History HubΒ permalink
Why English and not Saxon?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
This I am sure this is probably an old chestnut but, as "one who knows not and knows that he knows not", could someone enlighten me why we speak about England and English? As far as I can see, politically and linguistically it was Saxons from Wessex who ultimately came to dominate what we have come to think of as England. Or did the Saxons always think of themselves as Anglecynn?
And what happened to those Jutes. Is there lingustic/toponymic evidence for Jutes outside Jutland?
Why is it that in both Gaelic and Welsh, the word for English best translates as 'Saxon'- (especially when the closest English to Scotland were unequivocally English- i.e. the Angles of Northumbria)?*
And for a bonus point: can we ever refer to a person as an Anglo- Saxon or should that term really be reserved as a linguistic and archeological observation- (in the same way that there are no 'Celts' outside Classical texts and we should really only talk about Celtic language and Celtic artifacts)?
[Puts on battle bowler and stands well back] -
Message 2
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
Just to make things even clearer, the language is generally referred to as 'Old English' at Oxford, but as 'Anglo-Saxon' at Fen Poly...
-
Message 3
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
In reply to arty macclench:
I think that the English language is mixture of Latin, German and French. By the latter I would rather suppose that what English and French languages have in common, comes from Latin, as to refer to the term "Romanistic" languages, brought to England by the Normans.
English itself is referred to belong to the "Germanistic" languages. The name origines from these "Anglo-Saxons" wheras the Jutes were a Germanic tribe that came with the Angles to Britannia.
I donΒ΄t know, but it would be interesting to know, how many words from the ancient Britons survived in the English language. This besides Latin.
And for a bonus point: can we ever refer to a person as an Anglo- Saxon or should that term really be reserved as a linguistic and archeological observation- ...Β
I would use the term "Anglo-Saxon" not to a person, but as a linguistic and archeological one. An exception would be, if a person would be really able to trace his ancestors back to the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. A difficult task bearing in mind that he had to go back some 1500 years, and written records at that time were (rather seldom) held for ordinary people.
... (in the same way that there are no 'Celts' outside Classical texts and we should really only talk about Celtic language and Celtic artifacts)?Β
I see that different, because there are parts in Western Europe in which thise cultural heritage has survived the centuries. This includes France, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Wheras in Germany, the Celts are just a term for ancient history and archeology, because these Celts in the South of Germany, were "Germanised" in the ancient times. -
Message 4
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
Arty,
A similar topic was debated before. You might find this thread of some interest.
-
Message 5
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
Ah, thank you. That will certainly do to be going on with.
-
Message 6
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 27th May 2011
It was the likes of Gildas and Bede, who came to talk of Angles (or 'Angels' as described by one Pope!) in terms of religion, but of Saxons when terming warfare or violence. Thus 'England' came to be dominant.
-
Message 7
Posted by Michael Alexander Kearsley (U1675895) on Sunday, 29th May 2011
The Saxons came across more to the north, a lot of Saxon activity in Northumbria and Lothians down into Lincolnshire, the Jutes and Angles seem to have come across more to the south and in smaller numbers; Lallans is Scots English and thought to be closer to original Saxon than more southern variants. Evidently there was mixing of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Britons and later Normans and those from Norway and perhaps some Danes leading to a sort of blend of people with a variation from East to West, but still a blend and Latin had an influence, and early Briton languages and later Arabic, Romany, Yiddish - various influences and so it's a very different language than those that the Saxons, Angles or Jutes would have spoken.
-
Message 8
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 30th May 2011
What is in a name? The English did not appear until the the late tenth century. before that they were, as you say, the Angelcynn. But what did the average Anglo-Saxon in the lane call himself? Some sort of -inga, perhaps?
We are back into national identity: something I quite deplore as this is usually applied by an outsider; in the English case King Cnut who was also King of Denmark.
The term Anglo-Saxon was also settled on the Germanic settlers who migrated to Britain from the northern seaboard of the European mainland in the fifth to sixth centuries. Their culture was not that different from the pre-Roman cultures that predominated in Britain. This is something we forget at our peril; whereas Roman occupation of southern Britain was an interlude, outside the Empire the Iron Age continued much as before.
As for the Celts: I deplore the Celts as a definition. Gael, Cruithne, Cymraeg are so much more acceptable as they actually mean something. How many Anglo-Saxons were really sub-Roman British? How many Picts became Scots? Does culture matter more than ethnicity? Discuss!. -
Message 9
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 30th May 2011
The Saxons came across more to the north, a lot of Saxon activity in Northumbria and Lothians down into Lincolnshire, Β
Essex, Middlesex, Sussex and Wessex are all in the south, attested by Bede to the 6/7th century.
Bede ii 5
"Ethelbert, king of Kent, having most gloriously governed his temporal kingdom fifty-six years, entered into the eternal joys of the kingdom which is heavenly. He was the third of the English kings that had the sovereignty of all the southern provinces that are divided from the northern by the river Humber, and the borders contiguous to the same; but the first of the kings that ascended to the heavenly kingdom. The first who had the like Sovereignty was Elli, king or the South-Saxons; the second, Celin, king of the West-Saxons, who, in their own language, is called Ceaulin; the third, as has been said, was Ethelbert, king of Kent; the fourth was Redwald, king of the East-Angles, who, whilst Ethelbert lived, had been subservient to him."
The Gewisse and West-Saxons appear to have been the same tribe, they conquer the East-Saxons and eventually Kent. -
Message 10
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Monday, 30th May 2011
"The Saxons came across more to the north, a lot of Saxon activity in Northumbria and Lothians down into Lincolnshire, the Jutes and Angles seem to have come across more to the south and in smaller numbers; Lallans is Scots English and thought to be closer to original Saxon than more southern variants."
Eh? I think you have that ar*s* about face, my friend. Ot was the Angles who emerged as a power north of Humber and into the Lothians, so the strain of English that evolved in lowland Scotland would have been based, in part, on the language that Angles brought with them, not the Saxons from farther south. The English that evolved in the Danelaw was also exported north much later and had as strong an influence.
As for what the English called themselves, it doubt it would have been "us Anglo-Saxons." -
Message 11
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 30th May 2011
Γ†lle of Sussex is named by Bede as the first Bretwalda circa AD 477, Highdown Hill Anglo-Saxon cemetery dates circa AD 450 and there is also a Roman coin hoard burial dating to after AD 461 close by, the Patching hoard.
Γ†lle appears to have been a originally the leader of a group of Saxon mercenaries rather than an invader.
Charter of Nunna of Sussex
Ego Nunna rex Sussaxonum consensi et subscripsi.
Ego Wattus rex consensi et subscripsi.
Ego Coenredus rex Westsaxonum consensi et subscripsi.
Ego Ine consensi et propria manu subscripsi.
Watt appears to be a sub king, not sure the West-Saxons were subservient to Sussex at this time, Ine would eventually take over and expand into the west country (West Welsh) -
Message 12
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 31st May 2011
I suspect that the origin of the Great Army is in hired mercenaries by Northumbrian factions.
Ecgberht is probably the 9th century equivalent of Vortigern
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.