Opuscula

On the Original Extent of the Slavonic Area

Read Before the Philological Society

MARCH 8, 1850.

The portion of the Slavonic frontier which will be considered this evening is the north-western, beginning with the parts about the Cimbric peninsula, and ending at the point of contact between the present kingdoms of Saxony and Bohemia; the leading physical link between the two extreme populations being the Elbe.

For this tract, the historical period begins in the ninth century. The classification which best shows the really westerly disposition of the Slavonians of this period, and which gives us the fullest measure of the extent to which, at that time at least, they limited the easterly extension of the Germans, is to divide them into—a. the Slavonians of the Cimbric peninsula; b. the Slavonians of the right bank of the Elbe; c. the Slavonians of the left bank of the Elbe; the first and last being the most important, as best showing the amount of what may be called the Slavonic protrusion into the accredited Germanic area.

a. The Slavonians of the Cimbric Peninsula.—Like the Slavonians that constitute the next section, these are on the right bank of the Elbe; but as they are north of that river rather than east of it, the division is natural.

The Wagrians.—Occupants of the country between the Trave and the upper portion of the southern branch of the Eyder.

The Polabi.—Conterminous with the Wagrians and the Saxons of Sturmar, from whom they were separated by the river Bille.

b. Slavonians of the right bank of the Elbe.—The Obodriti.—This is a generic rather than a specific term; so that it is probable that several of the Slavonic populations about to be noticed may be but subdivisions of the great Obotrit section. The same applies to the divisions already noticed—the Wagri and Polabi: indeed the classification is so uncertain, that we have, for these parts and times, no accurate means of ascertaining whether we are dealing with sub-divisions or cross-divisions of the Slavonians. At any rate the word Obotriti was one of the best-known of the whole list; so much so, that it is likely, in some cases, to have equalled in import the more general term Wend. The varieties of orthography and pronunciation may be collected from Zeuss (in voce), where we find Obotriti, Obotritæ, Abotriti, Abotridi, Apodritæ, Abatareni, Apdrede, Abdrede, Abtrezi. Furthermore, as evidence of the generic character of the word, we find certain East-Obotrits (Oster-Abtrezi), conterminous with the Bulgarians, as well as the North-Obotrits (Nort-Abtrezi), for the parts in question. These are the northern districts of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, from the Trave to the Warnow, chiefly along the coast. Zeuss makes Schwerin their most inland locality. The Descriptio Civitatum gives them fifty-three towns.

In the more limited sense of the term, the Obotrits are not conterminous with any German tribe, being separated by the Wagri and Polabi. Hence when Alfred writes Norðan Eald-Seaxum is Apdrede, he probably merges the two sections last-named in the Obotritic.

Although not a frontier population, the Obotrits find place in the present paper. They show that the Wagri and Polabi were not mere isolated and outlying portions of the great family to which they belonged, but that they were in due continuity with the main branches of it.

Varnahi.—This is the form which the name takes in Adam of Bremen. It is also that of the Varni, Varini, and Viruni of the classical writers; as well as of the Werini of the Introduction to the Leges Angliorum et Werinorum, hoc est Thuringorum. Now whatever the Varini of Tacitus may have been, and however much the affinities of the Werini were with the Angli, the Varnahi of Adam of Bremen are Slavonic.

c. Cis-Albian Slavonians.—Beyond the boundaries of the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg, the existence of Germans on the right bank of the Elbe is nil.

With Altmark the evidence of a Slavonic population changes, and takes strength. The present Altmark is not German, as Kent is Saxon, but only as Cornwall is, i. e. the traces of the previous Slavonic population are like the traces of the Celtic occupants of Cornwall, the rule rather than the exception. Most of the geographical names in Altmark are Slavonic, the remarkable exception being the name of the Old March itself.

