[gothic-l] Re: Names of Heruls

Tue Dec 4 08:59:42 UTC 2001

>
> 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".

Troels,

I don't think that Procopius' can be so easily excused. He labled
Germanic people in general as traitors, drunkards and in the case of
the Heruls, sodomists. This was regardsless of their relationship to
the empire. Dismissing his remarks as 'joke' is exactly what Cameron
has warned against, stating that some people would do this in order to
defend Procopius' overall creditbility as it suited them.

> 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.

No, I continue to agree with Cameron and believe that Procopius'
remarks about the Heruls as sodomists who killed their sick people by
burning etc. where outright lies, because if was not completely naive
he must have known this to be untrue. Inclusion of lies in one instant
and wrong and inaccurate information in other instances does devalue
his accounts.

>
> 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.

No other source reported about Datius and the events surrounding them,
 indicating that it was at best not deemed to be important enough to
be included in a chronicle. Especially was it not important enough for
Romans to remember events surroundind these Heruls that took place 10
or more years ago.  Sources like the tabula gentis of 520AD simply
does not know of any Herul kingdom after 508AD.

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 cannot defend Goffarts view, as it is not my own. In my
understanding Goffart tried to  explained Jordanes' and Cassiodorus'
desire to promote an integration of the Goths into mediteranean world.
 Goffart said that Jordanes was keen to show that the Goths had no
were to go, but to stay in Italy. Thus, Jordanes explained that
Thule/Scandza was so inhositable that no one in his right mind would
want to go their. Therefore Goffart contrasted this intention of
Jordanes' with the report by Procopius who stated that barbarians
could easily travel to the end of the earth without any danger or
difficulty.

>
> 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.

What was 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.

But the description of the mid-night sun was also provided by Jordanes
and Cassiodorus and was clearly available from ancient geographical
sources. I don't see who this is so important. I know procopius said
that he made inquiries and spoke to people, but he also stated that
other information that he provided was the truth, while we know that
it was not.

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.
>

I have my Procopius volumes at home in Germany unfortunately.

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/