1871-1877 Ottema various publications

Translations into English of the following publications by Dr. J.G. Ottema (also see his bibliography):

• 1871 Reply to Colmjon [transl. Ott 2020; original: JJK 9 Thet Bok thêra Adela folstar]
• 1871 Reply to Van den Bergh [transl. Ott 2020; original: JJK 17 Adela's boek]
• 1873 Germanic peoples [transl. Ott 2020; original: JJK 36a Germanen]
• 1874 Royal Acad. []
• 1876 Deventer Crt.
• 1876 MS existed before 1600
• 1877 Punjab Colony
• 1877 Reply to Who wrote ...?

Also see separate pages:

• Introduction Ottema 1872/1876 Thet Oera Linda Bok
• Foreword to 1876 edition of Thet Oera Linda Bok
• 1878 Historical notes and clarifications to Thet Oera Linda Bok

1871

This reply to a newspaper article by bibliothecary and archivist Gerben Colmjon (Nog iets over het Oud Friesch Handschrift 12-9-1871) appeared in the Leeuwarder Courant of 19-9-1871, titled Thet Bok thêra Adela folstar. The same article was published 27-9 in the Heldersche Courant, under the title Friesch handschrift in het bezit van den Heer C. Over de Linden te Helder. A further reply by Colmjon (8 pages) was published as brochure 25-9-1871.

Reply to Colmjon: The Book of Adela-followers.

Mr Colmjon had a letter addressed to me published in the Leeuwarder Courant, without any mention of the written answers I had already sent him. So I feel obliged to communicate the content of my answer to the public in the same way. I will try to do this as concisely as possible, without dealing with insignificant details.

“Many fragments”, he writes, “can word by word be translated into Dutch or Frisian, without having to adapt syntax, in order to obtain a decent style.” He could have said this of the whole book for the simple reason that the different writers express themselves in the normal spoken language, which is so natural that one can hardly say or write the same things differently. Between this narrative style, and the barren style of laws, contracts, and wills, in which everything exists that we had until now in the O. Frisian language, no comparison is valid. But in the very same way a nowaday Greek will be able to convey the language of Herodotus in his present speech, without changing the conjugation or syntax, although twenty-three centuries have passed between them.

It is likewise with some words and expressions, that Mr C. criticizes. Those words and expressions or sayings still exist and are still in use; but that does not prove that they did not exist and were used many centuries ago. It is impossible to indicate the time of origin of any word, except names of things, which themselves are of later time and origin. The words and expressions that make up a language are as old as the language itself. If p. 8 states: "tha thene Magy thàt anda nôs kryg," one will not claim there once was a time people did not have noses or did not sense with them, etc.;

p. 16 and elsewhere: falikant ut kuma. This word falikant is also found in the oldest known Frisian and Dutch texts, as noun or as adjective, comparable to the adjective mislikande (deformed, shapeless, miscreated), which is also found abbreviated as mislik. Just as mislikande is a compound of mis and likande, falikant will have been composed of fa and likande; fa (Danish faa) is found in the manuscript p. 189 as fê: men jvd wil ik jo vppen lek wysa thàt fê bêtre sy;

p.149 Net krekt lik. Net does not mean not here, which in the manuscript is always naut, next to nawet for nothing. But "net lik" and "krekt lik" both mean "the same as" or "equal to", and "net krekt lik" is an expression enhanced by doubling.

In other comments, Mr C. forgets that the manuscript is not written in the same dialect as the Old Frisian laws; these show the language between the Vlie and the Lauwers; the manuscript the language between Vlie and Kennemerland. Thence comes the use of néi as opposed to to; and lik as as opposed to lik sa. Thence also that the manuscript contains words that are nowhere found outside North-Holland, e.g. hêmisdêgum, heemsdagen, for recently: nol meaning a small round terp (artificial dwelling mound). This nol is related to nul (zero), which name is derived from the round shape of the number. The word nul therefore is not derived from Latin nullus.

Moreover, the entire book, written before the arrival of the Romans in our country, does not indicate any traces of familiarity with the Latin language. Latin does, however, contain many words of Central European origin, which therefore have similarities with words in Germanic languages, such as schola and skole, altare and altàr, tunica and tohnekke and others — to-hnekka is a woman's dress that closes around the neck and reaches to the neck — but appearances are also often deceptive here;

e.g. restja and the rest have no relation to restare. This restja is to rest, to reside; the stock 'resting' in the warehouse is still there; and "hwat thêr jeta rest fon vs alde sêdum," means what is left of our old manners. Therefore, the noun also means a quantity still present.

