"Slave" vs "Slav"
PXP...@psuvm.psu.edu
George Baloglou (balo...@panix.com) wrote on March 20th, 1995 14:43:31
-0500, on the possible derivation of the terms `slave' and `sklabos'
from the national appellation `Slav':
\
> It is often assumed that the term "slave" comes from "Slav",
\
> This viewpoint is strengthened by the fact that, apparently, "Slav"
> has no meaning in any Slavic language.
And I, too, can attest that the "Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium,"
(vol.3, p.1916) is very explicit on this:
"The name Slav (which has no Slavic etymology) appears
in the form Sklabenoi or Sthlabenoi in Greek and Latin
sources, probably not earlier than the mid-6th century."
However, on March 20th, 1995, 22:25:54 GMT, Lester C Jacobson
(lc...@pitt.edu) offered a couple of Slavic connections
-namely the terms "slovo" (for word/speech), and "slava" (for
glory/honor)- and the Gothic "slawan" (for mute/silent).
On March 24th, 1995, 01:50:40 GMT, Alex Eulenberg (aeulenbe@
silver.ucs.indiana.edu) mentioned the word "slab" (which
stands either for `weak' or `relaxed'/`free' in Russian),
and attempted to illustrate how the self-identification of
the "worded people" might have developed.
The netter's interesting reconstruction of a possible earlier
form of the root "swob-" (which may be associated with
`freedom'), did not pass unchallenged by Richard M. Alderson
III (alde...@netcom.com), who also wrote on March 26th, 1995,
00:25:03 GMT.
I must confess that I am in no way of knowing whether these
terms PREDATE the adoption of the `national' appellation
`Slav', or not...
But, coming back to George Baloglou's article, I cannot fail
noticing that he, indeed, points to an interesting `curiosity'
associated with the (relatively `new'/late) Greek term "skla-
bos" which means `slave':
I return to his original article:
\
> It is often assumed that the term "slave" comes from "Slav",
\
> the Oxford English Dictionary states that Greek "sklavos" (which has
> at least partially replaced ancient Greek "doulos") dates back to 580
> AD; also, a reference in German (which I cannot read) has been
> provided: Grimm's "Deutches Worterbush s.v. Sklave" (??)
Tony Pace (a...@mozart.srl.ford.com) commented on March 22nd, 1995,
19:35:38 GMT:
\
# For a Greek, you seem to be uncharacteristically uneducated in
# Greek literature. Prokopios wrote in his History of the wars of
# Ceasar Justinian (in the yrs. 527-554) of the initial Byzantine
# contact with Slavic people along the Danube, which has recorded
# the initial use of the name of Slavs in Greek history,
Prokopios wrote about "Sklabenoi", not servile "sklaboi".
However, the fact that he mentioned a people does NOT mean
that THE TERM had a meaning/derivation (known to us) either in
Greek or Slavic, no matter how "uncharacteristically
uneducated" (!) in literature one think others are... :-(
Or thinks HE is NOT !
For that fellow-netter went on, and even added:
\
# The Byzantine emporor Maurikios tried to preserve the regions
# bordering the Danube (Istros) as an offensive line into the land
# of the Slavs and the Antae and wrote in Strategikon (582-602):
*****
And just so that we do not mislead/misinform the readers let
me simply say that the authorship of the above-mentioned work
is rather doubtful. The "Stragegikon" may have not even been
written in the lifetime of this particular emperor - to begin
with... (but that is another story.)
So let us now proceed with Tony Pace's quote:
#
# "The Slavic and Antic nations have the same manner of living and
# the same morals. The are FREE, and CANNOT be convinced to ENSLAVE
# NOR TO BE ENSLAVED; especially in their own land they are
# numerous and enduring.. Toward foreigners they are kind and
# friendly and transport them from place to place.. Those, who have
# been taken captive, are not held for an indefinite period of time,
# as is the case with other nations, however establishing a certain
# period, they give them to choose, whether they want to return
# back home in exchange for something, or whether they would remain
# as free people and friends."
Thus, George Baloglou asked on March 22nd, 1995, 16:31:25 -0500:
\
> What was the *Greek* verb that Maurikios used for "enslave"?
