3. That, anterior to the time of Cæsar, there is no proof of it being applied as a distinctive designation to any of the tribes to whom it was afterwards limited. The first tribe to whom it was applied, was (in the opinion of the present writer) a Gallic tribe.
4. That since the time of Julius Cæsar, its application has been constant, i.e., it has always meant Gothic tribes, or Gothic languages.
5. That sometimes it has been general to the whole nation—Unde fit ut tantæ populorum multitudines arctoo sub axe oriantur, ut non immerito universa illa regio Tanai tenus usque ad occiduum, licet et propriis loca ea singula nuncupentur nominibus, generali tamen vocabulo Germania vocitetur ... Gothi, siquidem, Vandalique, Rugi, Heruli, atque Turcilingi, necnon etiam aliæ feroces ac barbaræ nationes e Germania prodierunt.—Paulus Diaconus.
6. That sometimes it has been peculiar and distinctive to certain prominent portions of the nation—equi frænis Germanicis, sellis Saxonicis falerati.
7. That the general power of the word has been, with few exceptions, limited to the Germans of Germany. We do not find either English or Scandinavian writers calling their countrymen Germani.
8. That the two German tribes most generally meant, when the word German is used in a limited sense, are the Franks and the Alemanni.
9. That by a similar latitude the words Francic and
Alemannic have been occasionally used as synonymous with Germanic.
10. That the origin of the word Germani, in the Latin language, is a point upon which there are two hypotheses.
a. That it is connected with the Latin word Germani=brothers, meaning either tribes akin to one another, or tribes in a degree of brotherly alliance with Rome.