FROMTHE CLASSICAL MUSEUM OF 1846. VOL. 3.
The following train of thought presented itself to the writer upon the perusal of Mr. James Yates's learned and interesting work entitled Textrinum Antiquorum or an account of the art of weaving among the ancients. With scarcely a single exception the facts and references are supplied from that work so that to the author of the present paper nothing belongs beyond the reasoning that he has applied to them.
This statement is made once for all for the sake of saving a multiplicity of recurring references.
The negative assertions as well as the positive ones are also made upon the full faith in the exhaustive learning of the writer in question.
Now the conviction that is come to is this, that no tribe, nation or country ever existed which can be shewn to have borne, either in the vernacular or in any neighbouring language, the name Seres, Serica, or Terra Serica or any equivalent term, a conclusion that may save some trouble to the inquirers into ancient geography.
The nation called Seres has never had a specific existence under that name. Whence then originated the frequent indications of such a nation recurring in the writings of the ancients? The doctrine, founded upon the facts of Mr. Yates and laid down as a proposition; is as follows.—
That the name under which the articlesilkwas introduced to the Greeks and Romans wore the appearance of a Gentile adjective and that the imaginary root of the accredited adjective passed for the substantive name of a nation. Thus, in the original formseric, the-ichad the appearance of being an adjectival termination, as inMedic-us Persic-us&c.; whilstser-was treated as the substantive name of a nation or people from whence the article in question (i. e. thesericarticle) was derived. TheSerestherefore were the hypothetical producers of the article that bore their name (seric). Whether this view involves more improbabilities than the current one will be seen from the forthcoming observations.—
1. In the first place the crude formsericwas neither Latin nor Greek, so that the-iccould not be adjectival.
2. Neither was it in the simpler formser-that the term was introduced into the classical languages so that the adjectival-icmight be appended afterwards.—
3. The name in question whatever might have been its remote origin was introduced into Greece from the Semitic tongues (probably the Phoenician) and was the wordשריקin Isaiah XIX. 9. where theיק(the-ic) is not an adjectival appendage but a radical part of the word. And here it may be well to indicate that, except under the improbable supposition that the Hebrew name was borrowed from the Greek or Latin, it is a matter of indifference whether the word in question was indigenous to the Semitic Languages or introduced from abroad, and also that is a matter of indifference whether silk was known in the time of the Old Testament or not. It is sufficient if a term afterwards applied to that article was Hebrew at the time of Isaiah. Of any connection between the substance calledשריקand a nation called Seres there is in the Semitic tongues no trace. The foundation of the present scepticism originated in the observation that the supposed national existence of the Seres coincided with the introduction of the termsericinto languages whereic-was an adjectival affix.—
As early as the Augustan age the substantiveSeresappears by the side of the adjectiveSericus. In Virgil, Horace and Ovid the words may be found and from this time downwards the express notice of a nation so called is found through a long series of writers.—
Notwithstanding this it is as late as the time of Mela before we find any author mentioning with detail and precision a geographical nationality for the Seres. "He (Mela) describes them as a very honest people who brought what they had to sell, laid it down and went away and then returned for the price of it" (Yates p. 184). Now this notice is anything rather than definite. Its accuracy moreover may be suspected, since it belongs to the ambiguous class of what may be called convertible descriptions. The same story is told of an African nation in Herodotus IV. 169.
To the statement of Mela we may add a notice from Ammianus Marcellinus of the quiet and peaceable character of the Seres (XXIII. 6.) and a statement from the novelist Heliodorus that at the nuptials of Theagenes and Chariclea the ambassadors of the Seres came bringing the thread and webs of their spiders (Aethiop. X. p. 494. Commelini).
Now notices more definite than the above of the national existence of the Seres anterior to the time of Justinian we have none whilst subsequently to the reign of that emperor there is an equal silence on the part both of historians and geographers. Neither have modern ethnographers found unequivocal traces of tribes bearing that name.
The probability of a confusion like the one indicated at the commencement of the paper is increased by the facts stated in p. 222. of the Textrinum. Here we see that besides Pausanias, Hesychius, Photius and other writers give two senses to the rootser-which they say is (1.) a worm (2.) the name of a nation. Probably Clemens Alexandrinus does the sameνῆμα χρυσοῦ καὶ σῆρας Ἰνδικοὺς καὶ τοὺς περιέργους βόμβυκας χαίρειν ἐῶντας. A passage from Ulpian (Textrinum p. 192) leads to the belief thatσῆραςhere means silk-worm. Vestimentorum sunt omnia lanea lineaque, velsericavel bombycina.
Finally the probability of the assumed confusion is verified by the statement of Procopiusαὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ μέταξα ἐξ ἧς εἰώθασι τὴν ἐσθῆτα ἐργάζεσθαι, ἣν πάλαι μὲν Ἥλληνες Μηδικὴν ἐκάλουν, τανῦν δὲ σηρικὴν ὀνομάζουσιν. (De Bell. Persic. I. 20.).
Militating against these views I find little unsusceptible of explanation.—
1. The expressionσηρικα δερματαof the author of the Periplus Maris Erythraei means skins from the silk country.
2. The intricacy introduced into the question by a passage of Procopius is greater. In the account of the first introduction of the silk worm into Europe in the reign of Justinian the monks who introduced it having arrived from India stated that they had long resided in the country calledSerinda inhabited by Indian nations where they had learned how raw silk might be produced in the country of the Romans (Textrinum p. 231). This is so much in favor of the root Ser-being gentile, but at the same time so much against the Seres being Chinese. Sanskrit scholars may perhaps adjust this matter. The Serinda is probably the fabulous Serendib.
In the countries around the original localities of the silk-worm the name for silk is as follows—
In CoreanSir.Chinesese.Mongoliansirkek.Mandchoosirghe.
It is the conviction of the present writer that a nation called Seres had no geographical existence.
READBEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
FEBRUARY 9, 1844.
It is considered that the evidence of any local connection between the Cimbri conquered by Marius, and the Chersonesus Cimbrica, is insufficient to counterbalance the natural improbability of a long and difficult national migration. Of such a connection, however, the identity of name and the concurrent belief of respectable writers areprimâ facieevidence. This, however, is disposed of if such a theory as the following can be established, viz. that, for certain reasons, the knowledge of the precise origin and locality of the nations conquered by Marius was, at an early period, confused and indefinite; that new countries were made known without giving any further information; that, hence, the locality of the Cimbri was always pushed forwards beyond the limits of the geographical areas accurately ascertained; and finally, that thus their supposed locality retrograded continually northwards until it fixed itself in the districts of Sleswick and Jutland, where the barrier of the sea and the increase of geographical knowledge (with one exception) prevented it from getting farther. Now this view arises out of the examination of the language of the historians and geographers as examined in order, from Sallust to Ptolemy.
