He cites the passage from Caesar which I have quoted, and also Bell. Gall. iv. 1, which still applies only to the Suevi. His next evidence is the assertion of Tacitus just noticed. His third is from Plutarch’s Aemil. Paul. c. 12, of the Bastarnae: ἄνδρες οὐ γεωργεῖν εἰδότες, οὐ πλεῖν, οὐκ ἀπὸ ποιμνίων ζῆν νέμοντες, ἀλλ’ ἓν ἕργον καὶ μίαν τέχνην μελετῶντες, ἁεὶ μάχεσθαι καὶ κρατεῖν τῶν ἀντιταττομένων. A people without agriculture or commerce, and who live only on fighting, may be left undisturbed in the realm of dreams with which philosophers are conversant. Zeuss proceeds to reason upon the analogy of examples derived from notices of Britons, Kelts and Wends, in Strabo, Polybius and Dio Cassius. See p. 52, etc. Footnote 73: Thus, according to his view, Suevi (Suáp, Swǽf) denotes the wanderers; Wandal also the wanderers. Assuredly if nations at large partook of such habits, single tribes could not have derived a name from the custom. How much more easy would it be, upon similar etymological grounds, to prove that the leading Teutonic nations were named from their weapons! Saxons from _seax_, the long knife; Angles from _angol_, a hook; Franks from _franca_, a javelin; Langobards and Heaðobards from _barda_, the axe or halberd; nay even the general name itself, Germans, from _gárman_ (Old Germ. _kérman_) the javelin- or goad-man. Yet who would assert these to be satisfactory derivations? Zahn, whose services to Old German literature cannot be overrated, speaks wisely when he calls the similarity of proper names, a rock “on which uncritical heads are much in the habit of splitting.” Vorrede zu Ulphilas, p. 3. The word Mark has a legal as well as a territorial meaning: it is not only a space of land, such as has been described, but a member of a state also; in which last sense it represents those who dwell upon the land, in relation to their privileges and rights, both as respects themselves and others. But the word, as applied even to the territory, has a twofold meaning: it is, properly speaking, employed to denote not only the whole district occupied by one small community[74]; but more especially those forests and wastes by which the arable is enclosed, and which separate the possessions of one tribe from those of another[75]. The Mark or boundary pasture-land, and the cultivated space which it surrounds, and which is portioned out to the several members of the community, are inseparable; however different the nature of the property which can be had in them, they are in fact one whole; taken together, they make up the whole territorial possession of the original _cognatio_, kin or tribe. The ploughed lands and meadows are guarded by the Mark; and the cultivator ekes out a subsistence which could hardly be wrung from the small plot he calls his own, by the flesh and other produce of beasts, which his sons, his dependents or his serfs mast for him in the outlying forests. ----- Footnote 74: