Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

that Suevi is the same word as Sorbi or Servians; that most of the Suevi-even the Semnones-were Slavonic; that the Gothini were Gallicians (in the modern sense); that the Bohemia of Maroboduus was Bavaria; that nothing at all is to be believed about Cimbri in Jutland and Denmark; and that it is an open question whether the Cimbri were not Slavonians (p. 135); that Chatti and Suevi* are different names for the same people (p. xlix. of Prolegomena); that Suevi merely means "non-Celtic;" that migrations were so rare and difficult, that we must not have recourse to this topic to explain the changes of the map of Germany at different eras (pp. xxx. xxxi.). In a less learned or less energetic writer we should pass by such an opinion as the last, without thinking it to deserve refutation. It is in compliment to Dr. Latham that we now reason against it.

He himself admits a migration of the Goths, with wives and families, from Germany to the Crimea, and from the coasts of the Black Sea and Danube into Italy and Spain. He entitles the Goths the most migratory of the Germans. But surely if the Goths could migrate on such a scale, other tribes might move through a quarter or a tenth part of the distance; and when we have distinct and positive declarations by the first writers of antiquity that this was their habit, it is highly unreasonable to be incredulous. Indeed, the evidence in this matter-analogical, collateral, and direct, à priori and à posteriori-is quite overwhelming. We find facilities for migration, motives for it, compulsion enforcing it, and multiplied evidence of the fact. Of course, while men live by cattle and by game, they have little attachment to the soil. Strabo on this point says (vii. 1, p. 64 of Tauchnitz): "What is common to all the people of this country (Germany) is, the ease of migration, by reason of the simplicity of their living, and their not tilling the ground nor laying up treasures, but dwelling in huts which contain provision for the day. The chief part of their substance is tame cattle, as with the Nomades; so that, imitating them, and putting their household substance on waggons, they turn with their herds whithersoever they please." That "they give no care to agriculture, live on milk, cheese, and flesh, and have no fixed private rights in land," is attested by Cæsar (De Bello Gallico, vi. 22); who also mentions, with all detail, the case of two tribes (the Usipetes and Tenetheri), who were drivent across the Rhine in vast multitudes

This appears to be a needlessly paradoxical form of statement. If Ariovistus, a Suevian, extended his power westward to the Rhine, and invaded Gaul, embracing the Chatti in his league, this does not imply any displacement of the centre of Suevian power, or that the name Suevian has a new meaning.

+ Though unable to defend themselves against the Suevi, they were able to overpower the Gauls. This is so attested by Cæsar. as to be proof against Latham's sarcasm, that the best qualification for invading one's neighbour's land, according to some historians, is inability to defend one's own.

by the Suevi systematically ravaging their fields. Moreover, he tells us that the Suevi followed this method of ravage on principle, since they "regarded it as the greatest of public honours to have as large a desert as possible round them." Migration must therefore often have been enforced. Indeed several cases are known in which whole tribes have changed their abode to escape the danger of enslavement by the Roman arms. Dr. Latham complains that writers confound mere movements of German armies with migrations, and forget that unless men carry the females and children with them, it does not deserve the latter name. But on this we may remark-1. that mere armies of men often suffice to carry the name of the nation, and affect the aspect of the map-as the Saxons in Britain, and the Normans in France; 2. that the Cimbri subdued by Marius had large numbers of women in their waggons; so had the Goths defeated by Claudius (Gibbon, ch. xi.). Moreover, the movement of the Gauls into Greece and into Asia Minor was not only a most sudden and rapid event, but is attested (at least as to Asia Minor) to have been a real national migration, by the purity of the language and race in later times. Upon this also Dr. Latham chooses to throw doubt, without one particle of evidence.

