap_-mark, and
the population _Lapps_.
Populations more or less allied to the Lapps, covering the southward
extension of the present Lapp area were originally the native
population of both Sweden and Norway. This is generally admitted. So it
is that the present Germanic populations are not aboriginal.
That the Swedes and Norwegians are the newest elements, and that certain
Ugrians were the oldest, is undoubted. But it by no means follows that
the succession was simple. Between the first and last there may have
been any amount of intercalations. Was this the case? My own opinion is,
that the first encroachments upon the originally Ugrian area of
Scandinavia were not from the south-west, but from the south-east, not
from Hanover but from Prussia and Courland, not German but Lithuanic,
and (as a practical proof of the inconvenience of the present
nomenclature) although not German, _Gothic_.
Sweden to the south of the Malar-See is called _Goth_-land. The opposite
coast of Prussia and Courland was the land of the _Gutt_-ones,
_Goth_-ones, or _Gyth_-ones; in the eyes of a German and in the German
language, a _Goth_-land also. An island in the Baltic, midway, is called
Goth-land as well. What is the natural inference from this? Surely, the
close relationship of the three populations.
When the main argument rests upon some single fact of primary weight or
importance, a single fact to which nothing of equal magnitude can be
opposed, the neglect of subordinate details is excusable--at least, in a
short work. If they come spontaneously, and are of a satisfactory
character--well and good. They are no part of the leading argument.
In some cases, perhaps, it should be a matter of principle to abstain
from them; for example, when the leading argument, although good in
itself, is liable, either from its novelty or from the amount of
previous opinions which it contradicts, to be undervalued. In such a
case, the display of subsidiary minutiæ subtracts from its weight. They
make it look weaker than it is; weak enough to require all the support
that the skill of its author can devise. In deducing the Greeks from
Italy, the relations between the Greek and Latin tongues, the great
difficulty of explaining them otherwise than by a geographical
continuity, and the equal difficulty of effecting this continuity by any
of the ordinary means formed the palmary argument. Such details as fell
in with this view were put down to gain (_apposita lucro_). They were
also good against similar details on the opposite side. But they were
_ex abundanti_--at least in the first instance. To have neglected them
altogether would not have been too bold. To have paraded them
unnecessarily would have subtracted from the value of the real argument.
A comparative depreciation of subsidiary details appears in the present
question; wherein it is held that certain members of the Lithuanian
family extended their area across the Baltic into parts of Scandinavia,
and peopled the southern provinces of Sweden. These were the Goths of
Gothland, the Jutes of Jutland, the Vites of Withesleth, the old name of
the Danish islands, anterior to their occupation by the Danes. The
critic who doubts whether the names are the same as that of the Goths,
on the strength of the difference of form, is free to do so; but by
doing so, he will only impugn a part of the present doctrine. That the
Goths of Gothland are the Gothones, Guttones, or Gythini of the opposite
coast of Prussia and Courland is the important inference; and that the
appearance of identical or similar names on the opposite coasts of an
inland sea of no considerable breadth is a phenomenon which, until it
can be explained otherwise, must be presumed to denote ethnological
affinity is the principle which supports it. Whether the Gothones of
Courland were really and truly Lithuanian is a point upon which there
may be a difference of opinion; but there should be no difference of
opinion as to the explanation of the presence of Goths in the opposite
country of Gothland. The common-sense view of the matter, and the
ordinary habits of interpretation should take their course.
This may be admitted, and yet an objection be taken to the effect that
the _Goths_ of the southern _Gothland_ (the _Goth_-ones, _Gyth_-ini,
_Gutt_-ones) were not Lithuanic but German. The primary argument on this
point lies in the undoubted fact of the Goths of the Lower Danube, in
the third and fourth centuries, being German.
But this primary argument is considerably invalidated by the fact, too
often overlooked, of those Germans having been known under the name of
_Goths_ only when they have settled in the country of the _Getæ_ and
_Gaudæ_, a fact which makes the name just as foreign to the Teutonic
dialects as _Briton_ was to the Anglo-Saxon. From which it follows that
all other populations which were, in respect to their _name_, in the
same predicament as the Goths of Alaric and Theodoric, were connected
not with the German invaders, but with the occupants of the country
invaded; just as the Bretons of Brittany are connected not with such
Englishmen as call themselves patriotically and poetically “Britons,”
but with the Welsh representatives of the original occupants of the
Keltic island _Britannia_. Now the populations thus linked together by
some such name as _G-th_, _G-t_, _J-t_,[21] and _V-t_ (all of which have
been admitted to be but different forms of the same word) are numerous;
three of them being now before us.
The real Goths, like the real Britons, were something very different
from their German conquerors.
But the Gothic historian Jornandes, deduces the Goths of the Danube
first from the southern coasts of the Baltic, and ultimately from
Scandinavia. I think, however, that whoever reads his notices will be
satisfied that he has fallen into the same confusion in respect to the
Germans of the Lower Danube and the Getæ whose country they settled in,
as an English writer would do who should adapt the legends of Geoffroy
of Monmouth respecting the British kings to the genealogies of Ecbert
and Alfred or to the origin of the warriors under Hengist. The legends
of the soil and the legends of its invaders have been mixed together.
Nor is such confusion unnatural. The real facts before the historian
were remarkable. There were Goths on the Lower Danube, Germanic in
blood, but not Germanic in name; the name being that of the older
inhabitants of the country. There were Gothones, or Guttones, in the
Baltic, the essential part of whose name was Goth-; the -_n_- being,
probably, and almost certainly, an inflexion.
Thirdly, there were Goths in Scandinavia, and Goths in an intermediate
island of the Baltic. With such a series of _Goth_-lands, the single
error of mistaking the old _Getic_ legends for those of the more recent
Germans (now called _Goths_), would easily engender others; and the most
distant of the three Gothic areas would naturally pass for being the
oldest also. Hence, the deduction of the Goths of the Danube from the
Scandinavian Gothland.
The exception, then, to the Lithuanic origin of the _Gothlander_, which
lies in the application of the name _Goth_ to a population undoubtedly
Germanic, is itself exceptionable; and the common-sense interpretation
of the existence of similarly designated populations on the opposite
coasts of an inland sea must take its course.
The exact degree to which Jornandes confounded the German invaders with
the original Goths is uncertain. Some of his facts are unequivocally
Getic, as his notice of Zamolxis. Others are as truly Germanic. The name
Hermanric is this.
Each, however, is an extreme instance, and it is only at its extremities
that the question is easy. In my own mind, I think that Getic legends
and Getic history is the rule, Germanic the exception; in other words,
that the so-called Gothic history is the history of the _indigenæ_
rather than that of the invaders of the soil. It is even likely that
Hermanric’s empire was German only as the present Austrian empire is
German, _i.e._, German in respect to its chief. Zengis-Khan’s was
Mongolian in the same way, the mass of his subjects and major part of
his area being Turk. What leads to this is the likelihood of even the
names of the royal families amongst the Ostrogoths and
Visigoths--Amalung and Baltung--being Lithuanic. They have every
appearance of having arisen out of _eponymias_. At any rate it is a
strange coincidence to find one of the localities of the amber-district
called sometimes _Abalus_, and sometimes _Baltia_--the latter name being
connected with the _Belt_ and _Baltic_. Pliny (writes Prichard) “in
giving an account of the production of amber says, that, according to
Pytheas, there was an estuary of the ocean called Mentonomon, inhabited
by the Guttones, a people of Germany. It reached six thousand furlongs
in extent. From this place an island named Abalus was distant about one
day’s sail, on the shore of which the waves throw up pieces of amber.
The inhabitants make use of it for fuel, or else sell it to their
neighbours the Teutones.” Pliny says that Timæus gave full credit to
this story, but that “he called the island not Abalus, but Baltia.”
Out of this _Abal-_, and this _Balt-_, I believe the eponymic names of
_Abal_-ung (_Amal_-ung and _Balt_-ung) grew, just as Hellen did out of
Hellas. And that they were other than German is shown by Tacitus, since
the amber country was the country of the Æstyii, whose language was
_Britannicæ proprior_--_Britannicæ_ meaning _Prussian_, as I have shown
elsewhere.
In bringing within the same class all the population denominated
Gothini, Gothones, Guttones, Gothi, Gautæ, Gaudæ, Getæ, Jutæ, and Vitæ,
I only do what nine out of ten of my predecessors have done before me. I
differ, however, from them in determining the character of the class by
that of the Guttones of the amber country, instead of that of the Goths
of Alaric and Theodoric--these last being Goths only as the English are
Britons, or the Spaniards, Mexicans. At the same time I am fully aware
that any evidence whatever showing that the Germans of the Lower Danube
were called _Goths_ anterior to their arrival in the land of the _Getæ_,
would shake my doctrine, and that unexceptionable evidence would throw
it to the ground altogether.
The theory of the Scandinavian populations is different for the three
different kingdoms.
1. _Norway._--Norway agrees with Sweden in the likelihood of its
earliest population having been Ugrian--Ugrian of the Lapp type, and
continued southwards from Lapland or Finmark. Upon these the ancestors
of the present Norwegians encroached.
2. _Sweden._--In Norway the Germanic population came in immediate
contact with the Ugrian; in Sweden it was, to a great extent, preceded
by one from Courland and Prussia--the Goths. Hence, the ethnological
elements in Sweden are one degree more complex.
3. _Denmark._--Denmark differs from both Norway and Sweden in respect to
its primary population; inasmuch as it is bounded on the north by the
sea, so that its relations to the Ugrian area of the aboriginal
Scandinavia are those of an island.
Does this prevent us from assuming a continuity of population? I cannot
say. Although the north of Jutland is separated by a considerable
breadth of water from the south of Scandinavia, Sealand is within sight
of the southwestern coast of Sweden, and the south-western population of
Sweden might easily have been extended into Denmark. On the other hand,
however, the population which occupied the neck of the Chersonesus may
with equal, if not greater reason, be considered to have been continued
northward. But this population is itself complex, for instead of
belonging to a single stock, we find, at the beginning of the historical
period, Germans on the western, and Slavonians on the eastern half of
Holstein. Which of these populations was continued into the Cimbric
Chersonese? Or was there a third stock different from either? Or did
each fill up a portion of the area, and if so, in what proportions? My
own opinion in respect to these complexities is, that originally the
southern half (at least) of the Cimbric Chersonese was Slavonic, even as
the Mecklenburg and Lauenburg frontiers were Slavonic; and that,
subsequently, a twofold displacement set-in--the Vitæ having invaded the
islands and the north-eastern parts of Jutland from Prussia and Courland
by sea, and the Frisians having pressed forwards from the Lower Elbe by
land. Still, it would be hazardous to assert, that, during those
primitive periods, when the whole of Norway and Sweden were Ugrian--as
they, once, unquestionably were--the Danish Isles and the Cimbric
Chersonese were not Ugrian also. It would be hazardous even to pronounce
that the whole of the southern coast of the Baltic was not Ugrian
also--since both the Slavonic populations of Mecklenburg and Pomerania,
and the Lithuanians of Prussia and Courland belonged to the encroaching
divisions of our species. That a Ugrian population extended as far
southward and westward as the Elbe is a doctrine that may be maintained
without going to the full recognition of the so-called Finnic
hypothesis; which carries the populations akin to the Ugrian as far
south as the Pyrenees, and sees in the Basques of Biscay and the Lapps
of Lapland, the fragments of a vast population once continuous, but,
subsequently, broken up and displaced by the Keltic and Germanic
occupancies of Gaul and Germany respectively.
The history of the present Scandinavians, Danes, Swedes, and
Norwegians--must be considered in respect to (1) the line of conquest;
(2) the date of the invasion; (3) the amount of foreign blood
introduced.
1. Ptolemy’s notice of Scandia is, that “the western parts are occupied
by the _Chadeinoi_, the eastern by the _Phauonai_ and _Phiræsoi_, the
southern by the _Gautæ_ and _Daukiônes_, the middle by the
_Leuônoi_.”--Lib. 11. ii. 33. We are not in the habit of considering
these _Phiræsoi_ to be _Frisii_, yet it would be difficult to give a
reason against doing so. The Frisian occupancy of Jutland, at an early
period, is undoubted, and it is equally undoubted that, of all the
German dialects, the Frisian is the likest to the Scandinavian.
It is on the eastern side of _Norway_ that these _Phiræsoi_ must be
placed, probably to the south of the Miösen, where they came in contact
with the _Chad_-einoi of _Hede_-marken. There is a little forcing of the
geography here. The Goths were, at the same time, in possession of the
south of Sweden. These Goths seem to have been harder to reduce than the
Ugrians, so that the line of the Frisian (Phiræsian) conquest ran, at
first, from south to north, but afterwards changed its direction, and
effected the reduction of the parts between the southern border of
Lapland and the Malar Lake; the Goths of Gothland being the last to be
reduced.
What justifies these details? The Goths of Gothland have already been
considered. They reached as far as the parts about Stockholm. Now,
_North_ of these come the men of the _South_, _i.e._, of
_Suder_-mannaland, or _Suder_-mania; a name which is explained if we
make them the most southern of the invaders from Norway, but not easily
explicable otherwise. This is the case of our own county of
_Suther_-land repeated; which was the most southern part of Norway,
though the most northern part of Britain. Further details of
distribution are necessary to account for the name of the province of
_West_mannaland nearly, but not quite, on the _eastern_ coast of Sweden.
The district between it and the sea was reduced first.
2. The date must have been earlier than the time of Ptolemy; indeed,
early enough to allow for the development of the differences between the
Norse and Frisian languages. Reasons for believing that this requires no
inordinate length of time I have given elsewhere.[22]
3. The intermixture of blood, and, consequently, the purity of the
present stock, I believe to have varied with the different populations
with which the Germanic invaders came in contact. Although both the Lapp
and Kwain (_i.e._, the Laplander and the Finlander) are Ugrian, there is
this important difference in respect to their relations to the Swedes
and Norwegians. The Kwain and Scandinavian intermarry; the Lapp and
Scandinavian do not. Hence we infer that in proportion as the original
Ugrians of the southern and central parts of Scandinavia approached the
Lapp type, displacement and extermination was the rule, intermixture the
exception; whereas, on the other hand, the natives of the Kwain type may
have amalgamated with their invaders. If so, the present Scandinavian
stock is pure or mixed in proportion as the area it occupied was Lapp or
Kwain. The details of this question are difficult. As a rough rule,
however, we may say that the basis becomes less and less Ugrian as we
proceed northwards; inasmuch as the type became more and more Lapponic,
and the Germanic intermixture less and less.
The Gothlanders from the first were, probably, half-bloods, _i.e._,
Ugrian on the mother’s side, as the invasion was maritime. The extent to
which they are, at present, Germanic in blood as well as language, is
uncertain.
The Goths from Prussia effected settlements in Sweden, why not also the
Kwains of Finland? I think I find traces of their having done so in the
name _Anger_-man-land, or _Angria_, which can scarcely be supposed to
resemble the name of the _Inger_-man-land or _Ingria_, on the Gulf of
Finland, by accident. But what if the name were not native, as I think
it was not? In that case it is Goths who give it--both to the Ingrians
and the Angrians. If so, Gothland must, at one time, politically, at
least, have reached as far as 64° north latitude, the parallel of
Angermania.
But the name may have been a _common_ rather than a _proper_ one, and
have meant simply the _March_. If so, a Kwain settlement is unnecessary,
and _Anger-manna_-land=the _Land of the men of the frontier_, that
frontier being Lapp. If so, _Lapp_-mark is its Swedish equivalent.
CHAPTER X.
RUMELIA.--THE TURK STOCK.--ZONES OF CONQUEST.--EARLY INTRUSIONS OF
TURK POPULATIONS WESTWARD.--THRACIANS.--THE ANCIENT
MACEDONIANS.--THE PELASGI OF MACEDONIA.--BOSNIA, HERZEGOVNA AND
TURKISH CROATIA.--BULGARIA.
