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

[Troels Brandt <trbrandt@post9.tele.dk>]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh at y...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at 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.

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.******
>



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/