Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Beowolf--the Goth?

Expand Messages
  • Troels Brandt
    I am not able to participate in this discussion now as I am leaving for a week, but I need to comment Albareik s quotation of my homepage
    Message 1 of 22 , Jan 13, 2001
      I am not able to participate in this discussion now as I am leaving
      for a week, but I need to comment Albareik's quotation of my
      homepage http://www.geocities.com/troels_brandt/heruls.html
      which could be misunderstood.

      --- In gothic-l@egroups.com, "sunburst" <sunburst@j...> wrote:
      ...
      > Also it might be noted that Hrothgar's nephew Hrothwulf (Hrolf
      Krake) has
      > been identified as King Roduulf of the Heruli. The reference, is, I
      > believe, to be found in the Troels Brandt's article "Hypothesis of
      the
      > Heruls." If this is true, what does that say about the origin of
      the
      > Scyldings? If the line of descent could be considered accurate,
      (which may
      > be doubtful), that might place the origin of Scyld Scefing in the
      Tanais
      > region. Could the story of Beowulf be of east Germanic origin?
      All of the
      > main east Germanic heroes are at least mentioned in Beowulf. If
      so, it
      > could have been brought to Scandinavia in the remigration of the
      Heruls.

      Actually the first sentence is only a reference to Niels Lukman, who
      claimed the Danish king Rolf Krake never existed. He claimed the
      legends of Rolf Krake to be copies of the legends of the Herulian
      king Roduulf living in Pannonia around 500 AD. This is not my opinion
      if you read my homepage "The Heruls" – although a few
      legends
      following the Heruls of Procopios might be mixed up by later
      chroniclers. Rolf was very early mentioned in Widsith as a Danish
      king together with his uncle Hrodgar (Roar), and the "Style
      II" and the boar crests of helmets found in boat graves both in
      the
      Uppsala-region of Sweden and Mercia/East Anglia indicate together
      with the Beowulf poem a connection between this English region and
      Scandinavia in the 6th and 7th century – maybe because of kinship
      between the dynasties.

      I regard the poem of Beowulf to be independent fragments of
      Scandinavian history and certain events from the Channel Region
      framing the fairytale of the hero Beowulf. He is not mentioned
      anywhere else and the only role of this mythical hero is to kill
      dragoons. Does this connecting link sound historical?

      Chochillaicus was obviously a historical person who got his history
      incorporated in Beowulf as Hugleik, but this does not necessarily
      mean he is connected to the other historical persons in the poem. In
      poems like Widsith the key figure is also meeting historical persons
      never connected at all and living in different times.

      Please notice that the necklace of Hugleik (probably a symbol of
      royalty) in Beowolf was connected to the Ostrogothic king Ermanaric
      living in the Black Sea region in the 4th century, where he defeated
      the Herulian king Alaric.

      Chocillaicus might as example be a Western Herul, a Visigothic
      chieftain migrating after the defeat in Southern France in 507 or a
      chieftain from one of the "Danish" tribes joining the invasion of
      England - and we do not know if he lived in England, Frisia or
      Denmark. Often later chroniclers had difficulties separating the
      origin of the attacking Germanic people of Northern Europe.

      Could the name Beowulf - the mythical hero - be a combination of bear
      and wulf?

      My "Hypotheses of the Heruls" - including the line from Pannonia to
      Scandinavia - is not dependent of connections between England and
      Scandinavia.

      Troels Brandt
    • sig
      Here is the site that inspired me to start this thread on Beowulf: http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/plus/beowulf.html From the Introduction: Beowulf the inventable
      Message 2 of 22 , Jan 13, 2001
        Here is the site that inspired me to start this thread on Beowulf:

        http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/plus/beowulf.html

        From the Introduction:
        Beowulf the inventable
        ====================================================
        The matter of this webscreed is simple enough: to introduce (or
        forward) the
        notion that the Beowulf-hero, the central character in the Old
        English epic, is
        fictional than historical, and the Beowulf-poem a composite of
        narrative
        invention, making only light use of pre-existing legendary
        detail or written
        sources.
        ====================================================
        It prints out on 19 pages. If someone wants it I'll be glad to
        send the file
        as an atachement to your private mail adress.

        Sig

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • M. Carver
        Maybe someone could come up with Gothic versions of all the names in Beowulf? Matþaius
        Message 3 of 22 , Jan 14, 2001
          Maybe someone could come up with Gothic versions of all the names in
          Beowulf?

          Matþaius

          on 1/14/01 3:26 PM, Philip Rusche at ruschep@... wrote:

          > The name Beowulf is "Bee-wolf", usually taken to mean a bear, since bears
          > like honey and are thus around bees.
          >
          > Philip Rusche
          >
          >>
          >> Could the name Beowulf - the mythical hero - be a combination of bear
          >> and wulf?
          >>
          >> Troels Brandt
          >
          >
          >
          > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
          > <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>.
          > Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html
          >
          >
        • Philip Rusche
          The name Beowulf is Bee-wolf , usually taken to mean a bear, since bears like honey and are thus around bees. Philip Rusche
          Message 4 of 22 , Jan 14, 2001
            The name Beowulf is "Bee-wolf", usually taken to mean a bear, since bears
            like honey and are thus around bees.

            Philip Rusche

            >
            >Could the name Beowulf - the mythical hero - be a combination of bear
            >and wulf?
            >
            >Troels Brandt
          • andreas.schwarcz@univie.ac.at
            ... Sorry to disappoint you, but Normandy never was part of the Visigothic kingdom. Nominally it may have been part of the realm of Syagrius (a Roman,
            Message 5 of 22 , Jan 14, 2001
              On 13 Jan 2001, at 2:19, sig wrote:

              > Thank you Frank,
              >
              > I notice that none of these suggestions involve any Gothic
              > leadership,
              > which in a way is surprising, given the fact that this southern
              > outpost of Frisian territory was surrounded by Franks but, most of
              > all, no farther away than Normandy were the Visigoths in their
              > kingdom (or was it Svagrius?).
              >
              Sorry to disappoint you, but Normandy never was part of the
              Visigothic kingdom. Nominally it may have been part of the realm of
              Syagrius (a Roman, therefore not Svagrius), afterwards under the
              suzerainty of Clovis.
              Regards
              Andreas Schwarcz
              ao.Univ.Prof.Dr.Andreas Schwarcz
              Institut fuer oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung
              Universitaet Wien
              Dr.Karl-Lueger-Ring 1
              A 1010 Wien
              Oesterreich
              tel.0043/1/42-77/272-16
              fax 0043/1/42-77/92-72
              email andreas.schwarcz@...
            • jdm314@aol.com
              In a message dated 1/14/01 10:02:25 PM, you wrote: A couple of them
              Message 6 of 22 , Jan 14, 2001
                In a message dated 1/14/01 10:02:25 PM, you wrote:

                <<Maybe someone could come up with Gothic versions of all the names in

                Beowulf?


