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

Re: [gothic-l] Normandy and the Visigoths

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Jan 14, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 22 , Jan 14, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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.
      • 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 3 of 22 , Jan 15, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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]
        • 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 4 of 22 , Jan 15, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            > > 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
          • 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 5 of 22 , Jan 27, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 22 , Jan 28, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 22 , Jan 28, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 22 , Jan 28, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 22 , Jan 28, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 22 , Jan 29, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 22 , Jan 29, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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.