Neither is just related to justus, just. The adverb just actually means at the time, "just wêre 't jolfêrste," "at the time it was Yule-feast." In its sense, just is related to jud indicating a present tense.

I have to make it clear to Mr C. that the adjective justus is not a past participle is of the verb jugere, which is already impossible because of its form, but moreover is inconsistent with the meaning.

The verb jugere or jugire, used by Festus and Varro, means the crying of a bird of prey, in particular a kite or harrier, so it makes no sense to relate justus to jugire.

Mr Colmjon assumes a deliberate disfiguration in the words amering and salthatha. Those words are perfect though. Amering, later corrupted to amery, was no longer understood, and therefore a derivation was made for it. The word amering can be found in the Kiliaan dictionary (1599) and means spark. In an amering means, within the short moment of a spark.

Salthatha always written salth-âtha is composed of salth, shortened for sellath, bought, and âtha companions, allies, and thus means bought (or hired) warriors, mercenaries. It is never used by the Frisians; Frisian warriors are always called wêrar defenders (of their own lands). Only the foreign, mainly Asiatic Kings employ salth-atha mercenaries.

Lunsyakte is a writing error, caused by the small difference between the shape of the letters n and ng. Lungsyakte is the natural name for a disease to which livestock has been exposed, as long as it has had lungs. Therefore it is a foolish claim that lung disease did not exist before 1693, because that is the year of the oldest known report of it in Hessen, Germany. Even though the latter is true, it is possible that older reports once existed, and that countless things have happened, of which no reports have been saved for posterity.

To state that everything we have no records of has never happened, must be called the greatest absurdity. Moreover, the lack of a specific report is partly due to the custom of the ancient chroniclers, who always speak of plagues or pests for all infectious and deadly diseases, in humans as well as cattle.

However, in this case I hold the description of a cattle disease by Silius Italicus XIV (582-612) for a specific report, because it contains the lungs as the principal seat of the disease. The fact that from a medical point of view this description seems inaccurate and confused is due to the fact that Silius ltalicus was not a medical doctor, but a poet.

Mr C. places a great weight on the writing felt, which appears several times in the book, and which he prefers to equate with our linen paper. But he does not know that the invention of the latter means the manufacture of paper from linen rags. We do not know what that writing felt looked like and how it was made. We only know that linnent was used for it, or waterlily leaves (pompablêdar) as a surrogate.

But what is linnent? On p. 95 we read: hira hemeth is linnent, hira to-hnekka wol, thàt hju selva spon ànd wêvade. This indicates that the term linnent is used for what we call flax. Certainly a felt made from flax is a very rough and coarse material, and even if it was dense and smooth enough to be written on, it cannot be compared to paper.

Therefore Hidde Oera Linda justly took this distinction into account when he made the copy in 1256 on wrlandisk pampyer (foreign paper); not using the indigenous word skriffilt (writing felt), but the foreign word paper. [Note Ott: I disagree about PAMPÍER being a foreign word. See 2011 blog post.] So skriffilt and paper are by no means the same.

One thing is undeniably certain, that the manuscript was written on a type of paper that was still produced in 13th century Spain and no longer occurs after that time. Only a single piece of such paper will perhaps be found as a monster in the collection of some historian, but otherwise no one can point out that similarity.

Similar paper is found in the Imperial Library of Petersburg among the oldest Chinese documents. I heard this from Mr B. Lasonder, pastor at Acquoij, who had spent some time in Petersburg and visited the Imperial Library, and seeing the manuscript at my house, immediately recognized the similarity of this Arabic cotton paper with the Chinese.

I furthermore refer the reader concerning this matter to my report about it for the Friesch Genootschap: because the last consideration of Mr Colmjon in the postscript that the manuscript would have been created after the year 1853 is too ridiculous to be replied to, and offensive to the owner.

Dr. J.G. Ottema.

Reply to Van den Bergh: Adela's Book.

This reply to an article by mr. L.Ph.C. Van den Bergh [Het onlangs ontdekte friesche handschrift; in NL Spectator; 7-10-1871 p.311] appeared in the Nederlandsche Spectator of 14-10-1871 (p.322-323), titled Adela's Boek.

