On Haensel and Gretel

Maerchen?

Since some may think our musings on the subject to be little more than faery tales, it seems appropriate to continue this discussion by bringing in an expert on both linguistics and faery tales, Mr. Jacob Grimm.  Here is what he has to say on the matter in his Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache:

“…Sueven and Slaven appear to be the same word.  Caesar, Strabo, Tacitus, Ptolemy write Suevi  Σοηβοι [Soeboi/Soevoi] or Σουηβοι [Soueboi/Souevoi].”

[Here it is worth mentioning that the Greek “v” letter did not initially exist though later the Greek beta “β” began to change into a “v” sound; it seems – though is not certain – that during the time of Caesar and later it would have been a “v”, hence Suevi and not Suebi – even though the letter used to spell the name is “b”; that said, the “b” pronunciation continues in Schwaben – and that is in German…]

But should a main tribe of the Germans be called by the same name as the Slavs who, while originally related, nevertheless are always different from us?  I would like to explain myself.  The name Suevi is admittedly Slavic and means, as we just saw [here Grimm refers to an earlier discussion regarding the West and East Slavic svoboda and the South Slavic sloboda, i.e., freedom], the “free [ones]”; the name was given by Sarmatians in the East to their German neighbors, just as in the West the name Germans [was given to the Germans] by the Belgians and Galls.  Later, it is possible, that the same nice name was either chosen by the Slavs for themselves or was received back [for the Slavs] from their German neighbors, an in a strange irony it was from the subjugated Slavs the concept and name of servitude (sclavi, italian schiavi), that originally referred to freedom.  Conversely, the Germans began to gradually use the name of their own people Vandali, Vindili in the form Veneti Vinidi Winidi with respect to their Slavic neighbors, the German Sueven, however, retained the [Slav-given] name [of Suevi] and hardened it merely into the Gothic Svebos (?) or Old High German Suapa or Anglo-Saxon Svaefas, like already in Greek, [e.g.,] it was written Σοηβοι for Suevi.  The designation Sloveni seems to be predominantly rooted among the Southern Slavs, just as they prefer sloboda to svoboda.  The Byzantines Procopius, Agathias and so forth [i.e., and others], work into the Σχλαβοι [Sklaboi/Sklavoi] Σχλαβηνοι [Sklabenoi/Sklavenoi] a “C” [i.e., a “k” sounding letter] Sclavi Sclaveni, which is, however, rejected in the Slavic spelling.  It appears incorrect to derive the name Slovenen from slava gloria or slovo word, or from [some] unknown place name, as Schafarik believes.  Thus our Sueven are also not so named after the river Suevus, [though] this one [river is] rather [named] after them…

[Grimm then goes on, among other things, to describe the switch between SV and SL and the similarity among words such as sweet and sladky [in Czech] though noting (without seeing the relevance of) the Polish (but also Sorbia) słodki (i.e, with an “ł” being the lower-case version of “Ł” and pronounced suodkee) before continuing as follows] 

“But which of the two forms is the older one?  Since in Sanskript svapnas and svadus show up, [whereas] svoboda is older and closer to svoi than sloboda, [and] also Suevus is older than Slavus, I give the greater age to the “V”.  From the aspirated [consonant] comes the liquid [consonant], just as from the “S” [comes] the “R”.  Conversely, the “L” is older than the Roman[/Latin?], Dutch and Serbian dissolution into “I” or “U”.”

Thoughts

So what does all of this mean? Putting aside the “K” inserted by the Greeks between the “S” and the “L” it seems that the Slavs that attacked the Byzantines spoke a Southern Slavic (in today’s sense) dialect.  Ok, anything else?

Well, Svevi is older than Slevi.  But what about Souevi?  Grimm, to our eyes, seems unclear on this point.  If we go by Sanskript, it may be younger than Svevi but perhaps older than Slevi.  But even this much is not clear.

What about Grimm’s explanation for the name’s acquisition?  First, Grimm seems to assume that the Sarmatians spoke Slavic (as we understand that to be today).  This may or may not be the case – perhaps something between Slavic and Iranian?  Beyond that the assumptions he makes seems highly improbable.

It is probably the case that the name Germani comes to the Romans from the Galls and the Belgae (this may be rather relevant).  The Romans had known the Galls from forever having suffered their invasions of Italy before retiring the same favour.  However, the Roman intercourse with the Sarmatians – even if we by that name mean the Yaziges or some tribe along the same ethnicity – at the time of Caesar seems not nearly as robust.  Therefore, it is unconvincing to propose a Sarmatian source for the name – at least, it is unconvincing, for the Romans to acquire the name from the Sarmatians.

And we know the Belgae and Galls called the Germans Germani.  So it seems that the name may well have been of the Germans’ own making.

But how does Grimm think the same name ended up being applied to the Slavs? Let’s quote him again:

“Later, it is possible, that the same nice name was either chosen by the Slavs for themselves or was received back [for the Slavs] from their German neighbors.”

So it seems Grimm thinks either the Slavs (whoever they were before – Sarmatians?) now coveted the name for themselves – so in a way stole it (or took it back if you will) or the Germans gave the name to the Slavs (gave back? shared?).  While fearsome names may later be borrowed (e.g., Hungarians wanting to be called after Huns – but their own name Magyar or the Avars wanting to be called after the Avari – their own original name being?), it stretches credulity to think that a group of people speaking the same language came into the space occupied by the Suevi previously and either appropriated their name or received it back.  As for the first proposition, the preponderance of the usage of Slav – from the deepest Russia to the Elbe – seems to speak against a local borrowing (which would then have to be spread to many other tribes all across the current “Sarmatiandom” (?), i.e.,  the “future” Slavdom).  The second point is even more easily dismissed since we already know that the Germans called their Eastern neighbors Wends, presumably, because the Slavs either were or appeared in the same place as the earlier-attested Veneti.

So, again, what does this all mean?

We would be the last to provide any conclusive and indisputable answers. But, since we are on a roll, let us take a look at the meaning of the word Suevi as commonly explained by the etymological establishment.

Etymologists trace the meaning to the reconstructed (of course) Proto-Germanic *swēbaz, meaning *swē- one’s own –baz [people?].  Alternatively, they reconstruct an even earlier Indo-European root of –swe again meaning one’s own.  [Suevi being not the only case, see too, for example, Swedes]

All this effort seems to have been on the right track since we have merely to glance at a Polish (or Sorbian) dictionary to discover that, indeed, -svoi does appear there as in swój (svui pronunciation) or swoi (svoi pronunciation) meaning, indeed, “one’s own” (singular and plural).

The sun is rising suggesting mercilessly that it is time to stop for now.  We leave you with a picture from Haensel & Gretel that famous Grimm faery tale.  In Polish the story’s name is Jaś i Małgosia – this title itself is rather a pro po, both by reason of the Grimm connection and by reason of the titular hero’s (sorry ladies, this time we skip Małgosia) – Jaś, you see is a common name in Polish folklor but what really confounded Polish ethnologists was the fact that, while they believed the name to be a diminutive of Jan, i.e., John, the peasants appeared to be using the name as a freestanding regular one with no diminutive intentions visible on the horizon.

Hermen, sla dermen, sla pipen, sla… wait, what?

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved