CHAPTER II

V.

THE GERMANIA AND THE CIVILIZATION OF THE GERMANI

 

The information about the non-Germanic peoples in North Europe which we can obtain from Tacitus and other classical writers is comparatively insignificant. We are best informed about the Germani, the most important source being Tacitus' work. It is true that this work has lost some of its authority owing to the penetrating criticisms of such scholars as Georg Wissowa, Eduard Norden and A. Schroeder. It has been shown that the Germania is a late representative of a long succession of geographical-ethnographical works by Greek and Roman authors. In the statements of these works about the various peoples can be discerned a long series of ethnographical migration motives. Thus one of Tacitus' statements about the Germani is met with in the Hippocratic Corpus referring to the Scythians, another in Herodotus, where it refers to the Persians, and so on. It has also been shown that, directly and indirectly, Tacitus must have availed himself largely of other sources, such as Posidonius, Caesar, Livy and Pliny. A further weakness in the work, though a very explicable one, is that the Roman author, who had himself seen the dark sides of civilization at close quarters—the reign of terror under Domitian, sometimes unconsciously idealizes in his description of the unspoiled children of nature. As has been shown, this 'ethnographical romanticism,' despite its Rousseauist character, is also old and ultimately has its roots in the Stoic conception of the baleful influence of culture on mankind. Closely connected with this is the fact that in the interpretation of Ger­manic customs and conceptions—marriage, religion, government, various forms of punishment, and the like—points of view are adopted which are Tacitus' own, not those of the people he is describing. By the side of this subjectivity the aestheticizing tendency asserts itself as a weakness from the scientific point of view. The tendency of the author, the trained rhetorician, towards epigrammatic acerbity not infrequently degenerates into incomprehensibility; his taste for effective points with which to conclude a section in the book, and his seeking after the artistic welding of the various parts, sometimes impair the work. But in spite of this and other weaknesses touched upon later, Tacitus' work is still a document of inestimable value for our knowledge of the early history of the Germani. What it has lost in authority through the critical research of recent decades it has gained through the results of archaeological research which, more often than not, confirm its statements with surprising emphasis. Hardly any other people has had the good fortune to be introduced into history by an author at once so penetrating and so kindly disposed.

The introductory chapters in the Germania may in their general character be from Pliny, as Norden has sought to show, the contents being largely derived from Book XX of his lost work on the Germanic Wars. However that may be, this part of Tacitus' book contains much information not to be gained from other sources. This includes his notes about the tribal saga of the Germani and about the origin of their name, which only the Tungri are said originally to have borne. The interpretation of this has been the subject of much dispute. The general opinion is that the name was originally that of a tribe, which was later given to the whole people as the result of the prominence of its bearers as conquerors. Tacitus gives no explanation of the name Germani (indeed, he seems to have had little interest in etymology)and the question must still be considered unsolved; there is not even unanimous agreement to what language the name belongs.

After the description of the physical characteristics of the Germani, a description which proves to be largely in agreement with Posidonius' account of the Celts, the author turns to the nature and features of the country. Here, as elsewhere in the book, geographical conditions are touched upon very briefly. The natural features of Germania are stated to be varied, but in general the country is covered with gloomy forests and horrible swamps. This exaggeration is echoed in Tacitus' account of the battle of the Teutoburgerwald and of Germanicus' campaign along the marshy coasts of the North Sea. At the same time, however, it is indicated that the marshy parts of the country lie nearest to Gaul, while those lying along the Danube boundary are higher. Further the country is said to produce grain but to be unsuitable for fruit-growing. Cattle-breeding is carried on extensively, but the cattle are small and hornless. Probably they belonged to the mountain breed which still today predominates in the north of Scandinavia.