                Mat aius>>


                A couple of them were done by David Salo back in his Gothic lessons.
              • Frank Kermes
                ... Mainly because Gregory (that _is_ who I meant by Greg, BTW ;)--I get silly sometimes when all I do is read!) said Hygelac (Chocillaicus) was a _Dane_, and
                Message 7 of 22 , Jan 15, 2001
                  > > I notice that none of these suggestions involve any Gothic
                  > > leadership,
                  > > which in a way is surprising, given the fact that this southern
                  > > outpost of Frisian territory was surrounded by Franks but, most of
                  > > all, no farther away than Normandy were the Visigoths in their
                  > > kingdom (or was it Svagrius?).

                  Mainly because Gregory (that _is_ who I meant by Greg, BTW ;)--I get silly
                  sometimes when all I do is read!) said Hygelac (Chocillaicus) was a _Dane_,
                  and Gregory clearly knew who the Visigoths and Ostrogoths were, having used
                  those names throughout his history.

                  The other possibilities for his usage were, I think, already touched upon
                  when Matt mentioned Toefler and Hrothulf = Hrolf Kraki, and Troels I think,
                  too.

                  Niels Lukman was the first scholar I read (though not the first to write, I
                  don't think) who related the Scyldingas of Beowulf to the Heruls basically
                  in the territory of Dacia--Dacians becoming confused with Danes, and
                  resulting in the "importation" of these Heruli into Danish legend.

                  So could it have been at all possible that Chocillaicus and his "Danes" were
                  re-migrating Heruli? I hesitate to strongly endorse that opinion, as weak
                  as it is, but <shrug.>

                  Although: Wulfgar, Hrothgar's coastguard is refered to as "Wendla leod" in
                  line 348, which could be "prince of the Vendels" (Scandinavian/N Germanic)
                  or "Vandals," E. Germanic, Hrothgar mentions _somewhere_ that he hired
                  Gepidic mercenaries, though I can't remember where.

                  Basically, I think (as has already been mentioned) that Beowulf is a
                  collection of various threads of oral tradition--Roduulf the Heruli
                  cheiftain killed by Langobards is one thread that was adopted into Danish
                  legend, and Hygelac may have been another thread, with little connection to
                  the historical Dane of Gregory of Tours, much like the Dietrich von Bern's
                  connections with the history Theoderic--and Hygelac's necklace of the
                  Brosings was stolen from Eormenric by Hama, possibly _not_ the Ermanareiks
                  of history, but (already) the legendary Ermenerich and Heime of the Dietrich
                  cycle.

                  To matters Gothic, someone mentioned Eadgils as equivalent to an Attila;
                  (and I _know_ that it's not necessarily the Hun!) Attila is a Gothic
                  diminuitive, with corresponding ON Atli and MHG Etzel; but while Eadgils
                  corresponds phonologicaly (kind of), it's still a duotheme, Ead-, plus
                  -gils, which in other Germanic languages (cf. Frankish names) is -gisl. And
                  Eadgils corresponds to the Yngling Adhisl at the same time the language
                  contain "Atli." It's not inconceivable that the language have two
                  corresponding forms of the same name, but the fact that Eadgils has a
                  semantic meaning (significant or not) persuades me otherwise.

                  Same problem I have with Lukman's idea that Healfdene/Halfdan = the Hun
                  Uldin.

                  Cheers (and sorry that it was only tangetially Gothic)
                  Frank
                  _________________________________________________________________
                  Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
                • sig
                  Re Beowulf, The super-sceptics at http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/plus/beowulf.html make big noice about this name as being invented without cognates in the
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jan 15, 2001
                    Re Beowulf,

                    The super-sceptics at
                    http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/plus/beowulf.html
                    make big noice about this name as being invented without cognates
                    in the Scandinavian sphere.

                    However, in the runic database I found this name on a rune stone:
                    Baulf.
                    As for the Ba- part, it's shredding as much (or meagre) light on
                    its meaning as Beo- but very unlikely bee- (Swe. 'bi', as
                    suggested by Phil).

                    As for the -ulf part there is no reason to seek any other meaning
                    than -wulf/wolf (the ortographic problem is the same as that for
                    Wulfila vs Ulfila).

                    Keth has already given several Norwegian name cognates:
                    > In Norway we have "Berulf" which is quite common.
                    > Also "Bergulfr", "Bjorgulfr" (Thulur).
                    > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
                    > "Bjolfr" (Bjúfr, Bjúgr, Bjúg)
                    > (The various forms are quoted from the ON dictionary)


                    Respectfully,

                    Seigmund


                    Philip Rusche wrote:
                    >
                    > The name Beowulf is "Bee-wolf", usually taken to mean a bear, since bears
                    > like honey and are thus around bees.
                    >
                    > Philip Rusche
                    >
                    > >
                    > >Could the name Beowulf - the mythical hero - be a combination of bear
                    > >and wulf?
                    > >
                    > >Troels Brandt
                    >
                    > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>.
                    > Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • trbrandt@post9.tele.dk
                    I am sorry I am a little late to take up this thread again. Just before leaving two weeks ago I sent a mail, where I referred to Ermaneric in the discussion
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jan 27, 2001
                      I am sorry I am a little late to take up this thread again. Just
                      before leaving two weeks ago I sent a mail, where I referred to
                      Ermaneric in the discussion about the Geats. As I have not seen any
                      reactions I will try to explain a little more.

                      In Beowulf we can read:

                      "......
                      Ne'er heard I so mighty, 'neath heaven's dome,
                      a hoard-gem of heroes, since Hama bore
                      to his bright-built burg the Brisings' necklace,
                      jewel and gem casket. -- Jealousy fled he,
                      Eormenric's hate: chose help eternal.
                      Hygelac Geat, grandson of Swerting,
                      on the last of his raids this ring bore with him,
                      under his banner the booty defending,
                      the war-spoil warding; but Wyrd o'erwhelmed him
                      what time, in his daring, dangers he sought,
                      feud with Frisians. Fairest of gems
                      he bore with him over the beaker-of-waves,
                      sovran strong: under shield he died.
                      Fell the corpse of the king into keeping of Franks,
                      gear of the breast, and that gorgeous ring;
                      weaker warriors won the spoil,
                      after gripe of battle, from Geatland's lord,
                      and held the death-field.
                      ......"
                      http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgibin/browse-mixed?
                      id=AnoBeow&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/lv1/Archive/eng-
                      parsed

                      Why did the author connect the Geatic king Hugleik dying in Frisia
                      around 520 AD with the Ostrogothic king Ermaneric dying in the Black
                      Sea region around 375 AD - and the mythical Hama? Why should we care
                      about Ermaneric and Brisings' necklace unless they represent the
                      background of our hero?

