--- alex_lycos <
altamix@...> wrote:
> george knysh wrote:
>
> > GK: Your source is obviously incomplete. It
> lacks
> > the passages I was earlier referring to, which can
> be
> > found in the undated part of the Chronicle. I
> suggest
> > you find a better book than the one you are
> quoting
> > from.
>
> The intersting passage should have been here.
******GK: Passages are where they are. It's up to you
to find them and understand them properly.******
As I
> told you, from this
> passage is to understand what I said.
******GK: The Kyivan Chronicle has been studied for
generations by many excellent scholars, who do not
always agree with each other, but at least they
usually know what they are talking about. There is
thus an immense literature to consult. I don't think
you have the competence to interpret these texts on
your own. This may sound unkind, but in reality I am
doing you a favour. For instance, the text s.a. 898
which you cited in German translation is actually
composite. The earlier version, scripted by Nestor [by
1113 at the latest], stated simply that "having come
from the east, the Ugrians crossed the great
mountains, subsequently called the Ugrian Mountains,
and began to make war against the Slavs who lived
there. And they settled with the Slavs, and dominated
them, and from that time the land became known as the
Ugrian land." A few years later [ca. 1116], Sylvester
added "and the Vlachs" between "the Slavs" and "who
lived there" above. And after "who lived there" he
also added "For Slavs had settled here earlier, and
the Vlachs had taken the Slavic land. And then the
Ugrians chased out the Vlachs and took control of the
land."===== These additions by Sylvester must be
correlated with earlier ones, made in the undated
portions of the Chronicle. Thus, at the very
beginning, in the midst of his geographical
perspective, Nestor had written: "after a long time
had passed, the Slavs settled on the Danube, where
today the Ugrian and Bulgarian lands are located. And
from these Slavs there were migrants across the land,
with migrants being called by different names,
depending on where they had settled. Those who came
and settled on the river Morava were called Moravians.
And others were called Czechs. Others came and settled
on the Vistula and were called Lyakhs. etc.."
Sylvester added the following after "called Czechs"
and "Others came": "When the Vlachs attacked the
Danubian Slavs, settled among them and dominated
them". As mentioned earlier, this "Vlach attack" is a
mid-1rst c. event, preceding the visit of St Andrew to
the hills of the later Kyiv.=== Some pages later,
Nestor had noted that "when the Slavic people, as we
have said, lived on the Danube, there came from the
Scythians the so-called Bulgars, and they settled on
the Danube and dominated the Slavs." Here Sylvester
added "rather from the Khazars" after "the Scythians",
and the following after "dominated the Slavs":
"Afterwards the White Ugrians came, and took over the
Slavic land, having chased out the Vlachs who had
earlier conquered the Slavic land. These Ugrians came
in the time of Heraclius, the Greek Emperor, and
accompanied him in an expedition against Chosrau, the
Persian Emperor." And a few lines later Sylvester
notes that the Ugrians who came by Kyiv in the time of
Oleg (i.e. s.a. 898) were the "Black Ugrians". The
comment s.a. 898 about Ugrians and Vlachs is a not
altogether felicitous abbreviation of these earlier
thoughts. It is quite evident that the mid-1rst
century "Vlach attack" refers to Roman imperial
expansion. There are various theories about the "White
Ugrians". But here we are talking about events of the
late 6th and early 7th c. at any rate. The likeliest
interpretation is that this refers to the
establishment of the Avars in Pannonia. And I have
already noted the anachronistic identification of
ancient Danubian populations with the later Slavs (who
had in fact assimilated some of them).NB> These
undated texts and the words s.a. 898 are the only
places in the entire Chronicle which mention the
Vlachs. The reason is simple: they were written in
1116, when the Kyivan ruler was planning an expedition
to the Danube and northern Bulgaria in order to
assist a claimant to the Byzantine throne. The Vlachs
were important as a regional military factor in this
enterprise.*******
If you mean
> there are passages in
> the undated part of the Chronicle which will say
> something else ( but
> about Romans not about valahs), what is the argumetn
> which make the link
> between the dated part of the Chronicle and the
> undated part of that
> ?OK, I will try to find the whole Chroncle, who
> knows what I find
> there:-)
>
> alex
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com