Monthly Archives: September 2016

Crantz’s Wends

Published Post author

Crantz (or Creontius/Craentius) was an eighth century Bavarian dignitary – chancellor to the Bavarian Duke Tassilo III (circa 736 – circa 796).

Tassilo (the last of the dynasty of Agolfings) was at various times in rebellion against Charlemagne and, as with all who rebelled against that tyrant, he did not profit by his resistance.  In the end he was outmaneuvered, forced to renounce his claims on Bavaria and was eventually tonsured (along with his son) and he and his family were forced to live out their lives as monks and nuns in the monastery at Lorsch and, as regards the daughters (as per the Chesne fragment), at Chelles and Laon.

baiern

Bavaria

So much for Tassilo.

fcrantz

Crantz does not appear much in literature but he is generally accepted as a genuine 8th century source.  References to Crantz’s now lost works are made in manuscripts written much later by Johann Georg Turmair or Thurmayr aka “Johannes Aventinus” or just Aventinus of Bavaria (1477 – 1534).  Aventinus is known as the father of Bavarian historiography and he mentions fragments that are generally accepted to have originated with Crantz.

The two works of note are Aventinus’:

  • Annales ducum Bavariae (the “Annals“), and
  • Baierische Chronik  (the “Chronicle“).

The Annals were written first in Latin.  The Chronicle is basically a German language version of the Annals.  Both were republished in the 19th century, most notably by Riezler (1882) as part of a wider set of Aventinus’ works.  They came to the attention of King when he was putting together an English translation of various sources regarding Charlemagne.

What interest us in particular are the mentions of Slavs – the Carantanians – in excerpts from the Annals and the Chronicle that attributed to Crantz.  We present these here in King’s English translation, along with the print versions of the same passages and the original manuscript pages (Clm 283 Annales; Cgm 1562 Chronik) .

We start with the print versions of the Annals:

friezler3

And of the Chronicle:

fkronik

Year 771
Annals

“…There succeeded Hadrian I, who supported the imperial regions against the Lombards.  The Lombards and stirred up (?) the Germans against the king of the Lombards.”

venetos

“The Lombards were were defeated by the Venetians [King notes ‘perhaps ‘by the Wends’ and notes that what follows (two words it seems) is ‘illegible’ ‘].”

venetiz

Year 772
Annals

“Theodo, son of Tassilo, was taken to Italy, to Desiderius, his grandfather, and thence to Rome; he was baptized (?) at Whitsuntide.”

charini

“A people extremely ferocious in war at this time were the Slavs or Wends, to use the language of common speech, or, to use their own, the Charini or Chariones [Carantanians], who lived on the rivers Drava and Mura [‘ad Dravus Nuciamque (?)’].  Into Italy with an immense multitude…”

[and the source breaks off]

[the parallel with the Charini of Pliny’s or, to the extent they were different, with the  Germanic Harii is interesting]

Year 772
Chronicle  

“And the above-named princes, duke Tassilo, his wife, the duchess Liutperga, and their son, duke Dieth or Theodo, out of special devotion for the salvation of their souls, dispatched to Rome with truly great offerings a splendid embassy: bishop Alim of Saeben, count Maegel, count Machelm and many other magnates, spiritual and temporal, brave and eminent men.  King Charles would not let them all pass;”

kronik1

“he allowed only the above-named Alim of Saeben or Brizen and abbot Atto of Mondsee to proceed to Rome and made all the other people go home again — But duke Tassilo was displeased by this affair; he felt insulted that his cousin, king Charles, had refused to let his people through and was seized by a great rancor towards him.  King Charles, for his part, was no less anxious about his cousin, duke Tassilo, who, to him, was aiming to be just too powerful; Tassilo was certainly at one with the Saxons, Wends and Huns, all of whom had long been sworn and mortal enemies of king Charles and all the kings in Francia.”

winti

“A fierce war was on the point of breaking out.  Then pope Hadrian intervened became a mediator and sent two bishops from Rome to Bavaria, to duke Tassilo, who made peace between the duke and the king.  Duke Tassilo came to his cousin, king Charles, at Worms [781] and gave him great gifts of goods and money; in return the king gave him even more, receiving duke Tassilo right honourably and treating him with great propriety and respect.  They concluded an eternal peace with each other.  And so duke Tassilo went back to Bavaria and again sent count Machelm, a very elderly lord, with many companions, on pilgrimage to Rome.  All died there, of fever.”

Post Scriptum

Note that the Annals, the Chronicle and other writings by Aventinus also mention Wends/Slavs elsewhere but those passages are not attributable to Crantz so we do not generally present them here.  Nevertheless, since Chapter 78 of the Chronicle does address Tassilo’s (Thessel’s) dealings with the Carantanian Slavs, we thought we should include those passage here.  We leave to you to translate the terrible things that the Carantanian Slav pagans did to deserve their fate according to the author.  The like source here is the Conversion of the Carantanians:

Karnten

Copyright ©2016 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

September 5, 2016

The Letters of Alcuin of York

Published Post author

Alcuin of York or Alcuinus (circa 735 – 19 May 804) aka Ealhwine, Albinus or Flaccus was an English scholar and teacher at the court of Charlemagne in 780s and 790s becoming the Abbot of Tours in 796.  Slavs appear in two of his letters which we present here (translation is courtesy of P.D. King) both from the collection in the Monumenta Alcuiniana, an 1873 work by Ernst Dümmler, W. Wattenbach and Philipp Jaffé.  The same may also be seen in Epistolae IV.2. in the MGH (1895).