                      Once this necklace - Brisingamen/The sun - was probably told to
                      belong to Freja, but in the Christian version this cannot be the
                      reason. Even to day elected mayors and chairmen of clubs sometimes
                      wear a golden chain as a symbol of power. The royal crown was without
                      doubt earlier a ring around the neck (or sometimes a helmet?).
                      Ingemar Norgren has written an article about the ring as an important
                      Germanic symbol of oath and power. The above mentioned necklace in
                      Beowulf was probably the "crown" of the people of Hugleik -
                      the
                      unknown Geats.

                      If so the authors idea behind the Geats could be that they had been
                      in contact with Ermaneric near the Black Sea region.

                      In a report from the camp of Attila all the followers of the Huns
                      were called Goths by Priscus, and in cronicles from that time (a.o.
                      Jordanes) Goths in the Dacian region were sometimes confused with the
                      Getes, who were an earlier Tracian tribe like the Dacians.

                      The episode of Hugleik took place 50 years after the army of Attila
                      was disbanded. At this time Gregory of Tours called the people of
                      Hugleik Dani and Liber Monstrorum called them Getorum.

                      Around 1000 AD Dudo wrote: "... the Getae, also known as Goths,
                      Sarmatians and Amacsobii, Tragoditae and Alans ...".
                      (http://orb.rhodes.edu/ORB_done/Dudo/chapter02.html ). These people
                      seem to be followers of the Huns together with Rugians, Heruls and
                      Gepides. He also told about Danes being Dacians from Dacia, where
                      both Attila, the Goths and the Getes settled.

                      Dudo wrote his "Gesta Normannorum" at the same time as our
                      version of Beowulf was written down. Are the names in our version of
                      Beowulf based on the same information as Dudo? Were the Geats of
                      Hugleik a Gothic tribe or one of the tribes Ermaneric subdued?

                      Are our problems with the Geats/Getes/Getae/Getorum all results of
                      the same old and wellknown mistake?

                      This makes the Geats a tribe with Eastgermanic connections settled
                      around the Bay of Helgoland from Jutland to the Rhine or in England.
                      Therefore they could tell about Beowulf swimming home. However we
                      should not expect a tribe from this area to fight against the Swedes
                      around Uppsala as well as we should not expect a tribe from Western
                      Sweden attacking the Francs as early as around 500. Therefore the
                      narrator of Beowulf must also have mixed up stories about Hugleik and
                      the Geats with Scandinavian stories about the Swedish Goetes.

                      Just an idea! It includes of course many misunderstandings and many
                      unreliable historians - but this has always been the problem with the
                      dragonkiller Beowulf.

                      Troels Brandt
                    • andreas.schwarcz@univie.ac.at
                      ... Hello Troels Brandt, I like your conclusions and I think you are right. We must not forget that a heroic poem is not historiography and that it may use
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jan 28, 2001
                        On 28 Jan 2001, at 0:56, trbrandt@... wrote:

                        > Why did the author connect the Geatic king Hugleik dying in Frisia
                        > around 520 AD with the Ostrogothic king Ermaneric dying in the Black
                        > Sea region around 375 AD - and the mythical Hama? Why should we care
                        > about Ermaneric and Brisings' necklace unless they represent the
                        > background of our hero?

                        > Are our problems with the Geats/Getes/Getae/Getorum all results of
                        > the same old and wellknown mistake?
                        >
                        > This makes the Geats a tribe with Eastgermanic connections settled
                        > around the Bay of Helgoland from Jutland to the Rhine or in England.
                        > Therefore they could tell about Beowulf swimming home. However we
                        > should not expect a tribe from this area to fight against the Swedes
                        > around Uppsala as well as we should not expect a tribe from Western
                        > Sweden attacking the Francs as early as around 500. Therefore the
                        > narrator of Beowulf must also have mixed up stories about Hugleik and
                        > the Geats with Scandinavian stories about the Swedish Goetes.
                        >
                        > Just an idea! It includes of course many misunderstandings and many
                        > unreliable historians - but this has always been the problem with the
                        > dragonkiller Beowulf.
                        >
                        > Troels Brandt

                        Hello Troels Brandt,
                        I like your conclusions and I think you are right. We must not forget
                        that a heroic poem is not historiography and that it may use
                        teleological means and shortenings for its story. It may take peoples
                        and persons from the fourth century and make them close relatives
                        of persons in the fifth. It tells us something about tradition, but
                        nothing about actual genealogy or family relations.
                        Regards
                        Andreas Schwarcz
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>.
                        > Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html
                        >


                        ao.Univ.Prof.Dr.Andreas Schwarcz
                        Institut fuer oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung
                        Universitaet Wien
                        Dr.Karl-Lueger-Ring 1
                        A 1010 Wien
                        Oesterreich
                        tel.0043/1/42-77/272-16
                        fax 0043/1/42-77/92-72
                        email andreas.schwarcz@...
                      • Tim O'Neill
                        I m coming to this a little late, so forgive me if I m asking questions which have already been answered. trbrandt@post9.tele.dk wrote: [The Ermanaric/Hama
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jan 28, 2001
                          I'm coming to this a little late, so forgive me if I'm
                          asking questions which have already been answered.

                          trbrandt@... wrote:

                          [The Ermanaric/Hama episode passage snipped]

                          > Why did the author connect the Geatic king Hugleik dying in Frisia
                          > around 520 AD with the Ostrogothic king Ermaneric dying in the Black
                          > Sea region around 375 AD - and the mythical Hama? Why should we care
                          > about Ermaneric and Brisings' necklace unless they represent the
                          > background of our hero?

                          I'm very puzzled by this. It's a common technique in OE
                          poetry to emphasise the significance of a point or deed
                          by drawing a parallel between it and a similar element in
                          an older story. We see this in several places in Beowulf,
                          such as where his feats against Grendel and his Mother
                          are compared to the dragon fight of Sigemund.

