To Dan, my Slav neighbor (was Re: Travel little bit harder)
C. POLYCHRONAKOS
>
... unrelated stuff deleted...
>Slavs once occupied half of Peloponesus and the modern Greeks today have
>slavic blood in themselves. We, the Macedonians have it too, after the
>slavs populated Macedonia and mixed with the ancient Macedonians.
>
>
>
>
>Pozdrav (Regards in Macedonian),
> _|_______________________________________________|_
> | _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ |
> | /\ /\ | | | /| | /\ |
> | / \ /__\ |---| | / | |---- / \ |
> | _/____\_ / \ | | |/ | |____ / \ |
> -|-----------------------------------------------|-
>
>.
In the Balkans, everybody has everybody else's blood.
Nationhood is determined by culture and feeling, not DNA. The
difference is that we are Greeks with some Slavic genetic
admixture. You, the Makedontsi, are slavs by language, culture,
customs and history.
Come on, Danny, admit it. What is so shameful about being a
slav? How many of today's nations can trace their cultural roots
back to the middle ages? Your ancestors gave civilization to the
rest of the Slavic world. They created the alphabet used by
Pushkin, Tolstoi and Mendeleyev. They built the Theologic School
of Ochrid at a time when Western Europe was plunged in barbarism.
There is plenty to be proud of in your history without having to
look for non-existing cultural roots in antiquity. Call your
country whatever you wish for all I care, but, puh-leeze, take
off this oversized Alexander-the-Great costume and feel good
about yourself!
***************************************************************
Constantin Polychronakos
Department of Pediatrics
McGill University
Montreal, Canada
mc...@musica.mcgill.ca
"Les hommes sont faits, nous dit-on
pour vivre en bande comme des moutons..."
Brassens
***************************************************************
>.
George Theodoropoulos
"C. POLYCHRONAKOS" <MC9...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
> Come on, Danny, admit it. What is so shameful about being a
>back to the middle ages? Your ancestors gave civilization to the
>rest of the Slavic world. They created the alphabet used by
>Pushkin, Tolstoi and Mendeleyev. They built the Theologic School
>of Ochrid at a time when Western Europe was plunged in barbarism.
From the book:
The Orthodox Church
by Timothy Ware
Penguin Books (first published 1963)
Introduction
It is interesting to note how cultural and ecclesiastical
divisions coincide. Christianity, while universal
in its mission, has tended in practice to be associated with three
cultures: The Semitic, the Greek and the Latin. As a result
of the first separation the Semitic Christians of Syria with their
flourishing school of theologians and writers were cut off from
the rest of Christendom. Then followed the second separation, which
drove the wedge between the Greek and the Latin traditions in
Christianity. So it has come about that in Orthodoxy the
primary cultural influence has been that of Greece.
Yet it must not therefore be thought that the orthodox Church is
exclusively a Greek Church and nothing else, since Syriac
and Latin Fathers also have a place in the fullness of Orthodox
tradition. While the Orthodox Church became bounded first on the
eastern and then on the western side, it expanded to the north.
In 863 Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius, the Apostles of the Slavs
traveled northward to undertake missionary
work beyond the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire, and their
efforts led eventually to the conversion of Bulgaria, Serbia,
and Russia. As the Byzantine Empire dwindled, these newer Churches
of the north increased in importance and on the fall of Constantinople
to the Turks in 1453 the Principality of Moscow was ready to
take Byzantium's place as the Protector of the Orthodox World.
Within the last 150 years there has been a partial reversal of
the situation. Although Constantinople itself remains
in Turkish hands, a pale shadow of its
former glory, the Church of Greece is free once more.
.....
Chapter 4, The Conversion of the Slavs.
pp 82-86
For Constantinople the middle of the ninth century was a period of
intensive missionary activity. The Byzantine Church,
freed at last from the long struggle against the Iconoclasts,
turned its energies to the conversion of the pagan slavs
who lay beyond the frontiers of the empire, to the north and the north-west
Moravians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Russians. Photius was the first
Patriarch of Constantinople to initiate missionary work
on a large scale among these Slavs. He selected for the task
two brothers, Greeks from Thessalonika, Constantine(826-69)
and Methodius(?815-85). In the Orthodox Church
Constantine is usually called by the name Cyril, which
he took on becoming a monk. Knowing in earlier life as
'Constantine the Philosopher' he was the ablest among the
pupils of Photius, and was familiar with a wide range
of languages, including Hebrew, Arabic, and even the Samaritan dialect.
