¹ Jordanes, , Getica, ed. Mommsen, Th., MGH, AA 5. 1 (1882)Google Scholar. On Priscus and Jordanes, see Blockley, R. C., The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus 1 (1981), 48 ff., 113 fGoogle Scholar.

² Most recently E. Demougeot, La formation de l'Europe et les invasions barbares. 2. De l'avènement de Dioclétien (284) à l'occupation germanique de l'Empire romain d‘occident (debut du VI^e siècle) (1979), 342 ff.

³ Good accounts of the evidence for Jordanes can be found in Wagner, N., ‘Getica’. Untersuchungen zum Leben des Jordanes und zur frühen Geschichte der Goten (1967), 39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnish, S. J. B., ‘The Genesis and Completion of Cassiodorus' Gothic History’, Latomus 43 (1984), 336–61Google Scholar and Croke, B., ‘Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes’, Classical Philology 82 (1987), 117 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Momigliano first put his case in ‘Cassiodorus and the Italian Culture of his time’, Proceedings of the British Academy 41 (1955), 207–45Google Scholar, reprinted in Secondo contributo alia storia degli studi classici (1960), 191–225 and reiterated it in ‘Gli Anicii e la storiografia latina del VI secolo d.C.', ibid. 231–53. More recent work arguing for Jordanes’ independence includes Bradley, D. R., ‘The Composition of the Getica’, Eranos 64 (1966), 67–79Google Scholar; Várady, L., ‘Jordanes-Studien: Jordanes und das “Chronicon” des Marcellinus Comes—die Selbständigkeit des Jordanes’, Chiron 6 (1976), 441–87Google Scholar; O'Donnell, J. J., ‘The Aims of Jordanes’, Historia 31 (1982), 223–40Google Scholar and B. Croke, art. cit. and ‘A.D. 476: The Manufacture of a Turning Point’, Chiron 13 (1983), 81–119Google Scholar.

⁴ e.g. Hunnic origins 24:121 f. This makes me think that a story about the Gepids, similarly deriving the tribe's name from an insulting Gothic word (17:94 f.) also comes from Gothic oral history, and I would hypothesize the same about Berig's migrations (4:25), and a war against the Gepids which blames them for initiating war between kin (17:97). Collecting native traditions is a mark of Latin writing, where the Greek approach explained the origins of foreign peoples by extending Greek myth, Bickerman, E. J., ‘Origines Gentium’, Classical Philology 47 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 75 ff. Note, however, the Getica's disparaging remarks about oral tradition: 5:38.

⁵ Wenskus, R., Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der Frühmittelalterlichengentes (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim demonstrated that multi-racial political units were the norm in the migration period. Ibid., 478 ff. and H. Wolfram, History of the Goths, trans. T. J. Dunlap (1987), passim and esp. 5 ff. and 36 ff. deal with the Goths in particular, suggesting that it was the traditions of ruling families that held them together and gave them a Gothic identity. This is winning some support, e.g. Geary, P., Before France and Germany. The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World (1988), 62 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶ The son is called both Vithericus (31. 4. 12) and Viderichus (31. 3. 3).

⁷ e.g. Schmidt, L., Geschichte der deutschen Stämme bis zum Ausgange der Völkerwanderung. Die Ostgermanen (2nd ed., 1934), 256Google Scholar; or Wolfram, op. cit., 254. Maenchen-Helfen, O. J., The World of the Huns (1973), 414Google Scholar claims that Balamber is Hunnic, but offers no arguments. The MSS variants are Balamir, O to 24:130; Balamur, B to 24:130; Balamer, HPVXZ to 48:249. HPV belong to the group of most authority, OB to the secondary group and XZ to the third group, cf. Mommsen, op. cit. (n. 1), lxxi ff. There is a strong tradition, therefore, that the name at 48:249 might be Balamer (a Latin transcription of how Priscus spelled Valamir). For other variations, see Schönfeld, M., Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völkernamen (1911), 250 fGoogle Scholar.

