Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"Larry Swain" <giles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:2rOdnQjx_fiqmCPanZ2dnUVZ_tmhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Actually, I'd agree with that completely.  Having looked a bit closer, 
>> I'd say that there is no real evidence that the English called
themselves 
>> "Saxon" much before the 8th century. (Sorry to spring this on you at
such 
>> a late stage, but you can console yourself with the knowledge that you 
>> have helped me clarify my thoughts!)
>
> But there is!  Certainly more than calling themself "Angles" or
> Angelcynn as a whole.  Of course part of the problem is the nature of
the 
> sources: there are few written sources before the 8th century, certainly

> the late 7th, and so in that sense no evidence that they called
themselves 
> Saxon, Angles, Angelcynn, Jutes, Martians, Romans, Countrymen, or
anything 
> else.  We're dependent on the late 7th and early 8th century sources and

> must *****s what they tell us.  So what do they tell us?
>
> 1) we have name evidence: they tell us what they called their kingdoms, 
> and at least some of them in the 7th century and before called
themselves 
> "saxon".  I see no reason to doubt this.  I'd like to see evidence that 
> the names were either invented much later, or are not applicable in some

> way.

What evidence is cited and not repeated? What do 'at least some of them
[how 
many of how much?] call themeselves?

> 2) The migration myth: myths only have power if they express something 
> fundamental about those telling/hearing the myths.

Mythologs are not fantasies. Myths relate to a pschology of consciousness.

It is indecent to confound the term 'myth' with anything else without 
declaring it to be a modern cant understanding, as if to say, of 
Disneyfication.

>  The persistence and ubiquity of this myth in A-S England, and it isn't 
> invented by Bede who merely re****ts it as fact, and its early nature
tells 
> us that seeing themselves as Angles, Saxons, and Jutes was meaningful. 
> And as a meaningful identifier, it would seem that they called
themselves 
> Saxons, at least some of them.

It is unclear what 'myth' is here referenced - surely not the Celtic 
dias****a from central Europe? This is an exploded 'myth', no? What is 
unclear in the current writer's advocacy is who felt what? It needs be 
understood that 'A. Sax' is not a language, neither are the people all 'A.

Sax.' and to sufficiently differentiate language from varieties of culture
- 
and to state a time period for all. Otherwise any generic statement such
as 
above has no meaning whatever.

> 3) We're agreed that the terms Angles and Saxons are used
interchangeably 
> by Bede and Boniface, who though rough contem****aries, are from
different 
> parts of the island and Bede at least is not known to have traveled
much. 
> Neither uses the term as if it were a neologism and it is rather
unlikely 
> that the elder influenced the younger in this regard.  So even if we say

> that the terms were interchangeable in the generations before Bede and 
> Boniface, it would still indicate the use of "Saxon" as an indicator of 
> identity.
>
> I'd like to see some evidence for your position, John.
>

But in order to provide evidence, any 'John' must know what suffices 
evidence. What would that be here? Is it as local as two Latin writers of 
the C7th/8th, and though atavists, still Romans.


>>>>and am disputing that people consistently called themelves one rather 
>>>>than the other.
>>>
>>>And as usual present no evidence.  Well, since we're agreed on the
>>>interchangeable nature of the terms from the 8th century on, we'll
>>>restrict ourselves to the 7th and earlier.

You gentlemen conspire together on some terms, and that is as great as any

'we' is. Better put is how you resolve anything at all, the method of it 
being the science. Do you really argue from just two sources including the

famous Bede. Though atavist, he was also a censor, no? Look what he did to

Caedmon - ****fting it from Englisc to Latin. What manner of source on 
Englisc is this?

