Re: [tied] Re: alb. gji

----- Original Message -----
From: <dmilt1896@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 3:37 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: alb. gji

> Unlike the first six, the last six books of the Aeneid were not
> drilled into my brain by thirty lines a day translation, so I could
> well be missing some points. Anyway, here I go.

You read it recently? That is nice, I read it several years ago. BTW, do
you remember of the "Andromache" in Eneida? This is a name of a woman.
Should be seen the Greek "andros" as related here?

> Or
> Vergil certainly wrote that some ancestors of the Romans, the ones
> that really count, were Trojans. But you speak of Latins. According
> to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (and I assume that this was the sort of
> thing Vergil would know), Aborigines came down from the Appenines and
> settled down as Latini under King Latinus (I'm getting this from the
> Enc. Brit. 11th ed.) and were there to welcome Aeneas when he landed
> The name of the Aborigines suggested that they didn't come from
> anywhere else, although Cato regarded them as Hellenic immigrants.
> According to Hesiod, Latinos was the son of Odysseus and Circe, if you
> can make anything out of that. Certainly not Thracians

He, that should point to the fact Latins are Greeks, at least from the
side of the father:)

Yes I spooked about Latins since this is the name we use. Strictly
theoretical we should speak about Latins - if the stories are true- just
with the decision of Eneas that " the language will be called Latin now
and the folk should be called Latin."
I didn't thought to imply too far the mythology , but we can do it. So
let us see what we know about:
Dionysius of Halicarnas says about Latins they should be direct
descendants of Heracle and a hyperborean girl ( lib. 1.43). This is an
another tradition about origin of Latins.
An another tradition means that Latin is too the son of Heracle, but the
mother is the wife or the daughter of the King Faunus (Dionis Cassil lib
I-XXXXVI fr. 8), Justin XLIII 1: "Fauno fuit uxor nomine Fatua... Ex
filia Fauni et Hercule... Latinus procreatur".
Dyonisius of Halicarnassus mean that Fatua is one and the same as the
hyperborean girl.
An another tradition is to find by Suida. He means that Heracle have had
a son caled "Telephus" and his nickname was "Latinus". This Telephus
should have been king over Cetii ( Ketioi) and beginning with his reign
, the Cetii begun call themselves Latins.
Suida: "Latinoi: Telefos yar uios 'Herakleous o epikletheis Latinos,
metonamase tous palai Ketious legomenous Latinous".
If this one is true, then who has been Telephus-Latinus and where was
his lands he ruled over?
There are several testimonies but Dio Chrysostomus meant Telephus was a
king of Getae and his lands he ruled over was called Mesia which at East
was edged by the mouths of Danube, in West with Histriam, in South with
Macedonia and in north with Danube.
With other words, Telephus was King over a wide area what later will be
roughly known as Moesia, Illyria, Dalamatia , Panonia and Noricum.
Herodot come with other story and say that the Greek from Pontus Euxinus
know some stories about origin of the Scytians. After Heracle took the
cows of Geryon, came to Scytia, where he lost his horses. Looking for
them, he met Echidna who was Queen of that country. Heracle should have
had 3 sons with Echidna: Agatyrsus, Gelonous and Scythes.
Hesion means that the country of Equidna was called "Ariminia" (Hesion
Theog. v. 302 "'H o erut ein 'Arimoisin upot chtona lugre Echidna".
In all tehse stories ( latin and pontic) there is always implied Heracle
and a girl which is or a hyperborean one or Echidna. But Echidna was a
hyperboreean since her country was ( after Herodotus) called Hylea (=
full of wald?) and it was in Scythia. Anyway, from Heracle and a women
there should have been 4 sons. Agatyrsus, Gelonus, Scytes and Latinus.
It doesn't matter which one should be true ( it seems more probably
these are all fragments of a bigger story). Interesting the Latins are
always connected with thracians. On a side these stories about the
connection with thracians ( in fact getae. for me Thracian is just a
part of Getae), on another side the story of Virgilius & the Trojan
connection. One will ask himself, why not with Greek? Why not with
Persians? Why not with Germanic tribes? Why not with celto-iberic places
and sagas? (in fact , with the west-part of Europe)
An answer should be that the origin of these stories are all related to
that part of the World. To the countries around Danube. Interesting
enough, a such territory is supposed to have been the homeland of
IE-people too.
.

> However, you probably meant "Romans" when you wrote "Latins", so
> let's go on. Unless I've really missed something, Vergil never wrote
> that the Trojans were Thracians. My guess is that if you had suggested
> it to him, his first response would have been the distinction so
> meaningful to Herodotus (as well as G. Bush, S. Hussain and too many
> others) "No, Thracians are Europeans, Trojans were Asiatics." I'm not
> aware of any foundations myths that put either people elsewhere than
> in their historic homes.
> If you asked whether they were
> linguistically and culturally related (however that might be expressed
> in Latin), the answer would probably have been "No, the Thracians are
> barbarians; the Trojans spoke Greek (at least there never seemed to be
> a communication problen between the sides in the Iliad)."
> Was there indeed a linguistic or cultural similarity between the
> Thracians and the people of Troy VI(+-), who may have fought a war
> with the Greeks? It seems not unlikely. I'll listen to Alex's (or
> anybody else's) arguments, but don't state it on Vergil's authority!
> Dan
I suppose if there has been indeed a connection between Romans and
Thracians and Trojans, then Virgilius choose "Troj" as origin of the
Romans for the fact this is the only one prestigious Tracian city in the
"good world". And "good world" for that time should have been the Greeks
so the story should be seen as just a matter "of prestige" but not as
the absolutely truth. Or maybe this was not "choosing" but he knew
better.
The question should or could be answered from what we know just by
linguistic data I guess.
I gave a little text from Strabo where toponyms and hydronims are
identically in Troy and Trace. That should be a argument in favour of a
linguistic relation, otherwise is hard to think that different people
with non-related languages gave names which the same phonological aspect
in two different places of the world. The another episode where we learn
about Thracians which are coming to help the Trojnas, this one could not
be seen as an argument since there can be an alliance between two folks
in war, without that these folks are related linguistically to each
other.
BTW what should mean "Troj"? Is there any explanation of the word
itself?
What means in Slavic "trojanu"?