1,721,039 research outputs found
Trois formes pour la détermination en bulgare
No full textStojkov Stojko. Trois formes pour la détermination en bulgare. In: Revue des études slaves, tome 48, fascicule 1-4, 1969. pp. 93-108
The term „Sclavinia“ - Byzantine invention, western influence?
Full text linkThis article attempts to shed light on the emergence of the term Sclavinia. It calls in question
the thesis that term appeared in Constantinople in the VI or VII century. In addition, it argues that
Theophilact Simokatta was not the first author who used it. The oldest manuscript of Theophylact’s
History is from X c., when the term was already well affirmed - all other Theophylact’s manuscripts
depend on this one. Theophylact used the term Sclavinia in only one place in his History, and in the
way which made it unclear for his contemporary readers. None of his contemporary writers used
it, and there is not any sign that anybody borrowed it from him. Patriarch Nicephorus, who wrote
his history as a continuation of Theophylact’s in the second half of VIII c., did not know the term
Sclavinia at all. Theophane the Confessor, who widely used the term Sclavinia at the beginning of IX
c., and who incorporated a big amount from Theophylact’s History in his Chronicle, did not use the
term in the sections based on Theophylact. Therefore, it is very possible that Sclavinia did not exist
in the original of Theophilact’s History but actually was an interpolation from X c.
If Theophylact is not the first author who used Sclavinia, then the oldest source in which we
find is not byzantine but western one: Life of Willibald, written in 778, in northern Italy. The term
was used in it for part of Peloponnese, indicating that in year 723 the Saint passed nearby by boat.
Nothing supports the suggestion that he learned it in Byzantium. It is remarkable that it is not in a
byzantine form – Sclavinia, but Slawinia.
This article proposes two possible explanations of emergence of the term. First, the alternative
hypothesis that the term appeared in the region of the Adriatic Sea where Latin, Greek and Slavonic
languages met each other, and was invented and used first by the Slavic neighbors. From Adriatic
shores, it has expanded during the conflict between Franks and Romeos for Istra and Dalmatia in
late VIII - early IX century. The second explanation is that the term Sclavinia was not invented in one
place but it appeared spontaneously in many different places and authors often without connection
between them. It was a very common way of making toponyms from ethnonyms in the middle ages,
and it was easy to create Sclavinia form Sclavi(ni), so we do not need to explain it through inventions
and borrowing.
Sclavinia failed to take a permanent place in the official terminology of Byzantine or western
imperial court. The first official use in Byzantium we find in a letter of Emperor Michael II to
Emperor Luis the Pious, and in the west - in letter of Louis II to Basil I in 871. In general, the use of
this term in Latin and Byzantine sources was very limited. In the old Slavic written tradition, it was
never used, which suggests that Sclavinia was an external name.
Its use has spread at the time of inclusion of independent Slavic communities in Central Europe
and the Balkans, in the sphere of influence and domination of the great empires form the end of
VIII c. A suitable collective term, its weakness was its too general and uncertain meaning. With
the disappearance of small Slavic tribes or their evolution in larger independent state formations
established under their own well-known names, it loses its relevance
Многуимените други: Македонија како пресечна точка на другоста на средновековниот Балкан
Full text linkThe Others with Many Names: Macedonia as an Intersection Point of Otherness in the Medieval Balkans
This paper examines the phenomenon of Otherness in the Medieval Balkan region of Macedonia. We analyze the terms used to designate and label ‘otherness’ in respect of their origin, character, use, and their (non)acceptance by the population categorized as the Other. Оtherness is a key aspect in understanding the ethnicities of the past: which populations were regarded as their Other and by whom. Today, by the combination of these data from various (often opposed) political and cultural centers, we may identify the ‘zones of Otherness’, which often remained undefined and even unidentified in the sources. We may determine that certain geographical areas did not have their own elites to legitimize their separate identity, yet, that identity differed and refused to be identified with the imposed identity structures. Their Otherness could refer to a specific ethnicity, but not necessarily. The population in these zones did not necessarily have to be unified (by self-awareness, language, name, etc.), but they could. These zones were variable and often changed in both time and space.
However, some of the labeling terms used to designate this Otherness in the past are in use even today. More often than not, this use is aimed at different populations and geographical areas that are not related to the ones from the past, usually in a new national sense that does not correspond to their use in the Middle Ages. This phenomenon creates serious confusion in understanding history as it transfers contemporary pretensions and realities to the past (Fine 2006: 9–11).