The Slavono-German frontier for the parts south of Altmark becomes so complex as to require to stand over for future consideration. All that will be done at present is to indicate the train of reasoning applicable here, and applicable along the line of frontier. If such was the state of things in the eighth and ninth centuries, what reason is there for believing it to have been otherwise in the previous ones? The answer is the testimony of Tacitus and others in the way of external, and certain etymologies, &c. in the way of internal, evidence. Without at present saying anything in the way of disparagement to either of these series of proofs, the present writer, who considers that the inferences which have generally been drawn from them are illegitimate, is satisfied with exhibiting the amount of à priori improbability which they have to neutralize. If, when Tacitus wrote, the area between the Elbe and Vistula was not Slavonic, but Gothic, the Slavonians of the time of Charlemagne must have immigrated between the second and eighth centuries; must have done so, not in parts, but for the whole frontier; must have, for the first and last time, displaced a population which has generally been the conqueror rather than the conquered; must have displaced it during one of the strongest periods of its history; must have displaced it everywhere, and wholly; and (what is stranger still) that not permanently—since from the time in question, those same Germans, who between A.D. 200 and A.D. 800 are supposed to have always retreated before the Slavonians, have from A.D. 800 to A.D. 1800 always reversed the process and encroached upon their former dispossessors.

Addenda (1859)

(1)

The details of the Slavonic area to the south of Altmark are as follows.

Brandenburg, at the beginning of the historical period, was Slavonic, and one portion of it, the Circle of Cotbus, is so at the present moment. It is full of geographical names significant in the Slavonic languages. Of Germans to the East of the Elbe there are no signs until after the time of Charlemagne. But the Elbe is not even their eastern boundary. The Saale is the river which divides the Slavonians from the Thuringians—not only at the time when its drainage first comes to be known, but long afterwards. More than this, there were, in the 11th and 12th centuries, Slavonians in Thuringia, Slavonians in Franconia—facts which can be found in full in Zeuss vv. Fränkische und Thüringische Slawen—(Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme).

Saxony brings us down to the point with which the preceding paper concluded viz: the frontier of Bohemia. This was in the same category with Brandenburg. In Leipzig Slavonic was spoken A. D. 1327. In Lusatia it is spoken at the present moment. When were the hypothetical Germans of all these parts eliminated, or (if not eliminated) amalgamated with a population of intruders who displaced their language, not on one spot or on two, but every where?

If the Slavonians of the time of Charlemagne were indigenous to the western portion of their area, they were, a fortiori, indigenous to the eastern. At any rate, few who hold that the German populations of Bohemia, Mecklenburg, Luneburg, Altmark, Brandenburg, Saxony, Silesia, and Lusatia are recent, will doubt their being so in Pomerania.

In his Edition of the Germania of Tacitus the only Germans east of the Elbe, Saale and the Fichtel Gebirge, recognised by the present writer are certain intrusive Marcomanni; who (by hypothesis) derived from Thuringia, reached the Danube by way of the valley of Naab, and pressed eastward to some point unknown—but beyond the southern frontier of Moravia. Here they skirted the Slavonic populations of the north, and formed to their several areas the several Marches from which they took their name.

As far as we have gone hitherto we have gone in the direction of the doctrine that the Slavonians of Franconia, Thuringia, Saxony, Altmark, Luneburg, Mecklenburg, Holstein, and Brandenburg &c. were all old occupants of the districts in which they were found in the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries; also that the present Czekhs of Bohemia and Moravia, the present Serbs of Lusatia and Brandenburg, the present Kassubs of Pomerania, and the present Slovaks of Hungary represent aboriginal populations. We now ask how far this was the case with the frontagers of North-eastern Italy, and the Slavonians of Carinthia and Carniola. The conclusion to which we arrive in respect to these will apply to those of Bosnia, Servia, and Dalmatia.

That the Carinthians and Carniolans were the descendants of the Carni of the Alpes Carnicæ would never have been doubted but for the following statements—“The Krobati who now occupy the parts in the direction of Delmatia are derived from the Unbaptized Krobati, the Krovati Aspri so-called; who dwelt on the otherside of Turkey, and near France, conterminous with the Unbaptized Slaves—i. e. the Serbi. The word Krobati is explained by the dialect of the Slaves. It means the possessors of a large country”—Constantinus Porphyrogeneta—De Adm. Imp. 31. ed. Par. p. 97.