⁸ cf. Marquart, J., Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzuge. Ethnologische und historisch-topographische Studien zur Geschichte des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts (ca. 840–940) (1903), 369 fGoogle Scholar. and Grierson, P., ‘Election and inheritance in early Germanic Kingship’, CHJ 7 (1941), 6Google Scholar.

⁹ Eutharic: PLRE 2, 438. Getica 33:174 f. and 48:251 record Beremud's migration to Gaul; the chronological problem was first pointed out by von Sybel, H., Entstehung des deutschen Königtums (2nd ed., 1881), 201 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 252 ff. contra Eckhardt, K. A., ‘Die Nachbenennung in den Königshausern der Goten’, Sudost-Forschungen 14 (1955), 34 ff.Google Scholar; Wagner, N., ‘Germanische Namengebung und kirchliches Recht in der Amalerstammtafel’, Zeitschrijt für deutsches Alterthum und deutsche Literatur 99 (1970), 1 ff.Google Scholar, Wenskus, R., ‘Amaler’, Reallexikon der germanischen Alterthumskunde 1 (2nd ed., 1973), 246 ffGoogle Scholar. (not without reservations); and the earlier view of Wolfram himself in ‘Theogonie, Ethnogenese, und ein kompromittierter Grossvater im Stammbaum Theoderichs des Grossen’, in Wenskus, R. and Jaschke, E. K. (eds), Festschrift für Helmut Beuman (1979), 83 ffGoogle Scholar. The consensus was forced to argue from the practice of Imperial families, which is irrelevant, and Visigothic evidence, which is inconclusive. Alaric I was a maternal great-grandfather of Alaric II, and Liuva II the great-nephew of Liuva I. But both Alaric and Liuva were famous kings and this is probably why the names were reused. Thus Hermenigild called a son Athanagild after another famous king (Athanagild I, 551–68) when there was no family relationship. A failed revolt prevented Athanagild's succession but he would have been an Athanagild II with no relation to Athanagild I. There is also no evidence that Reccared II was related to Reccared I, and again the reused name was that of a famous king; under Reccared I the Visigoths converted to Catholicism.

¹¹ This is now a truism, but see for instance, Richards, A. I., ‘Social Mechanisms for the transfer of Political Rights in some African tribes’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19 (1960), 175 ff.Google Scholar; Balandier, G., Political Anthropology, trans. Smith, A. M. Sheridan (1970), 81 ff.Google Scholar; Henige, D., The Chronology of Oral Tradition. Quest for a Chimera (1974)Google Scholar, passim; or J. C. Miller, ‘Listening for the African Past’, in id. (ed.), The African Past Speaks. Essays on Oral Tradition and History (1980), 18 f. Henige, ibid., chs 1 and 2, provides a comprehensive account of the ways in which royal genealogies can be manipulated. Examples of historical applications are Sisam, K., ‘Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies’, ProcBA 39 (1953), 287–348Google Scholar and, particularly, Dumville, D. N., ‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal lists’, in Sawyer, P. H. and Wood, I. N. (eds), Early Medieval Kingship (1977), 72 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹² On Ulfila (sources and works) see Streitburg, W., Die Gotische Bibel (1908)Google Scholar with the useful commentary of Thompson, E. A., The Visigoths in the time of Ulfila (1966), xiii ffGoogle Scholar. For more detailed discussion of the surviving evidence for literary Gothic see Friedrichsen, G. W. S., The Gothic Version of the Gospels (1926)Google Scholar and The Gothic Version of the Epistles (1939).