Thereby, the author calls for careful studying of the terms and zones of Otherness within the context of their time and place. The region of Macedonia was definitely a zone of Otherness in Medieval times.
The Otherness was expressed by different names at different times, but the perception of many people in Macedonia as ‘others’ is constant throughout almost the entire Middle Ages. Those people were seen as ‘other’ and different from the Medieval Balkan centers of power: Constantinople, Pliska, Preslav, Trnovo, Ras. That Otherness was not strictly fixed to the borders of the region of Macedonia: sometimes it was spreading wider, other times it referenced only a part of Macedonia.
In the period between the 7–10th centuries, the Otherness was designating all the Slavs, expressed by the general term Slavs (but also Scythians, barbarians), used for the population of most of the Balkans, but also in Eastern Europe. Later on, between the 11–12th centuries, most of the region of Macedonia (without its southeastern part) was designated to an area of Otherness together with the territory of present-day Serbia, Kosovo, and some neighboring regions (Serdika, Southern Albania, part of Thessaly). This Otherness was designated by the term Vulgars/ Bulgars and was closely related to the Ohrid Archbishopric, its title, and the Slavic language nurtured in the churches of this area. At that time, the Balkan was not the only zone of Otherness in the perceptions of the Romans. There were two more: one in Dalmatia, designated with the terms Slavs, Illyrians, Serbs, and Croats; and another in Moesia, designated by terms such as mixed barbarians, Scythians, and local people. Contemporary Byzantine and other authors do not mix these three Othernesses and define them on different grounds: Dalmatia by its political autonomy, the Ohrid Archbishopric by the distinctiveness of its church and liturgy, and Moesia by multiethnicity, non-Romanism, and barbarism. During this period, in the terminology of some Byzantine authors, equivalence and mutual identification appeared between the terms ‘Bulgaria’ (Ohrid
Archbishopric) and ‘Slavic language/people’ (the liturgical language and the basic population in the archiepiscopate). It was a synonymous equation, not an idea. It meant that there are more Slavic peoples and Bulgarian is one of them, i.e. the Slavs are the Bulgarians and vice versa. In the Slavic sources of this time, this equivalence was not observed.
Between the 13th–14th centuries, Macedonia together with Thracia formed a new group of Otherness in the eyes of the elites of Bulgaria and Serbia, denoted by the terms Romania, Greek lands, and Greeks. At the same time, in Byzantium, a large part of that population was also seen as foreign, expressed in terms such as Myzi (Μυσοί), barbarians, Bulgarians, tribal people. During that time, in Greek sources from the Ohrid Archpiscopate, the term Bulgarianswill be redefined as a collective name for several Slavic nations. While in Bulgaria, the same term will be interpreted as an alternative to Romaioi—a supra-ethnic imperial name for the population in the northern Balkans (north of the line of Stara Planina-Skopje-Dyrrachium)—which includes Slavs, Vlachs (Aromanians), Serbs, and Cumans.
Namely, in this period, the equivalence between the terms Bulgarians and Slavs passes from the Byzantine in some Slavic sources. On the other hand, in other periods, for the Slavic authors in Macedonia, terms like Greeks and Bulgarians are clearly understood as foreign and those that express Otherness.
