Slav Macedonians

[Soldier of Macedon]

There is a reason why Mithridates de Differentis Linguis isn’t on the bookshelf at your local library anymore.

I found this below:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/386100/Mithridates-De-differentis-linguis

...and their important flowers and seeds were used by other authors for two centuries after his death. Although in his own lifetime, he was best known for his botanical works, Gesner also published Mithridates: De differentis linguis (1555), an account of about 130 then-known languages, and an edition (1556) of the works of the 3rd-century Roman miscellaneous writer Claudius Aelian.

Do you have more information on this Sovius?

[Pelister]

Interesting sources.

SoM you wrote:

The language of the invaders was related to the local Balkan languages and some speeches possibly quite similar

I would agree with that statement. I only wish it could be solidly substantiated. Here in lies the problem.

There is no evidence of the language of the 5th century invading Sklavoi, so how do we actually know ?

Do the names of their leaders give us any clues, anything ? I don't know.

We can show that the Thracians used or spoke an earlier form of Slavic, because much of ancient Thracian has been preserved. But how do we make the connection ? How do we know that that was the language of 6th and 7th century invaders?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I would agree with that statement. I only wish it could be solidly substantiated. Here in lies the problem.

Enough pieces can still be put together with what we have at hand at the moment, to reach the conclusion that the languages on both sides of the Danube were related, and these are the languages that came to be known as 'Slavic'. One only need to take a logical perspective on the issue to realise first and foremost that there was no imaginary wall along the river which would have prevented communication and interaction between the people.

There is no evidence of the language of the 5th century invading Sklavoi, so how do we actually know ?

If the term 'Sklave/Sclave' appeared for the first time in written records during the 6th century, it does not mean that it was not in existence prior, and it certainly does not mean that people who later took on the term did not exist prior to doing so. How can one find a language or languages termed 'Sklave/Sclave' if it was not recorded earlier? Study the sources that first make mention of such a term, the places where it is first cited, how, when and why it spread, how, when and why it was first used as a linguistic designation, linguistic comparisons and a review of historical data. This is what we need to go through to reach the most sound conclusion.

We can show that the Thracians used or spoke an earlier form of Slavic, because much of ancient Thracian has been preserved. But how do we make the connection ? How do we know that that was the language of 6th and 7th century invaders?

As I mentioned earlier, there is an obvious impact demonstrated through new toponyms and other placenames that indicates a dominant element in the region, and this comes immediately after the most recent period of significant movement between the populations on both sides of the Danube, which was from north to south during the 6th century. Now, when I say significant I don't mean in terms of numbers, but in terms of impact. We cannot deny that there were some significant changes that took place all across the Roman Empire during the 6th century invasions. However, 'Slavic' was not the language of all invaders, there were Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Germanic tribes, Celtic tribes that had run through also, but none of their languages remained. Somehow though, what came to be known as the 'Slavic' languages in the Balkans, did - Why? How can this be explained unless there was at least some form of commonality in the languages that would have assisted in a mutation of the two? 'Slavic' stuck around because of the circumstances of the time it arose as a term, other terms like 'Getae', 'Veneti' and 'Thracian' had also served a similar purpose of common identity for many peoples in the past.

In the 1st century AD Strabo says the following:

.......Homer classes with these the Hippemolgi, the Galactophagi, and the Abii, who are the Scythian Hamaxœci and Sarmatians; for at this day, all these nations, as well as the Bastarnæ, are mixed with the Thracians, more especially with those beyond the Danube, and some even with the Thracians on this side the Danube...........

There is no doubt that Thracians lived on both sides of the Danube, similar sources can be produced with regard to the Illyrians.

.............Aelius Catus has removed from the opposite side of the Danube into Thrace fifty thousand Getae, who speak a language cognate with the Thracian............

This demonstrates that - indeed - there was a linguistic commonality on both sides of the Danube. And 5 ceturies later, Simocatta, one of the earlier writers to cite the 'Sklave/Sclave', wrote the following:

As for the Getae, that is to say the herds of Sclavenes, they were fiercly ravaging the regions of Thrace...........