But the special qualification which he and his brother enjoyed
was their knowledge of Slavonic: in childhood they had learnt
the dialect of the Slavs around Thessalonica, and they could
speak it fluently.
The first missionary journey of Cyril and Methodius was a short visit
around 860 to the Khazars, who lived north of the Caucasus region.
This expedition had no permanent results, and some years later
the Khazars adopted Judaism. The brothers' real work
began in 863 when they set out for Moravia(roughly equivalent
to the modern Checholsovakia). They went in answer to an appeal
from the Prince of the land, Rostislav, who asked that Christian
missionaries be sent, capable of preaching to the people in their
own tongue and of taking services in Slavonic. Slavonic
services required a Slavonic Bible and Slavonic service books.
Before they set out for Moravia the brothers had already set to work
on this enormous task of translation. They had first to invent
a suitable slavonic alphabet[*]. In their translation the brothers used
the form of Slavonic familiar to them from childhood, the dialect spoken
by the slavs around Thessalonica. In this way the dialect of the macedonian
slavs became Church Slavonic, which remains to the present day
the liturgical language of the Russian and certain other Slavonic
Orthodox Churches.
One cannot overestimate the significance, for the future of Orthodoxy
of the Slavonic translations which Cyril and Methodius carried
with them as they left Byzantium for the unknown north. Few events have
been so important in the missionary history of church.
.....
In Moravia, as in Bulgaria, the Greek mission soon clashed
with German missionaries at work in the same area. The two missions
not only depended on different Patriarchates but worked on
different principles. Cyril and methodius used Slavonic in their
services, the Germans Latin; Cyril and Methodius recited the Creed
in its original form, the Germans inserted the filioque. To free
his mission from German interference, Cyril decided
to place it under the immediate protection of the Pope.
.....
Hadrian II, Nicholas I's successor in Rome, received them
favourably and gave full support to the Greek mission, confirming
the use of Slavonic as a liturgical language of Moravia.
Cyril died at Rome(869) but Methodius returned to Moravia.
Sad to say, the Germans ignored the Pope's decision
and obstructed Methodius in every possible way, even putting
him in prison for more than a year. When Methodius died,
the Germans expelled his followers from the country
selling a number of them into slavery.
...
The work of Cyril and Methodius, so it seemed, had ended in failure.
Yet in fact this was not so. Other countries where the
brothers had not themselves preached, benefited from their work,
most notably Bulgaria, Serbia, and Russia. Boris, Khan
of Bulgaria, wavered for a time between east and west
but finally accepted the jurisdiction of Constantinople.
The byzantine missionaries in Bulgaria, however, lacking
the vision of Cyril and Methodius, at first used Greek
in church services, a language as unintelligible as Latin to
the ordinary Bulgar. But after their expulsion from Moravia,
the disciples of Methodius turned naturally to Bulgaria, and
here introduced the principles employed in the Moravian mission.
Greek was replaced by Slavonic, and the Christian culture
of Byzantium was presented to the Bulgars in a Slavonic form
which they could assimilate.
...
Byzantine missionaries went likewise to Serbia, which
accepted Christianity in the second half of the 9th century,
around 867-74.
...
The conversion of Russia was also due indirectly to the work
of Cyril and Methodius... With Bulgars, Serbs, and Russians
as their spiritual children, the two Greeks from Thessalonica
abundantly deserve their title, 'Apostles of the Slavs'.
...
Byzantium conferred two gifts upon the Slavs: a fully articulated
system of Christian doctrine and a fully developed
Christian civilization. When the conversion of the Slavs
began in the 9th century, the great period of doctrinal
controversies, the age of the Seven Councils, was at an end;
the main outlines of the faith-the doctrines of the Trinity and
the Incarnation- had already been worked out, and were delivered
to the Slavs in their definitive form. Perhaps this is why
the Slavonic churches have produced few original theologians, while
the religious disputes which have arisen in slavonic lands
have usually not been dogmatic in character. But this faith
in the Trinity and the Incarnation did not exist in the vacuum;
with it went a whole Christian culture and civilization,
and this too the Greek missionaries brought with them
from Byzantium.
The Slavs were Christianized and civilized at the same time.
The Greeks communicated this faith and civilization
not in an alien but in a Slavonic garb(here the translations
of Cyril and Methodius were of capital importance); what
the Slavs borrowed from Byzantium they were able
to make their own, Byzantine culture and the Orthodox faith,
if at first limited mainly to the ruling classes, became in time
an integral part of the Slavonic peoples as a whole.
