Go to originalLocalized version was produced by AI. It may contain inaccuracies.
Preparing document pages…
Page 1
DIEGO ARDOINO
Vilnius University
Research interests: Prussian language, ancient Baltic writing, (historical) grammar of Italian and Latin, philology, linguistics, dialectology, textual studies, codicology, paleography, comparative linguistics.
THE PRUSSIANS AND THE SO-CALLED BAVARIAN GEOGRAPHER BRUZI
The So-Called Bavarian Geographer’s Bruzi and Old Prussians
ANNOTATION
The prevailing view in scholarly literature is that the Prussian ethnonym first appeared in the form Bruzi in a short text written in Latin and found in a ninth-century manuscript traditionally attributed to the so-called Bavarian Geographer. A careful codicological and paleographic examination of the manuscript shows that the text was unquestionably inserted into it at a later date, while a detailed philological analysis allows a new hypothesis to be proposed about the region in which the Bruzi were settled.
KEYWORDS: Bavarian Geographer, Bruzi, Prussians, Descriptio civitatum et regionum, Baltic philology.
ANNOTATION
It is a widespread opinion in literature that the ethnonym Prussians is first encountered as the form Bruzi in a short Latin text kept in a manuscript dating back to the 9th century and traditionally attributed to the so-called Bavarian Geographer. An accurate codicological and palaeographical study of the manuscript shows that the text was definitely inserted at a later date and its thorough philological examination allows us to propose a new hypothesis on the region in which the Bruzi settled.
KEYWORDS: Bavarian Geographer, Bruzi, Old Prussians, Descriptio civitatum et regionum, Baltic philology.
Straipsniai / Articles
15
Page 2
DIEGO ARDOINO
In specialized Baltic philological literature, the so-called Bavarian Geographer is known above all because it is believed that he recorded the first ethnonym known today to designate the Prussians, referring to the inhabitants of a region consistently called Prussia in sources from the 13th century onward.
Here is what several prominent researchers write about this:
1) “The first name of the Prussians, prūs (‘Bruzi’), is read in the writings of the so-called Bavarian Geographer of the 9th century (see Łovmānska, Studia nad pocz. społ. i państwa lit. I 4⁷ and II 151).” (Endzelīns 1945: 39).
2) “The Prussians are first mentioned by this name in the 9th century: the Bruzi ‘Prussians’ of the so-called Bavarian Geographer. Later (around 965), the Spanish traveler Ibrahim-ibn-Jokūbas mentions the Prussians by the name Burūs” (Mažiulis 1966: 13–14).
3) „From the 9th century the name Prussian replaces the name Aestian last mentioned by Wulfstan (and perhaps transferred to the Estonians). The name Bruzi 'Prussians' is mentioned by the Bavarian geographer for the first time in the middle of the ninth century“ (Schmalstieg 1976: 3).
4) “Among the many other names in the Bavarian Geographer’s ‘description of the towns and regions of the northern Danube lands’ is the name Bruzi. [...] This is the first known mention of the name of the Prussians (9th c.)” (Kabelka 1982: 40).
5) “From the 9th century onward, the name Prussians appears in historical sources for the same western Balts in place of the Aestians. It is first mentioned in the 9th century by the so-called Bavarian Geographer (Bruzi)” (Zinkevičius 1984: 279).
6) “The designation of speakers of the Prussian language by the root *prūs- is first attested in the 9th century—Bruzi (Bavarian Geographer), that is, in the same century in which the population of these lands was last called ‘Aestians’ (Wulfstan); cf. the earliest Aesti in Tacitus” (Toporov 2006: 50).
7) “The name of the Prussians (the form Bruzi) is first mentioned in the 9th century in the writings of the so-called Bavarian Geographer” (LKE 2008: 439).
8) “The name of the Prussians is first encountered as the form Bruzi in the 9th century in The Bavarian Geographer (Zakrzewski 1917), and as the form Burūs (roughly in the year 965) in the Arabic works by Ibrāhim ibn Ja’kūb (Kowalski 1946, p. 147)” (Dini 2014: 327).
