One continent, one language? Europa Celtica and its language in Philippus Cluverius' Germania antiqua (1616) and beyond

Abstract

Today's European Union is keen to point out that one of Europe's main characteristics is its linguistic diversity. Some early-modern scholars, however, emphasised the notion of European monolingualism, even though Europe's linguistic diversity was as obvious in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries as it is today. These scholars advanced the argument that, in a distant past, Europeans had spoken one single language. This article focuses on the first scholar to really substantiate this idea. In his voluminous Germania antiqua (1616), the Leiden founder of historical geography, Philippus Cluverius, set out to prove that Europe had once largely been populated by people who shared one single language and a set of distinctive customs. After analysing Cluverius' argument and his linguistic image of Europe, the article will outline the intellectual background behind his claims and map his work's impact on later representations of Europe in terms of language. Even when most early-modern scholars admittedly rejected the idea of Europe as a historical linguistic unity, the paper will show that the notion of Europe was a crucial point of reference in the linguistic scholarship of the early-modern period.

Keywords::

• Philippus Cluverius
• idea of Europe
• monolingualism
• language
• Celts

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the invaluable remarks given by the guest editors of this issue and by two anonymous reviewers.

Notes

^1. This booklet was found thanks to a reference in an unpublished paper by Wiebke Hohberger (Universität Hamburg).

^2. Council of Europe, Travel the Universe of Greater Europe, 9.

^3. Council of Europe, Travel the Universe of Greater Europe, 12.

^4. Romaine, “Politics and Policies of Promoting Multilingualism” (117) with references to recent official documents dealing with European language policy. These official regulations are also dealt with by Trabant (“Sprachenvielfalt”), whose contribution focuses on the dynamics of Europe's multi- and monolingualism throughout time (with the main emphasis, however, on the present).

^5. This section partly draws on Van Hal, Moedertalen en taalmoeders, 281–98.

^6. Only a very small number of letters by Cluverius that could complement Heinsius' account have been preserved. For more details on Cluverius' life and work, see Fockema Andreae, “Philippus Cluverius;” Partsch, “Philipp Clüver;” Otterspeer, Het bolwerk van de vrijheid, 101–3; Van der Heijden, “Philippus Cluverius and Dutch Cartography.”

^7. See Heinsius, “Oratio,” 126–7: “Linguas tenuit quam plurimas. Praeter eas, quae ab eruditis vindicantur, Belgicam, Bohemicam, Polonicam, Italicam, Ungaricam, Britannicam, Gallicam, ut in orbe suo nusquam peregrinus, et ubique natus videretur.”

^8. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 51: “In Italia cum quondam cum Florentinis quibusdam, haud indoctis viris, simulque cum quodam doctore Bononiensi iter facerem; multaque mihi cum Florentinis esset super rebus Italiae, sermoneque Italico dissertatio: Bononiensis, dialectum illorum non satis percipiens, identidem me interrogabat, quidnam dicerent. Cui ego, non sine risu, respondebam, inique eum facere, quod ipse homo Italus me peregrinum Italici sermonis interpretem sibi postularet.”

^9. I have not been able to trace the Dutch/German (“Germanice”) version of this book mentioned by the editor Henning Witte in the bibliography following Heinsius' obituary speech (129). A second edition followed in 1631, a revised edition by Johann Buno in 1663.

^10. See especially Krebs, A Most Dangerous Book.

^11. As quoted in Considine, Dictionaries, 114.

^12. See Van de Waal, Drie eeuwen vaderlandsche geschied-uitbeelding, 152.

^13. See Droixhe, L'étymon des dieux, 38; Krebs, A Most Dangerous Book; Considine, Dictionaries.

^14. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 49: “Argumenta autem, sive indicia, quibus, duas pluresve nationes eiusdem esse generis atque originis, dignoscere queas, duabus potissimum in rebus constituunt: altera in lingua, sive sermone, altera in moribus, ac vivendi ratione;” cfr. also ibid., 27.

