127 
“A Plea for tlie word 'Anglo-Saxon/” by Rooke Pen- 
nington, LL.B,, F.G.S. 
There has of late years arisen a class of historians who 
have taken under their especial protection the history of 
this country from the year of our Lord 450. Amongst other 
changes which it is sought to effect in the story of England 
is the abolition of the word "Anglo-Saxon.” Without in 
any way attempting generally to review the work of these 
writers, I think it is not inexpedient to urge a few reasons 
somewhat crudely put together, for the retention of this 
particular term. A change which disturbs the historical 
and literary nomenclature of centuries, which would neces- 
sitate the annotation ol our greatest authorities on our 
language and constitution is not an unimportant matter. 
The reasons put forward for the change appear to be two, 
first, that the word is an incorrect one, secondly, that it is 
a misleading one. I will consider these reasons shortly, 
before dealing with the reasons why the word should be 
retained. 
First as to its incorrectness. From A.l). 450 to A.D. 550 
Britain was invaded by bands of Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. 
From A.D. 830 to A.D. 1040 it was invaded by bands of 
Danes. All these peoples settled in various parts of Britain. 
The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes sometimes called themselves 
by these names, sometimes called themselves Angles or 
(modernized) English. The Danes at first called themselves 
Danes, but ultimately were confounded in name with the 
other tribes. Now Anglo-Saxon is an incorrect name for 
the combination of these four peoples, because it is mani- 
festly imperfect. But it is a good word, as words go. There 
is a limit to compound words (except perhaps in organic 
chemistry). It is impossible to express in the name of a 
people all the races which go to compose it. If we were to 
reject this word because inaccurate, and consistently went 
on to weed our language, what a host of useful words would 
