[gothic-l] Re: Jordanes and the Scandinavian Eruli

[george knysh]

--- "Troels Brandt <trbrandt at post9.tele.dk>"
<trbrandt at post9.tele.dk> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Tore Gannholm
> <tore.gannholm at s...>
> wrote:
> > Jordanes doesn't mention that the Heruls settled
> next to the
> Gautoi!!
> > Jordanes source must therefore be earlier.
> >
> > That is Procopius that mentions the Gautoi and he
> has his
> information
> > from a later source, the new king brought down
> from Thule
>
> I agree, but Procopius wrote "one of the most
> numerous nations there
> are the Gauti [Gautoi], and it was next
> [para=at/beside/by] to them
> that the incoming Eruli settled at the time of
> question"

******GK: Hello Troels and Tore! Has anyone tried to
make something of the seemingly redundant "at the time
of question"? Arguing that Procopius was aware of a
subsequent expulsion, but chose not to mention it? And
that while the Eruli did "remain on the island" (as he
earlier stated), by the time he completed his work
(ca. 553/4) they were no longer where they were in
508-548?*******

 in the
> Dewing translation. The interpretation has been
> discussed earlier and
> as far as I can see this position of arrival must be
> the same as the
> position of the Jordanes-event, if the two authors
> mentioned the same
> group of Heruls.
>
> This makes enclaves in the forests of Smaaland the
> most probable
> choise in my opinion. Here the Dani had a reason to
> expell them and
> they would live "para" the Gautoi.
>
> Troels

******GK:If one assumes that Jordanes is reporting an
event (the expulsion) which occurred earlier than the
northward trek of the Procopian Heruls, then we have a
paradoxical situation. Jordanes, in 551, is writing
about something the Dani did to the Heruls a couple of
generations ago, but is unaware of the aforementioned
northward trek, of the Heruls' current location, or of
the entire "king summoning episode". I find it easier
to assume that it is Procopius who omitted to mention
the post-548 demise of the northern Herulian political
society because of his lack of interest in these
"barbarians" unless they were of immediate relevance
to Byzantine political and military issues, than that
Jordanes knew nothing at all about them after the
obscure pre-508 expulsion.== One would also have to
assume, I think, that this pre-508 expulsion of some
group of Heruls already in the north would have been
mentioned by Cassiodorus, whom Jordanes merely copied.
That is why, on balance, I find it more "economical"
to take the view that it is indeed Jordanes and not
Cassiodorus who is reporting the "expulsion" of the
Heruls by the Dani, and that this expulsion is that of
the Heruls who went northwards as per Procopius from
the areas they occupied "at the time in question". The
expulsion would thus be a very recent event, and
Jordanes would not have to repeat the Procopian
information.== I realize of course that any scenario
here is based on pretty tenuous analysis. I just feel
somewhat more comfortable with one that involves less
(possible) assumptions than another.*****
>
>
>




__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

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/