Of Sallust and Cicero, the language points to Gaul as the home of the nation in question; and that without the least intimation of its being any particularly distant portion of that country. "Per idem tempus adversus Gallos ab ducibus nostris, Q. Cæpione et M. Manlio, malè pugnatum—Marius Consul absens factus, et ei decreta Provincia Gallia."Bell.Jugurth.114. "Ipse ille Marius—influentes in Italiam Gallorum maximas copias repressit."Cicero de Prov. Consul.13. And here an objection may be anticipated. It is undoubtedly true that even if the Cimbri had originated in a locality so distant as the Chersonese, it would have been almost impossible to have made such a fact accurately understood. Yet it is also true, that if any material difference had existed between the Cimbri and the Gauls of Gaul, such must have been familiarly known in Rome, since slaves of both sorts must there have been common.
Cæsar, whose evidence ought to be conclusive (inasmuch as he knew of Germany as well as of Gaul), fixes them to the south of the Marne and Seine. This we learn, not from the direct text, but from inference: "Gallos—a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit."Bell. Gall.i. "Belgas—solos esse qui, patrum nostrûm memoria, omni Galliâ vexatâ, Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi prohibuerunt."Bell. Gall.ii. 4. Now if the Teutones and Cimbri had moved from north to south, they would have clashed with the Belgæ first and with the other Gauls afterwards. The converse, however, was the fact. It is right here to state, that the last observation may be explained away by supposing, either that the Teutones and Cimbri here meant may be aremnantof the confederation on theirreturn, or else a portion that settled down in Gaul upon their way; or finally, a division that made a circle towards the place of their destination in a south-east direction. None of these however seem the plain and natural construction; and I would rather, if reduced to the alternative, read "Germania" instead of "Gallia" than acquiesce in the most probable of them.
Diodorus Siculus, without defining their locality, deals throughout with the Cimbri as a Gaulish tribe. Besides this, he gives us one of the elements of the assumed indistinctness of ideas in regard to their origin, viz. their hypothetical connexion with the Cimmerii. In this recognition of what might have been called theCimmerian theory, he is followed by Strabo and Plutarch.—Diod. Sicul.v. 32.Strabovii.Plutarch. Vit. Marii.
The next writer who mentions them is Strabo. In confirmation of the view taken above, this author places the Cimbri on the northernmost limit of the area geographically known to him, viz.beyondGaul andinGermany, between the Rhine and the Elbe:τῶν δὲ Γερμάνων ὡς εἶπον, ὁὶ μὲν προσάρκτιοι παρηκοῦσι τῷ Ὠκεανῷ.Γνωρίζονται δ' ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκβολῶν τοῦ Ῥήνου λαβόντες τὴν ἀρχὴν μέχρι τοῦ Ἄλβιος.Τούτων δὲ εἰσὶ γνωριμώτατοι Σούγαμβροί τε καὶ Κίμβροι.Τὰ δὲ πέραν τοῦ Ἄλβιος τὰ πρὸς τῷ Ὠκεανῷ ἄγνωστα ἡμῖν ἐστιν.(B. iv.) Further proof that this was the frontier of the Roman world we get from the statement which soon follows, viz. that "thus much was known to the Romans from their successful wars, and that more would have been known had it not been for the injunction of Augustus forbidding his generals to cross the Elbe." (B. iv.)
Velleius Paterculus agrees with his contemporary Strabo. He places them beyond the Rhine and deals with them as Germans:—"tum Cimbri et Teutoni transcendere Rhenum, multis mox nostris suisque cladibus nobiles." (ii. 9.) "Effusa—immanis vis Germanarum gentium quibus nomen Cimbris et Teutonis erat." (Ibid.12.)
From theGermaniaof Tacitus a well-known passage will be considered in the sequel. Tacitus' locality coincides with that of Strabo.
Ptolemy.—Now the author who most mentions in detail the tribes beyond the Elbe is also the author who most pushes back the Cimbri towards the north. Coincident with his improved information as to the parts southward, he places them at the extremity of the area known to him:Καῦχοι οἱ μείζονες μέχρι τού Ἀλβίου ποταμοῦ·ἐφεξῆς δὲ ἐπὶ αὔχενα τῆς Κιμβρικῆς Χερσονήσου Σάξονες, αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν Χερσόνησον·ὑπερ μὲν τοὺς Σάξονας, Σιγουλώνες ἀπὸ δυσμῶν·εἶτα Σαβαλίγγιοι εἶτα Κόβανδοι, ὑπὲρ οὓς Χάλοι·καὶ ἔτι ὑπερτάτους δυσμικώτεροι μὲν Φουνδούσιοι, ἀνατολικώτεροι δὲ Χαροῦδες, πάντων δὲ ἀρτικώτεροι Κύμβροι.—Ptolemæi Germania.
Such is the evidence of those writers, Greek or Roman, who deal with the local habitation of the Cimbri rather than with the general history of that tribe. As a measure of the indefinitude of their ideas, we have the confusion, already noticed, between the Cimbri and Cimmerii, on the parts of Diodorus, Strabo, and Plutarch. A better measure occurs in the following extract from Pliny, who not only fixes the Cimbri in three places at once, but also (as far as we can find any meaning in his language) removes them so far northward as Norway: "Alterum genus Ingævones, quorum pars Cimbri Teutoni ac Chaucorum gentes. Proximi Rheno Istævones, quorum pars Cimbri mediterranei." (iv. 14.) "Promontorium Cimbrorum excurrens in maria longe Peninsulam efficit quæ Carthis appellatur."Ibid."Sevo Mons (the mountain-chains of Norway) immanem ad Cimbrorum usque promontorium efficit sinum, qui Codanus vocatur, refertus insulis, quarum clarissima Scandinavia, incompertæ magnitudinis." (iv. 13.) Upon confusion like this it is not considered necessary to expend further evidence. So few statements coincide, that under all views there must be a misconception somewhere; and of such misconception great must the amount be, to become more improbable than a national migration from Jutland to Italy.
Over and above, however, this particular question of evidence, there stands a second one; viz. the determination of the Ethnographical relations of the nations under consideration. This is the point as to whether the Cimbri conquered by Marius were Celts or Goths, akin to the Gauls, or akin to the Germans; a disputed point, and one which, for its own sake only, were worth discussing, even at the expense of raising a wholly independent question. Such however it is not. If the Cimbri were Celts, the improbability of their originating in the Cimbric Chersonese would be increased, and with it the amount of evidence required; since, laying aside other considerations, the natural unlikelihood of a large area being traversed by a mass of emigrants is greatly enhanced by the fact of any intermediate portion of that area being possessed by tribes as alien to each other as the Gauls and Germans. Hence therefore the fact of the Cimbri being Celts will (if proved) be considered as making against the probability of their origin in the Cimbric Chersonese; whilst if they be shown to be Goths, the difficulties of the supposition will be in some degree diminished. Whichever way this latter point is settled, something will be gained for the historian; since the supposed presence of Celts in the Cimbric Chersonese has complicated more than one question in ethnography.