His mode of dealing with Bohemia and the Cimbri appears to us to deserve a rather vehement protest. In regard to Bohemia, the testimony of the ancients is perspicuous, positive, and consistent. Tacitus evidently thinks it needless to dwell on what was notorious, and rather alludes than asserts. Velleius Paterculus, who had marched with the army of Tiberius to the Elbe, and remained some years in Germany, is an eminently valid authority as to the events within those limits of space and time; and he, in describing the proceedings of Maroboduus, says that he fled into the interior to escape the notice of the Romans, and conquered Bohemia, within the depths of the Hercynian forest. But Dr. Latham (following, we believe, an eccentric Bavarian* author) would persuade us that this meant the modern Bavaria! Why, of Bavaria, the southern half was contained in the Roman province of Rhætia; what remained of it was so far from being an interior and secluded district, that it was immediately on the Roman frontier, and pervaded by Roman influences. In the days of Tacitus it was occupied by the Hermunduri, to whom (says the historian) "we freely open our homes and our villas, without exciting their covetousness. They cross the Danube

During the great Napoleonic wars, Bavaria sided with France; and, to justify her unnatural treason to the cause of Germany, rejoiced to believe herself more Gaulish than German in blood. It might have sufficed for this to recall the fact that old Rhaetia was Celtic; but the name of Bavaria (Boïaria) gave an impetus to the doctrine that Bavarians are Boii, and may be identified with Bohemia.

without passports or guards, and enter our most splendid Rhætian colony," &c. And while writing thus, he simultaneously alludes to Bohemia, without a hint that the old kingdom of Maroboduus is not this Bohemia, but is the district now occupied by the Hermunduri. In fact, Velleius is far from indefinite in his description of the site of Bohemia. "It had Germany," says he (ii. 109), "at its left and in front, Pannonia at its right, Noricum at its back;" and he represents Tiberius Cæsar as invading it from Carnuntum, "which place of Noricum was nearest to the kingdom (of Maroboduus) on this side." Carnuntum was on the Danube, a little above the modern Presburg; which makes it clear that our Bohemia was the Bohemia of Velleius. Dr. Latham makes it an objection, that none of the ancients describe the mountains of Bohemia. How could they describe a locality into which Maroboduus betook himself to avoid their sight? Velleius speaks of it as girt with the Hercynian forest; surely that is enough. Tacitus says that a continuous chain of mountains cleaves Suevia apart (by which he must mean the chain which forms the northern side of Bohemia); but he clearly did not know enough of the geography to specify it more distinctly.

As to the Cimbri, Dr. Latham has indeed brought out a most impotent result. After reprinting an essay, in which he maintains that every thing hitherto believed about the Cimbri is uncertain, and that the ancients knew nothing about them, and pushed them always to the utmost bounds of known geography, -the Cimbri being among races what Thule was among islands, a name for the distant unknown, he adds the following postscript:

"Some change in my opinion concerning the populations in question, since the publication of the preceding paper, has taken place. The conflicting difficulties have increased with the increase of the attention that has been bestowed on the subject. Hence I modify the last proposition, and hesitate to commit myself to the doctrine that the Cimbro-Teutons were Gauls at all; what they were being a greater mystery than ever."

This oracle is delivered without assigning any reasons for his change of mind, and without indicating which of his former arguments now appear to him unsatisfactory. Nor is this the worst. So very hasty is he, as to fall into blundering self-contradiction, which is made the less excusable by his tone of confidence. In p. 134 (of his later and improved view!) he writes concerning the "Cimbri, Tigurini, Ambrones, Teutones":

"What did Cæsar consider their ethnological affinities to be? Gallic. Sallust? Gallic. Velleius Paterculus? Gallic. It is only the later writers that carry their origin north of Gaul.”

Velleius considers them to be Gallic, says Latham! Yet, in p. clvii. he himself writes:

"Velleius Paterculus places them [the Cimbri] beyond the Rhine, and deals with them as Germans: Tum Cimbri et Teutoni transcendere Rhenum . . . .' (ii. 8). 'Effusa immanis vis Germanarum gentium, quibus nomen Cimbris ac Teutonis erat? (ii. 12)."

So much for Velleius. As for Cæsar, Dr. Latham is consistent with himself, but consistent in error. In p. clvi. (his old essay) he had written:

[ocr errors]

"Cæsar, whose evidence ought to be conclusive-inasmuch as he knew of Germany as well as Gaul-fixes them [the Cimbri] 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. . . . Belgas solos esse, qui patrum nostrum memoria, omni Gallia vexata, Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi prohibuerint.' Now if the Teutones and Cimbri had moved from north to south, they would have clashed with the Belge first, and with the other Gauls afterwards. The converse, however, was the fact."