alcuz

Alcuin to an unknown abbot
Wilti et Vionudi
(late 789)

“Be of good cheer, brother, and labour manfully in God’s service, fasting, praying and keeping vigils, as you have been doing hitherto.  Give my beloved bishop Willehad a thousand greetings. It grieves me greatly that he and I are separated.  Would that I might see him and complete my life’s course as a peregrinus!  Only pray for me, that the Lord God in HIs mercy may guide my ways.”

alcu

“Send me a letter to tell me how you are and what you are doing; and how favourably the Saxons are responding to your preaching; and whether there is any hope of the conversion of the Danes; and if the Wiltzites, or Wends, whom the king has recently secured are accepting the Christian faith; and what is happening in those parts; and what the lord king is going to do about the attack by the Huns.”

“Greet all those who are with you, serving God.  Labour manfully in the work which you have begun, that you may receive the supreme crown from GOd.  For it is not he who begins but he who endures until the end who shall be saved [compare Matthew 10, 22].”

“May divine grace aid and preserve you wherever you may be.”

Alcuin to Colcu
Sclavos, quos nos Vionudos dicimus
(early 790)

“I rejoiced with all my heart, [that] I own, to hear that your fatherhood was enjoying good health and good fortune.  And since I thought that you would be eager to know of our progress and of recent events in the world, I have been at pains to inform you prudence, through this unpolished letter of mine, of what I have seen and heard.”

alcu2

“In the first place, your belovedness should know that by God’s mercy HIs holy church in Europe enjoys peace, gains ground and grows greater.  For the Old Saxons and all the peoples of the Frisians have been converted to the faith of Christ under pressure from king Charles, who has won some over by rewards, others by threats.  Moreover, the said king last year fell upon the Slavs, whom we call Wends, with an army and subjected them to his authority.”

“Two years ago, furthermore, the Greeks descended upon Italy with a fleet but were overcome by the dukes of the aforementioned king and fled to their ships.  Their dead are said to have numbered 4000 and the prisoners 1000.  In like manner, the Avars too, whom we call Huns burst into Italy but returned home with ignominy after defat by the Christians.  They also attacked Bavaria; those invaders too were defatted by the Christian army and scattered…”

Copyright ©2016 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

September 4, 2016

The Slavs of the Paschal Chronicle

Published Post author

Here are some excerpts from the Paschal Chronicle (prob written in the 7th century) regarding Slavs.  The context is the attack on Constantinople in 623 and the subsequent, famous siege in 626.  The translation is that of the Whitbies with a Schenker paragraph or two.  We also include some of the footnote text by the Whitbies that relates to the Slavs  The beautiful picture below is by the Strassburgian artist Antoine Helbert.

onzs

Year 623

“Indiction 11, year 13, the 12th post-consulship of Heraclius Augustus.”

“And from 22nd inclusive of the month of January it is recorded as year 11 of the reign of Heraclius II Constantine.”  

H&HConstantinesolidus

“In this year in month Daisius, on June 5th according to the Romans, a Sunday, the emperor Heraclius was in the Thracian regions with certain officials, and not only certain property owners and clergy, but also shopkeepers and partisans from each of the two factions and a considerable throng of others, when the Chagan of the Avars approached the Long Wall with an innumerable throng, since, as it was supposedly rumored, peace was about to be made between Romans and Avars, and chariot races were about to be held at Heracleia.  An innumerable throng, misled by this rumor, came out from the all-blessed city.  And about hour 4 of this Lord’s Day the Chagan of the Avars signaled with his whip, and all who were with him charged and entered the Long Wall, although he said that he would have both entered the wall and taken the city except that God prevented him.  However, his men who entered on this Lord’s Day plundered all whom they found outside the city from the west as far sat the Golden Gate, together also with the men and animals of various kinds present for whatever reason in the suburbs.  They entered both Saints Cosmas and Damian at Blachernae, and the Archangel on the far side in the quarter of Promotus; not only did they remove the ciboria and other treasures, but the also broke up the holy altar itself of the church of the Archangel, and without any opposition transported everyone, along with the things removed, tho the far side of the Danube.”

Year 624

“Indiction 12, year 14, the 13th post-consulshiop of Heraclius Augustus.”

“And from 22nd inclusive of the month January it is recorded as year 12 of the reign of Heraclius II Constantine.”

“In this year in the month of Dystrus, March according to the Romans, on the 25th of the month, on the day of the Annunciation of our Lady the Mother of God, the emperor Heraclius departed for the eastern region s, together with his children Heraclius and Epiphania, who was also called Eudocia, and the empress Martina.  In their company he kept the Easter festival near the city of Nicomedia; after the festival the emperor Heraclius himself with Martina the empress set out for the eastern regions, and Anianus domesticus of the magister was also with them; but his children returned to Constantinople.”

cons

“In this year in the month Artemisius, May according to the Romans, int he 12th indiction, under Sergius patriarch of Constantinople, it was decided that there should be a chant after everyone had partaken of the Holy Mysteries, when the clergy were about to replace in the sacristy the precious flagella, patens, chalices, and other holy vessels, after the distribution had also been entirely replaced on the holy altar from the credence tables, and the final verse of the Communion had been changed: this antiphon too should be recited, ‘Let our mouth be filled with praise, Lord, so that we may hymn your glory because you have deemed us worthy to share in your Holy Mysteries.  Preserve us in your holiness as we rehearse your justice throughout the whole day.  Alleluia!’.”