Phil Innes


>>>  One type of evidence is
>>>the names of the various kingdoms: in the south we have a consistent
>>>use of compounds with Saxon (East Saxon, West Saxon, South Saxon
>>>etc), and not one with the term "Angl*-in it.
>>
>>
>> Ignoring "Wes***" (for obvious reasons) do you notice that they relate
to 
>> the "Saxon Shore"?
>
> Sure.  Probably as a result of the "Saxon Shore" being populated by
Saxons 
> (archaeological evidence of German goods in the forts, and of women and 
> children being present--suggests that the Litus Saxonum refers to the 
> shore of the saxons rather than the shore against the saxons).
>
> That it might pertain to the place, rather than the
>> people?
>
> See above.  Interestingly though, "place" in the Early Medieval Period
was 
> usually named after the people located there, rather than a place
bearing 
> a name unrelated to the people dwelling there, who later adopt an 
> ehtnicity not their own and call themselves by a new name.  Do you have 
> evidence that we should divorce the name of the place from the people 
> dwelling in those kingdoms?
>>
>> Rather more to the point, how do we know that these "Saxons" actually 
>> existed? Separately from the names of the kingdoms?
>
> How do you mean "these Saxons"?  Plain and simple: our sources tell us 
> there were kingdoms and that the inhabitants called them East Saxons, 
> South Saxons etc.  By default, that means that unless our sources are 
> fabricating everything from whole clothe, of which we have no evidence, 
> that there is some group of people there identifying themselves as
Saxons. 
> That presents us with evidence that they called themselves Saxons before

> the 8th century, and that they called themselves, well, Saxons.  Whether

> they were Saxons or descendants from people who came over from Saxony 
> originally is beside the current question.
>
> Do you have evidence that "these Saxons" didn't exist?
>
>>
>>>Likewise we have the
>>>story, first told in the 7th century, of Gregory's encounter with
>>>slaves in the market from the norther kingdom of Deira who identify
>>>themselves as Angles, not Saxons, and there is no confusion or
>>>interchangeable usage in any version of the story or in any of the
>>>manuscript copies.  In fact, there is no such interchangeable usage I
>>>know of in the early period, perhaps you could provide some.
>>
>>
>> No, I have decided that the names were not interchangeable for the 
>> people - in fact, that "Saxon" did not, in practice, exist.
>
> Yes, I see that, but I'm less interested in your decision and more 
> interested in any evidence there is for it.
>>
>>>When we
>>>turn to charters, such as there from the period, kings generally
>>>identified themselves by kingdom "king of Kent" King of "Es***" and
>>>so on, but on occasion the southerners identified themselves as King
>>>of the South Saxons for example, and no example of King of the South
>>>Angles or some such is known to exist. That early kingdoms of East
>>>Anglia  and East Saxons existed side by side is also witness to some
>>>degree of differentiation of names since they were two distinct
>>>kingdoms, not the same one.
>>
>>
>> You're making my head hurt - you are saying that because the East
Angles 
>> are immediately adjacent to the East Saxons it proves that they are 
>> completely different peoples?
>
> No, I'm saying that it means they considered themselves to be different 
> entities and did not confuse one kingdom with another on the basis of 
> interchangeable names, which points to the fact that the names were not 
> yet interchangeable.
>>
>>>I. E. consistent usage of "Saxon" as an
>>>identifier, and not interchangeable with Angles, or vice versa.
>>
>>
>> No, I would dispute that this is what is happening. Those are just
names 
>> of the kingdoms,
>
> Yes "just names" of political entities, that's all, nothing significant
or 
> anything like that, wouldn't want to confuse this with actual 
> identification or anything.
>
>  not of the people themselves.
>
> We have no evidence of anything about the "people themselves".  They may

> or may not have used such terms: we don't know.
>
> "Saxon" was probably a
>> back-formation from the name of the kingdom (influenced by continental 
>> and Celtic usage), rather than what the people had initially called 
>> themselves.
>
> It would be helpful if you could provide evidence or even examples of 
> other "back-formations", however, or evidence that the "people" (a
concept 
> we have to use carefully since we know that the population was a mix,
and 
> we have to decide when we're talking about...I prefer the rise of the 
> heptarchy as our point of departure and any speculation before that is 
> really taking shots in the dark) called themselves something other than 
> what their leaders were calling them.
>>
>>>LIkewise with the other Anglian kingdoms, at least in the vestiges we
>>>can glean from later sources.  So it would seem that they did
>>>differentiate (even while being aware that the terms were not
>>>historically or ethnically accurate: such as the "Jutes" who are said
>>>to be part of the kingdom of Wes*** or Bede's later statement in book
>>>5 that many other nations go into making up the "English".) at least
>>>in the early period.  Again, the question isn't about the historical
>>>truth or falsehood of the names vis a vis the origins of the Germanic
>>>peoples moving into Britain or when: the question was what they
>>>called themselves.  It would seem that in the origins of the
>>>Heptarchy in the sixth century that there was a differentiation
>>>between "Angles" and "Saxons" that by the 8th century was no longer a
>>>useful differentiation.
>>
>>
>> Or that it was the very names of the kingdoms which gave rise to people

