1004604 Assessing Jordanes’ Getica By Ferdinand Goetzen 1 1004604 Jordanes Seminar Paper The Origins and Deeds of the Goths, also known as Getica is not only the biggest but also the most disputed source when it comes to determining the origins and identity of the Barbarians. Written as an abridged version of Cassiodorius’ 12 volume History of the Goths in 551 by Jordanes, a retired Byzantine bureaucrat of Gothic descent, Getica has been subject to much dispute and controversy. Jordanes’ work on the Goths attempts to recount their history and noble legacy, from early beginnings in Scandinavia to their military fate endured at the hands of Justinian I. Given the circumstances in which both works were compiled, there is much disagreement as to how much of Getica reflects the true history and identity of the Goths. This paper intends to explain and assess the issues that revolve around Getica by analyzing the source itself as well as the theories of major scholars. Three factors must be taken into account when assessing the reliability of Getica as a historical source, the first being Cassiodorius’ intentions while writing his 12-volume History of the Goths. Cassiodorius’ intentions were not literary but political. It is suggested by Christensen and Goffart that his work is entirely fictitious1. Working as a roman nobleman under the rule of the Gothic King Theoderic, it is thought that Cassiodorius was commissioned or at least inspired to write a history of the Goths that would celebrate their long and noble legacy. Theoderic 1 Christiansen, A.S. (2002) Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth, pp. 7-10 2 1004604 was a successful ruler and the motor behind the Roman-Gothic rapprochement. In order to enjoy the same respect as Roman noble and royal families, he would have needed Cassiodorius to prove the worthiness of his Amali heritage and his fitness to rule2. It therefore doesn’t seem that Cassiodorius’ motivations were in line with an accurate portrayal of Gothic history, it is rather suggested that much of his work is false and fictitious. Wolfram would argue that there is a kernel of truth to be found when analyzing things like ethnic terminology, but Danish historian Christensen would disagree, claiming the entire work to be fictitious and based on ancient Greek and Roman Myths3. The second factor is Jordanes’ reliability and the extent to which he remained faithful to Cassiodorus’ original text. In the mid-6th century, Jordanes’ was commissioned to abridge the 12-volume History of the Goths. The original text no longer exists, which has led to much discussion on how faithful Jordanes was to it. Many mythical claims have been rejected and even the more realistic elements, such as the Gothic origins in Scandinavia4, are highly debated by the likes of Wolfram and Goffart5. Getica certainly doesn’t seem consistent in its method and style, making it a misleading source at times. Jordanes’ himself admits that he did not have the original texts by Cassiodorius’ at his disposal when writing Getica. He instead based his writing on the memory 2 Goffart, W. (2005) Jordanes' "Getica" and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins from Scandinavia […], pp. 395-6 3 Christiansen, A.S. (2002) Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths […], pp. 33-35 & 52- 55 4 Jordanes (1915) The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, XVII (94) 5 Goffart, W. (1988) The narrators of barbarian history (A.D. 550-800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon, pp. 58-59 3 1004604 of his last reading of the History of the Goths when he took the books out on a 3- day loan6. Pairing his original writing with other Greek and Roman writings from the likes of Priscus7, Jordanes’ claims to have complimented and summarized Cassiodorius’ work. Goffart argues that though he does not claim originality for the work, much of it is plagiarized and badly referenced, as well as often being inaccurate. The appearance of 6th century ethnic names for example, suggests that there is some discrepancy between the original sources and Jordanes’ account. With only 3 days to study the 12 volumes and likely no intention at the time to summarize them, it seems doubtful that Jordanes would have remembered much8. Many have argued about whether it is possible to detach Jordanes’ writing from that of Cassiodorus. His use of other scholars suggests that he is not inventing the story9, but without Cassiodorus’ original work, there is no proof. Analyzing Cassiodorius’ style can be useful in determining what parts stem from his work, but a complete separation is impossible according to Goffart10. Nevertheless, Croke argues that one can differentiate between Jordanes’ and Cassiodorius’ style, which has allowed for historians to establish the original intention of Cassiodorius’ work. For example, it is known that Jordanes’ blindly accepts Cassiodorius’ claim that the Goths were identical to the Getae and identified with the Scythians11. 