[gothic-l] Gaut/Gapt mentioned in Jordanes.

[Bertil Häggman]

Keth,

My view is that we can safely say that the writing
Gapt was intended to be Gaut (see the explanation
in Hoops 2nd edition in my message a few days
ago). Did you read it and did you have any comments
on what Professor Reichert wrote there? I think
the commentary in Hoops makes the views
of Grimm rather uninteresting. There is a 
technical explanation for using Gapt.

Know from your earlier messages I have concluded that you
are very devoted to de Vries views, but after all he is only one voice.

BTW, interpret means "tolka" inte uppfatta.
The latter word means "apprehend", and is quite
a different in meaning.

Professor Andersson and Reichert differ from
de Vries, and I don't have access to de Vries,
so I cannot express a view on his treatment
of Gaut/Gapt.

Personally I think the explanation for the writing
of Gapt instead of Gaut is quite satisfactory.
It has to do with the fact that the use of
au was a problem and therefore ap before t
was chosen. Just a technicality and it does not
have the implications you propose.

The writing of Gapt is therefore just another way
of writing Gaut. Of course the writing is technically Gapt but
it is due to the Latin use of the common Greek
technique. Maybe you should consult
the original Hoops text in German. I am sure
Stavanger university library contains the
Hoops 2nd edition.

Would also like to add Hoefler:

"Und dieser Name (Gaut) wird, wie der Name des
sagenhaften Anherrn der gotische Amaler, Gapt das ist
Gaut, und der des mytischen Vorfahren verschiedener 
englischer Koenigshaeuser, Geat (<Gaut), auf der namen
des alten Gautengottes *Gautz zurueckgehen...ein typischer
Gott-Stammbaum."

You can find this quote on p. 60 in Ingemar's _Goterkaellan_.

Yes, in the case of the interpretation
of Gapt and Gaut I am very sceptical
in relation to your interpretation and I think
we should decide that we differ in opinion
on this point.

Gothically

Bertil





I think we can safely say that "Gaut" is not mentioned in Jordanes.

Here is how Jan de Vries explains it:
"...von Grimm als eine Verschreibung für GAUT aufgefaßt,.."
Note that he uses the verb "aufgefasst" < "aufassen" = to interpret,
or in Swedish "uppfatta".

pretations/Aufassungen) differ from person to person.

Thus, when de Vries writes: "Wenn man von der Auffassung ausgeht, daß..."
then he does not mean that he will base his reasonings upon  facts,
but rather on an assumption (=Auffassung). (ausgehen von = to proceed
from).

Here is another excerpt from Jan de Vries, which again clearly
shows that these are assumptions. He writes:

So you see that de Vries' last word on the mattter is the word
"unentschieden" (=undecided), a word that, if I am not mistaken,
should be quite familiar across all language barriers. It would
be what they use in football (=Fußball, soccer) when a football
match has no winner, because both sides scored an equal number of
goals.

If this is so hard to understand or agree upon (difference
between facts and assumptions), then dialogue becomes very
difficult, nay imposible.


If a well known and influential scholar like Müllenhoff saw
fit to disagree, then it clearly cannot be facts that we are
dealing with, but rather different "uppfattningar" of the facts.
(Auffassungen/interpretations of the facts).


And even your countryman Andreas Nordin (1997 translator and commentator
of Jordanes Getica) is honest enough to translate the Latin text
"as is", that is, "not to change so much as a iota", which was the
ancient Jewish maxim of how to go about it when copying the ancient
and sacred texts.

That is why the name "Gaut" does not occur _even_once_ in Nordin's
translation of the Getica. Even when he translates the Latin text
he leaves the spelling of the proper names unchanged.
(see Nordin's Getica edition, Atlantis, Stockholm 1997, pages 70-71)
It is only in the commentary section (see page 216, op.cit.)
that he mentions Gaut as alternative for Gapt. And incidentally,
this is exactly one of the things that reviewers of the book
ought to take notice of, that Nordin's commentary in my opinion
fails here. Clearly he ought to have followed the responsible
attitude as exemplified by well-established and accepted
authorities such as Jan de Vries and others: to state more
clearly that this identity is only an assumption, and also
at least briefly mention what kind of facts the assumption
is based upon.





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/