--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Wexler
> > Explorations in Judeo-Slavic Linguistics
> > p 47, n 201
> > (discussing interchange of /n/ and /m/ in loans between Hebrew and
> > Slavic)
> > '... See also OCz Sephyn 'Judges' (late 14th-early 15th c) < He
> > šoft.īm (Schröpfer 1971:358, line 40) vs. B(ela)r(usian) Softim ~
> > Å oftimÑ (1519) (Skaryna's forewords to 1 Kings and 1 Judges
> > respectively). I have no evidence of the confusion of the two
> > nasals from any Jewish source; nor is it clear yet whether the
> > unetymological n or m became lexicalized.'
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francysk_Skaryna
> >
> > Isn't it more likely that the OCz Sephyn is related instead to
> > this/these words for "judge"
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6ffe
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schepen
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89chevin
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89chevin_(Luxembourg)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0epmistr
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scabino
> > ?
>
> The alternative is that all three words are related.
> The Hebrew word is attested at least from the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judges
> (Sefer Shoftim, ספר ש×פ×××)
> written in the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_exile
> cf.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judges#Origins_and_redaction_history
> which precludes a common origin of the word in Germanic or Slavic;
> in those languages it would be a loan from Hebrew. Which sounds odd,
> but on the other hand, on a proposed origin of some institutions of
> Frankish law in Jewish law, see
> Jacob J. Rabinowitz
> The Influence of Jewish Law upon the Development of Frankish Law
> Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research,
> Vol. 16 (1946 - 1947),
> pp. 205-224
>
>
> > The Semitic root Å¡-p.-t "judge"
> http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/semham/semet&text_number=1012&root=config
> > seems to be limited to the
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language
> > and the
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Semitic_languages
> > which are distantly related, which seems to indicate it's a
> > cultural term. A further relative is found in Chadic
> http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/semham/wchet&text_number=1009&root=config
>
> The origin of the verb here could be Babylonian, given the origin of the Book of Judges. That would imply, if the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judges#Settlement_theory_of_Judges_1
> is correct, that the writer(s) chose to use a Babylonian word for
> that particular form of judge / military leader. That depends of
> course on whether 'shoft' "judge" is attested earlier than the Book
> of Judges. Does anyone know?
>
> BTW Wikipedia cites Theologian Garry K. Brantly for:
> 'Among such scholars who hold a low view of the historical
> reliability of the Bible, there are two popular theories explaining
> the emergence of Israel in Canaan. The first is the âpeaceful
> infiltrationâ model, which is associated with the German scholars
> Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth. Appealing to ancient Egyptian records
> (such as the Amarna letters), they concluded that the Israelite
> settlement of Canaan was due to a gradual immigration into the land,
> not a military offensive.'
>
> Those two scenarios are nor exclusive. After the Prussians took over
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig
> they engaged in a lengthy political process to get loyal Germans to
> take over land owned by locals.
BTW, here's the article:
Jacob J. Rabinowitz
The Influence of Jewish Law upon the Development of Frankish Law
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research,
Vol. 16 (1946 - 1947),
pp. 205-224
The mere mention of the possibility that Jewish law influenced the development of Frankish legal institutions is likely to cause both Germanists and Hebrew scholars alike to raise their eyebrows. However, the writer will present the evidence and let it speak for itself.
Rachimburgs
In a number of places in the Lex Salica and in other early Frankish sources mention is made of a group of officials called Rachimburgs.1 These officials were seven in number. They acted as judges or jurymen and as appraisers in an execution against the property of a defaulting debtor. Also, agreements of every kind were often made in the presence of the Rachimburgs, apparently for the purpose of imparting to these agreements greater force and validity.
The derivation of the designation Rachimburgs is obscure. Cheruel,2 in his Dictionnaire Historique, says that it is of an uncertain etymology. Some scholars derive the word from Recht and Burger.3 Savigny thinks that it is derived from the old Germanic word rek - meaning great or mighty - and Bürger.4 A group of officials similar to the Rachimburgs is found among the Jews at an early time. These officials are referred to in the Talmud as shiva tove ha-ir - the seven good men of the town.5 In post-Talmudic sources, the seven good men are sometimes referred to as rashe ha-ir - the heads of the town.6
The functions of the good men of the town were apparently similar to those of the Rachimburgs, and their number - seven - was the same as that of the Rachimburgs. What is more, the Rachimburgs are often called in the sources boni homines,7 which is, of course, the exact equivalent of the Hebrew designation. In view of the striking similarities, in number, function and name, between the two groups of officials, it is perhaps not farfetched to suggest that the word Rachimburgs itself is partly of Jewish origin, consisting of the Hebrew word rachim - heads and the German word burg - town.
[But see below for an alternative derivation.]
The Title De Migrantibus of The Lex Salica
In an article in Speculum8 the present writer has pointed out the striking similarity between title 45, De Migrantibus, of the Lex Salica and the Jewish herem ha-yishub, and has adduced certain evidence which tends to prove that the latter was copied from the former.
Title 50 of The Lex Salica
There is a remarkable correspondence between the procedure described in Title 50 of the Lex Salica and the Jewish procedure of execution against defaulting debtors. Under the Lex Salica, the creditor summons the debtor three times (per tres nondenas) to pay the debt. If the debtor does not pay after the third summons he is iactivus (a term which we shall presently explain), and the creditor may proceed, with the aid of the seven Rachimburgs, to distrain upon his property.
The term tres nondenas has been interpreted to mean three market or court days,9 the custom apparently having been to hold court on days set aside as market days.
As to the term iactivus, which occurs quite frequently in early Frankish documents,10 there is nothing but conjecture. Brunner's explanation may be summarized as follows: Formal agreements were made by the Franks through the throwing by the obligor upon the ground or into the bosom of the obligee, of some object which was called a festuca. When the obligor failed to perform the obligation, the obligee would come to court to declare the obligee iactivus. He would produce the festuca which constituted proof of his adversary's assumption of the obligation, and throw it upon the ground. Hence, says Brunner, the term iactivus.11
The above explanation can hardly be considered adequate. In the first place, there is not the slightest reference to the throwing of a festuca in any of the documents in which the term iactivus occurs. Secondly, there seems to be no reason why the obligee, when he appears in court to declare the obligor iactivus, should throw the festuca. The act of throwing the festuca was, as we are told,12 a symbol of giving up certain rights to, or assuming an obligation toward, the party to whom it was thrown. Throwing the festuca to the judges would therefore seem to be out of place, and without any possible meaning.
The writer believes that the key to the meaning of the term iactivus, is to be sought in certain Jewish legal procedures which were apparently copied by the Franks. Under Jewish legal procedure, a waiting period of three court days (which were also market days) must elapse before the court may take action against a defaulting debtor.13 After the lapse of this period the debtor is declared by the court to be m'nudeh, that is excommunicated. The word m'nudeh is derived from n'de, meaning to throw,14 and corresponds to iactivus. Both of these terms are probably to be rendered as cast out of the community, or, briefly, an outcast.
There was still another occasion, besides default in the payment of a debt, when a person could be declared iactivus under Frankish law. A contumacious party, who failed to appear in court after having been duly summoned, could be declared iactivus.15 In some of the documents it is stated that the plaintiff appeared in court and waited three days - triduum - for the defendant's appearance. Other documents speak about the plaintiff's having waited till sunset - solsatire.16 Sometimes a document - notitia de iactivus 17 - stating that the defendant failed to appear in court would be drawn up by the boni homines and given to the plaintiff.
Under Hebrew law, a similar procedure prevailed. A contumacious party, who failed to appear in court when summoned, was declared m'nudeh - excommunicated - after the lapse of three court days from the day appointed for his appearance.18 As under the Frankish procedure, a document - called ptiha - stating the fact of the defendant's failure to appear would be drawn up by the court and given to the plaintiff.
