(1) Did they all go? Is not Paulus Diaconus' story that one-third
of the Lombards was to emigrate by lot, and two-thirds remain at
home, a rough type of what generally happened--what happens now in
our modern emigrations? Was not the surplus population driven off by
famine toward warmer and more hopeful climes?

(2) Are not the Teutonic populations of England, North Germany, and
the Baltic, the descendants, much intermixed, and with dialects much
changed, of the portions which were left behind? This is the
opinion, I believe, of several great ethnologists. Is it not true?
If philological objections are raised to this, I ask (but in all
humility), Did not these southward migrations commence long before
the time of Tacitus? If so, may they not have commenced before the
different Teutonic dialects were as distinct as they were in the
historic period? And are we to suppose that the dialects did not
alter during the long journeyings through many nations? Is it
possible that the Thervings and Grutungs could have retained the same
tongue on the Danube, as their forefathers spoke in their native
land? Would not the Moeso-Gothic of Ulfilas have been all but
unintelligible to the Goth who, upon the old theory, remained in
Gothland of Sweden?

(3) But were there not more causes than mere want, which sent them
south? Had the peculiar restlessness of the race nothing to do with
it? A restlessness not nomadic, but migratory: arising not from
carelessness of land and home, but from the longing to found a home
in a new land, like the restlessness of us, their children? As soon
as we meet them in historic times, they are always moving, migrating,
invading. Were they not doing the same in pre-historic times, by
fits and starts, no doubt with periods of excitement, periods of