Questions like these being answered, and a certain amount of mutual difference being ascertained, it would then stand over to inquire whether any traces of this original difference were still to be found in the modern English. Have any provincial dialects characteristics which are Jute rather than Angle? or Angle rather than Saxon? It is clear that the second of these questions is involved in the answer given to the first. s. 11. _The accredited relations of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons to each other as Germans._--These are as follows:-- 1. That the geographical locality of the Jutes was the Peninsula of Jutland. 2. That that of Angles, was the present Dutchy of Sleswick; so that they were the southern neighbours of the Jutes. 3. That that of the Saxons was a small tract north of the Elbe, and some distinct point--more or less extensive--between the Elbe and Rhine. 4. That, although there were, probably, dialectal differences between the languages, the speech of all the three tribes was mutually intelligible. s. 12. Assuming, then, the accuracy of our historical facts, the inference is, that, without expecting to find any very prominent and characteristic differences between the different inhabitants of England arising out of the original differences between the Germanic immigrants, we are to look for what few there are in the following quarters-- 1. For the characteristic _differentiae_ of the Jutes, in Kent, part of Sussex, and the Isle of Wight. 2. For those of the Saxons in Sussex, Essex, Hants (Wessex), and Middlesex. {5} 3. For those of the Angles in Norfolk, Suffolk, Yorkshire, Durham, and Northumberland. Or, changing the expression:-- 1. The _differentiae_ of the people of Kent, part of Sussex, and the Isle of Wight (if any), are to be explained by the _differentiae_ of the original Jute immigrants-- 2. Those of the rest of Sussex, Wessex, Essex, and Middlesex, by those of the Saxons-- 3. Those of the people of Norfolk, &c., by those of the Angles. Such is our reasoning, and such a sketch of our philological researches--assuming that the opinions just exhibited, concerning the dates, conductors, localities, and order, are absolute and unimpeachable historical facts. s. 13. _Criticism of the aforesaid details._--As a preliminary to this part of the subject, the present writer takes occasion to state once for all, that nearly the whole of the following criticism is not his own (except, of course, so far as he adopts it--which he does), but Mr. Kemble's, and that it forms the introduction to his valuable work on the Saxons in England. 1. _The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but traditional._--_a._ Bede, from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote more than 300 years after the supposed event, _i.e._, the landing of Hengist and Horsa, in A.D. 449. _b._ The nearest contemporary author is Gildas, and _he_ lived at least 100 years after it.