Cartam Levare in Frankish Deeds
In a large number of Frankish deeds, beginning with the latter part of the 8th century, reference is made to a procedure which is called cartam levare - lifting up the charter.19 This procedure may be described as follows: Before the writing of an instrument of conveyance, the grantor would lift up the blank parchment, together with the inkwell and quill, from the ground, and would deliver them to the notary. The latter would then proceed to fill out the parchment in accordance with the instructions given to him by the grantor.20
Brunner21 offers the following explanation of this procedure. Originally, a conveyance of land was not considered valid among the Germanic peoples without a real investiture. Grantor and grantee, together with their witnesses, would appear on the land to be conveyed, and the grantor would deliver to the grantee some object, such as a twig, or a sod of turf, closely associated with the land. The delivery of the twig constituted a symbolic delivery of the land. Later on, when written instruments were introduced among the Germanic peoples, and conveyances came to be made by written charters, the symbolism of the delivery of the land was extended from the twig to the charter. The charter represented, so to speak, the land in miniature. The twig or turf continued to be delivered even after written charters had been introduced, and since these had to be lifted from the ground, the parchment was also placed on the ground to be lifted together with them.
Brunner's explanation is followed by leading historians of German law, such as Gierke, 22 Von Amira 23 and Zeumer, 24 although it presents a number of difficulties. In the first place, it does not quite adequately account for the lifting up and delivery of the quill and inkwell. Secondly, it would seem that the elaborate ceremonial should have accompanied the delivery of the written charter to the grantee, rather than the delivery of the blank parchment to the scribe. Finally, there are documents representing transactions other than conveyances of land where levatio cartae was used. It is true that Brunner attempts to explain the difficulty last mentioned by saying that the procedure was first used in connection with conveyances of land and was later extended to other transactions. However, this amounts to saying that the significance of the symbolism was lost sight of almost as soon as it was introduced, only to be rediscovered by Brunner in the 19th century.
In a study under the title Cartam Levare,25 Goldmann subjects Brunner's theory to a thorough analysis, and arrives at the conclusion that it is totally untenable. He then proceeds, in a long discourse, to describe the magic effect commonly attributed, in various places throughout the world and through the ages, to contact with the earth, and concludes that the placing of the parchment, inkwell and pen upon the earth is one of the manifestations of this popular belief.
Goldmann's theory of the significance of cartam levare will best be stated in his own words:
"The magic power of the earth is to flow into the parchment, ink and quill, imparting durability and indestructibility to the relationship which is to be written down on the parchment".26
It is difficult to argue, on logical grounds, against a theory such as the one advanced by Goldmann. This type of reasoning by free association knows no logic. However, one or two simple questions may not be out of place. Why, it may be asked, was it necessary for the grantor himself to lift up the parchment etc.. from the ground? Why could not the quality of indestructibility be imparted to these objects by having the notary lift them up from the ground? Again, why do the documents stress the lifting up from the ground - de terra levavi - rather than the placing upon the ground, which, as Goldmann would have us believe, was the operative act believed to produce the desired magic effect?
It is to be noted that Goldmann, with commendable frankness, states that he is offering his theory only as a hypothesis, that there is no direct proof for it in the sources, and that it is to stand only so long as no better solution is forthcoming. The writer proposes to show that those who grappled with the problem of the origin and meaning of the supposedly Germanic cartam levare were engaged in a thankless task, since the only sources in which the correct solution of this problem is to be found were to them terra incognita.
Strangely enough, levatio cartae, in all of if its details, is found among the Jews to this very day. In divorce proceedings, conducted in accordance with Jewish law, the husband lifts up the paper on which the get - bill of divorce -, is to be written, together with the inkwell and pen, and delivers them to the scribe, before the get is written. The lifting up of the paper, inkwell and pen by the husband, and their delivery by him to the scribe, are mentioned by a number of medieval Jewish authorities, notably Rabbenu Tam, Mordecai and Rabbi Asher b. Yechiel.27
Fortunately, there is no mystery about the reason for this procedure in the Jewish get, as there is in the case of the Frankish deeds. There is no need for far-fetched theories which are as untrue as they are ingenious. The reason is simple and is clearly stated in the Hebrew authorities on the subject. It is this: The instrument by means of which a conveyance is effected, - and a divorce in Hebrew law is looked upon as a conveyance in the nature of a release, - must be the property of the party making the conveyance, that is, of the grantor. The Talmud 28 bases this upon the words "sefer ha-miqnah - the deed of purchase" (Jeremiah 32:11), reading these words as sefer ha-maqneh - the deed of the seller - and interpreting them as meaning that the deed must belong to the grantor. Under ordinary circumstances, the paper, inkwell and pen belong to the scribe, and not to the grantor. It is therefore necessary that the grantor acquire property in these so that the instrument when written may belong to him. Under Hebrew law, hagbaha - lifting up is the only valid mode of acquiring property in chattels capable of being lifted up.29 Hence, the lifting up by the husband of the paper, inkwell and pen before the writing of the get.
The possibility that the Jews of the Middle Ages borrowed this procedure from the Germanic peoples hardly needs to be discussed. As I have stated, the procedure is based upon Talmudic authorities which preceded in point of time any extended contacts between Jews and Germanic peoples. Furthermore, lifting up is a peculiarly Jewish mode of acquiring title to chattels. Nor is it likely that the similarity between the Jewish and Frankish procedure is the result of mere chance. The points of similarity are too many to be accounted for by chance. Also, the several rules of Hebrew law, which are reflected in the procedure, preclude the possibility of a chance similarity. Complicated legal patterns of a technical nature are not duplicated by mere conincidence.
There remains the only possibility that the Franks adopted the procedure from the Jews who were probably in no small measure responsible for the dissemination of the use of written instruments in medieval Europe.
Traditio Per Cartam
In the Frankish sources reference is often made to traditio per cartam - delivery by deed -- by which is meant a form of conveyance of land wherein, instead of a real investiture through delivery by the grantor to the grantee of a symbol of the land to be conveyed, the grantor delivers to the grantee a charter of conveyance. Brissaud, 30 following Brunner and others, states that while among the Romans, from whom the Germans adopted the use of the written instrument, the instrument served only as evidence of title, "the Germans gave it a new bearing and character; they saw a delivery per cartam where there was only a traditio cartae for the Romans".31
However, in view of what has been said above about the origin of the Frankish levatio cartae, the writer belives that it is more likely that the traditio per cartam was borrowed by the Franks from the Jews. Conveyance by deed is, as we shall presently see, one of the oldest methods of transferring land under Hebrew law. Where this method of conveyance is used, it is by the delivery of the deed that the transfer is effected, according to Jewish law.
Comparison of Handwriting
A capitulary ascribed to Carl The Great provides that where the authenticity of a charter of emancipation of a slave is disputed, and the boni homines, in whose presence the slave claims to have been set free, are absent, he who holds the charter and claims his liberty under it must prove its authenticity by producing, for the purpose of comparison of the handwriting, two other charters written by the same cancellarius:
"Si quis per cartam ingenuus dismissus fuerit et a quolibet homine ad servitium interpellatus fuerit, primo legitimum auctorem suae libertatis proferat et in sua libertate perseveret. Si vero legitimis auctor defeurit, testimonium bonorum hominum, qui tunc aderant quando liber dismissus fuit, se defendere permittatur. Si vero testes defuerint, cum duabus allis cartis, quae eiusdem cancellarii manu firmatae sunt vel subscriptae, suam cartam quae tertia est veracem et legitimam esse confirmet".32
Brunner 33 asserts that the above method of proving the authenticity of documents was borrowed by the Franks from Roman legal practice. He cites Code Theod. II, 27, 1, 1 and Justinian, Nov. 73, 7, 2, where mention is made of comparison of handwriting as a method of proving the authenticity of documents. However, the texts cited by Brunner, as he was well aware, indicate that both, Theodosius and Justinian, viewed this method of proof with great suspicion. The former required "many other proofs" in addition to a comparison of handwriting, while the latter allowed it to be used only as a last resort, and even then required that the party producing the document solemnly swear to its authenticity.