Year 625

“Indiction 13, year 15, the 14th post-consulship of Heraclius Augustus.

And from 22nd inclusive of the month January it is recorded as year 13 of the reign of Heraclius II Constantine.”

Year 626

“Indiction 14, year 16, post-consulship of Heraclius Augustus year 15.”

“And from 22nd inclusive of the month January it is recorded as year 14 of the reign of Heraclius II Constantine.”

“In this year in the month Dystrus, March according to the Romans, an exceedingly bright star appeared for 4 days in the west after sunset.”

“In this year in the month of Artemisius, on May 14th according to the Romans, a Wednesday, at the Holy Mid-Pentecost itself, the scholar and many others of the multitude congregated in the most holy Great Church and changed against John who was called Seismos, because he wished to remove the bread of the scholar in the name of the soldiers.  And the Patriarch Sergius promised to appease the crows if only they would allow the sacred liturgy to take place.”

“On the fifteenth of the same month more people were again present in the most holy Great Church, and changed against said John.  The patriarch, Alexander, the praetorian prefect, and certain other officials, including Leontius the comes Opsariou and spatharius, went up into the ambo of the Great Church, and since many changes were made by the assembly against the stated John was called Seismos to the effect that he should no longer participate in affairs of state, that man was demoted and his images were at once destroyed.  And Alexander the praetorian prefect made an address, saying, ‘From now on you have a grant of bread from me, and I hope that I may speedily make restitution as regards it.’ For the said John Seismos, when a loaf was being sold for 3 follies, himself planned to make it cost 8 follies.  And God destroyed his plan.”

“It is good to describe how now too the sole most merciful and compassionate God, by the welcome intercession of his undefiled Mother, who is in truth our Lady Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, with his mighty hand saved this humble city of his from the utterly godless enemies who encircled it in concert, and redeemed the people who were present within it from the imminent sword, captivity, and most bitter servitude; no-one will find a means to describe this in its entirety.  For the accursed Salbaras, commander of the Persian army, while he was awaiting (as it seems and was indeed finally revealed by deeds) the arrival of the utterly godless Chagan of the Avars, had for these very many days past been at Chalcedon; he impiously burnt all the suburbs and palaces and houses of prayer, and thereafter remained, awaiting the advent of that man.”

“And so on the 29th of the month June of the present indiction 14, that is on the day of the Feast of the holy and glorious chief apostles, Peter and Paul, a vanguard of the God-abhorred Chagan arrived, about 30,000.  He had spread the rumor by means of reports that he would capture both the Long Wall and the area within it, and as a result, on the same day, which was a Lord’s Day, the excellent cavalry who were present outside the city came inside the new Theodesian wall of this imperial city.  The same advance guard remained in the regions of Melantias, while a few of them made sallies at intervals as far as the wall, and prevented anyone from going out or collecting provisions for animals at all.”

byzi1

“In the meantime, when as many as ten days in succession had elapsed and none of the enemy appeared near the wall, soldiers went out with camp followers and civilians with the intention of harvesting a few crops about ten miles distant; it happened that the enemy encountered them, that some fell on either side, and that some of the soldiers’ camp followers and of the civilians who had gone out with them were also apprehended.  For if it had not happened that the soldiers were diverted to the defense of their camp followers and the civilians, considerable number of the enemy would have been slaughtered on that day.”

“Shortly afterwards some of the enemy, as many as 1,000, approached the venerated church of the Holy Maccabees on the far side at Sycae; they made themselves visible to the Persians, who had congregated in the regions of Chrysopolis, and they made their presence known to each other by fire signals.”

“In the meantime the accursed Chagan dismissed Athanasius the most glorious patrician from the regions of Adrianopolis, after saying to him, ‘Go and see how the people of the city are willing to conciliate [placate] me, and what they are willing to give me to make me retire [depart].’ And so when the same most glorious Athanasius entered and announced this to Bonus, the most glorious patrician and magister, and to the other officials, they reproached him for having thus cringed before the accursed Chagan and for having promised that the people of the city would perform acts of conciliation for him.  The the most glorious Athanasius said that that these had been his instructions from the most glorious officials at the time when he was dispatched on embassy; thereafter he had not learnt that the defenses had been strengthened thousand that an army was present here; however, he was ready to tell the Chagan without alteration the message given to him.  Then, after the same most glorious Athanasius requested that he first wished to inspect the army that was in the city, a muster was held and about 12,000 or more cavalry resident in the city were present.  And then the officials gave him a response that was intended by every means to cause the accursed Chagan <not[?]> to approach the wall, that is the city.  Then, after the most glorious Athanasius had reached the vicinity of that man, he was not received, but the cursed Chagan said that he would not give way at all unless he obtained both the city and those who were in it. ”

“On the 29th of the month of July the same God-abhorred Chagan reached the wall with the whole of his horde, and showed himself to those in the city.*  After one day, that is on the 31st of the same month July, he advanced, arrayed for battle, from the gate called Polyandrion as far as the gate of the Pempton and beyond with particular vigour: for there he stationed the bulk of his horde, after stationing Slavs within view along the remaining part of the wall.  And he remained from dawn until hour 11 fighting first with unarmoured Slav infantry, and in the second rank with infantry in corsets.**  And towards evening he stationed a few siege engines and mantelets from Brachialion as far as Brachialion.”

