[39] Die Römer in Deutschland, p. 24: “Mag dem Patrioten bei dem Namen die Brust schwellen: dem Geschichtsschreiber muss der Mut sinken beim Gedanken an so manche Bemühungen seiner Vorgänger um dieses Ereignis! Mit Beschämung gedenkt er der alten Kollegen, die es so ungenau, mit Beschämung vieler neuen, die es so genau erzählt haben, so mancher wohlgemeinten Schriftstellerleistung, der man kein besseres Motto geben könnte als Scheffels Vers: ‘In Westfalen trank er viel, drum aus Nationalgefühl hat er’s angefertigt.’” A good instance of blind adulation is that of Hertzberg, op. cit., p. 307: “Niemals wieder spiegelten sich die Adler der Legionen in den gelben Wellen der Weser oder in dem breiten Spiegel der Elbe. Und das ist das niemals welkende Verdienst des Armin gewesen ... das Bild des ersten grossen Mannes deutscher Nation ... die eherne Heldengestalt des Arminius.”
[40] Westfalen, I (1909), p. 34. How timely this warning by Koepp is may be seen from the following extraordinary burst of spirit, at a similar celebration, by T. Beneke, Siegfried und die Varusschlacht im Arnsberger Walde (Ein Beitrag zur neunzehnten Jahrhundertfeier), Leipzig—Gohlis, 1909, p. 84: “Sechsundzwanzig Jahre war Siegfried alt, als er diese Tat vollbrachte, die in ihren Folgen den grössten weltgeschichtlichen Ereignissen gleichzustellen ist, indem er dem Welteroberer eine Niederlage beibrachte, die fast einzig bis dahin in der sonst so ruhmreichen Kriegsgeschichte dieses Volkes dasteht ... Die Varusschlacht rettete mit der reinen Rasse alle ihre Vorzüge in leiblicher und geistiger Hinsicht, germanische Treue, Freiheit, Religiosität, Innigkeit, Gediegenheit, Schaffensfreudigkeit, Tüchtigkeit und Zähigkeit, kurz das, wodurch im Laufe der folgenden Jahrhunderte die Germanen in Civilization und Kultur an die Spitze der Völker des Erdkreises traten. Siegfrieds Tat ist der erste geschichtliche Beweis der Ueberlegenheit einer jungen tatkräftigen Rasse, von der eine Neubelebung der Welt ausgehen sollte.”
[41] Quoted by Gardthausen, op. cit., II, p. 793.
[42] Histoire des Institutions politiques, etc., II, p. 247: “Il y a une école historique en Allemagne qui aime à parler des anciens Germains, comme une école historique en France se plait à parler des anciens Gaulois. On ne connait pas mieux les uns que les autres; mais on se figure que le patriotisme éclaire ces ténèbres et qu’il decuple le peu de renseignements que l’on posséde.”
CHAPTER II
Sources
The only ancient accounts that have come down to us which throw light on the battle of the Teutoburg forest are: Cassius Dio, 56, 18-23; Velleius, II, 117-120; Florus, II, 30, 21-39; Tacitus, Annales, I, 60-62. These we must now compare with each other, with the purpose of determining their weight and credibility in the light of what we know of the authors, of the time and circumstances under which they wrote, and of the purpose had in view.[1]
Cassius Dio (ca. 150-ca. 235 A. D.) is the only one of these ancient writers who has given us anything like a connected account of the catastrophe.[2] Although he wrote in Greek, Dio must be regarded as a Roman, being the son of a Roman senator, and himself filling the office of praetor and consul. His industry—he spent ten years (200-210 A. D.) in accumulating material for his history—and his various activities, as a practical soldier and politician, made his work much more than a mere compilation. While not remarkable for historical insight it represents what Dio sincerely believed to be the truth. Nevertheless, Dio was a product of the rhetorical schools and under the spell of their influence he wrote. His battle scenes are rhetorical exercises.[3] Noticeable also is his inclination toward a lively narration of events of a military character, a tendency which causes him to depart from the bare truth of his sources, and to ornament them with sensational descriptions after the rhetorical manner.[4] Delbrück notes that our sources for the wars of the Romans with the Germans are almost all from second, third, or fourth hand, and that Dio’s account was written at the very time when the rhetorical spirit most completely dominated literature. Dio, as well as our other sources for these years, is to be used with caution, since these writers regarded historical composition as preeminently an opus oratorium, and sought first of all to hold the reader’s attention by brilliant characterizations and striking descriptions.
To Velleius (ca. 19 B. C.-ca. 30 A. D.), the only contemporary author who tells of the Varus disaster, we are indebted for a brief account.[5] A loyal officer with a military record behind him, a dilettante with undeniable studium, Velleius, in the reign of Tiberius, turned to the writing of history. As prefect of horse he accompanied Tiberius to Germany, where he served “per annos continuos novem praefectus aut legatus.”[6] His fervid loyalty and extravagance cause him to magnify everything that concerns Tiberius to such a degree that he is scarcely more than a partisan memoir writer. In his hasty sketches of military campaigns in Germany and Pannonia, full of blunders and inconsistencies, it is clear that he is but little concerned with the exact establishment of facts. With no appreciation of the internal connection of things, and no ability to sift evidence, he centers his interest almost entirely upon individuals for purpose of praise or blame, and excels as a rhetorical anecdotist, and as a delineator of individual actors. His inflated style, his straining after effect by hyperbole, antithesis, epigram, and piquancies of all kinds, mark the degenerate taste of the Silver Age, of which he is the earliest representative.[7] His reflections and observations generally outweigh the information given. Velleius’ training, the occasion of his composition, the attempt to satisfy the taste of his age, all make him a source, which, because of distortions and overemphasis, cannot be accepted at full value.
L. Annaeus Florus, usually identified with the rhetorician and poet of Hadrian’s time, wrote (probably in 137 A. D.) an abridgement in two short books of Rome’s wars from the foundation of the city to the era of Augustus. As to Florus’ purpose in writing, and his rating as a rhetorician, scholars are agreed.[8] He composed solely from rhetorical motives[9], hence historical truth is frequently misrepresented, both intentionally and unintentionally, in a work full of errors, confusions, and contradictions.[10] Florus’ work is declamatory in tone, shows no traces of independent investigation, and little of the calm, even temper demanded of the historian. In his search for the surprising, the unusual, and the spirited, he is frequently led into exaggerations. He is given to the use of superlatives and enhancing epithets, as ingens, immensus, incredibilis, perpetuus, etc., and that he was himself conscious of exaggerations is clear from his free use of such words as quippe, seventy-five times, and quasi, more than a hundred times. In Florus each event is presented as a marvellous fact, and no better commentary on the poverty and unsatisfactoriness of our sources for the Varus disaster could be found than the fact that to Florus many writers have given the honor of being our chief authority.[11]