9) „Argumentuodamas jis¹ atkreipė dėmesį į seniausias šio gentvardžio istorinių šaltinių fiksacijas, turinčias šaknis pradžioje b-: Bavarų Geografo (IX a.) Bruzi“ (Karaliūnas 2015: 232).
All the scholars mentioned above2 emphasize two facts considered to be well established, reliable, and beyond doubt:
the ethnonym Bruzi was first mentioned in the ninth century;
this is the earliest known attestation of the ethnonym Prussians to date.
Thus, the Bavarian Geographer’s testimony is fundamentally important for two reasons:
because of the similarity between the formal ethnonym Bruzi (recorded by the Bavarian Geographer) and the later Prussians (widely attested from the thirteenth century onward), which led many scholars to identify the Bruzi with the Prussians;
because of the antiquity attributed to the attestation (ninth century). If the text attributed to the so-called Bavarian Geographer were, say, from the thirteenth century, it would not be so significant, since in the thirteenth century both the ethnonym Prussians and the choronym Prussia are mentioned in numerous other sources.
Several (obvious) points nevertheless need clarification. As we have just seen, the publications mentioned claim that the ethnonym Bruzi was first mentioned in the ninth century. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the document in which the form Bruzi is recorded is dated to the ninth century. More precisely still, the document in which the form Bruzi is recorded is generally dated to the ninth century and was written by an unknown author conventionally called the Bavarian Geographer.
One might now ask:
on what basis is it claimed that the document in which the form Bruzi is recorded should be dated to the ninth century?
Also:
can we be absolutely certain that the ethnonym Bruzi can be identified with the same tribes that have been designated by the ethnonym Prussians since the thirteenth century?
These are questions that are difficult (or impossible) to answer on the basis of linguistic considerations alone. There is only one way to answer them properly: a philological (that is, critical) analysis of the original document in which the ethnonym Bruzi is written. By the term philological analysis, I mean a critical examination of the document using the tools provided by philology: palaeography, codicology, textual criticism—in other words, textual editing.
When examining a more or less isolated gloss or attestation, linguists generally tend to focus immediately (and most often exclusively) on etymological and comparative research, and therefore often omit other kinds of considerations. The same happened with the ethnonym Bruzi.
2 The most recent handbook of Prussian studies makes the same claims: “The name Prussians is also attested in sources from the ninth century onward (cf. the Bavarian Geographer’s Bruzi in the ninth century, Ibrahim-ibn-Jokūb’s Burūs in the tenth century, Adam of Bremen’s Pruzzi in the eleventh century, the Primary Chronicle’s Поусы in the eleventh–twelfth centuries, etc.)” (Rinkevičius 2015: 14).
Straipsniai / Articles
17
Page 4
DIEGO ARDOINO
Kaip puikiai nurodo Simas Karaliūnas (Karaliūnas 2015: 226–237), baltų filologai, tyrinėję bavarų geografų liudijimą, nepavargino patikrinti dokumento datos ir Bruzi ~ prūsai tapatinimo pagrįstumo, susikoncentruodami daugiau į etimologinę ir lingvistinę formos Bruzi analizę.
Nevertheless, in cases such as the one under consideration, at least initially one should resist the appeal of etymological analysis and, having set it aside, undertake a careful philological, codicological, and palaeographical examination of the document containing the word in question.
Such modus operandi would provide a firmer basis for subsequent linguistic research and help prevent the dissemination of inaccurate (or, worse, entirely unfounded) information. As it travels from one publication to another, such information becomes uncontrollable and, after a few citations, is accepted tout court as true, thereby causing considerable harm to existing scholarship and future research.
Let us now turn to a description of the document attributed to the Bavarian Geographers.
The ethnonym Bruzi appears in a short (two-page) document known as:
Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii
(that is, “Description of the Fortresses and Regions on the Northern Side of the Danube” (see Fig. 1).
FIG. 1. The document’s incipit.
This is the document’s brief incipit (that is, its opening words, which later became the title of the entire document), whose unknown author was dubbed the Bavarian Geographers3 by the Polish writer Jan Potocki in 1796, because the text was discovered in Munich, in the Bavarian State Library (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek), then known as the Bibliotheca Regia Monacensis.
