[gothic-l] Gaut absent from Getica.

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

bertil wrote:
>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.


These explanations have already been posted
to the list. I do not think Reichert has a different
explanation. If he does, please say so. The explanation
is unlikely to be more than a few lines any way.
The explanation goes back to R. Much in "Zeitschrift für
deutsches Altertum", 41, 1896, pp. 95-96.
which I quoted as one of the footnotes of Jan de Vries
That ought to be the basic reference that everybody quotes.
I'll bet that is the one Reichert bases himself upon as well.

>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.

I am not devoted to de Vries's views. It just happens that
he wrote some of the basic reference works on the topic.
His advantage is that he manages to stay objective.
That is his achievement. He lost his job after the war.
But that's another story. In spite of that, the scientific
community has continued to hold his view in high regard.
That can only be seen as an attest to its quality, and objectivity.

He is not just one voice. His book discusses the different views
up to his time in an objective and useful manner, where he
gives exact references and balances the different views.



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

Did I say that English "to interpret" means Swedish "uppfatta"?
I think not. I said that German "aufassen" means "to interpret" in English.
(De Vries used the German word "aufassen", and I tried to
give a rough translation of this word for the benefit of our English
readers)
Here is Cassel's German-English dictionary:
AUFASSEN: apprehend, comprehend, understand, grasp,
take in (ideas etc.); regard, consider, see, view, conceive of,
interpret (phenomena);

In particular, note the last entry in connection with "phenomena".
This is the scientific usage of the word. Because that is what science
deals with: phenomena and how to interpret them.

Then I ALSO said that German "aufassen" is the same as Swedish "uppfatta".
(which seems reasonable)  Aufassen, eine Aufassung = an opinion.
(See Muret-sanders Deutsch-Englisch p. 112: 2 Auffassung (Meinung,
Ansicht): "nach meiner Auffassung" = in my view or opinion, to my
mind, as I see it. Muret-Sanders is one of the better German English
"Großwörterbücher")



>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.

I'd think they both refer to R. Much's 1897 article, don't they?
But you don't need "access" to de Vries, since I already copied
what he said, and sent it to the list. I even included the
foot-notes. I think I even saw you answerering that post
using the same header. And so you cannot say that you missed it.
Is the "Hoop's" article so terribly long that you cannot
quote it in its entirety?


>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.

See my quote from de Vries that I posted yesterday.
It is in R.Much 1897. The only problem is that
we do not know of any such Greek manuscripts.
The existence of such manuscripts is only a hypothesis.

And if it was as easy as that, then "Rhaus and Raptus"
ought to be changed too, don't you think?
But nobody does change manuscripts. They let them stay
as they are. That is because in science one separates
very strictly between fact and interpretation of fact.


>The writing of Gapt is therefore just another way
>of writing Gaut. Of course the writing is technically Gapt but

Not "technically", but "actually/factually".


>it is due to the Latin use of the common Greek technique.

>Maybe you should consult the original Hoops text in German.

Doesn't Hoops merely repeat the 1897 explanation by R.Much
that was already posted several times to the list?
(see my full quote from De Vries that I posted)

>I am sure Stavanger university library contains the
>Hoops 2nd edition.

How can you be so sure ?
I searched all Norwegian libraries on the internet, and
found only Hoops 1911. Wait: I found volume 11:
Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde / von Johannes Hoops.
Gemeinde - Geto-dakische Kultur und Kunst.
Bd. 11
1998.
pages:  16, 577 s.
ISBN:  3-11-015832-9
Eiere: HVO NBO UBB UBIT UBTØ UHS
The problem is that Gaus or Gapt wouldn't be in volume 11, would it?
(and I couldn't find volume 10 in all of Norway.)
Your recommendation hence seems utterly vain.
And reaching any of the Norwegian university libraries
would be quite a trip for me right now.

Besides it is just a couple of lines isn't it?
Please tell me how many sentences Reichert devotes to it.
I think it would be terrible if I went to a lot of trouble digging
up these references that you keep repeating, and I were then to
discover that they say essentially what de Vries is saying
and not devoting much more space to it either.
And besides, all they do is discuss various theories and assumptions
isn't it? But discussion cannot alter facts. And it is the facts
of the case that I am keen about now.


>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."

But here is merely a repeating of the same opinion that everybody
else is repeating, isn't he? Besides, we discussed Otto Höfler
on the German list a couple of years ago, and it seems his idea was to
prove certain ideas he had about "Männerbünde". I have never
had a chance to take a look at what he wrote. You do not find him
a bit seculative?


>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.

What ? That means you didn't understand what I wrote at all.
That Gapt is not in Jordanes, is not an opinion I have.
It is a fact.

I pointed out to you that it is not legitimate to say that
Gaut is mentioned by Jordanes, because he isn't mentioned by
Jordanes. Period.

You say you are "sceptical concerning my interpretation".
But I never said a single word about _how_I_ interpret
the facts. I may very well be interpreting the facts the same
way you are, for all that you know.

But in general, I do not feel there is a necessity to interpret
all facts, and have definite opinions about everything.
I find that facts are fascinating items as they are, and do not
feel any need to attach definite interpretations to them. It is a
general feature of facts that they allow multiple interpretations.
It is only very rarely that a complex of facts have one unique
interpretation.

For example, if you leave your lunch in the park, and it disappears,
you may theorize that a dog took it. But if nobody saw the dog,
and no traces are found of it, it will remain only a (reasonable)
hypothesis.

Gee, we are really discussing scientific method here aren't we?

Anti-mystagogically,
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/