>> identifying with the names "Angle" and "Saxon". Bede's story was
probably 
>> just folk-etymology (hah!) on his part.
>
> Even if you're correct, it still means that they called themselves
Saxons. 
> I find however, regardless of the historical make up of the people, a 
> sequence of Saxon Shore forts (always assuming that the name survived
the 
> fourth century) giving rise to kingdoms with "Saxon" in the name, to the

> people calling themselves "Saxons" and inventing a widespread migration 
> myth (so widespread that others not calling themselves Saxons adopt a
form 
> of it) that identifies them with the Saxons on the continent, and almost

> as soon as they finish this lovely little myth drop it altogether as 
> meaningful and start calling themselves Angles or Saxons as the mood 
> strikes them.  Seems a bit difficult to establish on the evidence and
asks 
> for a large number of assumptions.
>>
>>>>>>>Bede may be instrumental in this or he may simply be re****ting
>>>>>>>what is already reality for him.  But he writes the history of the
>>>>>>>church of the English....and in this history he includes ALL the
>>>>>>>churches he can find info throughout the island (exceptions being
>>>>>>>British churches)--i. e. he does not differentiate between "Saxon"
>>>>>>>and "Angles" churches or kingdoms.  Boniface provides even better
>>>>>>>information: he is from Wes***, and calls his homeland "Saxon" and
>>>>>>>yet identifies himself in another place as an "Angle".  This all
>>>>>>>seems to indicate that whatever differences there may have been in
>>>>>>>the fourth or fifth century have all but disappeared completely by
>>>>>>>the early 8th so that Boniface can identify himself as both Saxon
>>>>>>>and Angle.
>>>>>>>Shortly after Boniface, the continental writers of the Carolingian
>>>>>>>courts coined the term Anglo-Saxon and similar terms to refer to
>>>>>>>the Germanic peoples on the island of Britain to distinguish them
>>>>>>>from the Saxons of Saxony.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In Latin, I believe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, in Latin, but so what?  Are you attempting to suggest that a
>>>>>Germanic person referring to himself as an Anglo-Saxon in Latin
>>>>>rather than in his native language makes the reference therefore
>>>>>invalid? Seems silly to me.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to know "what people called themselves", yes, you do
>>>>need to look at what terms they used in their native language.
>>>
>>>Which of course was neither the issue or the question.  The question
>>>is why, if you want to know what people called themselves, you are
>>>restricting yourself  to only a part of the evidence?  Isn't an Old
>>>English set of terms used in an official language of law, court, and
>>>church, even if not the native language, evidence of what they called
>>>themselves?  Pretty much everyone I know of who has looked at the
>>>question in modern scholar****p has answered in the affirmative.  You
>>>apparently are not.  Whom to believe again?  I'll take the experts in
>>>the face of the lack of any evidence on your part.
>>
>>
>> Well, it seems rather obvious to me. I self-identify as "British" in 
>> English, but as "Anglais" in French.
>
> The difference being of course that "Anglais" in French has a particular