Descriptio civitatum et regionum is a Codex unicus (that is, the only surviving and known copy of this document), discovered in 1772 by the French historian and playwright Louis-Gabriel du Buat-Nançay on the last two folios (149v and 150r) of a parchment folio containing various texts on geometry and astronomy (held at the Staatsbibliothek München, shelfmark Clm 560).
3 For the Bavarian Geographer, see Zakrewski 1917; Von Keltsch 1886: 505–560; Fritze 1952: 326–341; Billig 1995: 27–67; Rossignol 2011: 305–316.
18
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV
Page 5
Vadinamo varų geografo Bruzi ir prūsai
FIG. 2. Descriptio civitatum et regionum page 149v.
Straipsniai / Articles
19
Page 6
DIEGO ARDOINO
FIG. 3. Descriptio civitatum et regionum page 150r.
20
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV
Page 7
Vadinamojo bavarų geografo Bruzi ir prūsai
Four codicological units of different dates can be distinguished in the codex, which the eminent paleographer Bernhard Bischoff4 assigned to the late ninth century (the last two) and the eleventh century (the first two). Descriptio civitatum et regionum is undoubtedly a later addition, datable to the tenth century (or somewhat later), which, in Bischoff’s5 view, was written by a scribe from southwestern Germany.
Descriptio civitatum et regionum (see Figs. 2 and 3) is a short6 and in many respects problematic document7: a list of fifty-eight peoples settled in the northern Danube region, which has become quite important to scholars of Slavic history, primarily because of its antiquity. For most ethnonyms, the corresponding number of civitates is usually given (the term civitas should probably be understood as referring to fortresses, rather than towns or territorial regions), and sometimes additional information is also provided.
Descriptio civitatum et regionum has a clear two-part structure. After the incipit, thirteen peoples are listed, followed by two clarifications:
Iste sunt regiones, que terminant in finibus nostris (see Fig. 4)
Isti sunt, qui iuxta istorum fines resident (see Fig. 5).
4 FIG. Descriptio civitatum et regionum page 149v, lines 15–16.
5 FIG. Descriptio civitatum et regionum page 149v, line 16.
The list continues to the end of the document, ending simply, ex abrupto, with the fifty-eighth people (Golensizi civitates V), without adding any further information or an explicit. Many of the peoples listed in the second part are not
6Descriptio comprises 26 lines on page 149v and 12 lines on page 150r. The ethnonym Bruzi is recorded on lines 5–6 of page 150r.
7 Franzas Brunhölzas (1996: 502–503) jam nesuteikia jokios literatūrinės svarbos.
Straipsniai / Articles
21
Page 8
DIEGO ARDOINO
known from nowhere else, and it is often difficult (or entirely impossible) to determine which people are meant. The number of civitates is not specified for some of these peoples, while for others it is enormous; at times, the information provided is speculative. Because of this inconsistency, it has been suggested that the second part of Descriptio civitatum et regionum was originally a separate text by another author. Setting aside the possibility of multiple redactions, one may argue that the way the second part of the text is arranged often reveals a certain imprecision on the part of the writer (or of a possible source he used). Moreover, it seems that the peoples are most often listed not according to geographical location, so it is very risky to treat them as (even approximate) geographical reference points. Without discussing the document further or its many ambiguities (primarily those concerning its sources and purposes), I would like to focus on the ethnonym Bruzi, which, as has been repeated many times, has for many years been regarded in Baltic and Slavic philological literature as the oldest attestation known today of the ethnonym Prussi.
In the text of Descriptio civitatum et regionum, Bruzi are the thirty-eighth people mentioned (see Fig. 6):
Bruzi: pluf ē undē: quādenia ad rhenū.
that is, Bruzi plus est undique quam de enisa ad rhenum.
Fig. 6. Descriptio civitatum et regionum, folio 150r, lines 5–6.
On the basis of all the descriptions of peoples mentioned by the Bavarian Geographer, the comment on the ethnonym Bruzi can be translated—or, more precisely, interpreted—as follows: the region inhabited by the Bruzi is larger in every respect than the region extending from the Enns to the Rhine.
Once again emphasizing at the outset that, in any case, all the hypotheses put forward on this subject must, for lack of data and evidence, be regarded as (more or less well-founded) conjectures, I will now attempt, on the basis of the translation just given, to understand (i.e. interpret) the Bavarian Geographer’s statement about the Bruzi.
