READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
JANUARY 15TH 1857.
Of the nations whose movements are connected with the decline and
fall of the Roman empire, though several are more important than the
_Gepidæ_, few are of a greater interest. This is because the question
of their ethnological relations is more obscure than that of any
other similar population of equal historical prominence. How far they
were Goths rather than Vandals, or Vandals rather than Goths, how far
they were neither one nor the other, has scarcely been investigated.
Neither has their origin been determined. Nor have the details of their
movements been ascertained. That the current account, as it stands in
the pages of Jornandes Diaconus, is anything but unexceptionable, will
be shown in the present paper. It is this account, however, which has
been adopted by the majority of inquirers.
The results to which the present writer commits himself are widely
different from those of his predecessors; he believes them, however, to
be of the most ordinary and commonplace character. Why, then, have they
not been attained long ago? Because certain statements, to a contrary
effect, being taken up without a due amount of preliminary criticism,
have directed the views of historians and ethnologists towards a wrong
point.
These, however, for the present will be ignored, and nothing, in the
first instance, will be attended to but the primary facts upon which
the argument, in its simplest form, depends. These being adduced, the
ordinary interpretation of them will be suggested; after which, the
extent to which it is modified by the statements upon which the current
doctrines are founded will be investigated.
If we turn to Strabo's account of the parts on the north-eastern side
of the Adriatic, the occupancies of the numerous tribes of the Roman
province of Illyricum, we shall find that no slight prominence is
given to the population called Ἰάποδες. They join the Carni. The Culpa
(Κολαπις) flows through their land. They stretch along the coast to the
river Tedanius; Senia is their chief town. The Moentini, the Avendeatæ,
the Auripini, are their chief tribes. Vendos (Avendo) is one of their
occupancies. Such are the notices of Strabo, Ptolemy, Appian, and
Pliny; Pliny's form of the word being Japydes.
The Iapodes, then, or Japydes, of the authors in question, are neither
an obscure nor an inconsiderable nation. They extend along the
sea-coast of the Adriatic. They occupy the valley of the Culpa. They
are Illyrian, but conterminous with Pannonia.
As Pliny seems to have taken his name from Strabo, the authors just
quoted may all be called Greek. With the latest of them we lose the
forms Ἰάποδες or Japydes.
As the Roman empire declines and its writers become less and less
classical, their geographical records become less systematic and more
fragmentary; and it is not till we get to the times of Probus and
Maximian that we find any name approaching Ἰάποδες. Probus, however,
plants a colony of _Gepidæ_ within the empire (_Vopiscus, Vit. Pub._
c. 18). The Tervings also fight against the Vandals and Gipedes
(_Mamertinus in Genethl. Max._ c. 17). Sidonius makes the fierce Gepida
(_Gepida trux_) a portion of the army of Attila. Finally, we have
the Gepidæ, the Lombards, and the Avars, as the three most prominent
populations of the sixth century.
The Gepid locality in the fifth century is the parts about Sirmium and
Singidunum--Alt Schabacz and Belgrade--within the limits of Pannonia,
and beyond those of Illyricum, _i. e._ a little to the north of the
occupancy of the Iapodes and Japydes of Strabo and Pliny.
There is, then, a little difference in name between Japydes and Gepidæ,
and a little difference in locality between the Gepids and Iapodes.
I ask, however, whether this is sufficient to raise any doubt as to
the identity of the two words? Whether the populations they denoted
were the same is another matter. I only submit that, word for word,
_Japyd_ and _Gepid_ are one. Yet they have never been considered so.
On the contrary, the obscure history of the Japydes is generally made
to end with Ptolemy; the more brilliant one of the Gepidæ to begin
with Vopiscus. This may be seen in Gibbon, in Zeuss, or in any author
whatever who notices either, or both, of the two populations.
