Jump to content

1871-1877 Ottema various publications

From Oera Linda Wiki
Revision as of 10:36, 8 August 2025 by Jan (talk | contribs) (save)

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

Also see separate pages:

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

The Royal Academy and the Oera Linda-book

The reader hail!

The Nederlandse Spectator of April 18, 1874 announces:

The Department of the Royal Academy, intended for linguistic, literary, historical and philosophical sciences, held its regular meeting on last Monday the 13th.

Mr Leemans made a proposal as to whether or not it would be a matter for the Academy to subject the infamous Oera Linda-book to the investigation by a committee. He himself by no means believes in its authenticity, but he did wish that the matter was settled, so that internationally there would no longer be any doubt concerning this manuscript.

Mr Dirks agreed; the more now, as he said, the owner of the manuscript has died and it is uncertain where it will now remain; because shortly before his death he was offered 1,000 pounds sterling for it. Now there is fear that the odd manuscript will disappear as strangely as it emerged.

Mr van den Bergh believes the Academy should not do that because it would discredit itself. The matter is too absurd to be subjected to serious research.

This was also the judgment of others who expressed themselves in the same way, such as the gentlemen Beets and Kern, and finally the proposal was rejected by a fairly large majority.

This message is read in the Haarlemsche Courant with the following words:

At the most recent meeting of the Royal Academy of Sciences, Mr Leemans proposed to appoint a committee to inform the Academy by expressing an opinion on the value and authenticity of the famous Oera Linda-book. After an extensive discussion, in which various members participated, it became apparent from the voting that the majority of those present did not consider it recommendable for the Academy to effect the research proposeded by Mr Leemans. Quite generally, people were convinced that the so-called Oera Linda-book is nothing more than a recent and not even clever deceit. Mr Leemens himself also appeared to share this opinion.

That is how the Academy speaks.

Is she authorized to speak like that?

With the exception of Mr Dirk, among the Members of the Academy there is no one who has seen the manuscript, probably no one who has read the book, and most certainly no one who is experienced enough in Old Frisian to value its language or even to read and understand the book without my translation.

The Academy therefore does not want to investigate, but it condemns and stigmatizes without research.

Such a judgment condemns itself.

I counter that with the opinion of Dr Eelco Verwijs, expressed in a letter to Mr Cornelis Over the Linden, dated October 13, 1867.

When I received the copied sheets through Mr Jansen (of Harlingen), I was not a little surprised by such an important discovery. I immediately set to work copying what was sent. The writing struck me immediately because of its odd character, which, as you suspect, is not like Roman writing, but rather has the nature of old Runic writing. With the actual manuscript in front of me I would copy it as quickly as regular writing, and I therefore advise you to save yourself the time-consuming labor of meticulously reproducing it by means of transparent paper.

As I said, I was delighted with the find and informed many of my friends. Part of it was very easily understood and, although sounding somewhat younger, was not unequal to the language of the old Frisian Laws of the 13th and 14th centuries. But it also has parts, which I did not understand and do not yet understand and for which some detailed study will be necessary to be able to solve them. The first 21 sheets did not tell me much about the overall content.

I was eagerly looking forward to receive more, and had in the meantime already inquired with Mr Jansen, about the total number of pages, etc. I received a second shipment and, with great zeal, continued copying.

In the first shipment it had struck me several times that among the old forms of language, so many expressions were hidden which appeared to be of younger origin, and this struck me even more in the second part. There were some in them that I could not imagine to be that old, and so the suspicion arose in me of a literal deception, a counterfeit of later time, which had been made with a great deal of talent, but not enough, not to betray its falsehood here and there.

I thought that some people (I could not figure out who) were fooling me, and after this suspicion of deception I wrote a letter to Mr Jansen, in which I informed him of this fraud. But still I kept thinking how eager I would be to meet this skillful fellow, who could do such a thing with so much talent. Each time I took up the delivered pages again; but since I got no further reply from Mr Jansen, I thought that my suspicion had been correct, and let the case rest.