The European population of the Ottoman Empire, laying aside Jews,
Armenians, and other similarly non-indigenous populations, is
fivefold--Turk, Greek, Slavonic, Rumanyo, and Albanian. The Albanian,
however, it was necessary to consider in the first chapter.
_Rumelia_, the province which first comes into notice is, the true and
proper area of the Turks, Ottomans, or Osmanlis; a family which,
considered in respect to _European_ ethnology, is as unimportant from
its numerical magnitude, as it is recent in respect to its introduction.
Yet this is a fact which we are slow to perceive at first; since the
Turkish empire is so great, that, unless we separate its ethnological
from its political elements, we fail to realize the extent to which the
Osmanlis are not only intrusive, but inconsiderable. It is only in one
of its provinces that the number of the Osmanli conquerors so nearly
approaches that of the original Europeans, to give them the appearance
of the natural occupants of the country; this being the province in
question, coinciding, as nearly as possible, with the Valley of the
ancient Hebrus, or the modern Maritza. It is a wide and fruitful plain,
that Nature, perhaps, meant for tillage, but which the pastoral habits
of its possessors have kept a grazing country. It is a plain, with the
exception of the small mountain ridges on each side--the Despoto-Dagh
and the Stanches-Dagh--a point worth remembering, because its physical
conditions determine the probable permanence of its earlier
populations--populations which, in all impracticable countries, are
likely to have held their own in the mountains, and to have retreated
before an invader in the plains.
As A.D. 1458 is the date of the taking of Constantinople by Mahomet II.
it may also pass for the date of the commencement of the Osmanli sway in
Europe, and the Osmanli preponderance in the particular occupation of
the province of Rumelia; for the time, in short, when ancient Thrace
became Turkish. But the preliminaries had been going on for some time
before, and it was as early as A.D. 1360 that the Hellespont was crossed
by Amurath I. Till then, the Osmanli belonged to Asia Minor, Anatolia,
or Roum, as it was called from the declining power of the degenerate
Romans of Constantinople. But they were not indigenous even there; since
Roum or Anatolia was a conquered country, even as Rumelia
was--conquered, too, from the same degenerate and fictitious Romans.
Hence the stream of Ottoman blood that passed from Asia to Europe was by
no means pure. The occupancy of Asia Minor was not the work of a day; on
the contrary, the process of appropriation was upwards of four centuries
in duration; since the conquest of the race of Seljuk began in A.D.
1074. And this again was an extension of frontier from Persia; and
Persia was never truly Turk. The stream that spread and wasted itself in
Europe is not discovered at its fountain-head until we have traced it
from Rumelia to Anatolia, from Anatolia to Persia, and from Persia to
either Turkistan or further. Then, indeed, we find amongst the most
southern members of the great Turk stock, amongst those whose blood has
been most mixed, and amongst those who are farthest from the country of
the Mongols of Mongolia, the great great ancestors of the family and
followers of Othman.
It must be remembered that all the recorded movements that thus brought
a conquering population from the Oxus to the Hebrus were
military--marches of armies consisting of hosts of warriors. That
anything approaching a national migration wherein the females bore a
reasonable proportion to the males ever took place in Turkish ethnology
has not been shown; so that, on the mother’s side, the Osmanli must, in
ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, be other than Turk--sometimes
Persian, sometimes Armenian, sometimes Georgian or Circassian, sometimes
Anatolian (for some such adjective is required to denote the population
of Asia Minor), sometimes European--and when European, Greek,
Wallachian, Albanian, or Slavonic.
I have enlarged upon this because the majority of the travellers who, in
Independent Tartary, Siberia, Turcomania, or Bokhara, meet with the
other members of the Turk stock, in their original homes, are struck by
the extent to which they differ in physiognomy from the Osmanli or
Ottoman of Europe. They are often smooth-skinned and beardless, glabrous
and glaucous, with high-cheek bones and oblique eyes, and other similar
characteristics of the Mongol. The inference from this has, too often,
been the wrong way; and an infusion of Mongolian blood been presumed.
The truth is, that it is the Turks of Europe that have been modified; at
any rate, it is only with the European that an intermixture of blood at
all proportionate to the differences of physical conformation can be
shown as an historical fact.
As a general rule the Osmanli prefers pastoral to agricultural
employment, and dominant idleness to either. There is a reason for his
preference to flocks and herds rather than to corn and tillage. His own
proper and original area, the parts to the east and north of the
Caspian, is a steppe, fitted for the nomad, but unfitted for the
husbandman. Here, and here only, he has not been an intruder and a
conqueror. Here, and here only, has he been without a subject population
to work for him. This he has in Europe, this he has in Bokhara, this he
has in Egypt; so that his love for looking-on and enjoying the labour of
others is what he shares with the rest of the world, whereas his
preference of a shepherd’s life to a cultivator’s is a habit rather than
instinct. In the few parts of the original Turk area, where the
conditions of soil and climate are favourable to agriculture, and where
he is no dominant lord, but only an ordinary occupant, the Turk is as
good a farmer as the generality. If he be not so in Asia Minor it is due
to the insecurity of the fruits of his industry. On the other hand, in
the valley of the Gurgan (falling into the Caspian from the east) the
pre-eminently Turk branch of the Goklan Turcomans is mainly employed
upon agriculture--growing grain and rearing silkworms. This, it may be
said, is a singular instance. It is so; but where, besides, does any
member of the great Turk stock come under the conditions necessary for
agricultural industry--a fit soil and climate, combined with security of
possession, and the absence of a subject and inferior class? Like any
other fact, however isolated, it sets aside the current notion of the
unfitness of the Turk for regular and industrial labour; a habitude,
which, like so many other points of ethnology, is connected with
external circumstances far more than blood, pedigree, or race.
The intellectual development of the Turk stock in general has been that
of the majority of the families of mankind--moderate, or less than
moderate; for invention and originality are the exceptions rather than
the rule. And here they are in the same predicament as they were in
respect to their industry. In their original country they are far
removed from the contact of any literature or science better than their
own; for what are the models for the Turk of Independent Tartary? In the
country of their conquests they have clever Greeks and Arabs to do their
head-work for them. And we may add to these drawbacks, the unfavourable
effects of their creed. The language that gave them the Koran can give
them nothing useful for the Europe of the nineteenth century; whilst the
Europe of the nineteenth century is, in their eyes, a Europe of
infidels.
However much we may lament the bigotry, ignorance, and sensuality of
the Osmanli, he is only what his creed, conquests, and other unfortunate
conditions make him. Of the hardy and simple families of the world, as
opposed to the effeminate and subtle, he belongs to the most typical.
This is shown in his history. Of the _material_ conquerors of the world,
of the disturbers of things physical by physical force, the Turks are
the greatest: since what they have won has been by hardihood of will and
strength of arm far less than by diplomacy or the more indirect effects
of their arts and literature--of which, indeed, they have had none. But
because they have been thus material, they have not been permanent. Had
they conquered, like the ancient Romans, Egypt and Barbary and Servia
and Persia and Hindustan would be Turk, giving an area greater than that
of the Anglo-Saxons or the Slavonians. Still, they are the great
material conquerors of history.
Yet this is but a result of certain physical and geographical
conditions:--no proof of any specific hardihood of nature. It is no
fanciful imagination to say, that the areas of the great conquering
nations of the world, are as definitely bounded by certain lines of
latitude as are those of climate; and that such areas give us _zones of
conquest and subjugation_ as truly as the Temperate or the Frigid give
us zones of climate. There are _a priori_ reasons for this; and there
are proofs of it in every page of history. The effects of a northern
latitude are to stunt the population, after the fashion of the
Laplander; those of the tropics to enervate. Between these extremes the
peoples that are at once hardy and well-grown strike, as with a
two-edged sword, both upwards and downwards, north and south. The
Germans, Slavonians, Turks, and Algonkins verify this. Sometimes a
superior civilization, sometimes undeveloped energies, referable to some
new influences, counteract this natural disposition (one of the nearest
approaches to a law in ethnology) but the general rule is, as has been
stated,--apparent exceptions, as are the Romans and Arabians.
The Turks pressed forward in the direction of Europe, even as the
Sarmatians did towards India, earlier than they have the credit of
doing. The Skoloti have been already considered. But what do we find in
the early history of Asia Minor? A mountain throughout the Turk area is
_Tagh_ or _Dagh_. The mountain from which the 10,000 Greeks saw the sea
was _Thekh_-es. This, perhaps, is accidental. But who dwelt around it?
The Skythini, the Anatolian equivalents to the Russian Skythæ. But this
proves too much, since Skythæ was no native name, but one of Sarmatian
origin, and, as such, indicative of Sarmatians in the parts about.
Otherwise, how could it be used? These Sarmatians cannot be
demonstrated. Nevertheless, the name in the Anabasis of the king of the
Paphlagonian neighbours of the _Scythini_, near the mountain _Thekhes_,
is _Korylas_, and _Kral_ is the Lithuanic for _king_. But _king_ is a
common, not a proper name. So is _Zupan_ (=_chief_, _lord_, _or
superior_) in the present Slavonic. Yet Gibbon speaks of _Zupanus_, as a
king so-called, by certain Slavonians of the Middle Danube. All this may
be accidental. Such accidents, however, are stranger than the facts
which explain them away.
Ottomans, Greeks, Romans, Goths, and Slavonians have all modified the
original blood of Thrace; yet the present blood of Ottoman Rumelia is,
probably, more Thracian than aught else, Thracian on the mothers’ side.
The old Thracian affinities are difficult; but not beyond investigation.
A series of statements on the part of good classical authors tell us,
that the Daci were what the Getæ were, and the Thracians what the Getæ;
also, that the Phrygians spoke the same language as the Thracians, and
the Armenians as the Phrygians. If so, either the ancient language of
Hungary must have been spoken as far as the Caspian, or the ancient
Armenian as far as the Theiss. Many facts are against this: indeed the
evidence must be dealt with by attributing two languages to Phrygia, one
approaching the nearest tongue on the East, which would be the
Armenian, and another standing in the same relation to the Thracian, on
the west. This distinction being drawn, the rest is probable.
The evidence as to there having been members of the Thracian stock on
both sides the Hellespont, is not limited to the Phrygians of Mysia. The
Bithyni and others are in the same category. Which way was the
migration? It is generally believed to have been from Asia to Europe;
but the deduction of the Greeks from Italy, and that of the Sanskrit
language from Europe, modifies this view. In truth, the present writer
reads the whole history of Thrace backwards; seeing in the majority of
the populations akin to the Thracians on the eastern side of the
Hellespont signs of European intrusion. Signs, too, of European
intrusion he sees in the world-wide tale of Troy; the historical basis
of the great Homeric poems being not the struggle between the Greek and
the Asiatic, but that between the Greek and Thracian, each fighting for
a footing in Asia Minor. Perhaps the beginning of the Greek colonization
was the end of the Sarmatian; for the ancient Thracians I believe to
have belonged to this stock. Like the Lithuanians of the Cimmerian
Bosphorus, they have effected their share of achievements in India;
their conquests having been Bacchic, Thracian, and Slavonic, just as the
Cimmerian inroads were Lithuanic. So that there was a double origin to
the so-called Indo-Europeans of Hindostan and Persia; a trace of which
may _possibly_,--I do not say _probably_--exists at the present moment
in the name _Jat_.[23]
Between the original Thracian basis and the present dominant population
of Osmanlis, there have been the following elements of intermixture:
Pelasgic (whatever that was), Semitic, Hellenic, Roman, Gothic,
Slavonic, and Bulgarian.
So far as the Macedonians were other than Hellenic, they were either
Skipetar or Slavonian, _i.e._, in the category of the ancient Albanians,
or in the category of the ancient Thracians; or they may have been mixed
in some unascertained manner. Even if we suppose them to have pressed
southwards and eastwards from the head-waters of the Axius, and from the
southern boundary of Servia, a place for them in the same great class
with the Thracians is admissible; and, in all probability, southern
Servia was their original locality. That they, too, pressed forwards in
Asia is likely. That words so radically alike as _Mygdon-es_ and
_Macedon-es_, are wholly unconnected, and that they resemble each other
by accident, is what I am slow to believe; but that the line of
demarcation between the Thracians and Macedonians is broad and
trenchant for members of the same stock, is likely, since each was an
encroaching population, and, as such, a population which obliterated
transitional and intermediate varieties.
It is well known that of the three localities of the Pelasgian stock,
known under that name within the period of authentic history, two are in
Macedonia: one of these we get from Herodotus, the other from
Thucydides.
1. Herodotus mentions the Pelasgi of Khreston--above the Tyrsênians.
2. Thucydides, those of Cleonæ, Dium, and Olophyxus on the peninsula of
Mount Athos.
The Pelasgi of the third locality, the Asiatic Pelasgi, or the
Herodotean Pelasgi of the parts about Plakia and Skylake, near Cyzicus,
may reasonably be considered as settlers of comparatively recent origin,
both from the general phenomena of ethnological distribution, and the
most scientific interpretation of the few _data_ we possess for the
ancient ethnology of Asia Minor.
But the Pelasgi of Chreston and Mount Athos, are in localities wherein
they may as easily be aboriginal as intrusive. Which were they? I cannot
make up my mind; I can only exhaust the two alternatives. If aboriginal,
they were one of three things, Skipetar, Slavonic, or members of an
extinct stock; if intrusive, members of some extinct stock, Asiatic or
Italian. How they may have been, this is easily understood.
1. An eastern extension of the oldest Skipetar area would carry a
population akin to the ancestors of the present Albanians as far as the
Ægean.
2. A southern extension of the Thracian area would carry the ancient
Thracian stock as far as Thessaly.
3. Semitic, or other Asiatic colonies, would give us a series of
maritime settlements.
4. So would a series of very early Italian colonizations. These we may
deduce from some part of Italy, different from the mother-country of the
true Hellenic Greeks; and we may, also, assume a difference in the date
of the movement. In such a case the Pelasgi may have been Hellenic, as
the Anglo-Saxons were Scandinavian; in other words, out of two Italian
colonizations one (the Pelasgic) may have been the analogue to the
Angle, the other (the Hellenic) to the Danish invasion of Britain.
Of these alternatives I prefer the second and fourth to the first and
third.
The name itself seems to have been applied to one stock only, not to
several--though the evidence of this is by no means conclusive.
It seems not to have been _native_. Native names are, usually, more
specific and less general. It was a name which A gave to B, not one
which B gave itself.
It seems to have been originally other than Greek.
With a strong inclination to see in the Œnotrian conquest of Greece a
_third_ rather a _second_ stream of population, and with the belief that
the earliest displacement of the original Skipetar population was
effected by movements from Thrace and Macedon (by members of the great
Slavonic stock), the Greek occupancy being later than this; favouring,
too, the idea that the Pelasgi of Macedon were, at one and the same
time, indigenous to the soil, and members of the same stock as the
Thracians (the stock being the Slavonic); I am opposed to the broad line
of demarcation which so many recent authors have drawn between the
Hellenic civilization and the Thracian, a line of demarcation which has
led them, in many cases, to explain away rather than admit the evidence
of several good writers of antiquity, as to the influence of the
Thracian music and the Thracian poetry on early Greece.
To claim for the Homeric poems the same amount of Thracian elements that
the Welshman claims for those of the cycle of King Arthur, would be to
illustrate the _obscurum per obscurius_, inasmuch as the Welshman’s
claim is of a somewhat impalpable nature. It cannot attach to the poems
themselves, in any known form. They are all in Norman-French, or German,
or English, or Italian--none in Welsh. Neither are they translations of
a Welsh original now lost. Neither is their subject-matter Welsh to the
amount of one-third. Yet, the germ of the fiction is, in some way or
other, Welsh, and the claim of the Welshman is, up to a certain point,
valid.