> Remember, one of my questions is how/why/when ancient "doulos" was
> replaced by "sklavos" (c. 580 AD?); did the Slavs have anything to do
> with that? That is, did the Byzantines start using "sklavos" because
> of those *Slavs* they captured and enslaved? What you just wrote
> above does not support that theory, of course.
But Tony Pace's reply of March 23rd, 1995, 18:33:59 GMT, was absolutely
misleading on this one point:
\
# Maurikios did not use "doulos", he wrote "sklavos" in Strategikon
In fact, the critical line (the words of which the fellow-
netter emphasized) comes from passage XI.4, and goes as
follows:
"Ta e8vn... mndamws doulous8ai h arxes8ai pei8omeva..."
**********
In other words, this particular author used a good, old Greek
term based on the `root' "doulos" and not the `new'/late word
that MAY derive from (or seems to be, at least, associated
with) the medieval "Slav"/"Sklabos". In fact, the medieval
author continues in the next paragraph:
"Tous de ovtas ev aixmalwsia par' autois ouk aoristw
xrovw ws ta loipa e8vn, ev douleia katexousiv,..."
*******
This may work counter to Mr.Pace's conclusion, because the Greek term
for slave is not earlier than the appearance of the `Slavs'.
\
# > That is, did the Byzantines start using "sklavos" because of
# > those *Slavs* they captured and enslaved? What you just wrote
# > above does not support that theory, of course.
#
# No, Maurikios wrote that it was not his intent to take prisoners.
I am not sure that the text actually says that!
(Let alone that WHAT Maurikios [the-emperor] did, or "Maurikios"
[the unknown author] thought, IS somewhat IRRELEVANT for our
purposes given what eventually happened, and how a term crept
into medieval Greek, German, Latin,...)
# Maurikios explicitly mentioned that Slavs are free and cannot
# be convinced to enslave nor to be enslaved, therefore the name
# "sklavos" could not possibly have originated with Slavs being
# associated with a state of slavery.
But we have so many other sources!
(And keep in mind that the
above-mentioned "Maurikios"
may not have been the emperor
who did fell during the revolt of
602 CE!)
It is very clear that as early as the 660s and 680s the
`Byzantines' (under emperors Constans II and Justinianus II)
`captured'/`obtained' scores of "Sklabenoi" (early Slavs).
And there are many such recorded cases... similar to the one
mentioned by Mr.Baloglou (concerning Slavs reduced to slavery
by German rulers, etc.).
For what it is worth, the "Webster's" dictionary traces the
origin of the English term "slave" to the Medieval Latin
"Sclavus"/Slav. Perhaps, there was a similar (direct or some-
what indirect) development in the Greek language as well.
Regards, A.Romanos
George Baloglou
>
>George Baloglou (balo...@panix.com) wrote on March 20th, 1995 14:43:31
>-0500, on the possible derivation of the terms `slave' and `sklabos'
>from the national appellation `Slav':
>\
>> It is often assumed that the term "slave" comes from "Slav",
>\
>[rest of "review" article by Andronikos Romanos deleted]
Let me point out here that the first line in my original article of 3/20
(quoted right above) was the opposite of what I had in mind; indeed,
what I meant to write back then was
It is often assumed that the term "Slav" comes from "slave",
something that was probably understood by those who had read the rest of
the article. (Unfortunately, I noticed my mistake only a few days ago.)
Indeed, had the term "slave" ("sclavus", "sklavos") been around before
the enslavement of many Slavs took place, then it is plausible that the
"new tribe" became gradually identified with "slav(ery)", etc; of course,
the rest of the discussion makes this seem rather unlikely, especially
in the tenth century. More likely, and in view of what Mr. Romanos posted,
we should be looking either at the opposite derivation (due to the
enslavement of Slavs in the sixth century) or at independent derivations.
(Several possible independent derivations have been suggested for "Slav",
but none for "slave".)
For the sake of the readers of soc.culture.greek, let me point out here
that the articles quoted by Mr. Romanos appeared only in sci.lang, even
though my interest in the issue originated in a "multi-dimensional"
discussion in soc.culture.greek, carried out mostly in Greek ("patriwtismos-
ethnikismos-diethnismos"); anyone interested in more details than the ones
contained in Mr. Romanos' survey is welcome to request the relevant file
(containing all the "Slave" vs "Slav" articles from sci.lang) from me.
