Macedonians speak the Sclavonic language, Alexander's Charter, 1630!

[Amphipolis]

Who were the eleven prince's appointed?

Does it really matter if this was an obviously fake charter?

What's most amazing is that this author (back in the 1600s) really believed in its' authenticity, which indeed causes questions on what sort of idiot he was, and what his relation to History, Archaeology or any Science was. I admit I didn't bother to search further about him, but some other forum member may help us in this.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Does it really matter if this was an obviously fake charter?

What's most amazing is that this author (back in the 1600s) really believed in its' authenticity, which indeed causes questions on what sort of idiot he was, and what his relation to History, Archaeology or any Science was. I admit I didn't bother to search further about him, but some other forum member may help us in this.

Despite the somewhat anachronistic terminology and the questionable existence of this charter, the most interesting and valid aspects of this document are that (1) the Macedonians are mentioned as a people separate to their neighbours in the first half of the 17th century, (2) the language they speak is similar to the one spoken today and (3) there is no reference to this language being brought by foreign migrants from beyond the Carpathian mountains. This suggests that at the time, at least among some scholars, such perspectives were not uncommon.

Referring to the author as an 'idiot', like you've done, due to his belief in the existence of such a charter, means you should render most of the people of ancient Athens as 'idiots' for their belief that Athena was born from Zeus' forehead. If you're going to apply criticism, be consistent in its delivery and start in your own supposed backyard. And be careful not to insult the good hosts of this forum.

[Philosopher]

Despite the somewhat anachronistic terminology and the questionable existence of this charter, the most interesting and valid aspects of this document are that (1) the Macedonians are mentioned as a people separate to their neighbours in the first half of the 17th century, (2) the language they speak is similar to the one spoken today and (3) there is no reference to this language being brought by foreign migrants from beyond the Carpathian mountains. This suggests that at the time, at least among some scholars, such perspectives were not uncommon.

Fine points brother, though I suspect they are too difficult for our neighbors to the south and Western intellectuals to grasp.

[Redsun]

Does it really matter if this was an obviously fake charter?

What's most amazing is that this author (back in the 1600s) really believed in its' authenticity, which indeed causes questions on what sort of idiot he was, and what his relation to History, Archaeology or any Science was. I admit I didn't bother to search further about him, but some other forum member may help us in this.

What is “obviously fake” about this charter?

He was a clerk of the Privy Council and a historian, why would James Howell jeopardize his status and reputation? He wrote this before he was consecrated Lord Bishop of Bristol, from 1661 he held office of “Historiographer royal.” He must have been a reputable character.

[Amphipolis]

Despite the somewhat anachronistic terminology and the questionable existence of this charter, the most interesting and valid aspects of this document are that (1) the Macedonians are mentioned as a people separate to their neighbours in the first half of the 17th century, (2) the language they speak is similar to the one spoken today and (3) there is no reference to this language being brought by foreign migrants from beyond the Carpathian mountains. This suggests that at the time, at least among some scholars, such perspectives were not uncommon.

Regarding the valid aspects of the document (meaning the book of post#1, not Alexander’s charter):

(1) The Macedonians are mentioned among 60 nations or people that speak a Slavic (“Sclavonic”) language. That’s correct and known. I don’t know about the Epirots.

(2) What you say is correct, but doesn’t come from the book

(3) Maybe that’s the most interesting part. He believes that pure Slavonic is spoken in Croatia (and the nearby territories), so maybe that’s where it all began. Does this opinion have any value? (It’s not what we know from History). This author is considered a good linguist. Do modern linguists see any value in this opinion?

Referring to the author as an 'idiot', like you've done, due to his belief in the existence of such a charter, means you should render most of the people of ancient Athens as 'idiots' for their belief that Athena was born from Zeus' forehead. If you're going to apply criticism, be consistent in its delivery and start in your own supposed backyard. And be careful not to insult the good hosts of this forum.

Gee, your example is a little surprising. Religious people DO believe in Athena being born from Zeus head or Jesus being conceived without sex, but this sort of stupidity is mostly related to religious horror, the subconscious fear that if you think against mighty God and the relevant beliefs, He will destroy you. (Oops, does that insult the good hosts of the forum?)

In our case we have a historian that does make a disastrous estimation (a charter with a content that changes History as we know it, is not only considered authentic, but also the most ancient extant charter), and then he just stops there, without researching what should be so important.

Well, did Alexander write a charter (a message on paper) referring to Sclavonians telling them to… keep their lands? was it in Greek, Latin or Slavonic? Is this kept in Prague? Whatever it was, he seems to have an accurate translation in English, not just a generic description of its’ content.


===

[Soldier of Macedon]

Regarding the valid aspects of the document (meaning the book of post#1, not Alexander’s charter

Yes, the book on post #1.

(1) The Macedonians are mentioned among 60 nations or people that speak a Slavic (“Sclavonic”) language. That’s correct and known.

The significance here is that it is mentioned in the first half of the 17th century. Well before the erroneous claims made by certain others who deny the existence of a Macedonian nation prior to the 20th century.

I don’t know about the Epirots.

People who spoke a language akin to that of the Macedonians also lived in Epirus. There are plenty of historical place names that can attest to that.

(2) What you say is correct, but doesn’t come from the book

Of course it doesn't come from the book given that it was produced almost 400 years ago, but the content in the book and the reality of today establish the point beyond doubt.

(3) Maybe that’s the most interesting part. He believes that pure Slavonic is spoken in Croatia (and the nearby territories), so maybe that’s where it all began. Does this opinion have any value?

It is most likely based on the works of Croatian writers from the 16th and 17th centuries, who argued in favour of the Illyrians as the ancestors of the people who speak the so-called Slavic languages. It may not conform to today's western historiography, but it is a school of thought that has some merit.

