[gothic-l] Goetar, Gautoi, Gutar, Goths and Gaut

[Bertil Häggman]

Keth,

Am referring you to several contributions
of mine earlier and I have sent copies
of several messages on the gothic-l
for your consideration.

The Professor Andersson article is long
but there is an English summary which I
have provided you with directly to your
e-mail address.

The articles on Gaut in Hoops and the
Professor Andersson article contain
of course both facts and opinions.
It would help if you could provide alternative 
theories of the origin of the progenitor name
and the people names.

There is one mention of Gaut and that
is in Jordanes. 

Professor Reichert wrote in Hoops 2nd edition:

In nordgermanisch finden sich reiche Zeugnisse:
dänisch Goet, Goetar, Gothi, Göti and Zusammen-
setzungen wie Goetrik (zahlreiche Belge) , die
Abgrenzung zu homonymen Goet-Namen (z.B. Goetmar 
zu *Gud-) ist meist problemlos. Aehnlich ist die Situation
im altschwedischen. Auch in altnordwestnordisch finden
sich genug Belege. Fuer das westgermanische wäre ae
und as Material allein wgen des moeglichen Nordischen
Einflusses nicht aussagekraeftig, 

On the sources Reichert mentions a letter possibly written
by Cassiodorus of 533 to the Senate that proof has
been found that there are seventeen generations of royal
ancestry from Gapt to Athalaricus. 

For further on the question I would have to refer you
to the Hoops article on progenital traditions.

Wolfram, I believe, has written that the Amals based
there belonging to late classical nobility on gods and
half gods. One of these would then be Gapt/Gaut.

Further in Hoops 2nd ed. there is the view that Gaut headed
the genealogy of the Amals and that there is a connection between
Amals and the Old Nordic Odin/Wotan, as Gaut and Geat/Gausus are
related to Old Nordic Gautr, which in Grimnismal 54 is mentioned
as one of the many names of Odin. Gaut's role is that of a 
progenitor of a royal family.

It is likely, so Hoops, that Gaut at the time of the Goths was
not identified with Odin. This relation was probably created
in Old Nordic literature of the viking era. There should
be the interpretation that other views are in the minority.

My interpretation is consistent with that of Professors Andersson
and Reichert (in Hoops). These interpretations based on the
facts should be viewed against other interpretations. But the
question: which?

Never heard of Looingja until now.

Gothically

Bertil









opinions yes, facts no.

>(my lates contributions can  be found in the
>archive).

They are also on my harddisk.
If you think I missed something, perhaps you could refer
me to your earlier posts. (Date & subject header)


If a major reading effort is involved, then maybe that might
be a good idea. On the other hand, if it is only a few sentences
or a paragraph, it would also seem possible to communicate it
directly to the group.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what you are saying then (lest I misunderstand
you), is that the above article explains in a convincing
manner that  "Ther cannot be much doubt that Gaut is the
progenitor of the Goths"

Please, Bertil, let us try to separate "facts" from
interpretation of facts. The "facts" as I see them
is what the sources tell us. But in order to establish
things that "there can be little doubt", such facts
need to be interpreted.

So please let us at least try to make a brief list of
what the "facts" are about "Gaut". Snorri does not mention
"Gaut" in conection with the Goths, as far as I recall.

Then _by who_ or _where_ is it that the name is mentioned?

Then there is also Jordanes mentioning og "Gapt"
which has then been "interpreted" (by some*) as "Gaut".




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/