[*]: pp 92-93 [..talking about the conversion of the Russians..]
While Cyril and Methodius had employed an adapted Greek alphabet
in their Slavonic translations....
sa...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Lindstedt <jsli...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> It is really most probable that they were Greeks who knew the Slavonic
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> dialects spoken around Thessaloniki from their childhood.
Could you please explain the "most probable" above and how you got it ?
What are your sources ? (I have read the same sentence with "unlikely" in
place of "most probable".)
Sasho
mak...@cs.man.ac.uk
Why don't you give your sources as well?
>Sasho
Dimitris
grammenos dennis
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950219122441.8679C-100000@kruuna>, Jouko
> Lindstedt <jsli...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
jl> dialects spoken around Thessaloniki from their childhood.
s> Could you please explain the "most probable" above and how you got it ?
s> What are your sources ?
Gee, I cannot speak for Lindstedt, but I can help you find a bunch of
authoritative works on the subject. For starters go fetch
A.-E. Tachiaos, L'origine de Cyrille et de Methode:
Verite et Legende dans les Sources Slaves.
Cyrillomethodianum II (1972-73)
V. Tyupkova-Zaimova, Kontantin-Kiril Filosof
Sofia, 1981.
F. Grivech & F. Tomshich, Constantinus et Methodius
Thessalonicenses.
Radovi Staroslovenskog Instituta, t.4
Zagreb, 1960.
s> (I have read the same sentence with "unlikely" in place of "most
s> probable".)
Do YOU have any authoritative sources? It would be nice of you if you
were to indicate them to us.
Dennis Grammenos
Department of Geography and
Russian and East European Studies Center
University of Illinois
C. POLYCHRONAKOS
>A very well-informed piece about Cyril and Methodius! It is really most
>probable that they were Greeks who knew the Slavonic dialects spoken
>around Thessaloniki from their childhood. Only one minor correction: the
>Glagolitic alphabet created by them (they did not create the Cyrillic
>alphabet!) is not particularly close to the Greek alphabet; it is an
>independent creation with reminiscences from several previous alphabets,
>including the Greek script.
>
>Jouko Lindstedt
>Department of Slavonic Languages, University of Helsinki
>e-mail: Jouko.L...@Helsinki.Fi or jsli...@cc.helsinki.fi
>fax: +358-0-1912974
I stand corrected by an expert in the field. However: with due respect
to the work of Methodius an Cyrillus, and without any wish to get
involved in the irrelevant discussion as to how much Greek vs. Bulgarian
blood they had, I may remark that creating an alphabet involves a lot
more than coming up with an arbirtrary set of characters representing
sounds. Without the Bulgarian scholars that translated Greek texts
into Old Church Slavonic, and added their own original works, the
Slavic alphabet would probably had remained just a historical
curiosity.
Constantin Polychronakos
Montreal, Canada
Jouko Lindstedt
: > It is really most probable that they were Greeks who knew the Slavonic
: ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
: > dialects spoken around Thessaloniki from their childhood.
: Could you please explain the "most probable" above and how you got it ?
: What are your sources ? (I have read the same sentence with "unlikely" in
: place of "most probable".)
The oldest biographies (vitae) of Cyril and Methodius tell a lot about
their childhood and life before the Moravian Mission, but the two
brothers are never presented as Slavs. Yet the vitae were written by
Slavs for the Slavs, so it would have been very odd not to mention that
C&M were Slavs.
When the Byzantine Emperor is sending C&M to Great Moravia, the Slavic
author of the vita puts the following words into his mouth: "You are
Thessalonians [natives of Thessaloniki], and all Thessalonians speak
pure Slavic." If you want to, you can read this as a statement about
their ethnic background; I only read it as a statement about their
knowledge of languages -- why would he not have simply said, "You are
Slavs"?
At any rate, in Byzantium ethnic background was not important; everybody
who got his schooling in Greek was certainly considered as Greek as
anybody else for most purposes. So, even if (say) the father of C&M had
been a Slav (which is not supported by any evidence), the contemporaries
would not have put such significance in it as is but nowadays in the
Balkans.