_Mutatis mutandis_, let us ask whether the Trojan cycle may not, in the
same sense, be Slavonic--assuming the Thracians to have belonged to that
stock?
I. _a._ When we find the name of a non-historical person coincide with
that of an historical people or an historical locality, it is a fair
inference, all the world over, to consider that form as an _epônymus_.
_b._ It is also fair to connect such legends as attach to the name with
the people or the locality.
_c._ Now several names in the early Greek epic cycles are thus
_eponymic_--thus localized in Thracian and other similar
localities--Teucer, Æneas, Dardanus, &c.
II. Again--the national poetry of the existing Slavonic nations, more
nearly approaches--_longo intervallo_, I admit--that of the Homeric
Greeks than does that of any other families of mankind.
III. The metres do the same.
IV. The Sanskrit metres are in the same category with the Slavonic; so
that--the European origin of the Sanskrit being admitted--the similarity
must be of great antiquity.
These points cannot be enlarged on. They form, however, the basis of
some claim for the existence of Slavonic elements in the old heroic
poetry of Greece; which--it must be remembered--originated on the
Helleno-Slavonic debatable land of Æolic Asia.
The propounder of an hypothesis has no right to lay down, peremptorily,
the laws by which his doctrine is to be tested. At the same time, he may
fairly claim that the objections to it should rest on the same broad
grounds on which it is based. The Homeric poems are Greek; and the
Orlando Furioso is Italian. Yet there are Welsh and other non-Italian
elements in the latter, and, it is submitted, that there are Slavonic
and non-Hellenic elements in the former. Their amount I do not profess
to measure.
_Bosnia_, _Herzegovna_, _Turkish Croatia_,--Slavonic in speech, and
Slavonic in blood, the Bosnians and Herzegovnians differ from the
Servians only in a few details--the chief being their Mahometan creed.
Equally slight is the difference between the Turkish and Austrian
Croatians.
_Bulgaria_ is Slavonic and Rumanyo in speech, Mœsian, Gothic, Turk,
and Slavonic in blood.
CHAPTER XI.
AUSTRIA.--BUKHOVINIA, GALLICIA, AND LODOMIRIA.--BOHEMIA AND
MORAVIA.--AUSTRIAN
SILESIA.--DALMATIA.--CROATIA.--CARNIOLA.--CARINTHIA.--STYRIA.--SALTZBURG,
THE TYROL, THE VORARLBERG.--UPPER AND LOWER AUSTRIA.--HUNGARY.
_Bukhovinia._--BUKHOVINIA was part of the ancient Dacia, and the bulk of
the population is, consequently, Rumanyo.
A smaller portion is common to Bukhovinia and Gallicia, and this is
chiefly Russniak, but partly Pole.
_Gallicia and Lodomiria._--At present these are Russniak areas
encroached upon by Poles and Germans: indeed, it was from Gallicia,
Lodomiria, and Bukhovinia, that the Malorussians seem to have
originated, and Russia to have been conquered.
Gallicia, however, at one time seems to have been occupied, more or less
partially, by the most south-western members of the Lithuanic
family--the Gothini of Tacitus, whose language is stated to have been
_Gallic_. I have suggested, elsewhere, the likehood of this meaning
_Gallician_--there being no reason to look upon that name as one of
recent origin. More than this, without denying the existence of true
Gauls on those several portions of the water-system of the middle Danube
where they are placed by ancient writers under the name of _Galatæ_, I
am inclined to believe that they were rather _Gallician_ and _Gallic_.
For Gallicia to have been Lithuanic, Volhynia must have been
Lithuanic[24] also, unless we suppose the _Gothini_ to have been an
isolated settlement; which, perhaps, they were.
_Bohemia._--Whatever may be the inferences from the fact of Bohemia
having been politically connected with the empire of the Germanic
Marcomanni, whatever may be those from the element _Boio-_, as
connecting its population with the _Boii_ of Gaul and Bavaria
(_Baiovarii_), the doctrine that the present Slavonic population of that
kingdom--_Tshekhs_ as they call themselves--is either recent in origin
or secondary to any German or Keltic aborigines, is wholly unsupported
by history. In other words, at the beginning of the historical period
Bohemia was as Slavonic as it is now.
From A.D. 526 to A.D. 550, Bohemia belonged to the great Thuringian
empire. The notion that it was then Germanic (except in its political
relations) is gratuitous. Nevertheless, Schaffarik’s account is, that
the ancestors of the present Tshekhs came, _probably_, from White
Croatia: which was either north of the Carpathians, or on each side of
them. According to other writers, however, the parts above the river
Kulpa in Croatia sent them forth. In Bohemian the verb _ceti=to begin_,
from which Dobrowsky derives the name _Czekh=the beginners_, _the
foremost_, _i.e._ the first Slavonians who passed westwards. The
powerful Samo, the just Krok, and his daughter, the wise Libussa, the
founder of Prague, begin the uncertain list of Bohemian kings, A.D.
624-700. About A.D. 722, a number of petty chiefs become united under
P’remysl, the husband of Libussa. Under his son Nezamysl, occurs the
first Constitutional Assembly at Wysegrad; and in A.D. 845, Christianity
was introduced. But it took no sure footing till about A.D. 966. Till
A.D. 1471, the names of the Bohemian kings and heroes are
Tshekh--Wenceslaus, Ottokar, Ziska, Podiebrad. In A.D. 1564, the
Austrian connexion and the process of Germanizing began.
Now, in considering the heroic age of Tshekh literature, Schaffarik
himself, though firmly holding the doctrine of a previous Germanic
population, remarks, that “there is no trace of any remnant of the
German spirit having survived in Bohemia. The remains of such Germanic
population as there were, must have been a weak remnant, and soon have
become lost in the Slavonic nationality. Even the stronger most probably
withdrew to the lonely hills.”
_Moravia._--The history and ethnology of Moravia is nearly that of
Bohemia, except that the Marcomannic Germans, the Turks, Huns, Avars,
and other less important populations may have effected a greater amount
of intermixture. Both populations are Tshekh, speaking the Tshekh
language--the language, probably, of the ancient Quadi.
_Austrian Silesia._--The basis of the population is Sorabian, _i.e._
akin to the Srbie, and Serskie of Lusatia. Like Gallicia, however, it
has become Polish in language wherever it is not German.
_Dalmatia._--The bulk of the present population is Slavonic, closely
allied to the Servians, Bosnians, Herzegovnians, and Montenegriners. The
foreign elements, however, are considerable.
First came the Roman conquest; then the Avar; then Germanic, then Arab,
and then Venetian influences. Besides this there were Mongol inroads,
and an absolute conquest of the neighbouring countries of Bosnia and
Herzegovna by the Turks.
In Dalmatia we have a Slavonic population addicted to maritime habits.
The Liburnians of old, the Narentines, the Uskoks, the Almissans during
the contests between Venice and the Turks are prominent in the history
of piracy. On the other hand the history of more than one
Republic--Ragusa, Poglizza--shows that the Dalmatian temper has not been
dead to the spirit of political liberty.
_Croatia_ is Slavonic nearly as Servia and Bosnia are Slavonic. The
Croatian dialect, without the two being mutually unintelligible, differs
from the so-called Illyrian of the Vinds, Slovenians, or Slovenzi of--
_Istria_, _Carniola_, _Carinthia_, _and Styria_, all truly Slavonic
districts, though, of course, partially occupied by an encroaching
population of Germans on the northern, and of Italians on the southern
frontier.
_Salzburg, the northern half of the Tyrol, and the Vorarlberg_ I believe
to have been originally as Slavonic as Carinthia, and also that they are
at the present moment Slavonic in blood, though German in language.
_Upper and Lower Austria_ I believe to have been in the same
predicament.
The southern half of the Tyrol had its affinities with the south rather
than the north, and was originally, in part at least, Etruscan. It must
be remembered that it by no means follows that because it was Etruscan
it was necessarily other than Slavonic.
_Hungary._--The complex ethnology of Hungary now remains for
consideration.
_The Banat_ is a mixture of recently introduced populations in the way
of colonization.
_Transylvania_ is German, Rumanyo and Sekler, a term which will be
noticed hereafter.
The central parts only are Majiar--Majiar meaning the population which
speaks the Majiar language, which originated in Asia, and which in the
tenth century effected intrusions and conquests in Hungary, just as the
Osmanlis did in Rumelia. The details of the Majiar movements from the
Ural Mountains to the Danube are obscure. They are said, however, to
have been driven from their own locality by the Petschenagi. They are
also mentioned as having taken that part of Russia which is called
Susdal, in their way.
_Seven_ was the number of the names of their patriarchs, who where
Almus, the father of Arpad, Eleud of Zobolsu, Cundu of Curzan, Ound of
Ete,[25] Tosu of Lelu, Huba of Zemera, Tahut of Horca; but the tribes,
clans, or generations were far more numerous. In one of the traditions
they amount to one hundred and eight. In the genealogies themselves we
can trace more than one family to a single patriarch, since the tribes
of Calan and Consoy are derived from Ete, the son of Ound. In these
divisions and subdivisions we see a far greater resemblance to an
Asiatic than to a European state of society; indeed, we may easily
imagine that it is Turks or Mongols that we are reading of.
I cannot find that they came to Europe accompanied by their wives and
daughters. Their march was rapid, since it was game and fish that they
subsisted on rather than on the produce of agriculture. “Every day they
hunted, so that the Hungarians are skilful above other nations in the
chase. By hunting and fishing they got their daily food.”
They are described as a people of excessive rudeness and cruelty. “The
nation of the Hungarians, fiercer then any brute beast, killed but few
with the sword, though many thousands with their arrows. These they shot
from bows of horn with such skill that their blows could not be guarded
against it. This mode of fighting was dangerous in proportion as it was
novel. It was like that of the Britons, except that where the one used
darts the other used arrows.”
The Majiars were darker-skinned than the Turks; such, at least, is the
plain interpretation of the epithet _black_, which is applied to them by
Nestor; who calls them the _black Ugri_ (_Ugri czerni_) in
contradistinction to the _white Ugri_ (_Ugri bjeli_), by which he is
supposed to mean the Khazars.
From about A.D. 889 to A.D. 955, the Majiars were the scourge of the
countries along the Danube; and in Bavaria, Saxony, Thuringia,
Franconia, Hesse, Alsatia, and even France, they fought battles with
various success--at first as conquerors. Afterwards, however, the tide
of success turned against them, and a signal victory near Merseburg, in
A.D. 934, first broke their power, which was afterwards limited to their
present area by a more decisive victory on the Lech in A.D. 955.
I have remarked upon the extent to which the division of the Majiars
into tribes, families, clans, or generations, has a Turk or Mongol look;
and I now add that it is possible that it may actually be so. There are
numerous proofs of the presence of Turk tribes in Hungary--the three
most, important of which are--1. The Avars; 2. The Petschenagi; and 3.
The Kumanians.
This is no more than we expect: since there were not only the
descendants of the Huns of Attila settled in the country, but several
separate subsequent invasions from the east had occurred in the
interval.
1. The Avars, for more than three centuries after the death of Attila,
continued to be the chief population of Pannonia; a population engaged
in perpetual wars with their neighbours in Croatia, Moravia, and
Transylvania, and, frequently, extending their invasions to Bohemia,
Germany, and even France. Whether they were the absolute descendants of
the Huns of Attila, under a new name, or not, is unimportant; since, if
they were not Huns in the strict sense of the term, they were a very
closely allied population. I think they formed the bulk of the
Pannonians during the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. But,
as the strength of the Slavonians of Moravia, Upper Hungary, Croatia and
Servia increased, the power of the Avars waned, and, weakened as they
were at the time of the Majiar invasion, they lost their language and
nationality and name soon after that event. Till then, however, they had
a separate existence, though reduced in importance. In the time of
Nestor the extinction of the Avars, whom the Russians call _Obri_, was
indicated by the following bye-word,--“they are gone even as the _Obri_;
neither kith nor kin remains.” Whether they were most amalgamated with
the Slavonians or the Majiars is doubtful. Such Hun blood as runs in the
veins of the present Hungarians is referable to the Avars; at least it
is certain that unless we supposed the Huns of Attila to have remained
in Hungary (Pannonia) under the name of Avar, we cannot well trace their
continued existence in that country; besides which the words _Hun_ and
_Avar_, are frequently used as synonymous--“_Huni_ qui et _Avares_
dicuntur.”
2. The Petschenagi, a branch of the great Turk family, were, even in
Asia, the nearest neighbours of the ancestors of the Majiars; their
locality being the parts between the Jaik and the Uralian Mountains.
Their invasion of Russia is placed by Nestor in _A.D._ 915; their
settlements being the parts between the Lower Dnieper and the mouths of
the Danube. We find them in Hungary under the name of _Bisseni_.
3. The Kumanians appear in Europe rather later than the Petschenagi and
Majiars, _i.e._, in the latter half of the eleventh century. Volhynia is
the country where they more especially settled. Like the Petschenagi
they were Turk, but not Mahometan. On the contrary, they are described
as unclean Pagans, who ate all sorts of meat, and some of it raw.
4. The fourth section of the Turk stock which made settlements in
Hungary were the _Khazars_. I should not, however, like to assert
positively that they were not Avars under another name, or, at any rate,
a closely allied population.
5. The fifth were the _Bulgarians_. Without fixing the date of their
advent, we may safely assume that it was subsequent to the conversion of
some portion of the nation to Mahometanism, although previous to their
adoption of the Slavonic language.
But the remarkable fact is the name of one of their leaders _Heten_,[26]
a name which we see in the list of the proper Majiar patriarchs. This
confirms the notion that the division into tribes and sub-tribes may
have been less Majiar and more Turk than it seems to be.
The _Bashkirs_ of Hungary are a difficult population. In the thirteenth
century, the Arabian writer Jakut, writes that he found in the city of
Aleppo some florid-faced Mahometans, who were called Bashkirs, and came
from Hungary.
Now, the present Bashkirs are the occupants of those parts beyond the
Uralian Mountains from which the Majiars came: their language being
Turk. But, as there is satisfactory evidence that this is an adopted
tongue, and that their original speech was Ugrian, they are reasonably
supposed to represent in the thirteenth century, not the Majiars of
Hungary, but the Majiars of the mother-country from which the invaders
of Europe proceeded. If so, how came they to be Mahometans? Were they
not rather the Bulgarians last mentioned? Their florid complexion is the
chief fact against it. On the other hand, it must be remarked that
though Jakut says that they were called _Bashkirs_ (“audiebant
Baschgardi”) he does not say that they called themselves so. Again, the
number of their chiefs is seven--the number of the so-called Majiar
patriarchs; amongst whom it must remembered we find the _Bulgarian_
Heten.
Hence, of a Bashkir intermixture, separate from the Bulgarians on one
side, and the Majiars on the other, there is no satisfactory evidence.
The analysis as far as it has proceeded has given us--
1. Ugrians Majiars.
2. Turks _a._ Huns.
“ _b._ Avars.
“ _c._ Petschenagi.
“ _d._ Kumanians.
“ _e._ Khazars.
“ _f._ Bulgarians,
“ α. Pagan,
“ β. Mahometan.
The Majiar conquest converted a Turk into a Ugrian area: its date being
the tenth century.
The Hun conquest converted a semi-romanized into a Turk area; its date
being the fifth century. A.D. 444 is a convenient epoch for this event.
It was the year of the murder of Attila’s brother, and the sole
supremacy of Attila himself.
We will first ask how Attila _left_ Hungary: next how he _found_ it.
I am not at all satisfied with the reasons generally given for believing
that, as his power fell to pieces at his death, so did the Hun blood in
Hungary become extinct. Still less am I satisfied with the reasons which
give any particular nation the credit of having destroyed it. The
recovery of the province of Pannonia never took place. I cannot find
that either the Goths of the Lower, or the Germans of the Upper, Danube
made any permanent conquest. That the Slavonic tribes of the surrounding
frontier pressed towards the interior is certain; but it is not certain
that they ever made the country their own.