Furthermore, there is no mention anywhere in the Roman law sources of the requirement, contained in the capitualry quoted above, that the proof be conducted with two other documents.
Is it a coincidence that under Talmudic law, as under Frankish law, comparison with two other documents was required to prove the authenticity of documents? In the Babylonian Talmud, Kethuboth 20a, we read:
"... The Nehardeans said: A document is confirmed only from two kethuboth or from two fields, and only when their owners were in quiet possesssion for three years".
To this R. Shimi b. Ashi adds that the two documents by which the authenticity of the third one is to be established must belong to a person or persons other than the party seeking to prove the authenticity of the disputed document.
It is obvious that all these elaborate precautions were designed to prevent forgery and the use of forged documents in court. The Franks apparently became acquainted with the rule about two documents through their contacts with Jews. The additional requirements as to the nature of the documents and as to their source were such as could not be expected to be copied by people who had only a superficial and indirect acquaintance with the legal system in which they arose.
Further evidence to the effect that the procedure of authenticating written instruments was copied by the Franks from the Jews may be seen in the fact that the term firmatio chartarum, which was used in the Frankish kingdom to denote this procedure, 34 is an exact translation of the Hebrew term kiyum shetaroth, used in the Talmud 35 to denote the same procedure.
Carta and Notitia
Legal documents evidencing conveyances and other transactions in the Frankish period are designated either as carta or as notitia. The latter form is also called memoratorium.36 The difference, in form as well as in substance, between carta and notitia has been the subject of a now famous article by Brunner.37
The difference in form between the carta and the notitia is apparent upon the face of the documents. In the carta the grantor speaks in the first person, while the notitia is framed in the third person, and represents an attestation by the court or by witnesses of a transaction already completed.
As to the difference in substance between the two forms, Brunner maintains that while the carta was a dispositive or constitutive instrument the notitia was a mere evidentiary instrument - Beweisurkunde.38
In Jewish law similar two forms co-existed from an early time. These two forms were called shtar haqnaah 39 - charter of conveyance - and dukhran pithgama 40 - memorandum, respectively.
Although the practical legal effect of both forms was the same in Jewish law, there was apparently some technical difference between them. In Baba Bathra, 136a, the Talmud deals with the question of the validity of a conveyance of a future estate to take effect after the grantor's death. It is there stated that, according to Rabbi Judah, where the conveyance is made by means of a shtar haqnaah - charter of conveyance - it is not necessary to specify that it is made in the present to take effect in the future, since the charter speaks as of its date; but that when the conveyance is evidenced by a dukhran pithgama-- memorandum - it is necessary to state that it is made "from this day and after the death" of the grantor.
It will readily be seen that the above technical difference between the two Jewish forms is an outgrowth of the difference in their nature, similar to the one suggested by Brunner for the carta and notitia, the shtar haqnaah being a dispositive instrument and the dukhran pithgama being an evidentiary instrument. In the case of a dispositive instrument the instrument speaks as of its date, since it is through the instrument itself that the conveyance is effected. But in the case of an evidentiary instrument, which only records a past transaction, it is necessary to state that the transaction was not one purporting to be a conveyance in the future after the grantor's death.
The distinction between a dispositive and an evidentiary document is clearly stated in the following passages of the Mishnah and Gemara:
"Property for which there is security 41 can be acquired by money or by deed or by usucaption; and that for which there is no security 42 can be acquired only by the act of drawing. Property for which there is no security in conjunction with property for which there is no security can be acquired by money, by deed, or by usucaption, and imposes the need for an oath also on property for which there is security".43
This Mishnah is followed in the Gemara by a discussion which reads, in part, as follows:
"By money: Whence do we know it? -Said Hezekiah: Scripture saith, men shall acquire fields with money. (Jeremiah, 32, 44). Yet perhaps the purchase is invalid unless there is a deed too, since it continues, and subscribe the deeds, and attest them? - Were 'acquire' written at the end, it would be as you say; now, however, that 'acquire' is written at the beginning, money gives a title, while the deed is merely evidence".44
"And by deed. How do we know it? Shall we say, because it is written and subscribe the deeds, and attest them and call witnesses - but you have said that the deed is merely evidence? - But from this verse, so I took the deed of purchase". 45
The distinction between the dispositive, or constitutive, and the evidentiary nature of a document is made in the Talmud not only with regard to deeds of conveyance, but also with regard to bonds for the payment of money, as will appear from the following passage:
"Samuel said: If one finds a constitutive writing in the street one shall return it to the owners. For even if this were objected to on the ground that the writing may have been written for the purpose of a loan and the loan may in fact not have been granted the objection would not be valid because the borrower bound himself. And if this were objected to on the ground that the loan may in the meantime have been repaid the objection would not be valid either because we are not afraid of repayment having taken place, as we assume that if the borrower had repaid the loan he would have torn up the writing. R. Nahman said: My father was among the scribes of Mar Samuel's court when I was about six or seven years old, and I remember that they used to proclaim: 'Constitutive writings which are found in the street should be returned to their owners'."46
From a certain passage in the Talmud it appears that the dukhran pithgama - memorandum - form, like the notitia, was especially adapted to transactions attested by a court. In Sanhedrin, 29b, we read:
"A certain recognizance contained the phrase: Dukhran pithgama and the rest of the phraseology of judicial documents..."47 There is thus a striking similarity, in form and in substance, between the carta and notitia, on the one hand, and the shtar haqnaah and dukhran pithgama, on the other. This alone would seem to suggest some relationship between the Jewish and Frankish legal documents. But there are other marks of Jewish influence on the Frankish legal document.
The notitia usually begins with the words notitia qualiter, as will appear from the following example:
"Notitia qualiter et quibus praesentibus veniens homo aliquis nomine ille in pago illo, in loco qui dicitur ille, seu in mercato, vel in quocunque loco, ante bonis hominibus qui subter firmaverunt, dato suo pretio ad hominem negotiantem solidos tantos, servum suum nominem illum visus est comparasse. Et ipse negotians ipsum servum superius nominatum per manus partibus ipsius lui visus est tradidisse, non fraude, sed in publico, ut quidquid exinde a die praesente facere voluerit, liberam et firmissimam in omnibus habeat potestatem faciendi".48
Other legal documents, not designated as notitia and not drawn in the third person, also begin, sometimes, with the word qualiter, as in the following formula of an oath of allegiance:
"Sacramentale qualiter repromitto ego, quod ab isto dii, inantea fidelis sum domno Karolo piisimo imperatori, filio Pippini regis".49
It is fairly obvious that the word qualiter is not used in thest documents in its usual sense of how or in what mode, but as an introductory word.
An exact counterpart of qualiter is found at the beginning of the substantive part of practically every available Hebrew document of a legal nature.50 It is the word ekh, which, like qualiter, means how, or in what mode. This word is also found in legal formulae in three places in the Babylonian Talmudj 51 and in one place in the Tosefta (Baba Metzia, 1, 7.).
Already in the 13th century Rabbi Asher b. Yechiel 52 was apparently puzzled by the meaning of ekh. He found it in an old formula of the bill of divorce, which speaks in the first person, and thought that it did not belong there. He apparently understood it in the sense of that and therefore was of the opinion that it properly belonged only in documents which were drawn up by witnesses or by a court, where it would have the sense of we testify that. However, he was apparently unaware of the text in Tosefta cited above, where the word is used in a formula drawn up in the first person.
Leopold Loew,53 commenting on a certain Jewish document, says: "The connecting word (das Bindewort) 'ekh'- how, that - seems to be superfluous". And in his translation of the document he adds: "We testify that (wir bezeugen dass)". That the addition is unjustified is shown by Tosefta, Baba Metzia, cited above. Other translators,54 very wisely, leave out the ubiquitous word ekh in translation.