^15. See Van Hal, “Sprachen, die Geschichte schreiben.”

^16. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 73: “Unus cum fuerit initio rerum in terris sermo, quo omnes pariter inter se, ante Babylonis fundamenta, usi sunt mortales [...].”

^17. For the importance of Augustine, see Eskhult, “Augustine and the Primeval Language.” For relevant references to the Greek and Latin Early Christian tradition, see Van Rooy, “‘Πóθεν oὖν ἡ τoσαύτη διαϕωνία;’” and Denecker et al., “Language Origin, Language Diversity, and Language Classification in Early Christian Latin Authors” respectively. Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel, is a monumental account of the exegetical strategies with regard to the story of Babel's Tower.

^18. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 74.

^19. Ibid., 73–4; see also pp. 38, 216–7.

^20. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 38: “Ab una origine, unaque et eadem stirpe omnes pariter in universum promanasse orbem terrarum linguas, nemo facile negaverit.”

^21. Ibid., 38; see also ibid., 73.

^22. Ibid., 112; 198; 219ff.

^23. Ibid., 74.

^24. Ibid., 38, 73.

^25. Ashkenaz is styled “omnium parens conditorque Celtarum” (Ibid., 47).

^26. “gentem nostram non posterioribus demum, post diluvium divisionemque linguarum, saeculis vel ex Graecia, vel ex Persia, vel aliunde primam duxisse originem; sed mox ab ipsa linguarum divisione, gentiumque dispersione, apud aedificationem urbis Babylonicae facta, per Aschenazen, Noachi pronepotem, una cum nova lingua in eam Europae partem fuisse deductam, quae postea Celtica dicta fuit” (ibid., 85).

^27. Ibid., 84.

^28. Ibid., 10.

^29. “idemque veterum descriptioni quamproxime respondet” (ibid., 21).

^30. Ibid., 72.

^31. Ibid., 21.

^32. Ibid., 72.

^33. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 49: “Nunc sermonem praedictis quinque nationibus fuisse eundem, dialectis solummodo varie distinctum, argumentis quadrifariam [in the 1631 edition corrected into “quinquefariam”, p. 39] partitis ostendam. Prima erunt ex veterum auctorum testimoniis, quibus id liquido affirmatur. Altera ex populorum per easdem v nationes appellationibus. Tertia ex privorum hominum nominibus propriis. Quarta ex oppidorum vicorumque vocabulis; quinta ex aliis variarum rerum vocabulis, quibus olim praedictae nationes omnes inter se usae sunt, nunc vero apud Germanos in vulgari sermone durant.”

^34. Cf. Metcalf, “Philipp Clüver and his Lingua Celtica,” 103 and Van Hal, “From Alauda to Zythus.”

^35. See Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 38 and III, 91; Metcalf, “Philipp Clüver and his Lingua Celtica,” 93–4.

^36. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 66.

^37. Cf. Metcalf, “Philipp Clüver and his Lingua Celtica,” 100.

^38. See also Cluverius, Germania antiqua, III, 213. French, Italian and Spanish, being mutually unintelligible, are seen as belonging to the Latin group (cf. Germania antiqua, 35, 52).

^39. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 52: “Moscovitarum hodie Russorumque, item Polonorum, Boiohaemorum, Crovatorum, Bulgarorum, Serviorum, item eorum, quos Germani Venedos, ac Vinidos in Germania appellant, tam discrepantes inter se sunt linguae, uti alteri alteros parum admodum intelligant. Nihilo minus tamen omnes istae nationes unius sunt generis, Slavi in universum dicti; linguaque eorum Slavica una atque eadem, dialectis tantum varie distincta.”

^40. Ibid., 72.

^41. “Variantur quidpe omnium linguarum dialecti, ut locorum, sic temporum diversitate” (Ibid., 52).

^42. See Van Hal, “Moedertalen,” 289.

^43. Cf. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 51.

^44. Van Hal, “Moedertalen,” 293 offers some implicit evidence of Cluverius' familiarity with contemporary work.