George Baloglou
(broadcasting from the southeastern shores of Lake Ontario)
"thv glwcca mou edwcav Ellhvikh ctis ammoudies tou Omhpou"
(Odysseas Elytis)
Tony Pace
>In article <95091.110...@psuvm.psu.edu> <PXP...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>
>>George Baloglou (balo...@panix.com) wrote on March 20th, 1995 14:43:31
>>-0500, on the possible derivation of the terms `slave' and `sklabos'
>>from the national appellation `Slav':
>
>Indeed, had the term "slave" ("sclavus", "sklavos") been around before
>the enslavement of many Slavs took place, then it is plausible that the
>"new tribe" became gradually identified with "slav(ery)", etc; of course,
>the rest of the discussion makes this seem rather unlikely, especially
>in the tenth century.
The Russian Primary Chronicle mentions the Great Moravian emissaries to
Byzantium, which is also mentioned in the Vitae. According to the Vitae,
probably written by Methodios himself, the emissaries said to the Byzantine
emporor Michael the following: "We Sloveni". The Russian Primary Chronicle
referrs to them in the following terms: "After a long time (in 6th century)
the Sloveni settled themselves along the Danube river, where exists today
Uhorska' (Hungaria) and Bulharska' (Bulgaria) zem (country or land).
From the Sloveni went their own way amongst the lands and named themselves
with their (land's) names, by where they settled, by which places. As those,
who arriving, settled upon the river, which is named Morava, named
(themselves) Moravian, and others named themselves Czechs, and also Sloveni-
Sloveni however, who arriving settled upon Vistula, named themselves Lechs
and from these Lechs named themselves Polani, others Lechs, others Mazovians,
others Pomeranians. The point being that it was not a new tribe at all,
rather the ancient name was Sloveni, who upon settling a particular toponym
named themselves with the name of the toponym, i.e. such as a river or land,
Moravians named themselves after the Morava, Macedonians after Macedonia,
but their ancient name was Sloveni. In a contemporary 6th century source,
the Byzantine emporor Maurikios in his Strategikon (582-602) wrote:
"The Slavic and Antic nations have the same manner of living and morals.
They are *free* and cannot be convinced to enslave nor to be enslaved"..,
clearly indicating that the name "sklavos" was not associated with slavery.
George, give to Ceasar Maurikios what is Ceasar's :-)
Tony
asek...@v9000.ntu.ac.sg
> rather the ancient name was Sloveni, who upon settling a particular toponym
> named themselves with the name of the toponym, i.e. such as a river or land,
> Moravians named themselves after the Morava, Macedonians after Macedonia,
It was Macedonia which was named after the people and not the people
after a toponym. Makedon means means something 'tall' or 'highlander'
in Greek.
> but their ancient name was Sloveni. In a contemporary 6th century source,
> the Byzantine emporor Maurikios in his Strategikon (582-602) wrote:
> "The Slavic and Antic nations have the same manner of living and morals.
> They are *free* and cannot be convinced to enslave nor to be enslaved"..,
> clearly indicating that the name "sklavos" was not associated with slavery.
>
> George, give to Ceasar Maurikios what is Ceasar's :-)
>
> Tony
The fact that the above mentioned text talks about how 'free' the
Sloveni were, and how difficult it was to 'enslave' them simply
shows what the context of the contact of the Byzantines with the
Sloveni was: war and slavery. Perhaps the author wanted to
emphasise this because at his times the identification of "slave"
with "Slav" was in the making in his reader's mind.
Even if "Slav" actually means ..."the most free person ever" in
Russian or Old German etc., it does not mean that the modern
Greek or Medieval Latin word for "slave" could not derive from
the word "Slav".
What you say above simply means that the derivation was leter
than 'Maurikius'. To prove what you want, you must show that the
Greeks used the word 'slave' before their first enounter with the
'Slavs', as Mr Romanos has rightly pointed out.
You seem to persistently avoid this issue.
