![\"BOOK\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.jassa.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/BOOK.jpg?resize=300%2C211\")
<\/p>\nDisintermediation is a concept that gains more and more currency with technological change. \u00a0In the realm of economics, disintermediation generally refers to the removal of the middle-man. \u00a0The value added by various intermediaries previously consisted of access to a web of connections jealously guarded by such strategically placed individuals or companies. \u00a0Nowadays, however, we have machinery and the internet. \u00a0The impact of these developments on various professions and trades has been tremendous.<\/p>\n
However, the presence of the “world-wide web” has had far-reaching consequences even outside of purely economic transactions. \u00a0In the realm of academia, it has made vast amounts of knowledge readily accessible, viewable and, importantly, scrutinizable by\u00a0people who previously could not have dreamt of being able to access such arcana. \u00a0This, in turn, has led to ordinary people being able to question the validity of the product sold being by the academic priest classes. \u00a0Although 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.<\/p>\n
Outside of physics and other highly technical subjects, most of the data belonging\u00a0to the “soft sciences”\u00a0can nowadays be critically\u00a0analyzed by the rankest of amateurs provided they have an interest in the given topic and a sufficient amount of time on their hands. \u00a0Thus, for example, the old manuscripts can be examined directly – without the interpolation of old wise men.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
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<\/em>, in particular. \u00a0Nevertheless, wide access to information these days also includes access to secondary sources that were previously only available in far away academic communities.<\/p>\n So let’s take a look at Germania<\/em>…<\/p>\n What Does Germania Really Say?<\/strong><\/p>\n 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. \u00a0An investigation of sections 38, etc of the\u00a0Germania<\/em> is therefore worthwhile.<\/p>\n A typical translation of Germania<\/em>\u00a0is ultimately derived from the Karl\u00a0M\u00fcllenhoff (1818-1884) edition first put out as “Germania antique<\/em>” in 1873 and then elaborated on by\u00a0M\u00fcllenhoff in his\u00a0Deutsche Altertumskunde, volume 4 (posthumously issued by Max Roediger in 1900). \u00a0All the below\u00a0Latin<\/em> paragraphs are from the\u00a0M\u00fcllenhoff version.<\/p>\n Suevi not Sueb<\/span>i<\/strong><\/p>\n Section 38 of\u00a0Germania\u00a0<\/em>says the following:<\/p>\n [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.”<\/p>\n However,\u00a0M\u00fcllenhoff notes himself that the manuscripts B b C c<\/em>, each say something different. \u00a0Specifically, they say Nunc de Suevis<\/strong><\/em>. \u00a0In fact,\u00a0M\u00fcllenhoff says “and everywhere the same way” (et ubique modem modo<\/em>): Suevi, Suevorum, Suevos; hence we have:<\/p>\n “Nunc de Suevis<\/strong> dicendum est, quorum non una, ut Chattorum Tencterorumve, gens; maiorem enim Germaniae partem obtinent, propriis adhuc nationibus nominibusque discreti, quamquam in commune Suevi<\/strong> vocentur. Insigne gentis obliquare crinem nodoque substringere: sic Suevi*<\/strong> a ceteris Germanis, sic Suevorum**<\/strong> ingenui a servis separantur. In aliis gentibus seu cognatione aliqua Suevorum<\/strong> seu, quod saepe accidit, imitatione, rarum et intra iuventae spatium; apud Suevos<\/strong> 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.”<\/p>\n * in\u00a0b<\/em>:\u00a0“Suevi a” * on this see below too…<\/p>\n And so forth throughout\u00a0Germania<\/em>. \u00a0But maybe that’s only in the\u00a0B b C c<\/em> manuscripts? \u00a0Well, the problem is that these were\u00a0the only manuscripts that M\u00fcllenhoff was working with…<\/p>\n So there was a subsequent manuscript discovered?<\/p>\n The answer is yes… but it does not matter since, e.g., the T (“Toledo”) manuscript also has Sueuos…<\/p>\n But maybe… let’s see… the “u” > “b” – possibly but not for Tacitus’ Suevi.<\/p>\n Here is a list from Frank Abbott showing the “standard”\u00a0M\u00fcllenhoff edition on the left and the actual manuscripts on the right:<\/p>\n M\u00fchlenhoff on the left, reality on the right<\/p><\/div>\n And it gets better<\/strong><\/p>\n In section 41,\u00a0M\u00fcllenhoff says:<\/p>\n “Moreover this quarter of the Suebians stretches to the middle of Germany.” \u00a0(Et haec quidem pars Sueborum in secretiora Germaniae porrigitur<\/em>.)<\/p>\n So should we correct that to Suevorum<\/em>? \u00a0Well, no because the word used is:<\/p>\n verbo4<\/em><\/p>\n Serbos or Servos??? \u00a0So now we might have Serbs masquerading as Suevians? \u00a0If so (and it is<\/span> an “if” we admit!), does anyone still believe that Suevi have absolutely nothing to do with the Slavs? \u00a0Not to mention that this brings up the words of Vibius Sequester<\/a><\/span>:\u00a0Albis Germaniae Suevos a Cerveciis dividiit: mergitur in Oceanum<\/em>.<\/p>\n What about\u00a0M\u00fcllenhoff?<\/p>\n It is difficult not to conclude that\u00a0M\u00fcllenhoff’s choice here was driven by his desire to make the name as similar as possible to that of the Schwab<\/span>en<\/em>.<\/p>\n Aha! What about the\u00a0Codex Aesinas<\/em>? \u00a0Seems same.<\/p>\n With such a sensitive work, lots of “Korrekturen” were necessary…<\/p><\/div>\n So there you have it.<\/p>\n Incidentally, given the name of this site, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Codex Aesinas<\/em>\u00a0was discovered (in 1902) at\u00a0Iesi\/Jesi, an “Umbrian” town before its conquest by the Gallic Senones.<\/p>\n And speaking of the Gallic Senones.<\/p>\n Semones (or Senones) not\u00a0Semn<\/span>ones<\/strong><\/p>\n The most\u00a0ancient Suevic tribe is listed by Tacitus as that of the Semnones (section 39). \u00a0Except Germania<\/em> 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. \u00a0Instead we have:<\/p>\n Later, in the same section 39, we have:<\/p>\n Which raises a few questions about their relationship to:<\/p>\n * 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<\/em>. \u00a0Lestik’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.<\/p>\n
\n** in\u00a0T<\/em>: “servoss”*<\/p>\n![\"abbott1\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.jassa.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/abbott1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n