That the political power of the descendants of Attila was broken is
certain; and for that very reason, I believe that the ethnological
influence of the Huns remained. The son of Attila was not the king of
the _Huns_, because _Hun_ seems to have been a collective name, and,
perhaps, was not a native one. But he was king of several of the
populations in detail, of which, along with others, the Hun power was
made. The tribes most ready to avail themselves of the death of Attila
were the Goths of the Lower Danube--Bulgaria, and (perhaps) Servia. Now
these first attacked the _Setagæ_ of Lower Pannonia; and when Dinzic,
the son of Attila knew of it he opposed them with the few tribes that
still acknowledged his dominion, the _Ultzinzures_, the _Angesuri_ the
_Bitugures_, and the _Bardones_. All these were particular Hun
populations, who, as long as the Hun power was at work on a large scale
were merged in one general name, but who afterwards step forth as
separate substantive members of that great confederacy, or empire.
Still there was great encroachment; the invading populations of the
Avars and the Bulgarians--so far as they were not Huns--being like the
Ultzinzures, &c. of Turk blood.
Before the remains of the Huns of Attila were extinguished--probably
before they were notably diminished--the closely allied Avars (Huns,
perhaps, under another name) conquered Pannonia, and held it from the
end of the sixth to that of the eighth century.
What with the remains of Attila’s army, and what with the Avars and the
Bulgarians, I think that when the Majiars entered Hungary they found it,
at least, as much Turk as aught else,--as much, but not more; for the
history of Hungary between the Hun and the Majiar conquests seems to
have been as follows:--
_a._ There was some reaction on the part of the Romans, assisted by--
_b._ The Goths, and perhaps by--
_c._ The remains of the native population of the frontiers.
The _Gepidæ_, too, were amongst the subjects of Attila. After his death
they rebelled against his son. Between the Danube, the Theiss, and the
Carpathian Mountains, their power grew steadily until the rise of the
Avars and Lombards; the union of which two nations was too strong for
them. By the beginning of the eighth century their national existence
had ceased.
I cannot say to what stock the Gepidæ belonged. I _think_ they were
Slavonians.
Be this, however, as it may, their power seems to have been in the
inverse ratio to that of the Avars, and they must be admitted as an
element in the ethnology of Hungary, without being supposed to be a very
important one.
We may well, then, say that no European population is more heterogeneous
than that of Hungary.
_a._ In the countries of Saala and Eisenberg we have a simple extension
of the Carinthians.
_b._ In Upper Hungary the Slovaks.
_c._ On the Croatian frontier, Croatians--to say nothing about the
political union of the two kingdoms.
_d._ In Slavonia, Servians and Russians--a variety of the Servian
section.
_e._ The Banat has already been noticed. So has--
_f._ Transylvania. The non-Majiar populations of all these districts are
separated from the Majiars by the outward and visible signs of
difference of language; and their ethnology is, consequently, widely
different from that of the Jaszag and Kunszag. Of these, though the
former is Slavonic and the latter Turk, in blood, each is Majiar in
language.
Different, however, from all are the Seklers. _Their_ peculiarity is,
that they were Majiars before the great Majiar invasion of the tenth
century; Ugrians, probably, in the army of Attila, as they easily might
have been, and as their own belief makes them, whilst a passage in
Alfred mentions the _Syssele east of the land of the Vends_. The word
means _settler_ in Majiar, and it is only by supposing an early Majiar
invasion that its presence in the pages of Alfred can be explained.
It is in language that the Majiar is distinct from the rest of Europe.
In blood there is but little difference. That a Majiar female ever made
her way from the Ural Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the
presumptions being against it. Hence, it is just possible that a
whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the Danube. Whether
the other elements are most Turk or most Slavonic is more than I venture
to guess.
* * * * *
Why do I give a Sarmatian origin to the ancient populations of the Lower
and Middle Danube? The details are too lengthy for exhibition; a sketch
only can be given. Special testimony places the Thracians, the Getæ,
the Daci, and the Triballi in the same class. The reasons in favour of
the _recent_ origin of the present Servians, Croatians, Carinthians,
Slovaks, and Tshekhs, is inconclusive. The Jazyges of the Euxine were in
the same category with the Jazyges of the Theiss, _i.e._ Slavonic. From
these the intermediate populations cannot be separated.
But why carry the Slavonic area further west? In the Tyrol we have such
geographical names as Scharn-_itz_, Gsh_nitz_-thal, and _Vintsh_-gau; in
the Vorarlberg, Ked-_nitz_ and Windisch-_matrei_. Even where the names
are less definitely Slavonic, the compound sibilant _tsh_, so
predominant in Slavonic, so exceptional in German, is of frequent
occurrence. This, perhaps, is little, yet is more than can be found in
any country known to have been _non_-Slavonic. Besides which, there are
no presumptions against the doctrine. Again--a Slavonic population in
the Vorarlberg and Southern Bavaria best accounts for the name
_Vind_-elicia.
* * * * *
Malta, Crete, and several of the Greek Islands, are European in respect
to their politics only. Ethnologically, they are African and Asiatic. In
Malta the language of the common people is Arabic, and the blood is
probably Arabic also--the superadded elements being numerous.
The aboriginal population of Crete is problematical. If we admit the
reasonable presumption that it was an extension of that of the
Continent, Egypt and Phœnicia have each a claim; as has Greece. That
_Minos_ represents a different person--historical or mythological--from
_Menes_ is a current doctrine; but then the notion that any amount of
similarity of name may occur within improbably narrow limits both of
space and time is current also.
Hence, Egyptian, Phœnician, Anatolian, and perhaps other earlier
elements are to be attributed to Crete anterior to the period of its
Hellenization. Of the subsequent elements the Arabic is the most
important. In each and all, too, of the other isles, the basis is
_non_-Hellenic.
I have no opinion as to the original blood of Sardinia, Corsica, and the
Balearic isles. The last are Spanish in speech, the other two Italian,
Arabic elements having been superadded--those introduced by the Roman
conquest, and by the Phœnician having preceded them.
* * * * *
If the ethnological analyses of the preceding pages be true, the extent
to which the phenomena of what is called _race_ are liable to
over-valuation is considerable; so rare and exceptional is any approach
to pure blood, and so little do pedigree and nationality coincide. The
most powerful nations are the most heterogeneous. Yet the inference
that mixture favours social development would be as unsafe as the
exaggeration of the effects of purity. The conditions which are least
favourable for a prominent place in the world’s history are the best for
the preservation of old characters. The purest populations of Europe are
the Basques, the Lapps, the Poles, and the Frisians; yet who can
predicate any important character common to them all?
To attribute national aptitudes and inaptitudes or national
predilections and antipathies to the unknown influences of blood, as
long as the patent facts of history and external circumstances remain
unexhausted, is to cut the Gordian Knot rather than to untie it. That
there is something in pedigree is probable; but, in the mind of the
analytical ethnologist, this something is much nearer to nothing than to
everything.
THE END.
LONDON:
Printed by SAMUEL BENTLEY and Co.,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.
WORKS BY DR. LATHAM.
_In four uniform volumes, each at_ 5_s._
I.
THE ETHNOLOGY OF THE BRITISH ISLES.
II.
THE ETHNOLOGY OF THE BRITISH COLONIES.
III.
THE ETHNOLOGY OF EUROPE.
IV.
MAN AND HIS MIGRATIONS.
_In 8vo. illustrated, price_ 21_s._
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE VARIETIES OF MAN.
“The truly masculine minds of England, of Continental Europe, and
of Anglo-Saxon America, will prize it as the best book of its time
on the best subject of its time.”--_Weekly News._
“The most obvious characteristic of Dr. Latham’s style is one that
fits it admirably for the popular treatment of such topics. He is
sparing of words, and goes direct to his point--expressing clearly
and shortly all he has to say, and dwelling upon each part of his
subject only so long as to show his mastery of it, and evince an
earnest desire that all he knows shall pass clearly into the minds
of his readers. Thus, in two small volumes, he has put as much
information as we ever saw brought within a like compass; and has
done it so as to leave no ground of complaint of obscurity to a
reader who gives him a fair share of attention.”--_The Globe._
JOHN VAN VOORST, 2, PATERNOSTER ROW.
WORKS BY DR. LATHAM.
PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. TAYLOR, WALTON, AND MABERLY.
A HAND-BOOK OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE; for the Use of Students of the
Universities and Higher Classes of Schools. 1 vol. large 12mo.
8_s._ 6_d._
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, &c. Third Edition. 8vo. 15_s._
AN ELEMENTARY ENGLISH GRAMMAR FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS. Fifth
Edition. 12mo. 4_s._ 6_d._ cloth.
AN ENGLISH GRAMMAR, FOR THE USE OF LADIES’ SCHOOLS. Foolscap 8vo.
cloth, 1_s._ 6_d._
THE HISTORY AND ETYMOLOGY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, FOR THE USE OF
CLASSICAL SCHOOLS. Foolscap 8vo. cloth, 1_s._ 6_d._
A GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, FOR THE USE OF COMMERCIAL
SCHOOLS. Foolscap 8vo. cloth, 1_s._ 6_d._
FIRST OUTLINES OF LOGIC, Applied to Grammar and Etymology. 12mo.
cloth, 1_s._ 6_d._
THE GERMANIA OF TACITUS: with Ethnological Dissertations and Notes.
8vo. cloth, 12_s._ 6_d._
_Upper Gower Street, and Ivy Lane, Paternoster Row._
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE BRITISH ISLES.
_This Series of Works is Illustrated by many Hundred Engravings;
every Species has been Drawn and Engraved under the immediate
inspection of the Authors; the best Artists have been employed, and
no care or expense has been spared._
_A few copies have been printed on larger paper, royal 8vo._
THE QUADRUPEDS, by PROFESSOR BELL. A new edition preparing.
THE BIRDS, by MR. YARRELL. Second Edition, 3 vols. 4_l._ 14_s._
6_d._
COLOURED ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE EGGS OF BIRDS, By MR. HEWITSON. 2
vols. 4_l._ 10_s._
THE REPTILES, by PROFESSOR BELL. Second Edition, 12_s._
THE FISHES, by MR. YARRELL. Second Edition, 2 vols. 3_l._[27]
THE CRUSTACEA, by PROFESSOR BELL. Now in Course of Publication, in
Parts at 2_s._ 6_d._
THE STAR-FISHES, by PROFESSOR EDWARD FORBES. 15_s._
THE ZOOPHYTES, by DR. JOHNSTON. Second Ed., 2 vols. 2_l._ 2_s._
THE MOLLUSCOUS ANIMALS AND THEIR SHELLS, by PROFESSOR ED. FORBES
and MR. HANLEY. Now in Course of Publication, in Parts at 2_s._
6_d._; or Large Paper, with the Plates Coloured, 5_s._
THE FOREST TREES, by MR. SELBY. 28_s._
THE FERNS, by MR. NEWMAN. Third Edition. Now in the Press.
THE FOSSIL MAMMALS AND BIRDS, by PROFESSOR OWEN, 1_l._ 11_s._ 6_d._
* * * * *
A GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM, by PROFESSOR T. RYMER
JONES. 8vo. A new edition preparing.
PUBLISHED BY MR. VAN VOORST, DURING 1851.
A GEOLOGICAL INQUIRY RESPECTING THE WATER-BEARING STRATA OF THE
COUNTRY AROUND LONDON, with Reference especially to the Water
Supply of the Metropolis; and including some Remarks on Springs. By
JOSEPH PRESTWICH, Jun., F.G.S., &c. 8vo., with a Map and Woodcuts,
8_s._ 6_d._
MANUAL OF BRITISH BOTANY: containing the Flowering Plants and
Ferns, arranged according to the Natural Orders. By C. C.
BABINGTON, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., &c. Third Edition, 12mo., price
10_s._ 6_d._
THE ETHNOLOGY OF THE BRITISH COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES. By R. G.
LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S. Corresponding Member of the Ethnological
Society, New York, &c., &c. Fcap. 8vo., 5_s._
MAN AND HIS MIGRATIONS. By DR. LATHAM, uniform in size with the
last-named volume, price 5_s._
FLY-FISHING IN SALT AND FRESH WATER. With Six Coloured Plates,
representing Artificial Flies, &c. 8vo., price 7_s._ 6_d._
THE POWERS OF THE CREATOR DISPLAYED IN THE CREATION; or,
Observations on Life amidst the various forms of the Humbler Tribes
of Animated Nature: with Practical Comments and Illustrations. By
SIR JOHN GRAHAM DALYELL, Knt. and Bart. In 2 volumes, containing
numerous Plates of living subjects, finely coloured. Vol. 1,
comprehending Seventy Plates, 4to., price 4_l._ 4_s._
ENGLAND BEFORE THE NORMAN CONQUEST. 16mo. cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._
INSTRUMENTA ECCLESIASTICA. Edited by the Ecclesiological, late
Cambridge Camden Society. Second Series. Parts 4 and 5, each 2_s._
6_d._
TRANSACTIONS OF THE MICROSCOPICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. Royal 8vo.,
Vol. III. Part 2, 10_s._
INSECTA SAUNDERSIANA: or, Characters of Undescribed Insects in the
Collection of Wm. Wilson Saunders. Diptera, Part 2. By FRANCIS
WALKER, F.L.S. 8vo., 3_s._
THE PHYTOLOGIST. Nos. 116 to 127. 1_s._ each.
THE ZOOLOGIST. Nos. 97 to 108. 1_s._ each.
A HISTORY OF BRITISH CRUSTACEA. By THOMAS BELL, Sec.R.S., F.L.S.,
F.Z.S., &c., Professor of Zoology in King’s College, London. Part
7, price 2_s._ 6_d._, or royal 8vo., 5_s._
A HISTORY OF BRITISH MOLLUSCA AND THEIR SHELLS. By Professor EDWARD
FORBES, F.R.S., and SYLVANUS HANLEY, B.A., F.L.S. Parts 35 to 42.
8vo., 2_s._ 6_d._ plain, or royal 8vo. coloured, 5_s._ each.
The two last enumerated Works are in continuation of the series of
“British Histories,” of which the Quadrupeds and Reptiles, by Professor
Bell; the Birds and Fishes, by Mr. Yarrell; the Birds’ Eggs, by Mr.
Hewitson; the Starfishes, by Professor Forbes; the Zoophytes, by Dr.
Johnston; the Trees, by Mr. Selby; and the Fossil Mammals and Birds, by
Professor Owen, are already published. Each Work is sold separately, and
is perfectly distinct and complete in itself.
A FAMILIAR INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF POLARIZED LIGHT; with a
Description of, and Instructions for Using, the Table and
Hydro-Oxygen Polariscope and Microscope. By CHARLES WOODWARD,
F.R.S. Illustrated by numerous Wood Engravings. Second Edition,
8vo., 3_s._
HINTS ON THE HISTORY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HONEY BEE. By EDWARD
BEVAN, M.D. 12mo. sewed, 6_d._
A DESCRIPTION OF THE BAR AND FRAME-HIVE, invented by W. AUGUSTUS
MUNN, Esq., with an Abstract of Wildman’s Complete Guide for the
Management of Bees throughout the Year. 8vo. sewed, 2_s._ 6_d._
A SUPPLEMENTARY CATALOGUE OF THE BRITISH TINEIDÆ AND PTEROPHORIDÆ.
By H. T. STAINTON. 8vo. sewed, 2_s._
PUBLISHED PREVIOUSLY TO 1851.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF ARTS AND MANUFACTURES. By ARTHUR AIKIN, F.L.S.,
F.G.S., &c. In foolscap 8vo., Illustrated, 8_s._ cloth.