Previous to proceeding in the inquiry it may be well to lay down once for all as a postulate, that whatever, in the way of ethnography, is proved concerning any one tribe of the Cimbro-Teutonic league, must be considered as proved concerning the remainder; since all explanations grounded upon the idea that one part was Gothic and another part Celtic have a certain amount ofprimâ facieimprobability to set aside. The same conditions as to the burden of proof apply also to any hypotheses founded on the notion ofretiringCimbriposteriorto the attempted invasion of Italy. On this point the list of authors quoted will not be brought below the time of Ptolemy. With the testimonies anterior to that writer, bearing upon the question of the ethnography, the attempt however will be made to be exhaustive. Furthermore, as the question in hand is not so much the absolute fact as to whether the Cimbri were Celts or Goths, but one as to the amount of evidence upon which we believe them to be eitherthe one or the other, statements will be noticed under the head of evidence, not because they are really proofs, but simply because they have ever been looked upon as such. Beginning then with the Germanic origin of the Cimbro-Teutonic confederation, and dealing separately with such tribes as are separately mentioned, we first find the
Ambrones.—In the Anglo-Saxon poem called the Traveller's Song, there is a notice of a tribe calledYmbre,Ymbras, orYmbran. Suhm, the historian of Denmark, has allowed himself to imagine that these represent theAmbrones, and that their name still exists in that of the islandAmronof the coast of Sleswick, and perhaps inAmerland, a part of Oldenburg.—Thorpe's note on the Traveller's Song in theCodex Exoniensis.
Teutones.—In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names with that of the Cimbri, there is but little. They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. Ptolemy, however, mentionsa) the Teutonarii,b) the Teutones:Τευτονοάριοι καὶ Ουίρουνοι—Φαραδεινῶν δὲ καὶ Συήβων, Τεύτονες καὶ Ἄμαρποι. Besides this, however, arguments have been taken froma) the meaning of the rootteut=people(þiuda, M. G.;þeód, A. S.;diot, O. H. G.):b) theSaltus Teutobergius:c) the supposed connection of the present wordDeut-sch=Germanwith the classical wordTeutones. These may briefly be disposed of.
a.) It is not unlikely for an invading nation to call themselvesthe nation,the nations,the people, &c. Neither, if the tribe in question had done so (presuming them to have been Germans or Goths), would the word employed be very unlikeTeuton-es. Although the wordþiud-a=nationorpeople, is generally strong in its declension (so making the pluralþiud-ôs), it is found also in a weak form with its pluralthiot-ûn=Teuton-. SeeDeutsche Grammatik, i. 630.
b.) TheSaltus Teutobergiusmentioned by Tacitus (Ann.i. 60) can scarcely have taken its name from a tribe, or, on the other hand, have given it to one. It means eitherthe hill of the people, orthe city of the people; according as the syllable-berg-is derived frombáirgs=a hill, or frombaúrgs=a city. In either case the compound is allowable,e. g.diot-wëc,public way, O. H. G.; thiod-scatho,robber of the people, O. S.; þëód-cyning, þeod-mearc,boundary of the nation, A. S.; þiód-land, þiód-vëgr,people's way, Icelandic;—Theud-e-mirus, Theud-e-linda, Theud-i-gotha, proper names (fromþiud-):himil-bërac,velt-përac;friðu-përac, O. H. G.;himinbiörg,valbiörg, Icelandic (frombáirgs=hill)—ascipurc,hasalpurc,saltzpurc, &c., O. H. G. (frombaúrgs=city). The particular worddiot-puruc=civitas magnaoccurs in O. H. G.—SeeDeutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 478.
c.Akin to this is the reasoning founded upon the connection (real or supposed) between the rootTeut-inTeuton-, and the rootdeut-inDeut-sch. It runs thus. The syllable in question is common to the wordTeut-ones,Teut-onicus,Theod-iscus,teud-iscus,teut-iscus,tût-iske,dût-iske,tiut-sche,deut-sch; whilst the wordDeut-schmeansGerman. As theTeut-oneswere Germans, so were the Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the circumstance that the syllableTeut-inTeut-onesandTeut-onicus, as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is wholly unconnected with theTeut-intheod-iscus, andDeut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on the wordsGermanandDutch. In its oldest form the latter word meantpopular,national,vernacular; it was an adjective applied to thevulgar tongue, or the vernacular German, in opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary formTeut-onicuscame in vogue even with German writers. Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin formRomanice, or out of the idea of an historical connection with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear that the present worddeut-schproves nothing respecting theTeutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial the wordTeutonicuswas used in a general sense, denoting the Germans in general. Certain it is that before his time it meant the particular people conquered by Marius, irrespective of origin or locality.—See Grimm'sDeutsche Grammatik, i. p. 17, 3rd edit. Martial, xiv. 26,Teutonici capilli. Claudian. in Eutrop. i. 406,Teutonicum hostem.
TheCimbri.—Evidence to the Gothic origin of the Cimbri (treated separately) begins with the writers under Augustus and Tiberius.
Vell. Paterculus.—The testimony of this writer as to the affinities of the nations in question is involved in his testimony as to their locality, and, consequently, subject to the same criticism. His mention of them (as Germans) is incidental.
Strabo.—Over and above the references already made, Strabo has certain specific statements concerning the Cimbri:a.) That according to a tradition (which he does not believe) they left their country on account of an inundation of the sea. This is applicable to Germany rather than to Gaul. This liability to inundations must not, however, be supposed to indicate a locality in the Cimbric Chersonese as well asa German origin, since the coast between the Scheldt and Elbe is as obnoxious to the ocean as the coasts of Holstein, Sleswick and Jutland.b.) That against the German Cimbri and Teutones the Belgæ alone kept their ground—ὥστε μόνους (Βέλγας) ἀντέχειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Γερμάνων ἔφοδον, Κίμβρων καὶ Τευτόνων.(iv. 3.) This is merely a translation of Cæsar (see above) with the interpolationΓερμάνων.c.) That they inhabited their original country, and that they sent ambassadors to Augustus—καὶ γὰρ νῦν ἔχουσι τὴν χώραν ἣν εἶχον πρότερον καὶ ἕπεμπσαν τῷ Σεβαστῷ ιἑρώτατον παρ' αὐτοῖς, λέβητα, αἰτούμενοι φιλίαν καὶ ἀμνηστίαν τῶν ὑπουργμένων· τυχόντες δὲ ὧν ἠξίουν ἀφῇραν. (B. i.) Full weight must be given to the definite character of this statement.
Tacitus.—Tacitus coincides with Strabo, in giving to the Cimbri a specific locality, and in stating special circumstances of their history. Let full weight be given to the words of a writer like Tacitus; but let it also be remembered that he wrote from hearsay evidence, that he is anything rather than an independent witness, that his statement is scarcely reconcileable with those of Ptolemy and Cæsar, and that above all the locality which both he and Strabo give theCimbriis also the locality of theSicambri, of which latter tribe no mention is made by Tacitus, although their wars with the Romans were matters of comparatively recent history. For my own part, I think, that between a confusion of theCimbriwith theCimmeriion the one hand, and of theCimbriwith theSicambrion the other, we have the clue to the misconceptions assumed at the commencement of the paper. There is no proof that in the eyes of the writers under the Republic, the origin of the Cimbri was a matter of either doubt or speculation. Catulus, in the History of his Consulship, commended by Cicero (Brutus, xxxv.), and Sylla in his Commentaries, must have spoken of them in a straightforward manner as Gauls, otherwise Cicero and Sallust would have spoken of them less decidedly. (See Plutarch'sLife of Marius, andnote.) Confusion arose when Greek readers of Homer and Herodotus began to theorize, and this grew greater when formidable enemies under the name ofSicambriwere found in Germany. It is highly probable that in both Strabo and Tacitus we have a commentary on the lines of Horace—
Te cæde gaudentes SicambriCompositis venerantur armis.