^45. See Demonet-Launay, Les voix du signe, 366–7.

^46. Leerssen, Mere Irish and Fíor-Ghael, 92. See also Van Hal, “From Alauda to Zythus,” and the references given there.

^47. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 37: “Haec tamen, veluti in laudem atque gloriam patrii soli, non ex animi iudicio, sed amoris indulgentia prodidit.”

^48. Symptomatically, a posthumous 1685 dissertation by Georg Stiernhielm, programmatically entitled Anticluverius, argued that an improper form of patriotism had taken possession of Cluverius (“praepostero in patriam amore raptus”) in writing his Germania antiqua (Stiernhielm, Anticluverius, 2). (The editor of the posthumous dissertation seems to have been less familiar with Cluverius' ideas, judged by the erroneous first name that had crept into the subtitle.) In his preface to the Gothic Bible edition, Stiernhielm was much more positive about Cluverius' general ideas (see Stiernhielm, “De linguarum origine praefatio”). See also Neville, “Gothicism and Early Modern Historical Ethnography,” 222–31 and McKendry, “J.G. Sparwenfeld and Celtic Linguistics in Seventeenth-Century Sweden,” 183.

^49. See e.g. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 37, 103.

^50. See also Droixhe, “Ossian, Hermann and the Jew's-Harp Images,” 23.

^51. The map is numbered 189 in Van den Broecke, Ortelius' Theatrum orbis terrarum. Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro, Catálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas (7) made the same link between Ortelius and Cluverius. For more information on this first historical atlas and on this map, see Tolias, “Glose, contemplation, et méditation,” esp. 170–1.

^52. Marcel van den Broecke, who has studied these texts in depth, rightly states that the reason why these texts “have never been studied in the course of 450 years will probably remain an enigma” (Ortelius' Theatrum orbis terrarum, 279).

^53. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, Praefatio sig. (.) 3.

^54. Droixhe, “Ossian, Hermann and the Jew's-Harp Images,” 22–3.

^55. See e.g. Cluverius, Germania antiqua, 9, 97, 211.

^56. Merula, Cosmographia, 266.

^57. It seems likely that Scaliger had limited his account to the languages spoken in Europe because Merula's work had a special focus on this continent. This is why it is less plausible that by applying this geographical restriction Scaliger attempted purposively to circumvent the thorny question of Hebrew as being the original Adamic language (as suggested in e.g. Swiggers and Desmet, “L'élaboration de la linguistique comparative,” 131).

^58. See the overview in Van Hal, “Quam enim periculosa sit ea via...”

^59. Bödiker and Frisch, Grund-Sätze der Teutschen Sprache, 184: “Die Teutsche Sprache ist in Europa die älteste. Sie kommt der Griechischen viel näher, als die andern, welches man nur am Artikel sehen kan, welchen die Sclavonische Sprachen nicht haben, und daher mehr mit der Lateinischen überein kommen. Man muß es aber nach der Grammatikalischen Art verstehen, und in Europa bleiben, sonst, wo man den Ursprung ansieht, sind die älter, so keinen Artikel haben, weil sie mehr mit der Hebräischen in Asia übereinkommen.”

^60. See e.g. Considine, “Why Was Claude de Saumaise Interested in the Scythian Hypothesis?” and the references given therein.

^61. See e.g. Wachter, Glossarium Germanicum, Praefatio sig. b2 and Boxhornius, Originum Gallicarum liber, 95. Europe takes more centre stage in a remark by Winckler, Hypomnemata philologica et critica, 4.

^62. See Adelung, Umständliches Lehrgebäude, 11–12.

^63. See Williams, “Celtomania” for an introduction to this topic, most often associated to France.

^64. Wise, Some Enquiries Concerning the First Inhabitants, Language, Religion, Learning and Letters of Europe, 29–31. See also Raynal, Histoire philosophique et politique des établissements et du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes, 167, and Cleland, The Way to Things by Words.

^65. See Egenolff, Historie der Teutschen Sprache, passim.