                          In this passage the narrator makes it clear that he's
                          making such a 'renown comparison' when he says:

                          'Ne'er heard I so mighty, 'neath heaven's dome,
                          a hoard-gem of heroes, since Hama bore
                          to his bright-built burg the Brisings' necklace,
                          jewel and gem casket.'

                          He's comparing Hygelac's hoard with the legendary
                          story of the theft of Ermanaric's treasure by the
                          adventurer Hama, and drawing on the associations and
                          resonances that story has by evoking the tale and
                          giving a exposition on its main points.

                          There's no indication that this story represents 'the
                          background of our hero' - it's a reference to and
                          evocation of a story which was common knowledge throughout
                          the Germanic world. The Beowulf poet's English audience
                          would have been familiar with the Ermanaric/Hama story
                          already.

                          > Once this necklace - Brisingamen/The sun - was probably told to
                          > belong to Freja, but in the Christian version this cannot be the
                          > reason.

                          The 'Brosinga mene' of Beowulf and the 'Brisinga men' of
                          ON myth seem to be related in some way, though there's no
                          indication that the OE version of the story paralleled the
                          later, mythological version we find in the ON corpus.

                          > Even to day elected mayors and chairmen of clubs sometimes
                          > wear a golden chain as a symbol of power. The royal crown was without
                          > doubt earlier a ring around the neck (or sometimes a helmet?).
                          > Ingemar Norgren has written an article about the ring as an important
                          > Germanic symbol of oath and power.

                          All quite true.

                          > The above mentioned necklace in
                          > Beowulf was probably the "crown" of the people of Hugleik -
                          > the unknown Geats.

                          Sorry, I can't see your reasoning behind this. The poet
                          tells us of a great treasure and then compares it to
                          another great treasure of legend - the treasure stolen
                          by Hama from Ermanaric which included the 'Brosinga mene'.
                          He is clearly referring obliquely to another legend of
                          treasure from long ago - he doesn't imply any connection
                          between Hygelac and the Geats and Ermanaric or Ermanaric's
                          treasure. To interpret the passage this way is a bit like
                          taking a WWII journalist's figurative comment that
                          Winston Churchill was 'the greatest British leader since
                          King Arthur' as being historical evidence Churchill was
                          keeper of the Holy Grail.

                          In other words, you seem to be overinterpreting a literary
                          device. Beowulf is *literature* and should not be read
                          too closely as *history*.

                          I also don't understand what you mean by 'the unknown
                          Geats'. We don't know much about them, but they are
                          referred to, with Hygelac, as a southern Scandinavian
                          people in a number of sources other than Beowulf.
                          There's no connection between them and the Goths of
                          Ermanaric's Ukrainian kingdom that I can see.

                          > If so the authors idea behind the Geats could be that they had been
                          > in contact with Ermaneric near the Black Sea region.

                          ??? But the author doesn't say or imply anything like
                          that. He makes a literary digression for poetic
                          effect. The only connection between the Ermanaric
                          story and that of the Geats is the *poetic*
                          comparison of the size and richness of the treasures
                          being discussed. The poet makes no connection between
                          the Scandinavian Geats and the far off kingdom and
                          ancient kingdom of Ermanaric.

                          > In a report from the camp of Attila all the followers of the Huns
                          > were called Goths by Priscus,

                          ???
                          Priscus makes it clear that there were many Goths in
                          Attila's camp, but that's not the same as saying all
                          Attila's followers 'were called Goths'.

                          > and in cronicles from that time (a.o.
                          > Jordanes) Goths in the Dacian region were sometimes confused with the
                          > Getes, who were an earlier Tracian tribe like the Dacians.

                          Which was a common confusion at the time. These Thracian
                          Getae had nothing to do with the Goths, who in turn had
                          little to do with the Scandinavian Geats, though the Goths
                          and Geats may have once shared a common, cultic origin in
                          Scandinavia many centuries before.

                          > The episode of Hugleik took place 50 years after the army of Attila
                          > was disbanded. At this time Gregory of Tours called the people of
                          > Hugleik Dani and Liber Monstrorum called them Getorum.

                          The episode recorded by Gregory of Tours and its
                          parallels elsewhere, including in Beowulf, all make it
                          clear that Hygelac was a *Scandinavian* king of a
                          *Scandinavian* people. Are you saying that they were
                          refugees from Attila's kingdom and came from the
                          steppes?

                          In ships? ;>

                          > Around 1000 AD Dudo wrote: "... the Getae, also known as Goths,
                          > Sarmatians and Amacsobii, Tragoditae and Alans ...".
                          > (http://orb.rhodes.edu/ORB_done/Dudo/chapter02.html ). These people
                          > seem to be followers of the Huns together with Rugians, Heruls and
                          > Gepides. He also told about Danes being Dacians from Dacia, where
                          > both Attila, the Goths and the Getes settled.

                          Such folk etymological confusions are common in writers
                          of this period, especially when writers tried to account
                          for 'new' peoples (like the Danes) by having them
                          descended from 'known' peoples (like the Dacians). This
                          was done because it was thought the ancient authorities
                          on ethnography couldn't have simply been ignorant of these
                          'new' peoples, so they had to be simply offshoots of
                          peoples 'known' through the ancient sources. Unlikely
                          etymological connections like 'Danes=Dacians' were thus
                          invented.

                          > Dudo wrote his "Gesta Normannorum" at the same time as our
                          > version of Beowulf was written down. Are the names in our version of
                          > Beowulf based on the same information as Dudo?

                          There's every indication that Hygelac, the Geats etc
                          and the cycle of tales about their wars with the
                          Swedes had been part of the nother western Germanic
                          oral literature since the sixth century and had
                          found its way to England with some of the earliest
                          Germanic invaders. Everything about these legends
                          indicate that they have their origins in some obscure
                          tribal wars in Scandinavia and I can't see any evidence
                          in the poem or in the extensive scholarly literature
                          on the subject of the Geat/Swede elements in the poem
                          that it has anything to do with far off Gothic
                          kingdoms rather than its clear Scandinavian setting.


                          > Were the Geats of
                          > Hugleik a Gothic tribe or one of the tribes Ermaneric subdued?

                          Given that every piece of information we have about
                          the Geats indicate that they were a southern
                          Scandinavian tribe, I don't think so.