Te cæde gaudentes SicambriCompositis venerantur armis.
"Eumdem (with the Chauci, Catti, and Cherusci) Germaniæ sinum proximi Oceano Cimbri tenent, parva nunc civitas,sed gloria ingens: veterisque famæ lata vestigia manent, utrâque ripâ castra ac spatia, quorum ambitu nunc quoque metiaris molem manusque gentis, et tam magni exitus fidem—occasione discordiæ nostræ et civilium armorum, expugnatis legionum hibernis, etiam Gallias affectavêre; ac rursus pulsi, inde proximis temporibus triumphati magis quam victi sunt." (German.38.)
Justin.—Justin writes—"Simul eGermaniâCimbros—inundâsse Italiam." Now this extract would be valuable if we were sure that the wordGermaniacame from Justin's original, Trogus Pompeius; who was a Vocontian Gaul, living soon after the Cimbric defeat. To him, however, the termGermaniamust have been wholly unknown; since, besides general reasons, Tacitus says—"Germaniæ vocabulum recens et nuper additum: quoniam, qui primum Rhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint, ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani vocati sint: ita nationis nomen, non gentis evaluisse paullatim, ut omnes, primum a victore ob metum, mox a seipsis invento nomineGermanivocarentur." Justin's interpolation ofGermaniacorresponds with the similar one on the part of Strabo.
Such is the evidence for the Germanic origin of the Cimbri and Teutones, against which may now be set the following testimonies as to their affinity with the Celts, each tribe being dealt with separately.
The Ambrones.—Strabo mentions them along with the Tigurini, an undoubted Celtic tribe—Κατὰ τὸν πρὸς Ἄμβρωνας καὶ Τωϋγενοὺς πόλεμον.
Suetonius places them with the Transpadani—"per Ambronas et Transpadanos." (Cæsar, § 9.)
Plutarch mentions that their war-cries were understood and answered by the Ligurians. Now it is possible that the Ligurians were Celts, whilst it is certain that they were not Goths.
The Teutones.—Appian speaks of the Teutones having invaded Noricum, and this under the headΚέλτικα.
Florus calls one of the kings of the Teutones Teutobocchus, a name Celtic rather than Gothic.
Virgil has the following lines:—
... late jam tum ditione premebatSarrastes populos, et quæ rigat æquora Sarnus;Quique Rufas, Batulumque tenent, atque arva Celennæ;Et quos maliferæ despectant mœnia Abellæ:Teutonicoritu soliti torquerecateias.Tegmina queis capitum raptus de subere cortex,Æratæque micant peltæ, micat æreus ensis.—Æn.vii. 737-743.
... late jam tum ditione premebatSarrastes populos, et quæ rigat æquora Sarnus;Quique Rufas, Batulumque tenent, atque arva Celennæ;Et quos maliferæ despectant mœnia Abellæ:Teutonicoritu soliti torquerecateias.Tegmina queis capitum raptus de subere cortex,Æratæque micant peltæ, micat æreus ensis.—Æn.vii. 737-743.
Now this wordcateiamay be a provincialism from the neighbourhood of Sarraste. It may also (amongst other things) be a true Teutonic word. From what follows it will appear that this latter view is at least as likely as any other. The commentators state that it isvox Celtica. That this is true may be seen from the following forms—Irish:ga,spear,javelin;gaoth,ditto,a dart;goth,a spear(O'Reilly);gaothadh,a javelin;gadh,spear;gai,ditto;crann gaidh,spear-shaft(Begly)—Cornish:geu,gew,gu,gui=lance,spear,javelin,shaft(Pryce)—Breton:goas,goaff(Rostremer).
The Cimbri—The Teutones.—Of either the Cimbri separately or of the Cimbri and Teutones collectively, being of Gallic origin, we have, in the way of direct evidence, the testimonies exhibited above, viz. of Sallust, Cicero, Cæsar, Diodorus. To this may be added that of Dion Cassius, who not only had access to the contemporary accounts which spoke of them as Gauls, but also was enabled to use them critically, being possessed of information concerning Germany as well as France.
Of Appian the whole evidence goes one way, viz. that the tribes in question were Gauls. His expressions are:πλεῖστον τι καὶ μαχιμώτατον—χρῆμα Κελτῶν εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὴν Γαλατίαν εἰσέβαλε. (iv. 2.) In his book on Illyria he states that the Celts and Cimbri, along with the Illyrian tribe of the Autariæ, had, previous to the battle against Marius, attacked Delphi and suffered for their impiety. (Ἰλλυρ. δ.4.)
Quintilian may be considered to give us upon the subject the notions of two writers—Virgil, and either Cæsar or Crassus. In dealing, however, with the words of Quintilian, it will be seen that there are two assumptions. That either Cæsar or Crassus considered the Cimbri to be Gauls we infer from the following passage:—"Rarum est autem, ut oculis subjicere contingat (sc.vituperationem), ut fecit C. Julius, qui cum Helvio Manciæ sæpius obstrepenti sibi diceret,jam ostendam, qualis sis: isque plane instaret interrogatione, qualem se tandem ostensurus esset, digito demonstravit imaginem Galli in scuto Mariano Cimbrico pictam, cui Mancia tum simillimus est visus. Tabernæ autem erant circum Forum, ac scutum illud signi gratiâ positum."Inst. Orat.vi. 3. 38. Pliny tells the story of Crassus (39. 4.). Although in this passage the word upon which the argument turns has been writtengalli, and translatedcock, the current interpretation is the one given above.—Vid. not.ed. Gesner.
In the same author is preserved the epigram of Virgil's called Catalecta, and commented on by Ausonius of Bordeaux. Here we learn that T. AnniusCimberwas a Gaul; whilst it is assumed that there was no other reason to believe that he was calledCimberthan that of his being descended from some slave or freedman of that nation:—"Non appareat affectatio, in quam mirifice Virgilius,
Corinthiorum amator iste verborum,Ille iste rhetor: namque quatenus totusThucydides Britannus, Atticæ febres,Tau-Gallicum,min-,al-spinæ male illisit.Ita omnia ista verba miscuit fratri.
Corinthiorum amator iste verborum,Ille iste rhetor: namque quatenus totusThucydides Britannus, Atticæ febres,Tau-Gallicum,min-,al-spinæ male illisit.Ita omnia ista verba miscuit fratri.
Cimber hic fuit a quo fratrem necatum hoc Ciceronis dictum notatum est;Germanum Cimber occidit."—Inst. Orat.viii. 3.cum not.
Dic, quid significent Catalecta Maronis? in hisal-Celtarum posuit, sequitur non lucidiustau-,Et quod germano mistum male letiferummin-.—Auson.