Again—“But the Krobati dwelt then in the direction of Bagivareia” (Bavaria) “where the Belokrobati are now. One tribe (γενεὰ) separated. Five brothers led them. Clukas, and Lobelos, and Kosentes, and Muklô, and Krobatos, and two sisters, Tuga and Buga. These with their people came to Delmatia—The other Krobati stayed about France, and are called Belokrobati, i. e. Aspri Krobati, having their own leader. They are subject to Otho the great king of France and Saxony. They continue Unbaptized, intermarrying” (συμπενθερίας καὶ ἀγάπας ἔχοντες) “with the Turks”—c. 30. p. 95.—The statement that the Kroatians of Dalmatia came from the Asprocroatians is repeated. The evidence, however, lies in the preceding passages; upon which it is scarcely necessary to remark that bel=white in Slavonic, and aspro=white in Romaic.

So much for the Croatians. The evidence that the Servians were in the same category, is also Constantine’s.—“It must be understood that the Servians are from the Unbaptized Servians, called also Aspri, beyond Turkey, near a place called Boiki, near France—just like the Great Crobatia, also Unbaptized and White. Thence, originally, came the Servians”—c. 32. p. 99.

In the following passages the evidence improves—“The same Krobati came as suppliants to the Emperor Heraclius, before the Servians did the same, at the time of the inroads of the Avars—By his order these same Krobati having conquered the Avars, expelled them, occupied the country they occupied, and do so now”—c. 31. p. 97.

Their country extended from the River Zentina to the frontier of Istria and, thence, to Tzentina and Chlebena in Servia. Their towns were Nona, Belogradon, Belitzein, Scordona, Chlebena, Stolpon, Tenen, Kori, Klaboca—(c. 31. p. 97. 98). Their country was divided into 11. Supan-rics (Ζουπανιας).

They extended themselves. From the Krobati “who came into Dalmatia a portion detached themselves, and conquered the Illyrian country and Pannonia” (c. 30 p. 95).

The further notices of the Servians are of the same kind. Two brothers succeeded to the kingdom, of which one offered his men and services to Heraclius, who placed them at first in the Theme Thessalonica, where they grew homesick, crossed the Danube about Belgrade, repented, turned back, were placed in Servia, in the parts occupied by the Avars, and, finally, were baptized. (c. 32. p. 99.)

It is clear that all this applies to the Slavonians of Croatia, Bosnia, Servia, and Slavonia—i. e. the triangle at the junction of the Save and Danube. It has no application to Istria, Carniola, Carinthia, and Styria. Have any writers so applied it? Some have, some have not. More than this, many who have never applied it argue just as if they had. Zeuss, especially stating that the Slavonic population of the parts in question was earlier than that of Croatia, still, makes it recent. Why? This will soon be seen. At present, it is enough to state that it is not by the direct application of the passage in Porphyrogeneta that the antiquity of the Slavonic character of the Carinthians, Carniolans, and Istrians is impugned.

The real reason lies in the fact of the two populations being alike in other respects. What is this worth? Something—perhaps, much. Which way, however, does it tell? That depends on circumstances. If the Croatians be recent, the Carinthians should be so too. But what if the evidence make the Carinthians old? Then, the recency of the Croatians is impugned. Now Zeuss (vv. Alpenslawen, Carantani, and Creinarii) distinctly shews that there were Slavonians in the present districts before the time of Heraclius—not much before, but still before. Why not much? “They came only a little before”, inasmuch as Procopius “gives us nothing but the old names Carni, and Norici”. But what if these were Slavonic?