Simocatta calls it the older name for the 'barbarians' (Sclavenes), as the Getae name was prevalent in the period prior to this. There are more citations in other sources that could and should be gathered, which demonstrate these obvious links. In the cultural sense the Roman Empire influenced the south while the north remained 'wild', but the perception of many that there existed two completely alien worlds on both sides of the river in terms of origins and language needs to be eliminated, as it is completely false.

[Pelister]

One only need to take a logical perspective on the issue to realise first and foremost that there was no imaginary wall along the river which would have prevented communication and interaction between the people.

It seems to be a mental barrier as much as anything else. It defies logic that the Danube was a line that marked different people on each side - tribes designated as "Sklavoi" on one side, and "Romans" on the other tells us only that one side accepted Roman rule, and other side did not. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that "Sklavoi" or "Sklavonoi" is the name of a) a Thracian tribe and/or b) a Roman term for "dissident/deviant/barbarian". But they are only very wild guesses.

If the term 'Sklave/Sclave' appeared for the first time in written records during the 6th century, it does not mean that it was not in existence prior, and it certainly does not mean that people who later took on the term did not exist prior to doing so.

.

Precisely. What happened to the Thracian tribes, the Macedonian tribes and the Illyrian tribes - did they just disappear, if there are native one side of the Danube, why can't there be natives on the other side of the Danube, and as you say why can't they actually be related.

The connection between "Slavic speakers" of Eastern Europe today, and the 6th century "Sklavoi" and "Sklavenoi" (direct translations from Greek), are from a scientific point of view very, very tenous. Until we have a better understanding of who the Roman were referring to when they used these terms - it will remain a mystery, but thanks to your good work and the work of TM and others, we are getting there bit by bit.

How can one find a language or languages termed 'Sklave/Sclave' if it was not recorded earlier? Study the sources that first make mention of such a term, the places where it is first cited, how, when and why it spread, how, when and why it was first used as a linguistic designation, linguistic comparisons and a review of historical data. This is what we need to go through to reach the most sound conclusion.

This needs to be done. A geneaology of the term from its first use by Romans, to the present. To find out when "the switch" was made. I would love to find out what the term meant in Roman - if anything.

As I mentioned earlier, there is an obvious impact demonstrated through new toponyms and other placenames that indicates a dominant element in the region, and this comes immediately after the most recent period of significant movement between the populations on both sides of the Danube, which was from north to south during the 6th century. Now, when I say significant I don't mean in terms of numbers, but in terms of impact. We cannot deny that there were some significant changes that took place all across the Roman Empire during the 6th century invasions. However, 'Slavic' was not the language of all invaders, there were Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Germanic tribes, Celtic tribes that had run through also, but none of their languages remained. Somehow though, what came to be known as the 'Slavic' languages in the Balkans, did - Why? How can this be explained unless there was at least some form of commonality in the languages that would have assisted in a mutation of the two? 'Slavic' stuck around because of the circumstances of the time it arose as a term, other terms like 'Getae', 'Veneti' and 'Thracian' had also served a similar purpose of common identity for many peoples in the past.

How do we establish that the tribes the Romans called "Sklavoi" used or spoke what we describe today as the "Slavic" language ?

You see the use of the term "Sklavoi" ( its designation and meaning is a mystery so far ) may have started a trend, and various people of different tribes, of possibly entirely different langauges, and cultures may have fallen under the broader designation. Do you see my point here ? It is a finer one. The designation "Slav" may not have followed the spread of people - rather the use of the term may have spread to include people speaking a common tongue, or people with common customs...etc. But this needs to be established. The "invasions" simply confuses things. I don't believe invaders could have displaced let alone wiped out millions of natives.

In the 1st century AD Strabo says the following:

There is no doubt that Thracians lived on both sides of the Danube, similar sources can be produced with regard to the Illyrians.