Dic, quid significent Catalecta Maronis? in hisal-Celtarum posuit, sequitur non lucidiustau-,Et quod germano mistum male letiferummin-.—Auson.
Undoubtedly the pronunciation here ridiculed is that of the Gauls, and it is just possible that in it is foreshadowed the curtailed form that the Latin tongue in general puts on in the present French. Again, the slave whose courage failed him when ordered to slay Caius Marius is called both a Gaul and a Cimbrian by Plutarch, as well as by Lucan. In the latter writer we have probably but a piece of rhetoric (Pharsalia.lib. ii.)
Amongst tribes undoubtedly Gallic the Nervii claimed descent from the Teutones and Cimbri. The passage of Tacitus that connects the Nervii with theGermansconnects them also with the Treveri. Now a well-known passage in St. Jerome tells us that the Treveri were Gauls:—Νέρβιοι ἠσαν δὲ Κίμβρων καὶ Τευτόνων ἀπόγονοι.—Appian, iv. 1. 4. "Treveri et Nervii circa adfectationem Germanicæ originis ultrò ambitiosi sunt, tamquam, per hanc gloriam sanguinis, a similitudine et inertiâ Gallorum separentur."German.28. Finally, in the Life of Marius by Plutarch we have dialogues between the Cimbri and the Romans. Now a Gallic interpreter was probable, but not so a German one.
Such are the notices bearing upon the ethnography of the Cimbri. Others occur, especially amongst the poets; of these little or no use can be made, for a reason indicated above. Justin speaks of embassies between Mithridates and the Cimbri. Suetonius connects the Cimbri with the Gallic Senones; he is writing however about Germany, so that his evidence, slight as it is, is neutralized. Theories grounded upon the national name may be raised on both sides;Cimbrimay coincide with either the Germanickempa=a warriororchampion, or with the CelticCymry=Cambrians. Equally equivocal seem the arguments drawn from the descriptions either of their physical conformation or their manners. The silence of the Gothic traditions as to the Cimbri being Germanic, proves more in the way of negative evidence than the similar silence of the Celtic ones, since the Gothic legends are the most numerous and the most ancient. Besides this, they deal very especially with genealogies, national and individual. The name of Bojorix, a Cimbric king mentioned inEpitome Liviana(lxvii.), is Celtic rather than Gothic, although in the latter dialects proper names ending in-ric, (Alaric,Genseric) frequently occur.
Measuring the evidence, which is in its character essentially cumulative, consisting of a number of details unimportant in themselves, but of value when taken in the mass, the balance seems to be in favour of the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones being Gauls rather than Germans, Celts rather than Goths.
An argument now forthcoming stands alone, inasmuch as it seems to prove two things at once, viz. not only the Celtic origin of the Cimbri, but, at the same time, their locality in the Chersonese. It is brought forward by Dr. Pritchard in his 'Physical History of Mankind,' and runs as follows:—(a.) It is a statement of Pliny that the sea in their neighbourhood was called by the CimbriMorimarusa, or thedead sea=mare mortuum. (b.) It is a fact that in Celtic Welshmor marwth=mare mortuum,morimarusa,dead sea. Hence the language of the Cimbric coast is to be considered as Celtic. Now the following facts invalidate this conclusion:—(1.) Putting aside the contradictions in Pliny's statement, the epithetdeadis inapplicable to either the German Ocean or the Baltic. (2.) Pliny's authority was a writer named Philemon: out of the numerous Philemons enumerated by Fabricius, it is likely that the one here adduced was a contemporary of Alexander the Great; and it is not probable that at that time glosses from the Baltic were known in the Mediterranean. (3.) The subject upon which this Philemon wrote was the Homeric Poems. This, taken along with the geography of the time, makes it highly probable that the original Greek was notΚίμβροι, butΚιμμέριοι; indeed we are not absolutely sure of Pliny having writtenCimbri. (4.) As applied to Cimmerian sea the epithetdeadwas applicable. (5.) The termMorimarusa=mare mortuum, although good Celtic, is better Slavonic, since throughout that stock of languages, as in many other of the Indo-European tongues(the Celtic and Latin included), the rootsmorandmorimeanseaanddeadrespectively:—"Septemtrionalis Oceanus, Amalchium eum Hecatæus appellat, a Paropamiso amne, qua Scythiam alluit, quod nomen ejus gentis linguâ significat congelatum, PhilemonMorimarusama Cimbris (qu.Cimmeriis) vocari scribit: hoc estmare mortuumusque ad promontorium Rubeas, ultra deinde Cronium." (13.)
One point, however, still remains: it may be dealt with briefly, but it should not be wholly overlooked, viz. the question, whether over and above the theories as to the location of the Cimbri in the Cimbric Chersonese, there is reason to believe, on independent grounds, that Celtic tribes were the early inhabitants of the peninsula in question? If such were actually the case, all that has preceded would, up to a certain point, be invalidated. Now I know no sufficient reasons for believing such to be the case, although there are current in ethnography many insufficient ones.
1. In the way of Philology, it is undoubtedly true that words common to the Celtic tribes occur in the Danish of Jutland, and in the Frisian and Low German of Sleswick and Holstein; but there is no reason to consider that they belong to an aboriginal Celtic tribe. Theà prioriprobability of Celts in the peninsula involves hypotheses in ethnography which are, to say the least, far from being generally recognized. The evidence as to the language of aborigines derived from the significance of the names of old geographical localities is wanting for the Cimbric Chersonese.
2. No traditions, either Scandinavian or German, point towards an aboriginal Celtic population for the localities in question.
3. There are no satisfactory proofs of such in either Archæology or Natural History. A paper noticed by Dr. Pritchard of Professor Eschricht's upon certain Tumuli in Jutland states, that the earliest specimens of art (anterior to the discovery of metals), as well as the character of the tumuli themselves, have a Celtic character. He adds, however, that the character of the tumuli is as much Siberian as Celtic. The early specimens of art are undoubtedly like similar specimens found in England. It happens, however, that such things are inallcountries more or less alike. In Professor Siebold's museum at Leyden, stone-axes from tumuli in Japan and Jutland are laid side by side, for the sake of comparison, and between them there is no perceptible difference. The oldest skulls in these tumuli are said to be other than Gothic. They are, however, Finnic rather than Celtic.
4. The statement in Tacitus (German.44.), that a nation onthe Baltic called the Æstii spoke a language somewhat akin to the British, cannot be considered as conclusive to the existence of Celts in the North of Germany. Any language, not German, would probably so be denoted. Such might exist in the mother-tongue of either the Lithuanic or the Esthonian.
It is considered that in the foregoing pages the following propositions are either proved or involved:—1. That the Cimbri conquered by Marius came from either Gaul or Switzerland, and that they were Celts. 2. That the Teutones and Ambrones were equally Celtic with the Cimbri. 3. That no nation north of the Elbe was known to Republican Rome. 4. That there is no evidence of Celtic tribes ever having existed north of the Elbe. 5. That the epithetCimbricaapplied to the Chersonesus proves nothing more in respect to the inhabitants of that locality than is proved by words likeWest IndianandNorth-American Indian. 6. That in the wordcateiawe are in possession of a new Celtic gloss. 7. That in the termMorimarusawe are in possession of a gloss at once Cimmerian and Slavonic. 8. That for any positive theory as to the Cimbro-Teutonic league we have at present no data, but that the hypothesis that would reconcile the greatest variety of statements would run thus: viz. that an organized Celtic confederation conterminous with the Belgæ, the Ligurians, and the Helvetians descended with its eastern divisions upon Noricum, and with its western ones upon Provence.