And there I receive your highly welcome delivery (the first part of the original manuscript) through which the authenticity is irrefutably proven to me, and for which I thank you very much. But now I become demanding, with the confidence of wanting something good. Science profit a great, great deal from getting your manuscript published. It is certainly highly important for the knowledge of Medieval Frisian, of which no literary product is left besides laws.

More important even for literature, which would receive a significant gain. Although the art value may not be great, it is curious in all regards. Because I have not fully studied it yet, I can hardly say what it actually is, but nevertheless imagine this to be the case: One of your 13th century ancestors copied an old family heirloom and leaves it to his son as a precious relic. It contains various lores gathered here and there, and among them many of very old dates and of pagan origin.

Now I will answer your question how much it would cost to translate it in Dutch for you; the answer is simply nothing. If you allow me to read the manuscript, I am willing to translate it from A to Z for you. But I want something else. Would it not be important to have such a manuscript published? I believe yes. If you would be so kind to send it to me, I will make a copy of it and try to resolve some things that are still unclear to me. In a few days I will gladly send you the translation of a few pages as a test.

If you can agree to my plan, and if you want to hand over your manuscript for publication, it would probably be best to have the Dutch translation printed next to the original text, in order to make the work more generally accessible. If you agree to send it to me, I would like to have it as sooon as possible, since there is a meeting of the Provincial Frisian Society at the end of this month. There I would like to report on this discovery which is so important to Friesland.

If you agree with publication, it will be best to ask the members of the Friesch Genootschap if they will take responsibility for it; as it is my experience that a publisher for such works is often hard to find, since they are usually not profitable. Sor such a book to see the light, it must be supported by a society.

If I can already report about the manuscript at this meeting, I can also propose to have it printed at the expense of the society. If I charge myself with publication, I will receive 20 copies for my efforts, I believe, of which I then will give you 10 copies. In that case you will have more than one written copy and completely free of charge, while you moreover do science a great favor by handing over the manuscript for publication, etc. etc. (Signed by Eelco Verwijs.)

In his entire correspondence with Mr C. Over de Linden running until June 28, 1870 (thus, for three years) Dr Verwijs has not taken back a single word from this judgment.

Nor did he revoke a word of it, when Mr Over de Linden had part of this letter printed in the Spectator of November 4, 1871.

Mr Over de Linden also quotes a phrase from a letter by Dr Verwijs from October 16, 1867:

If the manuscript in question is a sanctuary in your family, then please permit its disclosure, if not, may I, in my quality as archivist, discuss it with the King's commissioner and deputies, and make them a proposal to negotiate with you about its acquisition.

That proposal was made and by order of the King's Commissioner and Provincial executives, Dr Verwijs visited Mr Over de Linden one month later to discuss purchase of the manuscript. The result of that mission Dr Verwijs reported in writing, dated December 17, 1867, declaring that his attempt had been fruitless, and Mr Over de Linden was under no circumstances willing to abandon his manuscript.

At the meeting of the Frisian Society on November 28, 1867, Dr Verwijs reported of his investigation into the various manuscripts in the possession of Mr Over de Linden. (For the latter also owned a written book which turned out to be a valuable copy of Worp van Thabor.)

At the meeting of the Society on February 4, 1868, a proposal by Dr Verwijs was granted to authorize the board to have a copy of the manuscript made for the account of the Society (up to an amount of 40 guilders) under the supervision of Mr Verwijs.

Such a copy was thus made by Mr Goslings, and is now in the library of the society.

As for the translation that Dr Verwijs had promised to deliver Mr Over de Linden, it never came about.

Verwijs did not translate the manuscript, although he had enough time in the course of three years, and despite the fact that translation had been the condition on which the owner had given him the manuscript for use. If he had been able to translate it, as an honest man he would have been obliged to provide that translation.

Instead Mr Over de Linden received, to his great disappointment, a letter dated April 24, 1870 of this content:

Since I have been overloaded by so many other activities, I have handed over (the copy of) your manuscript to someone in Leeuwarden experienced with the Frisian language and having much free time (Mr. Johan Winkler). By instructing him to do the work, I thought I could help you sooner than if I would give it my attention only now and then. (Signed E.V.)

