were made.' And the bondsman believed him; and became his lord's
man, and followed him to the death; and was thereby not degraded, but
raised out of selfish savagery and brute independence into loyalty,
usefulness, and self-respect. As a fact, that is the method by which
the thing was done: done;--very ill indeed, as most human things are
done; but a method inevitable--and possibly right; till (as in
England now) the lower classes became ethnologically identical with
the upper, and equality became possible in law, simply because it
existed in fact.

But the part of Dr. Latham's 'Germania' to which I am bound to call
most attention, because I have not followed it, is that interesting
part of the Prolegomena, in which he combats the generally received
theory, that, between the time of Tacitus and that of Charlemagne,
vast masses of Germans had migrated southward from between the Elbe
and the Vistula; and that they had been replaced by the Sclavonians
who certainly were there in Charlemagne's days.

Dr. Latham argues against this theory with a great variety of facts
and reasons. But has he not overstated his case on some points?

Need the migrations necessary for this theory have been of
'unparalleled magnitude and rapidity'?

As for the 'unparalleled completeness' on which he lays much stress,
from the fact that no remnants of Teutonic population are found in
the countries evacuated:

Is it the fact that 'history only tells us of German armies having
advanced south'? Do we not find four famous cases--the irruption of