User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Germanic peoples drafting

Skeptical scholars need to be included

I don't have a lot of time and haven't read the draft, but I'd like to note that scholars who doubt that there were Germanic peoples as such need to be included. Walter Goffart has an entire chapter of Barbarian Tides titled "And none of them were Germans". I will try to find some relevant quotes later in the day/week.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

To add: Goffart specifically denies any commonality among the Germanic peoples post-Roman contact, which is a distinct position to supposing they had no cultural commonality before contact. For Goffart "Germanic peoples" are a 19th century construct.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict with the addition) I agree. Thanks. Specifically here I understand you are talking about the critics of the traditionskern concept associated with the Vienna school. He was in fact mentioned I think by me in passing in response to Krakkos's demand for a definition of the "post Wenskus" generation. (So this has been touched on in a very dysfunctional way!) Their focus is upon the tradition to the new peoples of late antiquity and the early middle ages as I understand it, and this should be in the structure.

Big picture. But the bigger point to make is that the article is not really structured and complete in any way, and never has been. Once we explain how all the pieces fit together it will not look like anyone is blocking anything. Lot to do though!

Practical. I am starting with the lead. This is often where controversial articles need the most thought.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I'm thinking more long-term, assuming this draft replaces the current article at some point.

Here are a few quotes just from Goffart's introduction:

"I would be content if "German" and its derivatives were banished from all but linguistic discourse on this subject [late antiquity]" (p. 4)

"This patriotic identification [of the Barbarians with Germans] has continued undimmed down to the present. Despite its antiquity and its endorsement by admirable scholars too numerous to mention, the linear projection of modern Germany out of an ancient one is a mistake, no longer in keeping with the way we do history. 'German' was basically a Roman word, used by authors in the early Empire as a shorthand term for many of the northern barbarians. 'Germany' was the name of the provinces created by the Empire on the left bank of the Rhine after failing to conquer the right bank. The use of 'German' waned sharply in late antiquity, when, for example, it was mainly reserved for Roman authors as an alternative for 'Franks' and never applied to Goths or the other peoples living in their vicinity at the eastern end of the Danube. The peoples surveyed by Tacitus or those of the Migration Age were fragmented; they did not call themselves Germans but bore particular names, and they did not live in a territory they called 'Germany.' Many of them, and for a time the most prominent, originated in what to us is Eastern Europe. At best, they spoke dialects that our linguistics call 'Germanic,' but even that common bond was (as far as we may tell) unknown to themselves until the eighth century. To evoke Germans and Germany before the Middle Ages is, very simply, an anachronism--an injection of the future into the past." (p. 5)

Obviously he has an entire book to support these contentions, but I'm low on time so that's it for now.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Good quote. I suppose it is not online?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I just found it on google books with a preview [1].--Ermenrich (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Sub-)Section "Languages"

(No, it's not just because I'm a linguist) I noticed that the "Languages" section has disappeared. Apparently, it was outforked by Krakkos as part of "Early Germanic culture". That's of course nonsense, since language is not part of culture. Who knows, maybe with the rationale: "Look, even the "modern Germanic peoples" have a shared culture, viz. their languages". Maybe not.

In any case, there should be a short independent section about what we know (and speculate) about the languages of the Germani. –Austronesier (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the lack of structure, or sticking to a structure, has made it hard to make sure we have all the topics we need, all in one place each.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Not connected to this section, but just wanted to confirm you on one important point: the quote from Wolfram (2015) is the most powerful statement against the shallow/obsolete definition of "Germanic people". –Austronesier (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean the one I have been playing with putting into the end of the lead? Yes it seems useful. Obviously I am seeing definition of the distinctions and misunderstandings as something important for the future of any version of this article, even if split.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion and a question