                          > This makes the Geats a tribe with Eastgermanic connections settled
                          > around the Bay of Helgoland from Jutland to the Rhine or in England.
                          > Therefore they could tell about Beowulf swimming home. However we
                          > should not expect a tribe from this area to fight against the Swedes
                          > around Uppsala as well as we should not expect a tribe from Western
                          > Sweden attacking the Francs as early as around 500. Therefore the
                          > narrator of Beowulf must also have mixed up stories about Hugleik and
                          > the Geats with Scandinavian stories about the Swedish Goetes.

                          Gregory the Great, the _Gesta Francorum_ and several other
                          sources, including Beowulf, make it clear the raiders
                          under Hygelac came from Scandinavia. I can't see anything
                          in what you've written to make that seem in any way
                          unlikely and I can't see any reason to think the Geats
                          had anything to do with the Goths of Ermanaric.

                          > Just an idea!

                          Interesting, but Beowulf scholars have been going over
                          that poem and all of its analogue material for centuries
                          now. If there was any hint of what you're suggesting I'm
                          sure someone would have noticed. The fact that the
                          Ermanaric passage you place so much weight on is not
                          an historical connection with Hygelac at all but a
                          literary device seems to me to weaken your case quite
                          a bit.

                          But I have come to this thread a little late, so
                          maybe I missed some other evidence.
                          Cheers,

                          Tim O'Neill
                        • Tore Gannholm
                          Troels, Perhaps it is not so strange. Theoderik tried to get all possible support from relatives and friends in the Baltic area to help him fight the Franks.
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jan 28, 2001
                            Troels,
                            Perhaps it is not so strange.
                            Theoderik tried to get all possible support from relatives and friends in
                            the Baltic area to help him fight the Franks.
                            If Hugleik leads a Gotlandic-Danish army in Frisia, Gregor of Tours might
                            see them as Dani.

                            If we accept that Beowulf is about Gotland and that the Goths emigrated
                            from Gotland, all this with the Brisinga necklace and Frisland makes sense.
                            We must not forget the Gotlandic tradition with golden necklaces. The
                            famous Havor necklace from the first century that was stolen from the
                            Gotlandic museum (Fornsalen) and still is missing.

                            A similar golden necklace can be seen on a mosaic with Alexander the Great
                            called the Alexander Mosiac from Pompeij or Herculaneum. It is now on a
                            wall in the museum in Naples Italy. It depicts the Perser king Dareus with
                            the golden necklace as the symbol of power.

                            Furthermore the latest theories from the University of Uppsala is that the
                            similar golden necklaces such as the one found at Vittinge in Västergötland
                            also are made in Gotland. (Fornvännen 1996/1 Sagan om ringarna av Erik
                            Nylén)
                            Tore



                            >
                            >Why did the author connect the Geatic king Hugleik dying in Frisia
                            >around 520 AD with the Ostrogothic king Ermaneric dying in the Black
                            >Sea region around 375 AD - and the mythical Hama? Why should we care
                            >about Ermaneric and Brisings' necklace unless they represent the
                            >background of our hero?
                            >
                            >Once this necklace - Brisingamen/The sun - was probably told to
                            >belong to Freja, but in the Christian version this cannot be the
                            >reason. Even to day elected mayors and chairmen of clubs sometimes
                            >wear a golden chain as a symbol of power. The royal crown was without
                            >doubt earlier a ring around the neck (or sometimes a helmet?).
                            >Ingemar Norgren has written an article about the ring as an important
                            >Germanic symbol of oath and power. The above mentioned necklace in
                            >Beowulf was probably the "crown" of the people of Hugleik -
                            >the
                            >unknown Geats.
                            >
                            >If so the authors idea behind the Geats could be that they had been
                            >in contact with Ermaneric near the Black Sea region.
                            >
                            >In a report from the camp of Attila all the followers of the Huns
                            >were called Goths by Priscus, and in cronicles from that time (a.o.
                            >Jordanes) Goths in the Dacian region were sometimes confused with the
                            >Getes, who were an earlier Tracian tribe like the Dacians.
                            >
                            >The episode of Hugleik took place 50 years after the army of Attila
                            >was disbanded. At this time Gregory of Tours called the people of
                            >Hugleik Dani and Liber Monstrorum called them Getorum.
                            >
                            >Around 1000 AD Dudo wrote: "... the Getae, also known as Goths,
                            >Sarmatians and Amacsobii, Tragoditae and Alans ...".
                            >(http://orb.rhodes.edu/ORB_done/Dudo/chapter02.html ). These people
                            >seem to be followers of the Huns together with Rugians, Heruls and
                            >Gepides. He also told about Danes being Dacians from Dacia, where
                            >both Attila, the Goths and the Getes settled.
                            >
                            >Dudo wrote his "Gesta Normannorum" at the same time as our
                            >version of Beowulf was written down. Are the names in our version of
                            >Beowulf based on the same information as Dudo? Were the Geats of
                            >Hugleik a Gothic tribe or one of the tribes Ermaneric subdued?
                            >
                            >Are our problems with the Geats/Getes/Getae/Getorum all results of
                            >the same old and wellknown mistake?
                            >
                            >This makes the Geats a tribe with Eastgermanic connections settled
                            >around the Bay of Helgoland from Jutland to the Rhine or in England.
                            >Therefore they could tell about Beowulf swimming home. However we
                            >should not expect a tribe from this area to fight against the Swedes
                            >around Uppsala as well as we should not expect a tribe from Western
                            >Sweden attacking the Francs as early as around 500. Therefore the
                            >narrator of Beowulf must also have mixed up stories about Hugleik and
                            >the Geats with Scandinavian stories about the Swedish Goetes.
                            >
                            >Just an idea! It includes of course many misunderstandings and many
                            >unreliable historians - but this has always been the problem with the
                            >dragonkiller Beowulf.
                            >
                            >Troels Brandt
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a blank email
                            >to <gothic-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com>.
                            >Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html
                          • trbrandt@post9.tele.dk
                            Tim! You normally seem more sure than I am - but I don t see how we can be sure of anything in Beowulf. ... Yes this is one of the obvious possibilities - but
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jan 28, 2001
                              Tim!

                              You normally seem more sure than I am - but I don't see how we can be
                              sure of anything in Beowulf.

                              --- In gothic-l@y..., Tim O'Neill <scatha@b...> wrote:

                              ......
                              > He's comparing Hygelac's hoard with the legendary
                              > story of the theft of Ermanaric's treasure by the
                              > adventurer Hama, and drawing on the associations and
                              > resonances that story has by evoking the tale and
                              > giving a exposition on its main points.