This demonstrates that - indeed - there was a linguistic commonality on both sides of the Danube. And 5 ceturies later, Simocatta, one of the earlier writers to cite the 'Sklave/Sclave', wrote the following:

Simocatta calls it the older name for the 'barbarians' (Sclavenes), as the Getae name was prevalent in the period prior to this. There are more citations in other sources that could and should be gathered, which demonstrate these obvious links. In the cultural sense the Roman Empire influenced the south while the north remained 'wild', but the perception of many that there existed two completely alien worlds on both sides of the river in terms of origins and language needs to be eliminated, as it is completely false.

This stuff is fantastic. I will begin looking around for more.

[Soldier of Macedon]

How do we establish that the tribes the Romans called "Sklavoi" used or spoke what we describe today as the "Slavic" language ?

How do you propose the people north of the Danube from Slovenia to Russia speak languages of the Slavic group?

I don't believe invaders could have displaced let alone wiped out millions of natives.

Nor do I, but I do believe that these invaders made an impact, particularly as there were things that they could relate to in the territory they had settled and the people that were already there.

[Sovius]

Do you have more information on this Sovius?

Still working on a suitable summary for Gesner’s work. This periodical, while written specifically for the benefit of Croatian researchers and people interested in Croatian history, provides some excellent information regarding the historical use of the Illyrian designation.

Folia

Croatica-Canadiana

Volume II 1999

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6801249/Folia

Here’s an interesting article from the Culture-Republic of Macedonia site that provides some additional background information on the historical use of Illyrian as a general linguistic and ethnic classification:

To understand the present, one should know the past

(Nova Makedonija, 13.11.2001)

- The Macedonian and the Balkan past in general are so complex and entwined that an objective solution, i.e. determination and announcement of the truth is really relative. –The first written document for the nomination Illyrs, for the Slavic population dates from the second half of the 15th century -


A historical axiom is- To understand the present, one should know the past. The Macedonian and the Balkan past in general are so complex and entwined that an objective solution, i.e. determination and announcement of the truth is really relative. –The first written document for the nomination Illyrs, for the Slavic population dates from the second half of the 15th century. It is eligible, if there are any, off course, the historians to refer to original sources. It is difficult to reach that kind of sources from the earlier period. In a lack of them, they are used in transcripts, or translated and published, so very often, by accident or in purpose, in every new transcript, translation or publishing, something is being exempted or added, i.e. adapted for the purpose or the time. For the source is yet important who gave it and when, what is its purpose and why, when and how it has been announced and so on. Since the historical and geographical knowledge was earlier on a very low level, the information being left by war time reporters or escorts to official delegations, although being educated for their time, should be accepted with reserve. For example, the position and the name of certain territories and areas in different periods have been differently presented.

In the renaissance elinophil period especially with the archaeological discoveries many works for the Antique history were published, which in the Eastern Mediterranean is almost equated with the History of Antique Greece, on whose continuity through Vizijata
Greeks refer, that was denied by the German historian Falmerajer even in the 30ies of the 19th century.

The continuity of the Albanians with the antique Illyrs, as well as of Macedonians with the Ancient Macedonians needs serious researches. According to Milan Budimir, on the Balkans there are neither pule nations, nor pure cultures. It means that the documents and the published works should be analyzed in a critical and comparative way. 400 years ago, Mauro Orbini from Dubrovnik published in Pesaro the work “Il Regno degli Slavi” (The Kingdom of Slaves), where he glorifies the past of the Southern Slaves.

300 years ago, the student of Valvasor, the multi-historian Pavao (Paul) Riter Vitezovich, published in Vienna the work “Stematographia sive armorum Illyricorum delineatio, desocriptio et restitutio” known as Stematography, for which, as a source he used the already mentioned work of Mauro Orbini. In the work of Vitezovich 56 real and imagined coats of arms are presented and described, from different regions of the Ancient Ilirik (according to some, Ilirik is the old name of Balkan Peninsula), which were sphere of Habsbourg’s pretensions, i.e. regions where it was considered that Illyrs had lived.