¹³ On segmentary lineages and ease of adjustment see Literacy in Traditional Societies, ed. Goody, J. (1968), esp. 31 ff. and 44 ffGoogle Scholar. and the classic article of Bohannan, L., ‘A Genealogical Charter’, Africa 22 (1952), esp. 312CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cf. Dumville, art. cit. (n. 11), 85 ff. A good recent approach to history in oral tradition is Willis, R. G., A State in the Making. Myth, History and Social Transformation in Pre-Colonial Ufipa (1981), part 1Google Scholar; cf. Miller, art. cit. (n. 11), 1–5 on current debate about the historical value of such traditions. On the specific pitfalls of orally transmitted genealogies see, for instance, Berger, I., ‘Deities, Dynasties, and Oral Tradition: The History and Legends of the Abacwezi’, 61 ffGoogle Scholar. in Miller, op. cit. (n. 11); Henige, op. cit. (n. 11), 17 ff.; or Miller, J. C., ‘The Imbangala and the Chronology of Early Central African History’, Journal of African History 13 (1976), 551Google Scholar ff.

¹⁴ Henige, op. cit. (n. II), 34 ff. and esp. ch. 2; cf. Miller, art. cit. (n. 11), 12 ff. with references.

¹⁵ The Getica has nothing to report of Amal, a further indication that he is not historical. Two wars of Ostrogotha are recounted, but neither suggests a real king. That against the Gepids (17:96 ff.) explains the origins of hostility between the related Gothic and Gepid tribes. I consider it likely, therefore, to have come from Gothic oral history, providing no evidence that Ostrogotha is historical (contra Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 45 n. 61 who uses it to ‘date’ Ostrogotha). The account of Ostrogotha's other war against the Emperor Philip (16:89 ff.) probably originated in written sources, but Ostrogotha's name seems to have been inserted in place of the genuine third-century Gothic king Cniva, cf. Wolfram, ibid. The need to ascribe to him another king's activities is further confirmation that he is mythical. Wolfram (ibid., 24) realizes that Ostrogotha is eponymous, and that his name presupposes the existence of the Ostrogoths, but still treats him as historical (ibid., 58 ff.).

¹⁶ On eponyms and other spurinyms, see Henige, op. cit. (n. 11), 46–8 and Dumville, art. cit. (n. 11), passim. Classical ethnography also used eponymous heroes to account for origins of peoples and cities, cf. Bickerman, art. cit. (n. 4), 65 ff. The early origins of dynastic propaganda around Amal and Ostrogotha (p. 106) make it unlikely, however, that they are an interpretatio Romana with no roots in Gothic oral history.

¹⁷ On the Bulgars, Whitby, L. M., The Emperor Maurice and his Historian (1988), 129Google Scholar. They strongly recall the Gonja cited by Goody, art. cit. (n. 13), 33 f. where the number of a notional king's sons varied according to the number of current sub-units without the Gonja being aware of it.

¹⁸ Dumville, art. cit. (n. n ), 89, discussing Anglo-Saxon evidence. Getica 22:113 refers to Gerberic, son of Hilderith, son of Ovida, son of Nidada; 50:266 to Jordanes' own family and that of Gunthigis Baza—both ascend.

¹⁹ Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 30 f. and n. 93, claims that the Amal genealogy can only be explained as Gothic tradition, denying that this quotation suggests Cassiodorian interference, cf. Wenskus, R., ‘Sachsen-Angelsachsen-Thuringer’, Wege der Forschung (1967), 508 fGoogle Scholar. and n. 92. But Wolfram himself undermines this by arguing, plausibly, that its length mimics Aeneas and Romulus (ibid., 31, cf. n. 20), and that the Amal line between Ermenaric and Eutharic is Cassiodorus' invention (ibid., 252 ff.).

²⁰ cf. Wolfram, H., ‘Einige Überlegungen zur gotischen Origo Gentis’, Studia linguistica Alexandro Vasilii filio Issatschenko a collegis amicisque oblata (1978), 490 ffGoogle Scholar. and Wagner, N., ‘Bemerkungen zur Amalergenealogie’, Beiträge zur Namenforschung 14 (1979), 27 ffGoogle Scholar.