                              Yes this is one of the obvious possibilities - but I have always
                              wandered why Ermaneric should have any value as an example in England
                              and why he was a key figure in Widsith, if there was no connection
                              between a tribe Ermaneric met in his far off region and one of the
                              tribes invading England. Apart from his dubious role in Getica he was
                              not one of the great figures of the history according to the sources
                              around his own region. Therefore I have looked for another
                              explanation.

                              .......
                              > > The above mentioned necklace in
                              > > Beowulf was probably the "crown" of the people of Hugleik -
                              > > the unknown Geats.
                              >
                              > Sorry, I can't see your reasoning behind this.
                              The poet
                              > tells us of a great treasure ......

                              Isn't it a little careless to bring the great treasure of your people
                              with you on a raid - if it is only a treasure? As you agreed in your
                              mail the necklace is often being a symbol of power. This is an
                              obvious explanation here.

                              .....
                              > In other words, you seem to be overinterpreting a literary
                              > device. Beowulf is *literature* and should not be read
                              > too closely as *history*.

                              I agree. Probably I did not explain myself clearly.

                              .....
                              > I also don't understand what you mean by 'the unknown
                              > Geats'. We don't know much about them, but they are
                              > referred to, with Hygelac, as a southern Scandinavian
                              > people in a number of sources other than Beowulf.

                              You repeat this three times in your mail. Which source except Beowulf
                              has described the "Geats" and referred them to Scandinavia? If you
                              believe they were Scandinavians because Chochillaicus was called a
                              Dane then the Geats were the Danes. This conclusion will give you
                              some troubles interpreting Beowulf. If you use names similar to
                              the "Geats" you can find a lot of them.

                              ......
                              >
                              > > In a report from the camp of Attila all the followers of the Huns
                              > > were called Goths by Priscus,
                              >
                              > ???
                              > Priscus makes it clear that there were many Goths in
                              > Attila's camp, but that's not the same as saying all
                              > Attila's followers 'were called Goths'.

                              Sorry! Here I did not refer my source properly. According to Priscus
                              there was a Hunnic speaking and a Gothic speaking group (also having
                              different barbarian tongues). Several followers of the Huns were not
                              mentioned at all in that period, which in combination with Priscus
                              indicates they were regarded as one group - probably called Goths.
                              This may have caused the mistake.

                              ......
                              > Which was a common confusion at the time. These Thracian
                              > Getae had nothing to do with the Goths, who in turn had
                              > little to do with the Scandinavian Geats, though the Goths
                              > and Geats may have once shared a common, cultic origin in
                              > Scandinavia many centuries before.

                              Exactly. That is my point.

                              ....
                              > > The episode of Hugleik took place 50 years after the army of
                              Attila
                              > > was disbanded. At this time Gregory of Tours called the people of
                              > > Hugleik Dani and Liber Monstrorum called them Getorum.
                              >
                              > The episode recorded by Gregory of Tours and its
                              > parallels elsewhere, including in Beowulf, all make it
                              > clear that Hygelac was a *Scandinavian* king of a
                              > *Scandinavian* people. Are you saying that they were
                              > refugees from Attila's kingdom and came from the
                              > steppes?
                              >
                              > In ships? ;>

                              I did not say they came directly from Attila. Hugleik was killed at
                              least 60 years after the death of Attila. Actually I suggested
                              England as one of several possibilities.

                              >
                              > > Around 1000 AD Dudo wrote: "... the Getae, also known as Goths,
                              > > Sarmatians and Amacsobii, Tragoditae and Alans ...".
                              > > (http://orb.rhodes.edu/ORB_done/Dudo/chapter02.html ). These
                              people
                              > > seem to be followers of the Huns together with Rugians, Heruls and
                              > > Gepides. He also told about Danes being Dacians from Dacia, where
                              > > both Attila, the Goths and the Getes settled.
                              >
                              > Such folk etymological confusions are common in writers
                              > of this period, especially when writers tried to account
                              > for 'new' peoples (like the Danes) by having them
                              > descended from 'known' peoples (like the Dacians). This
                              > was done because it was thought the ancient authorities
                              > on ethnography couldn't have simply been ignorant of these
                              > 'new' peoples, so they had to be simply offshoots of
                              > peoples 'known' through the ancient sources. Unlikely
                              > etymological connections like 'Danes=Dacians' were thus
                              > invented.

                              I am sure this is a part of the explanation.

                              .....
                              > There's every indication that Hygelac, the Geats etc
                              > and the cycle of tales about their wars with the
                              > Swedes had been part of the nother western Germanic
                              > oral literature since the sixth century and had
                              > found its way to England with some of the earliest
                              > Germanic invaders. Everything about these legends
                              > indicate that they have their origins in some obscure
                              > tribal wars in Scandinavia and I can't see any evidence
                              > in the poem or in the extensive scholarly literature
                              > on the subject of the Geat/Swede elements in the poem
                              > that it has anything to do with far off Gothic
                              > kingdoms rather than its clear Scandinavian setting.

                              Yes. As I wrote an English writer might have confused the Goetes (or
                              Guter) in Sweden with Hugleik the Geat (or Goth?) in Frisia. As you
                              said: Beowulf is 'literature'.

                              ....
                              > > Just an idea!
                              >
                              > Interesting, but Beowulf scholars have been going over
                              > that poem and all of its analogue material for centuries
                              > now. If there was any hint of what you're suggesting I'm
                              > sure someone would have noticed.

                              But I think most scholars agree that a satisfying answer has not been
                              found yet. I don't claim I have found it, but if all scholars argued
                              as in your last sentence, it is temptating to claim, that we do not
                              need scholars reading ancient history.

                              Troels
                            • Tim O'Neill
                              ... I ve studied Beowulf for many years, so i certainly wouldn t disagree with that! But there s a big difference between saying we can t be certain of
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jan 29, 2001
                                trbrandt@... wrote:

                                > You normally seem more sure than I am - but I don't see how we can be
                                > sure of anything in Beowulf.

                                I've studied Beowulf for many years, so i certainly
                                wouldn't disagree with that! But there's a big difference
                                between saying we can't be certain of anything in Beowulf
                                and saying that we can't, therefore, subject any proposed
                                interpretation to critical scrutiny.

                                The interpretation you've proposed is a fairly radical
                                departure from the way this passage is usually interpreted,
                                so, before we suppose Geats who are Goths from eastern
                                Europe ending up in north-western Europe, I think it's
                                best to take some other, less radical, interpretations
                                into account first.