How this word came to be used in Jewish legal documents and what its function was is difficult to determine. However, the writer will venture a suggestion. It is this. In ancient times tampering with legal documents and forgery through additions were apparently not infrequent. It seems that two devices were used as precautions against addition. One was to add a summary of the contets of the document at its end. Anything found after the summary would thus be patently forged. Another method was to wind up all legal documents in one standard and uniform fashion, so that anything found after the closing formula would be known to have been surreptitiously added. This last method was apparently used in the Greek papyri in Egypt, where the closing formula in legal documents usually reads: "The contract is valid" 55 or "The contract is valid and firm".56
In the Talmud reference is found to both of the above devices, though it is not clear whether they were used in some combination or singly.57
Although there is less danger of important additions being made at the beginning of a legal document, than at its end, precautions against the making of additions at the beginning would seem to be not altogether unnecessary. It is therefore possible that our word ekh at the beginning of the substantive part of the document served that purpose.
Non Fraude Sed in Publico
In some Frankish forms of conveyance of property it is stated that the conveyance was made non fraude sed in publico 58 - not fraudulently but publicly. Sometimes this formula is more elaborate and reads as follows:
"Non occulte sed publicae, non privatum sed palam",59 or "...Non absconse sed publice, non private sed palam".60
A similar formula is found almost universally in Jewish forms of conveyance,61 and is based upon the following passage of the Talmud:
"Rab Judah said: A deed of a gift drawn up in secret is not enforceable. What is meant by a deed of gift drawn up in secret? R. Joseph said: If the donor said to the witnesses. 'Go and write in some hidden place'. Others report that what R. Joseph said was: If the donor did not say to the witness, 'Find a place in the street or in some public place and write it there' . . .62
In medieval Jewish documents the formula usually reads:
"And he (the grantor) said to us thus: This deed of sale (or gift) ye shall write at the market and sign in the open, so that it shall not be a secret sale (or gift) but one that is open and notorious".
The similarity between the above Jewish and Frankish formulae requires no comment, and the obviously Talmudic origin of the Jewish formula precludes the possibility of the Jewish formula being a copy of its Frankish counterpart.
Super Fluvio Illo
In some Frankish forms the locality in which the document was drawn up is identified, in addition to its name, by the name of the river on which it is situated.63 A similar place description is universally found in the Jewish get 64 - bill of divorce -, where formalities are strictly observed, and, occasionally, in the kethuba 65 - instrument of endowment. In no other legal forms, besides the Jewish and Frankish, has the writer been able to find such place description.
Cassatura
When the debt evidenced by a bond was paid or otherwise discharged, the bond would be cut or a notation of the fact of payment or discharge would be made thereon.66 This notation was called cassatura (a breaker), the term evidently having reference to the effect of the notation upon the instrument.
It is quite obvious that "breaking" is not a very appropriate term to describe the discharge or cancellation of a written instrument. How, then, did the term cassatura originate? The answer is that it is an exact translation of the Hebrew "shover" (a breaker), which is used in the Mishnah 67 and Talmud in the same sense, in which cassatura is used in the Frankish sources, namely, that of acquittance or release. The Hebrew term probably goes back to the times when legal instruments were written on clay tablets and the discharge of an obligation was accompanied by the breaking of the tablet evidencing it.68 Indeed, in an Assyrian instrument of acquittance there occurs a phrase which is translated by Ungnad as seine Urkunde wird zerbrochen werden.69
As to the cutting of the instrument, it seems that this too was borrowed from the Jews. Cutting or incision has been, since Talmudic times, the standard method of cancelling legal instruments under Jewish practice. Indeed, the Talmud 70 prescribes the exact manner in which the incision is to be made, namely, lengthwise and crosswise or in the place where the witnesses' signatures appear.
In the later Middle Ages, incision of documents appears in some non-Jewish legal forms in a context which leaves no doubt of its Jewish origin. The writer has shown elsewhere71 that in the 13th century the neemanuth (credence) clause of the Jewish writing obligatory became widely current in Europe. The principle underlying the neemanuth clause - that the parties to a legal transaction may stipulate in advance as to the rules of evidence to be applied in case of a dispute arising between them out of that transaction - was made use of in the provision in which the debtor undertook to pay to the creditor, in case of default, all the expenses and damages which the creditor might incur by reason of the default, as to the extent of which damages, the writing would provide, the creditor should be believed on his bare word, without an oath.72 The same principle was also made use of in a clause barring a plea of payment on the part of the debtor unless certain conditions are met. In this clause it would be provided that so long as the document remained in the hands of the creditor uncut, and the debtor did not produce an instrument of acquittance, the latter should be unable to plead payment. The following is an example of such a clause:
". . ita quod non liceat ei producere testes de pagamento facto in toto vel in parte absque isto breve inciso reddito vel aliud de fine facto".73
A clause virtually identical with the one just quoted has been a regular feature of the Jewish writing obligatory at least since Gaonic times (before the year 1000 of the common era). In the Formulary of Rav Hai Gaon, for example, it reads:
. . . And whenever this bond is produced uncut (uncancelled) or without payment being noted thereon, or when you have no witnesses of payment, N(the obligee) shall be believed when he will say 'I have not received payment', and it shall be incumbent upon you to pay him the whole debt, or what you will then owe him, by the word of his mouth, without oath . ."74
The striking similarity between the Jewish and Latin versions of the clause, coupled with the fact that the Jewish version makes its appearance at a much earlier time and is, in all of its details, based upon the Talmud, furnishes conclusive proof that the Latin version is a copy of its Jewish counterpart.75
1 Lex Salica, 50, 3; 57, 1; Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum Sectio II, p. 9; Legum Sectio V, pp. 211, 251.
2 Dictionnaire Historique des Institutions, s. v. Rachimburgs.
3 See ib.
4 See ib.
5 B. Talmud, Megillah 26a. See also Baron, The Jewish Community, v. I, p. 133; vol. II, p. 55; v. III, p. 120.
6 See Teshuboth Maimonyoth, Shoftim, no. 10. See also Baron, op. cit., v. II, p. 55.
7 See Pardessus, Loi Salique, p. 576.
8 Vol. 22, pp. 46-50.
9 See Hermann, Die Grundelemente der altgermanischen Mobiliarvindication, Gierke's Untersuchungen zur deutschen Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte, no. 20, p. 162 f.
10 See Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, v. II, pp. 368-369.
11 Ib.
12 See Brissaud, A History of French Private Law, p. 482.
13 B. Talmud, B. K. 112b; Hoshen Mishpat, 98, 5. Monday and Thursday, which were market days, were also set aside for holding court. See Mishnah Megillah 1, 1-2 and Kethuboth 1,1.
14 See Jastrow, Dictionary of the Talmud, s. v. ..;. See also Robinson, Gesenius' Hebrew and English Lexicons, s. v....
15 See e. g., Appendix ad Marculf., no. 22.
16 See M. G. H. Legum Sectio V, pp. 8-9.
17 See form cited in note 15, supra.
18 B. Talmud, Baba Kama, 113a.
19 See Brunner, Zur Rechtsgeschichte der roemischen und germanischen Urkunde, p. 104f . See also Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fuer Rechtsgeschichte v. IV, germ. Abt., p. 115.
20 Ib.
21 Op. cit., supra, n. 19 at pp. 303-304.
22 Gierke, Privaterecht, v. II, p. 272.
23 Von Amira, Grundriss des germanischen Rechtes (3d ed., 1913), p. 227.
24 Zeumer, "Cartam levare in Sankt Gallen Urkunden", Zeitschrift d. Savigny-Stiftung fuer Rechtgesschichte v,. IV, germ. Abt., p. 113 ff.