Euthymios Kappos
Tony Pace
>> rather the ancient name was Sloveni, who upon settling a particular toponym
>> named themselves with the name of the toponym, i.e. such as a river or land,
>> Moravians named themselves after the Morava, Macedonians after Macedonia,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It was Macedonia which was named after the people and not the people
> after a toponym. Makedon means means something 'tall' or 'highlander'
> in Greek.
All I pointed out was that it was customary amongst the Sloveni to take on
the names of the places, in which they settled themselves. Matter of fact,
Jordannes, citing earlier sources, also commented on this slavic custom.
The name of Carpathians may also be derived from Greek, Karpati-'tall rocks',
but does that mean that Greeks were responsible for the name of the toponym ?
>> the Byzantine emporor Maurikios in his Strategikon (582-602) wrote:
>> "The Slavic and Antic nations have the same manner of living and morals.
>> They are *free* and cannot be convinced to enslave nor to be enslaved"..,
>> clearly indicating that the name "sklavos" was not associated with slavery.
>>
>> George, give to Ceasar Maurikios what is Ceasar's :-)
> The fact that the above mentioned text talks about how 'free' the
> Sloveni were, and how difficult it was to 'enslave' them simply
> shows what the context of the contact of the Byzantines with the
> Sloveni was: war and slavery. Perhaps the author wanted to
> emphasise this because at his times the identification of "slave"
> with "Slav" was in the making in his reader's mind.
If you read Strategicon, your hunch about war will be substantiated,
however Maurikios specifically wrote against taking Slavic prisoners,
which was then emphasized by him in his Strategicon with the phrase
"They are *free* and cannot be convinced to enslave nor to be enslaved".
However, in the context of the contact with the Byzantines, it was not
exclusive to the Sloveni. Byzantines did not discriminate in enslaving,
they were equal opportunity slavers, just about any foreigner qualified.
The tradition of enslaving in Byzantium, as in Rome before it, was not
exclusive to the Slavs. Furthermore, as Jordannes pointed out, the Slavs
inhabited a common territory with the Goths and the Gepidae, therefore
Sloveni were not more likely to be encountered than Goths or Gepidae.
> emphasise this because at his times the identification of "slave"
> with "Slav" was in the making in his reader's mind.
Maurikios merely used the term Sklaveni as others before him
in reference to the Sloveni, just as Jordannes, Ptolemaios, and Plinius
the Elder did before him with the latinized name Sclaveni.
> Even if "Slav" actually means ..."the most free person ever" in
> Russian or Old German etc., it does not mean that the modern
> Greek or Medieval Latin word for "slave" could not derive from
> the word "Slav".
The point being that the area inhabited by Sloveni was also common to
Goths and Gepidae, therefore Byzantines were not likely to encounter
only Sloveni in their raids across the Danube. Plinius the Elder (23-79)
and Ptolemaios (90-160 AD), geographer and mathematician, were cited by
Jordanes in the 4th century. On the basis of the aforementioned sources
Jordanes preserved the homeland of the Sklaveni/Sclaveni/Sloveni and their
common advance with the Goths to the Danube. The name Sklaveni is known
in Jordanes (and also in Prokopios of Ceasaria mentioned previously).
Jordanes applied the term Sklaveni/Sclavini/Sclaveni to the western Slavs
Sklaveni is a byzantine form of the Latinized term Sclavini/Sclaveni for
the Slavic Sloveni. Jordanes in his Of the Origin and Acts of Goths writes:
"Amongst them (the Scythians and Gepidae ) spreads Dacia resembling
a wreath surrounded by steep Alps (Carpathians) alongside which upon the
left (western) mountainsides... from the sources of the Vistula, upon
the immense spaces settled numerous tribes of Venedi, eventhough their
names are changing according to the various clans and places of settlement.
They foremost call themselves Sklaveni and Antae. This is correlated by
the aforementioned Primary Russian Chronicle 6 centuries later.
> What you say above simply means that the derivation was leter
> than 'Maurikius'. To prove what you want, you must show that the
> Greeks used the word 'slave' before their first enounter with the
> 'Slavs', as Mr Romanos has rightly pointed out.
Whereas slavery was nothing new to Byzantium, nor to Rome, in the 10th
century as suggested by George, nor in the preceeding centuries, during
which the Sloveni were known by the latinized form Sklaveni/Sclaveni.