As an official historian of the Court in Vienna, Vitezovich had an influence in forming the documents of Leopold I, meant for the Christian population that had immigrated with the Pec’s Patriarch Arsenij III Crnoevich in the Austrian lands by the end of 17th century, nominated as Illyrs.

First written document for the nomination Illyrs of the Slavic population dates from the second half of 15th century in the church St. Erolim in Rome. The church was designed for Illyric pilgrims. According to the academician Ivan Crncic who had the same opinion as Franjo Racki and Strosmaer, in the beginning the above mentioned church had been visited by pilgrims from Dalmacia, Croatia, Slavonia and Bosnia and later on from Styria, Carinthia, Czechnia, Poland, Latvia, Russia, …Bulgaria, Macedonia, i.e. wherever the “Ilirian” language had been spoken.
For the similarity of the language of the Slaves indicated Vinko Pribojevich in a speech held on Hvar in 1525. In 1573 the well known traveling writer Gerlach in Pazardzisko saw a Holly Testimony written in “Slavonic or Illyric language”. The writer from Pag, Bartol Kashich, by the end of 16th and beginning of 17th century considered the Illyrs as ancestors of the Slaves and encountered in Ilirik the lands from Adriatic to the Black See.

After the establishment of Propaganda for the faith (Propaganda de fide), in 1622, the Popes had been sending missioners throughout the Balkan lands that were within the Ottoman Empire, in order to conciliate the Christian population for the union. Upon the statements of missioners that the language of the Christians (Slaves) is quite similar, the Popes had been insisting for creation of common literary language-Illyric with Latin letters. In that direction, in Loret in Italy “Ilirian colegia” was opened (according to Vl. Moshin), i.e. “Slavonic College” (according to P. Koledarov) for education of Orthodox priests.

The Illyric name for the Balkan Christians is very often met in the 18th century. In the “Chronicle” that was left in manuscript by the Count Gjorgje Brankovich, who was considered descendant of the Brankovich despots, it was noted that he had suggested to the Emperor Leopold I to help in leading the Christians from the entire Ilirik in a war against the Ottomans. He also had an idea to establish Illyric Kingdom under protectorate of the Emperor of the Holly Roman Empire (Leopold I).
The protective letter of Leopold I dated April 6, 1690, is referring to the population of Albania, Serbia, Mizia, Bulgaria, Silistria, Illyria, Macedonia, Rassia and other Balkan provinces, to join the war on the side of the Austrian army.

By the end of 18th century the name Illyrs was identified with the Slavs i.e. in the work “Kronika” the above-mentioned Pavle Riter Vitezovich noted: “Illyri aliti Szlovinskoga naroda”. The Christians that moved to the Austrian lands during the war between the Habsbourgers and Ottomans at the end of 17th century were named Nationi Illyrice, i.e. the privileges given by the Emperor Leopold I in the 90ies are concerning the “Illyric nation”.

The name “Illyric” was used by patriarchs and metropolitans. In signatures, i.e. scripts and inscriptions in and on churches in the beginning of 18th century, the Pec’s Patriarch Arsenij III was presenting himself as” Arsenie Crnoevic, vsem Srblem i Blgarom i vse (go) Ilirika patriarh, pri derzave xristoljubiva (go) g(ospo) d (i) na g (ospo)-d(i) na cesara Josifa (the successor of Leopold I).
Pec’s Patriarch Arsenij IV Jovanovich Shakabenda also was presenting himself: Arsenij, bozji milostju, arhiepiskop Pekski a vasem Srblem Blgarom i vasego Illirika patriarh.

Because after the war between Habsbourgers and Ottomans from end of 17th and first half of 18th century many Orthodox Christians, among them Albanians as well, found themselves within the borders of the Austrian lands, in 1745, i.e. in 1747, at the Court in Vienna an Illyric Court office (something like a Ministry) was opened, for the problems of “Iliric nation” (Illyrische nicht Unirte Nation).