Mr J. Winkler reported at the meeting of the Frisian Society on November 24, 1870 about his studiy of the Old Frisian manuscript. It seemed very suspicious to him, but he could not clarify when, by whom and for what purpose it would have been created.

Its content is very odd, partly mythological, partly historical, the language is partly old Frisian, but there are also expressions that seem to be of much younger date. According to [his] opinion, a translation would not be worth the time and effort.

Now I requested to be allowed to examine the copy. Already the first reading and comparison of it with the copied sheets, mentioned by Verwijs in his letter of Oct. 13, 1867, made me realize that the copy made by Goslings contained thousands of mistakes and was therefore almost unintelligible and completely useless for publication.

From this I concluded that Mr Goslings, and therefore also his supervisor Dr Verwijs, could only have read the manuscript very poorly. I was thus not surprised either that Mr Winkler could not have made sense of it, and that it would have been easier for him to disguise his ignorance with pseudo-intellectual disdain.

I understood that I had to start by asking Over den Linden for the original manuscript and copy it all over again. The latter, having been disappointed by Verwijs which had made him suspicious, responded only very reluctantly to my request. But when I was able to send him back the first section with an attached translation, I succeeded in gaining his confidence.

This enabled me to produce a detailed report about the manuscript at the meetings of February 16 and March 23, 1871 at the Frisian Society, which report, intended for publication in the Vrije Fries, has already been added to the annual report of the Society (1870-1871) and was generally distributed.

This report aroused the wrath of the Spectator and its supporters. The signal was given across the board, and now it was raining judgments, one more hateful than the other, in magazines and newspapers, although no one had seen the manuscript.

By the lowest means, by ridicule and scorn, reproach and shame, the publication of that book had to be made impossible, and above all, the Frisian Society had to be prevented from favoring publication.

Had Dr Verwijs been able to read, translate and publish the manuscript, oh! then people would not have had enough praise for his erudition and the importance of his work.

But it was precisely this opposition that forced me to make an attempt to publish the book by subscription, and I succeeded beyond expectation.

Since the seven main authors belonged to the genus Oera Linda, I titled the whole: Thet Oera Linda Bok.

Since its publication, no one has been able to refute a word of what I have written in my Introduction and later in my Additional Notes, nor was any of it contradicted with evidence. However, the Academy is using a power-spell: it is a recent and very clumsy deception.

The Academy is obliged to prove this accusation with evidence, namely by proving that the manuscript was produced between 1853 and 1867, and to show how, where and by whom it was done.

Such a person does not exist, however, for he should possess more erudition than the entire Royal Academy with all learned Societies in our country combined.

The manuscript is still an heirloom in the Over de Linden Family. Its late owner wrote the following to me about it:

My great-grandfather moved from Friesland to Enkhuizen. He had two sons, the oldest of whom was Andries, my grandfather, and was probably born in Friesland. At least I could not find his name on the birth register of Enkhuizen. The Over de Lindens, who currently live in Enkhuizen, are descendants of the younger brother. My grandfather was a home carpenter in his youth, and is still known by the elderly as Driesbaas.

Because he did not want to take the oath for the [Batavian] Republic, he lost both communal and private jobs and became poor. My father's brothers died young. Every year I went from Amsterdam or elsewhere to Enkhuizen for pleasure. If my grandfather, who loved me very much, since I was the sole heir, heard me talking, he said: your talk is very grand now, but you must never forget that you are of Frisian blood: when you grow up I will explain everything to you.

That never happened, as he died April 1820, aged 61 years.

From all that my grandfather had possessed before, only a large dome and a garden had remained. He continued to live in that dome. My aunt Aafje married; she and her husband came to live with grandfather or he with them. When grandfather died, my father and his other sister allowed Aafje to keep the dome and garden, and so my grandfather's modest possessions fell into the hands of my aunt, whose husband was H. Reuvers.

When I had grown up, my aunt wanted to send the manuscript to me, but Reuvers, who imagined that it might contain a clue to some matter of value, would not allow it. In August 1848 I visited my mother and at the same time my aunt, who then gave me the manuscript, saying: "I have something for you from grandfather; your uncle never allowed me to give it to you. He is now dead and and Koops (Meijlhof, her second husband) knows nothing about it." She then handed it to me, saying: I believe it is Frisian.