²¹ A.M. 28. 4. 7 with Jerome, Epp. 54. 4 and 108. 1 ff.; on the Gallic aristocracy see Stroheker, K. F., Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien (1948), 10 ffGoogle Scholar. with refs, especially Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. 8. 3. 3 (Fronto) and Carm. 22. 158 ff. (Mithradates).

²² First claimed in Pan.Lat. 7(6). 2 ff. and repeated consistently: PLRE 1. 223 f.

²³ Schmidt, op. cit. (n. 7), 253 f. and Grierson, art. (n. 8), 6 doubted Ermenaric was an Amal, while Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., The Barbarian West 400–1000 (3rd rev. ed., 1985), 35Google Scholar supposed that Theoderic was not.

²⁴ Variae 11. 1. 19, cf. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 252.

²⁵ Variae 9. 25. 4 f. of 532 already refers to seventeen royal Amal generations.

²⁶ Thiudimir, died 474, named a daughter Amalafrida, and Theoderic called two of his Ostrogotha and Amalasuentha, cf. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 32.

²⁷ On Gapt/Gaut, see Moisl, H., ‘Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies and Germanic oral tradition’, Journal of Medieval History 7 (1981), 219 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hulmul: Schonfeld, op. cit. (n. 7), 142. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 31 would see Hisarnis, perhaps a Celtic name, as a memory of ancient Celtic domination of the Goths.

²⁸ Beremud and Veteric were never actually kings (33:174 f. and 48:251), while Vidimir is subordinate both to Valamir and to Thiudimir (48:253 ff.).

²⁹ Later tales about Ermenaric have been thought to show that his name lived on in German folklore, cf. C. Brady, The Legends of Ermenaric (1948). The question cannot be dealt with fully here, but the Getica was an influential source in shaping the traditions of subsequent centuries, and manuscripts of the text are plentiful from the eighth/ninth to the twelfth centuries. Mommsen, op. cit. (n. 1), xliv ff. cites twenty, and another (dated c. 800) has since been identified: Giunta, F., Jordanes e la cultura dell'alto media evo (1952), 187 ffGoogle Scholar. Additionally, the Getica is cited or quoted by at least sixteen and perhaps twenty contemporary Latin authors: Mommsen, op. cit. (n. 1), xliv ff. and Korkannen, I., The Peoples of Hermenaric: Jordanes, Getica 116Google Scholar, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, series B, 187 (1975), 21 ff. None of these had any information about Ermenaric beyond Ammianus and Jordanes. Since the earliest mentions of Ermenaric in vernacular literature also revolve around the same information, an obvious suggestion follows. The later knowledge of Ermenaric is best explained by wide reading of the Getica. The alternative must suppose that a pan-Germanic folklore preserved his memory through the ‘Dark Ages’, since the tribal life of the Ostrogoths was exterminated by Justinian. This seems implausible, since anthropologists have shown that oral history alters with every major upheaval and is generally chauvinistic.

³⁰ op. cit. (n. 1), xxxiii f. and footnotes to the text.

³¹ Hun digression: Getica 24:127 f. echoes Ammianus 31. 3. 2 ff. on the Huns' ugliness, cruelty to children and warfare, although it has additional information on the appearance of their eyes and why they cut the cheeks of their children. The Getica's characterization of the Alans (24:126) parallels Ammianus 31.2. 21, cf. Mommsen, op. cit. (n. i), 90 f. and notes.

³² Getica 25:131 strongly recalls Amm. 31. 3. 8–4. 1. This is not marked by Mommsen.

³³ Getica 25:131–26:138 corresponding to Amm. 31. 4 and 5; cf. Mommsen, op. cit. (n. 1), 92 ff. and notes, and Gschwantler, O., ‘Ermanrich, sein Selbstmort und die Hamdirsage—zur Darstellung von Ermanrichs Ende in Getica 24, 129 f.’, in Wolfram, H. and Daim, F. (eds), Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau im fünften und sechsten Jahrhundert, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Denkschrift 145 (1980), 202 fGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ Gschwantler, art. cit., 195 ff. Burgundian kings certainly took the blame when luck turned bad: Amm. 23. 5. 14.