The present meaning of the root Carn- is March, just as it is in U-krain. In a notice of the year A. D. 974 we find “quod Carn-iola vocatur, et quod vulgo vocatur Creina marcha”, the Slavonic word being translated into German. Such a fact, under ordinary circumstances would make the Carn- in Alpes Carn-icæ, a Slavonic gloss; as it almost certainly is. I do not, however, know the etymologist who has claimed it. Zeuss does not—though it is from his pages that I get the chief evidence of its being one.

Croatia, Bosnia, and Servia now come under the application of the Constantine text.

Let it pass for historical; notwithstanding the length of time between its author and the events which it records.

Let it pass for historical, notwithstanding the high probability of Crobyzi, a word used in Servia before the Christian æra, being the same as Krobati.

Let it pass for historical, notwithstanding the chances that it is only an inference from the presence of an allied population on both sides of Pannonia.

Let it pass for historical, notwithstanding the leadership of the five brothers (one the eponymus Krobatos) and the two sisters.

Let it do this, and then let us ask how it is to be interpreted. Widely or strictly? We see what stands against it viz: the existing conditions of three mountainous regions exhibiting the signs of being the occupancies of an aboriginal population as much as any countries on the face of the earth.

What then is the strict interpretation? Even this—that Heraclius introduced certain Croatians from the north into the occupancies of the dispossessed Avars apparently as military colonies. Does this mean that they were the first of their lineage? By no means. The late emperor of Russian planted Slavonic colonies of Servians in Slavonic Russia. Metal upon metal is false heraldry; but it does not follow that Slave upon Slave is bad ethnology.

With such a full realization of the insufficiency of the evidence which makes Bohemia, Carinthia, Servia &c. other than Slavonic ab initio, we may proceed to the ethnology of the parts to the west, and southwest—the Tyrol, Northern Italy, Switzerland, Bavaria, and Wurtemberg. In respect to these, we may either distribute them among the populations of the frontier, or imagine for them some fresh division of the population of Europe, once existent, but now extinct. We shall not, however, choose this latter alternative unless we forget the wholesome rule which forbids us to multiply causes unnecessarily.

Let us say, then, that the southern frontier of the division represented by the Slavonians of Carniola was originally prolonged until it touched that of the northernmost Italians. In like manner, let the Styrian and Bohemian Slaves extend till they meet the Kelts of Gaul. With this general expression I take leave of this part of the subject—a subject worked out in detail elsewhere (Edition of Prichard’s Eastern origin of the Celtic Nation, and The Germania of Tacitus with Ethnological Notes,—Native Races of the Russian Empire &c.).

The northern and eastern frontiers of the Slavonians involve those of (1) Ugrians, (2) the Lithuanians.

In respect to the former, I think a case can be made out for continuing the earliest occupancy of the populations represented by the Liefs of Courland, and the Rahwas of Estonia to the Oder at least; perhaps further. This means along the coast. Their extent inland is a more complex question. The so called Fin hypothesis in its full form is regarded, by the present writer, as untenable. But between this and a vast extension of the Fin area beyond its present bounds there is a great difference. It is one thing to connect the Basks of Spain with the Khonds of India; another to bring the Estonians as far west as the Oder, or even as the Elbe. It is one thing to make an allied population occupant of Sweden, Spain, and Ireland; another to refer the oldest population of western Russia to the stock to which the eastern undeniably belongs. This latter is a mere question of more or less. The other is a difference, not of kind, but of degree. With this distinction we may start from the most southern portion of the present Ugrian area; which is that of the Morduins in the Government of Penza. Or we may start from the most western which is that of the Liefs of Courland. What are the traces of Fin occupancy between these and the Vistula and Danube—the Vistula westward, the Danube on the South. How distinct are they? And of what kind? We cannot expect them to be either obvious or numerous. Say that they are the vestiges of a state of things that has passed away a thousand years, and we only come to the time of Nestor. Say that they are doubly so old, and we have only reached the days of Herodotus; in whose time there had been a sufficient amount of encroachment and displacement to fill the southern Governments of Russia with Scythians of Asiatic origin. The Britons were the occupants of Kent at the beginning of our æra. How faint are the traces of them. We must regulate, then, our expectations according to the conditions of the question. We must expect to find things just a little more Ugrian than aught else.