[*note: The Whitbies offer the following comment: Tuesday 29th July: the Chagan’s personal display was intended to intimidate the defenders, and Theodore Syncellus provides an impressionistic account of th exterior inspired by they AVars, wight heir armour glittering in the sun, while the Patriarch Srgius paraded on the walls to counteract this, and Bonus made preparations within the city; on the next day the Chagan prepared for combat and demanded food, which the defenders graciously supplied without managing to appease him.  Thereafter the Avars began the siege, which had three main elements: a direct attack against the Theodosian walls where the Avars could deploy their fearsome siege technology and use their subordinates, of whom the most numerous were Slavs, as a human wave; an attempt to bring Persian troops over from Chalcedon by means of Slav canoes; and a naval attack down the Golden Horn, using the Slav canoes to threaten an unprotected (or dilapidated) section of Constantinople’s perimeter.”] 

[**Whitbies’ note: “Attack on the walls: Theodore gives a very generalized account of the Avar attack not he third day (July 31st) which was repulsed through the Virgin’s miraculous defense.  The Avars had a formidable reputation as besiegers…They concentrated their attack not he central hilly section of the land walls, from the gate of the Pempton in the Lycus valley, extending about 1 kilometre south to the Poluyandrion Gate, the modern Yeni Mevlevihane Kapisi near the summit of Constantinople’s seventh hill.  However, to keep the defamers occupied, the dispensable Slav infantry and a few siege machines were stationed along the entire length of the land walls.  George of Pisidia record that about 80,000 barbarians approached the gate of Philoxenus (which is not securely located).”]  

“And again on the following day he stationed a multitude of siege engines close to each other against that part which had been attacked by him, so that those in the city were compelled to station very many siege engines inside the wall.  When the infantry battle was joined each day, through the efficacy of God, as a result of their superiority our men kept off the enemy at a distance.  But he bound together his stone-throwers and covered them outside with hides; and in the section from the Polyandrion gate as far as the gate of Saint Romanus he prepared to station 12 lofty siege towers, which were advanced almost as far as the outworks, and he covered them with hides.  And as for the sailors who were present in the city even they came out to assist the citizens.  And one of these sailors constructed a mast and hung a skiff on it, intending by means of it to burn the enemies’ siege-towers.  Bonus the all-praiseworthy magister gave commendation to this sailor for having dismayed the enemy not inconsiderably.”*

[*Whitbies’ note: “Sailors: presumably the crews not of the Roman warships (who had to be ready to oppose the Slav canoes) but of trading vessels in the capital’s harbors; see the Miracles of Saint Demetrius for sailors from grain ships manning siege engines during an Avar attack on Thessalonica.  Heraclius had sent instructions for everyone to be involved in the defense.”] 

“But the same most renowned magister, after the enemy’s approach to the wall, did not cease from urging him to take not only his agreed tribute but also any other condition for the sake of which he had come as far as the wall.  And he did not accept, but said, ‘Withdraw from the city, leave me your property, and save yourselves and your families.’ He was anxious to launch to sea the canoes which he had brought with him, and was prevented but he cutters.  Finally he prepared for these to be launched at the bridge of Saint Callinicus after a third day of the fighting.  It was for this reason that he prepared for the canoes to be launched there, because the area was shallow and the cutters were unable to approach there.  But the cutters remained within sight of the canoes from Saint Nicholas as far as Saint Conon on the far side at Pegae, preventing the canoes from going past.”*

[*Whitbies’ note: “Naval preparations: the Slavs launched their canoes at the head of the Golden Horn, near the bridge of Saint Acllinicus over the Barbysses stream.  They had brought the canoes (monoxyla) with them, apparently overland front he Danube; these may have been simple dugouts, but it is possible that some were rather more sophisticated ‘log boats’ which could have been dismantled for easier transport, but also been large enough to ferry the Persian cavalry across the Bosporus.  The Roman fleet was deployed across the Golden Hirn from Saint Nicholas at Blachernae to Saint Conon in Galatia to prevent the Slavs sailing down the Golden Horn. Pegae: the Springs, identified with Kasimpasa north of the Golden Horn.”]  