There is a reason for this; it does not, however, lie in the
difference of name. Wider ones than this are overlooked by even the
most cautious of investigators. Indeed, the acknowledged and known
varieties of the word Gepidæ itself, are far more divergent from
each other than _Gepidæ_ is from _Japydes_. Thus Gypides, Γήπαιδες,
Γετίπαιδες, are all admitted varieties,--varieties that no one has
objected to.
Nor yet does the reason for thus ignoring the connexion between
_Gepidæ_ and _Japydes_ lie in the difference of their respective
localities. For a period of conquests and invasions, the intrusion
of a population from the north of Illyricum to the south of Pannonia
is a mere trifle in the eye of the ordinary historian, who generally
moves large nations from one extremity of Europe to another as freely
as a chess-player moves a queen or castle on a chess-board. In fact,
some change, both of name and place, is to be expected. The name that
Strabo, for instance, would get through an Illyrian, Vopiscus or
Sidonius would get through a Gothic, and Procopius through (probably)
an Avar, authority--directly or indirectly.
The true reason for the agreement in question having been ignored, lies
in the great change which had taken place in the political relations of
the populations, not only of Illyricum and Pannonia, but of all parts
of the Roman empire. The Japydes are merely details in the conquest
of Illyricum and Dalmatia; the Gepid history, on the contrary, is
connected with that of two populations eminently foreign and intrusive
on the soil of Pannonia,--the Avars and the Lombards. How easy, then,
to make the Gepidæ foreign and intrusive also. Rarely mentioned, except
in connexion with the exotic Goth, the exotic Vandal, the exotic Avar,
and the still more exotic Lombard, the Gepid becomes, in the eyes of
the historian, exotic also.
This error is by no means modern. It dates from the reign of Justinian;
and occurs in the writings of such seeming authorities as Procopius and
Jornandes. With many scholars this may appear conclusive against our
doctrine; since Procopius and Jornandes may reasonably be considered as
competent and sufficient witnesses, not only of their foreign origin,
but also of their Gothic affinities. Let us, however, examine their
statements. Procopius writes, that "the Gothic nations are many, the
greatest being the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaides. They were
originally called the Sauromatæ and Melanchlæni. Some call them the
Getic nations. They differ in name, but in nothing else. They are all
whiteskinned and yellow-haired, tall and good-looking, of the same
creed, for they are all Arians. Their language is one, called Gothic."
This, though clear, is far from unexceptionable (_B. Vand._ i. 2).
Their common language may have been no older than their common Arianism.
Again, the Sciri and Alani are especially stated to be Goths, which
neither of them were,--the Alans, not even in the eyes of such
claimants for Germany as Grimm and Zeuss.
Jornandes writes: "Quomodo vero Getæ Gepidæque sint parentes si
quæris, paucis absolvam. Meminisse debes, me initio de Scanziæ insulæ
gremio Gothos dixisse egressos cum Berich suo rege, tribus tantum
navibus vectos ad citerioris Oceani ripam; quarum trium una navis, ut
assolet, tardius vecta, nomen genti fertur dedisse; nam lingua eorum
pigra _Gepanta_ dicitur. Hinc factum est, ut paullatim et corrupte
nomen eis ex convitio nasceretur. Gepidæ namque sine dubio ex Gothorum
prosapia ducunt originem: sed quia, ut dixi, _Gepanta_ pigrum aliquid
tardumque signat, pro gratuito convitio Gepidarum nomen exortum est,
quod nec ipsum, credo, falsissinum. Sunt enim tardioris ingenii,
graviores corporum velocitate. Hi ergo Gepidæ tacti invidia, dudum
spreta provincia, commanebant in insula Visclæ amnis vadis circumacta,
quam pro patrio sermone dicebant Gepidojos. Nunc eam, ut fertur,
insulam gens Vividaria incolit, ipsis ad meliores terras meantibus. Qui
Vividarii ex diversis nationibus acsi in unum asylum collecti sunt, et
gentem fecisse noscuntur."
