[gothic-l] Re: Names of Heruls

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

--- In gothic-l at y..., "Einar Birgisson" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at y..., dirk at s... wrote:
> > --- In gothic-l at y..., "Troels Brandt" <trbrandt at p...> wrote:
> > > --- In gothic-l at y..., dirk at s... wrote:
> > > > --- In gothic-l at y..., "Troels Brandt" <trbrandt at p...> wrote:
> > > > >  
>           
>        Einar; Hæ Dirk                                                
 
> 
>   I see that you post this letter to Troels.            
> 
> So I was not going to come with any comments. But I changed my mind 
> because you do mention here my opinion on Procop. writings.          
 
> I will make just a few comments and come with a few questions.
> 
> > Hi 
> > However, concerning Procopius I would say that he was trying to 
> > manipulate in the sense that he wanted his readers to see 
> barbarians 
> > in general and the Heruls in particular in a certain light. 
> > 
> > Yet, it must be clear that Procopius had a very low opinion of the 
> > Germanic people in general. He frequently called them treacherous 
> and 
> > drunkards. Thus, about the Heruls, Procopius said that it is 
> > 'remarable for them to be not treacherous or drunken'. He also 
> comes 
> > up with all kind of customs for the Heruls, arguing that they kill 
> the 
> > sick people, by calling upon a stranger to kill them by tying them 
> > to trees and burning them alive. Also, he stated that they killed 
> > their old people. Some writers even argued that this reflected 
> > Scandinavian practices thus underlying their ties with 
Scandinavia. 
> 
>   Einar; I find this interesting.                                    
 
> 
>  Because old legends in Iceland(which I read as a kid and found 
> horrible) say that in Iceland in pagan times(about 870-1000) then 
old 
> and sick people were killed by throwing them down cliffs.      
> 
> I think this was done especially when there were hard times(lack of 
> food).                                                               
 
> I still remember the picture showing a man throwing a old man or 
> woman down a cliff.                                                  
 
> Killing the old and sick seems to have been widely practiced in 
> Iceland in pagan times.
> 
> > However, at the same time the same authors make no mention of 
> another 
> > 'customs' of the Heruls that Procopius informs us about. Thus, 
> > Procopius tells us that even after becoming Christians the "Heruls 
> > continued to mate with donkeys" and remained the most disgusting 
> kind 
> > of creature. 
> > 
> > How should we treat this information Troels? Was this also 
> provided  
> > by Scandinavian traders or Scandinavian Heruls visiting their 
> brethren 
> > in the South, as Bertil wrote?
> > 
> > Procopius saw all Germanic people as treacherous drunkards, but 
the 
> > Heruls were in his eyes the worst scum around. Calling them 
> sodomists 
> > placed them on the same level as animals and this is exactly how 
> > Procopius wanted to present them.
> > 
> > You ask me several times: why would Procopius lie? Einar said 
> > repeatedly that Procopius was trustworthy and reliable and Tore 
> said 
> > that we should simply believe what Procopius wrote.                
> 
>      Einar; I do not think I did generalize like that. I said 
so(that 
> his writings were trustworthy) when discussing that particular 
> subject. That is the travels of the Heruli descriped by 
> Procopius.                                    
> I just do not find it necessary to state it every time when 
> discussing that subject that I am talking about that particular 
> subject and nothing else.


Hi Einar,

the point is that Procopius presented the Heruls in a highly 
negatively biased way. He calls them treacherous drunkards as all 
other Germans, but adds that even as Christians, they continue to 
'mate with donkeys'. This indicates to me that Procopius was not 
interested at all in providing a balanced accurate account of the 
Heruls. As Cameron writes, most scholars (that would be  your 
majority) surpresses these shortcommings of Procopius in order not to 
jeopardise his credibility. However, try for a moment to get into the 
mind-set of somebody who could not constrain himself from hurling some 
of the worst typ of insults at a people in a major written opus. 
Procopius was clearly affected by deep hatred. He was rendering a 
story about the Heruls' sodomism, that he had either made up himself 
or it was the kind of story around in Constantinopel at that time. 
This kind of person would not be overly interested in double-checking 
his sources to get it absolutely right, or would he? He was 
unconcerned about detail in general, which can be seen from passages 
where he states that 100,000 Franks attacked, 100,000 Anglians 
attacked and so on. He greatly inflated numbers or even made up the 
whole story if it suited him. 

In any event in the case of the Heruls' supposed sodomism, he 
knowingly included untrue and abusive information into his account, 
meaning that he may have done this once, twice or very often. Yet, 
your majority scholars would still argue that otherwise he is very 
reliable and the story about the killing of the sick (by buring them 
alive) and the old is very authentic and documents their link to 
Scandinavia. As Cameron and Goffart have shown  we need to be a bit 
more carefull with this kind of pick and choose scholarship.  