The latinized form Sclaveni was never exclusively associated with slavery
by the Romans, whereas Plinius the Elder (23-79), Ptolemaios (90-160),
Jordanes (4th century), Maurikios (582-602), Leo (886-912) all referred
to Sklaveni/Sclaveni/Sloveni without ever having eluded exclusively to
the enslavement of Slavs.
Tony
Vasilios Pilarinos
: Where is sci.lang? I now finally have access to internet groups and I can't find it.
The same way you found SCG, you should be able to find sci.lang. If
your provider does not poll for it, simply leave mail to postmaster@
asking him/her if they could.
--
_____ __ _ __ ___
|___\ V /| '_ \|___| <Vasilios Pilarinos> -- <vqp...@is2.nyu.edu>
\_(_) .__(_) <Life springs from death. And from the graves>
|_| <of patriot men and women spring living nations.>
habadzi
>
>In article <95091.110...@psuvm.psu.edu> <PXP...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>
asek...@v8802.ntu.ac.sg
> In article <1995Apr4...@v9000.ntu.ac.sg> Euthymios Kappos writes:
>
>>> rather the ancient name was Sloveni, who upon settling a particular toponym
>>> named themselves with the name of the toponym, i.e. such as a river or land,
>>> Moravians named themselves after the Morava, Macedonians after Macedonia,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> It was Macedonia which was named after the people and not the people
>> after a toponym. Makedon means means something 'tall' or 'highlander'
>> in Greek.
>
> All I pointed out was that it was customary amongst the Sloveni to take on
> the names of the places, in which they settled themselves. Matter of fact,
This may be true for the Slavs you are talking about, but it
is patently false for the Macedonians you yourself thought it
appropriate to drag into the discussion.
Next time you bring in irrelevent issues, try at least to get
your basic facts right.
[ lots of irrelevent scholarschip deleted to save bandwidth]
> Whereas slavery was nothing new to Byzantium, nor to Rome, in the 10th
> century as suggested by George, nor in the preceeding centuries, during
> which the Sloveni were known by the latinized form Sklaveni/Sclaveni.
> The latinized form Sclaveni was never exclusively associated with slavery
> by the Romans, whereas Plinius the Elder (23-79), Ptolemaios (90-160),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Jordanes (4th century), Maurikios (582-602), Leo (886-912) all referred
> to Sklaveni/Sclaveni/Sloveni without ever having eluded exclusively to
> the enslavement of Slavs. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Tony
these statements simply show that the identification of "Slav" with
"slave" must have crept into these languages later on
(given the fact that "slave" has no known derivation in Greek).
Despite your apparently massive scholarship on the history of slavic
people, you persistently ignore a very simple fact
(first pointed out by Mr Romanos):
the only way to show convincingly that the Greek word "sklabos"
_does not_ derive from "Slav" is to bring evidence that the Greeks
were using it at a date earlier than when they first came into
extensive contact with Slavs. The fact that Pliny uses the name
is irrelevant if the average Roman had not identified them as a
large ethnic group from which slaves were drawn. Apparently this
happened at Byzantine times.
Euthymios Kappos
George Baloglou
>
>No problem: Macedonia got a Greek name thanks to some characteristics of
>her ancient inhabitants ( Herodotus' "makednon ethnos"), then the Slavs
>who settled there later on *named themselves* after the place; whether this
^^^^^^^^
:-) Some time between 590 and 1950 ...
>justifies current political friction in the Balkans or not is an issue
>that should be left out of this discussion (and sci.lang), I think :-)
>
>
>Interesting ... I failed to find "karpati" in Liddell & Scott, but I notice
>that there is a mountainous island in the Aegean Sea called "Karpathos",
>while the mountainous peninsula that hosts Greece's monastic state is called
>"Athos"; is it possible then that "athos" = "tall" and "karp" = "rock" in
>Greek (?!) or some other language? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
A friend who visited Armenia a few years ago informs me that the Armenian
word for "rock" is "kar"; further, Armenians claim that "Carpathians" is
an Armenian word. Still, no (Greek) etymology for "Athos", but "Christos"
can always surprise us :-)