De Origine Successibusque Slavorum 1532

[Pelister]

Soon, Tomas will be telling us that the Bulgars were "Slavic". It is possible? Luckily for us the Byzantines would, now and then, actually paint what they saw. A great way of preserving history - and one reason why the Bulgars are described as "Oriental looking".

[Delodephius]

Soon, Tomas will be telling us that the Bulgars were "Slavic".

I believe Pavel Serafimov said that already.

[Pelister]

I believe Pavel Serafimov said that already.

He needs to refer himself to Byzantine art to get a better idea of what they looked like.

[Delodephius]

Slavic is a linguistic term, not an anthropological or even ethnic one. They could have been black as far as I care. If they spoke a Slavic language as natives, by definition they are Slavs. Though we don't have any known evidence that they actually spoke Slavic as natives, undoubtedly there were Slavs among them. Being a nomadic nation Bulgars were composed of many elements, similarly to the Huns. Huns were people of the Hunnic state, like Americans today are citizens of USA. Before United States of America/Hun Empire was created there were no Americans/Huns. I think similar parallels can be drawn with the Bulgars as well, but in their case there wasn't a state, rather a body of people who acted and lived side by side whether under one rule or many, they were collectively called Bulgars regardless of who the first Bulgars were if even such a group existed before, before certain groups of people merged and created the Bulgars. The name Hungarians for example means "twelve arrows", symbolically for "twelve tribes", so before the alleged twelve tribes didn't merge there were no Hungarians.
I doubt there were many if any original Slavic elements in the forming of the Bulgars. That region of Eastern Europe, around Volga (which hints to the origin of the term, i.e. those who live around Volga might have been the main factor of their unity into a single nation) was scarcely if a at all populated by Slavic speakers, who at that time were still colonizing the major river trade routes and forming small states that would one day emerge as the Russian princedoms.

[Pelister]

Slavic is a linguistic term, not an anthropological or even ethnic one. They could have been black as far as I care. If they spoke a Slavic language as natives, by definition they are Slavs. Though we don't have any known evidence that they actually spoke Slavic as natives, undoubtedly there were Slavs among them. Being a nomadic nation Bulgars were composed of many elements, similarly to the Huns. Huns were people of the Hunnic state, like Americans today are citizens of USA. Before United States of America/Hun Empire was created there were no Americans/Huns. I think similar parallels can be drawn with the Bulgars as well, but in their case there wasn't a state, rather a body of people who acted and lived side by side whether under one rule or many, they were collectively called Bulgars regardless of who the first Bulgars were if even such a group existed before, before certain groups of people merged and created the Bulgars. The name Hungarians for example means "twelve arrows", symbolically for "twelve tribes", so before the alleged twelve tribes didn't merge there were no Hungarians.
I doubt there were many if any original Slavic elements in the forming of the Bulgars. That region of Eastern Europe, around Volga (which hints to the origin of the term, i.e. those who live around Volga might have been the main factor of their unity into a single nation) was scarcely if a at all populated by Slavic speakers, who at that time were still colonizing the major river trade routes and forming small states that would one day emerge as the Russian princedoms.

But their langauge was Turkic, not Slavic.

Your "theory" is the same line pushed by the more extreme elements of the Bulgarian government, but most sensible Bulgarian historians discounted this crap, a long time ago. Your reinventing the wheel here, Slovak.

[Pelister]

Thanks, and thank you for providing a medium in the English language for these important topics, whether they be purely academic or directed towards the preservation of Macedonian culture.

The documented use of Sklavene as an ethnic slur:

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

Simocatta was equating the Getae, an indigenous Thracian population, to animals. He made it a point to remind the potentially uninformed reader that Sclavene was another name Roman loyalists were referring to Gothic insurgents as. By the time Simocatta wrote these words, this term, having been used by Procopius during the previous century, an apellation that replaced Sporoi, a Koine slang word for refugees, must have come into use for other populations, because he felt it important to remind his Roman readers which specific group of Sklavenes were ravaging Roman strongholds in Thrace. Herodotus, who also made mention of the Getae, but was polite enough not to equate the Getae to animals, never referred to them as Sklavenes or as Sklabenoi, neither did any subsequent Achaean historians. The fact that the Getae were around during Herodotus' time and were not referred to as Sklavenes, but rather, came to be referred to as Sklavenes during the 6th Century AD, provides a sequential proof that researchers back in the 19th Century either missed or made a point of avoiding. Getae has historical value as an ethnic term in the English language, while Sklavene has historical value as an ethnic slur for the Geats. Slavjani does not equal Slav, which is a Nordic term that appears to be based on the phonetic structure of slavjani, but does not convey the same meaning as slavjani.