From that part of Russia which could, even a thousand years ago, exhibit an indigenous population we must subtract all those districts which were occupied by the Scythians. We do not know how much comes under this category. We only know that the Agathyrsi were in Hungary, and that they were, probably, intruders. We must substract the Governments of Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, and Taurida at the very least—much of each if not all. That this is not too much is evident from the expressed opinions of competent investigators. Francis Newman carries the Scythia of Herodotus as far as Volhynia, and, in Volhynia, there were Cumanian Turks as late as the 11th century. Say, however that the aborigines were not Fins. At any rate they were not the ancestors of the present Russians—and it is the original area of these that we are now considering. In the North there were Fins when Novorogod, and in the East Fins when Moscow, was founded. In Koursk, writes Haxthausen, there is a notable difference in the physiognomy of the inhabitants; the features being Fin rather than Slavonic.

I now notice the name of Roxolani. Prichard and, doubtless, others besides see in this a Fin gloss, the termination -lani being the termination -lainen in Suomelainen, Hamelainen and several other Fin words, i. e. a gentile termination. It does not follow from this that the people themselves were Fins. It only follows that they were in a Fin neigbourhood. Some one who spoke a language in which the form in -lain- was used to denote the name of a people was on their frontier, and this frontier must have been South of that of the Roxolani themselves—else how did it come to the ears of the Greeks and Romans? If this were not the case, then was the name native, and the Roxolani were Ugrian. In either case we have a Fin gloss, and a Fin locality suggested by it. Now the country of the Roxolani either reached, or approached, the Danube.

In the account of Herodotus a population named Neuri occupied a marshy district at the back of the Scythian area; probably the marshes of Pinsk. This is, perhaps, a Fin gloss. The town of Narym in the Ostiak country takes its name from the marshes round it.

The Lithuanian language avoids the letter f.—using p. instead; sometimes m. The Greek φιλεω is mylu in Lithuanic. The name, then, that a Fin locality would take in the mouth of a Lithuanian would not be Finsk but Minsk, or Pinsk, and these are the names we find on what I think was, at one time, the Finno-Lithuanic frontier.

I should add that the Kour- in Kour-sk seems to be the Kour- in Kour-land, the Kor- in Kor-alli (a Fin population of the Middle Ages), and the Car- in the eminently, and almost typically, Fin Karelians.

This is not much in the way of evidence. Much or little, however, it is more than can be got for any other population. Much or little it is got at by a very cursory investigation. No special research has been instituted. No tumulus has been appealed to. No local dialect has been analysed. No ordnance map has been pored over. All this will, doubtless, be done in time, and if, when it has been done, no confirmation of the present doctrine be found, the propounder will reconsider it. If the evidence point elsewhere he will abandon it. At present he brings the early Fin frontier to Minsk and Pinsk:

There it touched that of the Lithuanians. To make these the most eastern members of the Sarmatian stock is, at the first view, to fly in the face of the testimony of their present position. They are, in one sense, the most western. The Germans of Prussia touch them on the side of Europe. Between them and the Fins of Asia, the vast Russian area of the Governments of Smolensko, Novogorod &c. intervene. Speaking laxly, one may say that all Russia lies beyond them. Nevertheless, it is with the Fins of Estonia that they are also in contact; whilst the explanation of the German and Russian contact is transparently clear. The Germans (as a matter of history) cut their way through whole masses of Slavonians in Pomerania, before they reached them; so displacing the Slavonians to the west of them. The Russians (again a matter of history) pressed up to them by a circuit from the south and west. The Lithuanians have kept their position—but one population has stretched beyond, and another has pressed up to them. Their language is eminently akin to the Sanskrit. Their physiognomy is the most Fin of any thoroughly European population.

