of classes. We may even admit the consideration of certain external circumstances, such as literary development, and political separation. This makes the arrangement more or less artificial.

Be this, however, as it may, the following is a classification of the kind in question.

a. The Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian dialects (written and unwritten), the Faroic and the Icelandic, form the Scandinavian branch of the Gothic stock.

b. The Frisian, Old-Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, English, Lowland Scotch, Dutch of Holland, Platt-Deutsch, and High German, form the Teutonic branch of the same.

Of course these again fall into subdivisions, according to the date of the specimen, e.g., there is the Old Frisian, Middle Frisian, and New Frisian; Semi-Saxon, Old English, Middle English, and Modern English; the Moso-Gothic, Alemannic, &c.

The disadvantage of this method is that, in attempting to draw definite lines of demarcation between the different divisions, it disturbs the history of the languages, and disguises the order of their evolution. Thus the Frisian, a member of the Teutonic branch, is undoubtedly more like certain Scandinavian dialects than it is to the more extreme members of its own division.

Such being the case, a fresh view is required, and this is best given by placing the tongues in a linear series according to their affinities, and treating them as if (as is really the case) they passed into each other by insensible degrees.

Hence, the more convenient, as well as the more natural series, is that of the first chapter, viz.

1. Norse. 2. Frisian. 3. Old Saxon. 4. Anglo-Saxon. 5, 6. Platt-Deutsch and the Dutch of Holland. 7. High German. 8. Maso-Gothic.

The general characteristics of these divisions and subdivisions of the Gothic tongues, in respect to the differences of their systems of elementary sounds, their grammatical structure, and their vocabularies, are in the department of philology. One or two isolated points, however, have a practical bearing upon certain ethnological details.

1. The use of p and k for b and g respectively is High German rather than Low, and of the High German dialects more particularly Bavarian.

And, on the strength of the assumption which this letterchange allows :—

PLATT-DEUTSCH.

HIGH GERMAN.

Catti ...

Hesse, &c.

What applies to the Platt-Deutsch, generally, applies a fortiori to the Saxon, Frisian, and Norse.

3. The Frisian chiefly differs from the Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon in the forms of the plural noun and in the termination of the infinitive mood.

The plurals which in Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon end in -8, in Frisian end in -r.

The infinitives, which in Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon end in -an, in Frisian end in -a.

4. In Norse the preference for the sound of -r to -s, and of -a to -an is carried further than even in Frisian.

5. But the great characteristics of the Norse tongues, as opposed to the Frisian, and, a fortiori, to all the others, are,

the so called passive voice, and the so-called post-positive article.

a. The reflective pronoun sik=se = self coalesces with the verb, and so forms a reflective termination. In the later stages this reflective (or middle) becomes passive in power. Kalla call, and sig= self. Hence come kalla sig, kallasc, kallast, kallas; so that in the modern Swedish jag kallas = I am called=vocor.

=

b. The definite article in Norse not only follows its substantive, but amalgamates with it; e.g., bord=table, hit= the or that; bord-et the table (board).

If higher groups than those already suggested be required, we may say that—

1. The Norse branch contains the Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Faroic, and Icelandic.

2. The Saxon branch, the Old Frisian, the Old Saxon, the Anglo-Saxon, and their respective descendants.

3. The German Proper, the Platt-Deutsch (and Dutch of Holland), the High German, and the Maso-Gothic.

The paramount fact, however, is, the transitional character of the Frisian in respect to the Norse.

SIV. ON THE VALUE OF LANGUAGE AS A TEST OF ETHNOLOGICAL

RELATIONSHIP.

Such prominence has been given to the phenomena of language and dialect in the preceding pages, that it may not be superfluous to justify the exclusive attention which has been directed to them; and in doing this a qualification of their value as tests of relationship will be added.

It would be an undue exaggeration of the importance of the philological method to say, that it should supersede all others, and that the degrees of similarity in language exactly coincided with the degrees of ethnological relationship. They are prima facie evidence of this strong primá facie evidence-but nothing more.

Taking the world at large, there are numerous well-known and extreme instances of a native language having been unlearned, and a foreign one adopted in its stead; e.g., the

Blacks of St. Domingo speak French and Spanish. But, not to go so far, no man believes that every inhabitant of the British Principality who speaks English, to the exclusion of Welsh, is as Anglo-Saxon in blood and pedigree as he is in tongue. Neither does he think this in respect to his Scotch and Irish fellow-citizens. Indeed, every man who, being born of parents of different nations, speaks only one language, is more national in his speech than he is in his origin.

Within the limits of Germany itself this distinction is not only well illustrated, but it must necessarily be borne in mind.

What is the history of our own language? Throughout the whole length and breadth of continental Germany there is not only no dialect that can be called English, but — undeniably as our Anglo-Saxon mother-tongue was German in origin― there is no dialect which can be said to have originated in the same source; no descendant of the Angle form of speech.

The same applies to the allied dialect of the Old Saxons. Where that was once spoken, Platt-Deutsch and High German are now the exclusive idioms; no descendants from anything Saxon, but descendants from members of the Proper German groups.

Extinct as are these two dialects, it is by no reasonable to imagine a similar extinction of Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon blood. Difficult as the traces of it are to detect, they may fairly be supposed to exist.

What applies to the Anglo-Saxon and the Old-Saxon applies to the Maso-Gothic also.

Though no existing dialect can be traced to it, it cannot be doubted but that the blood of the ancestors of the OstroGoths and Visi-Goths must run in the veins of some southern Germans-few or many as the case may be.

Hence the evidence of language is prima facie evidence only.

Such is the measure of its absolute value-a measure which subtracts from its importance.

But what if language be the only test we have; or, if not the only one, the one whose value transcends that of all the

rest put together. In such a case, it regains its importance; its relative value being thus heightened.

And such is the fact. No differences of physical appearance, intellectual habits, or moral characteristics will give us the same elements of classification that we find in the study of the Germanic languages and dialects. They may, perhaps, have done so once, when there was a variety of Pagan creeds and several self-evolved and, consequently, characteristic laws. But they do not do so now. A value they have, but that value is a subordinate one.

§ v. PRESENT

DISTRIBUTION AND

CLASSIFICATION OF FAMILIES

AND NATIONS DESCENDED FROM, OR ALLIED TO, THE SARMATÆ OF TACITUS.

The three great recognized families from which Tacitus separates the Germans, and with which he contrasts them, are -1. The Gauls or Kelts-2. The Finns-3. The Sarmatians : this last term being used, by the present writer, in a more definite sense than the one which it bore with the ancients. Here it comprises the Slavonians of Bohemia, Silesia, Poland, Gallicia, Russia, Servia, Croatia, Carniola, Hungary, Prussia, and Bulgaria, and something more. It comprises the Lithuanians, Courlanders, Livonians, and Old Prussians as well.

The Sarmatians, Finns, and Gauls are the three great recognized families from which Tacitus separates, and with which he contrasts, the Germans. But are they not the only ones? He notices the Dacians, the Pannonians, and the Rhatians as well. It is only, however, the Sarmatians that at present require a special preliminary investigation.

The two primary divisions into which the great Sarmatian stock falls are-1. The Slavonic-2. The Lithuanic.

The details of the Lithuanic branch will be found in the sequel.

The details of the Slavonic branch are numerous, complicated, and important.

First and foremost comes the notice of their present geographical distribution.

Geographically, they fall into two large divisions, separated