JANUARY 1859.
In this paper the notice of the Monumentum Ancyranum is omitted. It is CIMBRIQVE ET CHRIIDES ET SEMNONES ET EJVSDEM TRACTVS ALII GERMANORVM POPVLI PER LEGATOS AMICITIAM MEAM ET POPVLI ROMANI PETIERVNT. This seems to connect itself with Strabo's notice. It may also connect itself with that of Tacitus. Assuming the CHARIIDES to be the Harudes, and the Harudes to be the Cherusci (a doctrine for which I have given reasons in my edition of the Germania) the position of the Cimbri in the text of Tacitus is very nearly that of them in the Inscription. In the inscription, the order is Cimbri, Harudes, Semnones; in Tacitus, Cherusci, Cimbri, Semnones. In both cases the 3 names are associated.
I would now modify the proposition with which the preceding dissertation concludes, continuing, however, to hold the main doctrine of the text, viz. the fact of the Cimbri having been unknown in respect to their name and locality and, so, having been pushed northwards, and more northwards still, as fresh areas were explored without supplying an undoubted and unequivocal origin for them.
I think that the Ambrones, the Tigurini, and the Teutones were Gauls of Helvetia, and South Eastern Gallia, and that the alliance between them and the Cimbri (assuming it to be real) isprimâ facieevidence of the latter being Galli also. But it is no more.
That the Cimbri were the Eastern members of the confederation seems certain. More than one notice connects them with Noricum.Herethey may have been native. They may also have been intrusive.
Holding that the greater part of Noricum was Slavonic, and that almost all the country along its northern and eastern frontier was the same, I see my way to the Cimbri having been Slavonic also. That they were Germans is out of the question. Gauls could hardly have been so unknown and mysterious to the Romans. Gaul they knew well, and Germany sufficiently—yet no where did they find Cimbri.
The evidence of Posidonius favours this view. "He" writes Strabo "does not unreasonably conceive that these Cimbri being predatory and wandering might carry their expeditions as far as the Mæotis, and that the Bosporus might, from them, take its name ofCimmerian, i. e.Cimbrian, the Greeks calling theCimbri Cimmerii. He says that the Boii originally inhabited the Hercynian Forest, that the Cimbri attacked them, that they were repulsed, that they then descended on the Danube, and the country of the Scordisci who are Galatæ; thence upon the Taurisci," who "are also Galatæ, then upon the Helvetians &c."—Strabo.7, p. 293.
For a fuller explanation of the doctrine which makes the Cimbri possible Slavonians see my Edition of Prichard's origin of the Celtic nations—Supplementary Chapter—Ambrones, Tigurini, Teutones, Boii, Slavonic hypothesis&c.
READBEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,FEBRUARY 8, 1850.
The current opinion, that a great portion of the area now occupied by Slavonians, and a still greater portion so occupied in the ninth and tenth centuries, were, in the times of Cæsar and Tacitus, either German, or something other than what it is found to be at the beginning of the period of authentic and contemporary history, has appeared so unsatisfactory to the present writer, that he has been induced to consider the evidence on which it rests. What (for instance) are the grounds for believing that, in thefirstcentury, Bohemia was not just as Slavonic as it is now? What the arguments in favour of a Germanic population between the Elbe and Vistula in thesecond?
The fact that, at the very earliest period when any definite and detailed knowledge of either of the parts in question commences, both are as little German as the Ukraine is at the present moment, is one which no one denies. How many, however, will agree with the present writer in the value to be attributed to it, is another question. For his own part, he takes the existence of a given division of the human race (whether Celtic, Slavonic, Gothic or aught else) on a given area, as a sufficient reason for considering it to have been indigenous or aboriginal to that area,until reasons be shown to the contrary. Gratuitous as this postulate may seem in the first instance, it is nothing more than the legitimate deduction from the rule in reasoning which forbids us to multiply causes unnecessarily. Displacements therefore, conquests, migrations, and the other disturbing causes are not to be assumed, merely for the sake of accounting for assumed changes, but to be supported by specific evidence; which evidence, in its turn, must have a ratio to the probability or the improbability of the disturbing causesalleged. These positions seem so self-evident, that it is only by comparing the amount of improbabilities which are accepted with the insufficiency of the testimony on which they rest, that we ascertain, from the extent to which they have been neglected, the necessity of insisting upon them.
The ethnological condition of a given population at a certain time isprimâ facieevidence of a similar ethnological condition at a previous one. The testimony of a writer as to the ethnological condition of a given population at a certain time is alsoprimâ facieevidence of such a condition being a real one; since even the worst authorities are to be considered correct until reasons are shown for doubting them.
It now remains to see how far these two methods are concordant or antagonistic for the area in question; all that is assumed being, that when we find even a good writer asserting that at one period (say the third century) a certain locality was German, whereas we know that at a subsequent one (say the tenth) it was other than German, it is no improper scepticism to ask, whether it is more likely that the writer was mistaken, or that changes have occurred in the interval; in other words, if error on the one side is not to be lightly assumed, neither are migrations, &c. on the other. Both are likely, or unlikely, according to the particular case in point. It is more probable that an habitually conquering nation should have displaced an habitually conquered one, than that a bad writer should be wrong. It is more likely that a good writer should be wrong than that an habitually conquered nation should have displaced an habitually conquering one.
The application of criticism of this sort materially alters the relations of the Celtic, Gothic, Roman and Slavonic populations, giving to the latter a prominence in the ancient world much more proportionate to their present preponderance as a European population than is usually admitted.
Beginning with the south-western frontier of the present Slavonians, let us ask what are the reasons against supposing the population of Bohemia to have been in the time of Cæsar other than what it is now,i. e.Slavonic.
In the first place, if it were not so, it must have changed within the historical period. If so, when? No writer has ever grappled with the details of the question. It could scarcely have been subsequent to the development of the Germanic power on the Danube, since this would be within the period of annalists and historians, who would have mentioned it. As little is it likely to have been during the time when the Goths and Germans, victorious everywhere, were displacing others rather than being displaced themselves.
The evidence of the language is in the same direction. Whence could it have been introduced? Not from the Saxon frontier, since there the Slavonic is Polish rather than Bohemian. Still less from the Silesian, and least of all from the Bavarian. To have developed its differential characteristics, it must have had either Bohemia itself as an original locality, or else the parts south and east of it.
