Chapter V: Preface (5)

In the countries around the original localities of the silk-worm the name for silk is as follows--

In Corean _Sir_.
Chinese _se_.
Mongolian _sirkek_.
Mandchoo _sirghe_.

It is the conviction of the present writer that a nation called Seres had no geographical existence.

ON THE EVIDENCE OF A CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE CIMBRI AND THE
CHERSONESUS CIMBRICA.

READ
BEFORE 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 are _primâ facie_ evidence. 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 a _remnant_ of the confederation on their _return_, 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 the _Cimmerian theory_, he is followed by Strabo and Plutarch.--_Diod. Sicul._ v. 32. _Strabo_ vii. _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. _beyond_ Gaul and _in_ Germany, 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 the _Germania_ of 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 of _primâ facie_ improbability to set aside. The same conditions as to the burden of proof apply also to any hypotheses founded on the notion of _retiring_ Cimbri _posterior_ to 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 either the 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 called _Ymbre_, _Ymbras_, or _Ymbran_. Suhm, the historian of Denmark, has allowed himself to imagine that these represent the _Ambrones_, and that their name still exists in that of the island _Amron_ of the coast of Sleswick, and perhaps in _Amerland_, a part of Oldenburg.--Thorpe's note on the Traveller's Song in the _Codex 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, mentions _a_) the Teutonarii, _b_) the Teutones: Τευτονοάριοι καὶ Ουίρουνοι--Φαραδεινῶν δὲ καὶ Συήβων, Τεύτονες καὶ Ἄμαρποι. Besides this, however, arguments have been taken from _a_) the meaning of the root _teut_ = _people_ (_þiuda_, M. G.; _þeód_, A. S.; _diot_, O. H. G.): _b_) the _Saltus Teutobergius_: _c_) the supposed connection of the present word _Deut-sch_ = _German_ with the classical word _Teutones_. These may briefly be disposed of.

_a._) It is not unlikely for an invading nation to call themselves _the 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 unlike _Teuton-es_. Although the word _þiud-a_ = _nation_ or _people_, is generally strong in its declension (so making the plural _þiud-ôs_), it is found also in a weak form with its plural _thiot-ûn_ = _Teuton-_. See _Deutsche Grammatik_, i. 630.

_b._) The _Saltus Teutobergius_ mentioned 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 either _the hill of the people_, or _the city of the people_; according as the syllable _-berg-_ is derived from _báirgs_ = _a hill_, or from _baúrgs_ = _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 (from _þiud-_): _himil_-bërac, _velt_-përac; _friðu_-përac, O. H. G.; _himin_biörg, _val_biörg, Icelandic (from _báirgs_ = _hill_)--_asci_purc, _hasal_purc, _saltz_purc, &c., O. H. G. (from _baúrgs_ = _city_). The particular word _diot-puruc_ = _civitas magna_ occurs in O. H. G.--See _Deutsche Grammatik_, iii. p. 478.

_c._ Akin to this is the reasoning founded upon the connection (real or supposed) between the root _Teut-_ in _Teuton-_, and the root _deut-_ in _Deut-sch_. It runs thus. The syllable in question is common to the word _Teut-ones_, _Teut-onicus_, _Theod-iscus_, _teud-iscus_, _teut-iscus_, _tût-iske_, _dût-iske_, _tiut-sche_, _deut-sch_; whilst the word _Deut-sch_ means _German_. As the _Teut-ones_ were Germans, so were the Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the circumstance that the syllable _Teut-_ in _Teut-ones_ and _Teut-onicus_, as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is wholly unconnected with the _Teut-_ in _theod-iscus_, and _Deut-sch_. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on the words _German_ and _Dutch_. In its oldest form the latter word meant _popular_, _national_, _vernacular_; it was an adjective applied to the _vulgar tongue_, or the vernacular German, in opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary form _Teut-onicus_ came in vogue even with German writers. Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form _Romanice_, or out of the idea of an historical connection with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear that the present word _deut-sch_ proves nothing respecting the _Teutones_. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial the word _Teutonicus_ was 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's _Deutsche Grammatik_, i. p. 17, 3rd edit. Martial, xiv. 26, _Teutonici capilli_. Claudian. in Eutrop. i. 406, _Teutonicum hostem_.

