discrepant; and though both its grammar and its vocabulary connect it most nearly with the low or Plat-Deutsch branch of the German, yet it has grammatical forms as well as verbal combinations and vocables which indicate now a relationship to High German, and now to Scandinavian, not to speak of Celtic roots which it may have borrowed from the Britons, or may have received, at an earlier period, from the ancient fountain of Indo-European speech whence the Celtic and the Gothic as well as the Romance and Hellenic languages of Europe are theoretically considered to have flowed. In short the AngloSaxon was much such a language as it might be supposed would result from a fusion of the old Saxon with smaller proportions of High German, Scandinavian, and even Celtic and Sclavonic elements; and it bears nearly the same relation to those ingredients that modern English bears to its own constituents, though indeed no single influence was exerted upon it so disturbing in character as the Norman French has proved to our present tongue."

" 1

These peculiarities of the Anglo-Saxon language show plainly enough the diversity of origin among those that finally united in using it. In the want of any trustworthy historical proof, the attempt has been made to determine the precise locality of the several tribes from the several dialects still existing, but the results are not altogether satisfactory. It is probable, however, that some remnants of the original language may still be found the least changed among the peasantry in some of the rural districts of England. Devoted to agricultural pursuits, having till recently but little communication with other parts of the country, strongly conservative in their feelings and habits, they would naturally preserve more of the ancient idiom

1 Marsh, Second Series, p. 55.

in their ordinary home-speech. What is sometimes called vulgar language the terms and phrases in use among our poor and less educated classes claims our respect from its more direct descent from our AngloSaxon ancestors, and from its power of expression. It has been remarked by Bosworth,1 that in every province of England 66 some streamlets flow down from the fountain-head, retaining their original purity and flavor, though not now relished by fastidious palates." And it is from these sources that of late years many choice terms have been revived, adding to the freshness and force of the language now in use.

The terms England and English do not appear to have been employed to designate the country and the people or language till some time in the ninth century, and then to have been first used by foreigners. Though Alfred and some other writers of the time call their language English, it seems wiser to retain the name AngloSaxon, and to apply the name English to the language now in use. The languages are neither the same in syntax, nor in their vocabularies; nor are the English strictly speaking of the same blood as the men who used the Anglo-Saxon, but have a blood, a character, and a language, the result of the commingling of different tribes and different languages.

Of the two best writers on the early history of the language and literature, Craik and Marsh, the latter adheres to the usual designations, Anglo-Saxon for the earlier period, and English for the later; but Craik, singularly enough after what would seem conclusive proof for agreeing with Marsh, uses the term English throughout. "As the case stands, the English of the

1 Introduction to Anglo-Saxon Dictionary.

ninth century is one language, and the English of the nineteenth century another. They differ at least as much as the Italian differs from the Latin or as English differs from the German. The most familiar acquaintance with the one leaves the other unintelligible.

The one may have grown out of the other, and no doubt has done so at least in part or in the main; but in fact also the modern language is of quite distinct stock from the ancient. Of English literature and the English language, commonly so called, the language and literature of the Angles and Saxons before the twelfth century make no proper part."

"1

Whatever may have been the nature and capabilities of the Anglo-Saxon tongue, as regards derivation and composition, and the expression of the most varied forms of thought, yet it is certain that these capabilities were never developed. It is a dead language, and, unlike the classic languages of Greece and Rome, is too rude, too fragmentary, too irregular to be revived. "It is intelligible, and that is all. What is written in it can in a certain sense be read, but not so as to bring out any artistic element, except of the most dubious and unsatisfactory kind. If it is not literally dumb, its voice has, for us of the present day, entirely lost its music. When it can be distinguished from prose at all, it is only by certain marks or characteristics which may indeed be perceived by the eye, or counted on the fingers, but which have no expression that excites in us any mental emotion. In respect of everything else appertaining to the soul of the language, our understanding of it is about equally imperfect. The consequence is that, although it can be translated, it

1 Craik's History of the English Language and Literature, vol. i. pp. 36, 37.

cannot be written. And as to translations from this language into modern English verse, nobody can say, except in reference to palpable points of right or wrong in grammar, whether they are well or ill done. The language, though so far in our hands as to admit of being analyzed in grammars, and packed up in dictionaries, is not recoverable in such a degree as to make it possible to pronounce with certainty whether anything written in it is artistically good or bad.” 1

The literature of the Anglo-Saxons has had almost no influence upon subsequent times, none whatever, it may safely be said, upon the course of English thought, or as an element in it, unless it be proved that Milton was indebted to Cædmon for some suggestions in the rough which he developed in the "Paradise Lost." But there is really no more agreement here than what the subject would naturally occasion in poetic minds.

But little as has been the influence of this literature, and crude as are most of the conceptions of all the leading questions of life, government, morals, social order, or religion, and worthless as are the views expressed in science or history, we may still regard it with something of reverence, as the record of the thoughts and feelings of a brave and noble-hearted people. The fragments that have come down to us are really typical, after all, of the measure of intellectual life attained.

Of the literary compositions of the Anglo-Saxons in their Pagan state we know very little. The Germans had their songs, and it is to be supposed that the Saxons were not behind other tribes. In fact, we find Edgar, one of their kings, after the introduction of Christianity, prohibiting the use of heathen songs at festivals. From 1 Craik, Abridged.

the admittance of heathen traditions in their earlier professed Christian poems, we may fairly conclude that the old Saxon gleemen sung the deeds of heroes, victorious odes, and death-songs, much like other minstrels of barbarous periods.

It is usual, however, to connect the rise of AngloSaxon literature, with the introduction of Christianity, about the close of the sixth century. Literature was chiefly cultivated by the religious orders, using for this purpose the Latin rather than the native language. Thus two literatures may be said to have grown up together, a learned literature in Latin, addressed to the learned, lay and ecclesiastical, both at home and abroad, which contains the theology and ecclesiastical history of the time; and a national, popular literature, entirely in the popular tongue. The learned literature was worthily represented by Bede, usually called the "venerable Bede," still valued for his ecclesiastical and other historical matter, who flourished at the beginning of the eighth century; and by Adhelm and Alcuin, though the latter, after receiving his education at York, wrote and lived under the dominion of Charlemagne. To Alcuin, Guizot bears the following testimony: "In him, at length, commenced the alliance of those two elements of which the modern mind had so long borne the incoherent impress, antiquity and the church, the admiration,

1

the taste, the regret, shall I call it, for Pagan literature, and the sincerity of Christian faith, the zeal to sound its mysteries, and to defend its power." It is certainly to be regretted that these really eminent classical scholars and men of real ability did not devote their energies to developing the powers of their native tongue, like

1 Civilization of France, vol. iii. p. 54. (Am. edition.)