This draft defines Germanic peoples as people who "lived in the north European region of Germania during the era of the Roman empire." Per WP:NOR, i suggest that the article provides a reliable source for defining Germanic peoples this way. Having said that, please note that we already have an article titled Germania. That article has a section titled Germania#Population. There is plenty of room for expansion there. If there is an urgent need to add content on inhabitans of Germania, wouldn't it be better to do that at Germania#Population, rather than transforming Germanic peoples into a content fork of Germania#Population? Krakkos (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Krakkos: My current thinking is that Germania might better be merged into this article, but I am not rushing on that. That is one of the ideas to test while drafting/discussing. But, my impression is that the editing history on Germanic peoples shows we need to discuss it there, in which case there would be no point having another article. You can expand any article, but I fear that would be by moving in material which is covered in other articles. What is really known about Germania as a Roman concept is minimal, and totally inter-locked with their concept of Germani? Please at least consider it for now, and see what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerning sourcing BTW, obviously I am only drafting but do you really expect any problem with any specific wording I've been playing with? Please as usual if you see a problem or have a proposal, please say it specifically instead of hinting that you might see one. As an initial comment though, I think the sourcing problem on the sentence you mention is the opposite one: we have "too many" sources saying "too many" things, not "too few". We have comments effectively equating various combinations of terms/concepts: Germani, Germanic peoples, Germanic speaking peoples, inhabitants of Germania, Germanic speaking inhabitants of Germania, inhabitants of Germanic speaker dominated Germania etc etc etc. But this is making it sound harder than it is, because we have sources stating that they know this terminology is sometimes sloppy, and I think we at least have some consensus between us about what the field overall believes about each fuzzy point when they think hard about it and write carefully? Most importantly, and this is apparently what your sourcing remark is really hinting at, the overlap between the peoples of Germania and the speakers of Germanic languages is imperfect, and this imperfection is sometimes ignored in terminology and the works of some authors, especially if you go back a generation. Indeed, even relatively recently serious historians have been caught simply writing "Germans", but I think both of us and other editors agree that the field now tends to see this as a no no. So I've mentioned this in the lead as something which happens, but is no longer seen as best practice. Make sense? Shorter answer: Germanic peoples is a translation of Germani. Both terms are sometimes used to describe both the Roman era peoples, and peoples defined by their language family. (Recent authors who divide the terms up, for example Halsall in some cases, tend to explain outright that they are doing this as a handy way of working within a single work, not because it is the one and only correct or official way. If we take such a system over from one book, we will clash with the rest of the field, and we will be inventing a rule that does not exist.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Medieval definitions

Just a comment: Goffart mentions that the relationships among the Germanic languages were noted by the 8th century. I'm not sure what his source for this statement is (Bede? someone on the continent?) but it seems relevant. This should be looked into, since I don't think we should just take Goffart at his unsourced word here. If I can I'll try to do it myself, but I'm incredibly busy.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed those remarks, and also wondered where they were from. It is an aim to try to check where they are from and what other authors think of them. I know Halsall seems to approve, and he seems to believe it is based on Franks and Visigoths noticing their similar names.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Another note: while the Anglo-Saxons are never called Germani, their language was called theodiscus (Deutsch) in the earliest attestation of that word, an English church council decision that sermons should be read in the vernacular (theodisce) and Latin from 786. This bare fact can be sourced from here, taken from Theodiscus, but it doesn't seem to be a very good source. My source for this (A History of German through Texts, by Gloning and Young, p. 63) suggests looking at Weisberger Deutsch als Volksname 1953; Eggers Der Volksname Deutsch 1970; Sonderegger "Diutisk, dütsch, deutsch. 1200 Jahre deutsche Sprache im Spiegel ihrer Eigenbezeichnung" Der Schlern 62 (1988), 451-65; Klein "Althochdeutsch diutsch und die Adjektiva auf -isk im Alt- und Mittelhochdeutschen" in E. SChadel and U. Voigt (eds) Festschrift Heinrich Beck, 1994, 381-410; Klein "Zum Alter des Wortes Deutsch" Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 24 (1994), 12-25; Ehrismann "theodiskus/*thiudisk - Derivat und Basislexem. Überlegungen zur frühen Semantik und Pragmatik des Wortes deutsch" Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 24 (1994), 47-68.

This would imply at least a common name for West Germanic, even though I'm not sure it implies any idea of kinship (or whether these writers in Latin knew of each other in England and on the continent). It could just be that the term was derived naturally in different places, which, however, wouldn't explain the common Latin form. I suspect that some of the writers above have addressed this.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

According to Lerch (1942), the word theodisce may reflect Frankish usage of the Abbot Wigbod, who accompanied the papal envoys, so it does not necessarily indicate that it was used by the Anglo-Saxons. If this is correct, it proves at least that Anglo-Saxon was recognized by the Frankish-speaking Wigbod as a non-Latin vernacular (= theodisce) very similar to his own, so he simply called it with the same name.