³⁵ Hamdismal, ed. and trans. Dronke, U., The Poetic Edda 1 (1969)Google Scholar. On the old view of legend development, see Brady, op. cit. (n. 29), esp. 2 ff. and 271 ff. Gschwantler, art. cit. (n. 33), 187 and Andersson, T. M., A Preface to the Nibelungenlied (1987), 3 ffGoogle Scholar. stress the importance of this passage for the study of ‘germanischen Heldensage’.

³⁶ cf. Gschwantler, art. cit. (n. 33), 190; Andersson, op. cit., 8 f.; cf. Hollander, L. M., ‘The Legendary Form of the Hamdismal’, Arkiv fur Nordisk Filologi 77 (1962), 57 fGoogle Scholar. and Dronke, op. cit., 192 f.

³⁷ Gschwantler, art. cit. (n. 33), 193 ff., Andersson, op. cit. (n. 35), 8 f.

³⁸ On Sunigilda, see PLRE 2, 793 with the arguments of Lukman, N., Ermanaric hoc Jordanes og Saxo, in Studier fra Sprog -og Oltidsforskning 208 (1949), 35 ffGoogle Scholar. The explanation is that of Andersson, T. M., ‘Cassiodorus and the Gothic legend of Ermanaric’, Euphorion 57 (1963), 41 ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Brady, op. cit. (n. 29), 2 ff. noted that Jordanes' account reads as an elaboration of Ammianus.

⁴⁰ Because of the Hun invasions, eschatological prophecy about Gog and Magog sweeping down from the north came to be associated with the peoples Scythia, Anderson, A. R., Alexander's Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations (1932), 9 ff.Google Scholar, hence the reference to Gog.

⁴¹ Getica 23:116; cf. Korkannen, op. cit. (n. 29), 48–73 (review of previous scholarship, ibid., 32–46). The interpretation of these names is contentious, but Korkannen's cautious approach is very sound compared to others (cf. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 86 ff. who does not cite Korkannen) who wish to identify the names with little-known Baltic tribes. Classical ethnography had a strong tendency to reuse inherited categories and information rather than undertake real research, Shaw, B. D., ‘“Eaters of Flesh, Drinkers of Milk”: the Ancient Mediterranean Ideology of the Pastoral Nomad’, Ancient Society 13/14 (1982/1983), 5 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴² e.g. Getica 5:34 ff.; Venethi are mentioned by Ptolemy, Geography 3. 5. 7 and Pliny, NH 4. 97, but play no major role in Roman sources until the sixth century.

⁴³ Cassiodorus, , Variae 5. 2Google Scholar; I am grateful to Dr S. Barnish for this, and for indicating its relevance to the ancestry of Eutharic (p. 106). The Heruli are likewise prominent from the mid-fifth century (e.g. Procopius, , Wars 6. 14 fGoogle Scholar. and Cassiodorus, Variae 4. 2), but they had also been enemies of the Empire in the third century, so that little can be made of their inclusion.

⁴⁴ Blockley, op. cit. (n. 1), 113 f.

⁴⁵ Tribal movements of the migration period were conceived of by some as the breaking of Alexander's Wall, letting loose Gog and Magog: Anderson, op. cit. (n. 40), 9 ff., cf. Korkannen, op. cit. (n. 29), 76 ff.

⁴⁶ Menander Rhetor, ed. and trans. Russell, D. A. and Wilson, N. G. (1981), 112 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ e.g. Wagner, art. cit. (n. 10), 15 or Wolfram, art. cit. (n. 10), 82.

⁴⁸ Non- or semi-literate peoples tend to rever the written word over their own traditions, so that Cassiodorus may have been responding to the Goths' own prejudices when importing Ermenaric from a written source: Henige, op. cit. (n. 11), ch. 3, cf. Goody, op. cit. (n. 13), 11 ff.

