Germania and Its Manuscripts – Part I

Disintermediation is a concept that gains more and more currency with technological change.  In the realm of economics, disintermediation generally refers to the removal of the middle-man.  The value added by various intermediaries previously consisted of access to a web of connections jealously guarded by such strategically placed individuals or companies.  Nowadays, however, we have machinery and the internet.  The impact of these developments on various professions and trades has been tremendous.

However, the presence of the “world-wide web” has had far-reaching consequences even outside of purely economic transactions.  In the realm of academia, it has made vast amounts of knowledge readily accessible, viewable and, importantly, scrutinizable by people who previously could not have dreamt of being able to access such arcana.  This, in turn, has led to ordinary people being able to question the validity of the product sold being by the academic priest classes.  Although specialized knowledge is, of course, helpful and Internet quacks are indeed an unfortunate byproduct of all this technological change, the ability to easily access the vast amount of data out there by more people can only be viewed as positive.

Outside of physics and other highly technical subjects, most of the data belonging to the “soft sciences” can nowadays be critically analyzed by the rankest of amateurs provided they have an interest in the given topic and a sufficient amount of time on their hands.  Thus, for example, the old manuscripts can be examined directly – without the interpolation of old wise men.

Now, interestingly, some high-profile manuscripts have not yet been available to the public… Tacitus’ works, for example, seem not to be a priority for preservation efforts – Germania, in particular.  Nevertheless, wide access to information these days also includes access to secondary sources that were previously only available in far away academic communities.

So let’s take a look at Germania…

What Does Germania Really Say?

Well, to deflate the balloon, it says pretty much what you think it says… but there are a few interesting variations from the “standard” editions.  An investigation of sections 38, etc of the Germania is therefore worthwhile.

A typical translation of Germania is ultimately derived from the Karl Müllenhoff (1818-1884) edition first put out as “Germania antique” in 1873 and then elaborated on by Müllenhoff in his Deutsche Altertumskunde, volume 4 (posthumously issued by Max Roediger in 1900).  All the below Latin paragraphs are from the Müllenhoff version.

Suevi not Suebi

Section 38 of Germania says the following:

[38] “Nunc de Suebis dicendum est, quorum non una, ut Chattorum Tencterorumve, gens; maiorem enim Germaniae partem obtinent, propriis adhuc nationibus nominibusque discreti, quamquam in commune Suebi vocentur. Insigne gentis obliquare crinem nodoque substringere: sic Suebi a ceteris Germanis, sic Sueborum ingenui a servis separantur. In aliis gentibus seu cognatione aliqua Sueborum seu, quod saepe accidit, imitatione, rarum et intra iuventae spatium; apud Suebos usque ad canitiem horrentem capillum retro sequuntur. Ac saepe in ipso vertice religatur; principes et ornatiorem habent. Ea cura formae, sed innoxia; neque enim ut ament amenturve, in altitudinem quandam et terrorem adituri bella compti, ut hostium oculis, armantur.”

However, Müllenhoff notes himself that the manuscripts B b C c, each say something different.  Specifically, they say Nunc de Suevis.  In fact, Müllenhoff says “and everywhere the same way” (et ubique modem modo): Suevi, Suevorum, Suevos; hence we have:

“Nunc de Suevis dicendum est, quorum non una, ut Chattorum Tencterorumve, gens; maiorem enim Germaniae partem obtinent, propriis adhuc nationibus nominibusque discreti, quamquam in commune Suevi vocentur. Insigne gentis obliquare crinem nodoque substringere: sic Suevi* a ceteris Germanis, sic Suevorum** ingenui a servis separantur. In aliis gentibus seu cognatione aliqua Suevorum seu, quod saepe accidit, imitatione, rarum et intra iuventae spatium; apud Suevos usque ad canitiem horrentem capillum retro sequuntur. Ac saepe in ipso vertice religatur; principes et ornatiorem habent. Ea cura formae, sed innoxia; neque enim ut ament amenturve, in altitudinem quandam et terrorem adituri bella compti, ut hostium oculis, armantur.”

* in b: “Suevi a”
** in T: “servoss”*

* on this see below too…

And so forth throughout Germania.  But maybe that’s only in the B b C c manuscripts?  Well, the problem is that these were the only manuscripts that Müllenhoff was working with…

So there was a subsequent manuscript discovered?

The answer is yes… but it does not matter since, e.g., the T (“Toledo”) manuscript also has Sueuos…

But maybe… let’s see… the “u” > “b” – possibly but not for Tacitus’ Suevi.

Here is a list from Frank Abbott showing the “standard” Müllenhoff edition on the left and the actual manuscripts on the right:

And it gets better

In section 41, Müllenhoff says:

“Moreover this quarter of the Suebians stretches to the middle of Germany.”  (Et haec quidem pars Sueborum in secretiora Germaniae porrigitur.)

So should we correct that to Suevorum?  Well, no because the word used is:

verbo4

Serbos or Servos???  So now we might have Serbs masquerading as Suevians?  If so (and it is an “if” we admit!), does anyone still believe that Suevi have absolutely nothing to do with the Slavs?  Not to mention that this brings up the words of Vibius Sequester: Albis Germaniae Suevos a Cerveciis dividiit: mergitur in Oceanum.

What about Müllenhoff?

It is difficult not to conclude that Müllenhoff’s choice here was driven by his desire to make the name as similar as possible to that of the Schwaben.

Aha! What about the Codex Aesinas?  Seems same.

So there you have it.

Incidentally, given the name of this site, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Codex Aesinas was discovered (in 1902) at Iesi/Jesi, an “Umbrian” town before its conquest by the Gallic Senones.

And speaking of the Gallic Senones.

Semones (or Senones) not Semnones

The most ancient Suevic tribe is listed by Tacitus as that of the Semnones (section 39).  Except Germania does not say that except in the C, c class (and only once while the name appears twice in the book) and in margin notes in the T class.  Instead we have:

• B – Semones (Señones on top);
• T – Semones (Semnones in margin);
• b – senones (with “m” above the first n);
• C c – semones;

Later, in the same section 39, we have:

• Semonum (Semnonuss in the margin)
• Semonu (sennonu above)
• senonum
• semnonum

Which raises a few questions about their relationship to:

• the Gallic and Italic (in Galia Cisalpina really) Senones;
• Samo, the merchant king;
• most interestingly, Semovith (or Samovith), the son of Piast (Pazt) of the Gallus Chronicle;*

* the fact that Semovith’s son’s name was, as per Gallus, Lestik or Lesthko(n) seems interesting too, given that Lethuc was an ancient king of the Lombards, i.e., of Suevi Longobardi.  Lestik’s son was Zemimizl (but also Zemomisl, and in margins Semimizl, Szemimisl), the father of Mieszko I also suggests that the Semo-vith and the Zemo-misl (?) may have shared a prefix.

Incidentally, the suffix -misl or -mysl refers to the “mind” (mysl = thought).  Thus, it is likely related to “mind” and we cannot help but notice that mind itself may be cognate with various Slavic “smarts” words, such as the Czech moudrý or the Polish mądry.  The latter, however, may be pronounced mundry and it certainly could be phonetically transliterated that way into English.  From there there is no further distance to prefixes with –mund commonly found in Nordic names.  Of course, those prefixes refer to “protection”?

There are plenty of other interesting aspects of these manuscripts.

Copyright ©2016 jassa.org All Rights Reserved