That the word henu refers to the river Rhine (Latin Rhenus; German Rhein) seems indisputable. Since the Rhine is a river, it is likely that the word enisa could also name a river, lake, mountain, or another significant and readily identifiable landscape feature.
22
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV
Page 9
Vadinamo barų geografo Bruzi ir prūsai
In fact, enisa can be quite convincingly identified with the present-day River Enns (Enns in German), a southern tributary of the Danube that flows for about 250 km through Austrian territory (see Fig. 7).
7 FIG. Region stretching from the Rhine to the Enns.
The name of the Enns River is recorded in Latin in various forms: Anasus, Anis, Anesus (Forcellini 1828: 960); Anes, Enes, Ensa, Anas, Enes, Anis, Anisa (Graesse 1909: 17).
Descriptio civitatum et regionum | Graesse 1909: 17 | Forcellini 1828: 960 | Enisa | Anas | Anas | Anes | Anes | Anis | Anis | Anisa | Anesa | Enes | Enes
An exact correspondence has yet to be found, but the phonetic difference between the name enisa recorded by the Bavarian geographer and the variants Anisa, Enasa found in other sources is so subtle that it can be attributed to the usual variations among medieval scribes (names in other languages, whose sounds had no equivalents in Latin's phonetic and graphic inventory, were adapted in various ways to the Latin sound and writing systems).
Straipsniai / Articles
23
Page 10
DIEGO ARDOINO
that had no equivalents in the phonetic and graphic inventory were adapted in various ways to the phonetic and graphic systems of Latin), enisa can also be regarded as a Latin variant of the name of the River Enns.
A highly significant and noteworthy fact, hitherto overlooked, is that throughout the text of Descriptio civitatum et regionum, information of various kinds about other tribes is presented rather abstractly, in a vague context, without any connections or clues that would allow a mentioned tribe to be associated with a specific identifiable place or assigned to a particular period. Only the statement about the Bruzi provides clear geographical coordinates, on the basis of which the barbarians' territory can be determined fairly precisely. Moreover, it is worth noting that the straight-line distance between the Radstädter Tauern mountain range in Austria's Salzburg state (Land Salzburg), where the Enns rises, and Fubach, also in Austria, in the district of Bregenz (Bregenz), where the Rhine flows into Lake Constance (Bodensee), is about 300 km.
This is a considerable, yet not excessive, distance, making it quite plausible to identify the Enns geographically with enisa. So what, specifically, does the statement mean: the region inhabited by the Bruzi is considerably larger in every respect than the region extending from the Enns to the Rhine?
The precise location of the Bruzi region is not explicitly stated, but it is likely that, with his elliptical statement, the barbarian geographer meant that the region inhabited by the Bruzi was not merely the territory extending from the Enns to the Rhine: it was larger still and extended in all directions.
If we interpret the statement in this way—that the Bruzi lived in a certain undefined region larger on all sides than the territory between the Enns and the Rhine—it would be difficult to understand the purpose of giving such precise coordinates (de enisa ad rhenum) merely so that the reader could grasp the extent of the Bruzi tribal region from a specific example, without knowing where it actually was.
However, if we accept the hypothesis that the Bruzi lived in the territory between the Enns and the Rhine, identifying the Prussians with the Bruzi is also very difficult and unlikely, given the distance between this region and Prussia, that is, the territory between the Vistula, Nemunas, and Narew rivers. Doing so would require us to imagine that the Prussians had once settled in what is now southwestern Austria and southwestern Germany. In light of our present knowledge of linguistics, history, and archaeology, this seems impossible. However, because little is known, owing to the lack of written sources, about the large-scale movements of tribes and peoples across Europe in the Early Middle Ages (which radically altered Europe's earlier ethnic and linguistic landscape), categorical judgments should be avoided in the absence of conclusive evidence.
All the more so given that the ethnic composition of the Prussian region itself changed radically three times between the 13th and 20th centuries, a fact we could not even imagine without written sources.