In this country the Germani lived in scattered farms and villages, in houses roughly built of wood. In Jutland and Gotland particularly, a large number of house-foundations from the first centuries of our era are known, which give us an idea of the type of buildings of that time—rectangular houses with the entrance on one of the short sides in Gotland, or on one of the long sides in Jutland. Also more primitive dwellings, half underground, are mentioned by Tacitus, and survive even now in several countries. The dress for men of all classes was a mantle, held together by a fibula, or for lack of a fibula, by a thorn. The extremely rich development of the fibula in Germanic territory accords excellently with this statement. The wealthier had also close-fitting under­garments. Roman reliefs, as well as sculptures and statuettes, show us the normal Germanic costume of that period. It appears from these that the dress had been greatly changed since the Bronze Age, above all by the adoption of long trousers—which are supposed to have been borrowed from one of the horse-riding peoples in South-East Europe. Among their objects of luxury were furs, sometimes brought from distant countries in the most northerly parts of Europe. The women's clothing was similar in character. As regards the relations between the sexes, monogamy was the rule and matrimony, which was entered into fairly late, was held sacred. Adultery was rare and was severely punished. The children grew up naked and dirty and no difference was made between those of the free-born and the serfs. The women occupied a highly honored position. In peace woman was the man's adviser, even credited with a prophetic instinct; in wartime she urged him on to combat, and wavering armies had stood firm at the adjurations of their womenfolk.

Tribal and family feeling were very strong among the Germani, and they were loyal to each other both in friendship and enmity. Family revenge was an imperative duty on every man, but the vendetta was not implacable. Even murder could be expiated by fines, a principle preserved in the Germanic laws which were codified much later. Indeed reconciliation between families was almost a social necessity in view of the temperament of the Germani and their forms of social intercourse. Extensive hospitality was practised, and feasts often finished with fights and bloodshed. As a drink Tacitus mentions a fermented beverage prepared from barley and wheat. Wine was probably imported in much larger quantities than the Roman author was aware of. Dice-throwing was also a favorite amusement of the Germani. This statement is well corroborated by the archaeological material; from the first century AD until the time of the Vikings, dice and gaming-men—the older ones of glass, the later ones of bone— frequently recur in the furnishings of the men's graves.

The reason why so much time could be devoted to social life and amusements is that peaceful work was considered unworthy of a freeman, who therefore left it to the women and serfs. The chief industries were cattle-raising and farming. The latter was of a primitive character, and the description of the methods employed is particularly difficult to interpret. It is a debated question whether it was on communal lines, as described in Caesar's Gallic War. It has been argued by Fustel de Coulanges and others that Caesar's statements refer to the exceptional cir­cumstances prevailing among the invading tribes, but that other­wise full ownership of land existed among the Germani.

As regards trade, Tacitus' statements are rather calculated to give the impression that the Germani had little interest in it, but it is observed that furs were obtained from the far distant North. Of Roman goods for which the Germani were eager only wine is mentioned, and this is said not to have penetrated farther than to the tribes on the frontier. They amassed capital in the form of herds of cattle and placed little value on precious metals in general. The tribes in the interior of Germania traded chiefly by barter, and only those nearest to the borders used money. For practical reasons they preferred silver. Most in favour were serrati and bigati the full-weight denarii of the Republic.

Many of these statements are well founded. The large part played in the economy of the Germani by cattle-rearing is reflected in the fact that the word in the Germanic languages for cattle during ancient times also denotes property in general. It is also true that money came into use comparatively late and coins struck before Nero's depreciation of the coinage (AD 62) were most in demand. Over 500 Republican denarii from free Germania and also many such coins from the Empire before Nero are certainly extant. A number of German hoards show, however, that these coins continued to be introduced right up to the time when Trajan withdrew them (AD 107). This anxiety to secure coin of good quality contradicts Tacitus' statement about the indifference of the Germani to precious metals. The beautiful gold ornaments, which give evidence of great technical skill, also point in the same direction. The enormous quantities of gold which the continental tribes de­manded from the Roman Empire during the period of migrations, and the tributes in silver which the Vikings imposed on Western Europe, also show plainly that the desire for money was far from foreign to the Germani of those times. An interest in trade must also have been long established among them. As early as the Stone Age the South Scandinavians carried on an extensive export of flint implements and amber. The latter attained still greater importance during the Bronze Age for the purpose of barter for metals (bronze and gold). During the first period of the Northern Iron Age trade with foreign countries suffered a great set-back, but during the last century before Christ connections with Italy began. This is proved, for instance, by the importation of bronze situlae dating from the La Tene period, no less than fifteen having been found in Hanover alone, while five had found their way to Scandinavia. There are no statistics to show the extent of the Roman imports into the continental portion of free Germania but it was undoubtedly considerable. Of Roman and provincial Roman wares the Scandinavian countries show more than 500 vessels of bronze, about 260 of glass and half-a-dozen of silver. These figures go to show that the Germani could appreciate the products of the Roman metal industries far more than Tacitus' statements would lead us to suppose. The considerable proportion of trullae (wine-ladles) among the bronze vessels indicates that wine had also penetrated far beyond the frontiers of free Germania, probably as early as the time of Tacitus.