There were no Slavonians, in situ, to the East of the Lithuanic area; none originally. By encroachment and change of place there are, in later times, many. There are, as aforesaid, all the Russians of the present moment. The question, however, before us is the original area, the primordial situs.

The westward extension of the Lithuanians is a matter upon which I do not press the details. I think that the Vistula may have been to them and the Slavonians what the Rhine was to the Gauls and Germans. The main question is how far can we bring them south? What justifies us in making them reach the Carpathians? At present we find them in Livonia, Courland, East Prussia, Vilna, and Grodno; but further south than Grodno nowhere; nowhere, at least, with the definite characteristics of name and language. Every inch that is given them south of Grodno must have its proper evidence to support it.

The Gothini of Tacitus are the first population that we may make Lithuanic. What says Tacitus? They were not Germans; their language proved this. They were not Sarmatians. The Sarmatians imposed a tribute upon, as on men of another stock—tributa ut alienigenis imponunt. The Quadi did the same. If neither Germans nor Sarmatians what were they? Members of a stock now extinct? The rule against the unnecessary multiplication of causes forbids us to resort to this supposition. Do so once and we may always be doing it. Were they Fins? Say that they were, and what do we gain by it? We may as well prolong the Lithuania area from Grodno as the Fin from Pinsk. Nay, better. That Grodno is Lithuanian we know. That Pinsk was Fin we infer. Were they Scythians? We know of no Scythians beyond the Maros; so that the reasoning which told against the Fin hypothesis tells equally against the Turk. Beyond the Germans, the Slavonians, the Fins, the6Turks, and the Lithuanians we have nothing to choose from; and I submit that the minimum amount of assumption lies with the population last named.

Now comes the name of their Language. The Language of the Gothini was Gallica—Osos Pannonica, Gothinos Gallica arguit non esse Romanos. I have given reasons elsewhere (Germania of Tacitus with Ethnological notes) for translating Gallica Gallician,—not Gallic. Say, however, that the latter is the better translation; Gothini would still be the name of the people.

There is a country, then, of the Gothini sufficiently far south to be in contact with the Quadi and Sarmatæ—the Quadi in Moravia and Upper Hungary, the Sarmatæ in the parts between the Theiss and the Danube. Gallicia meets these conditions. It was a mining country. Gallicia is this. It was on the Upper Vistula—probably at its head-waters. At the mouth of the same river the name re-appears, in that of the Gothones, Guttones, Gythones &c. of the Amber country. These were either the nearest neighbours of the Aestyii, or the Aestyii themselves under a name other than German—for Aestyii is an undoubted German gloss, just like Est- in Est- onia.

Are we justified in identifying these two populations on the strength of the name? No. What we are justified in doing, however, is this. We are justified in placing on the frontier of both a language in which the root Goth- was part of a national name.

At the beginning of the historical period these Gothones were the Lithaunians of East Prussia, and their neighbours called them Guddon. They were the congeners of those Lithuanians whose area, even now, extents as far south as Grodno.

It is easy to connect the Gothones with Grodno; but what connects Grodno with Gothinian Gallicia? What can connect it now? All is Polish or Russian. What are the proofs that it was not so from the beginning? The following—the populations between Grodno and the frontier of Gallicia, appear, for the first time in history in the 13th century; but not as Poles, nor yet as Russians, but as Lithuanians—“cum Pruthenica et Lithuanica lingua habens magna ex parte similitudinem et intelligentiam”—“lingua, ritu, religione, et moribus magnam habebat cum Lithuanis, Pruthenis et Samogitis” (the present Lithuanians of East Prussia) “conformitatem”.

We cannot bring these quite down to Gallicia; and this is not to be wondered at. The first notice we have of them is very nearly the last as well. The narrative which gives us the preceding texts is the narrative of their subjugation and extinction.