It’s not what we know from History

By history, are you referring to medieval sources? If so, is there a consensus among them regarding the original home of the 'Slavic' language?

Gee, your example is a little surprising. Religious people DO believe in Athena being born from Zeus head or Jesus being conceived without sex, but this sort of stupidity is mostly related to religious horror, the subconscious fear that if you think against mighty God and the relevant beliefs, He will destroy you.

So all pious people are stupid, is that it?

Oops, does that insult the good hosts of the forum?

Perhaps some (and some of your own people too), but you will cross or fall off that bridge as you slither closer towards it.

Well, did Alexander write a charter (a message on paper) referring to Sclavonians telling them to… keep their lands? was it in Greek, Latin or Slavonic? Is this kept in Prague? Whatever it was, he seems to have an accurate translation in English, not just a generic description of its’ content.

That's one point of view. Another is that he could just be relaying his own English interpretation on how he remembered the story being told to him. He doesn't indicate that he actually saw a charter, does he? Granted, the terms used in his rendition of the supposed charter are anachronistic, for example, there is no mention of "Sclavonians" prior to the 6th century in any known sources, Alexander referred to Zeus rather than Jupiter, etc. However, the same people who brought the supposed charter to his awareness would also have been of the belief that the "Sclavonians" is just a later name for the Illyrians. A worse example of this type of anachronism is when modern scholars refer to "Hellenization" during the Byzantine period, even though for most people at the time the term "Hellene" was synonymous with being a pagan. Anyway, back the charter, perhaps it was just a legend based on Alexander's interaction with certain Illyrian or Celtic tribes that dwelt north, and passed on through the generations to glorify the people that later lived there. Whatever the case may be, the possibility of such a charter surviving after such an extensive period of time is extremely remote. In terms of relevance for our people as it relates to this book, the importance of the reference to a charter (fictional or otherwise) pales in comparison to its acknowledgement of the Macedonian nation.

[Karposh]

Whatever the case may be, the possibility of such a charter surviving after such an extensive period of time is extremely remote. In terms of relevance for our people as it relates to this book, the importance of the reference to a charter (fictional or otherwise) pales in comparison to its acknowledgement of the Macedonian nation.

I think that’s the key here. Regardless of whether James Howell was an idiot or not, and maybe he was, who knows, but the point that is important for people to wrap their heads around is that he mentions the Macedonians, a Slavonic-speaking people, which weren’t meant to come into existence until some 314 years later, when Tito was supposed to have decreed them into existence.

I too want to pass on my congrats to everyone involved in bringing this document to light. I had no idea of its existence until I saw it here first and, strangely enough, the significance of it only becomes more apparent the more you look at it and consider it from the point of view of the author. There is nothing unusual in the way the author speaks of the Macedonians, as a people in their own right. It is noteworthy for a number of reasons, not withstanding the fact that he separates the Macedonians from the Bulgarians. Being Alexander’s own people, the author places the Macedonians at the head of the list of peoples speaking the same vulgar speech, followed by the Epirots of all people.

The Zagoria region of Epirus immediately springs to mind with the tell-tale remnants of the prevailing language of the time – Besides Zagoria (“Behind the mountain”), toponyms such such as Metsovo (“Place of the Bear”), Tsepelovo, Kapesevo and Konitsa come to mind. Not sure about the etymology of Tsepelovo, Kapesevo and Konitsa but the suffixes “ovo” and “itsa” are telling. Apparently there is also a Varda River running through Zagoria. This area was, of course, the home of the Molossi, the tribe that Alexander’s mum Olympia belonged to.

I’ve often wondered why the linguistic boundaries of Macedonia don’t quite coincide with the geographic boundaries of Macedonia. Today, the southern limit of the Macedonian language seems to be just south of Kostur, however, I suspect that it was much more prevalent only a few centuries ago. If the example of Bogatsko is anything to go by, one can only imagine how wide-spread the Macedonian language in fact really was. We know for a fact that, about 400 years ago, the Macedonian language was the native tongue of this village which is today a completely Greek town (Vogatsiko). And, as noted on the specific thread about the Macedonian Lexicon that was discovered here, which dates back to the 16th Century, the language they spoke back then was pretty much exactly the same as that spoken today by Macedonians. The structure, grammar and vocabulary have remained virtually unchanged. For a living and simple ‘farmer’ language, that has been passed down orally from generation to generation over the centuries, as opposed to the more established languages which have been governed by strict written grammatical laws, this is remarkable. BTW, what ever happened to the Macedonians from Bogatsko? Did they leave the place or were they Hellenised? If they did get Hellenised, then I don’t get it. Why? Surely no one forced them to become Greeks back then.

Nevertheless, Macedonians have continued to exist over the centuries. Just to recap, apparently in 1630 the English were well aware of the Macedonians who spoke the vulgar (unrefined, rude, offensive, etc.) Slavonic speech. And, just out of interest, let’s not forget the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I whose letter of promised protection for the Macedonian people from the Ottoman Turks is dated 26th April 1690. This letter was written on the initiative of, as the letter goes on to explain, the two Macedonians – Marko Krajda from Kozhani and Dimitri Georgija Popovich from Solun. Another testament to the existence of Macedonians comes from 18th Century Russia where a Macedonian Cavalry unit was established in 1752 by the Russian Tsarina Elisaveta Petrovna. The members of this unit described themselves as Macedonians and are recorded as such in the Ukrainian national archives.

[Redsun]

The title page states “The Tenth Edition, very much Corrected,” when was the tenth edition printed?

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Depiction of Alexander from 1541