The _Cimbri_.--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 as a 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 interpolation Γερμάνων. _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 the _Cimbri_ is also the locality of the _Sicambri_, 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 the _Cimbri_ with the _Cimmerii_ on the one hand, and of the _Cimbri_ with the _Sicambri_ on 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's _Life of Marius_, and _note_.) Confusion arose when Greek readers of Homer and Herodotus began to theorize, and this grew greater when formidable enemies under the name of _Sicambri_ were 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 Sicambri
Compositis 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 e _Germaniâ_ Cimbros--inundâsse Italiam." Now this extract would be valuable if we were sure that the word _Germania_ came from Justin's original, Trogus Pompeius; who was a Vocontian Gaul, living soon after the Cimbric defeat. To him, however, the term _Germania_ must 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 nomine _Germani_ vocarentur." Justin's interpolation of _Germania_ corresponds 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 head Κέλτικα.

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 premebat
Sarrastes populos, et quæ rigat æquora Sarnus;
Quique Rufas, Batulumque tenent, atque arva Celennæ;
Et quos maliferæ despectant mœnia Abellæ:
_Teutonico_ ritu soliti torquere _cateias_.
Tegmina queis capitum raptus de subere cortex,
Æratæque micant peltæ, micat æreus ensis.--_Æn._ vii. 737-743.

Now this word _cateia_ may 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 is _vox 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 written _galli_, and translated _cock_, 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. Annius _Cimber_ was a Gaul; whilst it is assumed that there was no other reason to believe that he was called _Cimber_ than 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 totus
Thucydides 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 his _al-_
Celtarum posuit, sequitur non lucidius _tau-_,
Et quod germano mistum male letiferum _min-_.--_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 the _Germans_ connects 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; _Cimbri_ may coincide with either the Germanic _kempa_ = _a warrior_ or _champion_, or with the Celtic _Cymry_ = _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 in _Epitome 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 Cimbri _Morimarusa_, or the _dead sea_ = _mare mortuum_. (_b._) It is a fact that in Celtic Welsh _mor 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 epithet _dead_ is 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 not Κίμβροι, but Κιμμέριοι; indeed we are not absolutely sure of Pliny having written _Cimbri_. (4.) As applied to Cimmerian sea the epithet _dead_ was applicable. (5.) The term _Morimarusa_ = _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 roots _mor_ and _mori_ mean _sea_ and _dead_ respectively:--"Septemtrionalis Oceanus, Amalchium eum Hecatæus appellat, a Paropamiso amne, qua Scythiam alluit, quod nomen ejus gentis linguâ significat congelatum, Philemon _Morimarusam_ a Cimbris (qu. _Cimmeriis_) vocari scribit: hoc est _mare mortuum_ usque 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. The _à priori_ probability 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 in _all_ countries 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 on the 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 epithet _Cimbrica_ applied to the Chersonesus proves nothing more in respect to the inhabitants of that locality than is proved by words like _West Indian_ and _North-American Indian_. 6. That in the word _cateia_ we are in possession of a new Celtic gloss. 7. That in the term _Morimarusa_ we 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.

ADDENDA.

JANUARY 1859.

(1)

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.

(2)

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) is _primâ facie_ evidence 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. _Here_ they 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 of _Cimmerian_, i. e. _Cimbrian_, the Greeks calling the _Cimbri 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.

ON THE ORIGINAL EXTENT OF THE
SLAVONIC AREA.

READ
BEFORE 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 the _first_ century, 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 the _second_?

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 causes alleged. 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 is _primâ facie_ evidence 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 also _primâ facie_ evidence 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 the _Jazyges_. Now as _Jazyg_ is a Slavonic word, meaning _speech_ or _language_, 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, _Jazyg_ is a Slavonic gloss from the Valley of the Tibiscus.

