[gothic-l] Re: Names of Heruls-Goffart-J.Svennung-midnight sun-

[einarbirg]

--- In gothic-l at y..., "faltin2001" <dirk at s...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at y..., "einarbirg" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> > --- In gothic-l at y..., "faltin2001" <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > >.                                                         
> > > >        
> 
> > 
> > But the sentence is such; page 93.  
> > The broken bridge ,symbolizing collective amnesia, helped to 
explain 
> > why no Goth or anyone else had ever heard of the Scandzan 
homeland 
> > before.                                   
> > As far as I remember he made this statement without any 
> reservations.
> > So what did I misunderstand?
> 
> 
> 
> Right, firstly I was refering to page 95 (' ...silly stories...'). 
> Anyway, on page 93 Goffart is not suggesting that Goths really 
> suffered from 'collective amnesia'. He interprets the 'broken 
bridge' 
> as a methaphor introduced by Cassiodorus or Jordanes (or an earlier 
> source) to emphasise the finality of their migration to southern 
> Russia. With this symbolic breaking of the bridge, all contact with 
a 
> more distant past and more northern homeland was lost. The 
indication 
> that it is a symbol, derives from the fact that in reallity a 
broken 
> bridge would not be enough to separate an entire people completely. 
> Note the Goths who stayed on the other side of the bridge vanish 
from 
> the remainder of the report completely, because the broken bridge 
> symbolised that they had no contact with them anymore. Further, 
that 
> the island named Scandza was not part of a genuine Gothic 
tradition, 
> but one of the three origo topoi has been shown by several 
historians 
> and philologists (see also W. Pohl in the Reallexikon entry for the 
> Goths). The other two are the biblical topos and the Getae/Troja 
> topos. For each one of the topoi, Jordanes/Cassiodorus had to come 
up 
> with some sort of plausible link or justification, because real 
Goths 
> of his time cannot have had memory of a biblical origin, a 
> Getian/Trojan origin and a Scandzan origin, because they were 
unreal. 
> The bridge methaphor serves to link the Scandza topos to the 
history. 
> Certainly not everybody will agree in principle, but since W. Pohl 
> clearly accepts that the 'Scandza' story is nothing but a topos in 
the 
> article on the Goths in the Reallexikon, Goffart's interpretation 
of 
> the bridge-metaphor should not cause too much of a problem.
> 
> Turning this around; had a Scandzan origin been part of a genuine 
and 
> well-known Gothic tradition and not just a mediterranean topos that 
> there would have been no need to introduce the metaphor of the 
broken 
> bridge to the story.
>  
> I don't really want to discuss this at length, but when you are 
> reading Goffart again, please try to keep in mind that his writing 
> style is really very elavated (stylistically sophisticated maybe a 
> better description) and that often he uses stark terminoloy to 
> emphasise a point. 
> 
>   Einar;  Hæ Dirk.  Thanks for your information.                    

Now, after taking a new look on Narrators of Barbarian History(The 
relevant chapters touching on our subject of discussion)then I have 
to say that I have not at all changed my mind.                       
On the contrary then I am more sure now than ever that my previous 
analysis/conclusions were right.                                     
I do not find Goffart´s writings about Jordanes and Procopius 
trustworthy.                                                          
And for many,many reasons. I have already explained a few of these 
reasons.                                                             
 
Goffart is reconstructing History according to his opinions.         
His approach is not neutral. His privat opinions are shining through 
everywere.                                                            
But there are loads of interesting information in the book. I find 
this book highly informative.                                         
I think that for many Historians then this book is very interesting 
because he sees Jordanes and Procopius writings from a new angle.     
That is from one of many angles.                                      

On page 95;Quote; ..........The latter´s(Procopius) beguiling  
evocation of barbarians(Einar; Heruls) who set of for the distant 
north, relieving the Roman Empire of their obnoxious proximity, 
called for a careful rebuttal. Jordanes, as a prelude to his story of 
Roman-Gothic fusion stood the Procopian narrative on its head, 
turning the facts around in both time and space. Regardless of the 
silly tales in circulation-such as the Heruls migrating from the 
Danube to Thule-the Goths were in the Roman orbit to stay. There were 
nowhere else in the world for them to go......................

page 109,quote; The origin legend gave the lie to Procopian fantasies 
about return migrations.........................

Einar; These writings do not improve even if reading them in context.

Ao.Univ.Prof.Dr.Andreas Schwarcz writes in his letter no 3374.        
Quote; .......,but Walter commits a lot of errors in his book and his 
overall picture of Jordanes and his analysis of the Getica as a 
historical source is wrong and therefore also his comparative 
treatment of Procopius...............
 
letter no. 3367. Quote: .........Because this is not the only error 
in Walter´s treatment of barbarian narrators, but a typical one, I am 
skeptical of the whole book, like most people who work with these 
sources professionally.....................


Einar;
But Goffart has courage and is not afraid expressing his opinions and 
I enjoy reading his book. The book is loaded with interesting info.
I look at Goffart´s writings about Procop. and Jordanes as some kind 
of a experiment. Goffart is showing us their writings from a 
different angle. That is different from other scholars. And Goffart 
is extremely knowledgeable and his writings are well structured.      
And I must admit that I enjoy reading in the book. But Goffart makes 
my blood start boiling. That I have to admit.                         
Why not accepting that Goffart is neither right nor wrong.?           

His writings make perfect sense from the angle/location/viewpoint he 
chose to take.      
I suspect that Goffart had the intension to provoke a hefty 
discussion about the subject.(Mostly about Jordanes and Procopius) I 
suspect him to be a little bit special man with a good humor and he 
is a excellent writer.                                              

And I really,very honestly want to stop discussing Goffart and the 
reliability of Procopius. I just hope that other listmembers are of 
the same opinion..                                                    

Bless,Bless Einar





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Quit now for Great
American Smokeout
http://us.click.yahoo.com/0vN8tD/9pSDAA/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/