> history that invalidates it as being a valid analogy for Anglo-Saxon in 
> Latin vs. OE in the early Middle Ages.
>>
>>>>>>>King Alfred takes up this term and calls himself king of the
>>>>>>>Anglo-Saxons
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only in Latin, I believe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Chiefly, but lets remember that the names are not Latin in origin,
>>>>>and that the orthography of the compound, such as Angul saxonum,
>>>>>suggest Old English usage rather than purely Latin.  But so what? I
>>>>>suppose that when calling himself king of the Saxons, king of
>>>>>angles, king wes***, king of the west saxons, etc in Latin that
>>>>>these mean they didn't call themselves these things?   Again the
>>>>>question was whether they called themselves Anglo-Saxons, and yes,
>>>>>they did, Alfred and after.
>>>>
>>>>The point is that the continental usage of the term "Anglo-Saxon"
>>>>(in Latin) *only* means people in England, as opposed to Saxony.
>>>
>>>I never disputed that.  If you read carefully you'll notice that I
>>>addressed Alan's question of whether or not they whom we term
>>>Anglo-Saxons ever used the term of themselves.
>>
>>
>> Which is the whole point at issue, of course. And the answer is, "Not 
>> until Alfred". And his usage is not unambiguous.
>
> Which, if you go back and read my original response to Alan, is exactly 
> what I said there, and have reiterated since.  Except the "unambiguous" 
> part, that's just incorrect.
>
>>
>>>As for your point, the term was coined to distinguish the folks living
>>>on the isle of Britain from those living in Saxony, true, but Alfred
>>>and subsequent use did not use it in that context or with that
>>> distinction.
>>
>>
>> And I didn't say that he did.
>>
>>
>>>When Alfred uses it, it is a political move in part to
>>>unite the "Anglo-Saxons" in contrast to the Danelaw, Norse, not
>>>Saxons and to give the "English" an identity and unity.
>>
>>
>> Well, it's still not unambiguous - does he mean "Angles and Saxons" or 
>> "All English outside Danelaw"?
>
>
> Already answered in the very paragraph to which you're responding. 
> Besides, we've already established that by the time of Bede and Boniface

> the terms "angles and saxons" are used interchangeably.  Nearly a
century 
> and a half later, Alfred begins using the compound Anglo-Saxon....what 
> grounds would there be for Alfred to go back and use the terms as terms
of 
> differentiation rather than as synonymous, compounded terms?  Seems
quite 
> clear to me with no ambiguity given the context.
>
> And I still say that it makes a big difference
>> whether it is in English or Latin.
>
> You can say it until the cow jumps over the moon, but what I'm
interested 
> in is some evidence or solid argumentation.
>
>>
>>>> It is less clear what
>>>>Alfred thought he meant by the term: did he mean "Angles and Saxons"?
>>>
>>>No, actually its quite clear.  Even Alfred's written Old English, the
>>>West Saxon dialect mixed with a large number of Anglianisms, is
>>>designed to unite the people he rules.  Its a wonderful strategy.
>>
>>
>> Even if he though of himself as a "West Saxon" (and he quite likely
did), 
>> it is by no means obvious that he thought of other people as "Angles".
>
> Never claimed he did, quite the contrary in fact.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>among other things and really begins the political unit
>>>>>>>that will become "England" and his descendant Athelstan will call
>>>>>>>himself the King of the English.  Both meant of all those
>>>>>>>"Anglo-Saxons".
>>>>>>>As for what the "ordinary" people called themselves, that is next
>>>>>>>to impossible to determine since we don't have any writings from
>>>>>>>them, but it probably wasn't too different from what is re****ted
>>>>>>>above. We do have people like Boniface and Aelfric and so on who
>>>>>>>though educated had been "average people" before we hear of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, they all seemed to be agreed that they spoke "Angle-ish",
>>>>>>whereas their neighbours to the West and North were agreed that
>>>>>>they were Saxons (Seis, Sassenach).
>>>>>
>>>>>Not at all sure what your talking about here.  Boniface was from
>>>>>Wes*** and even in his day it was known as Wes***, so not sure about
>>>>>claims re: people to his north and west.
>>>>
>>>>OK, but it probably wasn't called that when he was born.
>>>
>>>Maybe.  But so what?  Boniface, nonetheless, identifies his country as
>>>Wes*** and a land of Saxons, really doesn't matter much what it might
>>>have been when he was born-especially since our sources tell us what
>>>that was and it wasn't anything with Angel or Angle or Engel in it-,
>>>since BONIFACE doesn't tell us.  Daniel of W*****er is Bede's likely
>>>source that before 685 and the ascension of Caedwalla that it was
>>>called the Gewissae-not an Anglian name.
>>
>>
>> Gewissae is not the same as "Wes***", although it probably suggested
the 
>> latter.
>
> Didn't claim it was.
>
>>>>Just because of
>>>>you, I had to look up what the Cornish for "Englishman" was: "seys",
>>>>of course.
>>>
>>>Goody for you.  Which shows simply that the initial contact was with
>>>"Saxons" and so the Gaelic languages borrowed the name and then
>>>applied to all Englishmen: Welsh Seisnig, Irish Sacsanach, COrnish
>>> sowsnek, etc. Still doesn't justify saying that those to the north
>>>and west of Winchester were agreed that they were Saxons.   YOu are
>>>also assuming that the name and word came because of contact on the
>>>island of Britain rather than earlier contact....lest we forget that
>>>the Romans knew them as the Saxons, and that some Saxons had been in
>>>Gaul in the fifth century and were expelled by the Franks, at that
>>>time acting on behalf of the Empire. The Britons and other Gaelic
>>>speakers likely picked up the name here rather than after contact on
>>>the island of Britain and like wealh, which means a Celt generally
>>>and appears on Old High German and Old Norse as well as Old English
>>>in this sense, also has the narrower sense in OE of Welsh.  The same
>>>applies to Celtic "saxons" words and so tell us nothing about what
>>>the English called themselves.
>>
>>
>> [Ignoring confusion over "Gaelic"...]
>
> No confusion: I meant, as the context makes clear, Celtic, though Gaelic