25 Mitteilungen des Instituts fuer Oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung, v. 35, p. 1 ff.
26 Ib., p. 33.
27 See Tur Even Ha-Ezer 154 and Gloss to Asheri Gittin 2, 20.
28 See B. Talmud, Gittin 20b.
29 See Hoshen Mishpat, 198, 1.
30 See Brissaud, A History of French Private Law, p. 374 and authorities cited there.
31 Ib.
32 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum Sectio II, p. 215. See also ib. 430 and Lex Riburia 59, 5.
33 Brunner. Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, v. I, p. 564, n. 20.
34 See Brunner, Die Entstehung der Schwurgerichte, p. 64.
35 See B. Talmud, Gittin 3a.
36 See Cod. Dipl. Cavensis, v. II, pp. 2, 6, 8, 14, 16.
37 Brunner, "Carta und Notitia" in Commentationes philologicae in honorem Th. Mommseni, pp. 570-589. Reprinted in Brunner, Abhandlungen zur Rechtsgeschichte, v. I, pp. 458-486.
38 Abhandlungen zur Rechtsgeschichte v,. I, p. 463.
39 See, e. g., Baba Metzia 16b and Baba Bathra 172a.
40 See Baba Bathra 136a and Sanhedrin 29b.
41 Immovable property.
42 Movable property.
43 Mishnah, Kiddushin 1, 5.
44 B. Talmud, Kiddushin 26a.
45 Ib.
46 B. Talmud, Baba Metzia 16b. The writer has substituted a constitutive writing for a deed of conveyance which appears in the English translation of the Talmud. The term deed of conveyance is used in English to designate an instrument by which property is conveyed and not one by which an obligation is created.
47 Sanhedrin 29b-30a.
48 Appendix ad Marculf., no. 21.
49 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum Sectio II, v. 1, p. 101.
50 See, e. g., Gulak, Ozar Ha-Shtaroth, nos. 16, 21, 27, 38, 67, 68, 69.
51 Gittin 35a, 85b; Yebamoth3 9b.
52 See Tur Even Ha-Ezer 126 and Beth Joseph ad locum.
53 Gesammelte Schriften, v. III, p. 317, n. 2.
54 See, e. g., McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, v. V, p. 776.
55 See, e. g., P. Oxy. 275 (a. 66) and 1273 (a. 260).
56 See, e. g., P. Grenf. II, 76 (a. 305-306) and 87 (a. 602); P. Lond. 1722 (a. 573). It seems that the longer phrase, valid and firm, which corresponds to the Talmudic sarir veqayam, makes its appearance at a later period. Schwartz (Die oeffentliche und private Urkunde im roemischen Aegypten, Abh. d. Saechsischen Akad. d. Wiss., philologisch-hist. Klasse, v. 31, p. 103 f.) is of the opinion that the kuria clause was intended to make the document dispositivei n nature. See, however, Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, v. I, p. 179 (P. Hamb. I. 70, 2nd century) where the closing formula reads: "This bond is in my own hand, written in duplicate, without erasure or insertion, and it shall be valid wherever produced and whoseoever produces it *** ". This would seem to indicate that the clause was intended as a precaution against insertions and erasures. See also Gulak, Das Urkundenwesen im Talmud p. 24 f.
57 See Baba Bathra 160b, 161b-162a.
58 See, e. g., Appendixa d Marculf.n, o. 21, quoteda bove.
59 Roziere, Recueil General des Formules v. I, p. 232.
60 Cod. Dipl. Lang, col. 754.
61 See, e. g., Davis, Hebrew Deeds, p. 165. It is to be noted that whilet his formulais indispensable to the validity of a gratuitous transferi, it may be dispensed with in the case of a transfer for value.
62 Baba Bathra 40b.
63 See M. G. H., Legum Sectio V, pp. 188, 266-284.
64 See, e. g., Gulak, Ozar Ha-Shtaroth, nos. 68, 69. See also B. Talmud, Gittin 27a.
65 Ib., nos. 26, 28, 29.
66 "Bei der Rueckgabe pflegte die cautio durch Zerschneiden oder durch einen schriftlichen Vermerk (cassatura) entkraeftet zu werden". - Brunner, Grundzuege der Deutschen Rechtsgeschichte(7th ed., Leipzig, 1923), p. 209. See also Brissaud, A History of French Private Law (The Continental Legal History Series), p. 507, n. 1.
67 See, e. g., Mishna, Kethuboth 9, 9.
68 See Gulak, Das Urkundenwesen im Talmudi m Lichte d. griechisch-aegyptischen Papyri und d. griechischen und roemischen Rechts, p. 148, n. 1.
69 Kohler und Ungnad, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden, no. 234, pp. 174-175.
70 See B. Talmud, Baba Bathra 168b.
71 See Rabinowitz, Some Remarks on the Evasion of The Usury Laws in The Middle Ages, Harvard Theological Review, v. XXXVII, p. 49 ff., at p. 52, n. 5.
72 A similar clause is found in the Formulary of R. Judah Barzillai, no. 55, which reads, in part, as follows: "... And if, Heaven forbid, I shall fail to pay at the time agreed upon, he (the obligee) may forthwith force me and compel me, in a Jewish or non-Jewish court, and may have recourse to the authorities and incur all necessary expenditures; and all the expenditures he may have to incur by reason of my default he shall exact from me, and from my representatives, all complete, in addition to his principal... and he shall be believed on his word..."
73 Historiae Patriae Monumenta, Chart., v. II, no. 1678 (a. 1196). See also v. I, no. 1929 (a. 1207).
74 Gulak, Ozar Ha-Shtaroth, no. 213.
75 Brunner, who was naturally unaware of the existence of the Jewish sources bearing on the subject, maintains that the principle of the credence clause found in 13th century documents is traceable to the Germanic law of procedure. (See his Forschungen zur Geschichte d. deutschen und franzoesischen Rechts, p. 645 f.). However, it is hardly to be supposed that Rab Hai Gaon and R. Judah Barzillai drew their inspiration from the Germanic law of procedure, or that the Talmud contains Germanic elements.
Fritz Baer, quoting a 14th century document written in Spanish and containing a credence clause (with respect to damages and expenses), remarks: "Die Parallele zu der Talmudischen ....-Formel muss natuerlich vormittelalterlichen Ursprungs sein." (Die Juden im christlichen Spanien, v. I, p. 1058, n. 2). This dogmatic assertion on the part of so careful a scholar as Baer is nothing short of amazing. On the basis of his own extensive researches and on the authority of Brunner, whose mastery of medieval legal sources was probably unsurpassed, the writer feels warranted in saying that there is no trace of any credence clause, either barring a plea of payment or with respect to damages and expenses, anywhere in Europe, outside of the Jewish sources, before the end of the 12th century.
Falk & Torp:
'<skjøde> I (Danish = rope in the lower corner of a sail),
Older Danish skød, Norwegian skjød "corner of a sail with rope atteched to it",
Norwegian dialect skaut id.,
ON skaut "one of the lower corners of the sail";
see skjød. Corresponding to the West Germanic derivation
Old English scéata "lower corner of a sail" (English sheet "skjøde") with the compound
scéatlinc "the rope attached thereto",
MLG schôte "rope in the lower corner of the sail" (Dutch schoot, German Schote).
Swedish <skot> "sheat" is borrowed from Low German.
From Germanic stems French écoute "corner of a sail", sp. escota, it. scotta.
<skjøde> II (deed for landed property), in Older Danish also "transfer of landed property", is formed from the verb;
corresponding to Swedish dialect skötning, which word in Old Swedish meant "transfer of landed property", like ON skeyting. The ON skeyta (Old Swedish sköta) meant to transfer a piece of land by placing dirt ('mold') earth from it on a corner of the garment of the new owner, therefore also called moldskeyta (Old Swedish muldsköta). This symbolic custom was in medieval times current everywhere in the Nordic area: see the description in the Gulating law 292 and cf.