Following your writing in the Spectator of 7 October, I have the following to tell you: The Old Frisian manuscript, currently in the possession of Mr C. Over de Linden, constructor at the Royal Navy Yard at Helder, was given to him in August 1848 by his aunt A. Meijlhof, born Over de Linden, who lived in Enkhuizen and died there February 4, 1849. She had obtained the manuscript after her father died April 15, 1820 — Andries Over de Linden, ship builder at Enkhuizen. These are facts about which there can be no doubt.

In 1867 Mr C. Over de Linden gave the same statement to Dr. E. Verwijs. The man himself must know best how and when he got that manuscript. He has no reason, nor did he ever have one, to lie about its origin. Had he obtained it in a different way, at a different time, he would have told Dr. Verwijs and me. So can you understand how ridiculous I found Mr. Colmjon's claim that the writing would have been made after 1853, that is, several years after it was in the possession of the present owner.

Even if this writing contains false ideas and views, or if not everything is historical truth, or tales are found in it that belong to the saga's, — nothing of that would prove anything against the age of the manuscript. Moreover, we have so few, if any, almost no legends from the past that every contribution to that scarce supply has its value. With regard to the language and linguistic value of the writing, I can do no better than refer you to what Mr de Haan Hettema wrote in the Leeuwarder Courant of September 5, 1871.

Regarding those Burgmaidens, who also do not have the honor to please you, I remind you of Velleda Aurinia and Gauna, in Tacitus, Germ. c. 8 and elsewhere. This Gauna according to Dio Cassius was the successor of Velleda. And when we now in our manuscript among many burgs find Mannagardaforda listed, then we learn what we did not know before, that Velleda in edita turri had her seat at Munster. [Two relevant Latin sources: Opus historiarum... (1541; pp.155-159) and Annalium phrisicorum (Furmerius, 1609; p.71)]

Finally, I can give you reassuring assurance that the name Neptune does not occur in the whole manuscript. But when reading the wanderings of the old sea king Tunis, who previously crossed the Mediterranean Sea in all directions, one cannot help thinking of Neptune. At least, that name immediately came to the mind of Dr. Verwijs, as well as to mine.

Leeuwarden, October 11, 1871. Dr. J.G. Ottema.

Against this testimony from Dr. Ottema, we contrast the testimony of the same Dr. Ottema, in his report to the Friesch Genootschap, p. 238:

The other, Neptune, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Frisian Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, near Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, called familiarly by his followers Neef [cousin or kinsman] Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and would have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Frisia in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and Baltic amber [...]

Qui diable est ici la dupe? [Who the hell is the fool here?] Maybe you should add what follows: ils sont tous dans le secret? [are they all in the secret?; quotes from Le Barbier de Seville (1773) by Beaumarchais.]

Nederlandsche Spectator editor

1873

As a bonus (toegift) in Ottema's Notes and clarifications (in both 1st [1873] and 2nd [1878] edition), this essay on the Germanic peoples was published.

Germanic peoples

[54] The name Germani is not to be found in Greek or Latin texts before Julius Caesar. Then, suddenly in history this tribal name is introduced, which until now is a riddle, both linguistically and historically. The Romans use the term as a general (collective) name for the peoples who live between the rivers Rhine, Vistula and Danube [see image]. Before Caesar's time, or rather before his wars in Gaul, these peoples living east of the Rhine where included in the general term Galli, and [?] Cicero (orat. de prov. cons.) says, speaking of the Cimbri and Teutons:

Cajus Marius [...] stopped the hordes of Gauls that invaded Italy.

How did Caesar get that name? Where did the Romans find it and what does the name Germani mean? Much has been written about these questions, but because the answers are so various and different it is still unclear. A linguistic explanation has been sought, by guessing the meaning of the word Germani. Strabo VII-290 writes in this regard: On the other side of the Rhine, eastwards behind the Celts, the Germanic people live, differing not much from the Celts, only by being somewhat less civilised, [55] having a larger physique, whiter skin, but otherwise similar to the Celts concerning facial features, morals and way of life. Therefore, I think, the Romans justly gave them this name, as if they meant true Gauls, for Germanus in Latin means genuine.

After all that was written about this question, prof. Adolf Holtzmann (Kelten und Germanen, Stuttgart 1855) discusses Strabo's answer. So even after 18 centuries, it is still being researched. Leopold Contzen (die Wanderungen der Kelten, Leipzig 1861) however, qualifies this as "a far-fetched hypothesis!"

