h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I would be interested in your views on the following article from the WMN.

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144125&command=displayContent&sourceNode=232450&contentPK=17712187&folderPk=108202&pNodeId=232470

Congratulations to our friends and neighbours in Cornwall on HMGs acceptance of a single council, a single voice for Cornwall. Hopefully the new Cornwall Council will be able to move Cornwall's agenda forward for the betterment of all it's citizens under unitary rule.

Now what about Devon? A bigger county by population? Splitting off Exeter from DCC will cost the Devonian Council Taxpayer a lot of money, why not give Devon unitary status? This is a personal option, but why not merge Exeter, Mid Devon and East Devon as "Exeter and East Devon Council", split South Hams between Plymouth and Torbay, merge Teignbridge into Torbay, a new "South Devon Council" and place the remainder under "West and North Devon"? (Though I prefer "Devon Moorlands Council")It would save the Devonian tax payer a fortune.

Without Plymouth and Torbay, DCC were struggling to pay for the services Devon deserved. Without Exeter... Can we see Devon CC surviving? I can't under the current plans.

PS, surely this was meant to have been dealt with in 1995!!!

Tivvyboy,

Some interesting ideas.

I am not sure what anyone expects to gain if Exeter were to become a unitary authority. I doubt that it will mean better government for Exeter - or the rest of Devon.

Simplifying the number of district councils makes some sense, and the reinclusion of Plymouth and Torbay into the DCC would give that body more clout and relevance.

Does anyone have access to a copy of "The History of Cornwall from the Earliest Records to the Present Time" Fortescue Hitchens and Samuel Drew, Helston:William Penaluna, 1824? This is the book that includes the statement, quoted several times on this website, that: "The Cornish language, it appears, was current in a part of the South Hams in the time of Edward 1st (1272-1307). Long after this it was common on the banks of the Tamar and in Cornwall it was universally spoken."

I have found it quoted from Hitchens and Drew in Fred W.P. Jago’s book "The Ancient Language and the Dialect of Cornwall with an Enlarged Glossary of Cornish Provincial Words"(Truro:Netherton & Worth, Lemon Street, 1882, p. 4) but have not seen the original volume. I was wondering if Hitchens and Drew provide a reference for this statement. It certainly would be helpful if they did.

It seems clear that in the 19th century scholars of the Cornish language accepted that the old language was still being spoken in parts of Devon in the late 13th and early 14th century.

Newvonian

I looked at a copy of Hitchens and Drew sometime ago. Unfortunately I didn’t photocopy the page, but I’m sure the reference wasn’t sourced.

I recently came across another couple of references to Cornish (or should I say Brythonic?) being spoken in Devon. These are from the Gentleman’s Magazine of 1829, reprinted in a bound edition in 1893. “The Gentleman’s Magazine Library: Being a Classified Collection of the Chief Contents of The Gentlemen’s Magazine from 1731 to 1868” published by Elliot Stock, London. Found in an article headed simply “Totnes”, pages 244 – 249, by Jos. Chattaway (of whom I can find out nothing).

I am not saying if Mr Chattaway has this right, I've not read it anywhere else, but here it is…

“In the reign of Henry III the county of Devon was extended from the Dart to the Tamar, and Totnes, which hitherto had been a Cornish town**, became seated in the midst of Devon; from this time the Cornish language began to decline in the South Hams.”

**Here there is a three line footnote in Latin (which I don’t understand), it seems to talk about the Foss Way ‘fossa’. Then in English: “See Gale’s essay on the Great Roman Roads at the end of the sixth volume of Leland’s Itinerary”. (I've yet to look at this)

The writer also states “When Athelstan, by the defeat of Howel, the last king of Dumnonia, in 932, extended his territories to the Tamar he made that river the boundary between his kingdom and the Cornish; but the Britons between it and the Dart submitting to him were permitted to retain their possessions and enjoy their ancient language and customs (hence the similarity between the Cornish and Devonshire people); and, although they became English subjects, their country was considered part of Cornwall”.

