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

Re: [gothic-l] Re: Jordanes and the Scandinavian Eruli

Expand Messages
  • george knysh
    ... ******GK: The only alternative I can think of at this point for Jordanes mentioning the Eruli in this way is that there may have been earlier expectations
    Message 1 of 25 , Dec 31, 2002
      --- "Troels Brandt <trbrandt@...>"
      <trbrandt@...> wrote:
      > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
      > <gknysh@y...> wrote:
      > > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > GK: The additional problem here is that
      > since we
      > > don't have his full work we really don't know what
      > > Cassiodorus wrote (or failed to write) about the
      > > Eruli. He may well have [in 519] mentioned the
      > Erulian
      > > migration to Scandza.
      > This is probably correct. I think you have a point
      > here. Jordanes'
      > Getica was partly an abbreviated version of
      > Cassiodorus' voluminous
      > work.
      > Cassiodorus was a politician and at his time (519)
      > the Heruls could
      > still be expected to play a role again around the
      > Goths - confirmed
      > by the political marriages. Therefore they probably
      > had their own
      > sections in his work, where also the migration to
      > Scandinavia was
      > mentioned. If that was the case he did not need to
      > mention them in
      > this corresponding chapter about the other people in
      > Scandinavia
      > later quoted by Jordanes.
      > Jordanes had in his abbreviated version to
      > concentrate about the
      > Goths. At his time (551) the Herulian groups were
      > either followers of
      > the Gepides, far away in Scandinavia, Roman soldiers
      > or absorbed
      > among the Goths. Even the last group he did not care
      > about in his
      > text as no Herulian people had a role to play
      > together with the Goths
      > anymore.
      > When Jordanes made his abbriviation of Cassiodorus
      > he let the Heruls
      > out including the description of the migration,
      > which Procopius
      > described. But missing them now in the description
      > of Scandinavia he
      > in a clumsy way added the fameous 4 words into the
      > copied description
      > of Cassiodorus. These words could of course be his
      > own contribution -
      > if he was better informed than Procopius - but as he
      > did not mention
      > the closer and more relevant Herulian groups this
      > was rather his
      > abbrivation of the corresponding Herulian section of
      > Cassiodorus
      > using the last event mentioned there. If he wanted
      > to tell something
      > with this remark, it had got another position and
      > weight.

      ******GK: The only alternative I can think of at this
      point for Jordanes mentioning the Eruli in this way is
      that there may have been earlier expectations in the
      camp of Baduila about seeking help from them. But
      after their defeat by the Dani (ca. 550 acc. to my
      initial scenario) they were no longer a factor in
      Ostrogoth planning. Whence the quick and rather
      awkward insert in the Getica. In any case I think we
      can still deduce from Jordanes (or
      Cassiodorus/Jordanes acc. to your <509-519> view) that
      the Eruli did not stop being an "independent" people
      after the expulsion. There is nothing in Procopius to
      support this either.*****
      > This was the most simple and natural way to make an
      > abbrevation - and
      > it fits perfectly with Procopius.
      > Happy New Year to all listmembers
      > Troels
      > > In which case the text in
      > > Jordanes was meant to give readers "the latest",
      > i.e.
      > > that the Eruli were now "expelled" a propriis
      > > sedibus, perhaps scattered, and should not be
      > counted
      > > [in 551] among the major peoples of Scandinavia
      > even
      > > if they were still there. From that perspective
      > > Jordanes would not have recopied a putative
      > > Cassiodoran text about a migration and settlement
      > > which was no longer relevant. It is interesting
      > that
      > > Procopius uses language which suggests that the
      > Eruli
      > > are not among the 13 major peoples of Scandza [in
      > > 553/4]. Nevertheless, it also remains plausible
      > that
      > > the weakening after the expulsion of 550 (on my
      > > scenario) was temporary, and that a reconstitution
      > of
      > > Erulian power under a different label began
      > > immediately after 553/4, though there was no
      > historian
      > > in the south who mentioned it. I don't really
      > insist
      > > on this, you know. But the elements of a
      > > reconstruction are so meager that it seems
      > entirely
      > > plausible textologically if one only relies on
      > > Procopius and Jordanes. Your alternative scenario
      > is
      > > clearly possible, and Einar's ideas in a different
      > > post are also quite useful.******
      > >

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.