AN ELEMENTARY COURSE OF GEOLOGY, MINERALOGY, AND PHYSICAL
GEOGRAPHY. By DAVID T. ANSTED, M.A., F.R.S., Professor of Geology,
King’s College, London, &c. Post 8vo. illustrated, price 12_s._
Also by Professor ANSTED,
THE ANCIENT WORLD; or, Picturesque Sketches of Creation. With 149
Illustrations. A New Edition, post 8vo., 10_s._ 6_d._
THE GEOLOGIST’S TEXT BOOK. Foolscap 8vo., 3_s._ 6_d._
THE GOLD SEEKER’S MANUAL. Foolscap 8vo., 3_s._ 6_d._
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE SPERM WHALE, and a South Sea Whaling
Voyage. By THOMAS BEALE. Post 8vo., 12_s._
A HISTORY OF BRITISH REPTILES. By PROFESSOR BELL, Sec. R.S.,
F.L.S., F.G.S. Second Edition, with 50 Wood Engravings. 8vo.,
12_s._ Also by Professor BELL,
A HISTORY OF BRITISH QUADRUPEDS, including the Cetacea. Nearly 200
Illustrations, 8vo., 28_s._
THE HONEY BEE; its Natural History, Physiology, and Management. By
EDWARD BEVAN, M.D. A New Edition, 12mo., with many Illustrations,
10_s._ 6_d._
A TREATISE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF FRESH-WATER FISH, with a view to
making them a Source of Profit to Landed Proprietors. By GOTTLIEB
BOCCIUS. 8vo. 5_s._ And by the same Author,
A TREATISE ON THE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT OF FISH IN FRESH
WATERS, by Artificial Spawning, Breeding, and Rearing: showing also
the Cause of the Depletion of all Rivers and Streams. 8vo. 5_s._
A GEOGRAPHICAL AND COMPARATIVE LIST OF THE BIRDS OF EUROPE AND
NORTH AMERICA. By CHARLES LUCIEN BONAPARTE, Prince of Canino. 8vo.
5_s._
ILLUSTRATIONS OF INSTINCT, deduced from the Habits of British
Animals. By JONATHAN COUCH, F.L.S., Member of the Royal Geological
Society and of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, &c. Post 8vo.,
8_s._ 6_d._
JOHN VAN VOORST, 1, PATERNOSTER ROW.
WORKS PUBLISHED BY MR. VAN VOORST.
THE ISLE OF MAN; its History, Physical, Ecclesiastical, Civil, and
Legendary. By the Rev. J. G. CUMMING, M.A., F.G.S., Vice-Principal
of King William’s College, Castletown. Post 8vo., Illustrated with
Views and Sections, 12_s._ 6_d._
RARE AND REMARKABLE ANIMALS OF SCOTLAND, Represented from Living
Subjects: with Practical Observations on their Nature. By Sir JOHN
GRAHAM DALYELL, Bart. 2 vols. 4to., containing 109 Coloured Plates,
6_l._ 6_s._
FIRST STEPS TO ANATOMY. By JAMES L. DRUMMOND, M.D., Professor of
Anatomy and Physiology in the Belfast Royal Institution. With 12
Illustrative Plates. 12mo. 5_s._
A HISTORY OF BRITISH STARFISHES, and other Animals of the Class
Echinodermata. By Professor ED. FORBES, F.R.S., F.L.S., F.G.S.
8vo., with more than 120 Illustrations, 15_s._, or Royal 8vo.,
30_s._
TRAVELS IN LYCIA, MILYAS, AND THE CIBYRATIS, in Company with the
late Rev. E.T. DANIELL. By Professor FORBES and Capt. T. A. B.
SPRATT, R.N. 2 vols. 8vo. Illustrated. 36_s._
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF STAFFORDSHIRE, comprising its Geology,
Zoology, Botany, and Meteorology; also its Antiquities, Topography,
Manufactures, &c. By ROBERT GARNER, F.L.S. Illustrated, 8vo. 1_l._
1_s._
AN ARCTIC VOYAGE TO BAFFIN’S BAY AND LANCASTER SOUND, in search of
Friends with Sir John Franklin. By ROBERT A. GOODSIR, late
President of the Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh. Post 8vo.,
with a Frontispiece and Map, price 5_s._ 6_d._
THE BIRDS OF JAMAICA. By P. H. GOSSE. Post 8vo., price 10_s._ Also
by Mr. GOSSE,
THE CANADIAN NATURALIST. With 44 Illustrations of the most
remarkable Animal and Vegetable productions. Post 8vo. 12_s._
UNIVERSAL STENOGRAPHY; or, A New and Practical System of Short-hand
Writing, on the basis of Taylor. By WILLIAM HARDING. 12mo. 3_s._
sewed. 3_s._ 6_d._ bound.
THE SEA-SIDE BOOK: being an Introduction to the Natural History of
the British Coasts. By Professor HARVEY, M.D., M.R.I.A. Second
Edition. Fcap. 8vo., with 69 Illustrations, 5_s._ Also by Professor
HARVEY,
A MANUAL OF THE BRITISH MARINE ALGÆ: containing Generic and
Specific Descriptions of all the known British Species of
Sea-Weeds, with Plates to illustrate all the Genera. 8vo. 21_s._
coloured copies, 31_s._ 6_d._
PERRAN-ZABULOE; with an Account of the Past and Present State of
the Oratory of St. Piran-in-the-Sands, and Remarks on its
Antiquity. By the Rev. WM. HASLAM, B.A., Resident Curate. Foolscap
8vo., with several Illustrations, 4_s._ 6_d._
THE RUDIMENTS OF BOTANY. A familiar Introduction to the Study of
Plants. By ARTHUR HENFREY, F.L.S., Lecturer on Botany at St.
George’s Hospital. 16mo., with illustrative Woodcuts, 3_s._ 6_d._
ANATOMICAL MANIPULATION; or, Methods of pursuing Practical
Investigations in Comparative Anatomy and Physiology: also an
Introduction to the Use of the Microscope, &c., and an Appendix. By
Mr. HENFREY and ALFRED TULK, M.R.C.S., M.E.S. Foolscap 8vo., with
Diagrams, 9_s._
JOHN VAN VOORST, 1, PATERNOSTER ROW.
OUTLINES OF STRUCTURAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL BOTANY. By ARTHUR HENFREY,
F.L.S., Lecturer on Botany at St. George’s Hospital. With 18
Plates, Foolscap 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
GROTIUS’ INTRODUCTION TO DUTCH JURISPRUDENCE. Now first rendered
into English, by CHARLES HERBERT, of the Middle Temple,
Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1_l._ 11_s._ 6_d._
COLOURED ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE EGGS OF BRITISH BIRDS: accompanied
with Descriptions of the Eggs, Nests, &c. By WILLIAM C. HEWITSON,
F.L.S. Two vols. 8vo., 4_l._ 10_s._ The arrangement adopted in this
work is that employed by Mr. Yarrell in his “History of British
Birds.”
OBSERVATIONS IN NATURAL HISTORY; with a Calendar of Periodic
Phenomena. By the Rev. LEONARD JENYNS, M.A., F.L.S. Post 8vo.,
10_s._ 6_d._
AN ANGLER’S RAMBLES. Contents: Thames Fishing, Trolling in
Staffordshire, Perch Fishing-club, Two Days’ Fly-fishing on the
Test, Luckford Fishing-club, Grayling Fishing, a visit to Oxford,
the Country Clergyman. By EDWARD JESSE, F.L.S., Author of
“Gleanings in Natural History.” Post 8vo., 10_s._ 6_d._
AN INTRODUCTION TO CONCHOLOGY; or, Elements of the Natural History
of Molluscous Animals. By _George Johnston_, M.D., LL.D., Fellow of
the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh; Author of “A History of
the British Zoophytes.” 8vo., 102 Illustrations, 21_s._ Also by DR.
JOHNSTON,
A HISTORY OF THE BRITISH ZOOPHYTES. Second Edition in 2 vols. 8vo.,
with an Illustration of every Species. 2_l._ 2_s._; or on large
paper (royal 8vo.) 4_l._ 4_s._
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF ANIMALS. By Professor T. RYMER JONES,
F.R.S., F.Z.S. Vol. I., with 105 Illustrations, post 8vo. 12_s._
Also by Professor T. RYMER JONES,
A GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM AND MANUAL OF COMPARATIVE
ANATOMY. In one thick vol. 8vo., containing nearly 350
Illustrations, 38_s._ Or Royal 8vo., 3_l._ 16_s._ Imperial 8vo.,
5_l._ 14_s._
FLORA CALPENSIS: Contributions to the Botany and Topography of
Gibraltar and its neighbourhood, with Plan and Views of the Rock.
To which is added a Translation of ED. BOISSIER’s Account of the
Vegetation of Gibraltar, with Description of New Species. By E. F.
KELAART, M.D., F.L.S., Army Medical Staff. 8vo. cloth, 10_s._ 6_d._
ORNITHOLOGICAL RAMBLES IN SUSSEX; with a Systematic Catalogue of
the Birds of that County, and Remarks on their Local Distribution.
By A. E. KNOX, M.A., F.L.S. Post 8vo., with 4 Lithographic Views,
7_s._ 6_d._ Second Edition. Also by Mr. KNOX,
GAME BIRDS AND WILD FOWL: their Friends and their Foes. With
Illustrations by WOLF. Post 8vo., price 9_s._
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE VARIETIES OF MAN. By ROBERT GORDON
LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S., Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge;
Vice-President of the Ethnological Society of London; Corresponding
Member of the Ethnological Society of New York. 8vo., illustrated,
21_s._
JOHN VAN VOORST, 1, PATERNOSTER ROW.
HERALDRY OF FISH. By THOMAS MOULE. The Engravings, 205 in number,
are from Stained Glass, Tombs, Sculpture and Carving, Medals and
Coins, Rolls of Arms, and Pedigrees. 8vo., 21_s._ A few on large
paper (royal 8vo.) for colouring, price 2_l._ 2_s._
A FAMILIAR INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF INSECTS. With numerous
Illustrations. By EDWARD NEWMAN, F.L.S. One vol. 8vo., 12_s._
A HISTORY OF BRITISH FOSSIL MAMMALS AND BIRDS. By Professor OWEN,
F.R.S., &c. In 8vo., with 237 Illustrations, price 1_l._ 11_s._
6_d._; on large paper (royal 8vo.), 3_l._ 3_s._
ON PARTHENOGENESIS; or, The Successive Production of Procreating
Individuals from a single Ovum. By Professor OWEN, F.R.S. 8vo.
5_s._
A MANUAL OF GOTHIC MOLDINGS. A Practical Treatise on their
Formation, Gradual Development, Combinations, and Varieties; with
full Directions for copying them, and for determining their Dates.
By F. A. PALEY, M.A. Second Edition, Illustrated by nearly 600
Examples. 8vo., 7_s._ 6_d._
A HISTORY OF BRITISH FOREST-TREES, Indigenous and Introduced. By
PRIDEAUX JOHN SELBY, F.L.S., M.W.S., &c. Nearly 200 Engravings.
8vo. 28_s._, royal 8vo., 2_l._ 16_s._
A HISTORY OF BRITISH BIRDS. By WILLIAM YARRELL, F.L.S., V.P.Z.S.,
&c. This work contains a history and a portrait of each species of
the Birds found in Britain. The three volumes contain 535
Illustrations. Second Edition. 3 vols. demy 8vo., 4_l._ 14_s._
6_d._; royal 8vo., 9_l._; or imperial 8vo., 13_l._ 10_s._ A
Supplement to the first edition, demy 8vo., 2_s._ 6_d._; royal
8vo., 5_s._; imperial 8vo., 7_s._ 6_d._ Also by Mr. YARRELL,
A HISTORY OF BRITISH FISHES. Second Edition, in two vols. demy 8vo.
Illustrated by nearly 500 Engravings, 3_l._ A Supplement to the
First Edition, demy 8vo., 7_s._ 6_d._; royal 8vo., 15_s._; imperial
8vo., 1_l._ 2_s._ 6_d._
BAPTISMAL FONTS. A Series of 125 Engravings, Examples of the
different Periods, accompanied with Descriptions; and with an
Introductory Essay by Mr. PALEY. 8vo., 1_l._ 1_s._
DOMESTIC SCENES IN GREENLAND AND ICELAND. 16mo., Illustrated, 2_s._
6_d._ Second Edition.
ELEMENTS OF PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE; Explaining, in Question and
Answer, and in familiar language, what most things daily used,
seen, or talked of, are; what they are made of, where found, and to
what uses applied. Second Edition, 16mo., with Illustrations, 3_s._
THE POOR ARTIST; or, Seven Eye-Sights and One Object. Fcap. 8vo.
5_s._
GOLDSMITH’S VICAR OF WAKEFIELD. With 32 Illustrations, by WILLIAM
MULREADY, R.A.; engraved by JOHN THOMPSON. Square 8vo., 1_l._
1_s._, or 36_s._ in morocco.
WATTS’S DIVINE AND MORAL SONGS. With 30 Illustrations, by C. W.
COPE, R.A.; engraved by JOHN THOMPSON. Square 8vo., 7_s._ 6_d._, or
21_s._ in morocco.
LONDON, DECEMBER 1860.
Catalogue of Books
PUBLISHED BY MR. VAN VOORST.
INDEX.
Accentuated List, _p._ 7
Adams & Baikie’s Manual Nat. Hist., 12
Adams’s Genera of Mollusca, 5
Aikin’s Arts and Manufactures, 14
Anatomical Manipulation, 12
Ansted’s Ancient World, 9
---- Elementary Course of Geology, 9
---- Geologist’s Text-Book, 9
---- Gold-Seeker’s Manual, 9
---- Scenery, Science, and Art, 14
Babington’s Flora of Cambridgeshire, 7
---- Manual of British Botany, 7
Baptismal Fonts, 15
Bate and Westwood’s British Crustacea, 5
Beale on Sperm Whale, 3
Bell’s British Quadrupeds, 3
---- British Reptiles, 4
---- British Stalk-eyed Crustacea, 5
Bennett’s Naturalist in Australasia, 11
Bloomfield’s Farmer’s Boy, 16
Boccius on Production of Fish, 4
Bonaparte’s List of Birds, 3
Brightwell’s Life of Linnæus, 14
Burton’s Falconry on the Indus, 3
Church and Northcote’s Chem. Analysis, 9
Clark’s Testaceous Mollusca, 5
Cocks’s Sea-Weed Collector’s Guide, 8
Couch’s Illustrations of Instinct, 11
Cumming’s Isle of Man, 13
Currency, 16
Dallas’s Elements of Entomology, 5
Dalyell’s Powers of the Creator, 12
---- Rare Animals of Scotland, 12
Dawson’s Geodephaga Britannica, 7
Domestic Scenes in Greenland & Iceland, 14
Douglas’s World of Insects, 6
Dowden’s Walks after Wild Flowers, 8
Drew’s Practical Meteorology, 11
Drummond’s First Steps to Anatomy, 11
Economy of Human Life, 16
Elements of Practical Knowledge, 14
England before the Norman Conquest, 14
Entomologist’s Annual, 5
---- Companion, 6
Evening Thoughts, 14
Fly Fishing in Salt and Fresh Water, 4
Forbes’s British Star-fishes, 5
---- Malacologia Monensis, 5
---- and Hanley’s British Mollusca, 5
---- and Spratt’s Travels in Lycia, 13
Garner’s Nat. Hist. of Staffordshire, 13
---- Figures of Invertebrate Animals, 14
Gosse’s Aquarium, 13
---- Birds of Jamaica, 3
Gosse’s British Sea-Anemones, &c., 13
---- Canadian Naturalist, 13
---- Handbook to Marine Aquarium, 13
---- Manual of Marine Zoology, 13
---- Naturalist’s Rambles on Dev. Coast, 13
---- Omphalos, 10
---- Tenby, 13
Gray’s Bard and Elegy, 15
Greg and Lettsom’s British Mineralogy, 10
Griffith & Henfrey’s Micrographic Dict., 11
Harvey’s British Marine Algæ, 8
---- Thesaurus Capensis, 8
---- Flora Capensis, 8
---- Index Generum Algarum , 8
---- Nereis Boreali-Americana, 8
---- Sea-side Book, 13
Henfrey’s Botanical Diagrams, 7
---- Elementary Course of Botany, 7
---- Rudiments of Botany, 7
---- Translation of Mohl, 7
---- Vegetation of Europe, 7
---- & Griffith’s Micrographic Dict., 11
---- & Tulk’s Anatomical Manipulation, 12
Hewitson’s Birds’ Eggs, 3
---- Exotic Butterflies, 6
Instrumenta Ecclesiastica, 15
Jenyns’s Observations in Meteorology, 11
---- Observations in Natural History, 11
---- White’s Selborne, 13
Jesse’s Angler’s Rambles, 4
Johnston’s British Zoophytes, 6
---- Introduction to Conchology, 5
---- Terra Lindisfarnensis, 9
Jones’s Aquarian Naturalist, 11
---- Animal Kingdom, 11
---- Natural History of Animals, 11
Knox’s (A. E.) Rambles in Sussex, 3
Knox (Dr.), Great Artists & Great Anat., 11
Latham’s Descriptive Ethnology, 12
---- Ethnology of British Colonies, 12
---- Ethnology of British Islands, 12
---- Ethnology of Europe, 12
---- Man and his Migrations, 12
---- Varieties of Man, 12
Leach’s Synopsis of British Mollusca, 5
Letters of Rusticus, 12
Lettsom and Greg’s British Mineralogy, 10
Lowe’s Faunæ et Floræ Maderæ, 8
---- Manual Flora of Madeira, 8
Malan’s Catalogue of Eggs, 3
Martin’s Cat. of Privately Printed Books, 16
Melville and Strickland on the Dodo, 4
Micrographic Dictionary, 11
Mohl on the Vegetable Cell, 7
JOHN VAN VOORST, 1 PATERNOSTER ROW.