We will not discuss whether this overstrains the necessary force of the past participle "vexata;" we do believe that Cæsar intended to represent the Cimbri as attacking the Belgians from the south. Niebuhr, who follows Plutarch and Appian in bringing the Cimbri through Thrace and along the Danube into Noricum, whence they cross the Rhine far south of the Belgians, no doubt agreed with Latham in so interpreting this passage. But how does this "fix" the earlier home of the Cimbri to Gaul and its south? How does this indicate that "Cæsar considers their ethnological affinities to be Gallic"? On the contrary, in the Gallic War (i. 4C), Cæsar tells his centurions, when about to engage the German Ariovistus, that "this enemy" (the German) was already tried by the Romans in the defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones, and of the army of Spartacus. Similarly, in i. 33, he compares the invasion of Gaul by Ariovistus from Germany to that of the Cimbri and Teutones. Dr. Latham overlooks these notices, and distorts a third.

Yet we do not account these definite errors so hurtful as the general confusion which he has thrown over the subject. Two points concerning these invaders we hold to be clear; a third and fourth far more doubtful; but he has treated them all together, and has unjustifiably tampered with ancient testimony, equalising the best with the worst. It seems to us not useless to mark these things more distinctly.

First, then, it ought not for a moment to be questioned that there was a tribe called Cimbri living in Jutland. The armies of Augustus, accompanied by a fleet, traversed Germany from

the Rhine to the, Elbe; so, indeed, did Germanicus, in the beginning of Tiberius's reign. Strabo (vii. 1, p. 70, Tauchnitz) says: "The northern Germans reach along the ocean; and they are known from the mouths of the Rhine as far as the Elbe. And of these the best known are the Sugambrians and the Cimbrians. But what is beyond the Elbe, along the coast of the ocean, is utterly unknown to us." Here we find limited and cautious assertion, his means of knowledge being exactly defined by the progress of the Roman armies. His absolute disclaimer of knowledge beyond the Elbe gives weight to his assertions as to this side; and his positive statement concerning the Cimbrians is confirmed by Tacitus. This passage is quoted from Strabo by Latham, and set aside. Why? Simply because Ptolemy, writing one hundred and twenty years later, puts the Cimbri in the northern part of Denmark !-as if the tribe (already exceedingly weakened, as Tacitus states) could not have been driven northward, or its southern part have been swallowed up, by more powerful neighbours. As if to show how defiant of reason he can be, he further quotes from the Monumentum Ancyranum the reference of the Emperor Augustus to the Cimbri. The whole passage stands thus: "The Roman fleet sailed from the mouth of the Rhine toward the east, so far as no Roman previously had ever gone by land or sea. And the Cimbri, the Charudes, and the Semnones, other German tribes of the same region, sought my friendship." Nor do we find any thing, with Dr. Latham, absurd or confused in Pliny's testimony, who says that Mount Sevo, or the great Norway range, "makes a vast bend to the Cimbric promontory," -the entrance of the Baltic being so narrow, that the opposite lands seem to point at one another. The phrase "quorum pars Cimbri" seems, indeed, to be wrongly repeated in Pliny's text; but if otherwise, it will only imply that in his belief the Cimbri were partly in one, partly in another district of Germany. This has nothing in it confused nor absurd; but it certainly is not in agreement with other authorities.

Secondly; whatever the race or home of the Cimbri and Teutones, we first learn of them as marauding in Illyria and Noricum, and next in southern Gaul. Hence, whatever their race, and whatever their recent home, it is to be received, until disproved, that they crossed the Rhine (if at all) very high up, and appeared among the Sequani first of Gaul. This also agrees with the mention of the Tigurini as their allies, since the Tigurini are identified with Zurich.

Thirdly; to what race the Cimbri belonged, and to what the

Latham, commenting on this very passage, is pleased to say (p. clxii.), that the Sicambri and the Cimbri are confounded by Strabo! If this is confusion, what would distinction be?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »