Jordanes (also Jordanis or even Iornandes, 'bold as a boar') was a 6th century history in Moesia (modern Bulgaria), who provides most of the literary evidence concerning the early history of the Goths, by giving a very criticized condensation of a lost history by Cassiodorus under the title ''De origine actibusque Getarum'' (''The origin and deeds of the Goths''), written about 551 CE. Every shred of evidence about Jordanes himself comes from a few sentences in Chapter 50 of his history of the Goths: we learn that his grandfather Paria, not himself a Goth, was notary to Candac, the chief of a confederation of Alans and other tribes that were settled during the later 5th century south of the Danube, in the Roman province of Moesia. Jordanes himself was the notary of Candac's nephew, the Gothic chief Gunthigis ''ante conversionem meam'' ("before my conversion"), that is, either before he converted from the Arianism creed of his forefathers and of the Goths, or, some suggest, until he took the vows of a monk. Certainly his extant writings are from an orthodox, not an Arian, perspective. In the age of Justinian, Jordanes was a Christianity and just possibly bishop of Croton. The ''Origine actibusque Getarum'' of Jordanes shows Gothic sympathies; but these are probably due to an imitation of the tone of Cassiodorus, from whom he draws practically all his material. Naturally, Jordanes absorbed into his work the fundamental idea of Cassiodorus, that the only way to secure for the Goths a prosperous future was to bring about their peaceful absorption into the Roman Empire, which was then the center of civilization. The sympathies of Jordanes, of Germanic origin but not himself a Goth, are friendly to the Goths, even apart from the influence of Cassiodorus; but he is also prepossessed in favor of the eastern emperors, in whose territories this confederation lived and whose subject he himself was. This makes him an impartial authority on the last days of the Ostrogoths. At the same time, living in Moesia, he is restricted in his outlook to Danubian affairs. He has little to say of the inner history and policy of the Italian kingdom of Theodoric: his interests lie, as Theodor Mommsen said, within a triangle of which the three points are Sirmium, Larissa and Constantinople. Finally, he shows himself friendly to the Huns whenever they enter into his narrative. Jordanes' other work survives under various descriptive titles, ''De summa temporum vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum'' or sometimes ''De regnorum et temporum successione,'' or even ''Liber de origine mundi et actibus Romanorum ceterarumque gentium'', or simply ''De gestis Romanorum''. It is a hasty compilation that was begun before, but published after, the Gothic history of 551, covering the history of the world from the Creation, based on Jerome and other writers, but of some value for the century 450 - 550, when Jordanes is dealing with recent history. ==Reference== *''Catholic Encyclopedia'' ==External link== *Jordanes, [http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html ''The Origins and Deeds of the Goths''], translated by Charles C. Mierow. [http://www.northvegr.org/lore/jgoth/index.php alternative]. 6th century Byzantine historians Goths
"clumsy rehash" is the correct phrasing - I don't believe there any modern historians who would disagree. If there are, let's get a name. User:Stan Shebs 14:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Yes, he is very much flogged by modern scholars. I just don't think that ''clumsy rehash'' is a neutral way of phrasing it.--User:Wiglaf 14:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) :BTW, here is a list of scholars and publications who don't question everything he says, from Linguistlist [http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0205&L=gothic-l&D=1&F=&S=&P=1531] *Bell-Fialkoff, A., _The Role of Migration in the History of the Eurasian Steppe_, London: Macmillan, 2000. *Findeisen, Joerg-Peter, _Schweden - Von den Anfaengen bis zur Gegenwart_, Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1998. *Hermodsson, Lars, _Goterna - ett krigafolk och dess bibel_ , Stockholm, Atlantis, 1993. *Nordgren, I., Goterkaellan - om goterna i Norden och paa kontinenten_, Skara: Vaestergoetlands museums skriftserie nr 30, 2000. *Rodin, L. - Lindblom, V. - Klang, K., _Gudatraed och vaestgoetska skottkungar - Sveriges bysantiska arv_, Goeteborg: Tre boecker, 1994. *_Schaetze der Ostgoten_, Stuttgart: Theiss, 1995. *_Studia Gotica - Die eisenzeitlichen Verbindungen zwischen Schweden und Suedosteuropa - Vortraege beim Gotensymposion im Statens Historiska Museum_, Stockholm 1970. *Tacitus, _Germania_, (with introduction and commentary by J.B. Rives), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. So, I would not say that every scholar would agree with the text "clumsy rehash".--User:Wiglaf 15:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Your answer is unclear - lots of people use Jordanes as a source (there being not much else to choose from), while "clumsy rehash" is a specific comment about the style and quality of the material. So are you saying all these guys think Jordanes made a well-composed epitome of Cassiodorus? If there really is a disagreement about Jordanes' quality, then it should be expanded upon in the article. User:Stan Shebs 18:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::What do you mean by unclear? You state that the expression ''clumsy rehash'' sums up the opinions of all scholars: ''I don't believe there any modern historians who would disagree. If there are, let's get a name.'' If they agreed with you they would hardly use him as a source. Now you accuse me of saying: '' So are you saying all these guys think Jordanes made a well-composed epitome of Cassiodorus?''. No it is not about that. It is about raising the prose to a decent level, above the level of blurting out aggressive and subjective phrasing. I suggest you find one single scholar who uses such a phrase about Jordanes and quote him.--User:Wiglaf 18:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::In classics we're often stuck using sources that are pretty shaky; think of the Augustan History for example. That doesn't mean we're precluded from saying that they're poor, in fact it's important to be pretty blunt about the quality of a source, because it affects the strength of arguments made from it. I don't happen to have your references at hand (and I don't read Swedish in any case), but it's a very important to distinguish between "Jordanes' statement about X is garbled, but is clarified by an inscription" versus "Jordanes' testimony is utterly reliable". Now I notice that the Getica article does have an external link to a paper by James J. O'Donnell [http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jod/texts/jordanes.html], where he tries to rehabilitate Jordanes a bit, but in the 4th paragraph observes that "The universal assumption, however, is that Jordanes was not a particularly clever fellow. The principal evidence for this claim is his slovenly grammar, on the good classicizing principle that cleverness and good grammar are always found together." (In fact, to a native English speaker, "clumsy" is a somewhat nicer word than "slovenly", the latter having the connotation of deliberate badness, while the former connotes something that one has no control over.) I'm certainly open to alternate phrasings ("aggressive" is not a word that comes to my mind for the original phrase, but if it does to you, then perhaps it will to other people) but let's be careful not to whitewash to the point that readers will be misled. User:Stan Shebs 03:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::OK, I see what you mean, and I think "very criticized" fits the situation. If you have a better suggestion, go ahead.--User:Wiglaf 08:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::Let's get some of these points into the entry text. --User:Wetman 19:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Jordanes:
Jordanes
Jordanes
Jordanes
Jordanes (also Jordanis or even Iornandes, 'bold as a boar') was a 6th century history in Moesia (modern Bulgaria), who provides most of the literary evidence concerning the early history of the Goths, by giving a very criticized condensation of a lost history by Cassiodorus under the title ''De origine actibusque Getarum'' (''The origin and deeds of the Goths''), written about 551 CE. Every shred of evidence about Jordanes himself comes from a few sentences in Chapter 50 of his history of the Goths: we learn that his grandfather Paria, not himself a Goth, was notary to Candac, the chief of a confederation of Alans and other tribes that were settled during the later 5th century south of the Danube, in the Roman province of Moesia. Jordanes himself was the notary of Candac's nephew, the Gothic chief Gunthigis ''ante conversionem meam'' ("before my conversion"), that is, either before he converted from the Arianism creed of his forefathers and of the Goths, or, some suggest, until he took the vows of a monk. Certainly his extant writings are from an orthodox, not an Arian, perspective. In the age of Justinian, Jordanes was a Christianity and just possibly bishop of Croton. The ''Origine actibusque Getarum'' of Jordanes shows Gothic sympathies; but these are probably due to an imitation of the tone of Cassiodorus, from whom he draws practically all his material. Naturally, Jordanes absorbed into his work the fundamental idea of Cassiodorus, that the only way to secure for the Goths a prosperous future was to bring about their peaceful absorption into the Roman Empire, which was then the center of civilization. The sympathies of Jordanes, of Germanic origin but not himself a Goth, are friendly to the Goths, even apart from the influence of Cassiodorus; but he is also prepossessed in favor of the eastern emperors, in whose territories this confederation lived and whose subject he himself was. This makes him an impartial authority on the last days of the Ostrogoths. At the same time, living in Moesia, he is restricted in his outlook to Danubian affairs. He has little to say of the inner history and policy of the Italian kingdom of Theodoric: his interests lie, as Theodor Mommsen said, within a triangle of which the three points are Sirmium, Larissa and Constantinople. Finally, he shows himself friendly to the Huns whenever they enter into his narrative. Jordanes' other work survives under various descriptive titles, ''De summa temporum vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum'' or sometimes ''De regnorum et temporum successione,'' or even ''Liber de origine mundi et actibus Romanorum ceterarumque gentium'', or simply ''De gestis Romanorum''. It is a hasty compilation that was begun before, but published after, the Gothic history of 551, covering the history of the world from the Creation, based on Jerome and other writers, but of some value for the century 450 - 550, when Jordanes is dealing with recent history. ==Reference== *''Catholic Encyclopedia'' ==External link== *Jordanes, [http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html ''The Origins and Deeds of the Goths''], translated by Charles C. Mierow. [http://www.northvegr.org/lore/jgoth/index.php alternative]. 6th century Byzantine historians Goths
Jordanes
"clumsy rehash" is the correct phrasing - I don't believe there any modern historians who would disagree. If there are, let's get a name. User:Stan Shebs 14:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Yes, he is very much flogged by modern scholars. I just don't think that ''clumsy rehash'' is a neutral way of phrasing it.--User:Wiglaf 14:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) :BTW, here is a list of scholars and publications who don't question everything he says, from Linguistlist [http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0205&L=gothic-l&D=1&F=&S=&P=1531] *Bell-Fialkoff, A., _The Role of Migration in the History of the Eurasian Steppe_, London: Macmillan, 2000. *Findeisen, Joerg-Peter, _Schweden - Von den Anfaengen bis zur Gegenwart_, Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1998. *Hermodsson, Lars, _Goterna - ett krigafolk och dess bibel_ , Stockholm, Atlantis, 1993. *Nordgren, I., Goterkaellan - om goterna i Norden och paa kontinenten_, Skara: Vaestergoetlands museums skriftserie nr 30, 2000. *Rodin, L. - Lindblom, V. - Klang, K., _Gudatraed och vaestgoetska skottkungar - Sveriges bysantiska arv_, Goeteborg: Tre boecker, 1994. *_Schaetze der Ostgoten_, Stuttgart: Theiss, 1995. *_Studia Gotica - Die eisenzeitlichen Verbindungen zwischen Schweden und Suedosteuropa - Vortraege beim Gotensymposion im Statens Historiska Museum_, Stockholm 1970. *Tacitus, _Germania_, (with introduction and commentary by J.B. Rives), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. So, I would not say that every scholar would agree with the text "clumsy rehash".--User:Wiglaf 15:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Your answer is unclear - lots of people use Jordanes as a source (there being not much else to choose from), while "clumsy rehash" is a specific comment about the style and quality of the material. So are you saying all these guys think Jordanes made a well-composed epitome of Cassiodorus? If there really is a disagreement about Jordanes' quality, then it should be expanded upon in the article. User:Stan Shebs 18:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::What do you mean by unclear? You state that the expression ''clumsy rehash'' sums up the opinions of all scholars: ''I don't believe there any modern historians who would disagree. If there are, let's get a name.'' If they agreed with you they would hardly use him as a source. Now you accuse me of saying: '' So are you saying all these guys think Jordanes made a well-composed epitome of Cassiodorus?''. No it is not about that. It is about raising the prose to a decent level, above the level of blurting out aggressive and subjective phrasing. I suggest you find one single scholar who uses such a phrase about Jordanes and quote him.--User:Wiglaf 18:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::In classics we're often stuck using sources that are pretty shaky; think of the Augustan History for example. That doesn't mean we're precluded from saying that they're poor, in fact it's important to be pretty blunt about the quality of a source, because it affects the strength of arguments made from it. I don't happen to have your references at hand (and I don't read Swedish in any case), but it's a very important to distinguish between "Jordanes' statement about X is garbled, but is clarified by an inscription" versus "Jordanes' testimony is utterly reliable". Now I notice that the Getica article does have an external link to a paper by James J. O'Donnell [http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jod/texts/jordanes.html], where he tries to rehabilitate Jordanes a bit, but in the 4th paragraph observes that "The universal assumption, however, is that Jordanes was not a particularly clever fellow. The principal evidence for this claim is his slovenly grammar, on the good classicizing principle that cleverness and good grammar are always found together." (In fact, to a native English speaker, "clumsy" is a somewhat nicer word than "slovenly", the latter having the connotation of deliberate badness, while the former connotes something that one has no control over.) I'm certainly open to alternate phrasings ("aggressive" is not a word that comes to my mind for the original phrase, but if it does to you, then perhaps it will to other people) but let's be careful not to whitewash to the point that readers will be misled. User:Stan Shebs 03:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::OK, I see what you mean, and I think "very criticized" fits the situation. If you have a better suggestion, go ahead.--User:Wiglaf 08:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::Let's get some of these points into the entry text. --User:Wetman 19:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
J
JA | JB | JC | JD | JE | JF | JG | JH | JI | JK | JL | JM | JN | JO | JP | JR | JS | JT | JU | JW | JX | JY | JZ |Words begining with Jordanes:
Jordanes
Jordanes
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