Moule’s Heraldry of Fish _p._ 4
Newman’s British Ferns 9
---- History of Insects 6
---- Letters of Rusticus 12
Northcote & Church’s Chem. Analysis 9
Owen’s British Fossil Mammals 10
---- on Skeleton of Extinct Sloth 10
Paley’s Gothic Moldings 16
---- Manual of Gothic Architecture 16
Poor Artist 14
Prescott on Tobacco 14
Prestwich’s Geological Inquiry 10
---- Ground beneath us 10
Samuelson’s Honey-Bee 10
---- Earthworm and Housefly 10
Sclater’s Tanagers 3
Seemann’s British Ferns at One View 7
Selby’s British Forest Trees 8
Shakspeare’s Seven Ages of Man 15
Sharpe’s Decorated Windows 15
Shield’s Hints on Moths and Butterflies 6
Siebold on True Parthenogenesis 6
Smith’s British Diatomaceæ 9
Spratt and Forbes’s Travels in Lycia 13
Stainton’s Butterflies and Moths 6
---- History of the Tineina 6
Strickland’s Ornithological Synonyms 4
---- Memoirs 10
---- and Melville on the Dodo 4
Sunday-Book for the Young 14
Tugwell’s Sea-Anemones 6
Tulk and Henfrey’s Anat. Manipulation 12
Vicar of Wakefield, Illustr. by Mulready 15
Watts’s Songs, Illustrated by Cope 16
Ward (Dr.) on Healthy Respiration 14
Ward (N. B.) on the Growth of Plants 8
Westwood and Bate’s British Crustacea 5
White’s Selborne 13
Wilkinson’s Weeds and Wild Flowers 7
Williams’s Chemical Manipulation 9
Wollaston’s Insecta Maderensia 7
---- on Variation of Species 12
Yarrell’s British Birds 3
---- British Fishes 4
---- on the Salmon 4
NATURAL HISTORY OF THE BRITISH ISLES.
_This Series of Works is Illustrated by many Hundred Engravings;
every Species has been Drawn and Engraved under the immediate
inspection of the Authors; the best Artists have been employed, and
no care or expense has been spared._
_A few Copies have been printed on Larger Paper._
SESSILE-EYED CRUSTACEA, by Mr. SPENCE BATE and Mr. WESTWOOD. Part
1, price 2_s._ 6_d._, on January 1st, 1861.
QUADRUPEDS, by Professor BELL. A New Edition preparing.
BIRDS, by Mr. YARRELL. Third Edition, 3 vols. £4 14_s._ 6_d._
COLOURED ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE EGGS OF BIRDS, by Mr. HEWITSON. Third
Edition, 2 vols., £4 14_s._ 6_d._
REPTILES, by Professor BELL. Second Edition, 12_s._
FISHES, by Mr. YARRELL. Third Edition, edited by Sir JOHN
RICHARDSON, 2 vols., £3 3_s._
STALK-EYED CRUSTACEA, by Prof. BELL. 8vo, £1 5_s._
STAR-FISHES, by Professor EDWARD FORBES. 15_s._
ZOOPHYTES, by Dr. JOHNSTON. Second Edition, 2 vols., £2 2_s._
MOLLUSCOUS ANIMALS AND THEIR SHELLS, by Professor EDWARD FORBES and
Mr. HANLEY. 4 vols. 8vo, £6 10_s._ Royal 8vo, Coloured, £13.
FOREST TREES, by Mr. SELBY. £1 8_s._
FERNS, by Mr. NEWMAN. Third Edition, 18_s._
FOSSIL MAMMALS AND BIRDS, by Prof. OWEN. £1 11_s._ 6_d._
JOHN VAN VOORST, 1 PATERNOSTER ROW.
ZOOLOGY.
MAMMALIA.
=History of British Quadrupeds, including the Cetacea.= By THOMAS
BELL, F.R.S., P.L.S., Professor of Zoology in King’s College,
London. Illustrated by nearly 200 Engravings, comprising portraits
of the animals, and vignette tail-pieces. 8vo. New Edition in
preparation.
=Natural History of the Sperm Whale=, and a Sketch of a South Sea
Whaling Voyage. By THOMAS BEALE. Post 8vo, 12_s._ cloth.
BIRDS.
=History of British Birds.= By WILLIAM YARRELL, V.P.L.S., F.Z.S., &c.
This work contains a history and a picture portrait, engraved
expressly for the work, of each species of the Birds found in
Britain. Three volumes, containing 550 Illustrations. Third
Edition, demy 8vo, £4 14_s._ 6_d._
=Coloured Illustrations of the Eggs of British Birds=, with
Descriptions of their Nests and Nidification. By WILLIAM C.
HEWITSON. Third Edition, 2 vols. 8vo, £4 14_s._ 6_d._ The figures
and descriptions of the Eggs in this edition are from different
specimens to those figured in the previous editions.
=Systematic Catalogue of the Eggs of British Birds=, arranged with a
View to supersede the use of Labels for Eggs. By the Rev. S. C.
MALAN, M.A., M.A.S. On writing-paper. 8vo, 8_s._ 6_d._
=Ornithological Rambles in Sussex.= By A. E. KNOX, M.A., F.L.S. Third
Edition. Post 8vo, with Four Illustrations by Wolf, 7_s._ 6_d._
=Falconry in the Valley of the Indus.= By R. F. BURTON, Author of
‘Goa and the Blue Mountains,’ &c. Post 8vo, with Four
Illustrations, 6_s._
=Monograph of the Birds forming the Tanagrine Genus= CALLISTE;
illustrated by Coloured Plates of all the known species. By P. L.
SCLATER, M.A., Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, F.Z.S.,
&c. 8vo, £2 2_s._
=Birds of Jamaica.= By P. H. GOSSE, F.R.S., Author of the ‘Canadian
Naturalist,’ &c. Post 8vo, 10_s._
=Geographical and Comparative List of the Birds of= Europe and North
America. By CHARLES LUCIEN BONAPARTE, Prince of Musignano. 8vo,
5_s._
=The Dodo and its Kindred=; or, The History, Affinities and Osteology
of the Dodo, Solitaire, and other Extinct Birds of the Islands
Mauritius, Rodriguez, and Bourbon. By H. E. STRICKLAND, M.A.,
F.G.S., F.R.G.S., and R. G. MELVILLE, M.D. Edin., M.R.C.S. Royal
4to, with 18 Plates and other Illustrations, £1 1_s._
=Ornithological Synonyms.= By the late HUGH EDWIN STRICKLAND, M.A.,
F.R.S., &c. Edited by Mrs. HUGH EDWIN STRICKLAND and SIR WILLIAM
JARDINE, Bart., F.R.S.E., &c. 8vo, Vol. I. containing the Order
Accipitres, 12_s._ 6_d._ Vol. II. in the press.
REPTILES.
=History of British Reptiles.= By THOMAS BELL, F.R.S., President of
the Linnean Society, V.P.Z.S., &c., Professor of Zoology in King’s
College, London. Second Edition, with 50 Illustrations, 12_s._
FISHES.
=Production and Management of Fish in Fresh Waters=, by Artificial
Spawning, Breeding, and Rearing. By GOTTLIEB BOCCIUS. 8vo, 5_s._
=History of British Fishes.= By WILLIAM YARRELL, V.P.L.S., F.Z.S.,
&c. Third Edition. Edited by SIR JOHN RICHARDSON, M.D. Two vols.
demy 8vo, illustrated by more than 500 Engravings, £3 3_s._
=Yarrell.--Growth of the Salmon in Fresh Water.= With Six Coloured
Illustrations of the Fish of the natural size, exhibiting its
structure and exact appearance at various stages during the first
two years. 12_s._ sewed.
=Heraldry of Fish.= By THOMAS MOULE. Nearly six hundred families are
noticed in this work, and besides the several descriptions of fish,
fishing-nets, and boats, are included also mermaids, tritons, and
shell-fish. Nearly seventy ancient seals are described, and upwards
of twenty subjects in stained glass. The engravings, two hundred
and five in number, are from stained glass, tombs, sculpture and
carving, medals and coins, rolls of arms, and pedigrees. 8vo,
21_s._; a few on large paper (royal 8vo) for colouring, £2 2_s._
=Fly-Fishing in Salt and Fresh Water.= With Six Coloured Plates,
representing Artificial Flies, &c. 8vo, 7_s._ 6_d._
=An Angler’s Rambles.= By EDWARD JESSE, F.L.S., Author of ‘Gleanings
in Natural History.’ Contents:--Thames Fishing--Trolling in
Staffordshire--Perch Fishing Club--Two Days’ Fly-fishing on the
Test--Luckford Fishing Club--Grayling Fishing--A Visit to
Oxford--The Country Clergyman. Post 8vo, 10_s._ 6_d._
INVERTEBRATA.
=History of British Sessile-eyed Crustacea= (Sand-hoppers, &c.). By
C. SPENCE BATE, F.L.S., and J. O. WESTWOOD, F.L.S., &c. With
figures of all the species, and tail-pieces. Uniform with the
Stalk-eyed Crustacea by Professor Bell. Part I on January 1st.
=History of British Stalk-eyed Crustacea= (Lobsters, Crabs, Prawns,
Shrimps, &c.). By THOMAS BELL, President of the Linnean Society,
F.G.S., F.Z.S., Professor of Zoology in King’s College, London. The
volume is illustrated by 174 Engravings of Species and tail-pieces.
8vo, £1 5_s._; royal 8vo, £2 10_s._
=Introduction to Conchology=; or, Elements of the Natural History of
Molluscous Animals. By GEORGE JOHNSTON, M.D., LL.D., Fellow of the
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, author of ‘A History of the
British Zoophytes.’ 8vo, 102 Illustrations, 21_s._
=History of British Mollusca and their Shells.= By Professor ED.
FORBES, F.R.S., &c. and SYLVANUS HANLEY, B.A., F.L.S. Illustrated
by a figure of each known Animal and of all the Shells, engraved on
203 copper-plates. 4 vols. 8vo, £6 10_s._; royal 8vo, with the
plates coloured, £13.
=Synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain.= Arranged according to
their Natural Affinities and Anatomical Structure. By W. A. LEACH,
M.D., F.R.S., &c. &c. Post 8vo, with 13 Plates, 14_s._
=History of the British Marine Testaceous Mollusca.= By WILLIAM
CLARK. 8vo, 15_s._
=Genera of Recent Mollusca=; arranged according to their
Organization. By HENRY AND ARTHUR ADAMS. This work contains a
description and a figure engraved on steel of each genus, and an
enumeration of the species. 3 vols. 8vo, £4 10_s._; or royal 8vo,
with the plates coloured, £9.
=Malacologia Monensis.= A Catalogue of the Mollusca inhabiting the
Isle of Man and the neighbouring Sea. By EDWARD FORBES. Post 8vo,
3_s._, Edinburgh, 1838.
=History of British Star-fishes, and other Animals of the= Class
Echinodermata. By EDWARD FORBES, M.W.S., Professor of Botany in
King’s College, London. 8vo, with more than 120 Illustrations,
15_s._, or royal 8vo, 30_s._
=Elements of Entomology=: an Outline of the Natural History and
Classification of British Insects. By WILLIAM S. DALLAS, F.L.S.
Post 8vo, 8_s._ 6_d._
=The Entomologist’s Annual for 1855 to 1860.= 12mo, 2_s._ 6_d._
each.
=History of the British Zoophytes.= By GEORGE JOHNSTON, M.D., LL.D.
Second Edition, in 2 vols. 8vo, with an illustration of every
species. £2 2_s._; or on large paper, royal 8vo, £4 4_s._
=Manual of the Sea-Anemones commonly found on the= English Coast. By
the Rev. GEORGE TUGWELL, Oriel College, Oxford. Post 8vo, with
Coloured Illustrations, 7_s._ 6_d._
=Natural History of Animals.= By Professor T. RYMER JONES. Vol. II.
Insects, &c., with 104 Illustrations, post 8vo, 12_s._
=Familiar Introduction to the History of Insects=; being a Second and
greatly Improved Edition of the Grammar of Entomology. By EDWARD
NEWMAN, F.L.S., Z.S., &c. With nearly 100 Illustrations, 8vo,
12_s._
=The World of Insects=: a Guide to its Wonders. By J. W. DOUGLAS,
Secretary to the Entomological Society of London. This work
contains rambling observations on the more interesting members of
the Insect World to be found in the House, the Garden, the Orchard,
the Fields, the Hedges, on the Fences, the Heaths and Commons, the
Downs, in the Woods, the Waters, or on the Sea Shore, or on
Mountains. 12mo, stiff-paper wrapper, 3_s._ 6_d._
=Siebold on True Parthenogenesis in the Honey-Bee and= Silk-Worm
Moth. Translated from the German by W. S. DALLAS, F.L.S. 8vo, 5_s._
=Practical Hints respecting Moths and Butterflies=, with Notices of
their Localities; forming a Calendar of Entomological Operations
throughout the Year, in pursuit of Lepidoptera. By RICHARD SHIELD.
12mo, stiff-paper wrapper, 3_s._
=Hewitson’s Exotic Butterflies.= Vol. I., containing 398 Coloured
Figures of new or rare species, Five Guineas.
“In this work there is a truthfulness of outline, an exquisite
delicacy of pencilling, a brilliancy and transparency of colouring,
that has rarely been equalled, and probably never surpassed.”--_The
President in his Address to the Entomological Society_, 1856.
Of Vol. II., Sixteen Parts (21 to 36 of the entire work) are at this
time published, 5_s._ each.
=Manual of British Butterflies and Moths.= By H.T. STAINTON. 2 vols. 12mo,
10_s._
=Natural History of the Tineina.= By H. T. STAINTON, Coloured Plates. Vol.
