Re: Vandals

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/25/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > > > > They [GK: the Vandals] spoke an East Germanic language,
> > > > > > > so they were not LINGUISTICALLY Veneti,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope. The only reason their language, of which we know
> > > > > > nothing, is classed as East Germanic, is that they lived in
> > > > > > the eastern part of the later Germania.
> > > >
> > > > GK: What is missing in the wikipedia article on the Vandals is
> > > the data from Pliny and Tacitus. According to the former
> > > (NH IV.99) the "Vandili" were a group of Germanic tribes
> > > "quorum pars Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini, Gutones".
> > > According to the latter (Germania, 2), the Germani celebrated
> > > the "Vandalios" as their own in "carminibus antiquis", and
> > > Tacitus concluded that the designation (Vandilii/Vandalii) was
> > > among the "vera et antiqua" Germanic "nomina". As we know,
> > > Tacitus also made a clear distinction between Vandals and
> > > Venedi.
> >
> > GK: So that, in the first c. CE, not only were the non-Germanic
> Venedi something different from Vandali (for Tacitus no less than
> Pliny), but the term "Vandali" was considered both Germanic and
> ancient.
>
> By some.
>
> *****GK: By all, if we are to believe Tacitus rather than Torsten.*****

By some. This is what Tacitus says:
'Quidam autem, ut in licentia vetustatis, ... affirmant; eaque vera et
antiqua nomina [esse]'

"Some, with the freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert
that ..., and that these [Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii] are
genuine old names"

> > > That's not quite accurate.
> > >
> > > http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/g01000.htm
> > >
> > > 'Celebrant carminibus antiquis (quod unum apud illos memoriae et
> > > annalium genus est) Tuisconem deum terra editum, et filium
> > > Mannum, originem gentis conditoresque. Manno tres filios
> > > assignant, e quorum nominibus proximi Oceano Ingaevones, medii
> > > Hermiones, ceteri Istaevones vocentur. Quidam autem, ut in
> > > licentia vetustatis, plures deo ortos pluresque gentis
> > > appellationes, Marsos, Gambrivios, Suevos, Vandalios,
> > > affirmant; eaque vera et antiqua nomina. Ceterum Germaniae
> > > vocabulum recens et nuper additum; quoniam, qui primi Rhenum
> > > transgressi Gallos expulerint, ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani
> > > vocati sint: ita nationis nomen, non gentis evaluisse paulatim,
> > > ut omnes primum a victore ob metum, mox a se ipsis invento
> > > nomine Germani vocarentur.'
> >
> > > In other words, there are two schools of thought among the
> > > Germani. According to one, the 'Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi,
> > > Vandilii' are not part of the Germani,
> >
> > >
> > > GK: Typical Torsten non-sequitur. They would in fact, according
> > to one view, be listed among descendants of the three sons of
> > Mannus("the coast tribes" + "those of the interior" + "the
> > rest"): for instance, Pliny accessed a source where the Suevi
> > were Hermiones...
> >
> > Nope. Argumentum e nihilo. The fact that Pliny finds someone who
> > thinks the Suevi were Hermiones does not mean that everybody of
> > the Germania Parva school thinks that.
>
>
> >
> > GK: The "Germania Parva" and "Germania Magna" schools are
> > figments of Torsten's Snorrist imagination. Tacitus neither says
> > nor implies any such thing. What he is saying is that for some,
> > all the Germani of his time are descended from the sons of
> > Mannus, while for others they are not, since Tuisco allegedly had
> > "other sons" than Mannus...
>
> And for convenience. the ideas of 'some' I called the "Germania
> Parva" school, and the ideas of 'others' I called the "Germania
> Magna" school, which I patiently explained,
>
> ****GK: You only explained your isdeological prejudices,

No, I explained some terminology I introduced.

> with which we are all familiar. These prejudices run counter to
> Tacitus' witness, as I am patiently attempting to explain to
> you.****

When will you begin?

>
> > > GK: The dispute among these views is not about whether tribe or
> > > complex of tribes A,B, or C is or is not "Germanic", but
> > > whether it descends or does not descend directly from the god...
> >
> > Same thing. Whichever tribe descends from Tuisco is Germanic.
> > Whichever tribe doesn't, isn't.
> >
> > GK: The point is that all tribes descend from Tuisco,
> Torsten.(:=) )) "plures deo ortos" in Tacitus' text.
>
> Nope. It's like this:
>
> ****GK: Who cares about what Tacitus says? Torsten has the truth.

"It's like this" (:=)))........

But 'plures deo ortos' in what 'quidam' "some" think; not all. Please
read the sentence again.

> All tribes have eponymous founders.
>
> ****GK: Right.****
>
> 'Some' ("Germania Parva" adherents in the terminology I chose))
> think the founding heroes of the Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandalii
> are not sons of Tuisco (or Mannus?) ie. are not Germani,
>
> ****GK: Wrong. "Some" think the founding heroes of the Marsi,
> Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandalii are sons (or grandsons?) of Tuisco (who
> had other sons besides Mannus), rather than his great grandsons via
> the three sons of Mannus. It's a simple disagreement about
> genealogy. They are all Germani (according to the new terminology),
> and recognize themselves as such.****

Now I'll admit that the text doesn't rule this as a possibility. But
that is because the text doesn't mention those four tribes anywhere
else, except for the Suevi, and they are clearly an exceptional case
in that they are a union, not a tribe. The idea that the Marsi,
Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandalii in the view of some (here, the 'others')
were something extraneous recently incorporated in the 'family' (and
had changed their language as a result) does not collide with anything
in Tacitus.


Torsten