avas

“On Saturday in the evening, that is on the second of the month August,  the Chagan asked for officials to converse with him.  And there went out to him George the most glorious patrician, and Theodore the most glorious commerciarus for [t woad t], and Theodosius the most glorious patrician and logothete, and Theodore syncellus most dear to God, and Athanasius the most glorious patrician.  And when they had set out, the Chagan brought into their sight three Persians dressed in pure silk who ha been sent to him from Salbaras.  And he arranged that they should be seated in his presence, while our ambassadors should stand.  And he said, ‘Look, the Persians have sent an embassy to me, and are ready to give me 3,000 men in alliance.  Therefore if each of you in the city is prepared to take no more than a cloak and a shirt, we will make a compact with Salbaras, for he is my friend: cross over to him and he will not harm you; leave me your city and property.  For otherwise it is impossible for you to be saved unless you can become fish and depart by sea, or birds and ascend to the sky.  For look – as the Persians themselves say – neither has your emperor invaded Persia nor is your army arrived.’  But the most glorious George said to him, ‘These men are impostors and do not speak a word of truth, since our army is arrived here and our most pious lord is in their country, utterly destroying it.’  Then one of the Persians was infuriated and in the presence of the Chagan insulted the said most glorious George, and he himself replied to him, ‘It is not you who insult me, but the Chagan.’  But the most glorious officials who had come out to him also said this to the Chagan, “Although you have such great hordes, you need Persian help.’  And he said, ‘If I wish, they will provide me with men in alliance, for they are my friends.’ And again our officials said to him, ‘We will never relinquish the city, for www came out to you in the expectation of discussing something material.  So if you do not wish to discuss with us peace proposals, dismiss us.’  And he dismissed them.”*

[* Whitbies’ note: “Co-operation between Avars and Persians: In view of the large numbers of troops at the Avars’ disposal, the presence of the Persians at the embassy was intended partly to demonstrate Constantinople’s utter helplessness, which the Chagan hopes to impress on the Roman envoys.  However, the Persians could also contribute their expertise at siege warfare, and the Chagan made a treaty with the Persians to convey them across the Bosporus in Slav canoes.”]

“Straightway, during the night preceding the Lord’s Day, through the efficacy of the good and mercy-loving God, the same Persians who had been not he embassy to the CHagan, while they were crossing over to Chrysopolis by way of Chalae, encountered our skiffs, in which there were also some of those from the orphanage,  And one of these Persians was found after he had thrown himself into a small skiff known as a sandalos, face down and beneath the coverings, and was crossing over to Chrysopolis thus ; but the sailor who was in this skiff and was steering it, adroitly signaled to those from the orphanage who pulled back and removed the coverings, and found this Persian unharmed and lying face down; they slew him and removed his head.  They overpowered the other two Persians along with the sailor as well, while they were crossing over in another boat, and these they brought at dawn to the wall.  Our men chopped off two hands of one of the surviving Persians, tied round his neck the head of the man slain in the skiff, and sent him to the Chagan.  The other was thrown into a skiff and taken off alive to Chalcedon; when he had been exhibited to the Persians our men beheaded him just as he was in the skiff, and threw his head onto land with a message that read like this: ‘The Chagan, after making terms with us, sent us the ambassadors who were dispatch dot him by you; two of them we have beheaded in the city, while look! you have the head of the other.'”

“On the same Lord’s Day the accursed Chagan set out for Chalae and put to sea canoes which were intended to set out for the opposite side and bring the Persians to him, in accordance with their promise.  When this was known, in the evening about 70 of our skiffs sailed up towards Chalae, even though the wind was against them, so as to prevent the canoes from crossing over.”*

[*note, here is another translation of this from Alexander Schenker: “On that Sunday [August 3, 626] the accursed kagan went to Khalai [Bebek] and put in the sea the monoxyla which were to cross to the other side [of the Bosphorus] and bring him the Persians in accordance with their promise.  When this became known, our naval vessels accompanied by light boats set out on the same day to Khalai, despite an unfavorable wind, in order to prevent the monoxyla from reaching the other shore...]

“And towards evening the accursed Chagan retired to the vicinity of the wall, and some food and wine were sent to him from the city.  Hermitzis, commander of the Avars, came to the gate saying, ‘You have committed a grave deed in killing those who ate with the Chagan yesterday, and furthermore in sending him the head and the other with his hands cut off.’  In the night then, as Monday was dawning, their canoes were able to escape our watch and cross to them…”*

[*Whitbies’ note: “Attempt to ferry across the Persians: Although the Persians on the Asiatic shore were visible to the Avars, they were so unskilled in nautical matters that they had to await the arrival of Slav canoes before attempting to slip across the Bosporus by night.  The canoes reached the Asiatic shore (perhaps while the Roman shops were delayed by a head wind), but their subsequent man oeuvres, encumbered by Persian passengers, were thwarted by the Roman fleet; according to Sebeos 4,000 Persians perished in this naval engagement.  Hermitzis: the Hermi were an element in the Avar federation.  Lacuna: the words ‘to them’ end the folio (a noun is probably lost) in the Vatican manuscript: at this point one folio is missing, and the phrase ‘they sank…’ refers to the Roman defeat of the subsequent Slav naval attack down the Golden Horn.  In the intervene ing days, the Chagan made preparations for a concerted land and sea attack; on Wendesday (August 6) the Romans repulsed an attack on the walls.”]

“…They sank them and slew all the Slavs found in the canoes.”*

[*note, here is another translation of this from Alexander Schenker: “Neither on Sunday night nor at daybreak on Monday did their boats manage to deceive our watches and cross over to the Persians.   All the Slavs who came in the monoxyla were thrown into the sea or were slaughtered by our people.“]

“And the Armenians too came out from the wall of Blachernae and threw fire into the portico which is near Saint Nicholas.  And the Slavs who had escaped by diving from the canoes thought, because of the fire, that those positioned by the sea were Avars, and when they came out there they were slain by the Armenians.  A few other Slavs who had escaped by diving, and who came out in the region where the godless Chagan was positioned, were slain at his injunction.  And at God’s command through the intercession of our Lady the Mother of God, in a single instant, calamity at sea came to him.*  Our men drove all the canoes onto the land, and after this had happened, the accursed Chagan retired to his rampart, took away from the wall the siege engines which he had set beside it and the palisade which he had constructed, and began to dismantle the siege towers which he had constructed: by night he burnt his palisade and the siege towers and the mantelets, after removing the hides, and retreated.”