Its important to remember that, during the 19th Century, the Sarmatian and Illyrian language groups came to be generically referred to as the Slavic languages and an assumed tribal designation was anachronistically and erroneously associated with this term. Logicians refer to these kinds of events as semantic shifts. This particular shift represents an inversion of interpreted historical events and ethnic classifications.

Take this scenario for example. Japanese soldiers were called "Nips" during World War II by their Allied opponents. "Nip" is based on Nippon, the name of Japan in the Japanese language, which means "land of the rising sun". Think back to the Chronicle of Nester: Is it "We are Nips" or is it "We are a people who come from the land of the rising sun"? One language has one set of meanings for a similar word and a different language has another set that reinforces certain ideas. Translations must be grammatically and semantically accurate or they are not really translations at all.

Doulos meant slave in the Koine language, while Sklabenoi came to be used as a slang word for doulos. The dictionaries of those populations who were conquered and assimilated by the Romans, including Italic populations, provide excellent source material for these observations. One has to simply look up Slav and slave. Was it the Downfall of the Roman Empire or was it the Gothic liberation of Roman occupied Europe? Who's still around?

Sovius,

You are onto something special here.

One language has one set of meanings for a similar word and a different language has another set that reinforces certain ideas. Translations must be grammatically and semantically accurate or they are not really translations at all.

You also said:

Pribojevic would have formed his thoughts (about the "Slavs" in his indigenous language. In my opinion, Fine's work weaves some interesting insights into the mistranslations he's presenting, but as he fails to comprehend what was regarded as common knowledge during those times, he's not really communicating anything meaningful to the study of history, only that these historical texts would clearly be of more value to Western scholars if they were, in fact, correctly translated

I fully agree with this.

So when Procopius and ilk were writing about certain tribes the Romans referred to as Sklabenoi or Sklavenoi, what did they mean do you think ?

Secondly, did the natives use this term or something similar for themselves, or was it wholly a Western (i.e., Roman) designation ? If this term comes from the natives themselves, how would it have looked and what would it have meant to them ?

I think that the way you presented the term as Sklabenoi was clever and insightful.

If, as you suggest, the term Slavjani means "kindred tribes" or "glory", it would be interesting to find out whether this is in fact valid, and how far back it goes.

What interests me is not only the very real potential of a mistake in the English translation of the Latin (re: Pribojevics work), but the possible "shift" in the Latin translation of the native. Let's think about this for a sec.

Pribojevic wrote down his ideas in Latin, which was not his native language (or was it?).

So what did it mean to Pribojevic in his native language, and is this what he intended it to mean in Latin, i.e., Slavorum ? I think you a right on target when you say that the Western meaning of the term "Slav" formulated in the 18th century had grafted its own meaning onto the use of the term and similar terms of the past, rather anachronistically.

[Sovius]

Some good questions.

Is there a digital copy of what has come to be regarded as Pribojevic’s original speech as it existed prior to the late 16th Century Italian translation that we can examine?

[Pelister]

Some good questions.

Is there a digital copy of what has come to be regarded as Pribojevic’s original speech as it existed prior to the late 16th Century Italian translation that we can examine?

There is a copy in the National Library of Australia.

1304572
Format Book
Author Pribojevic, Vinko, fl. 1525-1532

Uniform Title Oratio de origine successibusque Slavorum. Serbo-Croatian & Latin

Description Zagreb : Golden marketing : Narodne novine, 1997.
211 p. ; 25 cm.

ISBN 9536168332

Series Biblioteka Povijest hrvatskih politickih ideja ; kolo 1, knj. 1

Notes Includes bibliographical references (p. 33-44) and indexes.

Contains Latin original and Serbo-Croatian (roman) translation

Coud you explain again how you translate "Slavorum" into possibly "Glory" or "Kindred Tribes" ?

[Sovius]

Looks like it’s still only available on the shelf. Let’s examine some excerpts then, which Fine concentrated on.

As he stated in his speech, Pribojevic was an Illyrian from Dalmatia. He defined the language that he spoke as Illyrian and extended this classification to other populations in the region who continued to speak a language similar to Illyrian, not “Slavic”, meaning, he did not regard himself as a Slav as one would apply the term in an ethnic sense, but rather in a qualitative abstract sense. He reminded his audience of all the many different peoples who came to carry the Roman designation of Sklabenoi (Sklavus, etc.) and their roles in ending the Roman occupation of Europe. He regarded the Western Slav generalization as being a corruption of ‘slava’ (glory) and, having outwardly defined it as such, used this meaning throughout his speech, implying, above all else, he was someone whose ancestors ended a great tyranny (Slavena), providing Italians (who considered themselves descendents of the Romans) with some insight as to why they came to refer to Illyrians as Slavi. In other words, as a Dominican, he knew what they meant when they used the term, its derogatory existence in their language. He wanted them to understand how he understood the word. Western Europeans and the Russian Empire during the 19th Century; however, had other designs.