Old Danish scøtte mæth torf och iordh, som thet segh bør (in a diploma from Christian I),
skøde met wpskorne iord (1480),
gjorde Î. Î. ett fullt skøde med molld oc knyff effter loghen (1522).
Likewise in Germany, where the formulas were
tradere per terram vel herbam,
bei wasen und bei zwî, tradere cum cespite,
mit êner grönen soden,
and the like. The use is a specialization of the custom of placing the objert transferred in the lap of the new owner: cf.
Old English
on bearm dôn, âlecgan "transfer into one's possession",
tô bearme cuman "get into one's possession" ;
similar
Latin in vestris pono gremiis "I give into your hand",
Greek (Homer) ÏαÏ
~Ïα θεÏ~ν `εν γοÏναÏι κει~Ïαι "is in the hand of the gods".
The word <skjøde> is specifically Nordic, since
MLG schote "transfer of property",
schôten "transfer property"
is borrowed. It has also passed into Medieval Latin: scotare, scotatio.'
As for the Rachimburgs I would propose instead
*wrÄkin-borg-, a derivation based on
*wrÄk- "evict, banish" (cf. English wretch "outcast") and
*borg- "guarantor",
ie. the function of someone who oversees that the eviction takes place as prescribed.
Grimm:
RACHE, f. vindicta, ultio.
1)
OHG râhha, MHG râche;
Old Saxon wrâka (wrêka Heliand 3247 Mon.);
MLG wrake;
Frisian wrêke und wrêtze;
Old English wræc (engl. wreak) beside wracu, as also
Gothic vrêkei, vraka and vrakja
likewise translate Greek διÏγμÏÏ.
In newer Icelandic a fem. ræki, vindicta is listed (Biörn Haldarson 2, 220a), to which at least forly correspond a verb <rækja> "to reject, refuse", and an adj. <rækr>, "rejected, outcast", along with the verb reka Vigfusson 506a.
In the noun as in the verb <rächen> is contained a old common Germanic legal concept, that of placing someone outside the law and exiling him from the land as a response to an attack on the Landsfrieden, peace of the land, a milder and not dishonorable type of that punishment, the highest degree of which must be considered to be the verdict of making the defendant a wargus, which at the same time made him an outlaw (Lex. Sal. 55, 2, Gothic vargs, OHG warac, ON wargr, cf. Rechtsalt. 733 fg.). The comparison of the verb <rächen> with the related Sanskrit vÅÄ£ "repulse", Greek ε`ίÏÎ³Ï "enclose", Latin urgeo "urge" (Kluge Etym. Wb. 261 ff.) supports the proposed Old Germanic sense. In the cgeneralization of the concept of <rache> "revenge" (cf. below 3 and 4) the idea of exiling and persecuting is always present in the background.
2) Until the 16th century, the stem vowel, corresponding to the MHG form of the noun, is in many cases long, thus attested by being written with a double -a-, in part also by dialectal transition to -o-:
'manus got l. gotlich roche' Dief. 348b;
'vindicta, roch' 620a;
'ultio, roch' 625b;
'ræch, vindicta, ultio.' voc. inc. theut. r 1b;
'raach, vindicta, ultio.' Dasyp.;
'die raach, vindicta, straaff, ultio, vindicatio.' Maaler 321b;
'raach, vindicta' Schottel 1381;
'da liesz ich mich ja nichts von der gerechten raach
die du, o höchster mir befohlen, zurück reiszen.'
Weckherlin 70;
'viel tausent christenblut, das da vergossen war,
gen himmel schreyen thet umb raach, ausz der gefahr.'
S. Wieland der held von mitternacht (Heilbronn 1633) 1;
Only at the end of the 17. jahrh. does Stieler 1506 list <rache>, "ultio, vindicta, libido" exclusively with a short vowel, which had long been in common use by author of Middle or Low German origin. The noun only has a plural when needed in particular expressions:
'das er zweierlei verfolger verklaget, und umb zwo rache oder strafe bittet, beide uber tyrannen und ketzer.' Luther 3, 301a.
3) <rache>, corresponding to Latin vindicta, denotes the violent apprehension of a perpetrator, most often by the highest divine judge:
'nio er (gott) iuh ne zucche ad vindictam (ze râcho).' Notker ps. 49, 22;
'du weist wol da3 die heiden dich niht irren alters eine.
an dîner râche gegen in, hêrre vater, niht erwint.'
Walther 10, 13;
likewise Modern German:
'die rache ist mein, ich wil vergelten.' 5 Mos. 32, 35;
'herr gott des die rache ist, gott, des die rache ist, erscheine. erhebe dich, du richter der welt.' ps. 94, 1;
'es ist der tag der rache des herrn, und das jar der vergeltung.' Jes. 34, 8;
'ewr gott der da kompt zur rache, gott der da vergilt.' 35, 4;
'der gott der rache, der herr, bezalet sie.' Jer. 51, 56;
'wenn nu der herr Jhesus wird offenbart werden vom himel, .. rach zu geben uber die, so gott nicht erkennen.' 2 Thess. 1, 8 (διδÏνÏÎ¿Ï ÎκδίκηÏιν, Gothic gibandins fraveit);
'gott der rache, das ist der die rache' thut. Luther 3, 301b;
'dasz man sieht dein sei die rache,
und ein jeder merke drausz
wie du dich gesetzt das tichten
aller menschen selbst zu richten.'
H. Albert in the poems of the Königsberger Dichterkreis p. 8;
'wie heftig unsre sünden
den frommen gott entzünden,
wie rach und eifer gehn.'
P. Gerhard 73, 69;
'rach ist ein ding, das gott wil treiben.'
Reinh. v. Freiental (1700) s. 26;
'es heiszt die göttliche, die ewige rache: ze jüngest kam gottes roche uber in.' d. städtechron. 8, 30, 17;
'und werden haben ewig rach,
all di der poszhait volgen nach.'
Schwarzenberg 158d;
'ach, wer erforscht, wer prüft der ewigen rache lauf?'
Gotter 2, 76;
'rache dem lohn entgegengesetzt:
wann folgt kain ander leben nach,
zů tůgent lon und poszhait rach.'
Schwarzenberg 152b;
Metaphorically:
'ich bin ein kahler baum, gleich einer dürren hecken,
von keinen früchten reich, von keiner zierat schön.
o wehe mir! die axt der rache blicket schon,
und dräut mir schnödem holz mit dem verdienten lohn!'
Drollinger 48;
Relative to pagan divinities:
'allmächtige Juno!
ich liege hier,
und fleh um rache
auf Jasons haupt.'
Gotter 2, 488.
4) Revenge, also retaliation of a wrong by humans, with divine approval and aid:
'den guten cristen was her (meister Konrad von Marburg) gutig und geneigit, den ungloubigin herte unde gestrenge an rache und an gerechtikeit.' Ködiz 47, 1;
'das sie (die heiligen) rache uben unter den heiden, strafe unter den völkern.' ps. 149, 7;
'der gott der mir die rache gibt, und wirft die völker unter mich.' 2 Sam. 22, 48;
'er wird seinen eiver nemen zum harnisch, und wird die creatur rüsten zur rach uber die feinde.' weish. Sal. 5, 18;
'an den bösen gebürende rache üben, malemeritis referre quod debetur.' Stieler 1506;
'auch noch in der neueren sprache, wenn von rache der gesetze, von gerechter rache geredet wird: er (der pasquillant) verdient, wie dieser (straszenräuber) die rache der gesetze.' Rabener sat. 1, 10;
'Elisabeth von England übte nur eine gerechte rache und wiedervergeltung aus.' Schiller hist.-krit. ausg. 7, 20;
'und sonst: ein verbrechen, das rache schreit.' Fichte phil. journ. 5, 72;
'bezähme jeder die gerechte wut,
und spare für das ganze seine rache.'