^66. See Swiggers, “Adrianus Schrieckius. De la langue des Scythes à l'Europe linguistique” and Van Hal, Moedertalen, 249–77 and the references given there. See Sc[h]rieckius, Van t'beghin der eerster volcken and Sc[h]rieckius, Monitorum secundorum libri V.

^67. See Schrieckius, Adversariorum, 78. Also Petrus Scriverius (1576–1660) was disappointed after finding out that his correspondent Johannes Isacus Pontanus (1571–1639), author of Itinerarium Galliae Narbonensis (1606), was not mentioned in Cluverius' Germania antiqua. See Langereis, Geschiedenis als ambacht, 228.

^68. According to Borst, Turmbau, 1224, this is the first occurrence of “Japhetic” related to a certain language.

^69. See Schrieckius, Adversariorum, 67–8 and passim. Besides the ideas stolen from him, Schrieckius argued, Cluverius' book was full of errors.

^70. Stock, “‘Almost a Separate Race,’” esp. 26, 29.

^71. See e.g. Borst, Turmbau, 1475; Olender, “Europe, or How to Escape Babel,” 19; Mueller, “Leibniz as a Linguist,” 378.

^72. It is tempting to assume that “Japhetic” automatically implies the notion of Europe. Although Noach's son Japhet is often associated with Europe (even to the point that Guillaume Postel has proposed to restyle “Europe” into “Japetia”; see Borst, Turmbau, 1356), many a scholar has highlighted that Japhet's family was spread over both Europe and Asia. A quick look at the drafts of Ludolf's letters preserved at Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg (Frankfurt am Main; Ms Ff. H. Ludolf II 33) has revealed another interesting letter (dated 28 December 1697) in which Ludolf mentions the “Japhetic language” without (literally) mentioning Europe.

^73. Tilly, Coercion, Capital, European and States, 38.

^74. Burke, “Did Europe Exist before 1700?,” 27.

^75. Hale, The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance, 3.

^76. Ibid.

^77. This is confirmed by a targeted search in EEBO and Google books.

^78. See e.g. Frommann and Panzer, Dissertatio philosophico philologica de syntaxi linguae et praecipue Ebraicae, XXV. See also Trabant, “Sprachenvielfalt,” 270.

^79. For the connection between Western Europe and the Respublica litterarum, see Bots and Waquet, la république des lettres, 63–90 (in particular 70–2).

^80. Leibniz, Correspondenz, 441.

^81. See the references in Van Hal, Moedertalen, 54.

^82. For French, see for instance Avertissement du libraire in Leroy and Restaut, Traité de l'orthographe françoise: “Notre Langue, que l'on peut nommer avec justice la Langue de toute l'Europe;” Diderot, “Encyclopédie,” 354: “qui s'étend de jour en jour, & qui est presque devenu la langue universelle de l'Europe.” Borst, Turmbau, 1245 explains that Bodin had tried to promote French as an alternative for Latin as early as in the sixteenth century.

^83. Leibniz, “Dissertatio de stilo Philosophico Marii Nizolii,” 88. See Pombo, Leibniz and the Problem of a Universal Language, 132–7.

^84. See Pombo, Leibniz; Maat, Philosophical Languages in the Seventeenth Century. Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz; Eco, The Search for the Perfect Language.

^85. Cf. Romaine, “Politics and Policies of Promoting Multilingualism in the European Union.” For Esperanto, see the lively discussion “Should Esperanto be the language of Europe?” at www.debatingeurope.eu/2011/08/03/. Although Esperanto was conceived as a global international language, it was criticised for the rather Eurocentric basis of both its lexicon and grammar. A recent plea for Latin as the language of Europe was made by Angelino, “Quid dicendum de methodo linguae Latinae docendae.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Toon Van Hal

Toon Van Hal (1981) is Assistant Professor teaching Greek linguistics at the University of Leuven. His research mainly focuses on the history of linguistics, with special attention paid to the emergence and development of linguistic key concepts and ideas before the nineteenth century.