⁴⁹ The sixth-century grammarian Priscian had a copy of Ammianus in Constantinople, but the tradition the surviving text is western, having been copied from MS in insular hand in Carolingian times, so there is difficulty in supposing Cassiodorus to have used Ammianus. The insular hand had copied a MS in late Roman capitals, perhaps the text of Cassiodorus: Clark, C. U., The Text Tradition of Ammianus Marcellinus (1904), 62 fGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ Its preface and postscript (C.M. 2, 120 and 161) make the relationship clear, cf. O'Donnell, J. J., Cassiodorus (1979), 33 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ Wenskus, op. cit. (n. 5), 479, cf. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 252.

⁵² Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 252 f. has now rejected this approach, to which he previously subscribed (refs as n. 10). He clearly shows that it makes historical nonsense, but still seems inclined to equate the two sets of father and son (ibid., 252), so that it remains important to pursue the argument.

⁵³ cf. Schonfeld, op. cit. (n. 7), 260 f. (Venetharius) and 263 (Vidimir).

⁵⁴ Procopius, , Wars 5. 18. 29–33Google Scholar. This was proposed by Marquart, op. cit. (n. 8), 368 and accepted by the scholars cited in n. 10. Schmidt, op. cit. (n. 7), 256, rejected it.

⁵⁵ Getica 23:119, cf. 5:34 f. and 48:247; Procopius, , Wars 7. 14. 22–30Google Scholar; Maurice, , Strategicon II. 4Google Scholar. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 252 argues on the basis of an Iranian etymology for ‘Antae’ and the names of some of their leaders (Altheim, F., Geschichte der Hunnen 1 (1959), 71 ffGoogle Scholar.) that in the fourth century the Antae were Iranian, so that Jordanes' Vinitharius and Ammianus' Vithimiris do have the same enemy, cf. Werner, R., ‘Zur Herkunft der Anten: ein ethnisches und soziales Problem der Spätantike’, Kölner Historische Abhandlungen 28 (1980), 573 ffGoogle Scholar. This is not convincing; an etymology for ‘Antae’ can be constructed from Slavic (Gimbutas, M., The Slavs (1971), 60–2Google Scholar), and Haussig (in Altheim, ibid., 75 f.) comments on similarities between the names of Antae and Slav leaders.

⁵⁶ Schmidt, op. cit. (n. 7), 257. Ammianus uses creare of both the choice and the ceremony in elevating a leader. Where it describes the latter, creare could be used of a ruler elevated because of a blood tie. Thus Ammianus has Julian describe himself as ‘creatum Caesarem’ by Constantius. The two were first cousins, and Julian was to continue the Constantinian dynasty (Amm. 20. 8. 6). Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 252 also argues that Vithimiris cannot have been Ermenaric's son because in the sagas Ermenaric kills his offspring. I would deny (cf. n. 28) that these later literary accounts have historical value.

⁵⁷ cf. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 252 f.

⁵⁸ Getica 25:131–26:138, ed. Mommsen, 92 f. and p. 111 f.

⁵⁹ Only Priscian and the Getica show knowledge of it in antiquity, n. 49 above.

⁶⁰ The consensus among both older and more recent scholarship: e.g. Schmidt, op. cit. (n. 7), 253 f. and the scholars cited in n. 10. The Suevic Hunimund was adopted as son-at-arms by the Amal Valamir, and it has been argued that this caused him to become an Amal, the confusion being mirrored in the fact that the Gothic Hunimund fights the Suevi (Getica 48:250 and 53:273 ff.). Similarly, the two-year reign of Thorismud has been thought to derive from that of the Visigothic Thorismud (451.–3). The Visigothic king also lost his horse in battle as did the supposed Amal (Getica 40:211 and 48:250). These similarities make confusion possible, but not probable. The Visigothic Thorismud did not fall off his horse, for instance, but was first wounded and then pulled off it.