I submit that this account is anything but historical. Be it so. It
may, however, be the expression of a real Gothic affinity on the part
of the Gepids, though wrong in its details. Even this is doubtful. That
it may indicate a political alliance, that it may indicate a partial
assumption of a Gothic nationality, I, by no means, deny. I only
deny that it vitiates the doctrine that _Japydes_ and _Gepidæ_ are,
according to the common-sense interpretation of them, the same word.
The present is no place for exhibiting in full the reasons for
considering Jornandes to be a very worthless writer, a writer whose
legends (if we may call them so) concerning the Goths, are only Gothic
in the way that the fables of Geoffrey of Monmouth are English, _i. e._
tales belonging to a country which the Goths took possession of, rather
than tales concerning the invaders themselves.
It is suggested then, that the statements of Procopius and Jornandes
being ignored, the common-sense interpretation of the geographical and
etymological relations of the _Iapodes_ and _Gepidæ_--word for word,
and place for place--be allowed to take its course; the Gepidæ being
looked upon as Illyrians, whatever may be the import of that word;
occupants, at least, of the country of the Iapodes, and probably their
descendants.
Thus far the criticism of the present paper goes towards separating the
Gepidæ from the stock with which they are generally connected, viz. the
German,--also from any emigrants from the parts north of the Danube,
_e. g._ Poland, Prussia, Scandinavia, and the like. So far from doing
anything of this kind, it makes them indigenous to the parts to the
north-east of the head of the Adriatic. As such, what were they? Strabo
makes them a mixed nation--Kelt and Illyrian.
What is Illyrian? Either Albanian or Slavonic; it being Illyria where
the populations represented by the Dalmatians of Dalmatia come in
contact with the populations represented by the Skipetar of Albania.
The remaining object of the present paper is to raise two fresh
questions:--
1. The first connects itself with the early history of Italy, and asks
how far migrations from the eastern side of the Adriatic may have
modified the original population of Italy. Something--perhaps much--in
this way is suggested by Niebuhr; suggested, if not absolutely stated.
The Chaonian name, as well as other geographical and ethnological
relations, is shown to be common to both sides of the Gulf. Can the
class of facts indicated hereby be enlarged? The name, which is,
perhaps, the most important, is that of the _Galabri_. These are,
writes Strabo, a "people of the Dardaniatæ, in whose land is an
ancient city" (p. 316). Word for word this is _Calabri_--whatever the
geographical and ethnological relations may be. Without being exactly
Iapodes, these Calabri are in the Iapod neighbourhood.
Without being identical, the name of the Italian Iapyges (which was to
all intents and purposes another name for Calabri) is closely akin to
Iapodes; so that, in Italy, we have Calabri called also Iapyges, and,
in Illyria, Iapodes near a population called Galabri.
More than this, Niebuhr (see Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography, v.
_Japygia_) suggests that Apulia may be Iapygia, word for word. The
writer of the article just quoted demurs to his. At the same time the
change from _l_ to _d_ is, at the present moment, a South Italian
characteristic. The Sicilian for _bello_ was _beddo_. On the other
hand, this is a change in the wrong direction; still it is a change of
the kind required.
The evidence that there was a foreign population in Calabria is
satisfactory--the most definite fact being the statement that the
Sallentines were partly Cretans, associated with Locrians and
_Illyrians_. (See _Calabria_.)
Again, this district, wherein the legends concerning Diomed prevailed,
was also the district of the Daunii, whom Festus (v. _Daunia_) connects
with _Illyria_.
I suggest that, if the Calabri were Galabri, the Iapyges were Iapodes.
Without enlarging upon the views that the definite recognition of
Illyrian elements in Southern Italy suggests, we proceed to the next
division of our subject.
2. Is there any connexion between the names _Iapod-es_ and _Iapet-us_?
The answer to this is to be found in the exposition of the criticism
requisite for such problems. Special evidence there is none.