John Van Antwerp Fine’s work parrots a fundamental classificatory inversion that’s simply been reinforced over the years through social convention, an informal secondary term simply came to be used as a primary term. We see all these old maps in history books with no Slavs in sight prior to the 6th Century and then all of a sudden: bam! Here we all are, millions of us ready to be exploited, to have our lands taken away from us, etc.. Its because we’re not Slavs, we are simply people who have come to be called Slavs, people who have been taught to think of ourselves as Slavs in many cases. Slav continues to mean what it meant. Slavena still means what it means, even though, it seems more plausible to me that sklabenoi developed out of sloveni.


This is how I’ve come to understand his work. I’d like to research it more someday. Have you come across anything that might further de-mystify what he was trying to get across in English language translations (mis-translations) or a different take, perhaps?

[Pelister]

Looks like it’s still only available on the shelf. Let’s examine some excerpts then, which Fine concentrated on.

As he stated in his speech, Pribojevic was an Illyrian from Dalmatia. He defined the language that he spoke as Illyrian and extended this classification to other populations in the region who continued to speak a language similar to Illyrian, not “Slavic”, meaning, he did not regard himself as a Slav as one would apply the term in an ethnic sense, but rather in a qualitative abstract sense. He reminded his audience of all the many different peoples who came to carry the Roman designation of Sklabenoi (Sklavus, etc.) and their roles in ending the Roman occupation of Europe. He regarded the Western Slav generalization as being a corruption of ‘slava’ (glory) and, having outwardly defined it as such, used this meaning throughout his speech, implying, above all else, he was someone whose ancestors ended a great tyranny (Slavena), providing Italians (who considered themselves descendents of the Romans) with some insight as to why they came to refer to Illyrians as Slavi. In other words, as a Dominican, he knew what they meant when they used the term, its derogatory existence in their language. He wanted them to understand how he understood the word. Western Europeans and the Russian Empire during the 19th Century; however, had other designs.

John Van Antwerp Fine’s work parrots a fundamental classificatory inversion that’s simply been reinforced over the years through social convention, an informal secondary term simply came to be used as a primary term. We see all these old maps in history books with no Slavs in sight prior to the 6th Century and then all of a sudden: bam! Here we all are, millions of us ready to be exploited, to have our lands taken away from us, etc.. Its because we’re not Slavs, we are simply people who have come to be called Slavs, people who have been taught to think of ourselves as Slavs in many cases. Slav continues to mean what it meant. Slavena still means what it means, even though, it seems more plausible to me that sklabenoi developed out of sloveni.


This is how I’ve come to understand his work. I’d like to research it more someday. Have you come across anything that might further de-mystify what he was trying to get across in English language translations (mis-translations) or a different take, perhaps?

Sovius,

You said this in a way that resonates with me.

Its because we’re not Slavs, we are simply people who have come to be called Slavs, people who have been taught to think of ourselves as Slavs in many cases

I am not really familiar with his work. I have not read any of it, apart from what has been written here.

I have gone over some of the "contemporaries" and looked at the Greek word used to describe 6th century invaders ... and it is always "Sklavenoi" and later "Sklavoi". It would be interesting to find out also where and when the inversion occurred, or who gave the term "Slav" new meaning, and how that term came to be connected with the name given to 6th century invaders. You see as you have pointed out what I found in the literature was that Westerners saw the term "Sklavenoi"(in the original Greek), and translated this word specifically to "Slav" (in English), even though we have no idea what the first term meant to the native or to the Romans, and knowing that the second term introduced a whole new political schemata to these people. Anyway, my query isn't really what you asked for.

How good is your German ? I have access to a translation of "Phillip of Bergamo's" history of the world. Phillip of Bergamo, was also a Dominican friar. The original was written in Latin in 1491. I believe that Pribijovic, was probably heavily influenced by this work as were many others (Orbini actually cites him as a source of his information about the ancient Macedonians being "Slavs"). I know where a copy exists, but it is a German translation of the original Latin, translated in 1496. I wonder whether this might shed some light on the issue of what natives meant when they said and used the term "Slav" and what Westerners meant. The German translation of the original Latin could provide clues to the "inversion" ? Just a thought.