The author concludes that the region of Macedonia constantly belonged to some zone of Otherness during the Middle Ages: in a ‘vertical zone’, together with the region of today’s Serbia (11–12th century); or in a ‘horizontal zone’, together with Thracia (13–14th century). This territorial variability means that the Otherness was not assigned to known ethnically formed communities. Rather, the terms were being used to express the meaning of disloyalty, peripherality, marginality, cultural difference, cultural inferiority, and/or unknown foreign language. Most of these terms—Slavs, Bulgars/Bulgarians, barbarians, Myzi, Greeks, Scythians, and others—were used for designating the population in these zones, not as self-designation. Of all the names that were used to denote Otherness in Macedonia, only the term Slavs was used by the population itself as their own name and in an ethnic sense. After some time, the people who were designated as Others also developed terms for their Othernesses
Царство, етничности, наследства, интерпретации
No full textРеферат прочитан на Свечениот собир и тркалезна маса по повод одбележувањето на 1000 години од битката на Беласица и смрта на цар Самуи
Македонското движение в България след падането на комунизма
Full text linkОвој текст претставува поредица објавена во билтенот „Македонски глас“ во Благоевград во 2005 - 2006 г. Претставува обид да се направи реконструкција на македонското движење во посткомунистиѝка Бугарија во првите три години на неговото постоење 1990 -1993 г. како и на процесите и причините кои довеле до неговиот расцеп. Текстот е на бугарски јазик
The term Slavs and its gradual obsolescence in Byzantine sources (IX – XII)
Full text linkThe process of gradual abandonment of the term Slavs in Byzantine sources – happened in the period from the mid - IX to the end of XII century and it is divided into three main stages. In the first period (820s – 870s) the term Slavs stopped to be used in references to inner Bulgarian affairs, as consequence of centralization of the khanate and the disbanding of the Slavic tribal “autonomy” and replacement of Slavic domestic duxes with Bulgar governors which led to use of the term Bulgarian as politonym for whole population of the khanate. Still the term Slavs continued to be used for inner Byzantine affairs. In the second period the term ceases to be used for people into the Byzantine Empire – it happened through the 10th century. This terminological change was caused by a gradual assimilation of Slavic entities as Sclavinias and Sclavo-archontias into Byzantine administrative system and converting of the once independent and rebellious Slavs into loyal subjects of the Empire. The third phase includes reappearance of the term in some of Byzantine sources into the 12 centuries, before becoming fully obsolete in the XIII c. There had been investigated various reasons especially political, cultural, and social changes and their influence over the used terminology in Byzantine sources
An Alternative Imperial Entity of Something Completely Different? Towards the Idea of Existence of a Constant Bulgarian Imperial Community in the Balkans (X-XIV c.)
Full text linkДел од силното влијание од империјата на Новиот Рим на Балканот се стремежите за создавање држави по византиски урнек, вклучително создавање на алтернативни империјални структури, чии лидери или се стремеле да достигнат до единствената вистинска царска титула – ромејската, или поради невозможност - создаваат своја верзија на империјата во териториите што ги контролирале. Основната империјална алтернатива се јавуваат бугарските царства на Балканот. Паралелно на нивната етничка интерпретација во науката постои разбирањето на истите како мултиетничка и над-етничка империјална заедница. Ова статија ја истражува последната интерпретација и се обидува да даде одговор на прашањата дали постоела таква заедница, дали постоела во целиот период, дали е една или се во прашање неколку и какви се односите меѓу нив.
Заклучокот до кој се доаѓа е дека не постоела една мултиетничка и над-етничка бугарска империјална заедница и традиција низ средниот век. Се до XIII в. со поимот Бугари се нарекувани различни народи и со него се (само)именувале луѓе од различни етноси, но не е забележано разбирање дека тие сите сочинуваат нешто цело, ниту има знаци за постоење на солидарност и меѓусебно признавање како припадници кон таква заедница. Идеи за постоење на бугарски мултиетнички заедници се појавуваат дури во XIII в. и тоа во две меѓусебно ексклузивни варијанти. Така не е во прашање мултиетничка империјална заедница пандан на ромејската, туку хетерогена појава – сочинета од различни обиди за легитимација и создавање држави и цркви, и поврзани со нив елити, династии, политички центри, територии, што довело до различни разбирања за значењето на поимот Бугари, како место на живеење, потекло, етничка припадност и состав. Врската меѓу таквите алтернативни обиди за царска легитимација на Балканот била единствено бугарската царска титула
За да не стане Вардарска Пиринска и да не нè повтори историјата.
Full text linkПрезентација на книгата на Бранислав Светозаревиќ – Покорни: Македонци, милениумски сведоштва за идентитетското име (Штип, 07. 11.2024 г., 18.00, хотел Урбаниста)
Битолската плоча – дилеми и интерпретации
No full textРеферат прочитан на научен собир научниот собир:
Самуиловата држава во историската, воено-политичката, духовната и културната традиција на Македонија, Струмица, 24 - 26 октомври 2014
Предмет на оваа статија се јавува Битолската плоча, но не како нов обид за реконструкција на силно настраданиот текст, туку како анализа на спорните моменти и на некои послабо истражените негови аспекти. Меѓу клучните теми што овде се поставуваат се датирањето, оригиналниата големина, титулите на владетелите, специфичниот начин на повикување на помошта ан светците, прашањето за автентичноста, поимот Бугари како етничност или етатичност и сл. Освен тоа е направен обид да се даде макар и хипотетичко толкување на неговата содржина преку кое да се објаснат големиот број оригинални црти во натписот
- …