                                > --- In gothic-l@y..., Tim O'Neill <scatha@b...> wrote:
                                >
                                > ......
                                > > He's comparing Hygelac's hoard with the legendary
                                > > story of the theft of Ermanaric's treasure by the
                                > > adventurer Hama, and drawing on the associations and
                                > > resonances that story has by evoking the tale and
                                > > giving a exposition on its main points.
                                >
                                > Yes this is one of the obvious possibilities - but I have always
                                > wandered why Ermaneric should have any value as an example in England
                                > and why he was a key figure in Widsith, if there was no connection
                                > between a tribe Ermaneric met in his far off region and one of the
                                > tribes invading England.

                                Why is Attila ('AEtla') part of the English tradition?
                                The Anglo-Saxons had no contact with the Huns. And why
                                is Albion ('Aelfwine') part of the English tradition?
                                Or Sigmundr ('Sigemund')? Or any of the many and various
                                heroes and kings of the Germanic oral tradition who had
                                no contact with the people of England and/or their
                                original Continental homeland?

                                The answer is that all these figures became part of a
                                corpus of story traditions and oral folklore which usually
                                left the historical personages far behind and took on a
                                life of their own as these stories were told across the
                                Germanic world over many centuries. The audience of
                                Beowulf knew nothing of the historical 'Airmanareiks', but
                                the literary character of 'Eormenric' was as familiar to
                                them as King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes or James Bond is
                                to us - part of a cultural heritage which stretched
                                well beyond England.

                                > Apart from his dubious role in Getica he was
                                > not one of the great figures of the history according to the sources
                                > around his own region. Therefore I have looked for another
                                > explanation.

                                There are nine separate Germanic sources that I can think
                                of, in various languages ranging over several centuries,
                                which preserve versions of the legend of Ermanaric/
                                Eormenric/Jormanrekkr. Clearly he was a major figure
                                in early Germanic oral legend, beginning with poems
                                and songs of his own people and then spreading
                                throughout the Germanic world. Jordanes says that
                                he was a 'Gothic Alexander' and Ammianus attests
                                that his fame was known in the Roman Empire as well.

                                He was far from an obscure figure in the Germanic
                                tradition - in fact he was one of the most important
                                and enduring. It is no mystery that he should
                                be referred to in Beowulf. We have only a handful of
                                heroic poems and fragments in Old English, yet
                                Eormenric appears in no less than *three* of them.
                                Clearly he was a major figure in this Europe-wide
                                oral tradition.

                                > > > The above mentioned necklace in
                                > > > Beowulf was probably the "crown" of the people of Hugleik -
                                > > > the unknown Geats.
                                > >
                                > > Sorry, I can't see your reasoning behind this.
                                > The poet
                                > > tells us of a great treasure ......
                                >
                                > Isn't it a little careless to bring the great treasure of your people
                                > with you on a raid - if it is only a treasure? As you agreed in your
                                > mail the necklace is often being a symbol of power. This is an
                                > obvious explanation here.

                                That it had significance as a piece of artistry and portable
                                wealth and therefore a symbol of Hygelac's lordship and
                                power is hard to question. It seems a logical leap to
                                go from this to assuming it was the 'crown' of the Geats.
                                This conclusion goes far beyond what the evidence says and
                                it doesn't seem 'obvious' at all. The text says it was
                                a rich ring won when the Geats were in their ascendancy
                                (ie when Beowulf aided Hrothgar) and lost as they began to
                                be eclipsed (when Hygelac falls).

                                In other words, it's another literary device of a kind the
                                Beowulf poet often uses.

                                > > I also don't understand what you mean by 'the unknown
                                > > Geats'. We don't know much about them, but they are
                                > > referred to, with Hygelac, as a southern Scandinavian
                                > > people in a number of sources other than Beowulf.
                                >
                                > You repeat this three times in your mail. Which source except Beowulf
                                > has described the "Geats" and referred them to Scandinavia?

                                Gregory of Tours, the _Liber Monstrorum_, the _Gesta
                                Francorum_, Saxo Grammaticus, and the _Heimskringla_ all
                                mention Hygelac. Three make him a 'Dane', one (Snorri) a
                                Swede and one (_Monstrorum_) has him as king of the 'Getae'.

                                All have him coming from Scandinavia, though the author of
                                the _Monstrorum_ may have confused the Geats with the
                                classical Dacian 'Getae'. Whether the two Frankish authors
                                really thought him a 'Dane' or was using this as a
                                term for any Scandinavian raiders (much as later English
                                writers used the term for any Vikings) is not clear.

                                Saxo also says Hygelac ('Hugletus') killed Eanmund of
                                Sweden ('Homothus'), showing that this element at least
                                of the Beowulf allusions to the war/feud between the
                                Swedes and the Geats in southern Scandinavia was known
                                elsewhere as well.

                                > If you
                                > believe they were Scandinavians because Chochillaicus was called a
                                > Dane then the Geats were the Danes. This conclusion will give you
                                > some troubles interpreting Beowulf. If you use names similar to
                                > the "Geats" you can find a lot of them.

                                I believe Gregory of Tours and other such writers probably
                                didn't have a very good grasp of which northern raiders
                                came from where. All of the sources I cite above have
                                Hygelac as a Scandinavian king. One has him as a king of
                                'Getae' and another has him fighting and killing rulers
                                in Sweden. All this squares very well with the Beowulf
                                poet's depiction of the Geats as southern Scandinavian
                                neighbours of the Swedes who weren't adverse to raids
                                across the Baltic into Frisia and Frankia.

                                > > > In a report from the camp of Attila all the followers of the Huns
                                > > > were called Goths by Priscus,
                                > >
                                > > ???
                                > > Priscus makes it clear that there were many Goths in
                                > > Attila's camp, but that's not the same as saying all
                                > > Attila's followers 'were called Goths'.
                                >
                                > Sorry! Here I did not refer my source properly. According to Priscus
                                > there was a Hunnic speaking and a Gothic speaking group (also having
                                > different barbarian tongues). Several followers of the Huns were not
                                > mentioned at all in that period, which in combination with Priscus
                                > indicates they were regarded as one group - probably called Goths.
                                > This may have caused the mistake.

                                Okay, but I'm still having trouble seeing the relevance
                                of this to Beowulf and the Geats in Scandinavia.

                                > > Which was a common confusion at the time. These Thracian
                                > > Getae had nothing to do with the Goths, who in turn had
                                > > little to do with the Scandinavian Geats, though the Goths
                                > > and Geats may have once shared a common, cultic origin in
                                > > Scandinavia many centuries before.
                                >
                                > Exactly. That is my point.