[makedonin]

The German translation of the original Latin could provide clues to the "inversion" ? Just a thought.

Pelister, if you have the German translation feel free to post it, I could translate it for you!

But as I recall, there was a copy around in Serb as well. Although to read the Original is the best thing to do. But Latin is a problematic.

[Sovius]

I firmly believe context can be used to discern meaning or a least a greater understanding of what the past has attempted to preserve. You make an excellent point regarding our inability to truly understand what Sklavenoi originally meant to the indigenous populations of the region (if anything), but, I believe, we can be certain that there is no apparent evidence of this term's use prior to a certain point in time, which would make it an invention, given all the evidence we now have regarding the continuity of populations in the region, which makes the term a contrivance, an artificial development. If the Drvenoi spilled over across the Danube, we would have what could be considered tangible evidence of a concrete event taking place involving a people carrying a name that could be rationally treated as an ethonym, because it would be similar to other tribal intra-linguistic designations recorded in history.

I have some familiarity with the German language and know a few people who are fairly fluent in it. I'd appreciate the opportunity to study such a rare work or pertanent excerpts. Thanks. It might shed greater light on the subject or demonstrate an early break in conveying parallel meanings.

Regarding the Sklavenoi term, I seem to recall coming across a passage that used this term in reference to Avarians. If this passage was correctly translated (and has been verified as an actual historical citation), we could then follow one tangent that would lead to the belief that the Avars were culturally related to Illyrians, or we could come to the conclusion that Sklabenoi was applied more indiscrimantly during that period, regardless of whether or not it was a corruption of an indigenous term. If sklabenoi came to be synonymous with slave, when were the Romans simply talking about enslaved populations who were simply revolting? I believe only a strict adherence to context can produce a genuine reflection of an author's original intent when re-stating ideas from language to another. Pribojevic seems to have applied poetic license regarding his meaning, though, I still like the idea that sklavenoi came from a common war cry, "Slava!". It seems fitting in so many different ways, but, there's no document that I've ever come across to provide any motivation to adopt such a view.

[Pelister]

I firmly believe context can be used to discern meaning or a least a greater understanding of what the past has attempted to preserve. You make an excellent point regarding our inability to truly understand what Sklavenoi originally meant to the indigenous populations of the region (if anything), but, I believe, we can be certain that there is no apparent evidence of this term's use prior to a certain point in time, which would make it an invention, given all the evidence we now have regarding the continuity of populations in the region, which makes the term a contrivance, an artificial development.

Assuming it was a term invented by the Romans it was obviously meant something. The question is what did the Romans (writing in Greek and Latin) mean by it ?

I have some familiarity with the German language and know a few people who are fairly fluent in it. I'd appreciate the opportunity to study such a rare work or pertanent excerpts. Thanks. It might shed greater light on the subject or demonstrate an early break in conveying parallel meanings.

It is a big book with pictures. I can copy it and send it to you. There is a possibility you can borrow it via an inter library loan, but it is a very old book. The copy in the library was written in 1496 which was about 5 years after Phillip of Bergamo had written it in Latin. The other problem is I do not believe it is an "Exact" translation. I believe the German translater has used different sources, but most of the translation comes directly from Bergamo's Latin.

Regarding the Sklavenoi term, I seem to recall coming across a passage that used this term in reference to Avarians. If this passage was correctly translated (and has been verified as an actual historical citation), we could then follow one tangent that would lead to the belief that the Avars were culturally related to Illyrians, or we could come to the conclusion that Sklabenoi was applied more indiscrimantly during that period, regardless of whether or not it was a corruption of an indigenous term.

You have raised another important point here. Although we have no idea what the Romans meant by the term, they were clearly describing something. But ... after reading some of the contemporary accounts there was some confusion (even back then) about Who was Who ! There is some confusion in the early sources about whether this raid or that one was done by "Sklabenoi" or "Avars" or someone else. The problem is that "Slabenoi" were sometimes led by Avars ... etc. For example, Procopius talks about an Avar invasion of the Peloponese, but modern scholars believe it was done by the "Slabenoi". Perhaps it was both. Even though the sources clearly state it was done by Avars. A number of possibilities. The presence of a Slavic speaking community in the Peloponesse gave rise to the assumption in our time, that they must have been "Sklabenoi". Can you see the assumptions in this last statement? The proposition that the Sklabenoi must have spoken the language we call today as Slavic is validated, even though there is no evidence they did. If they couldn't describe the events accurately in the 6th century, how possible is it that we can get it right today, given the inversions and interpretive mischief of Western scholars?