Next comes the question as to the _date_ of 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 itself _Jazyges_, is a writer so late as Ptolemy, and that he adds to it the qualifying epithet _Metanastæ_ (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 no _à priori_ reasons 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 the _à priori_ probabilities: 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 the _Jazyges_; 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 the _Jazyges_ there are the Dacians (and Getæ) of the Lower, and west of the _Jazyges_ the 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 the _Jazyges_, 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 the _Maros_ or _Morawe_, 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's Γέγονε ... 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, in _vv. Getæ, Daci_.

In Moravia we have as the basis of argument, an _existing_ Slavonic 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 so _ab 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 term _Marcomanni_; _b._ those connected with the term _Boiohemum_.

_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 that _Marc-o-manni_, or _Marchmen_, means the _men of the (boundaries) marches_; and without overlooking either the remarks of Mr. Kemble on the limited nature of the word _mearc_, when applied to the smaller divisions of land, or the doctrine of Grimm, that its primary signification is _wood_ or _forest_, 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 the _Marches of Wales and Scotland_. If so, it was the name of a line of _enclosing frontier_ rather than of an _area enclosed_; so that to call a country like the _whole_ of Bohemia, _Marcomannic_, would be like calling _all_ Scotland or _all_ Wales _the Marches_.

Again, as the name arose on the western, Germanic or Gallic side of the _March_, it must have been the name of an _eastern_ frontier in respect to Gaul and Germany; so that to suppose that there were Germans on the Bohemian line of the _Marcomanni_, is to suppose that the _march_ was no _mark_ (or boundary) at all, at least in an _ethnological_ sense. This qualification involves a difficulty which the writer has no wish to conceal; a _march_ may be other than an _ethnological_ division. It may be a _political_ one. 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 a _march_ being a line of frontier rather than a large compact kingdom, is conclusive against the whole of Bohemia having been Germanic _because it was Marcomannic_.

_b._ The arguments founded on the name _Boiohemum_ are best met by showing that the so-called _country (home) of the Boii_ was not _Bohemia_ but _Bavaria_. 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 of _Boiohemum_ and _Baiovarii_ meaning, not the one Bohemia and the other Bavaria, but _one 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, _Boiohemum_ may as easily be _Bavaria_, as the country of the _Baiovarii_ be _Bohemia_; in other words, that we have a _convertible form_ of argument.

ADDENDA (1859).

(1)

Too much stress is, perhaps, laid on the name Jazyges. The fact of the word Jaszag in Magyar meaning a _bowman_ complicates it. The probability, too, of the word for _Language_ being the name of a nation is less than it is ought to be, considering the great extent to which it is admitted.

(2)

The statements respecting Bohemia are over-strong. _Some_ portion of it was, probably, Marcomannic and German. The greater part, however, of the original Boio-_hem_-um, or _home_ of the _Boii_, I still continue to give to the country of the _Boian occupants_--Baio-_var_-ii = _Bavaria_; the word itself being a compound of the same kind as Cant-_wære_ = _inhabitants of Kent_. (See Zeuss in _v. Baiovarii_).

ON THE ORIGINAL EXTENT OF THE
SLAVONIC AREA.

READ
BEFORE 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 the _left_ bank of the Elbe; the first and last being the most important, as best showing the amount of what may be called the _Slavonic 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 are _north_ of 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 it is 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 with _sub_-divisions or _cross_-divisions of the Slavonians. At any rate the word _Obotriti_ was 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 term _Wend_. The varieties of orthography and pronunciation may be collected from Zeuss (_in voce_), where we find _Obotriti_, _Obotritæ_, _Abotriti_, _Abotridi_, _Apodritæ_, _Abatareni_, _Apdrede_, _Abdrede_, _Abtrezi_. Furthermore, as evidence of the generic character of the word, we find certain _East-Obotrits_ (_Oster-Abtrezi_), conterminous with the Bulgarians, as well as the _North-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. The _Descriptio Civitatum_ gives 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 writes _Norðan 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 the _Leges 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 is _nil_.

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 than the exception. Most of the geographical names in Altmark are Slavonic, the remarkable exception being the name of the _Old March_ itself.