FWIW, Lerch also points out that Ulfilas used the calque þiudiskō to translate NT Greek ἐθνικῶς ("in a pagan manner"). He wouldn't have done so if had any connotation with the meaning "vernacular". –Austronesier (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't name you a source but I've seen the word even used in England to refer to continental WG languages only. Well, that makes sense because consider "Dutch" and "Double Dutch". Certainly for Anglo Normans the family named Le Tyes were called Teutonic in Latin. I need to get to sourcing the details, so if anyone has something handy for any part of what I am working on...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This from Bede, Ecclesiastical History Book I Chap 4 seems relevant: Aduenerant autem de tribus Germaniae populis fortioribus, ide est, Saxonibus, Anglis, Iutis. The Loeb translation: Now the strangers had come from three of the more mighty nations in Germany, that is, the Saxons, the Angles and the Jutes. This must be discussed in some of the secondary literature.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it is and I have been looking at it. But you made me realize that it literally mentions Germany, which is indeed relevant. Of course it is a late example of an origin story by a learned Latin writer, but in reality the Germanic origins of the Anglo Saxons are not as controversial as Jordanes with the Goths. Archaeology implies that the north sea connection was never really broken.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the Latin for this, but the source is this translation at Project Gutenberg [2]:

But when Coinwalch was restored to his kingdom, there came into that province out of Ireland, a certain bishop called Agilbert,326 a native of Gaul, but who had then lived a long time in Ireland, for the purpose of reading the Scriptures. He attached himself to the king, and voluntarily undertook the ministry of preaching. The king, observing his learning and industry, desired him to accept an episcopal see there and remain as the bishop of his people. Agilbert complied with the request, and [pg 150] presided over that nation as their bishop for many years. At length the king, who understood only the language of the Saxons, weary of his barbarous tongue, privately brought into the province another bishop, speaking his own language, by name Wini,327 who had also been ordained in Gaul; and dividing his province into two dioceses, appointed this last his episcopal see in the city of Venta, by the Saxons called Wintancaestir.

The editor here takes the "Barbarous tongue" to be Frankish. Again, I suspect someone will have discussed this somewhere.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are aiming at here, but there are more records of the Anglo-Saxons sending missionaries to north Germany, and of course we have records of the Old English language itself, though very little of the early continental Saxony.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, when we’re discussing the noticing of linguistic similarity, this would appear to be the opposite. This also predates the Anglo-Saxon missions, if I’ve gotten the chronology correct.—Ermenrich (talk)

I suppose it could but as you mentioned we'd really need to find corroborating commentary. By my reading though it is not clear which tongue is being called barbarous, but probably either a Romance dialect or Irish?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

D.H. Green Lang and Hist in the early Germanic World

This would seem to be an invaluable source: [3]

Just an example: p. 3 "The Germani described by Tacitus need not be the same as those described over a century earlier by Caesar, so that differences between these two sources, far from needing to be explained away, may reflect the result of the encounter of the Germani with the world of Rome."

It's from 1998, so it doesn't engage in many of the definitional debates we're having here, but once the article gets to questions like culture, etc it should be very useful.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I own a copy but indeed I should look at it again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Germanic "identity"

I wasn't sure where this should go in the draft, but collecting quotes of "Germanic identity" is probably a good idea. This is from Malcolm Todd, The Early Germans, pp. 8-9 [4]:

The first point to be made is that they [the Germani] had no collective consciousness of themselves as a separate people, nation or group of tribes. There is no evidencethat they called themselves 'Germani' or their land 'Germania'... [he discusses the uncertain origin of the name Germani...] All that is reasonably certain is that a member of a German tribe, when asked about his or her affiliations, would have answered 'Langobard', 'Vandal', 'Frisian' or 'Goth', not 'Germanus'.

Todd is certainly not an advocate of the "Toronto school" and this seems like a consensus position in the scholarship from everything I've seen.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your reading of the field. I believe the Vienna school agrees, and the English authors I've read such as Halsall and Heather. OTOH, on this specific point there has also not been much controversy on WP at least recently. I think this point is for example not necessarily relevant to those who would insist on classifying every community in terms of their historical language, or even language family, which was historically popular even among scholars, and remains extremely popular among amateurs, and in tertiary works. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s fortunate it’s not controversial here at the moment, but we’ll need to address it somewhere in the article. It’s a commonly held belief similar to “the Germani are the Germans”. It seems relevant to definitions that Germani is likely an exonym too.—Ermenrich (talk)

It is already touched upon in the draft lead, but maybe it could be made more clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Rudolf of Fulda

Just stumbled across this while reading Gloning/Young's A History of German through Texts, p. 51 "We know that the historian and teacher Rudolf of Fulda held the [continental] Saxons to be the Germani of Tacitus". No source given, but this seems worthy of investigation for the medieval concept.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I recently mentioned him on the authority of Goffart?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)