Schiller Tell 2, 2;
'beschlosz er, da er recht nicht konnte finden,
sich rach zu holen mit der eignen hand.' 5, 1;
rache von einem menschen, der als strafe eines andern erscheint:
'er .. ziehet ehehrliche kinder, darf sich deren nicht schämen, wie der bankressen, die jhm ein unehr, schmach und rach sind.' Garg. 69b.
5) der heute gewöhnliche sinn von rache, welcher leidenschaftliche und unedle bewegtheit bei verfolgung eines unrechts in sich schlieszt:
'rache, zum beispiel, ist unstreitig, ein unedler und selbst niedriger affekt.' Schiller hist.-krit. ausg. 10, 176;
'diese neigung, wenn wir ihr nachhängen, erfüllt uns mit unruhen, reizt uns zu ängstlichen und kindischen unternehmungen, erzeugt stolz, neid, eifersucht, .. und sobald sie gekränkt wird, rache und verleumdung.' Gellert 7, 61;
'rache macht ein kleines recht zu groszem unrecht.' Simrock sprichw. 436,
hat sich schon in der älteren sprache ergeben:
'wie kund ein wîp durch râcheimmer vreislîcher tuon?' Nib. 1849, 4;
'der Kriemhilte râchewart an in beiden genuoc.' 2303, 4;
'herr schaw, wie mir so unrecht geschicht, und hilf mir zu meim rechten, du sihest alle jre rache und alle jre gedanken wider mich.' klagel. Jer. 3, 60;
'da bringt ein rach die ander rach,
ein unglück volgt dem andern nach.'
H. Sachs 4, 2, 66a;
aber erst später ist er schärfer hervorgetreten, immer in beziehung zu einer schuld:
'hier ist das mein und dein,
die rache von der schuld nicht mehr zu sondern.'
Schiller braut von Messina v. 397.
6) es heiszt rache an einem thun, üben, nehmen:
'so bitten wir, du wollest an diesem Nicanor und seinem heer rach üben.' 1 Macc. 7, 38;
'da warde Melusina, die jüngste unter den dreien töchtern, also sehr erzürnet, und sprach: mutter, ich wil dich an meinem vatter, umb diese missethat rechen, und also wurden jre zwo schwestern auch darzu mittheilig, und vereinigten sich desz, dasz sie der sachen halben wolten rach thun an jhrem vatter.' buch der liebe 279b;
'die rach, die mein töchter .. von meinetwegen an jhm begiengen.' 279c;
'oft ist keine schmerzlichere rache, als wenn man einen der rach nicht würdiget: in alle wege aber die gröste, so man dem neid und feinde tuht, nemlich: gerecht und frohm sein.' Butschky Patm. 308;
'rache an einen ausüben, petere ultionem ex aliquo.' Steinbach 2, 274;
'jetzt ists an uns, gesetze vorzuschreiben,
und rach zu nehmen an den schlechten menschen,
den schändlichen, die uns verlassen.'
Schiller Wallensteins tod 4, 7;
rache brüten, kochen, schnauben, auf rache denken, sinnen, nach rache dürsten (vergl. rachedurst):
'auf nichts, als rache dänken, omnium praeter ultionem immemorem esse.' Steinbach 2, 274;
'auf rache bedacht sein, ultionem parare, cogitare de aliquo ulciscendo, ad ultionem decurrere.' Frisch 2, 80b;
'gift und rache kochen.' Hahn hist. 1 (1721), 270;
'das recht zu klagen, zu wüthen und rache zu schnauben.' Wieland 3, 237;
'sein herz kochte rache.' 6, 313;
'haszt nicht der priester meinen sohn und sie?
und weisz ich nicht, dasz Alba rache brütet?'
Schiller don Carlos 3, 10;
rache fordern, rache schreien, rufen, donnern, rache schwören:
'warum schweiget das spiel, welches dem laster bald
rache donnerte, bald leiseren lautes scholl?'
Hölty 58 Halm;
'himmelan schreit das blut
deiner opfer, und ruft von gott
rache! rache! von gott!' 97;
'es ist staub deines bruders,
staub, der wider dich rache ruft.'
Schiller hist.-krit. ausg. 1, 43;
'rache! rache! der mörder falle! falle!
ein sühnend opfer dem gemordeten!' braut von Messina v. 1910;
'hier stehn die Engelländer,
die euch die grimmig blutge rache schwuren.' jungfr. von Orl. 5, 4;
'so ziehn wir aus zur Hermannsschlacht,
und wollen rache haben.'
Arndt ged. 194;
'die rache befriedigen, kühlen;
nachdem sein gegner schon
sich wieder aufgerafft, der itzt mit gierigen zügen
der rache wollust trank.'
Wieland 5, 107 (n. Amad. 15, 36);
'heisze, glühende, flammende, schnelle rache: alle rache, alle, alle glühende rache auf den verräther!' Göthe 10, 56;
'also Daphnis wurd beraubet
seiner kleider ohne sprach,
keinem wörtlein er erlaubet,
dachte keiner heiszen rach.'
Spee trutzn. 228, 120 Balke;
'so wachte schon dein muht, und eilte sonder ruh
auf die verwegne taht mit schneller rache zu.'
Drollinger 280;
'so lange loderte der rache schwarzes feuer
in keines gottes brust.'
Ramler poet. werke 1, 38;
'er sendet die boten
der flammenden rache
hinunter.'
Körner werke 2, 245;
'der verhaltnen rache schmerz
zernagte still mein wundes herz.'
Schiller zerstörung von Troja 15;
'bis dann sie (Kriemhild) zuletzt, durchs leben gestählt, durch glühende rache gehärtet,
graunvoll auftritt.'
Platen 302;
begierde, gelegenheit zur rache, scheu vor rache:
'gelegenheit zur rache erlangen, vindictae occasionem nancisci.' Steinbach 2, 274;
'vor begierde zur rache ganz vergehen, cupidine vindictae marcescere. ebenda; wie ein zorniger mensch ausz unbedachtsamer begierde zur rache, darinn er sich einige süszigkeit einbildet, den andern beleidiget.' Chr. Weise erzn. 224;
'aus scheu vor seiner eifersüchtigen
gemahlinn rache.'
Ramler poet. werke 2, 103;
tag, stunde, augenblick der rache:
'endlich, endlich,
nach jahren der erniedrigung, der leiden
ein augenblick der rache, des triumphs!'
Schiller M. Stuart 3, 5;
'doch wird der rache tag sich düster bläuen,
geladen mit des zorns gewittergluth.'
Arndt ged. 44;
'o süszer tag der rache!' 195;
strahl der rache:
'und es gestehn die bösewichter,
getroffen von der rache strahl.'
Schiller kraniche des Ibykus;
rache mit subjectivem genitiv:
'die rache eines feindes, eines erbitterten gegners; das ist des herrn rache.' Jer. 50, 15;
'die rache des heldensohns.' Klinger 4, 9;
'mit objectivem: las unter den heiden fur unser augen kund werden die rache des bluts deiner knechte.' ps. 79, 10;
'durch rache des erlittenen unrechts.' Butschky Patm. 732;
'wir sind schon um und um von seinem heer berennet
zur rache schnöder that und ungezählter schuld.'
Logau 1, 231, 66;
'rache den freiern zu bringen des unausstehlichen frevels.' Odyss. 3, 206;
'rache kommt auf einen, über einen: es gieng gleiche rache, beide uber herrn und knechte.' weish. Sal. 18, 11;
'sie erdachten allerlei abgötterei, bis die rache uber sie kam.' Sir. 47, 31;
'zur rache uber die ubeltheter, und zu lobe den frumen.' 1 Petr. 2, 14;
'alle, alle rache über den verräther!' Göthe 10, 61;
auch belebung des begriffs zeigt sich in gehobener rede:
'so bald der elende rüft, so hörets gott, und die rache wird eilend komen.' Sir. 21, 6;
'die hoffertigen hönen und spotten, aber die rache lauret auf sie, wie ein lewe.' 27, 31;
'so ruhet doch die rache bei ihm im steten gedächtnüsse.' Butschky Patm. 732;
'wie ich die dürstende rache in meinem busen fühle!' Göthe 10, 115;
'die rach ist vor der thür
mit noch viel härtern schlägen.'