24
Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXV
Page 11
Vadinamo barų geografo Bruzi ir prūsai
Likewise, with some difficulty or in the absence of written sources, we might understand that the same ethnonym Prussians, which in the Middle Ages designated Baltic tribes, later came to refer to the Lithuanians of Lithuania Minor and also, paradoxically, to the Germans who destroyed the Prussians, despite differing fundamentally from them in linguistic, cultural, and religious terms.
Returning to the Bavarian geographer’s statement about the Bruzi, another fairly significant fact must also be noted. Since the Enns is a southern tributary of the Danube, the territory between the Rhine and the Enns (at least in relation to the Enns River) lies on the southern bank of the Danube (see Fig. 7), which does not accord with the Bavarian geographer’s text, in which he describes the fortresses and lands on the northern bank of the Danube (Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam danubii). However, the phrase *undique* (“from all sides,” “comprehensively”) indicates that the region inhabited by the Bruzi tribe also extended northward, that is, onto the northern bank of the Danube, and it was precisely this qualification that enabled the Bavarian geographer to include the Bruzi in his list.
It should be added that Descriptio civitatum et regionum cannot be regarded as a highly accurate and unequivocally reliable source, since it is a text from the 10th–11th centuries and, moreover, not a clearly organized geographical treatise written by a trained author (which would make the source considerably more reliable), but rather a list (or brief summary) of regions and tribes, possibly compiled—or copied—by a scribe or student, which is important to us precisely because of its attributed date.
To sum up:
Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii, that is, the document in which the ethnonym Bruzi is recorded, dates not to the 9th century but to the 10th century or later. This means that it is probably not the earliest known attestation of the ethnonym Prussians, as has been thought until now, and therefore, in view of the chronological similarity, the ethnonym Bruzi recorded by the Bavarian geographer competes with the ethnonym Brūs8, also mentioned in the 10th century by the traveler Ibrāhīm ibn Jaʿkūb.
The Bavarian Geographer is an invented designation. In fact, we do not know who wrote Descriptio civitatum et regionum, but it is certain that this short list of peoples was written on the last page of a fully completed codex before it was finished, and that it has nothing to do with the codex’s contents, which form an astronomische und mathematische Sammelhandschrift.
The language of Descriptio civitatum et regionum is fairly consistent, though occasionally imprecise. This is a significant fact, probably indicating that Descriptio civitatum et regionum was hastily compiled, like a summary or outline, or as a précis of a longer text or several different texts, probably intended for someone
8 See Kowalski 1946: 147.
Straipsniai / Articles
25
Page 12
DIEGO ARDOINO
for personal, rather than public, use. This, of course, raises considerable doubts about the reliability of the information presented in it.
• It is likely that, in his rather elliptical statement about the Bruzi ethnonym, the Bavarian geographer actually meant to say that the region where the Bruzi settled was not only the territory stretching from the Enns to the Rhine, but also that this region was even larger, since it extended undique, i.e. in every direction.
• If this hypothesis is accepted, it would in fact be very difficult to associate the Prussians with the Bruzi ethnonym, since one would have to imagine that the Prussians once lived in what is now southwestern Austria and southwestern Germany.
LITERATŪRA
B e d n a r c z u k L e s z e k 1982: Onomastyka bałtycka w źródłach antycznych. – Acta Balto-Slavica 14, 49–66.
B i l l i g G e r h a r d 1995: Zur Rekonstruktion der ältesten slawischen Burgbezirke im obersächsisch-meißnischen Raum auf der Grundlage des Bayerischen Geographen. – Neues Archiv für sächsische Geschichte 66, 27–67.
B i s c h o f f B e r n h a r d 1960: Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in der Karolingerzeit I: Die Bayerischen Diözesen 2. Wiesbaden.
B i s c h o f f B e r n h a r d 1981: Bücher am Hofe Ludwigs des Deutschen und die Privatbibliothek des Kanzlers Grimald. – Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte 3, ed. by B. Bischoff. Stuttgart, 187–211.
B i s c h o f f B e r n h a r d 2004: Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen) 2. Wiesbaden, 221–222.
B r u n h ö l z F r a n z 1996: Historie de la littérature latine du Moyen Âge II De la fin de l’époque carolingienne au milieu du XIe siècle. Brepols, Louvain.