> 
> However, I would 
> > turn this around and ask why would Procopius care to tell us a 
fair 
> > and accurate account of the history of the Heruls if he held such 
a 
> > low opion of them? In my view this makes it very unlikely that 
> > Procopius would have taken the trouble to get first hand reports 
> from 
> > Herulic mercenaries or traders. He hated the Heruls and he could 
> not 
> > even restrain himself from hurling the worst of abuse at them in 
> his 
> > writing. Yet, those scholars who want to believe in Procopius 
> simply 
> > ignore this, because it would cast serious doubts on his overall 
> > credibility.
> > 
> > The foremost expert on Procopius, A. Cameron writes about this:
> > 
> > "Most scholars naturally not wishing to forego the data, recognise 
> the 
> > ethnographic cliches, yet persist in supposing that Procopius had 
> > access to good information from chatty barbarians hes is supposed 
> to 
> > have met while in the Byzantine army. But a few examples show how 
> > tricky the problem actuall is,...."
> > 
> > 
> > Then she goes on to explain that Procopius used all sorts of 
> > stereotypes, mixed with ethnographic and geographic information  
> from 
> > ancient writers and supplemented with the product of his own 
> fantasy 
> > and hatred.                                                    
> 
>            Einar; One listmember(I think on Germanic-L) stated that 
> A. Cameron did not agree with Goffart on Procopius.




Goffart has not really published anything major on Procopius, so 
there is no question of the two agreeing on this or not. In general 
Goffart said that Procopius has to be analysed with greatest care. 
Especially has he warned against using Procopius as a resource, that 
can be 'mined' at will by people who want to use certain bits and 
pieces to support their pet-theories, while at the same time ignoring 
other bits.  









> A. Cameron uses strong words if she states so; "and supplemented 
with 
> the product of his own fantasy and hatred."    



These are not her words exactly. But she makes it clear that Procopius 
was highly biased against the Heruls; so much so that he could not 
even restrain himself from including the worst of insults and lies 
about them in his account, thus greatly reducing the overall value of 
his account.

                      
 
 
> Cameron states that for Procopius, barbarians had to be 
> > used by the empire in its wars thus anihilating one group of 
> barbarian 
> > with the other, or alternatively they had to be dispatched to the 
> end 
> > of the world. I.e. ultima Thule or Scandia, which according to 
> ancient 
> > geographers was the most disgusting place not fit for humans to 
> live 
> > on. Thus, in Procopius' eyes Thule was just fine for the animal-
> like 
> > Heruls.
> 
>   Einar; It would be nice if you would make a distinction between 
> what A. Cameron is stating and then when you are using your own 
words.
> 
> And maybe tell me from where A. Cameron´s above statements 
are(books-
> pages).    
> It might be nice to read those statements in context.



"Procopius and the sixth century", you will have to find the pages 
yourself, I don't have the book, but read it some years ago and quoted 
 from notes.




 
> I find it interesting if she states; "was the most disgusting place 
> not fit for humans to live on".     


Obviously, Cameron did not write this. It is generally known from the 
writings of Jordanes, Cassiodorus that Scandza/Thule was seen as a 
highly unattractive, almost inhabitable place for humans and animals 
at the time of Procopius. Jordanes stated: "... the land is not only 
inhospitable to men but cruel even to wild beasts". Jordanes story 
about a Scandzan king Rodulf who despised Scandza so much that he fled 
from there to Italy, was supposed to show that it was better to live 
as an inferior in Italy than a king in Scandza/Thule.



                                 
 
> And the statement; "Thus, in Procopius eyes Thule was just fine for 
> the animal-like Heruls".                                             
 
> 
> I am not sure here. Was this statement(the last one) made by;  
> 
>   a. A. Cameron? 
>   b. Procopius?
>   c. Are you making this statement?
>   d. Someone else?


That is obivously my own statement. As Cameron stated, for Procopius 
the barbarians should be used and anihilated in wars with other 
barbarians or they should go to the end of the earth, which is synonym 
for Thule at the time. In Procopius view, who described the Heruls as 
sodomistic, drunken traitors, the unattractive conditions in Thule 
will likely have been seen befitting for the Heruls. 

But let me ask you a question. Do you think that Procopius' 
description of the Heruls as 'mating with donkeys', 'notorious 
traitors and drunkards', are not casting some doubts on him as to his 
reliability as neutral reporter? His dislike of the Heruls might 
easily have affected his whole reporting about them. He clearly made 
up one bit of information about them, he might have made up more or 
most of it. We just don't know, meaning that we cannot built futher 
histories on this report. And therefore, as I said earlier, no serious 
book on Swedish history and archaeology regards a migration of Heruls 
or other East Germanic groups as a viable theory.  

cheers,
Dirk





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
See What You've Been Missing!
Amazing Wireless Video Camera.
Click here
http://us.click.yahoo.com/75YKVC/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/