PenRecca

Thanks for this. Although the idea that the territory between the Dart and the Tamar remained separate from Devon until the reign of Henry III (1216-1272) seems unlikely, it does appear to have been a fairly commonly held belief that this part of Devon retained its Celtic character long after Athelstan (925-939) established the Tamar as the eastern boundary of Cornwall.

It is interesting that William Camden, in his 1607 edition of “Britannia”, describes Cornwall and Devon as being two parts of the same ‘country’ which, “was in ancient time inhabited by those Britains whom Solinus called Dunmonii, Ptolomee Damnonii, or (as we find in some other copies) more truly Danmonii. ... . But”, he says, “the Country of this nation is at this day divided into two parts, known by later names of Cornwall and Denshire [Devonshire] ... The near or hithermore region of the Danmonians that I spake of is now commonly called Denshire, [or] by the Cornish-Britains ‘Dewnan’, and by the Welsh Britains ‘Duffneint’, that is, ‘low valleys’, for that the people dwell for the most part beneath in Vales; by the English Saxons [it is known as] ‘Deven-schire’, whereof grew the Latin name ‘Devonia’, and by that contraction which the vulgar people useth, ‘Denshire’.”

By the way, Camden also suggests that the name of the river Exe (and thus of Exmoor, Exeter, Exmouth, etc) most likely derives from the Celtic word “iscaw, that signifieth in the British tongue Elders trees”. Another, although probably less likely source for the name, according to Camden, is from “Reeds, which the Britains call hesk”. I’m not sure where modern place-name etymologists stand on this one but Coates et al (pp. 267-268) list Exe as being “definitely Celtic”.

The 1607 edition of Camden’s “Britannia” is available online at:
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/cambrit/

"Fortescue Hitchens and Samuel Drew state that, “The Cornish language, it appears, was current in a part of the South Hams in the time of Edward 1st (1272-1307)”. "

And there's that Tristram Risdon quote that no one seems to have tracked down.

John Beddoe was a Victorian ethnologist and was infact a founder of the Ethnological Society. Beddoe was president of the Anthropological Institute from 1889 to 1891 and fellow of the Royal Society.

In John Beddoe's book "The Races of Britain" he makes reference to the following concerning Totnes

" Bretons came over in large numbers, as was just now said, and some remained. One would expect to meet with them especially in Richmondshire,*** or in the great barony of Judicael of Totnes, a Breton lord who had large grants in South Devon, but whose principal tenants bore Norman rather than Breton names. The speech in that district was then, and long after continued to be, Cornish; and an immigration of Bretons would hardly leave lasting traces among a people so nearly identical with themselves in language and not very dissimilar in physical type"

http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/beddoe_normans.html

As Beddoe is talking about the period after the Norman Conquest this is consistent with the other sources of late Celtic language survival in Devon - in this case assumed to be "long after" the Norman Invasion.

Sadly this excerpt does not show Beddoe's references (should they be given).

Given his background I would guess that there is a good chance that Beddoe did provide a reference for this statement. It would certainly be worth tracking down a copy of "The Races of Britain" and having a look.

I have attempted to do a bit of research on Beddoe's writings, and whilst I haven't yet seen "The Races of Britain" book, I have seen his article "On the Anthropology Of Devon and Cornwall".

In it Beddoe states

"As for the Cornish language, that seems to have lingered long in South Devon, and probably around Dartmoor. It has even been said, but I forget on what authority, not to have become extinct to the east of the Tamar, before the reign of Elizabeth."

This gives us a hint of survival of a Celtic language in Devon until a very late time (As QE1 reigned from 1533 to 1603), but is frustrating because of Beddoe's inadequate reference. Victorian authors often used a "conversational style" which seems not to accord with the more modern academic system of referencing.

I suspect that the 16th centiry reference can be regarded as mere speculation until (or if) such time as Beddoe's 'authority' can be identified, however what is evident is that Victorian historians were in no doubt that Devon retained a Celtic language well past the Norman invasion.

Apologies, Queen Elizabeth the First LIVED from 1533 until 1603, but she REIGNED from 1558 until 1603.

