[gothic-l] Gaut, an additional view

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Bertil wrote:

1.
>Gapt/Gaut is a common progenitor of a number of Royal families

What makes you state "Gapt" and "Gaut" can be treated
together, except for an old foot-note by Jacob Grimm?


2.
>and there is no reason to doubt that also the Langobards were connected to
>this.

Indeed no, because for the Langobards we have sources that explicitly
state "Gausus" (or was it "Gausen"?)
I have no difficulty with the equation "Gaut" = "Gaus".
(they both belong to the similar verbs "gjota" = to pour, and
"gjosa"= to stream forth. cf. ahd. gussa = überschwemmen.
In Norway also "Gaussdal" = from river name, connected with
the verb "gjósa" (gýs; gaus, gusum; gosinn); whereas "gjota"
has the similar forms (gýt; gaut, gutum; gotinn). The two verbs
are not the same, but are related. Which adds a realistic perspective,
since variation is the rule, rather than the exception in such things.
It underlineses the difference between the Langobards and the "Götar",
and at the same times it illustrates the possibility of seeing
a common idea underlying the two names. It is also interesting to
see how frequently we end up with a river name as the bottom line.)

But, you now also demonstrate how you've misunderstood my ar-
-gument, Bertil. For, as I claimed, the Langobards coming from
the Hamburg area - at a late date - which is in the vicinity of
Denmark, ought to have, for this very reason, to wit, some com-
-monality in terms of language as well as legend, with the Scan-
-dinavians, as the sources indeed show that they have.

It is however the case of the Goths that is much more doubtful.
In fact the Goths resided at quite another place, namely in
Poland, and their trek south began maybe 400 years before
the Langobards, taking them to the Black Sea -- an altogether
distant place compared with the reative short and simple
trek from the Elbe to Northen Italy that the Langobards followed.
And concerning the Goths, we do not even know if they connected
with Scandinavia, and if they did, it is unclear what part
of Scandinavia it was. It could very well have been Gotland.
But it is not obvious that the Gotland of 300 B.C. had
the same legends and myths as the Gotland that we know from the
Gotland picture stones 800 years later.



>Parallels can even be drawn to
>the Germanic good Mannus, which could be
>traced back to an Indo-European god with
>the same name. IE *manu- (man, ancestor of humankind).
>Their correspondance confined however to Germanic and
>Indo-European, appears both phonologically and
>structurally sound.

In fact, it was me who brought "Mannus" into
the discussion some posts ago, as a good demonstration
that names of mythic ancestors show considerable variation.
There isn't much similarity between "Gapt" and "Mannus"
is there? No one would dream of seeing "Gapt" as a
coruption in a Mannus-script ;), would they?


>There is generally not much in the ancient literary
>sources on religion of the Germanic peoples.

Well, I'd say Tacitus contains quite a bit on religion !
What I said was that it is about the GOTHS that very
little is known. (zil?)
But Tacitus' writings amply demonstrates the topic of
VARIATION as the rule.


>Mannus is for instance only mentioned by Tacitus in
>_Germania_. In an Old Indic account Vivasvat couples
>with Savarna, a double of his wife Saranya, and
>begets Manu=man. Manu initiates human sacrifice
>and human laws, the Law of Manu.
>
>It is not only the royal Langobard family and the Gothic,
>which look upon Gaut as progenitor .

I thought the sources said "Gaus" for the Langobards ?
I think it is a bit of a "jump to conclusion" that two names
are identical, just because they are similar. Similarity
often implies connectedness, but not necessarily identity.
As I showed above, there are two verbs involved, "gjosa" and
"gjota". And they are different verbs. But they ARE related.



>Anglo-Saxon,
>Jutish, Danish, Vandalic - all claim origin in Gaut.
>So I don't think the theory of different migration paths
>exclude the possibility of reverence of the same
>progenitor.

Could you state what sources say that these tribes mention "Gaut"
as ancestor? Are you able to quote the sources ?
NB "Gaut" is NOT listed in Fisher Davidson's index !
Widsith is supposed to mention "Geats". But does it also
mention a "Geat" as ancestor? Any way, the Angles coming from a region
rather close to the Langobards, near Hamburg, and at approximately
the same time, would certainly be very likely to reproduce
some of the same legends as the Angles and the Saxons.
But in a book I have about the Vandals, I cannot find anything
about "Gaut". What is your source?

(The book I have on the Vandals lists "Ambri" and "Assi"
as Vandal ancestors. After them follow "Rhaus" and "Rhaptus"
(Doppelkönigtum), but nowhere do I see "Gaut". I just read
Dirk's message. And it certainly makes much more sense
than much of the other arguments.)

>
>In the case of the Gautic Gaut the usual explanation
>of the origin of the word is "the shedder", "he who
>sheds semen" = man (incidentally the same meaning
>as Mannus).

Yes, I've heard you state this explanation on a
number of occasions. The books I consulted also mentioned this,
but they said it was only a guess. I have the impression
that a river name is much more likely as ancestor name.
Göta älv IS after all a well known river. And river names
have often been shown to be the oldest topographic
descriptors we have. They often survive shifting populations.



>Much, Hoops and Wessén agree on

Do you mean the latest edition of "Hoops"?
Much is also 19th century, I thought.
For Elias Wessén I have ca. 1930.



>this interpretation. Vries is sceptical but Professor
You mean "de Vries" (the Dutchman - the Dutch do use
lower case for prefixes like "de". But the prefixes are
necessary to say the name correctly)

>Svennung connects with "shed" as he believes the
>Gautar had their name from Gaut-Elfr (Goeta Aelv in

Exactly. This seems to be a recurrent theme, that
you end up with a river name as the bottom line.


>western Sweden which Adam of Bremen calls
>Goth-elba=goetarnas aelv. Svennung also connects
>with similar interpretations of Norwegian rivers which
>include gaut. An interesting thought is also that
>Jordanes with Gauti-Gothi may have indicated the
>Vaestgoeatar of Vaestergoetland. There seems

That seems like a reasonable explanation.
Gaut for the river and Goths for the people.


>to be no need to bring in Grimm in the discussion
>on Gaut,

If Jacob Grimm was the originator of the idea, then
there is every reason  to bring him into the discussion.
In fact, in the better books about the subject,
sources of the ideas are always quoted.
I brought it up because you quoted the result
as if it was a fact, without giving any sources.


>making him some sort of originator for
>the other interpretation. That is just too easy an
>explanation.

As I see it, it was rather the other way around.
I see it as too easy to just state things (repeatedly)
as if they were facts, without quoting either sources
nor any idications of explanations of WHY one thinks so.


>Even if Grimm was a genius his interpretation of the
>Germanic languages ends up in a relational mess
>which in modern research has been sorted out.

or maybe will be


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/