[*Whitbies’ note: “Naval attach: Thursday August 7th; see Theodore Syncellus for day and date, and for more impressionistic accounts and George of Pisidia (the latter including details of ploys used by shipwrecked Slavs to escape destruction; same for Bulgars on Slav boats).  The attach was concentrated in the Golden Horn, on which side the city was probably not protected by a wall.”]

“Some people said that the Slavs, when they saw what had happened, withdrew and retreated, and for this reason the cursed Chagan was also forced to retreat and follow them.”

“And this is what the godless Chagan said at the moment of the  battle: ‘I see a woman in stately dress rushing about on the wall all alone.’* When he was on the point of retreating, he declared, ‘Do not imagine that I am retreating because of fear, but because I am constrained for provisions and did not attack you at an opportune moment.  I am departing to pay attention to supplies, and will return intending to do to you whatever you have accomplished against me.'”**

[*Whitbies’ note: “Divine assistance: a key element in Theodore Syncellus’ account of the siege (e.g., icons of the Virgin set at the gates by Sergius; the Virgin sinks the Slav fleet at Blachernae). Nicephorus alludes to divine destruction of Avar siege towers, and a subsequent thanksgiving at Blachernae; Cedrenus reports a phantom embassy by a distinguished woman who was mistaken for the empress.  The Chagan’s mention of his vision is inserted here to confirm the Virgin’s intervention; see Miracula Sancti Demetrii for Demetrius terrifying Slavs at Thessalonica; also the CP, Zosimus, Evagrius, Theophylact for comparable apparitions during sieges; and H. Chadwick for visions of the Virgin as a woman in purple.  During the siege Sergius had maintained the morale of defenders with the Virgin Mary and her precious relics at Blachernae taking pride or place…”]

[**Whitbies’ note: “Avar withdrawal: After the humiliating failure of his attempts, the Chagan needed to restore his authority over the Avar federation, which was in danger of disintegration as Slavs (and other subjects) rebelled.  The Chagan used shortage of supplies as an excuse for withdrawal; this has been doubted by Stratos who regards it as no more than a face-saving formula: however, organization of food supplies was frequently as much of a problem for besiegers as for the besieged, and the Avars were known to be troubled by supply shortages, so the Chagan’s excuse may have been true.”]

“On the Friday a rearguard of cavalry remained in the vicinity of the wall, setting fire to many suburbs on the same day up till hour 7; and they withdrew.  They burnt both the church of Saints Cosmas and Damian at Blachernae and the church of Saint Nicholas and all the surrounding areas.  However, after approaching the church of our Lady the Mother of God and the Holy Reliquary, the enemy were completely unable to damage any of the things there, since God showed favour, at the intercession of his undefiled Mother.*  And he requested the most glorious commerciarius to converse with him, and Bonus the all-praiseworthy magister declared this to him: ‘Until the present I had the power to talk and make terms with you.  But now the brother of our most pious lord has arrived together with the God-Protected army.  And look! he is crossing over and pursuing you as far as your territory.  And three you can talk with one another.'”

[*Whitbies’ note: “…Church of our Lady: the Blachernae church, although unprotected by a wall, survived the siege, and the Slav naval assault was defeated in its vicinity; the adjacent chapel of the Holy Reliquary contained the relics deposited by Leo I…”]

Copyright ©2016 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

September 3, 2016

Archeological Conundrums

Published Post author

One of our friends sent in this inspiring piece:

jozi

Copyright ©2016 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

September 3, 2016

Of Foolishness & Depravity

Published Post author

We present a short article from the Classical Review (Przegląd Klasyczny) an interwar Polish magazine published at Lviv (then Lwow).  The 1936 article presents an argument for equating the names Suevi with Suoviane, i.e., the English “Slavs”.suevi1It was written by one Janusz Bożydar Daniewski and was based on his earlier and longer PhD thesis entitled “Tacitus’ Suevi or Western Slavs in Roman Times” which was published in 1933.  Since the suggestion was controversial, the Classical Review also printed a much, much longer and highly derisive response by one Eugeniusz Leonard Słuszkiewicz who mocked the idea that Slavs descended from the Suevi contending instead that they came from the East (given his own physical appearance, a remote marsh/bog origin in the Pripet may in fact have been true – for him). Słuszkiewicz’s response to Daniewski, whatever one may think of its merits, can only very generously be described as “impolite”.  Daniewski then responded to Słuszkiewicz in a separate note.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is fascinating to note that Słuszkiewicz later, during World War II, surprisingly found paid work at the Cracow-based Institut für Deutsche Ostarbeit (“Institute for German Work in the East”) – an institute  established by Hans Frank (the Nazi governor-general of Poland), whose main task was to prove the German character of Poland and other Slavic lands.  One can only assume that, given Słuszkiewicz’s views/resume, he was a natural fit for the Institute.

We note that many of Daniewski’s assertion could be questioned but we found nothing in this excerpt that is fundamentally implausible.