According to the statements of Jovan Hristif Baron Bartenstein, who was president of the Illyric Court office, in 1786 in the lands of Habsbourg Monarchy there were around 2.900.000 “Greeks” (encompassed with the term Illyric nation). At that time the term “Greeks” was a synonym for Orthodox. The Declaratoria issued by the Court in Vienna for regulating the civil and clerical problems, has the title: Rescriptum Declaratorium Illyricae Nations, i.e. the immigrants non-uniats were encompassed with the term Illyrs.

Finally at the Orthodox Assembly in Temishvar, held in 1790, on which among 100 delegates participated Hristofor Nako, nobleman and Anastas Duka, tradesman, coming from Macedonia, they were named as Illyrs (Illyrische nation, Illyrisch nicht Unirten Nation) and the language in the documents in German language is called Iliric (Illyrische Schprache).

http://www.culture.in.mk/story.asp?id=1212

[TrueMacedonian]

What are your opinions on this?

The name of Slavinia reached from the Danube to Peloponnesos, leaving to the Empire only islands and detached points of coast from Venice round to Thessalonica. Their settlements in these regions gave a new meaning to an ancient name, and the word Macedonian now began to mean Slavonic.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA119&dq=Macedonian+immigrants++date:1600-1890&lr=lang_en&id=Z7cfAAAAMAAJ&num=100&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=Macedonian%20immigrants%20%20date%3A1600-1890&f=false

[TrueMacedonian]

YouTube - The Making of the Slavs

[Pelister]

How do we establish that the tribes the Romans called "Sklavoi" used or spoke what we describe today as the "Slavic" language ?

How do you propose the people north of the Danube from Slovenia to Russia speak languages of the Slavic group?


Good question.

There is no doubt that people north and south of the Danube speak what we called the "Slavic language" today. That is how we classify their language. It would be interesting to find out how they got that classification.

Does this branch of the Indo-European family of languages have anything in common with the language of 6th century invaders, i.e., the Sklavenoi ?

Well, do we know what the language of the "Sklavenoi/Sklavoi" in fact was ? If we did - if there was any empirical evidence of the language of these tribes, perhaps we could compare the two ?

There is no evidence of the language of these tribes the R

[Soldier of Macedon]

There is no doubt that people north and south of the Danube speak what we called the "Slavic language" today.

In your opinion, how and when did that come about?

[Sovius]

Mithridates de Differentiis Linguis

Full text name:

Mithridates de differentiis linguarum tum veterum tum quae hodie apud diversas nationes in toto orbe terrarum in usu sunt

Contemporary German language re-publishing
ISBN: 351100697X/ ISBN-13: 9783511006976
(Hardcover)
by Konrad Gesner, Manfred Peters
Scientia-Verlag, Aalen, 1974, German


I’ve never been able to find a digital copy to properly dissect, but there’s a decent paper written in the English language which peripherally offers up some important information that some people may already be familiar with due to its topic.

Overview

Mithridates de Differentiis Linguis is a Renaissance Period language compendium that was authored by the Swiss naturalist Conrad Gesner (Gessner) and published in 1555. During this period in history, languages now generically classified as the Slavic languages, a term based on (or similar to) the Roman Period colloquial term sklabenoi, a word originally assigned to Getic insurgents during the 6th Century AD, were generally classified as either Illyrian or Sarmatian, which were formal ethnic designations that were used by European historians from the Ancient Period through to the Middle Ages on into the Renaissance Period.

Some passages to ponder:

Source:

Francis J. Thomson

The Legacy of SS. Cyril and Methodius in the
Counterreformation

http://www.europa-zentrum-wuerzburg.de/unterseiten/Band10-Thomson.pdf

Pg. 52 (footnote 301)

“De Illyrica sive Sarmatica lingua”

“Moscovitae Illyrica lingua Illyricisque literis utuntur, sicuti et Sclavi, Dalmatae, Bohemi, Poloni et Lithuani, ea lingua longè omnium latissima esse perhibetur.”