For if, in Roman understanding, Germani meant the adjective genuine, it could not be used without noun, and this consequence demanded, that besides the true Celts, they also distinguished untrue Celts. However, Celtae adulterini are nowhere mentioned. Strabo assumed the word was Latin and translated it accordingly, but this does not prove an origin. On the contrary, Caesar named the strangers as he heard the Gauls name them. The assumption is inadmissible to begin with, that Ariovist would have lived in Gaul with his people for 14 years, without having a name of their own.

So in the name of Germani, Contzen acknowledges the name of a people, but does not further explain the origin of that people and that name. Caesar, Bello Gallica 31 names Ariovistus Rex Germanorum and mentions that these Germans had invaded Gaul coming from the other side of the Rhine.

That about 15,000 of them had at first crossed the Rhine : but after that these wild and savage men had become enamored of the lands and the refinement and the abundance of the Gauls, more were brought over, that there were now as many as 120,000 of them in Gaul.

[56] But where would those Germans have crossed the Rhine? This is evident from Tacitus (Germ. 2):

But the name Germani is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans.

Thus, the people beyond the Rhine, named Germani by Caesar, had taken the name Tungri at Tacitus' time. In Caesar's work, the term Tungri was not used yet. The name of the Tungri was preserved in the town name Tongeren, which indicates that these Germans first landed in Limburg and therefore crossed the Rhine near Wesel, north of the river Lippe. This implies that they came from the Emsland [how does it?]. But the old geography does not know any Germans there, just as it does not know any separate people in Germania by that name. Northward from the Luppia, the Chamavi, Bructeri and Chauci live. And since Tacitus (Germ. 35) writes that the Cauchi, populus, as he says, inter Germanos nobilissimus [a people, most noble among the Germans], extend their territory as far as the Chatti, the Chamavi and Bructeri must also be considered as belonging to the Chauci. This further implies, that the Germans of Ariovistus must have come from the land of the Chauci. Should we conclude that the Germans and Chauci are identical?

The Oera Linda-book provides a positive answer to that question.

In his report of the return from India of the Geartmen, Frethorik writes (p.164) Wichhirte gvng mith sinum ljudum âstward nei thêre Emude. Konered writes (p.198) that his brother married Kornhelia, Friso's youngest daughter, while Friso's oldest daughter Weamod was married to Kauch, and he continues: Kauch thêr âk bi him to skole gvng, is thi svnv fon Wichhirte thene Gêrtmanna kâning.

[57] Later he mentions (p.210): Gertmannja alsa hêdon tha Gêrtmanna hjara stât hêten, thêr hja trvch Gosa hira bijeldinga krêjen hêde.

This is how Wichhirte, king of the Geartmen settled at the mouth of the Ems, where the name E-mude is still known as the old name of Emden. After the Geartmen they named the land Geartmania. Wichhirte was succeeded by Kauch, after whom the Geartmen where subsequently also called Chauci, by which name they appear in later history. However a land by the name of Chaucia is nowhere to be found. Therefore, the land must have retained the name Geartmania, which however as such (as specific name) will not have been known by the Romans, for they only speak of it as land of the Chauci. As a matter of fact, this is usual: they mention the tribe names, not the regions.

The Geartmen – Chauci – have expanded their territory along the Ems towards the land of the Chatti, that is East Frisia and Münsterland, unto the Lippe (from 303 – 71 BCE). Fourteen years before Caesar's arrival in Gaul, Ariovist, king of the Germans, has crossed the Rhine with 15,000 men, and has gained control of the Kleve district and Limburg, etc. unto the Seine. The Aedui complain to Caesar about Ariovistus king of the Germans having conquered a third of the land between the Rhine and the Seine. There, according to Tacitus, they replaced their name Germani by Tungri.

While the Geartmen (see p.104) initially had chosen that name because their Mother (or chief priestess) was named Geart, another meaning was attached to it, for Geart means sword and Geartmen, swordsmen. However, after their 'blitzkrieg', their lightning-swift [58] conquests in the north of Gaul, they named themselves Tungara (Tungri) after Tungar, which is thunder.

After their name, the Romans named the left Rhine bank Germania Cisrhenana, and further extended the name Germania over the whole land from the Rhine to the Vistula as Germania Transrhenana.

The conlusion of all this is, that the East-Frisians were the first and original Germans.

1874

Royal Ac.

1876

Dev.Crt.

MS existed

1877

Pandschap

reply Wie heeft?