What was the name of this people? I premise that we get it through a double medium, the Latin, and the Slavonic—the latter language always being greatly disguised in its adaptation to the former. The commonest form is Jaczwingi (Lat.) Jatwyazi (Slavonic); then (in documents) Getuin-zitæ, a word giving the root Gothon-. Finally, we have “Pollexiani Getharum seu Prussorum gens”.

Such are the reasons for connecting the Gothini of the Marcomannic frontier with the Gothini of the Baltic, and also for making both (along with the connecting Jaczwingi) Lithuanians. This latter point, however, is unessential to the present investigation; which simply considers the area of the Slavonians. For the parts north of the Carpathians, it was limited by a continuous line of Gothini, Getuinzitæ, and Gothones. Whatever those were they were not Slavonic.

Such is the sketch of the chief reasons for believing that originally the Vistula (there or thereabouts) was the boundary of the Slavonians on the North East; a belief confirmed by the phenomena of the languages spoken, at the present moment, beyond that river. They fall into few dialects; a fact which is prima facie evidence of recent introduction. The Polish branch shews itself in varieties and subvarieties on its western frontier; the Russian on its southern and south-eastern. The further they are found East and North, the newer they are.

I may add that I find no facts in the special ethnology of the early Poles, that complicate this view. On the contrary, the special facts, such as they are, are confirmatory rather than aught else of the western origin and the eastern direction, of a Polish line of encroachment, migration, occupancy, displacement, invasion, or conquest. Under the early kings of the blood of Piast (an individual wholly unhistoric), the locality for their exploits and occupancies is no part of the country about the present capital, Warsaw; but the district round Posen and Gnesen; this being the area to which the earliest legends attach themselves.

Where this is not the case, where the Duchy of Posen or Prussian Poland does not give us the earliest signs of Polish occupancy, the parts about Cracow do. At any rate, the legends lie in the west and south rather than in the east; on the Saxon or the Bohemian frontier rather than the Lithuanic.

The Slavonic area south of the Carpathians gives us a much more complex question—one, indeed, too complex to investigate it in all its bearings.

That there were both Slavonians and Lithuanians in Dacia, Lower Mœsia, Thrace, and, even, Macedon is nearly certain—and that early. Say that they were this at the beginning of the historical period. It will, by no means, make them aboriginal.

Such being the case I limit myself to the statement that, at the beginning of the historical period, the evidence and reasoning that connects the Thracians with the Getæ, the Getæ with the Daci, and the Daci with the Sarmatian stock in general is sufficient. Whether it makes them indigenous to their several areas is another question. It is also another question whether the relationship between them was so close as the current statements make it. These identify the Getæ and Daci. I imagine that they were (there or thereabouts) as different as the Bohemians and the Lithuanians—the Getic Lithuanians, and the Dacian (Daci=Τζαχοι) Czekhs; both, however being Sarmatian.

I also abstain from the details of a question of still greater importance and interest viz: the extent to which a third language of the class which contains the Slavonian and Lithuanic may or may not have been spoken in the parts under notice. There was room for it in the parts to the South of the Fin, and the east of the Lithuanic, areas. There was room for it in the present Governments of Podolia, and Volhynia, to say nothing of large portions of the drainage of the Lower Danube. The language of such an area, if its structure coincided with its geographical position would be liker the Lithuanic and the most eastern branch of the Slavonic than any other Languages of the so-called Indo-European Stock. It would also be more Sarmatian than either German or Classical. Yet it would be both Classical and German also, on the strength of the term Indo-European. It would be the most Asiatic of the tongues so denominated; with some Ugrian affinities, and others with the languages in the direction of Armenia, and Persia. It would be a language, however, which would soon be obliterated; in as much as the parts upon which we place it were, at an early date, overrun by Scythians from the East, and Slavonians from the West. When we know Volhynia, it is Turk, and Polish,—anything but aboriginal. Such a language, however, might, in case the populations who spoke it had made early conquests elsewhere, be, still, preserved to our own times. Or it might have been, at a similarly early period, committed to writings; the works in which it was embodied having come down to us. If so, its relations to its congeners would be remarkable. They would only be known in a modern, it only in an ancient, form. Such being the case the original affinity might be disguised; especially if the transfer of the earlier language had been to some very distant and unlikely point.