I. to V. 8vo, cloth, each 12_s._ 6_d._
=Entomologist’s Companion= (to the Tineina). By H. T. STAINTON. Second
Edition, 12mo, 3_s._
=Geodephaga Britannica=: a Monograph of the Carnivorous Ground-Beetles
Indigenous to the British Isles. By J. F. DAWSON, LL.B. 8vo, without the
Plates, 10_s._
=Insecta Maderensia=; being an Account of the Insects of the Islands of
the Madeiran Group. By T. VERNON WOLLASTON, M.A., F.L.S. 4to, with
Thirteen Coloured Plates of Beetles, £2 2_s._
=An Accentuated List of the British Lepidoptera=, with Hints on the
Derivation of the Names. Published by the Entomological Societies of
Oxford and Cambridge. 8vo, 5_s._
BOTANY.
=The British Ferns at one View.= By BERTHOLD SEEMANN, Ph.D., F.L.S.
An eight-page out-folding sheet, with descriptions of the Orders,
Tribes, and Genera, and a Coloured figure of a portion of each
species, 8vo, cloth, 6_s._
=Flora of Cambridgeshire=: or, A Catalogue of Plants found in the
County of Cambridge, with References to former Catalogues, and the
Localities of the Rarer Species. By C. C. BABINGTON, M.A., F.R.S.,
F.L.S., &c. 12mo, with a Map, 7_s._
=Manual of British Botany=; containing the Flowering Plants and
Ferns, arranged according to their Natural Orders. By C. C.
BABINGTON, M.A., F.R.S., F.L.S., &c. 12mo, the Fourth Edition, with
many additions and corrections, 10_s._ 6_d._, cloth.
=Weeds and Wild Flowers.= By LADY WILKINSON. Post 8vo, with Coloured
Engravings and Woodcuts, 10_s._ 6_d._
=Elementary Course of Botany=; Structural, Physiological, and
Systematic. With a brief Outline of the Geographical and Geological
Distribution of Plants. By ARTHUR HENFREY, F.R.S., L.S., &c.,
Professor of Botany in King’s College, London. Illustrated by
upwards of 500 Woodcuts. Post 8vo, 12_s._ 6_d._
_Also by Professor Henfrey._
=Vegetation of Europe, its Conditions and Causes.= Foolscap 8vo,
5_s._
=Principles of the Anatomy and Physiology of the Vegetable Cell.= By
HUGO VON MOHL. Translated, with the author’s permission, by ARTHUR
HENFREY, F.R.S., &c. 8vo, with an Illustrative Plate and numerous
Woodcuts, 7_s._ 6_d._
=Rudiments of Botany.= A Familiar Introduction to the Study of
Plants. With Illustrative Woodcuts. Second Edition, foolscap 8vo,
3_s._ 6_d._
=A Set of Six Coloured Diagrams=; for Schools and Lectures. 15_s._
=Thesaurus Capensis=: or, Illustrations of the South African Flora;
being Figures and brief descriptions of South African Plants,
selected from the Dublin University Herbarium. By W. H. HARVEY,
M.D., F.R.S., Professor of Botany in the University of Dublin, and
Keeper of the Herbarium. 8vo, Vol. I., with 100 Plates, uncoloured,
£1 1_s._
=Flora Capensis=; being a Systematic Description of the Plants of the
Cape Colony, Caffraria, and Port Natal. By Professor HARVEY and Dr.
SONDER. Vol. I. Ranunculaceæ to Connaraceæ, 8vo, 12_s._
=Index Generum Algarum=: or, A Systematic Catalogue of the Genera of
Algæ, Marine and Freshwater: with an Alphabetical Key to all the
Names and Synonyms. By Professor HARVEY. 8vo, sewed, 2_s._ 6_d._
=Manual of the British Marine Algæ=, containing Generic and Specific
Descriptions of all the known British Species of Sea-Weeds, with
Plates to illustrate all the Genera. By Professor HARVEY. 8vo, £1
1_s._; Coloured Copies, £1 11_s._ 6_d._
=Nereis Boreali-Americana=; or, Contributions towards a History of
the Marine Algæ of the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of North
America. By Professor HARVEY. Royal 4to, with 50 Coloured Plates,
£3 3_s._
=History of British Forest-Trees.= By PRIDEAUX JOHN SELBY, F.R.S.E.,
F.L.S., &c. Each species is illustrated by a portrait of some
well-known or fine specimen, as a head-piece: the leaf,
florification, seed-vessels, or other embellishments tending to
make the volume ornamental or useful, are embodied in the text or
inserted as tail-pieces. 8vo, with nearly 200 Illustrations, £1
8_s._
=Manual Flora of Madeira and the adjacent Islands of= Porto Santo and
the Dezertas. By R. T. LOWE, M.A. 12mo. Part I. Thalamifloræ, 3_s._
6_d._ Part II. in the press.
=Primitiæ et Novitiæ Faunæ et Floræ Maderæ et Portus= Sancti. Two
Memoirs on the Ferns, Flowering Plants, and Land Shells of Madeira
and Porto Santo. By R. T. LOWE, M.A. 12mo, 6_s._ 6_d._, boards (150
copies printed).
=Growth of Plants in closely Glazed Cases.= By N. B. WARD, F.R.S.,
F.L.S. Second Edition, Illustrated. Post 8vo, 5_s._
=The Sea-Weed Collector’s Guide=; containing plain Instructions for
Collecting and Preserving; and a List of all the known Species and
Localities in Great Britain. By J. COCKS, M.D. Foolscap 8vo, 2_s._
6_d._
=Walks after Wild Flowers=; or the Botany of the Bohereens. By
RICHARD DOWDEN. Foolscap 8vo, 4_s._ 6_d._
=Terra Lindisfarnensis.= The Natural History of the Eastern Borders.
By GEORGE JOHNSTON, M.D., &c, &c. This volume embraces the
Topography and Botany; and gives the popular Names and Uses of the
Plants, and the Customs and Beliefs which have been associated with
them. The chapter on the Fossil Botany of the district is
contributed by GEORGE TATE, F.G.S. Illustrated with a few Woodcuts
and 15 Plates, 8vo, 10_s._ 6_d._
=History of British Ferns.= By EDWARD NEWMAN. Comprising, under each
Species, Figures, detailed Descriptions, an ample list of
Localities, and minute Instructions for Cultivating. 8vo, 18_s._
=Synopsis of the British Diatomaceæ=; with Remarks on their
Structure, Functions, and Distribution; and Instructions for
Collecting and Preserving Specimens. By the Rev. WILLIAM SMITH. The
Plates by TUFFEN WEST. In 2 vols. royal 8vo; Vol. I. 21_s._; Vol.
II. 30_s._
CHEMISTRY, MINERALOGY, GEOLOGY.
=A Manual of Chemical Analysis= (Qualitative). By A. B. NORTHCOTE,
F.C.S., and ARTHUR H. CHURCH, F.C.S. Post 8vo, 10_s._ 6_d._
=Handbook of Chemical Manipulation.= By C. GREVILLE WILLIAMS, late
Principal Assistant in the Laboratories of the Universities of
Edinburgh and Glasgow. Post 8vo, with very numerous Woodcut
Illustrations, 15_s._
=Elementary Course of Geology, Mineralogy, and Physical Geography.=
By DAVID T. ANSTED, M.A., F.R.S., F.G.S., &c., Consulting Mining
Engineer, Honorary Fellow of King’s College, London, Lecturer on
Mineralogy and Geology at the H.E.I.C. Mil. Sem. at Addiscombe,
late Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. A Second Edition, post
8vo, with many Illustrations, 12_s._
=The Ancient World.= By Professor ANSTED. Second Edition, post 8vo,
10_s._ 6_d._, with 149 Illustrations.
“The work may be described as an outline of the history of
vegetable and animal life upon the globe, from the early age when
there were only sea-weeds and marine invertebrates as yet in
existence, down to the era when the mammals received among them the
king of species, Man. By his intimate acquaintance with the
subject, and power of arrangement and description, Professor Ansted
succeeds in producing a narration, which tells in its entire range
like a romance.”--_Manchester Examiner._
=Gold-Seeker’s Manual.= By Professor ANSTED. Foolscap 8vo, 3_s._ 6_d._
=Geologist’s Text-Book.= Chiefly intended as a Book of Reference for the
Geological Student. By Professor ANSTED. Foolscap 8vo, 3_s._ 6_d._
=The Ground beneath us;= its Geological Phases and Changes. Three Lectures
on the Geology of Clapham and the neighbourhood of London generally. By
JOSEPH PRESTWICH, F.R.S., F.G.S., &c. 8vo, 3_s._ 6_d._ sewed.
=Geological Inquiry respecting the Water-bearing Strata= of the Country
around London, with reference especially to the Water Supply of the
Metropolis, and including some Remarks on Springs. By JOSEPH PRESTWICH,
F.G.S., &c. 8vo, with a Map and Woodcuts, 8_s._ 6_d._
=Manual of the Mineralogy of Great Britain and Ireland.= By ROBERT PHILIPS
GREG, F.G.S., and WILLIAM G. LETTSOM. 8vo, with numerous Woodcuts,
15_s._
=History of British Fossil Mammals and Birds.= By Professor OWEN. This
volume is designed as a companion to that by Professor Bell on the
(Recent Mammalia) ‘British Quadrupeds and Cetacea.’ 8vo, with 237
Illustrations. £1 11_s._ 6_d._, or large paper (royal 8vo), £3 3_s._
=Description of the Skeleton of an Extinct Gigantic Sloth= (Mylodon
robustus). With Observations on the Osteology, Natural Affinities, and
probable Habits of the Megatherioid Quadrupeds in general. By RICHARD
OWEN, F.R.S., &c. 4to, £1 12_s._ 6_d._
=Memoirs of Hugh E. Strickland, M.A.,= Deputy Reader of Geology in the
University of Oxford. By SIR WILLIAM JARDINE, Bart.; with a selection
from his Printed and other Scientific Papers. Royal 8vo, Illustrated by
Maps, Geological Sections, Plates and Woodcuts, 36_s._
=Omphalos.= An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. By P. H. GOSSE,
F.R.S. The law of Prochronism in organic creation. Post 8vo, with 56
Illustrations on wood, 10_s._ 6_d._
GENERAL NATURAL HISTORY, &c.
=The Honey-Bee;= its Natural History, Habits, Anatomy, and
Microscopical Beauties. With Eight Tinted Illustrative Plates. By
JAMES SAMUELSON, assisted by Dr. J. BRAXTON HICKS. (Forming a
Second Part of Humble Creatures.) Post 8vo, 6_s._
=Humble Creatures= (Part I.): =the Earthworm and the= Common Housefly.
In Eight Letters. By JAMES SAMUELSON, assisted by J. B. HICKS, M.D.
Lond., F.L.S. With Microscopic Illustrations by the Authors. Second
Edition, post 8vo, 3_s._ 6_d._
JOHN VAN VOORST, 1 PATERNOSTER ROW.
=Gatherings of a Naturalist in Australasia=; being Observations
principally on the Animal and Vegetable Productions of New South
Wales, New Zealand, and some of the Austral Islands. By GEORGE
BENNETT, M.D., F.L.S., F.Z.S. 8vo, with 8 Coloured Plates and 24
Woodcuts, 21_s._
=The Micrographic Dictionary=: a Guide to the Examination and
Investigation of the Structure and Nature of Microscopic Objects.
By Dr. GRIFFITH and Professor HENFREY. _Second edition_, with 2459
Figures (many coloured), in 45 Plates and 812 Woodcuts, 840 pp.,
8vo, £2 5_s._
=Observations in Natural History=; with a Calendar of Periodic
Phenomena. By the Rev. LEONARD JENYNS, M.A., F.L.S. Post 8vo,
10_s._ 6_d._
=Observations in Meteorology=; relating to Temperature, the Winds,
Atmospheric Pressure, the Aqueous Phenomena of the Atmosphere,
Weather Changes, &c. By the Rev. LEONARD JENYNS, M.A., F.L.S., &c.
Post 8vo, 10_s._ 6_d._
=Practical Meteorology.= By JOHN DREW, Ph.D., F.R.A.S., Corresponding
Member of the Philosophical Institute of Bâle. Second Edition,
foolscap 8vo, with 11 Illustrative Plates, 5_s._
=The Aquarian Naturalist=: a Manual for the Sea-side. By Professor T.
RYMER JONES, F.R.S. Post 8vo, 544 pp., with 8 Coloured Plates,
18_s._
=Natural History of Animals=; being the substance of Three Courses of
Lectures delivered before the Royal Institution of Great Britain.
By T. RYMER JONES, F.R.S., Professor of Zoology in King’s College,
London. Post 8vo. Vol. I. with 105 Illustrations; Vol. II. with 104
Illustrations, 12_s._ each.
=General Outline of the Organization of the Animal Kingdom=, and
Manual of Comparative Anatomy. By T. RYMER JONES, F.R.S., Professor
of Comparative Anatomy in King’s College, London; late Fullerian
Professor of Physiology to the Royal Institution of Great Britain,
&c. &c. Third Edition, 8vo, in the press.
=First Steps to Anatomy.= By JAMES L. DRUMMOND, M.D., Professor of
Anatomy and Physiology in the Belfast Royal Institution. With 12
Illustrative Plates. 12mo, 5_s._
=Great Artists and Great Anatomists=: a Biographical and
Philosophical Study. By R. KNOX, M.D., F.R.S.E. Post 8vo, 6_s._
6_d._
=Illustrations of Instinct=, deduced from the Habits of British
Animals. By JONATHAN COUCH, F.L.S., Member of the Royal Geological
Society, and of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, &c. Post 8vo,
8_s._ 6_d._
=Descriptive Ethnology.= By ROBERT GORDON LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S.,
Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge; Vice-President of the
Ethnological Society of London; Corresponding Member of the
Ethnological Society of New York. 2 vols. 8vo, £1 12_s._ The
Portion on Indian Ethnology, separate, 16_s._
_Other Works on Ethnology, by Dr. Latham._
=Natural History of the Varieties of Man.= 8vo, Illustrated, £1 1_s._
=Ethnology of Europe.= Foolscap 8vo, 5_s._
=Ethnology of the British Islands.= Foolscap 8vo, 5_s._
=Ethnology of the British Colonies and Dependencies.= Foolscap 8vo,
5_s._
=Man and his Migrations.= Foolscap 8vo, 5_s._
=Anatomical Manipulation;= or, The Methods of pursuing Practical
Investigations in Comparative Anatomy and Physiology. Also an
Introduction to the Use of the Microscope, &c. By ALFRED TULK,
M.R.C.S., M.E.S.; and ARTHUR HENFREY, F.L.S., M.Micr.S. With
Illustrative Diagrams. Foolscap 8vo, 9_s._
=The Powers of the Creator Displayed in the Creation;= or,
Observations on Life amidst the various forms of the Humbler Tribes
of Animated Nature; with Practical Comments and Illustrations. By
Sir JOHN GRAHAM DALYELL, Knt. and Bart. In 3 vols. 4to, containing
numerous Plates of living subjects, finely coloured, £10 10_s._
=Rare and Remarkable Animals of Scotland,= with Practical
Observations on their Nature. By Sir JOHN GRAHAM DALYELL, Knt. and
Bart. In 2 vols. 4to, containing 110 Coloured Plates, drawn from
the living subjects, £6 6_s._
=On the Variation of Species,= with especial reference to the
Insecta; followed by an Inquiry into the Nature of Genera. By T.
