[gothic-l] Re: Ostrogoths in Italy, Britain or China (or on the moon?)

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

--- In gothic-l at y..., andreas.schwarcz at u... wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2001, at 11:59, dirk at s... wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > > > While, Procopius is a notoriously unreliable informant
> 
> Hello Dirk,
> the whole problem we have begins with this statement. Like all our 
> sources, Procopius must be read with care and precaution, but I 
> would not dare to call him "notoriously unreliable" and I have been 
> working on him for two decades. He was in comparison to other 
> sources we have from the sixth century a very well educated and 
> well-informed Byzantine official and for a great part of his 
narration 
> in "Anekdota", "Hyper ton polemon" and "Peri ktismaton" an eye-
> witness, although sometimes strongly biased. We cannot expect 
> him to have our geographical and ethnographical knowledge and we 
> must sift his evidence, as always, with care.   

 
> > I took this argument from Goffart who argues that Skandza was 
> > important for Jordanes in order to exclude Britain, which, as 
Goffart
> > writes, was believed by many at this time to be the origin of the
> > Goths. 
> 
> Walter Goffart indeed writes that in the "Narrators of Barbarian 
> History, p.89. But poor Walter completely misunderstood 
> Jordanes, Getica, 38. This is part of a long geographical and 
> ethnographical digression about Scythia. For your understanding I 
> cite the passage in context, beginning in Getica 37: Hunuguri 
> autem hinc sunt noti, quia ab ipsis pellium murinarium venit 
> commercium: quoa tantorum virorum formidavit audacia. quorum 
> mansione prima in Scythia solo iuxtam paludem Meotidem, 
> secundo in Mysiam Thraciamque et Daciam, tertio supra mare 
> Ponticum rursus in Scythia legimus habitase: nec eorum fabulas 
> alicubi repperimus scriptas, qui eos dicunt in Brittania vel in 
> unaqualibet insularum in servitute redactos et in unius caballi 
> praetio a quodam ereptos. aut certe si quis eos aliter dixerit in 
> nostro urbe, quam quod nos diximus, fuisse exortos, nobis aliquid 
> obstrepebit: nos enim potius lectioni credimus quam fabulis 
> anilibus consentimus.
> If you read that, you will easily find that the people concerned are 
> not the Goths, but the Onogurs, that it is not Britain, but "Britain 
or 
> any other island, which we do not know", and that it is not "an 
> opinion hold by many", but "fabulas alicubi scriptas" "fairy tales 
> written somewhere". Because this is not the only error in Walter´s 
> treatment of barbarian narrators, but a typical one, I am sceptical 
of 
> the whole book, like most people who work with these sources 
> professionally.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > And where did you find the funny 
> > > idea that Procopius proposed to return all barbarians to their
> > > homelands? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This view is presented by Avaril Cameron and to some extent by 
> > Goffart. A short formulation of this argument can be found on the
> > European Archaeology List were a historian (Florin Curta) presents 
the
> > same point much nicer than I could.
> > 
> My dear friend Florin is an primarily an archeologist, and a very 
> good one. As I take part in the discussions on the European 
> Archeology list, I know his arguments, but in his critique of 
> Procopius he goes too far. This aim of exporting barbarians to the 
> end of the world is not at all presented by Averil Cameron, it is 
> given by Walter Goffart, Narrators, p.96, in his comparison between 
> Jordanes and Procopius and he is in this respect as wrong as in 
> the one I treated above. If you will read Averil Cameron´s book, you 
> will find that she is very critical of Goffart´s view of Procopius. 
I cite 
> Cameron, Procopius, p.205: "Goffart needs, for his own argument, 
> to discredit the evidence of Procopius, but this is not the way to 
do 
> it. For just as Procopius' excursus and 'origins' sections are not 
at 
> all good, so certainly they are not all bad. the Gothic Wars, as 
> much as any other part of Procopius' work, shows that a close 
> analysis of the structure of individual sections, without prejudice 
> overall, is the only way to arrive at any fair estimation of the 
> credibility of his evidence."  
> > 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Completely true, possibly both Goffart and Cameron got it wrong - 
who
> > knows. However, their textual analysis does sound convincing and 
most
> > of their interpretations are more plausible that those presented 
by
> > people who want to read Procopius and the like as historical text
> > books.
> > 
> I suggest you read Averil Cameron by herself and not by the 
> footnotes in Goffart´s book or - worse - by Florin´s interpretation. 
> Then you will find that her view on Procopius is not at all 
Goffart´s 
> and that it is identical with mine. I cite Cameron, Procopius, 
p.222:
> "Above all, Procopius' views were his own. His greatest strength is 
> in his personal observation and the collection of contemporary 
> material for a subject into which he was deeply involved, not in the 
> historical or ethnographical excursuses, where his approach is 
> often anecdotical and impressionistic. Procopius was 
> extraordinarily energetic and determined in the pursuit of 
interesting 
> and useful information, but he was not a scholar. He was a 
> practical man, curious for detail and keen to work it over with his 
> own highly idiosyncratic imagination." 
> And p.241: "Nevertheless the energy and passion of the Wars and 
> the Secret History would be remarkable at any date. They have 
> established Procopius as an independent, if prejudiced, observer, 
> but above all as a keen, efficient and voluminous reporter. On these 
> qualities, especially, his reputation rests."
> 
> Regards
>          Andreas Schwarcz





Hello Andreas,

thanks for the detailed response! Your points are well taken. As 
mathematician and economist I would be out of my depth if I were to 
embark on a detailed discussion on this topic with a historian. I 
guess my main point is that many, in fact too many (lay-men) choose to 
 use the writing of these authors in a word-by-word text book fashion, 
picking out bits and pieces to 'construct' tribal histories, pin-point 
certain geographical areas or postulate geneological relationships, 
usually neglecting 'unwanted information' and preaching the parts that 
 they like as 'gosple'.  I liked Goffart and Cameron (despite of their 
shortcomings which you pointed out) because they offered what I (as a 
layman) regarded as a fresh and plausible interpretation.

best regards
Dirk




Dr. Dirk Faltin








------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/1/_/3398/_/981131325/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html