--- m_iacomi <
m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, g <george.st@...>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> is that which derives "CRACIUN" from the Latin
> "CREATIO".
>
> Actually from accusative "creationem"
> >> (including Arian elements)
> >
> > Perhaps.
>
> Might be, but this has to be sustained also by
> other factual
> arguments, otherwise it remains just a speculation.
>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi
******GK: Unfortunately, as you know much better than
I, a good deal of pre-Romanian history remains at that
level, and the best that one can hope for is to come
up with "reasonable" speculations, while being ever
open to new "factual arguments". Now on this
particular issue, what I think is very arguable is
that the institution of the "priest" and his
"biserica" was a fact in the lives of the
pre-Romanians between ca. 600 AD and the 9th century.
The problem is to figure out the organizational
implications of this. IF the proposed etymology of
"CRACIUN" is acceptable (the alternative notion of
some unknown substrate word is not impossible but
there is even less "factual argument" for it than for
the Arian hypothesis), then on the analogy of the
Croat situation described by Thomas of Split in his
chronicle, one may imagine a continuity of "priests"
in the pre-Romanian communities linked to the
surviving Arian communities. Where would these be? I
can think of only one area as a possible contact point
(I admit that this too is speculative): the Avar
State, which had a noticeable Gepidic population (as
late as the 790's). That's probably where the incoming
Croats of Split got their "rude" Christianity. Of
course it is also possible to imagine a
self-perpetuating PR "priestly" order, without much
continued commitment to the Arianism whence the term
in question had come.******
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com