Roman and the Teuton | Page 9

that, as early as the twelfth century,
chroniclers are at their wits' end how to reconcile facts and dates.
Ekkehard, in his Chronicon Universale {p12}, which ends 1126 A.D.,
points out the chronological contradiction between Jornandes, who
places the death of Ermanrich long before Attila, and the popular story
which makes him and Dietrich, the son of Dietmar, his contemporaries.
Otto von Freising {p13}, in the first half of the twelfth century,
expresses the same perplexity when he finds that Theodoric is made a
contemporary of Hermanricus and Attila, though it is certain that Attila
ruled long after Hermanric, and that, after the death of Attila,
Theodoric, when eight years old, was given by his father as a hostage to
the emperor Leo.
Gottfried von Viterbo {p14}, in the second half of the twelfth century,
expresses his difficulties in similar words.

All these chroniclers who handed down the historical traditions of
Germany were High-Germans, and thus it has happened that in
Germany Theodoric the Great became Dietrich, as Strataburgum
became Strassburg, or Turicum, Zurich. Whether because English
belongs to the Low German branch, it is less permissible to an English
historian than to a German to adopt these High-German names, I
cannot say: all I wished to point out was that there was a very
intelligible reason why Kingsley should have preferred the popular and
poetical name of Dietrich, even though it was High-German, either to
his real Gothic name, Theodereik, or to its classical metamorphosis,
Theodoricus or Theodorus.
Some other mistakes, too, which have been pointed out, did not seem to
me so serious as to justify their correction in a posthumous edition. It
was said, for instance, that Kingsley ought not to have called Odoacer
and Theodoric, Kings of Italy, as they were only lieutenants of the
Eastern Caesar. Cassiodorus, however, tells us that Odoacer assumed
the name of king (nomen regis Odoacer assumpsit), and though Gibbon
points out that this may only mean that he assumed the abstract title of
a king, without applying it to any particular nation or country, yet that
great historian himself calls Odoacer, King of Italy, and shows how he
was determined to abolish the useless and expensive office of
vicegerent of the emperor. Kingsley guesses very ingeniously, that
Odoacer's assumed title, King of nations, may have been the Gothic
Theode-reiks, the very name of Theodoric. As to Theodoric himself,
Kingsley surely knew his real status, for he says: 'Why did he not set
himself up as Caesar of Rome? Why did he always consider himself as
son-in-arms, and quasi- vassal of the Caesar of Constantinople?'
Lastly, in speaking of the extinction of the Western Empire with
Romulus Augustulus, Kingsley again simply followed the lead of
Gibbon and other historians; nor can it be said that the expression is not
perfectly legitimate, however clearly modern research may have shown
that the Roman Empire, though dead, lived.
So much in defence, or at all events, in explanation, of expressions and
statements which have been pointed out as most glaring mistakes in
Kingsley's lectures. I think it must be clear that in all these cases
alterations would have been impossible. There were other passages,
where I should gladly have altered or struck out whole lines,

particularly in the ethnological passages, and in the attempted
etymologies of German proper names. Neither the one nor the other, I
believe, are Kingsley's own, though I have tried in vain to find out
whence he could possibly have taken them.
These, however, are minor matters which are mentioned chiefly in
order to guard against the impression that, because I left them
unchanged, I approved of them. The permanent interest attaching to
these lectures does not spring from the facts which they give. For these,
students will refer to Gibbon. They will be valued chiefly for the
thoughts which they contain, for the imagination and eloquence which
they display, and last, not least, for the sake of the man, a man, it is true,
of a warm heart rather than of a cold judgment, but a man whom, for
that very reason, many admired, many loved, and many will miss,
almost every day of their life.
M. M.

LECTURE 1--THE FOREST CHILDREN.

I wish in this first lecture to give you some general conception of the
causes which urged our Teutonic race to attack and destroy Rome. I
shall take for this one lecture no special text-book: but suppose you all
to be acquainted with the Germania of Tacitus, and with the 9th

Chapter of
Gibbon. And I shall begin, if you will allow me, by a parable, a myth, a
saga, such as the men of whom I am going to tell you loved; and if it
seem to any of you childish, bear in mind that what