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

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at y..., "einarbirg" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> --- 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


Hi Einar,

I am of the same opion (for now anyway). I am glad you found at least 
something to enjoy in Goffart's writing. One thing perhaps, when you 
quote other historians on Goffart, it should be born in mind that 
Goffart showed at least the same amount or more errors and mistakes in 
their works and in their approaches, which qualifies their opinion on 
him somewhat. Any, lets this discussion rest for now.

cheers
Dirk





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Stop Smoking Now
Nicotrol will help
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2vN8tD/_pSDAA/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/