VERNON WOLLASTON, M.A., F.L.S. Post 8vo, 5_s._
=Manual of Natural History for the Use of Travellers;= being a
Description of the Families of the Animal and Vegetable Kingdoms,
with Remarks on the Practical Study of Geology and Meteorology. To
which are appended Directions for Collecting and Preserving. By
ARTHUR ADAMS, M.R.C.S.; W. BALFOUR BAIKIE, M.D.; and CHARLES
BARRON, Curator of the Royal Naval Museum at Haslar. Post 8vo,
12_s._
=Letters of Rusticus on Natural History.= Edited by EDWARD NEWMAN,
F.L.S., F.Z.S., &c. 8vo, 8_s._ 6_d._
JOHN VAN VOORST, 1 PATERNOSTER ROW.
=The Sea-side Book:= an Introduction to the Natural History of the
British Coasts. By W. H. HARVEY, M.D., M.R.I.A., &c. With a Chapter
on Fish and Fish Diet, by YARRELL. Foolscap 8vo, with 83 Woodcut
Illustrations, 4th Edition, 5_s._
=A History of the British Sea-Anemones and Madrepores.= With Coloured
Figures of all the Species. By PHILIP HENRY GOSSE, F.R.S. 8vo, £1
1_s._
=Handbook to the Marine Aquarium;= containing Practical Instructions
for Constructing, Stocking, and Maintaining a Tank, and for
Collecting Plants and Animals. By P. H. GOSSE, F.R.S. Foolscap 8vo,
Second Edition, 2_s._ 6_d._
=Manual of Marine Zoology of the British Isles.= By P. H.GOSSE,
F.R.S. Parts I. and II., 7_s._ 6_d._ each.
=A Naturalist’s Rambles on the Devonshire Coast.= By P. H. GOSSE,
F.R.S. With 28 Lithographic Plates, some coloured, post 8vo, One
Guinea.
=The Aquarium:= an Unveiling of the Wonders of the Deep Sea. By P. H.
GOSSE, F.R.S. Post 8vo, Illustrated, Second Ed. 17_s._
=The Canadian Naturalist.= By P. H. GOSSE, F.R.S. With 44
Illustrations of the most remarkable Animal and Vegetable
productions. Post 8vo, 12_s._
=Tenby: a Seaside Holiday.= By P. H. GOSSE, F.R.S. Post 8vo, with 24
Coloured Plates, 21_s._
=The Isle of Man;= its History, Physical, Ecclesiastical and
Legendary. By J. G. CUMMING, M.A., F.G.S. Post 8vo, 12_s._ 6_d._
=Natural History of the County of Stafford;= comprising its Geology,
Zoology, Botany, and Meteorology: also its Antiquities, Topography,
Manufactures, &c. By ROBERT GARNER, F.L.S. With a Geological Map
and other Illustrations, 8vo, with a Supplement, 10s. Price of the
Supplement, 2_s._ 6_d._
=The Natural History of Selborne.= By the late Rev. GILBERT WHITE,
M.A. A New Edition, with Notes by the Rev. LEONARD JENYNS, M.A.,
F.L.S., &c.; with 26 Illustrations, foolscap 8vo, 7_s._ 6_d._
=Travels in Lycia, Milyas, and the Cibyratis,= in company with the
late Rev. E. T. Daniell. By Lieut. SPRATT, R.N., and Professor
EDWARD FORBES. Two vols. 8vo, with numerous Illustrations,
including Views of the Scenery, Plans of Ancient Cities and
Buildings, Plates of Coins and Inscriptions, Cuts of Rock Tombs,
Fossils, and Geological Sections, and an original Map of Lycia.
36_s._
JOHN VAN VOORST, 1 PATERNOSTER ROW.
=Figures Illustrating the Structure of various Invertebrate= Animals
(Mollusks and Articulata). Six Plates and 8 pp. By ROBERT GARNER,
F.L.S., &c. Royal 8vo, 5_s._, sewed.
=Healthy Respiration.= By STEPHEN H. WARD, M.D. Foolscap 8vo, 1_s._
6_d._
=Tobacco and its Adulterations.= By HENRY P. PRESCOTT, of the Inland
Revenue Department. With upwards of 250 Illustrations drawn and
engraved on Forty Steel Plates. 8vo, 12_s._ 6_d._
=A Life of Linnæus.= By Miss BRIGHTWELL of Norwich. Foolscap 8vo,
3_s._ 6_d._
=Scenery, Science, and Art=; being Extracts from the Notebook of a
Geologist and Mining Engineer. By Professor D. T. ANSTED, M.A.,
F.R.S., &c. 8vo, with Woodcuts and Four Views in tinted
lithography, 10_s._ 6_d._
=Evening Thoughts.= By a PHYSICIAN. Post 8vo, Second Edition, 4_s._
6_d._
“We cannot help expressing a wish that these ‘Evening Thoughts’ may
not be the only contributions to general literature that we may
have from a mind so powerful, so cultivated, and so gentle as that
of the Physician whose pages we now close.”--_Guardian._
=Illustrations of Arts and Manufactures=; being a Selection from a Series
of Papers read before the Society for the Encouragement of Arts,
Manufactures, and Commerce. By ARTHUR AIKIN, F.L.S., F.G.S., &c., late
Secretary to that Institution. Foolscap 8vo, 8_s._
=The Poor Artist=; or, Seven Eye-Sights and One Object. “SCIENCE IN
FABLE.” Foolscap 8vo, with a Frontispiece, 5_s._
=Sunday Book for the Young=; or, Habits of Patriarchal Times in the East.
With Woodcuts, 2_s._ 6_d._ By ANNE BULLAR.
_Other Books for Young Persons, by Miss Bullar._
=Domestic Scenes in Greenland and Iceland.= With Woodcuts, 2_s._
Second Edition.
=England before the Norman Conquest.= 2_s._ 6_d._
=Elements of Practical Knowledge=; or, The Young Inquirer Answered.
Explaining in Question and Answer, and in familiar language, what
most things daily used, seen, or talked of, are; what they are made
of, where found, and to what uses applied. Including articles of
food and aliment; miscellanies in common use; metals, gems,
jewellery; and some account of the principal inventions and most
interesting manufactures. Second Edition, 18mo, with Illustrations,
3_s._ cloth.
ARCHITECTURE AND THE FINE ARTS, &c.
=Instrumenta Ecclesiastica=: a Series of Working Designs, engraved on
72 Plates, for the Furniture, Fittings, and Decorations of Churches
and their Precincts. Edited by the Ecclesiological, late Cambridge
Camden Society. 4to, £1 11_s._ 6_d._
The Second Series contains a Cemetery Chapel, with Sick-house and
Gateway Tower--A Wooden Church--A Chapel School--Schools and
School-houses--A Village Hospital--An Iron Church--And Designs for
Funeral Fittings, for Timber Belfries, and for a variety of Works
in Metal, Wood, and Stone. Price also £1 11_s._ 6_d._
=Baptismal Fonts.= A Series of 125 Engravings, examples of the
different periods, accompanied with Descriptions. With an
Introductory Essay by F. A. PALEY, M.A., Honorary Secretary of the
Cambridge Camden Society. 8vo, One Guinea.
=Treatise on the Rise and Progress of Decorated Window= Tracery in
England. By EDMUND SHARPE, M.A., Architect. 8vo, Illustrated with
97 Woodcuts and Six Engravings on steel, 10_s._ 6_d._ And a
=Series of Illustrations of the Window Tracery of the= Decorated
Style of Ecclesiastical Architecture. Edited, with descriptions, by
Mr. SHARPE. Sixty Engravings on steel, 8vo, 21_s._
=Heraldry of Fish.= By THOMAS MOULE. The Engravings, 205 in number, are
from Stained Glass, Tombs, Sculpture, and Carving, Medals and Coins,
Rolls of Arms, and Pedigrees. 8vo, 21_s._ A few on large paper (royal
8vo), for colouring, £2 2_s._
=Shakspeare’s Seven Ages of Man.= Illustrated by Wm. MULREADY, R.A.; J.
CONSTABLE, R.A.; SIR DAVID WILKIE, R.A.; W. COLLINS, R.A.; A. E. CHALON,
R.A.; A. COOPER, R.A.; SIR A. W. CALLCOTT, R.A.; EDWIN LANDSEER, R.A.;
W. HILTON, R.A. Post 8vo, 6_s._ A few copies of the First Edition in 4to
remain for sale.
=Gray’s Elegy in a Country Church-Yard.= Each Stanza illustrated with an
engraving on wood, from 33 original drawings. Elegantly printed, in post
8vo, 9_s._ cloth. (Small edition, 2_s._ 6_d._)
A Polyglot Edition of this volume, with interpaged Translations in the
Greek, Latin, German, Italian, and French languages. 12_s._
=Gray’s Bard.= With Illustrations by the Hon. Mrs. JOHN TALBOT. Post 8vo,
7_s._
=The Vicar of Wakefield.= With 32 Illustrations by WILLIAM MULREADY, R.A.;
engraved by JOHN THOMPSON. First reprint. Square 8vo, 10_s._ 6_d._
“And there are some designs in the volume in which art may justly
boast of having added something to even the exquisite fancy of
Goldsmith.”--_Examiner._
=Manual of Gothic Architecture.= By F. A. PALEY, M.A. With a full Account
of Monumental Brasses and Ecclesiastical Costume. Foolscap 8vo, with 70
Illustrations, 6_s._ 6_d._
“To the student of the architecture of old English churches this
beautiful little volume will prove a most acceptable
manual.”--_Spectator._
=Manual of Gothic Moldings.= A Practical Treatise on their formations,
gradual development, combinations, and varieties; with full directions
for copying them, and for determining their dates. Illustrated by nearly
600 examples. By F. A. PALEY, M.A. Second Edition, 8vo, 7_s._ 6_d._
“Mouldings are the scholarship of architecture.”--_Christian
Remembrancer._
=The Farmer’s Boy and other Rural Tales and Poems.= By ROBERT BLOOMFIELD.
Foolscap 8vo, 7_s._ 6_d._ With 13 Illustrations by Sidney Cooper,
Horsley, Frederick Tayler, and Thomas Webster, A.R.A.
=Watts’s Divine and Moral Songs.= With 30 Illustrations by C. W. COPE,
A.R.A.; engraved by JOHN THOMPSON. Square 8vo, 7_s._ 6_d._; copies bound
in morocco, One Guinea.
=The Economy of Human Life.= In Twelve Books. By R. DODSLEY. With Twelve
Plates, engraved on steel, from original designs, by Frank Howard,
Harvey, Williams, &c. 18mo, gilt edges, 5_s._
=Bibliographical Catalogue of Privately Printed Books.= By JOHN MARTIN,
F.S.A. Second Edition, 8vo, 21_s._
=The Currency under the Act of 1844=; together with Observations on Joint
Stock Banks, and the Causes and Results of Commercial Convulsions. From
the City Articles of “The Times.” 8vo, 6_s._
* * * * *
Students’ Class-Books.
MANUAL OF CHEMICAL QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS. By A. B. NORTHCOTE,
F.C.S., and ARTHUR H. CHURCH, F.C.S. Post 8vo, 10_s._ 6_d._
HANDBOOK OF CHEMICAL MANIPULATION. By C. GREVILLE WILLIAMS. 15_s._
ELEMENTARY COURSE OF GEOLOGY, MINERALOGY, AND PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY.
By Professor ANSTED, M.A., &c. Second Edition, 12_s._
ELEMENTARY COURSE OF BOTANY: Structural, Physiological, and
Systematic. By Professor HENFREY. 12_s._ 6_d._
MANUAL OF BRITISH BOTANY. By C. C. BABINGTON, M.A. &c. Fourth
Edition, 10_s._ 6_d._
GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM, by
Professor T. RYMER JONES. 8vo, Third Edition, in the press.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The great incorrectness, and occasional inconvenience of this name
will be seen in the sequel.
[2] See the chapter on the ethnology of Greece.
[3] In these notices of the characteristics of the different Spanish
districts, provinces, or kingdoms, I follow the “Handbook for Spain,”--a
work well known to be, for its kind, of more than ordinary value.
[4] I prefer this word to _Roman_, because it by no means follows that
because a settlement was made by a _Legion_ or a part of one, it was
therefore Roman.
[5] It would be more accurate to say that _Llocgyr_ was the Welsh name
of the supposed maritime parts of England.
[6] “_Taciti Germania, with Ethnological Notes_,” §. on the
Quasi-Germanic Gauls.
[7] “Lectures on the History of France,” i. 233, 234.
[8] Observe that the oldest name of the island is _Greek_.
[9] Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, clvi.
[10] Gulielmus Appulus, lib. i., from Gibbon, lvi.
[11] By Semitic is meant Jewish and Phœnician collectively.
[12] Lib. ii.
[13] This series of facts was recognized by Gibbon; is well illustrated
by Zeuss (see _Greek Slavonians_), and has been carried to an extreme
length by Fallermayer.
[14] Taciti Germania, xciv.
[15] See p. 160.
[16] Ermann--Prichard, vol. iv. p. 346.
[17] The details of this theory are given in the author’s “Germania of
Tacitus, with Ethnological Notes,” § _Goths_.
[18] “The Ethnology of the British Islands.”
[19] Island undersögt fra en lægevidenskabeligt Synspunct, af P. A.
Schleisner, M.D.
[20] Stockfleth--Bidrag til Kundskab om Finnerne i Norge.--1848.
[21] The “J” is pronounced “Y.”
[22] “The _Germania of Tacitus, with Ethnological Notes_,” Epilegomena
cxxxi.
[23] I may reasonably be charged with finding the name _Goth_ in
everything, in _Getæ_, _Gothi_, _Gothones_, _Gothini_, _Jutæ_, _Vitæ_,
and _Jats_. But as I care far more for processes than results a somewhat
sharp self-examination acquits me. Starting with the doctrine that
nothing is to be considered accidental which we can reasonably
investigate, I only demur to those conclusions which are incompatible
with undoubted facts. Is this the case with any of the deductions
hitherto laid before the reader? First let us look to them in respect to
the facts they assume. Of these the most startling is the presence of
Lithuanians in the Vithesleth and in India. Yet, if the oldest occupants
of the Danish Islands were not Germans, what were they likelier to have
been than Lithuanians, considering that Prussia was Lithuanic?
“Slavonians,” it may be answered. Granted; but the Slavonic character of
the Vithesleth is as much opposed to current notions as the Lithuanic.
Besides which, the difference is only one of detail. Then, as to the
Lithuanian elements in India. If we hesitate to deduce these from
Europe, we must deduce the Indian elements in Lithuania from Asia. There
is a difficulty either way. Then, as to the changes in the form of the
word. Take the two extremest forms, _Goth-_, and _Vit-_. Is this change
legitimate? The answer to this lies in the fact of the Russian form for
Master being _Gosp_-odar, whereas the Lithuanic is _Visp_-ati.
Since the chapter on the ethnology of Scandinavia was printed, Mr.
Worsaae has made me acquainted with a remarkable fact connected with the
Isle of Laaland, confirmatory of the belief of a Sarmatian population
partially, at least, in the Vithesleth. In the southern part of the
island some of the geographical terms are Slavonic, and in Saxo there is
the statement, that when the other Danes prepared an invasion against
their Wend, or Slavonic, enemies, of the continent, the Laalanders were
neither allowed to take a part in them, nor yet informed of their being
in contemplation; for fear lest they should communicate the news to the
_Wends_ (Slavonians).
[24] See p. 172.
[25] Or _Heten_.--See p. 248.
[26] Or _Ete_.--See p. 243.
[27] “This book ought to be largely circulated, not only on account of
its scientific merits--though these, as we have in part shown, are great
and signal--but because it is popularly written throughout, and
therefore likely to excite general attention to a subject which ought to
be held as one of primary importance. Every one is interested about
fishes--the political economist, the epicure, the merchant, the man of
science, the angler, the poor, the rich. We hail the appearance of this
book as the dawn of a new era in the Natural History of
England.”--_Quarterly Review_, No. 116.
* * * * *
Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:
all the popution=> all the population {pg 214}
unquestionbly=> unquestionably {pg 216}
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Ethnology of Europe" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.