All this has been written in illustration of a case near home. The Majiar of the Uralian wilds, the Majiar of the Yaik and Oby, the Majiar, in short, of Asia, is not more obscure, unknown, and unimportant when compared with the countrymen of Hunyades, Zapolya, and Kossuth, than is the Angle of Germany when contrasted with the Angle of England, the Angle of the great continent with the Angle of the small island. When we say that the former is named by Tacitus, Ptolemy, and a few other less important writers, we have said all. There is the name, and little enough besides. What does the most learned ethnologist know of a people called the _Eudoses_? Nothing. He speculates, perhaps, on a letter-change, and fancies that by prefixing a _Ph_, and inserting an _n_ he can convert the name into _Phundusii_. But what does he know of the Phundusii? Nothing; except that by ejecting the _ph_ and omitting the _n_ he can reduce them to _Eudoses_. Then come the _Aviones_, whom, by omission and rejection, we can identify with the _Obii_, of whom we know little, and also convert into the _Cobandi_, of whom we know less. The _Reudigni_--what light comes from these? The _Nuithones_--what from these? The _Suardones_--what from these? Now, it is not going too far if we say that, were it not for the conquest of England, the Angles of Germany would have been known to the ethnologist just as the _Aviones_ are, _i.e._, very little; that, like the _Eudoses_, they might have had their very name tampered with; and that, like the _Suardones_ and _Reudigni_ and _Nuithones_, they might have been anything or nothing in the way of ethnological affinity, historical development, and geographical locality. This is the true case. Nine-tenths of what is known of the Angli of Germany is known from a single passage, and every word in that single passage which applies to Angli applies to the _Eudoses_, _Aviones_, _Reudigni_, _Suardones_, and _Nuithones_ as well. The passage in question is the 40th section of the Germania of Tacitus, and is as follows:--