If sklabenoi came to be synonymous with slave, when were the Romans simply talking about enslaved populations who were simply revolting? I believe only a strict adherence to context can produce a genuine reflection of an author's original intent when re-stating ideas from language to another. Pribojevic seems to have applied poetic license regarding his meaning, though, I still like the idea that sklavenoi came from a common war cry, "Slava!". It seems fitting in so many different ways, but, there's no document that I've ever come across to provide any motivation to adopt such a view.

Probably because the use of the term "Slav" in the Western literature meant something else entirely.

Did it come from the wary cry ? What would "Slava" have meant ? Or does it mean "kindred people" ? I wonder. What could "Sklabo" have meant ? Ah ...questions, questions.

[Pelister]

Pelister, if you have the German translation feel free to post it, I could translate it for you!

But as I recall, there was a copy around in Serb as well. Although to read the Original is the best thing to do. But Latin is a problematic.

It is early Rennaissance German. I have checked with a Prof and the University and was told that it is really not that different from German today.

[Sovius]

Assuming it was a term invented by the Romans it was obviously meant something. The question is what did the Romans (writing in Greek and Latin) mean by it ?

If the historical record of the region is accurate regarding the term and its earliest uses then we can be confident that, prior to referring to Getic populations as Sklavenes, Eastern Romans informally referred to Gothic populations as Sporoi, a term whose root has specific meaning in the Achaean creole language. It literally meant scattered or dispersed people, as in people driven from their lands. As a term which defined a condition (status) and not an ethnicity, we can then put forth the assertion that Sklavene, as another slang word that came into use for Getic populations, did not truly define them in an ethnic sense, which was already represented by the Getae term, but a word which came into use out of contempt, given the armed conflicts occurring in the region. Without a specific definition from the Ancient Period, I don’t think we’ll ever truly understood what it meant, only who the term was originally applied to and the circumstances which apparently gave rise to the generalization. I currently hold the view that it meant “they who are presently drilling us a new one”, as I’ve never come across a term in the Eastern Roman language that could be reasonably regarded as an adapted form of an existent word within that particular language.

It is a big book with pictures. I can copy it and send it to you. There is a possibility you can borrow it via an inter library loan, but it is a very old book. The copy in the library was written in 1496 which was about 5 years after Phillip of Bergamo had written it in Latin. The other problem is I do not believe it is an "Exact" translation. I believe the German translater has used different sources, but most of the translation comes directly from Bergamo's Latin.

Let me do a bit of asking around. I know a few people who are fairly knowledgeable about the period who might have access to a microfiche of the Latin original.

You have raised another important point here. Although we have no idea what the Romans meant by the term, they were clearly describing something. But ... after reading some of the contemporary accounts there was some confusion (even back then) about Who was Who ! There is some confusion in the early sources about whether this raid or that one was done by "Sklabenoi" or "Avars" or someone else. The problem is that "Slabenoi" were sometimes led by Avars ... etc. For example, Procopius talks about an Avar invasion of the Peloponese, but modern scholars believe it was done by the "Slabenoi". Perhaps it was both. Even though the sources clearly state it was done by Avars. A number of possibilities. The presence of a Slavic speaking community in the Peloponesse gave rise to the assumption in our time, that they must have been "Sklabenoi". Can you see the assumptions in this last statement? The proposition that the Sklabenoi must have spoken the language we call today as Slavic is validated, even though there is no evidence they did. If they couldn't describe the events accurately in the 6th century, how possible is it that we can get it right today, given the inversions and interpretive mischief of Western scholars?

Contemporary researchers also need to keep in mind that they often have to base their conclusions on versions of historical records that have been translated from the original language made during a certain period into another language that was then used as the basis for yet another translation in a different period

Very insightful. What about the presence of the Illyrian languages in the region prior to the 6th Century AD? How should the research that Max Vasmer conducted be regarded in an age where the human genome has been unraveled, demonstrating quite a different path out of prehistory?

Did it come from the wary cry ? What would "Slava" have meant ? Or does it mean "kindred people" ? I wonder. What could "Sklabo" have meant ? Ah ...questions, questions.

Slavena has taken on the connotative value of ‘kindred people’, possibly due to Pribojevic’s speech. It’s a way of communicating “us” rather than “them” across a broad spectrum of linguistically similar populations. It has also come to be used as a non-rational proof that “we” all descended from the Russians by equating it with Sklabenoi in an artificial tribal sense, which completely saturated scholarship during the 20th Century.