⁶¹ Malchus, Blockley fr. 20, Müller fr. 18.

⁶² The conclusion from different arguments of Schmidt, op. cit. (n. 7), 253 f. and Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 252 ff.

⁶³ Cassiodorus, , Variae 8. 9Google Scholar. 8 with Schönfeld, op. cit. (n. 7), 147 and Getica 48:248. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 253 f. accepts Gensemund as historical but doubts the equation with Gesimund because the latter must have been operating in c. 376 if he fought alongside Balamber. However, cf. p. 124 ff.; the Gesimund/Balamber episode can be redated c. 450, removing the objection.

⁶⁴ Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 253 suggests that there may have been two Hunimunds. Hunimund is styled magnus at Getica 48:248, and Kienast, W., ‘Magnus = der Ältere’, Historische Zeitschrift 205 (1967), 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar showed that in medieval documents magnus could mean ‘the elder’ rather than ‘the great’. This seems unnecessary. Kienast, esp. 10 ff., is explicit that it could still mean ‘great’, particularly in contexts drawing on Late Antique models. Jordanes is a Late Antique author, and both the genealogy and Amalasuentha's king-list recall only one Hunimund. The reference to Alaricus magnus (Getica 47:245), also cited by Wolfram, is no problem; ‘great’ is an appropriate epithet for a Gothic history to use of the Goth who conquered Rome.

⁶⁵ This reconstruction must assume that Cassiodorus understood that the same enemy was responsible for the deaths of Vithimiris and Ermenaric. Ammianus seems to suggest, however, that although the Huns caused Ermenaric's death, the Alans killed Vithimiris 31.3. 1 ff.). He does not make the Alans' role explicit, however, and elsewhere states that the Huns attached Alans to themselves before attacking the Goths (31. 3. 1). Cassiodorus may have assumed, as have modern authorities, that the Alans who killed Vithimiris were under Hun control, and in any case it was also the general contemporary understanding that the Huns had defeated the Goths in the 370s.

⁶⁶ Henige, op. cit. (n. 11), 42–6, who demonstrates that this is common, even if often undetectable without evidence independent of royal tradition of the kind the Getica here accidentally provides.

⁶⁷ cf. Dumville, art. cit. (n. 11), 94.

⁶⁸ Romana 336; for the date, PLRE 2, 229.

⁶⁹ Procopius, , Wars 8. 4. 9 ffGoogle Scholar. and Buildings 3. 7. 13.

⁷⁰ Most recently, Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 268 ff.

⁷¹ Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 32 produces two arguments. First, Aspar, whose wife was Triarius' aunt, had a son called Ermenaric, so that the Triarii are Amals because an Amal name is reused. However, there is no evidence either that Ermenaric was an Amal, or that Amals reused names in this way (p. 106 f.). Second, John of Antioch, fr. 214. 3 records that Theoderic Triarius' son was the ἀνεΨιός of Theoderic the Amal in 483/4. ἀνεΨιός can mean ‘nephew’, ‘first cousin’, or cousin more generally. John of Antioch otherwise uses it to mean ‘nephew’ (frr. 209. 2 and 217b), but this does not seem possible here. It would mean that Theoderic the Amal was the brother of Theoderic Triarius or his wife, and if the first is impossible, the second is very unlikely. ‘First cousin’ also seems unlikely, for this would make either Theoderic Triarius a fourth brother for Valamir, Thiudimir, and Vidimir (impossible), or Triarius' wife their sister. This illustrates an important point; the only way in which ἀνεΨιός can have either of its precise meanings is for a female Amal to have married into the Triarius line. This would give Recitach some Amal blood, but does not turn the Triarii into Amals. If the term has an imprecise meaning, the ways in which the link could have formed increase dramatically, and as the relationship becomes more vague, there is ever less necessity for it to imply that the Triarius line were Amals. We should perhaps return to the old suggestion, therefore, that a marriage alliance linked Theoderic and Recitach, cf. Martin, K., Theoderich der Grösse bis zur Eröberung Italiens (1888), 24 fGoogle Scholar. Alternatively, since John of Antioch reworked older material and ἀνεΨιός cannot here mean ‘nephew’ as it usually does in his work, confusion may have crept in, a broad racial relation, for instance, being confused for a family one. The fact that γένος means ‘race’ or ‘family’ often causes difficulty.

