[gothic-l] _Getica_

[Bertil Häggman]

Keth,

Well, Grimm and Newton both belong in
the same category. 

Thank you for the presentation of the
Swedish edition of _Getica_. Am very
curious of other editions of _Getica_. Can
listmembers help? In English I only know of the
edition from the beginning of the 20th century.

As you may have noted Nordin is basing his
translation on the Mommsen edition of 1882.

Am very curious concerning "other readings
of the word Gapt" than Nordin's. Can you
help? Is Capit the only alternative
reading?

The latest Swedish edition before the Nordin was
of 1719 and was done by Johan Peringskiold the
Younger. Professor Josef Svennung did a partial
translation in the 1960s.

As I am not familiar with other commentaries
on _Getica_ I cannot judge if Nordin's commentary
is a compilation or not.

Ingemar skriver:

"Hur aer det daa med Gaut? En rad germanska kungaaetter -
anglosaxiska, jutiska, danska, de vandaliska hasdingerna,
langobardiska konungar - haevdar haerstamining fraan
Geat/Gaut. Den gotiska kungalaengden börjar med Gapt/
Gaut (Getica XIV § 79)."

Thank you for pointing to the reading Capit but who used
that reading?

Think I will stick with Nordin (Gapt or Gaut). But some
do not want to identify Gapt with Gaut (Helm, I think, but
de Vries agrees). Personally I think it is likely that they 
are the same (as indicated by Nordin). The link Gaut=
Gautar=Goetar also seems likely as the link Gautar=
Goetar=Goths.

Gothically

Bertil


 
> And yet, I would not call it a _critical_ edition.
> For that I miss the text critical remarks that one usually
> finds in such editions. For example, it does not say that
> there are other readings of the word "Gapt" than the one
> Nordin has chosen to present to his readers. Also, I do
> not see it as a new edition of the Latin text, but rather
> as a new Swedish translation.
> 
> The comments can also easily be seen as compilations
> of comments that are found in earlier editions.
> It is of course also true that Mommsen as well as
> Grimm and Mullenhoff did consider the form "Gapt"
> as perhaps more reliable than "Capit". But my intention was
> to put to your attention that the reading "Gapt"
> is not completely secured. And also: "Capit" does make
> sense to me as "Caput" = head ....
> 
> (Head of family, pater familias, progenitor of a dynasty, etc..)
> 
> 
> Another matter is that it appears UNLIKELY to me that a scribe
> would write a "p" for an "u", because the two letters are so
> entirely different in their shapes.
> 
> But this is the basis for the conjecture that Gapt = Gaut.
> In fact, this conjecture is not based on the text AT ALL!,
> 
> but rather on the thought that the Icelandic tradition of GAUT
> must of necessity agree with the Italian tradition of Jordanes.
> 
>    And it is this which makes me sceptical.
>    Agreement in the big general lines, yes,
>    but agreement in details like the spelling
>    of the name of the progenitor of Jordanes'
>    Goths, that has to agree with the much
>    later Snorri Sturlason version of the
>    prehistoric progenitor of Swedes and
>    Ynglings???
> 
> 
> Dependency of Snorri upon the Getica cannot be assumed either,
> since that would have meant that Snorri would ALSO have called
> him "Gapt", but he does not.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Keth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
> 


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/