Just as Tacitus pays too little attention to the trade of the Germani with the Roman Empire, he also fails to recognize their receptivity of Roman culture. As early, however, as the Later Stone Age, they had shown themselves extremely susceptible to cultural influences from abroad. During the Bronze and Early Northern Iron Ages a decided increase in these influences in connection with the metal import is observed, which reaches its height during the first two centuries AD. They certainly remained unacquainted with the highest expressions of Roman culture, such as literature, art, and the like, but the imported Roman goods and the marked classical forms of the native antiquities are so characteristic of the epoch that Scandinavian archaeologists call it the Roman Iron Age. With regard to the group which is far the most numerously represented—the fibulae—they are certainly not, as was formerly assumed, imports from the Empire, but their forms were strongly affected by classical taste. This applies in general to all the Germanic forms of ornaments, implements, earthenware vessels, belonging to these two centuries. The gold ornaments in particular attest an independent development of the filigree technique copied from the classical peoples, perhaps the Etruscans. As also during the Bronze Age, it is in the Scandinavian countries that the technique of metal-work reaches its zenith. The great absorption of Roman culture by the Germani is also remarkable, because it contrasts with the indifference of the Scotch and Irish, who appear to have remained unaffected by it. In view of the fact that the best goods of foreign and native extraction are almost entirely taken from graves, a reservation must also be made against Tacitus' statements about the simple burial custom of the Germani. The burial-mounds with cremated bones and few objects which he describes are characteristic especially of the districts of the Lower Rhine, whence indeed he got much of his information about the Germani. But in other parts of free Germania graves of another type with more abundant furniture are met with. Before the beginning of the Christian era isolated skeleton-graves had begun to make their appearance, probably as a result of Celtic influences. At first their adornment had been quite simple, but during the first century of our era grave objects were often very abundant. The inhumation flat graves in particular often contain rich deposits either of native earthen­ware vessels or of imported wares of bronze, glass or occasionally of silver. It is mainly in this type of grave that the imported Roman goods referred to above are found.

As has been indicated above, Tacitus' account of the religious conditions must also be read with a certain scepticism. The explanation given of the lack of images and temples reflects his own personal ideas. The real cause may be sought in the fact that the Germani had not yet got quite beyond their original nature-worshipping stage. During the Bronze Age they had still wor­shipped the divine powers, mainly in the shape of axes and other symbols.  A number of small statuettes of a naked woman are found from the end of this period, probably representing a goddess of fertility—possibly the same as Tacitus' Nerthus—and in the time of Tacitus the divine world is entirely anthropomorphized. The chief gods mentioned in the Germania, Mercury, Hercules and Mars, are identified in various ways, but usually as Woden (Odia), Donar (Tor) and Tiu (Tyr). The cult of the war-god Woden is traced in the burial customs of several West-Germanic tribes, whereas the Scandinavian peoples at this time worshipped predominantly the Wanes (Vanir), the divine family of Nerthus. But the Germani had not yet reached the stage of images and temples, and all kinds of magic, the interpretation of signs and other primitive customs, still constituted part of their religion. There was a priesthood, but the father of the family also had certain religious duties.

The most interesting chapters in Tacitus' work are those that deal with the political and social structure of the Germanic peoples. At the same time they are among the hardest to interpret, not from the point of view of language, but as regards their contents. In short, sometimes enigmatic, sentences a number of problems are touched upon which are still not entirely solved. This is the more remarkable in that discussions about them take up by far the greater part of the literature which has appeared in connection with Tacitus' work. It is now universally agreed that the Germanic community was based on the family. During the time of Tacitus and much later, the Germanic State was of the nature of an alliance of families and constituted a rather loose association of a number of small territories. These Tacitus calls pagi and says that each is ruled by a prince (princeps). The bond of union within each state is the national assembly (the Thing) and the king (rex), who possesses very limited powers. The terminological difference between princeps and rex made by Tacitus and other classical authors is, however, assumed to be foreign to the Germani. These statements do not entitle us to make a distinction between monarchical and republican forms of government. Among the Scandinavians at any rate all princes seem as a rule to have borne the name of king. The most varied opinions have been expressed about the origin of the power of the kings among the Germani. According to some scholars, it is very ancient, according to others comparatively late and developed from other offices such as that of general. The three distinctive functions of the king—as generalissimo,  supreme   judge  and   chief   priest—suggest its great antiquity because they indicate that the office ultimately has Its roots in the authority of the head of the family.