⁷² For a recent account, see Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 268 ff.

⁷³ Although probably uncle and nephew, Beremud and Gensemund would have had to be dealt with separately since important figures in the Germanic tribal world had their own retinues. E.g. the three Amal brothers had separate followings (Getica 52:268 ff.), and Theoderic had an armed retinue at the same time as his father (Getica 55:282). Cf. Schlesinger, W., ‘Lord and follower in Germanic institutional history’, 64 ffGoogle Scholar. in Cheyette, F. L. (ed.), Lordship and Community in Medieval Europe (1968)Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ cf. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 248 and 270.

⁷⁵ This passage is thus the primary reference to ‘Balamber’, from which he was later introduced into the account of Ermenaric's death. The strong manuscript tradition that the king's name was here originally ‘Balamer’ (cf. n. 7)—simply a latinized version of how Valamir's name appears in Greek sources (βαλαμερ)—might provide further confirmation that the supposed Hun king is a confusion of Valamir.

⁷⁶ Sidimund: Malchus, Blockley fr. 20, Müller fr. 18. The Amal magister militum was Guthingis Baza (Getica 50:266), cf. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 248.

⁷⁷ Procopius, , Wars 5. 11. 1 ffGoogle Scholar. with his propaganda in Cassiodorus, , Variae 10. 31Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Procopius, , Wars 6. 30. 4 ffGoogle Scholar. and 7. 2. 10 ff.

⁷⁹ Schmidt, op. cit. (n. 7), 254 f. argued long ago that certain details suggest that events in this passage should be placed in the time of Valamir.

⁸⁰ Korkannen, op. cit. (n. 29), 73 ff. Wolfram, op. cit. (n. 5), 9 plausibly suggests that the forty years were also designed to echo the period that the Children of Israel spent in the wilderness.

⁸¹ Getica 33:174 f., which unconvincingly claims that the Visigoths would have chosen Beremud to be king if they had known who he was. Getica 32:166 also confuses the chronology of Vallia's reign, reporting that he still ruled in 427, so that there are good grounds for thinking that the Getica is confused over Beremud's departure from the Ostrogoths. Eutharic's age is the subject of contradictory reports. Getica 58:298 states that he was full of youthful vigour in 515, while Cassiodorus, Variae 8.1.3 describes him as ‘nearly the same age’ as the Emperor Justin, which would make him about sixty-five in 515, Justin having been born c. 450: PLRE 2, 650. I prefer the Getica's report.

⁸² On the evolution of history into legend, see Miller, art, cit. (n. 11), 21 ff. and on the tendency of oral tradition unconsciously to reform the past as the present changes, references as n. 13. For a specific example, see Yoder, J. C., ‘The Historical Study of a Kanyok Genesis Myth’, in Miller, (ed.), op. cit. (n. 11), 82 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ Argued against Wenskus and Wolfram, cf. n. 5. The forthcoming revised version of my doctoral thesis—The Goths and the Balkans A.D. 350–500—will address this question in more detail.

⁸⁴ Getica 60:313 uses a flower metaphor that Cassiodorus applied to his Gothic history at Variae 9. 25. 5, cf. O'Donnell, op. cit. (n. 50), 52 f.

⁸⁵ Getica, preface 3, cf. Croke, art. cit. (n. 3), 123 ff.

⁸⁶ art. cit. (n. 3), 217–218 ff. Barnish, art. cit. (n. 3), 349 ff. argues partly in support of Momigliano, but even he (356 ff.) would deny that Jordanes' Getica was an authorized summary of Cassiodorus work, with a political purpose.