Ozzie Exile,

Just had a quick look online myself. This paper was published in the ‘Anthropological Review’ in 1870. Apparently the first edition of “The Races of Britain” appeared in 1862, eight years before the paper was published. There were also further editions in 1885, 1905 and 1971 (the last obviously long after Beddoe’s death). The paper may be a transcription of a talk given to the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland and this may explain the lack of a proper reference. It is still possible that there may be a reference provided in “The Races of Britain”.

I have also been trying to check 'The Races of Britain' but have yet to locate a copy.

Here is another Victorian writer making reference to the language in Devon. This is a quote from the Cornish historian the Rev. W.S. Lach-Szyrma, one-time vicar of Newlyn. Taken from an article entitled "The Old Cornish Language" in Venning's Postal Directory of East Cornwall for 1877...

"The curious names of places and people which a stranger frequently meets in Cornwall are really relics of the ancient Cornish language, a language once spoken throughout the county and even in parts of Devonshire during the middle ages".

The middle ages covers a long period and he doesn't give a source, but he does list dictionaries, grammars and books pubished in the language available at that time. I believe he was a respected historian.

Newvonian,

You may be right and "The Races of Britain" is still worth a look.

Beddoe's "Anthropology of Devon and Cornwall" was also primarily focussed on the physical attributes of the natives, his comment concerning language was by way of an aside, and as such he may not have thought it required referencing.

This would be especially true if it was a transcript of a talk.

It seems that even Henry Jenner (who was largely responsible for the rebirth of the Cornish Language in the early 20th century) saw the Celtic language as surviving late in Devon.

In his preface to a chapter on the folklore of pixies in Cornwall (as part of Evan-Wentz' 1911 book "The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries") Jenner states, with reference to whether the word should properly be the Devonian "Pixy" or the Cornish form "Pisky":

"I cannot deny, especially as it suits my argument better, that the Devon form is the correct one. But after all there has been always a strong Cornish element in Devon, even since the time when Athelstan drove the Britons out of Exeter and set the Tamar for their boundary, and I think the original word is really Cornish."

The more we look back through historical publications from Risdon to Jenner, the more that evidence for Brythonic speech in Devon post 1066 stacks up, . As far as I can tell, prior to the advent of the Cornish separatist movement in the early 20th century, the survival of Brythonic in the post Norman period was generally accepted.

However, the Cornish separatists were uncomfortable with the notion that some Brythonic speech persisted in Devon into the 14th century or later, as it was perceived as diluting the separatists’ claim of Cornish uniqueness. They therefore latched on to the fact that none of the accounts of post Norman Brythonic speech in Devon were corroborated by any primary evidence, or so they thought. In so doing, they were not being at all consistent, as much of the separatist account of Cornish history is also based on such uncorroborated evidence.

It has recently been pointed out to the separatists that some primary evidence for continued Brythonic speech in Devon does exist (at least until 1238AD). The historic document “Crown Pleas of the Devon Eyre of 1238” mentions a small but not insignificant percentage of persons described as “Walensis”, which was a term used at the time to identify Brythonic speakers. There also exists a number of Devon place-names of attested Brythonic origin that W.G. Hoskins identified as not being recorded until the 13th century, some of which have forms which are undoubtedly Middle Cornish in origin (i.e. post 12th century). Examples include the use of the Middle Cornish ‘-ek’ adjectival suffix, rather than the Old Cornish ‘-oc’ suffix.

To counter this new evidence, the separatists tried at first to claim that the “Walensis” in the Crown Pleas must have been itinerant Cornishmen. However, when it was pointed out that Cornishmen mentioned in the Crown Pleas were always referred to as being ‘of’ (or ‘from’) Cornwall, they then tried to claim that they must have been itinerant Welshmen (from Wales). A similar objection to this concocted interpretation can also be made as the very few Welshmen mentioned were referred to as being ‘from Wales’, and not one of the more numerous “Walensis” had a recognisably Welsh name. The separatists’ explanation for the Middle Cornish forms of some Devon place names first recorded in the 13th century was even more pathetic, i.e. that “they must have been put there by Cornishmen”.

Weighing up the evidence in its totality, I would say that the primary evidence (Walensis and Middle Cornish names) strongly corroborates the substantial body of secondary evidence from sources ranging from Risdon to Jenner.

