>The five "Wallachian glosses" of the TBY were
>composed by Abbot Sylvester of the Kyivan Monastery of
>St. Michael, Nestor's Continuator and political
>confidant of Kyivan ruler Volodymyr Monomakh, in
>connection with the latter's planned Danubian campaign
>in support of the Byzantine Pretender Leo in
>1116.******
Even this is true and this Sylvester is the real writer (I don't
know these details: url? other Chronicle version?): I don't
understand in what consist the difference if Sylvester wrote this at
1116 or Nestor wrote that things 20 years before? Why not to trust
Sylvester too? Why Sylvester not to report real things at his turn?
(In Romania for example : parts of Grigore Ureche's Chronicle was
written by Misail Cãlugaru but nobody consider as 'false' these
insertions..in contrary)
> *****GK: This is Sylvester's account of the Roman
> Imperial expansion into the "Danubian" area, in the
> period 1rst c. BC-2nd c AD. The time frame is given
> by the TBY tale of the Apostle Andrew's "trip to Rome"
> in the mid- 1rst c. AD, when the various Slavic ethna
> displaced by the "Wallachians" are in place...*****
Once again I need to tell you that Romans and Wallachians are
cleary identified in Chronicle as distinct entities so is 'to much'
to suppose such a confusion, as you talk above, in other parts of the
same Chronicle.
Next to tell us that the Chronicles talk about 'Various Slavic
ethna inside Roman Empire on Danube River????' refering to 'sec I BC -
sec II AC', so in Burebista's and Cesar's or Decebal's and Trajan
times?
'With Slavs (especially 'Leshi'=Polish) that retreated to Visla'
and 'other Slavs that went to Dnepr after their defeat'?
Seems ok for you? by interpreting the things like this? No Slavs
are attested in any Roman History at that time.
So you supposed that Nestor or Sylvester completly lost their
heads when they talk about Wallachians but next they became very
accurate when they talk about Magyars arrival near Kiev (historical
attested) or about Rus etc...
I don't know what happens with some Slavs and Hungarians
scholars but they arrived to deny their own Chronicles when these
Chronicles talk about : "Wallachians".
Both "Gesta Hungarorum" and "Nestor's Chronicle" talks
about "Wallachians" ....both far away from Danube in the Northern
Parts of today Romania or even further...in Pannonia or nearby Kiev
Some Hungarians and Slavs scholars say 'as one voice' that this
is not true using the same argumentation:
'You need to understand that what you read is not true because':
a) 'when you read "Wallachians" you have to understand "Romans"
and not "Wallachians"' (in fact "Wallachians" are quite "Romans" but
the timeframe is different)
b) 'The Chronicle made wrong references to some imaginary
situations based on a current political context'
c) 'is only Mythology nothing is true there because at that moment
of time the Wallachians were South of Danube'
d) 'Somebody wrote and rewrote Later [of course!] that parts of
Chronicles' and Only the fragments where the "Wallachian" word
appears in that writtings (see as example the introduction
above : 'The five "Wallachian glosses" of the TBY were composed by
Abbot Sylvester' (and of course nothing else! All the rest of the
Chronicle is ok!)) (Even if Abbot Sylvester composed something, 20
years after Nestor, is this an argument? from here could result that
he invented?)
So at the end ...Some Slavs and Hungarians scholars arrived to
deny their own Chronicles only to deny "Wallachian" presence
presented in this Chronicles...
The rule they use is very simple : please take any reference
to "Wallachian" from that Chronicles and ask their opinion :
The answer will be Always something like :
'This is written there but is not true because...':
'was Sylvester and not Nestor...',
'Anonymous imagined...' ,
'you have to read "Romans" in place of "Wallachians"...',
'they talk about sec VII-VIII but in fact they presented sec
I,II...' or
'they talk about sec. IX-X but in fact they presented the facts of
sec. XIII-XIV' etc..etc...
'is not on the North of Danube as you read but is on the
South...'
In addition a person that wrote a 'scientific book' only to
serve a political cause, so an 'invented scholar' like Dunai (DuNay),
that cannot enumerates the basic Albanians Phonetic Transformations
(not to talk about the possible timeframes of these transformations)
talks in his book about the timeframe of Albanian-Romanian contacts
and is presented on this forum as 'an expert' ....
In my opinion, this is too much ....to can be accepted.
Only The Bests,
Marius