On the the Slavic letter “Ł” or “ł” see here.

With that in mind, here is the text (thank you for assistance in translation to our interns):

suevi2

“In antiquity, the name Sueui (Tac.), Σοῆβοι (Strabo) was given to a number of tribes, settled on the Elbe, Oder, Vistula and on the shores of the Baltic, from the base of the peninsula, which today is called the Jutland [peninsula, that is the Cimbrian Peninsula], to the mouth of the Vistula.  Between antiquity and the Middle Ages we have a gap in [our written] sources.  But once at the dawn of the Middle Ages contemporary shone a light upon the aforementioned lands, everywhere there where in antiquity there dwelt tribes that went by the name Sueui, we find peoples, who are called Slavi, Slavi – that is the Latin name of peoples who are called Słowianie [pron Suovianie] in Polish, Славя́не [pron Slaviane] in Russian [and] in the language of the Baltic Slavs (Kashubians): Słevi [pron Suevi]*, that is Słowjanj [pron Suovianie] (Florian Cenova, Skorb. VI, p. 88).”

[*note: Cenova equates Suevi and Slavs but the Kashubian term he actually uses is Sławy, i.e., Suavy]

“The Baltic Sea, which in antiquity was called: mare Suevicum (Tac. Germ. 45), is called in the Middle Ages Slavicus Sinus (Script. R. Dan. VII p. 317).”

[note: haven’t seen the actual language though Adam of Bremen has a Slavic Gulf “et sinus sclavanicum” in Book IV]

“The gap, that we see at the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages, is merely a gap in written sources.  In reality the medieval life is simply the continuation of life in antiquity.  The Middle Ages are not some new world separated from antiquity by some chasm that negates any connections [between the two].  The borderline drawn between antiquity and the Middle Ages is merely convention.  Just as the sinus Slavicus of the Middle Ages – the Baltic Sea is the same sea, which in antiquity was called mare Suevicum, so too the nation of Slavi, living by this sea, consists of the descendants of the nation called Sueui in antiquity.  The name changed while the body that it referred to, remained the same.  Many tribes of the Sueui nation continue in the Middle Ages in the same abodes under the general name Slavi, maintaining their ancient customs, traditions, rituals and religious rites, even political systems.”

suevi3

“Because I happen to have come across the opinion to the effect that the medieval Slavi cannot be descendants of the ancient Sueui nation because, the name Slavi allegedly does not correspond to the ancient name Sueui, I wish to analyze this matter in more detail here.  The setting together and equating the words SueuiSlavi is not the only evidence of the identity of these peoples, [rather] it is one of the links in a long chain of arguments.  It’s easy to come to the conclusion that these names are the same, the difference [between them] being only in transcription and in certain local and temporal forms of pronunciation.  The forms: SueuiΣοῆβοι , SlaviSclaviSłeviSłowianie, Славя́не – these are the different variants of the same name.”

“The first phone s appears in all the forms [of the name].”

“The second phone, the one that the Poles represent graphically with a ł, pronounce variously, in the East like a dental consonant/sonorant [?], in the West as a “short” u (), an asyllabic u [note: that is a vocalized L].  Baltic Slavs (Kashubians), like an asyllabic [], with the exception of one group of them, the so-called Beloks, who pronounce this l phone as a palatal consonant.  Ancient Romans and Greeks did not have the phone discussed – the dental consonant/sonorant [?] ł – in their  language, therefore there was no letter that could represent it [the phone] in the Latin and Greek alphabet.  The letter l with a slash through (ł) began to be used among the Poles first int he XVIth century.  In the Middle Ages, people made do in other ways to express this phone, either writing an l without any additions or writing cl – whereby the letter c played the same role at the side of an l as the line through the l in the letter ł (compare Viscla = Wisła).  Ancient Romans and Greeks who did not have in their speech the dental consonant/sonorant ł, not having in their possession a letter for this phone, not being in possession of the letter ł, which was only created many centuries later, were they able to better express the phone in question than by an asyllabic u or a short o (omnicron), in accordance with its phonetic pronunciation?  In the word Sueui the u is short, as indicated by the Greek transcription of  this word and not long.  The two beginning phones of the words: SueviΣοῆβοι,evi, Słowianie, Славя́не are identical, in the phonetic transcription they appear as S.”

“The vowel in the word Sueui – is [made of] the long eη.”  

“In the words Slavi and Славя́не – there appears an a, in the word owianie, an o, in the word evi, an e.  The vowels aoe, substitute for one another in Slavic languages, for example: Stolp = Słëpsk (here, in addition to the change of an  into an e, there is also a metathesis [he means the the vowel and the l/ł flip], Chołm =  Chełmrak (Polish) = rek (Kashubian), mały (Polish) = meły (Kashubian) and so forth; a countless number of such examples can be given.  The fact that an ancient nation living on the Baltic Sea between the lower Elbe and the Vistula was called Sueui – a word which sports the e vowel whereas in the words Slaviowianie, and so forth we have an a or an o, cannot, therefore, serve to establish that these are different names – especially since even today, among the Baltic Slavs (the Kashubians), who are a remnant of a once great nation whose seats stretched far into the West into lands on the left bank of the lower Elbe, the word pronounced by the Poles owianie [note: that is, Suovianie] occurs in the form evi, whereby the phonetic transcription is Suevi.  How does this word differ from that ancient word written by the Romans Sueui with the short u occurring after the S?  The fourth phone of the word under consideration is uv = β.  But the Greek β already in antiquity lost the character of a voiced bilabial stop/closed bilabial consonant [?] and phonetically corresponded to the Latin v.”

