[gothic-l] Re: Names of Heruls

[Troels Brandt]

--- In gothic-l at y..., dirk at s... wrote:
>
> 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.
> 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. 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. 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.

Dirk,

As I have stated before, Procopius wrote for the Romans (Byzantines)
at a time when Datius and many of the Illyrian Heruls joined the
Gepides against the Lombards and the Romans. The Heruls had now as
traitors turned against Suartuas (one of Procopius' probable sources)
and the Romans, who had lost face in their politics against the
Heruls, and as always in a war the bad character of the enemy was
exaggerated, and probably Procopius knew individual cases, where this
was true - except maybe the "ass-joke". This was usual colourful
propaganda and explaining away from Procopius' side, which was not
the same as to tell lies about actual events wellknown by the
readers - the most certain way to loose the confidence of the
readers.

Romans of importance around Procopius must have known that Datius
arrived from Thule, which the Heruls left for 35 years before, but
Procopius never described their ancestral home as Thule and he did
not tell about a successful repatriation there. He wrote that
they "used to dwell beyound the Danaube", and actually Datius did not
return to Thule again, but joined the Gepides "beyound the Danube".
Actually Goffart only referred to the migration to Thule and not to
the return of Datius as far as I remember. If the information which
Datius returned from an earlier position next to the Gautoi was a lie
with the purpose to argue for repatriation, this was either a very
miserable attempt or already fulfilled, when they joined the Gepides.

I think that the motive maintained by Goffart (and you) is a learned
construction, which Goffart needed for his Jordanes-theory, as the
real motive probably is lying just under our noses as demonstrated
above.

The description of the midnightsun is independent both of my and your
version of the motive for his general description of the Heruls and
their history, but it tells us something important about his sources
and the value of his information about the contemporary events - and
this is the only information I care about. We got this further
repetition of our old discussions because of a misunderstanding, but
please explain the motive and earlier sources behind VI, xv 6-15.
Tore provided us with a part of the text.

Troels


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/