Gesner’s designations were based on Paolo Giovio’s work, a prominent Italian historian who lived during the 16th Century, and Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis, Asiana et Europiana, et de contentis in eis by Matthias of Michau.

Notice where Sclavi is in relation to Dalmatae and where Slavonia is in relation to Dalmatia. Sclavonia was the Roman name for Slavonia. Getic populations lived nowhere near Slavonia and early authors who wrote in either the Latin or Greek language were able to easily differentiate between Northern Thrace (Eastern Dacia) and Illyria. Victorian Model thinkers erroneously blur the specific use of the term within its historical context with the universal contemporary misuse of the term. The closest inter-linguistic translation of Slavonia that I can think of in the English language would be ‘Greatland’. Slavonians spoke and continue to speak an Eastern Illyrian language, not a “Slavic” language. The term is a connotative conundrum. It came about informally among speakers of a colonial language and then came to be applied in different ways more formally (and pseudo-scientifically) over the ages by those populations who were once partially or completely subjugated by the Western Romans (those who got the crap kicked out of them by the Vandals and the Goths). Historically, the term(s) have always been secondary to primary terms. For Adam of Bremen, The Vendelici (Vandals) were a bunch of Slaven, not people from Slavonia. When something is taken out of its context it becomes invalid according to the principles of Rationalism. I believe that, in order to truly understand European history, scholars must recognize the fact that the term can’t be seriously used in a historical context and, therefore, in an anthropological sense, either. Moscow is a city inside Russia. Russia is not a country inside Moscow. The Slav term isn’t internalized by English language thinkers like it is by people who think in an Illyro-Sarmatian language. The Illyrian inversion is fatal to factuality.

[Risto the Great]

Sovius, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
What do you believe we can assume about the Eastern Illyrian language?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Thanks Sovius, it looks like a very interesting source. Does it consist of a lexicon or any citation of Illyrian words?

The closest inter-linguistic translation of Slavonia that I can think of in the English language would be ‘Greatland’.

In your opinion, would today's terms of 'Sloveni' (People of common tongue) and 'Slavjani' (People of glory) stem from the same or different sources? Would one or both have any relation to 'Sclavinae' (Enclave territories?) in this respect? Appreciate your thoughts.

[Sovius]

What are your opinions on this?



http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA1...0-1890&f=false

"The name of Slavinia reached from the Danube to Peloponnesos, leaving to the Empire only islands and detached points of coast from Venice round to Thessalonica. Their settlements in these regions gave a new meaning to an ancient name, and the word Macedonian now began to mean Slavonic."

This passage clearly supports the observation that Macedonians came to be referred to as Slavs, not that a people who were known as the Slavs came to be referred to as Macedonians. There is a world of difference between being called something and actually being something. This is another quotation, though from a later period in time, that supports the view that Roman language slang words like Germani and Sklaveni were and continue to be inadequate anthropological and historical descriptors. Roman loyalists may have written that “The Sklabenoi” raided this or that, but, in fact, according to the historical record, they were simply noting that populations such as Illyrians and Thracians were rebelling against Roman rule all over the Penninsula and that military confederations to the North of the Danube were flooding in to help people reclaim what was theirs to begin with. It was the reconquest of the Illyrian Peninsula that was being recorded, not the descent of the region into anarchy. The populations of Macedonia seem to have figured prominently in these upheavels; though, I’m not familiar with the specifics yet. Economic inequality (oppression) appears to have been one condition that spurred such activity. Procopius indirectly noted differing political ideologies (democracy vs. monarchism), which could offer contemporary historians clues as far as what motivated Romans to popularize the use of this term.

[Bratot]

Their settlements in these regions gave a new meaning to an ancient name, and the word Macedonian now began to mean Slavonic."


This is little controversial for me. Whose settlements?