suevi4

“In certain editions of Tacitus’ Germania we see a systematically printed form Suebi and not SueviSueui.  What is the source of this?  The form Suebi does not exist in the codices used for critical editions of Germania.  Instead, we have everywhere the form Sueui, a fact that I personally had the opportunity to confirm in Rome and Naples.  While there does occur in some transcriptions the substitution of a b in place of a u = v, all the Tacitean codices feature a u, so that no editor of a critical edition should introduce this arbitrary change.  The Germans do this because the form Suebi is phonetically closer to the word Schwaben, desiring in this manner to transfer into the scientific realm the view commonly held by laypeople that ‘the Suevi are simply the same as the Swabians.'”

[note: compare these in the manuscripts of Germania here]

“In reality, the Swabians have nothing to do with the Suevi of antiquity other than the phonetical similarity of sounds.  The name of Swabians in Greek transcription is different, that is Σουαβοι [note: compare with Σοῆβοι] (Procopius, Bell. Goth. I, 15, 26); they appear only in the the third century.  In the Teubner [publishing house] critical edition [of Germania], there is an attempt to justify the change from vu to b.  In the critical  apparatus we read ‘sueuos libri ac sic deinceps’ (Tac. Germ. 2, 17), but, because in the 41st chapter of Germania the copyist made a mistake and in the codices there appears the word verborum instead of Suevorum – this copyist error is supposed to indicate [according to German scholars] that the true form of the word is Sueborum: ‘quae corruptela genuine formam nominis testatur.’  This copyist error is immediately used by the Germans as justification to replace the uv with a b everywhere the word Sueui appears.  The arbitrariness and bad faith is plainly visible here.  Despite this, Polish publishers, trusting the Germans blindly, have for some time now been following [the Germans] in printing not Suevi but Suebi.”

suevi5

“In the words owianieСлавя́не, to the root ov Słav there is added also a suffix before the ending [whereas], the words: Suevi, SlaviSłevi occur without a suffix.”

“What linguist should see difficulties in considering the words SueviSlavi = Słevi, that are in essence identical, to be the same?  Schönfeld (RE 2 R. IV. 1932, p. 578, nsv Suebi) states that the word Suavus has been connected with    the Latin word suavis ‘sweet’, as a play on words – here the accidental nature of the similarity is obvious.  This Schönfeld maintains that the word Sueui comes from the Gothic swes, ‘one’s own’ (eigen) and means probably ‘wir selbst’.  The fact that the Gothic swes means ‘one’s own’ in no way proves that this word has anything to do with the word Sueui – a certain phonetic similarity may be accidental.”

[note: a better argument may have been that ‘one’s own’ people is swoi (svoi) in, for example, Polish even today; and what does it say about the likelihood of the Germanic origin of this word when it is an East Germanic language like Gothic that is the only Germanic language with a words similar to the word in question?].

“This etymology is not worth more than the etymology of Suavus – suavis.”

[note: and yet being ‘sweet on someone’ may well hearken back to being with one of one’s own]  

“Whether it [this etymology] is correct or not, it does in no way gainsay the identity of the words SueviSlavi nor the Slavic nature of the Swevi.  Schönfeld ponders from what common word, should the word Suevi be derived from.  The correctness of Suevi = Slavi is an altogether separate matter that is unaffected by Schönfeld’s etymologies, even were they something more than conjectures.  The words Sueui – Slavi are identical not only in their form, but they are identical as to the thing they represent [note: that is being a designation for a people today called the Slavs].”

“The notion that the Slavs are not encompassed by any name known to the ancient authors, but rather that they sometime about the fifth century appeared from nowhere and populated an enormous part of Europe – a notion that has been a cardinal rule until now among scholars of the beginning of the Slavs, is fundamentally incorrect.  The Slavs were in antiquity not only understood under names known to us from those times but – as we have shown – this ancient name has been their own name in the lands on the Elbe, Oder and Vistula and on the shores of the Baltic, appearing also in later times and living on to this day.”

suevi6

“German scholars of the Berlin-Austrian school tell us about the arrival of the Slavs at the Elbe, Oder and the Baltic sometime between antiquity and the Middle Ages –  a tale that stands in contrast to the surviving historical monuments.  It is difficult to accept that German scholars may honestly believe what they write.  Slavic scholars should not repeat, how we’ve often noticed, tendentious untruths of German scholars, [but should] walk their own path in accordance with historical truth.  There occurs to one a thought from that Andersen fairy tale regarding the Emperor’s clothes: no one dares to say the obvious truth when that truth is contrary to the dominant, albeit notoriously false, opinion.”

“We are hopeful that not too long from now we will be able to say the following about the antiquity of Western Slavs in their historical settlements: ‘Nemo est tam stultus, qui haec non videat, nemo tam improbus, qui non fateatur.'”

[“no one is so foolish as not to see, no one so depraved as not to admit it”] (compare Cicero, Catil. 1.12.30)

Copyright ©2016 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

September 3, 2016