You might find the following interesting :-
On being a Cornish ‘Celt’: changing Celtic heritage and traditions in Cornwall
by Bernard Deacon.
http://www.projects.ex.ac.uk/cornishcom/documents/OnbeingaCornishcelt.pdf
and on a lighter note:-
http://www.legendarydartmoor.co.uk/pasty_devon.htm

Bleidh,



A couple of interesting articles.

In Deacon's article he makes a statement about "recent curious efforts of a few people in English Devon to reject hundreds of years of Englishness and claim a Celtic inheritance".

As evidenced from the above postings, the idea of Devon having a Celtic heritage is certainly not new, but rather it seemed to be an accepted fact a century ago. It is interesting consider how and why that may have happened.

The article does put an interesting spin on the possible motivation behind Jenner's book.

Ozzie Exile and Bleidh,

The idea of Devon having a Celtic heritage is certainly not new, and was not just confined to the 19th century and earlier. It is also not recent. Deacon has not done his homework, as a number of writers have mentioned this during the 20th century, in addition to the quoted examples from earlier centuries. In the early part of the last century Baring-Gould made numerous references to Devon’s Celtic heritage, and in mid century W.G. Hoskins refers to uninterrupted Celtic habitation and the predominant pre-Saxon physical type in Devon. In the book “British Social History” published in the 1960s, Mainwaring and Wilson Brown refer to the Celtic peoples of Devon, Cornwall, Wales and Scotland. Clearly Deacon’s reading matter has not extended to these works.

I think that close examination of Deacon’s paper reveals the reason for his negative comment about Devon having a Celtic heritage. He explains the reasons why Cornwall’s admission to the Pan-Celtic Congress was initially blocked, i.e. that there was no surviving Celtic language in Cornwall. It required a re-defining of the term ‘Celtic’ by Jenner to convince the ‘Celtic hierarchy’ that Cornwall was indeed Celtic. The re-definition was that “people who inhabited a territory where a Celtic language was, or had been, spoken should be deemed ‘Celtic’”. Not only was such a definition flawed, because it would have included non-Celtic speaking people who may have totally replaced the Celtic speakers, but also it opened the gates to other people in England, such as Devonians, whose ancestors definitely spoke a Celtic language. Therefore to maintain the ‘uniqueness’ of Cornwall and its people within the English county structure as the ONLY Celtic people, the proto-separatists needed to demonstrate that the Celtic tongue had become entirely extinct in Devon prior to the emergence of the English state, as we know it, arbitrarily defined as the time of the Norman Conquest.

The proto-separatists thought that they could prove that Cornwall was different from Devon in this respect because although there existed a considerable body of secondary evidence (from a wide range of ‘historians/antiquarians/chroniclers’) for the survival of Brythonic speech in Devon into the 13th/14th centuries, they believed that there was no primary evidence to substantiate these claims. In Cornwall the situation was different because surviving Cornish texts from the 14th century and later provided such primary evidence. Therefore when we discovered the primary evidence for Brythonic speech survival in Devon, i.e. the Crown Pleas (1238) and the Middle Cornish influence in some 13th century place-names, the Cornish separatists desperately searched for alternative explanations for this evidence in order to preserve Cornish ‘uniqueness’. The explanations they came up with were farcical, such as bands of Cornishmen coming into Devon to bestow new names on places in their own language (according to C. Jenkin). It is also interesting to note that the Devonian volunteers in the “Face of Britain” DNA survey were confident that they would be classified as being of Celtic ancestry, which proved to be the case, so Deacon is wrong about it just applying to “a few people” in Devon.

Incidentally, I note that on page 2 of the Deacon paper, he talks about ‘dismissing Devon’s ‘Celtic’ claims later in the paper’, yet he fails to do so. I wonder why.

I think the problem that Devon has in talking about any Celtic past is that the evidence is no longer there, if it ever was. All of England has some Celtic heritage and Devon is obviously no different. Celtic place names, for example, are very thinly spread and very unlike the amount in Cornwall and Wales. That is the one of the Celtic pieces of evidence that is lacking in Devon. If this ever did exist in Devon, it was certainly swallowed up by "Wessex" at a very early stage looking at the completeness on the map.