I will now apply this hypothetical series of arguments. 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 or 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 the distant and disconnected Lithuanian.

As to the Lithuanian, it has, of course, its closest affinities with the Slavonic tongues of Russia, Bohemia, Poland, and Servia, as aforesaid. And 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 the Lithuanic is more or less connected with them.

Now, the botanist who, found in Asia, extended over a comparatively small area, a single species, belonging to a genus which covered two-thirds of Europe (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) would pronounce the genus to be European. The zoologist, in a case of zoology, would do the same.

Mutatis mutandis, the logic of the philologue should be that of the naturalist. Yet it is not.

1. The area of Asiatic languages in Asia allied to the ancient Language of India, 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 Indian division only; whereas in Europe it falls into three divisions, each of, at least, equal value with the single Asiatic one.

Nevertheless, the so-called Indo-European languages are deduced from Asia.

I do not ask whether, as a matter of fact, this deduction is right or wrong. I only state, as a matter of philological history, that it is made, adding that the hypothesis which makes it is illegitimate. It rests on the assumption that it is easier to bring a population from India to Russia than to take one from Russia to India. In the case of the more extreme language of which it takes cognisance this postulate becomes still more inadmissible. It assumes, in the matter of the Keltic (for instance), that it is easier to bring the people of Galway from the Punjab, than the tribes of the Punjab from Eastern Europe. In short, it seems to be a generally received rule amongst investigators, that so long as we bring our migration from east to west we may let a very little evidence go a very long way; whereas, so soon as we reverse the process, and suppose a line from west to east, the converse becomes requisite, and a great deal of evidence is to go but a little way. The effect of this has been to create innumerable Asiatic hypotheses and few or no European ones. Russia may have been peopled from Persia, or Lithuania from Hindostan, or Greece from Asia, or any place west of a given meridian from any place east of it—but the converse, never. No one asks for proofs in the former case; or if he do, he is satisfied with a very scanty modicum: whereas, in the latter, the best authenticated statements undergo stringent scrutiny. Inferences fare worse. They are hardly allowed at all. It is all “theory and hypothesis” if we resort to them in cases from west to east; but it is no “theory” and no “hypothesis” when we follow the sun and move westwards.

Let the two lines be put on a level, and let ethnographical philology cease to be so one-sided as it is. Let the possibility of a Western origin of the Sanskrit language take its natural place as the member of an alternative hitherto ignored. I do not say what will follow in the way of historical detail. I only say (in the present paper at least) that the logic of an important class of philological questions will be improved. As it stands at present, it is little more than a remarkable phenomenon in the pathology of the philological mind, a symptom of the morbid condition of the scientific imagination of learned men.

Turning westwards we now take up the Slovenians of Carinthia and Styria on their western frontier, not forgetting the southermost of the Czekhs of Bohemia. How far did the Slavonic area extend in the direction of Switzerland, Gaul, and Italy?

In the Tyrol we have such geographical names as Scharn-itz, Gshnitz-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 other than Slavonic.

Again—a Slavonic population in the Vorarlberg and Southern Bavaria best accounts for the name Vind-elicia.

If the Slavonians are aboriginal, and if the Czekhs are the same, the decisive evidence that, within the historical period, they have both receded is in favor of their respective areas having originally been greater than they are at present. Such being the case, we may bring them both further south and further west. How far? This is a question of minute detail, not to be answered off-hand. The rule of parsimony, however, by which we are forbidden to multiply stocks unnecessarily, carries them to the frontier of the Gauls in one direction, and the Italians on the other.

If so, there may have been Slavonians on the frontier of Liguria. More than this the Rhæti may have been Slavonic also. But many make the Etruscans Rhætian. Is it possible however, that even the Etruscans were Slavonic?

I know of numerous opinions against their being so. I know of no facts.