--
grammenos dennis
> sa...@ccu.umanitoba.ca wrote:
jl> It is really most probable that they were Greeks who knew
jl> the Slavonic dialects spoken around Thessaloniki from their
jl> childhood.
s> Could you please explain the "most probable" above and how
s> you got it ? What are your sources ? (I have read the same
s> sentence with "unlikely" in s> place of "most probable".)
jl> The oldest biographies (vitae) of Cyril and Methodius tell
jl> a lot about their childhood and life before the Moravian
jl> Mission, but the two brothers are never presented as Slavs.
jl> Yet the vitae were written by Slavs for the Slavs, so it
jl> would have been very odd not to mention that C&M were Slavs.
jl> When the Byzantine Emperor is sending C&M to Great Moravia,
jl> the Slavic author of the vita puts the following words into
jl> his mouth: "You are Thessalonians [natives of Thessaloniki],
jl> and all Thessalonians speak pure Slavic." If you want to,
jl> you can read this as a statement about their ethnic background;
jl> I only read it as a statement about their knowledge of
jl> languages --why would he not have simply said, "You are Slavs"?
jl> At any rate, in Byzantium ethnic background was not important;
jl> everybody who got his schooling in Greek was certainly considered
jl> as Greek as anybody else for most purposes. So, even if (say)
jl> the father of C&M had been a Slav (which is not supported by any
jl> evidence), the contemporaries would not have put such significance
jl> in it as is but nowadays in the Balkans.
I would like to thank Jouko Lindstedt for holding this impromptu
seminar on the topic of C&M's ethnicity. Undoubtedly, it is very
educational for a great many readers of the list.
If I may add my two cents:
Where the Vita mentions that "all Thessalonians speak PURE Slavic"
(Approximately: "... vy bo jesta Selunenina, da Selunene v'si
CHISTO slovyen'sky BESHEDUJUT') we have a couple of interesting points.
Point 1: Arguably, the word "chisto" might have been interchanged
for the word "chesto." As it stands now, "chisto" can be
translated as "purely" or "clearly" (in Greek "eukrinws").
"Chesto" carries the meaning of "often" and it allows a
rather organic feeling to the clause, something which
"chisto" might be lacking in. Perhaps a matter for further
inquiry:-) I recall seeing a dissertation on such a point
in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg). I'll try to find the
reference and forward it:-)
Point 2: What is quite curious is the peculiar use of the verb
for "speak". The text uses the verb "besyedovati" when
it could have done well with either "glagolati" or
"govoriti". Both these latter verbs indicate speech
as a biological function, i.e. the ability to articulate
speech. As such it was used to convey the meaning of a
"mother tongue" or of "household speech"
We know that in the 9th century the Slavic tongue was
pretty much atuned to utilizing specific verb forms to
describing specific actions. There had not yet occurred
the phenomenon whereby a more generic verb would be
substituted and the more specific verb would atrophy and
fade.
Now, to say "besyedovati" was to say "to stand outside the
house" hence "to gather together", "to partake of a gathering".
* Look up "beseda" in any good etymological dictionary of
Slavic
** Also look up C.D. Buck, "Words of Speaking and Saying in
the Indo-European Languages", American Journal of Philology,
XXXVI, n. 141, pp. 1-18 and n.142, pp. 125-154.
The question is why does the text skip over two perfect
candidates to go to a third which has less of a fit?
It is obvious that the selection was not accidental!
The text meant to indicate that the brothers were adept
at using Slavic in conversation in public places although
that might not have been their "mother tongue" or
"household speech".
(Here, M. Petrov-Slodnjak, "Die Slavischen Verba Dicendi",
in Die Slavischen Sprachen 7 (1984), pp. 21-26, might be
quite helpful.)
We may conclude that Slavic was a common enough "lingua
della strada" for the residents of Thessaloniki, and that
the Greeks of the city were often enough able to converse
with their Slav neighbors in public places using their
idiom. This conclusion is supported by the work of many
scholars and it is attested to by Johannes Caminiatae in
"De expugnatione Thessalonicae".
We may also conclude that the brothers were not Slavs
because Slavic was not indicated as their "mother tongue"
or "household speech". We may draw upon our conclusion
and arrive at a further conclusion that the brothers
were Greek. Certainly, there is absolutely nothing in
the sources and evidence that would preclude that
probability.
Do see A.-E. Tachiaos, "L'origine de Cyrille et de
Methode: Verite et legende dans les sources Slavs" in
"Cyrillomethodianum II" (1972-73), pp. 98-140.
It is truly an interesting topic. Unfortunately the interest in it has
risen out of modern-day ethnopolitical contentions and not out of
interest in the topic per se:-)
****************************
* Dennis Grammenos *
* ker...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu *
****************************