In Tacitus’ statement about the Suiones we get a glimpse of another kind of kingship, embracing several civitates. A number of facts indicate that this strongly sacral kingship arose out of the Add kingship under influences coming from the Mediterranean countries in connection with the cult of the fertility goddess. It can be assumed that, as in Egypt and India also, the King and Queen of the Suiones were looked upon as the hypostases of the male and female forms of that twin deity of fertility. Nevertheless even kingships such as those of the Suiones must be assumed to have been somewhat loosely welded monarchies, most nearly of the same character as the tribal associations on the continent (referred to above), whose cult was chiefly the bond that held them together. But the over-kingship common to the states of the Suiones is remarkable, nothing corresponding to it being mentioned elsewhere, though it is alleged that this sacral Uppsala-kingship was the model at the founding of the all-Norwegian dominion during the ninth century. Whether it also influenced the development of this institution among other Germanic peoples it is not yet possible to decide. But it should be observed that the word king is proved to be of North-Germanic origin and further that it is absent in the Gothic—Ulfila's term is piudans—and that in the West-Germanic languages it is borrowed from the North.

According to Tacitus the kings were chosen for their noble birth, which probably referred to divine origin which was usually claimed by the dynasties of the Germani. As the history of the Germani shows, kingship was so strictly confined to certain families that in practice it was hereditary—even though not in the direct line. The power of the king was limited. The love of liberty was strongly developed and the Germani submitted to authority unwillingly. By the side of the king there was a council of princes, who settled minor matters and had the right to prepare more important ones before they were laid before the national assembly, which had the right of decision, in certain cases (matters of life and death), also jurisdiction. The members of the Thing, which was composed of all free men, received the proposals with a murmur of disapproval or an assenting clash of weapons.

The democratic features of the Germanic method of govern­ment were counterbalanced by certain aristocratic ones. Although the serfs were well treated—some of them seem to have been in a position almost resembling bond tenants—sharp distinctions were drawn between them and the men who had been freed, and between these and the real freeborn. The nobility had the greatest influence in the Thing, and a certain order of precedence was observed in the division of land. The power of the aristocracy was very much strengthened by the chieftains' surrounding them­selves with large armed body-guards (comitatus) of freemen and youths. The institution of body-guards with their cultivation of the virtues of war and their glorification of the bond of loyalty between the chieftain and his men appears to be a forerunner of the chivalry of the Middle Ages and seems to have had a close analogy among the Celts. It had the effect of weakening the power of the king, but at the same time undoubtedly helped strongly to accentuate the warlike traits in both peoples. Cam­paigns and the booty they produced were necessary for the main­tenance of the body-guards and in turn the comitatus often formed the nucleus of new kingdoms in the time of the great migration.

The military system of the Germani is also a subject which Tacitus dwells on fully. Their military organization, the disposition of the army, and their method of righting, as well as their weapons, are described in detail. Weapons are seldom laid aside, and as in Rome a youth assumed the toga on coming of age, so among the Germani he was given a shield and lance. When speaking of the Cimbri, Tacitus takes the opportunity to give a survey of the struggles of the Romans with the Germanic peoples and strongly emphasizes their character as Rome's most dangerous enemy. It can hardly be doubted that an expansion of the Germani was to Tacitus the great danger that still threatened the Roman Empire. To him the internal dissension among the Germanic peoples was the only bright side of this picture. To warn and enlighten his fellow-countrymen and to some extent also for the purpose of their self-examination, he published in AD 98—at the time when Trajan was present on the banks of the Rhine for the purpose of settling frontier questions—his book about the vigorous, brave and moral but rapacious and bellicose people who inhabited the wide countries of free Germania.