As soon as I had the time, I bought a Frisian dictionary from Gijsbert Japicx, then a few others, but they did not help me.

Once for my pleasure to Amsterdam, I stayed with a cousin, but I could not sleep there. So I slept in a guest house in the Warmoesstraat, but was not pleased with it. The second morning Mr Siderius comes with his wife into the bar and speaks of going to Harlingen. I listen and think, why not! I would be of Frisian descent and have been everywhere except in Friesland, I should join these people.

Mr Siderius invited me to his house and let me out the next morning, saying that he hoped to see mee soon again. That is how we remained friends, and we came to speak about the manuscript. According to him, it might be translated by a teacher named Jansen. However, instead of the actual manuscript, I sent copies of pages. Mr Jansen then brought them to Dr Eelco Verwijs, who kept me in suspense since 1867 and gave his copy to the Frisian society, without delivering a translation.

Thus wrote Mr C. Over de Linden.

And now I ask every reasonable and truthful person, whether that is the language of a deceiver and a liar, or that of a candid, straightforward and honest man.

As far as I am concerned, the suspicion is hardly worse than if the Academy would have the impudence to accuse myself of having created what they consider to be a deception.

This is actually done by A. Pannenberg of Aurich, who writes the following in the Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, January 28, 1874:

The manuscript is said to date from 1256 AD and be a copy of a more ancient manuscript which had lost its durability caused by an unwanted bathing. It has undoubtedly been produced within the past 20 years, however, seemingly with only superficial knowledge of medieval texts. All language is simply a reverse translation from Dutch into Old Frisian, or rather an attempt at such.

Dr Ottema is a good connoisseur of Old Frisian and, as the table at pag. 8 shows, is practiced in reverse translation.

Would we be wrong when we assume, to the honor of Dr Ottema, that he allowed himself to create this strange mystification? Perhaps one could still believe that the codex came into the hands of the current owner in August 1848, as the introduction tells, if not for the [more recently discovered] pile dwellings, the recent fear (since 1870) among some Dutch people of the German mother country (Prussophobia) and similar peculiarities. We will probably have to assume that his Introduction is an essential part of the work itself, which was only written a little later.

To compensate, the following: In the Catalog of Choice Rare and Curious Books, selected from the Stock of Trübner & Co., London, nr. 4, April 1874, this announcement is read:

Linda Bok:– het Oera Linda Bok naar een Handschrift uit de Dertiende Eeuw. (Edited by Dr. J.G. Ottema) Leeuwarden, 1872.

– Ottema (J.G.) Geschieedkundige Aanteekeningen en Ophelderingen bij Thet Oera Linda Bok. 8vo. Leeuwarden, 1873.

The manuscript, from which the Linda Bok is now first printed, is stated to have been in the possession of the Friesic family of the Over de Lindens since time immemorial. It professes to be a chronicle of the Friesic race in general, and of the Over de Lindens in particular. The first half is said to have been written by Adela, an ancestress of the Over de Lindens, and by her children, Adelbrost and Apollonia, about fve centuries and a half B.C.: and the second half by the descendants of Adela, about 200 years B.C. According to a family tradition, the MS had always to descend as a heirloom from father to son or grandson, with the injunction of its being copied from time to time in order to guard against its loss. The codex which now exists professes to have been copied by Hidde Oera Linda in the year of our Lord 1256.

Dr. Ottema has edited the book as scrupulously as scholars edit the works of the ancient classics, and has prefixed too it a very learned introduction in the Dutch language. The original Friesic text is carefully printed, with a Dutch translation on the opposite page. This publication has created considerable excitement in the Dutch learned world, the Friesians upholding most resolutely the genuineness of the manuscript, and the Dutch deriding all notion of its authenticity.

However that may be, the Dutch scholars themselves admit whilst declaring the document a forgery, that it is a forgery at least several hundred years old, and here is the rub: if forgery at all, how is it that the MS reports a visit to the piledwellers in Switzerland about five centuries B.C., when, since Herodotus"s account of the pile-dwellings of the Paeonians, nothing more has been heard of pile-dwellers until 1853, when Dr. Keller first made known his discovery of the remains of such dwellings in the Lake of Zurich!!!