                                The (possible, but far from certain) common cultic
                                origins of the Goths and Geats? Even if this is
                                true, and it's far from proven or even provable,
                                all this means is that, 500-600 years before the
                                period in which the poem seems to be 'set' and
                                possibly as much as 1000 years before it was
                                composed, the ancestors of the people who later
                                came to be called 'the Goths' belonged to the same
                                cultic league as the people who later came to be
                                called 'the Geats'.

                                This doesn't mean 'Geats' are 'Goths' and that Beowulf
                                is therefore 'a Goth'.

                                Have I misunderstood you? Is this really what you
                                mean when you say 'Beowulf - the Goth'?

                                > > > The episode of Hugleik took place 50 years after the army of
                                > Attila
                                > > > was disbanded. At this time Gregory of Tours called the people of
                                > > > Hugleik Dani and Liber Monstrorum called them Getorum.
                                > >
                                > > The episode recorded by Gregory of Tours and its
                                > > parallels elsewhere, including in Beowulf, all make it
                                > > clear that Hygelac was a *Scandinavian* king of a
                                > > *Scandinavian* people. Are you saying that they were
                                > > refugees from Attila's kingdom and came from the
                                > > steppes?
                                > >
                                > > In ships? ;>
                                >
                                > I did not say they came directly from Attila. Hugleik was killed at
                                > least 60 years after the death of Attila. Actually I suggested
                                > England as one of several possibilities.

                                The poem suggests southern Scandinavia and there's nothing
                                in the other sources to discourage this idea. Where does
                                England come into it?

                                > > There's every indication that Hygelac, the Geats etc
                                > > and the cycle of tales about their wars with the
                                > > Swedes had been part of the nother western Germanic
                                > > oral literature since the sixth century and had
                                > > found its way to England with some of the earliest
                                > > Germanic invaders. Everything about these legends
                                > > indicate that they have their origins in some obscure
                                > > tribal wars in Scandinavia and I can't see any evidence
                                > > in the poem or in the extensive scholarly literature
                                > > on the subject of the Geat/Swede elements in the poem
                                > > that it has anything to do with far off Gothic
                                > > kingdoms rather than its clear Scandinavian setting.
                                >
                                > Yes. As I wrote an English writer might have confused the Goetes (or
                                > Guter) in Sweden with Hugleik the Geat (or Goth?) in Frisia. As you
                                > said: Beowulf is 'literature'.

                                The English writer seems to have been drawing on a very
                                well known oral tradition about a tribal war in southern
                                Scandinavia and the other writers mentioned above seem to
                                have preserved parts of some garbled versions of the same
                                tale. What none of them indicate is *any* connection with
                                the Goths of Ermanaric's kingdom, or any later Goths
                                descended from them.

                                The only connection you've made between the Geats of
                                Beowulf and the Goths proper is via the Eormenric/Hama
                                passage, which *doesn't* connect Hygelac and the Geats
                                with the Goths, it simply says the precious ring Hygelac
                                gained from Hrothgar via Beowulf was as precious as
                                the one stolen from Eormenric by Hama. If we knew more
                                of the details of this latter story it's very likely
                                the literary point the Beowulf-poet is making here would
                                be clearer, but as it is it seems clear enough - the
                                poet is drawing a literary parallel between the two
                                rings.

                                What he certainly *doesn't* seem to be doing is making
                                any historical claims about the Geats actually being
                                Goths.

                                > > > Just an idea!
                                > >
                                > > Interesting, but Beowulf scholars have been going over
                                > > that poem and all of its analogue material for centuries
                                > > now. If there was any hint of what you're suggesting I'm
                                > > sure someone would have noticed.
                                >
                                > But I think most scholars agree that a satisfying answer has not been
                                > found yet.

                                Mainly because the details of the Eormenric/Hama story are
                                lost, as I said above. I can't think of any scholar who's
                                suggested the poet is making some historical claim about the
                                origins of the Geats in this passage.

                                > I don't claim I have found it, but if all scholars argued
                                > as in your last sentence, it is temptating to claim, that we do not
                                > need scholars reading ancient history.

                                But the passage in question is literature and doesn't
                                seem to be anything to do with history. ;>
                                Cheers,

                                Tim O'Neill
                              • trbrandt@post9.tele.dk
                                Tim! Our common mail was now covering 5 pages, but I do not think we are so far from each other as it looks, so I will try to cut the mail down. You said in
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jan 29, 2001
                                  Tim!

                                  Our common mail was now covering 5 pages, but I do not think we are
                                  so far from each other as it looks, so I will try to cut the mail
                                  down.

                                  You said in your first letter, that you did not follow this thread
                                  from the beginning. Thats OK, but then I have to correct a mistake: I
                                  did not start up this thread, the "headline" was not mine,
                                  and it was
                                  not my idea, that Beowulf was a Goth - as you suggest. In my opinion
                                  he never existed, but I will not exclude that Hygelac was a Goth, a
                                  Western Herul or anything else.

                                  In my opinion Beowulf was a fanthasy figure in a framework of various
                                  historical fragments not connected at all – just like in Widsith.
                                  Many of these fragments were maybe a result of a connection between
                                  Scandinavia and Mercia/East Anglia in the 6th and 7th centuries, but
                                  not all of them. I believe the figure Hygelac was based on
                                  Chochillaicus, but this does not prove he was a part of the
                                  Scandinavian history.

                                  In my opinion your sources about Hugleik do not add any knowledge or
                                  certainty to my first statement about Scandinavia. Gesta Francorum
                                  contains as far as I remember the same information as Gregory (I do
                                  not have this later source aviable), and I doubt the Francs always
                                  knew, where these attackers came from. The two Scandinavian Hugleik-
                                  names mentioned by Snorre and Saxo were not connected to any raid or
                                  killing in Frisia or France and they were written 700 years later
                                  –
                                  this only tells you, that the name was known in both Germanic areas,
                                  which is not surprising as you are able to find Alaric at the Meotic
                                  Sea, Roduulf in Pannonia, Alaric in Rome and Spain, Hrodulf in Mercia
                                  and Rolf and Alrik in Scandinavia. You still have the problem, that
                                  if Hygelac was a Dane as Gregory and Gesta Francorum wrote, this does
                                  not correspond to Beowulf – making the source useless for your
                                  purpose.

                                  I wrote that Eormanric was not so wellknown in history as Jordanes
                                  wanted, but I agree that he was used in some Germanic legends.
                                  Actually this was the background for my question: Why did they use
                                  this Gothic suicider from the Black Sea region so eagerly in
                                  Northwestern Europe?

                                  Troels
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.