The Ethnology of the British Colonies and Dependencies. R. G. Latham

intermixtures—possibly a Celtic element—Roman sufficient to change the language through four-fifths of the Peninsula—Gothic blood introduced by the followers of Euric—Arabian influences, second in importance to those of Rome only—such is the analysis of ethnological elements of the Spanish stock. The proportions, of course, differ in different parts of the Peninsula, and, although they are nowhere ascertained, it is reasonable to suppose that the Arab blood increases as we go southwards, and the Gothic and Iberic as we approach the Pyrenees. This makes Gibraltar the most Moorish part of Europe; and such I believe it to be.

      Malta.—When we have subtracted the English, Italians, Greeks, and other nations of the Levant from the population of Malta, there still remain the primitive islanders, with their peculiar language.

      Now this language is a form of the Arabic; and, with the exception of some of the dialects of Syria, it is the only instance of that language in the mouth of a Christian population. So thoroughly are the language and the religion of the Koran co-extensive.

      At what period this tongue found its way to Malta is undetermined. As compared with any of the present languages of the island it is ancient. But it is not certain that, though old, it is the earliest. Carthaginians may have preceded the Arabs; Greeks the Carthaginians; and, possibly, Sicanians, or the earliest occupants of Sicily, the Greeks. I am unable, however, to carry my reader beyond the simple fact of the language being Arabic.

      The only other Arabic dependency of Great Britain is Aden.[8]

      The Ionian Islands.—The reader may have remarked the peculiar character of European ethnology. It consists chiefly in the analysis of the component parts of particular populations; and this it investigates so exclusively as to leave no room for the description of manners, customs, physiognomy, and the like—paramount in importance as these matters are when we come to the other quarters of the world. There are two reasons for this difference. First—the peculiarities of the European nations are by no means of the same extent and character with those of the ruder families of mankind. A similar civilization, and a similar religion, have effected a remarkable amount of uniformity; and, hence, the differences are those that the historian deals with more appropriately than the ethnologist. Secondly—such external and palpable differences as exist are generally known and appreciated. The analysis of blood, or stock, which, partially, accounts for them, is less completely understood.

      Hence, in treating of the Maltese, there was no description of the Arabic stock at all. All that was stated was a reason for believing that the Maltese belonged to it. Such also, to a great degree, was the case with the Gibraltar population, and the Heligolanders. And such will be the case with the Ionian Islanders. It will not be thought necessary to enlarge upon the Greeks; it will only be requisite to ask how far the group in question is Grecian.

      The very oldest population of the Ionian Islands I believe to have been barbarous—a term which, in the present classical localities, is convenient.

      In the smaller islands, such as Ithaca and Zacynthus, the population had become Hellenized at the time of the composition of the Homeric poems. In Corcyra, on the other hand, the original barbarism lasted longer. Such, at least, is the way in which I interpret the passages in the Odyssey concerning the Phæacians (who were certainly not Greek), and the later language of Thucydides respecting the relations of the Corinthian colonies of Epidamnus, and Corcyra. The whole context leads to the belief that, originally, the ἄποικοι were Greeks in contact with a population which was not Greek.

      In respect to the stock to which these early and ante-Hellenic islanders belonged, the presumption is in favour of its having been the Illyrian; a stock known only in its probable remains—the Skipitar (Albanians, or Arnaouts) of Albania.

      Time, however, made them all equally Hellenic, a result which was, probably, completed before the decline of Greek independence; since which epoch there have been the following elements of intermixture:—

      1. Albanian blood, from the opposite coast.

      2. Slavonic, from Dalmatia.

      3. Italian, from Italy.

      4. Turk—I have no pretence to the minute ethnological knowledge which would enable me even to guess at the proportions.

      Upon the whole, however, I believe the Ionian islanders to be what their language represents them—Greek. At the same time they are Greeks of an exceedingly mixed blood.[9]

      Again—of the foreign elements I imagine the Italian to be the chief. This, however, is an impression rather than a matured opinion.

      The Slavonic element, too, is likely to be considerable. The Byzantine historians speak of numerous and permanent settlements, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, both in Thessaly, and in the Morea; statements which the frequency of Slavonic names for Greek geographical localities confirms.[10] Neither, however, outweighs the undoubted Hellenic character of the language, which is still the representative of the great medium of the fathers of literature and philosophy.

      The Channel Islands.—As Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and Sark, are no parts of Great Britain, and are, nevertheless, European, I make a brief mention of them; although they are neither colonies nor dependencies: indeed, in strict history, Great Britain is a dependency of theirs.

      They are Norman rather than French, and the illustration of this distinction, which will re-appear when we come to the Canadas—concludes the chapter.

      The earliest population of France was twofold—Celtic for the north, Iberic for the south.

      Its second population was Roman.

      Its language is Roman—all that remains of the old tongues of the tribes which Cæsar conquered being (1) certain words in the present French, (2) the Breton of Brittany, which is closely akin to the Welsh Celtic, and (3) the Basque dialects of Gascony, which is Iberic.

      Now whether the old Gallic blood be as fully displaced by that of the Roman conquerors, as the old Gallic language has been displaced by the Latin is uncertain. It is only certain that the old and indigenous elements of the French nation, however indeterminate in amount—were not of a uniform character, i.e., neither wholly Celtic, nor wholly Iberic; but Celtic for one part of the country, and Iberic for another.

      The ancient tribes of Normandy were Celtic. Hence, when the third element of the present Norman population was introduced, all that was not Italian was Welsh—just as it was in Picardy and Orleans, and just as it was not in Gascony and Poitou. There the old element was Iberic.

      The third element—just alluded to—was Germanic; Germanic of different kinds, but chiefly Frank or Burgundian.

      The fourth great element was the Norse or Scandinavian; introduced by the so-called Sea-kings of Denmark and Norway in the ninth and tenth centuries. These, as the empire of Charlemagne declined, insulted and dismembered it. They converted Neustria in Normandy=the country of the Northmen. The exact amount of their influence has not been ascertained; nor is the investigation easy. The process, however, by which we measured the original extent of the Frisian area is applicable to that of the Northmen. There are Norse names for French localities. Of these the most important are the compounds of -tot, -fleur, and -bec; like Yve-tot, Har-fleur, and Caude-bec.