> is also correct, since Old Irish also picked up the term from Latin.
>
>  Yes, I think you're right - the
>> British called them "Saxons" and the English called themselves
"English".
>
> Which isn't what I said.
>>
>>>>>Aelfric likewise is usually
>>>>>associated with Winchester, later with Cerne, so people to his north
>>>>>and west would have Saxons, Angles, Cornwellians, and Welsh
>>>>>depending on the point of the map we want to indicate.  He finished
>>>>>his career at Eynsham not far from Oxford, and that would put him
>>>>>in "Angle" territory so that those to his north and west again
>>>>>would not be Saxons in that sense.
>>>>
>>>>See below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As for "Angelisc" or "Engelisc" and the like, that seems to be
>>>>>agreed upon term for the language, but then we also have the issue
>>>>>of dialectical differences that would bear out the "foundation
>>>>>myth" to some degree.
>>>>
>>>>You know, that would be so much more convincing if there were
>>>>dialectal differences in what the language was called.
>>>
>>>There are, unless you want to argue that Angelisc and Engelisc and
>>>AEnglisc and Englisc are all prnounced exactly the same or that they
>>>occur in the same writers and scribes interchangeably (Hint: they
>>>don't) and aren't dialectical forms.
>>
>>
>> I'm not saying they are pronounced the same - I am saying that they are

>> the same word.
>
> So am I, same word pronounced differently because they are from
different 
> dialects, demonstrating my point above that dialetical differences tend
to 
> give some credence to the foundation myth.
>>
>>>>>If you were referring to the Angle and Jutland, north of the angle
>>>>>would be the Danes, not the Saxons (of course depending on the
>>>>>period in question and the size of the Saxon hegemony--greater in
>>>>>the 10th century say than in the fifth.).
>>>>
>>>>No - the whole point of what I was saying was that it was the
>>>>neighbours of the English (Angles/Saxons) who consistently refer to
>>>>them (the English) as "Saxons": i.e. they called them Sassenach,
>>>>Seis, Seys.
>>>
>>>See above.  Calling all Celts "Wealh" doesn't make them all Welsh
>>>anymore than Norse form of the word originally referring to the Celts
>>>of France comes to refer to all people within the Frankish kingdoms
>>>whether German or Celt.  And it certainly doesn't demonstrate that
>>>the English terms Angel and Saxon were interchangeable and not
>>>differentiated in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries.
>>
>>
>> You know, I rather think that you have blundered into an im****tant 
>> insight -
>
> No, no "blundering" involved.  Familiarity with the languages and
peoples 
> involved, yes....what I said is basic knowledge.
>
>> I'd suggest that "Saxon" is (or rather was in the "fifth, sixth, and 
>> seventh centuries") a term *exactly* like "wealh", and not one actually

>> used by the people themselves.
>
> Easy to demonstrate of Welsh and Celtic use of the term, against the 
> evidence of English use of the term.