Germania and Its Manuscripts – Part II

What else can we say?

Boiis not Osis?

In section 28, we have the following:

Igitur inter Hercyniam silvam Rhenumque et Moenum amnes Helvetii, ulteriora Boii, Gallica utraque gens, tenuere. Manet adhuc Boihaemi nomen significatque loci veterem memoriam quamvis mutatis cultoribus.  

Sed utrum Aravisci in Pannoniam ab Osis, Germanorum natione, an Osi ab Araviscis in Germaniam commigraverint, cum eodem adhuc sermone institutis moribus utantur, incertum est, quia pari olim inopia ac libertate eadem utriusque ripae bona malaque erant.

“The region therefore between the Hercynian Forest and the rivers Moenus and Rhine, was occupied by the Helvetians; as was that beyond it by the Boians, both nations of Gaul. There still remains a place called Boiemum, which denotes the primitive name and antiquity of the country, although the inhabitants have been changed.”

“But whether the Araviscans are derived from the Osians, a nation of Germans passing into Pannonia, or the Osians from the Araviscans removing from thence into Germany, is a matter undecided; since they both still use the language, the same customs and the same laws.”

But that is not exactly what is said in the manuscripts.  Specifically, abois or a boiis.  Since “a” can  mean “from” just as “ab” can, saying a Boiis, essentially means “from the Boii.”  Now, right after that, Tacitus says or the Osians from Araviscans and then mentions “both” as still using the same language.  The emendation to “ab Osis” is one way to resolve the incongruity.

Another way, however, would be to note that right above this sentence, Tacitus talks about the Boii.  Therefore, you could just as easily say “an Boii ab Araviscis”.

Essentially, the paragraph would then read:

“The region therefore between the Hercynian Forest and the rivers Moenus and Rhine, was occupied by the Helvetians; as was that beyond it by the Boians, both nations of Gaul. There still remains a place called Boiemum, which denotes the primitive name and antiquity of the country, although the inhabitants have been changed.  But whether the Araviscans are derived from the Boians, a nation of Germans passing into Pannonia, or the Boians from the Araviscans removing from thence into Germany, is a matter undecided; since they both still use the language, the same customs and the same laws.”

This would suggest that the Germanic (in the sense of their place of origin) Boii may have come into Germany originally from Pannonia (leaving the Aravisci behind in Pannonia) or, alternatively, that the Pannonian Araviscans may have come from Germany into Pannonia (leaving the Boii behind in Pannonia).

As an aside we also learn that the Aravisci (a nation of Germania) spoke the same language as the Ossi or, in our version, the Boii (whether the Boii have anything to do with the boyars or with the Bavarians is another matter).

You will also notice that the Nervii were rather the Neruli, which also brings up the Heruli.  (It also raises the question whether the Nahanarulos (as per manuscripts) were a tribe that lived “near” (?) the Neruli, rather than being any Nahanarvalos (seemingly made up by Müllenhoff).  And Ubii, at least in one place may have been Nubii (!).  All these, of course, can be mistaken as there are inscriptions mentioning these other peoples but, working from Tacitus’ manuscript alone, the conclusions reached by Müllenhoff are not entirely obvious.

Other Tribal Names – Dulgicubuni not Dulgubni, etc?

In section 34 we have the Dulgubni of Müllenhoff.  However, they are never actually named that way.  Instead we have:

• Dulgicubuni (dulgibnii in the margin)
• dulgitubini
• Dulgibini
• dulgibini (and above that dulcubuni)

And the Chasuarii are actually:

• Thasuarii
• tasuarii
• occasuarii
• chasudrii

In section 40, we note that the Suardones are actually:

• Suarines (Suardones in one manuscript only in margin).

These latter are most obviously associated with the town of Schwerin which is in East Germany and has the typical -in Slavic suffix which, normally, would seem to make it a Slavic town.

In section 42, Müllenhoff talks about the Varisti.  The source for this is unclear and this has been corrected in most English editions to Naristi (originally inhabitants of Noricum?).  Naristi is a name used in some manuscripts but in others we have:

• Narisci, or
• maristi

What else?

In section 43, we have references to Lygiorum (Lugii!) but they are actually to:

• Legiorum (with a y (?) above)
• legiorum (Ligij in the margin)
• leugiorum
• legiorum

Right where we’ve come to expect the Polish Lachs or Lechs, of course.

The Cotini are actually Gotini (though seemingly separate from the Gothones).

The Harii are actually alii (?)

The Naharnavalos of Müllenhoff are never referred to that way.  Instead they are:

• Nahanarulos (naharualos in the margin)
• Nahanarualos
• naharualos
• nahanarualos
• nachanarualos

Interestingly, the Lemovii – who could otherwise have been connected to the Lemovii of Gall – are written as either:

• Lemouii (same as Lemovii), or
• lemonii

Now, the “lemonii” have likely little to do with lemons (?) but they do bring to mind Kadlubek’s mention of a Lemanian tyrant who wanted to marry princess Wanda.  That tribal name has been interpreted as referring to the Alemanni, i.e., Germans.  However, if you really believe that the Vandals lived on the shore of the Baltic, then a connection appears between the Vandals’ Wanda and the nearby “Lemonii” (who we know lived on the Baltic).

Neithu of the Nuithones?

There is, of course, no such goddess as Hertha.  But there is more.  Continuing with section 40, Müllenhoff’s Nerthum is Nerthum only in one manuscript and Nertum in another.  At other times the reference is to:

• nethum
• Neithu
• neithum

So instead of Hertha we have Neitha?

Whether that name can have something to do with the Polish Goddess Nia is a question that, we think, is fair to ask given all this.

Copyright ©2016 jassa.org All Rights Reserved