6 Jordanes (1915) The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, Preface (2-3) 7 Ibid, XXXIV (178) 8 Goffart, W. (1988) The narrators of barbarian history (A.D. 550-800) […], p. 59 9 Jordanes (1915) The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, Preface (3) 10 Goffart, W. (2005) Jordanes' "Getica" and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins from Scandinavia […], p. 386 11 Croke, B. (1987) Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes, p. 119 4 1004604 Similarly to Croke, Wolfram believes that Jordanes’ work is based on that of Cassiodorus and can teach us about the Origo Gothica12. Goffart and Croke strongly disagree about the reliability and competence of Jordanes13. The final factor is Jordanes‘ motivations for writing Getica. Though a clear supporter of Justinian’s rule, Jordanes’ views do at times seem biased towards the Goths. He praises Alaric’s restraint at the Sack of Rome14 and is quick to criticize Romans such as Stilicho and his attack on the Goths at Pollentia15. This suggests that despite his views on the Byzantine conquest of the Goths, Jordanes had hopes for reconciliation. He does after all briefly mention his Gothic origins and his connection to the Amali family16. It is therefore understandable why Jordanes would want the Goths to have a respectable image, even if he supported Justinian’s conquering and conversion of them17. Goffart however argues that Jordanes had quite dubious origins and that very little suggests that he would have identified with the Goths. Jordanes even requests in his text that his origins not make him seem biased18. This leads Goffart to assert that, “Jordanes' compilation of the Getica was part of […] the elimination of Gothic rule”. He believes, that at a time where Byzantium had the Goths on the verge of surrender, it would have been beneficial for Justinian to discredit the work that promoted the nobility and legitimacy of the Gothic 12 Goffart, W. (2005) Jordanes' "Getica" and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins from Scandinavia […], p. 383 13 Croke, B. (1987) Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes, pp. 117-20 14 Jordanes (1915) The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, XXX (155-8) 15 Croke, B. (1987) Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes, p. 125 16 Jordanes (1915) The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, L (266) 17 Croke, B. (1987) Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes, p. 127 18 Goffart, W. (1988) The narrators of barbarian history (A.D. 550-800) […], pp. 42-3 5 1004604 people. Goffart believes that Jordanes was commissioned to “[bring] Cassiodorus's history into harmony with what Justinian had done to the Gothic kingdom”. Jordanes’ strong identification with the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church would explain his willingness to abridge the volumes19. Another explanation, when reading Jordanes’ conclusion20, could be that he wanted to preserve the view of the Goths as a noble and powerful people in order to make Justinian’s impending victory over them seem more glorious. When analyzing Jordanes’ Getica and the historical arguments that surround it, it becomes clear how unique and controversial the text is. Though difficult to determine truth from myth and Jordanes from Cassiodorius, it seems rash to discard the entirety of Getica as fiction, as Christensen and Goffart would. Croke takes a skeptical approach, but like Wolfram, believes that a proper analysis of the text can reveal ‘snippets of information’ about the Goths’ true origins and identity. 19 Goffart, W. (2005) Jordanes' "Getica" and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins from Scandinavia […], pp. 395-6 20 Jordanes (1915) The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, Conclusion (315-316) 6 1004604 Bibliography Croke, B. (1987) Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes, ‘Classical Philology Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 117-134’, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Goffart, W. (1988) The narrators of barbarian history (A.D. 550-800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon, Princeton: Princeton University Press Goffart, W. (2005) Jordanes' "Getica" and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins from Scandinavia, ‘Speculum, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 379-398’, Cambridge: The Medieval Academy of America Jordanes (1915) The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, Translated by Charles C. Mierow [Online: University of Calgary]. Available at http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html [Last Accessed 22 October 2013] Christiansen, A.S. (2002) Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum 7 .