The first doctrine that presents itself to either the ethnologist or
the historian of fiction, in connexion with the name Iapetus, is that
it is the name of some _eponymus_--a name like Hellen, or Æolus, Ion,
or Dorus. But this is opposed by the fact that no nation of any great
historical prominence bears such a designation. Doubtless, if the
Thracians, the Indians, the Ægyptians, &c. had been named _Iapeti_, the
doctrine in question would have taken firm root, and that at once. But
such is not the case.
May it not, however, have been borne by an obscure population? The name
_Greek_ was so born. So, at first, was the name _Hellen_. So, probably,
the names to which we owe the wide and comprehensive terms _Europe_,
_Asia_, _Africa_, and others. Admit then that it may have belonged to
an obscure population;--next, admitting this, what name so like as that
of the Iapodes? Of all known names (unless an exception be made in
favour of the _-gypt_ in _Æ-gypt_) it must be this or none. No other
has any resemblance at all.
Who were on the confines of the non-Hellenic area? Iapyges on the west;
Iapodes on the north-west. The suggested area was not beyond the limits
of the Greek mythos. It was the area of the tales about Diomed. It was
the area of the tales about Antenor. It was but a little to the north
of the land of the _Lapithæ_, whose name, in its latter two-thirds, is
_I-apod_. It ran in the direction of Orphic and Bacchic Thrace to the
north. It ran in the direction of Cyclopæan and Lestrygonian Sicily
to the west. It was on the borders of that _terra incognita_ which so
often supplies eponymi to unknown and mysterious generations.
Say that this suggestion prove true, and we have the first of the term
_Iapodes_ in Homer and Hesiod, the last in the German genealogies
of the geography of Jornandes and in the Traveller's Song--unless,
indeed, the modern name _Schabacz_ be word for word, _Gepid_. In the
Traveller's Song we get the word in a German form, _Gifþe_ or _Gifþas_.
The _Gifþas_ are mentioned in conjunction with the _Wends_.
In Jornandes we get _Gapt_ as the head of the Gothic
genealogies:--Horum ergo (ut ipsi suis fabulis ferunt) primus fuit
_Gapt_, qui genuit Halmal; Halmal vero genuit Augis, &c. Now _Gapt_
here may stand for the eponymus of the _Gepidæ_, or it may stand for
_Japhet_, the son of Noah. More than one of the old German pedigrees
begins with what is called a Gothic legend, and ends with the book of
Genesis.
To conclude: the bearing of the criticism upon the ethnology of the
populations which took part in the destruction of the Roman empire, is
suggestive. There are several of them in the same category with the
Gepidæ.
_Mutatis mutandis_: every point in the previous criticism, which
applies to the Gepidæ and Iapydes, applies to the _Rugi_ and _Rhæti_.
Up to a certain period we have, in writers more or less classical,
notices of a country called _Rhætia_, and a population called _Rhæti_.
For a shorter period subsequent to this, we hear nothing, or next to
nothing, of any one.
Thirdly, in the writers of the 5th and 6th centuries, when the creed
begins to be Christian and the authorities German, we find the _Rugi_
of a _Rugi-land_,--_Rugi-land_, or the land of the _Rugi_, being
neither more nor less than the ancient province of _Rhætia_.
Name, then, for name, and place for place, the agreement is
sufficiently close to engender the expectation that the _Rhæti_ will be
treated as the _Rugi_, under a classical, the _Rugi_ as the _Rhæti_,
under a German, designation. Yet this is not the case. And why? Because
when the Rugi become prominent in history, it is the recent, foreign,
and intrusive Goths and Huns with whom they are chiefly associated. Add
to this, that there existed in Northern Germany a population actually
called _Rugii_.
For all this, however, _Rugiland_ is _Rhætia_, and _Rhætia_ is
_Rugiland_,--name for name and place for place. So, probably, is the
modern Slavonic term _Raczy_.