Leeuwarden, May 1, 1874. Dr. J.G. Ottema.

Open Letter by L.F. Over de Linden

to the Royal Academy of Sciences (dept. Literature) in response to the proposal by Mr Leemans, regarding the Oera Linda-book.

In the Nieuwe Rotterdammer last Friday I read the report of last Monday's meeting of the Literature section of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Amsterdam. Reading the part that mentions Mr Leemans' proposal to appoint a committee to inform the meeting about her opinion of the famous Oera Linda-book, I was pleasantly touched by the thought that such a decisive measure would finally shed more light on this questionable case, which already led to so much talking and writing, but mostly between persons who were not qualified, because they had never seen the manuscript themselves and their opinions, also for that reason, missed any reasonable ground.

I already imagined to get a visit from the committee, which, through a careful examination of the document, and without being disturbed by various foolish assumptions and claims from others, would try to draw their own conclusions concerning authenticity.

How disappointed I was in my expectation, however, reading the report. The assembly – of members none of whom will actually have seen the manuscript – gathered to serve the interest of national literature, to guard against the loss of documents that are important for history and literature – but knowing so little of the manuscript that one of them deems a committee necessary, whose information after examination should enable the assembly to form its own opinion, – that assembly utterly ignores a range of gathered evidence, and considers itself capable and entitled: not to judge, but to condemn, and to lable the document simply and audaciously as a recent not even agile deception.

A kind compliment to my family! – And what makes the case even more curious: the member, so aware of the importance of the manuscript that he suggests an informing committee to guard against uninformed decisions, – is immediately willing to conform to the opinion of others, and also considers it justified, figuratively speaking, to kill the cow, rather then investigate whether it is actuslly suffering from supposed defects. In such a way it is possible within in no time, to reject a large amount of documents, thousands of pounds of them, and send them to the paper mill.

Did I expect otherwise of a meeting like this? Doubtless; it seems to me that when it became apparent that there was no firm conviction among the members as to whether or not the manuscript was authentic, the meeting had at least been obliged to express its reservations about authenticity. If she had decided not to pronounce judgment on the manuscript, that statement would have been enough.

Now that she goes further, however, pronouncing judgment, calling it a recent deception, she is morally obliged: firstly to me, as current owner or rather keeper of the manuscript, secondly to Mr Ottema, thirdly to members of her department who have different opinions, and fourth to the public, who takes note of their actions with interest, – to motivate her pronounced judgment of the manuscript: not on loose grounds, but standing firmly, beginning with refutation of the evidence of authenticity, formulated by Dr. Ottema in the Introduction of his published translation of the Manuscript, which evidence has since been augmented by the results of chemical investigation of the manuscript paper, as well as by his Historical Notes and Clarifications to the Oera Linda Book, published last year by Kuipers in Leeuwarden.

Had a meeting for discussion of the manuscript been established, one would have acted politely by inviting Mr Ottema, – who in this matter, for the sake of science, had made so many sacrifices of time and effort, – to attend this meeting and ask him, being most prepared for that, to refute various objections and opinions.

If the verdict without trial had not taken place at the meeting, I might not have discussed the famous Oera Linda-book for a long time, and perhaps never again. However, now that my family's love of truth is audaciously called into question, I feel compelled to protest think it is only fair to request that the aforementioned Department of the Academy of Sciences declares to have acted hastily in this case, that they are willing to investigate the matter further and properly publish the results of a reasonable investigation. To that end, I will cater to them by herewith offering, with compensation for travel and accommodation expenses, on a day to be determined, to bring the manuscript to their office in Amsterdam, allowing the members to personally convince themselves about it and make more valid judgments.

With due reverence and with a polite request for some answer, albeit with a single word, I have the honor to be

Yours sincerely, L.F. Over de Linden, Helder, April 20, 1874.

1876

Deventer Courant

Manuscript existed before 1600

1877

Reply to Who wrote ...?

Reply to The Punjab Colony...

Retrieved from "https://wiki.oeralinda.org/index.php?title=1871-1877_Ottema_various_publications&oldid=22665"