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

[george knysh]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com
> --- "Troels Brandt <trbrandt at p...>"
> <trbrandt at p...> wrote:
> > 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?*******

The _expression "tote" was discussed a year ago at
Germanic List in a
discussion about "para" and an immidiate integration.
It was by
Andreas translated "just then", and I found elsewhere
the
translation "at that time", but we agreed that this
could mean that
they had moved earlier. This appear to be the only
reason to use the
word as you indicate.

Also Jordanes and an expulsion before 519 was
discussed in those
mails.

I agree that Procopius _expression "remained there on
the island"
indicated that they did not return, but I have only
seen Alvar
Ellegaard claiming that.


> > 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".

In that case you can't avoid a paradox. The chapter is
by nearly all
scholars accepted to be written by Cassiodorus, except
maybe the 4
words about the Heruls which Andreas mentioned
"probably" were
written by Jordanes - because of the short timeframe
509-519. If we
follow your logic, why didn't Cassiodorus in his text
about the
people in Scanza mention the Heruls going to Scanza 10
years earlier?
I think this was what he did mentioning the most
recent event he knew
in that connection.

******GK: The additional problem here is that since we
don't have his full work we really don’t know what
Cassiodorus wrote (or failed to write) about the
Eruli. He may well have [in 519] mentioned the Erulian
migration to Scandza. In which case the text in
Jordanes was meant to give readers “the latest”, i.e.
that the Eruli were now “expelled”  a propriis
sedibus, perhaps scattered, and should not be counted
[in 551] among the major peoples of Scandinavia even
if they were still there. From that perspective
Jordanes would not have recopied a putative
Cassiodoran text about a migration and settlement
which was no longer relevant. It is interesting that
Procopius uses language which suggests that the Eruli
are not among the 13 major peoples of Scandza [in
553/4]. Nevertheless, it also remains plausible that
the weakening after the expulsion of 550 (on my
scenario) was temporary, and that a reconstitution of
Erulian power under a different label began
immediately after 553/4, though there was no historian
in the south who mentioned it. I don’t really insist
on this, you know. But the elements of a
reconstruction are so meager that it seems entirely
plausible textologically if one only relies on
Procopius and Jordanes. Your alternative scenario is
clearly possible, and Einar’s ideas in a different
post are also quite useful.******





__________________________________________________
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/