We will now take what is either an undoubted Slavonic locality, or a locality in the neighbourhood of Slavonians,i. e.the country between the rivers Danube and Theiss and that range of hills which connect the Bakonyer-wald with the Carpathians, the country of theJazyges. Now asJazygis a Slavonic word, meaningspeechorlanguage, we have, over and above the external evidence which makes the Jazyges Sarmatian, internal evidence as well; evidence subject only to one exception, viz. that perhaps the name in question was not native to the population which it designated, but only a term applied by some Slavonic tribe to some of their neighbours who might or might not be Slavonic. I admit that this is possible, although the name is not of the kind that would be given by one tribe to another different from itself. Admitting, however, this, it still leaves a Slavonic population in the contiguous districts; since, whether borne by the people to whom it was applied or not,Jazygis a Slavonic gloss from the Valley of the Tibiscus.
Next comes the question as to thedateof this population. To put this in the form least favourable to the views of the present writer, is to state that the first author who mentions a population in these parts, either called by others or calling itselfJazyges, is a writer so late as Ptolemy, and that he adds to it the qualifying epithetMetanastæ(Μετανάσται), a term suggestive of their removal from some other area, and of the recent character of their arrival on the Danube. Giving full value to all this, there still remains the fact of primary importance in all our investigations on the subject in question, viz. that in the time of Ptolemy (at least) there were Slavonians on (or near) the river Theiss.
At present it is sufficient to say that there are noà priorireasons for considering these Jazyges as the most western of the branch to which they belonged, since the whole of the Pannonians may as easily be considered Slavonic as aught else. They were not Germans. They were not Celts; in which case the common rules of ethnological criticism induce us to consider them as belonging to the same class with the population conterminous to them; since unless we do this, we must assume a new division of the human species altogether; a fact, which, though possible, and even probable, is not lightly to be taken up.
So much for theà prioriprobabilities: the known facts by no means traverse them. The Pannonians, we learn from Dio, were of the same class with the Illyrians,i. e.the northern tribes of that nation. These must have belonged to one of three divisions; the Slavonic, the Albanian, or some division now lost. Of these, the latter is not to be assumed, and the first is more probable than the second. Indeed, the more we make the Pannonians and Illyrians other than Slavonic, the more do we isolate theJazyges; and the more we isolate these, the more difficulties we create in a question otherwise simple.
That the portion of Pannonia to the north of the Danube (i. e.the north-west portion of Hungary, or the valley of the Waag and Gran) was different from the country around the lake Peiso (Pelso), is a position, which can only be upheld by considering it to be the country of the Quadi, and the Quadi to have been Germanic;—a view, against which there are numerous objections.
Now, here re-appears the term Daci; so that we must recognise the important fact, that east of theJazygesthere are the Dacians (and Getæ) of the Lower, and west of theJazygesthe Daci of the Upper Danube. These must be placed in the same category, both being equally either Slavonic or non-Slavonic.
a.Of these alternatives, the first involves the following real or apparent difficulty,i. e.that, if the Getæ are what the Daci are, the Thracians are what the Getæ are. Hence, if all three be Slavonic, we magnify the area immensely, and bring the Slavonians of Thrace in contact with the Greeks of Macedonia. Granted. But are there any reasons against this? So far from there being any such in the nature of the thing itself, it is no more than what is actually the case at the present moment.
b.The latter alternative isolates theJazyges, and adds to the difficulties created by their ethnological position, under the supposition that they are the only Slavonians of the parts in question; since if out-lyers to the area (exceptional, so to say), they must be either invaders from without, or else relics of an earlier and more extended population. If they be the former, we can only bring them from the north of the Carpathian mountains (a fact not in itself improbable, but not to be assumed, except for the sake of avoiding greater difficulties); if the latter, they prove the original Slavonic character of the area.
The present writer considers the Daci then (western and eastern) as Slavonic, and the following passage brings them as far west as theMarosorMorawe, which gives the name to the present Moravians, a population at once Slavonic and Bohemian:—"Campos et plana Jazyges Sarmatæ, montes vero et saltus pulsi ab his Daci ad Pathissum amnem a Maro sive Duria ... tenent."—Plin.iv. 12.
The evidence as to the population of Moravia and North-eastern Hungary being Dacian, is Strabo'sΓέγονε ... τῆς χόρας μερισμὸς συμμένων παλαιοῦ·τοὺς μὲν γὰρ Δάκους προσαγορεύουσι, τοὺς δὲ Γέτας, Γέτας μὲν πρὸς τὸν Πόντον κεκλιμένους, καὶ πρὸς τὲν ἕω, Δάκους δὲ τοὺς εἰς τἀνάντια πρὸς Γερμανίαν καὶ τὰς τοῦ Ἴστρου πήγας.—From Zeuss, invv. Getæ, Daci.
In Moravia we have as the basis of argument, anexistingSlavonic population, speaking a language identical with the Bohemian, but different from the other Slavonic languages, and (as such) requiring a considerable period for the evolution of its differential characters. This brings us to Bohemia. At present it is Slavonic. When did it begin to be otherwise? No one informs us on this point. Why should it not have been soab initio, or at least at the beginning of the historical period for these parts? The necessity of an answer to this question is admitted; and it consists chiefly (if not wholly) in the following arguments;—a.those connected with the termMarcomanni;b.those connected with the termBoiohemum.
a.Marcomanni.—This word is so truly Germanic, and so truly capable of being translated into English, that those who believe in no other etymology whatever may believe thatMarc-o-manni, orMarchmen, means themen of the (boundaries) marches; and without overlooking either the remarks of Mr. Kemble on the limited nature of the wordmearc, when applied to the smaller divisions of land, or the doctrine of Grimm, that its primary signification iswoodorforest, it would be an over-refinement to adopt any other meaning for it in the present question than that which it has in its undoubted combinations,Markgrave,Altmark,Mittelmark,Ukermark, and theMarches of Wales and Scotland. If so, it was the name of a line ofenclosing frontierrather than of anarea enclosed; so that to call a country like thewholeof Bohemia,Marcomannic, would be like callingallScotland orallWalesthe Marches.
Again, as the name arose on the western, Germanic or Gallic side of theMarch, it must have been the name of aneasternfrontier in respect to Gaul and Germany; so that tosuppose that there were Germans on the Bohemian line of theMarcomanni, is to suppose that themarchwas nomark(or boundary) at all, at least in anethnologicalsense. This qualification involves a difficulty which the writer has no wish to conceal; amarchmay be other than anethnologicaldivision. It may be apoliticalone. In other words, it may be like the Scottish Border, rather than like the Welsh and the Slavono-Germanic marches of Altmark, Mittelmark and Ukermark. At any rate, the necessity for amarchbeing a line of frontier rather than a large compact kingdom, is conclusive against the whole of Bohemia having been Germanicbecause it was Marcomannic.
b.The arguments founded on the nameBoiohemumare best met by showing that the so-calledcountry (home) of the Boiiwas notBohemiabutBavaria. This will be better done in the sequel than now. At present, however, it may be as well to state that so strong are the facts in favour ofBoiohemumandBaiovariimeaning, not the one Bohemia and the other Bavaria, butone of the two countries, that Zeuss, one of the strongest supporters of the doctrine of an originally Germanic population in Bohemia, applies both of them to the firstnamed kingdom; a circumstance which prepares us for expecting, that if the names fit the countries to which they apply thus loosely,Boiohemummay as easily beBavaria, as the country of theBaiovariibeBohemia; in other words, that we have aconvertible formof argument.