H. Albert in den ged. des Königsberger dichterkreises s. 264;
'ach umsonst! die rache wacht
auch im schoosz der alten nacht!'
Stolberg 1, 49;
'schwebte nicht, wie über das aas der adler schwebt,
schwebte nicht so, sichtbar, über ihm die rache des herrn?' 89;
'doch wachte
meine rache noch, und fachte
meines zornes gluth.' 167;
'während ihn die rache sucht,
genieszt er seines frevels frucht.'
Schiller kraniche des Ibykus;
'denn alle schwere thaten, die bis jetzt geschehn,
sind nur des argwohns und der rache kinder.' braut von Messina v. 420.
7) rache, in ironischer verwendung, von der vergeltung eines unrechts durch edles verzeihen oder wolthat; in diesem sinne edle rache an einem nehmen;
'seine rache bestand in wolthaten, die er den kindern seines feindes zuwendete; verzeihen ist die beste rache.' Simrock sprichw. 437. vergl. DWB rächen 7.
8) rache, im namen einer krankheit:
'die brennet raach, carbunculus.' Dasyp.;
'anthrax, sacer ignis, die brennend rach.' derselbe;
'die brennende rache, sacer ignis,' Antoniusfeuer Frisch 2, 80b. '
Hellquist
Svensk etymologisk ordbok
'vräka, träns, och inträns.,
Old Swedish vræka (ipf. vrak, now vräkte; beside vraka, ipf. vrÅk, the latter formen remains in dialects and occasionally in the standard language, cf gräva and grava and see below),
trans. and intrans.:
drive (away), throw, reproache, take revenge =
Icelandic reka (ipf. rak), appr. id.,
Gothic wrikan, persecute,
Old Saxon wrekan, take revenge, punish,
OHG rehhan (German rächen, weak verb),
Old English wrecan, drive, take revenge etc. (English wreak);
from PIE *wreg-,
related to
Sanskrit parÄvÅ´j-, push away, vrájati, slipd,
Lithuanian var~gas, "misery", vérgas, "slave",
Old Slavic vrÄÅ¡ti, "throw", vragÅ, "enemy", etc.,
just as Latin urge:re, "urge"
(from PIE *wÅg-, see urgera-).-
Causative or iterative-intensive (in -eyÅ):
Old Swedish vrækia (partly perhaps = Icelandic ræ´kja) =
Icelandic rekja, följa, förfölja,
Gothic wrakjan, förfölja, osv.
Cf, with PIE e:,
Icelandic ræ´kja, "reject, detest", from ræ´kr, "repugnant", or else a causative formation -
Sanskrit (pra-)vrÄjáyati, "lets wander, expels" (of the samme type as eg. Icelandic svæ´fa, alternating with svefja, see söva);
with the same root vowel as
Old Saxon wrâka, "revenge, punishment",
OHG râhha (German rache),
cf vråk 2.
Old Swedish vrækia, bl. a. förebrå, hämnas, är kanske delvis identiskt med detta verb. -
Modern Swedish vräka domare, vittnen, jäva, utgÃ¥r frÃ¥n betyd, âdriva bort, förkastaâ; cf VGL I: konung.. vrækæ. -
Vräka sig, stoltsera, brösta sig, saknar direkta motsvar. i andra spr.; i Danish i stället bryste sig m. m. -
Om det hithörande Germanic abstr. *wrehti-, bl. a. i Swedish dialect vrätt, inringat område vid vargskall, se under det ej besläktade v re t slutet. -
Det starka vb. Old Swedish vraka, vrÅk är naturligtvis en annan bildning än det under vraka anförda Germanic svaga vb. *wrakÅn. -
Se f. ö. vrak and vråk 2.'
Dansk etymologisk ordbog
'<vrag> n.
1. (dialect) 'drifting with the current'.
2. 'something damaged drifting with the current; flotsam; ruined ship'.
3. (dialect) 'outcast';
Old Danish wrak,
Norwegian vrak,
Norwegian dialect rak,
Swedish vrak,
MLG wrak,
German Wrack (fra nty.),
OE wræc,
English wrack;
from Germanic *wraka- 'drifting; something drifting',
in ablaut relationship to *wreka- in ON rek n. 'persecution, being sued; wreck';
from the root in Germanic *wrekan strong verb 'push, drive, pursue' in
Old Danish wrækæ 'drift, throw, reject',
Norwegian diÂal. reka d.s.,
Old Swedish vræka,
Swedish vräka,
ON reÂka, præt. rak 'drive, hunt, pursue, push, reject',
Gothic wrikan 'pursue',
OS wrekan 'revenge, punish',
OHG rehhan,
German rächen weak verb 'revenge',
OE wrecan 'drive, revenge, progress',
English wreak 'revenge';
from PIE *wreg-, *werg-(?) 'push, throng, drive, pursue',
hvortil fx lat. urge:re 'urge' (freo. urgere). -
Cf. reje, vrage, vrags.
<vrage> v.
1. (dialect) 'drive'.
2. 'reject; criticize';
Old Danish wrakæ, Norwegian vrake, Swedish vraka.
Either a loan from
MLG wraken, German bracken,
from Germanic *wraÂkÅn, formed to the root of *wrekan (see under vrag),
or analogical reshaping of the verb derived from this,
Old Danish wræka
influenced by the noun vrag.
vrags adj. (dialect) 'which has been rejected, outcast; which should be rejected';
adjectivization of gen. of vrag, 3. -
Cf. aflægs, II. -s.'
Skeat calls
Middle English wrak "a wreck" 'a peculiar use of A.S. wræc "exile, expulsion"'.
Peculiar indeed. The same word is used for those evicted from their former property as for refuse made to drift with the current.
Grimm:
'BÃRGE, m. vas, sponsor, fidejussor,
OHG purgio, purigo (Graff 3, 177),
MHG bürge (Ben. 1, 164. 165),
Dutch borg;
The Gothic baurgja is ÏολίÏηÏ, bürger, citizen.
One says 'bürge sein, bürge werden, bürgen setzen, stellen, wollen, anrufen, fordern':
'ich wil bürge für in sein.' 1 Mos. 43, 9;
'ich bin bürge worden für den knaben.' 44, 32;
'ob du gleich einen bürgen fur mich woltest, wer wil fur mich geloben?' Hiob 17, 3;
'mein kind wirstu bürge fur deinen nehsten.' spr. Sal. 6, 1;
'wer für einen andern bürge wird, der wird schaden haben.' 11, 15;
'nim dem sein kleid, der fur einen andern bürge wird.' 20, 16;
'ein frommer man wird bürge für seinen nehesten, aber ein unverschämter läszt seinen bürgen stehen.' Sir. 29, 17;
'ich wil burg für disen sein, dasz sein rechter ernst ist.' Alberus wider Witzel M 4a;
's. Cosman und s. Damian werden bürg für alle böse geschwären und geschwulst.' bienenk. 184a;
'vil zeit nimbt bürg werden und borgen.'
H. Sachs II. 2, 74b;
'wenns übereilung war, so war es die
verzeihlichste, da bin ich für ihn bürge.'
Schiller 286a;
'wiszt, ich bin bürge worden für den ausgang,
mit meinem haupte haft ich für das seine.' 390a;
'ich machte noch kein fragment ausfündig, das mir für milde und ruhe zum bürgen stand.' J<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)