2. The same, or nearly the same, name may not only occur in different parts of one and the same division of the Germanic areas, but in different ones, _e.g._, the Dhyrings _may_ denote the Thuringians of Thuringia; but they may also denote the people of a district, or town, in Belgium, designated as _Dorringen_.[17] Still as a method, the one in question should be understood; although it has been too short a time before the learned world to have borne fruit. N.B.--What applies to the coincidence of _gentile_ or _patronymic_ names on the two sides of the water, applies also to dialects; _e.g._, if (say) the Kentish differed from the other dialects of England, just in the same way, and with the same peculiar words and forms, as (say) the Verden dialect differed from the ones of Germany, we might fairly argue, that it was from the district of Verden that the county of Kent is peopled. At present we are writing simply for the sake of illustrating certain philological methods. The question of dialect will be treated in Part VII. s. 129. _German tribes where there is no direct evidence as to their having made part of the population of England, but where the _[`a] priori_ probabilities are strongly in their favour._ This applies to--_a._ The Batavians. No direct evidence, but great _[`a] priori_ probability. _b._ _The Frisians._--Great _[`a] priori_ probability, and {73} something more; [Greek: Brittian de ten neson ethne tria poluanthropotata echousi, basileus te heis auton hekastoi ephesteken, onomata de keitai tois ethnesi toutois Angiloi te kai Phrissones kai hoi tei nesoi homonumoi Brittones. Tosaute de he tonde ton ethnon poluanthropia phainetai ousa hoste ana pan etos kata pollous enthende metanistamenoi xun gunaixi kai paisin es Phrangous chorousin].[18]--Procop. B. G. iv. 20. s. 130. I believe, for my own part, there were portions in the early Germanic population of Britain, which were not strictly either Angle or Saxon (Anglo-Saxon); but I do this without thinking that it bore any great ratio to the remainder, and without even guessing at what that ratio was, or whereabouts its different component elements were located--the Frisians and Batavians being the most probable. With this view, there may have been Jutes as well; notwithstanding what has been said in ss. 16-20; since the reasoning there is not so against a Jute element _in toto_, as against that particular Jute element, in which Beda, Alfred, and the later writers believed and believe.