Too much stress is, perhaps, laid on the name Jazyges. The fact of the word Jaszag in Magyar meaning abowmancomplicates it. The probability, too, of the word forLanguagebeing the name of a nation is less than it is ought to be, considering the great extent to which it is admitted.
The statements respecting Bohemia are over-strong.Someportion of it was, probably, Marcomannic and German. The greater part, however, of the original Boio-hem-um, orhomeof theBoii, I still continue to give to the country of theBoian occupants—Baio-var-ii=Bavaria; the word itself being a compound of the same kind as Cant-wære=inhabitants of Kent. (See Zeuss inv. Baiovarii).
READBEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
MARCH 8, 1850.
The portion of the Slavonic frontier which will be considered this evening is the north-western, beginning with the parts about the Cimbric peninsula, and ending at the point of contact between the present kingdoms of Saxony and Bohemia; the leading physical link between the two extreme populations being the Elbe.
For this tract, the historical period begins in the ninth century. The classification which best shows the really westerly disposition of the Slavonians of this period, and which gives us the fullest measure of the extent to which,at that time at least, they limited the easterly extension of the Germans, is to divide them into—a.the Slavonians of the Cimbric peninsula;b.the Slavonians of the right bank of the Elbe;c.the Slavonians of theleftbank of the Elbe; the first and last being the most important, as best showing the amount of what may be called theSlavonic protrusion into the accredited Germanic area.
a.The Slavonians of the Cimbric Peninsula.—Like the Slavonians that constitute the next section, these are on the right bank of the Elbe; but as they arenorthof that river rather than east of it, the division is natural.
The Wagrians.—Occupants of the country between the Trave and the upper portion of the southern branch of the Eyder.
The Polabi.—Conterminous with the Wagrians and the Saxons of Sturmar, from whom they were separated by the river Bille.
b.Slavonians of the right bank of the Elbe.—The Obodriti.—This is a generic rather than a specific term; so that itis probable that several of the Slavonic populations about to be noticed may be but subdivisions of the great Obotrit section. The same applies to the divisions already noticed—the Wagri and Polabi: indeed the classification is so uncertain, that we have, for these parts and times, no accurate means of ascertaining whether we are dealing withsub-divisions orcross-divisions of the Slavonians. At any rate the wordObotritiwas one of the best-known of the whole list; so much so, that it is likely, in some cases, to have equalled in import the more general termWend. The varieties of orthography and pronunciation may be collected from Zeuss (in voce), where we findObotriti,Obotritæ,Abotriti,Abotridi,Apodritæ,Abatareni,Apdrede,Abdrede,Abtrezi. Furthermore, as evidence of the generic character of the word, we find certainEast-Obotrits(Oster-Abtrezi), conterminous with the Bulgarians, as well as theNorth-Obotrits(Nort-Abtrezi), for the parts in question. These are the northern districts of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, from the Trave to the Warnow, chiefly along the coast. Zeuss makes Schwerin their most inland locality. TheDescriptio Civitatumgives them fifty-three towns.
In the more limited sense of the term, the Obotrits are not conterminous with any German tribe, being separated by the Wagri and Polabi. Hence when Alfred writesNorðan Eald-Seaxum is Apdrede, he probably merges the two sections last-named in the Obotritic.
Although not a frontier population, the Obotrits find place in the present paper. They show that the Wagri and Polabi were not mere isolated and outlying portions of the great family to which they belonged, but that they were in due continuity with the main branches of it.
Varnahi.—This is the form which the name takes in Adam of Bremen. It is also that of the Varni, Varini, and Viruni of the classical writers; as well as of the Werini of the Introduction to theLeges Angliorum et Werinorum, hoc est Thuringorum. Now whatever the Varini of Tacitus may have been, and however much the affinities of the Werini were with the Angli, the Varnahi of Adam of Bremen are Slavonic.
c.Cis-Albian Slavonians.—Beyond the boundaries of the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg, the existence of Germans on the right bank of the Elbe isnil.
With Altmark the evidence of a Slavonic population changes, and takes strength. The present Altmark is not German, as Kent is Saxon, but only as Cornwall is,i. e.the traces of the previous Slavonic population are like the traces of the Celtic occupants of Cornwall, the rule rather thanthe exception. Most of the geographical names in Altmark are Slavonic, the remarkable exception being the name of theOld Marchitself.
The Slavono-German frontier for the parts south of Altmark becomes so complex as to require to stand over for future consideration. All that will be done at present is to indicate the train of reasoning applicable here, and applicable along the line of frontier. If such was the state of things in the eighth and ninth centuries, what reason is there for believing it to have been otherwise in the previous ones? The answer is the testimony of Tacitus and others in the way of external, and certain etymologies, &c. in the way of internal, evidence. Without at present saying anything in the way of disparagement to either of these series of proofs, the present writer, who considers that the inferences which have generally been drawn from them are illegitimate, is satisfied with exhibiting the amount ofà prioriimprobability which they have to neutralize. If, when Tacitus wrote, the area between the Elbe and Vistula was not Slavonic, but Gothic, the Slavonians of the time of Charlemagne must have immigrated between the second and eighth centuries; must have done so, not in parts, but for the whole frontier; must have, for the first and last time, displaced a population which has generally been the conqueror rather than the conquered; must have displaced it during one of the strongest periods of its history; must have displaced it everywhere, and wholly; and (what is stranger still) that not permanently—since from the time in question, those same Germans, who betweenA.D.200 andA.D.800 are supposed to have always retreated before the Slavonians, have fromA.D.800 toA.D.1800 always reversed the process and encroached upon their former dispossessors.
The details of the Slavonic area to the south of Altmark are as follows.
Brandenburg, at the beginning of the historical period, was Slavonic, and one portion of it, the Circle of Cotbus, is so at the present moment. It is full of geographical names significant in the Slavonic languages. Of Germans to the East of the Elbethere are no signs until after the time of Charlemagne. But the Elbe is not even their eastern boundary. The Saale is the river which divides the Slavonians from the Thuringians—not only at the time when its drainage first comes to be known, but long afterwards. More than this, there were, in the 11th and 12th centuries, Slavonians in Thuringia, Slavonians in Franconia—facts which can be found in full in Zeussvv. Fränkische und Thüringische Slawen—(Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme).
Saxonybrings us down to the point with which the preceding paper concluded viz: the frontier of Bohemia. This was in the same category with Brandenburg. In Leipzig Slavonic was spoken A. D. 1327. In Lusatia it is spoken at the present moment. When were the hypothetical Germans of all these parts eliminated, or (if not eliminated) amalgamated with a population of intruders who displaced their language, not on one spot or on two, but every where?
If the Slavonians of the time of Charlemagne were indigenous to the western portion of their area, they were,a fortiori, indigenous to the eastern. At any rate, few who hold that the German populations of Bohemia, Mecklenburg, Luneburg, Altmark, Brandenburg, Saxony, Silesia, and Lusatia are recent, will doubt their being so in Pomerania.