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

[Tore Gannholm]

>
>
>******GK: Hello Troels and Tore! Has anyone tried to
>make something of the seemingly redundant "at the time
>of question"? Arguing that Procopius was aware of a
>subsequent expulsion, but chose not to mention it? And
>that while the Eruli did "remain on the island" (as he
>earlier stated), by the time he completed his work
>(ca. 553/4) they were no longer where they were in
>508-548?*******
>
>  in the
>>  Dewing translation. The interpretation has been
>>  discussed earlier and
>>  as far as I can see this position of arrival must be
>>  the same as the
>>  position of the Jordanes-event, if the two authors
>>  mentioned the same
>>  group of Heruls.
>>
>>  This makes enclaves in the forests of Smaaland the
>>  most probable
>>  choise in my opinion. Here the Dani had a reason to
>>  expell them and
>>  they would live "para" the Gautoi.
>>
>>  Troels
>
>******GK:If one assumes that Jordanes is reporting an
>event (the expulsion) which occurred earlier than the
>northward trek of the Procopian Heruls, then we have a
>paradoxical situation. Jordanes, in 551, is writing
>about something the Dani did to the Heruls a couple of
>generations ago, but is unaware of the aforementioned
>northward trek, of the Heruls' current location, or of
>the entire "king summoning episode". I find it easier
>to assume that it is Procopius who omitted to mention
>the post-548 demise of the northern Herulian political
>society because of his lack of interest in these
>"barbarians" unless they were of immediate relevance
>to Byzantine political and military issues, than that
>Jordanes knew nothing at all about them after the
>obscure pre-508 expulsion.== One would also have to
>assume, I think, that this pre-508 expulsion of some
>group of Heruls already in the north would have been
>mentioned by Cassiodorus, whom Jordanes merely copied.
>That is why, on balance, I find it more "economical"
>to take the view that it is indeed Jordanes and not
>Cassiodorus who is reporting the "expulsion" of the
>Heruls by the Dani, and that this expulsion is that of
>the Heruls who went northwards as per Procopius from
>the areas they occupied "at the time in question". The
>expulsion would thus be a very recent event, and
>Jordanes would not have to repeat the Procopian
>information.== I realize of course that any scenario
>here is based on pretty tenuous analysis. I just feel
>somewhat more comfortable with one that involves less
>(possible) assumptions than another.*****

Hi!
I think they talk about the same trek but have different sources.

It is obvious that Jordanes does not have access to the information 
that came back from Thule with the new Herulian king.Nor does he seem 
to know about the Herulian trek to Thule. He only has information 
that something happened between the Herulis and Danis. Probably he 
has Gothic sources whilst Procopius has Herulic sources.

  Procopius writes:

WHEN the Eruli, being defeated by the Lombards in the above-mentioned 
battle, migrated from their ancestral homes, some of them, as has 
been told by me above,1 made their home in the country of Illyricum, 
but the rest were averse to crossing the Ister River, but settled at 
the very extremity of the world; at any rate, these men, led by many 
of the royal blood, traversed all the nations of the Sclaveni one 
after the other, and after next crossing a large tract of barren 
country, they came to the Varni,2 as they are called. After these 
they passed by the nations of the Dani,3 without suffering violence 
at  the hands of the barbarians there. Coming thence to the ocean, 
they took to the sea, and putting in at Thule,4 remained there on the 
island.
3 A group of tribes inhabiting the Danish Peninsula.

Also Procopius knows that something was not right between the Danis 
and the Heruls but says that they managed to get further.

In the Loeb translation as you can see from note 3 they don't 
consider Skåne as part of the lands of the Danis.

Tore










-- 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/