D i n i P i e t r o U m b e r t o 2014: Foundations of Baltic languages. Vilnius: Eugrimas.
E n d z e l ī n s J ā n i s 1945: Ievads baltu filoloģijā. Rīgā: Universitātes grāmatu apgāds.
F o r c e l l i n i E g i d i o 1828: Totius Latinitatis lexicon, consilio et cura Jacobi Facciolati opera et studio Aegidii Forcellini alumni seminarii patavini lucubratum edidit (...) Jacobus Bailey (...) volumen secundum. Londini.
F r i t z e W o l f g a n g H e r m a n n 1952: Die Datierung des Geographus Bavarus. – Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 21, Heft 2, 326–341.
26
A c t a L i n g u i s t i c a L i t h u a n i c a LXXV
Page 13
Vadinamo barų geografo Bruzi ir prūsai
Grasse Johan Georg Theodor 1909: Orbis latinus, oder Verzeichnis der wichtigsten lateinischen Orts- und Ländernamen von Dr. J. Th. Grasse. Ein Supplement zu jedem lateinischen und geographischen Wörterbuch. Auflage, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der mittelalterlichen und neueren Latinität neu bearbeitet von Friedrich Benedict. Berlin.
Kabelka Jonas 1982: Baltų filologijos įvadas. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Karaliūnas Simas 2015: Baltų etnonimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Kowalski Tadeusz 1946: Relacje Ibrahima ibn Ja’kūba z podróży do krajów słowiańskich w przekazie al-Bekriego (Pomniki dziejowe Polski, seria II, vol. 1). Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
LKE – Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2008.
Mažiulis Vytautas 1966: Prūsų kalbos paminklai. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Rinkevičius Vytautas 2015: Prūsitikos pagrindai. Vilnius: UAB Baltijos kopija.
Rossignol Sébastien 2011: Überlegungen zur Datierung des Traktates des sog. Bayerischen Geographen. – Der Wandel um 1000, hrsg. von F. Biermann, T. Kersting und A. Klamm. Beier & Beran, Langensbach, 305–316.
Schmalstieg William Riegel 1976: Studies in Old Prussian. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park and London.
Toporov 2006: Топоров Владимир Николаевич и др. Языки мира: Балтийские языки. Москва: Academia.
Von Keltsch Viktor 1886: Der bairische Geograph. – Altreussische Monatsschrift 23, 505–560.
Zakrzewski Stanisław 1917: Opis grodów i terytoriów z północnej strony Dunaju czyli t.z. Geograf bawarski. Lwów: Ossolineum.
Zinkevičius Zigmas 1984: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 1. Lietuvių kalbos kilmė. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Straipsniai / Articles
27
Page 14
DIEGO ARDOINO
The So-Called Bavarian Geographer’s Bruzi and Old Prussians
SUMMARY
It is a widespread opinion in literature that the ethnonym Prussians is first encountered as the form Bruzi in a short Latin manuscript discovered in the late 18th century and conserved in the Bavarian State Library. The manuscript is known as the Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii and consists of a list of 58 tribes located in Central and Eastern Europe. By the end of the 18th century its unknown author was referred to as Géographe de Bavière. The code is traditionally dated back to the 9th century; nevertheless, an accurate codicological and palaeographical study of the original text and its context shows that the Descriptio civitatum et regionum actually dates back to the 10th century or even later.
This calls into question whether Bruzi is truly the oldest record of the ethnonym Prussians known to date, since Ibrāhīm ibn Ja’qūb, a traveler (or a merchant) who traveled in Western and Central Europe in the mid-10th century, in the memoirs of his journey (which actually have been lost) registers the form Burūs, traditionally referred to Old Prussians too.
Moreover, a thorough philological examination of the whole Descriptio civitatum et regionum suggests to identify the term enisa with Enns River and to settle the Bruzi in a region whose central part is located between the Rhine and the Enns rivers.
However, this assumption would make it problematic to identify the ethnonym Bruzi with Old Prussians, since one should imagine that Old Prussians were once settled in the area of the current Southwestern Germany and Southern Austria.
Įteikta 2016 m. lapkričio 9 d.
DIEGO ARDOINO
Vilniaus Universiteto Filologijos fakulteto Romanų filologijos katedra
