The Problem Of Slavic Vlachъ And Medieval Latin Blachus, Which Ethnic Group (S) Do These Forms Refer TO?
The Problem Of Slavic Vlachъ And Medieval Latin Blachus, Which Ethnic Group (S) Do These Forms Refer TO?
The Problem Of Slavic Vlachъ And Medieval Latin Blachus, Which Ethnic Group (S) Do These Forms Refer TO?
net/publication/305168682
CITATIONS READS
0 40
1 author:
Sorin Paliga
University of Bucharest
48 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Sorin Paliga on 11 July 2016.
OMAGIU
LA 70 DE PRIMĂVERI
VOLUM ÎNGRIJIT DE
OCTAVIA NEDELCU
In general
In the spirit suggested by the title of this brief paper, I shall try to clarify
the initial meaning of the ethnic name Vlachъ, used by the Slavs with reference
to ANY Romanised group. This form was later used in postclassical and
Medieval Latin documents as Blachus, with its graphical variants like Blasi, gen.
pl. (terra) Blachorum etc. Even if more and more used with reference to the
Romanians, including contemporary documents written in English wherein
Vlachs, Vlakhs regularly refer to the Balkan Romanians (and in order to avoid
the use of Romanian as ethnic name), the ethnic name Blachi in the Medieval
documents does NOT necessarily refer to Romanians, even if it often does.
There exists, in fact, a multi‑stratified issue. I shall try to clarify this in this brief
study, as a part of a more ample work dedicated to ethnicity in general. Blachus
may be a very instructive case study.
As with most Celtic groups of Central and Western Europe, the Central
European Celtic group Volcae was, at a given moment, Romanised. Their ethnic
name was borrowed as *walχaz by the Germanic groups; hence, as Vlachъ by the
neighbouring, more eastern Slavic groups, with the expected metathesis of
liquid [l]: *valchъ > vlachъ. The story does not stop here: the Slavic form was
borrowed in Post Classical Latin as Blachus, with several variants, reflecting the
local versions in circulation, for example, Blasi. As I shall try to show below,
such spectacular ‘ethnic shifts’ were common in those remote times, when the
former ethnic names ceased to exist and/or were used with their geographical
associated meanings rather than ethnic meanings proper.
If we look at the initial meaning of this form, in fact at its postclassical
meaning, we see that it referred to ANY ROMANISED GROUP, and from a
given moment on any Romanised group was labelled Vlachъ by the Slavs, in a
move which took place at that time, that is, the beginning of the 6th century
onwards. As time went on, this form was applied to those ethnic groups with
which the Slavs had intense contacts: for the Eastern (later Orthodox) Slavs,
Vlachъ referred to the precursors of the Romanians; for the Western (later
396
Catholic) Slavs, the term referred to the Italians, rarely (as I will try to show
below) to other Central European Romanised groups.
This explains why, over the centuries, this meaning has consolidated in
the modern and contemporary Slavic languages with these two basic meanings:
for the Bulgarians and Serbs, the Vlasi refer to the Romanians; in Polish, on the
other hand, Włochy is the usual term for ‘Italy’, and in Old Czech Vlašský dvůr
means ‘the Italian Court’; yet a region of north‑east Moravia, north of Brno that
reminds us of a Romanian immigration from Transylvania in the 17th century,
is named Valašsko. The meaning ‘Italy’ for Slavic Vlachъ was usual in Slavonic
documents of the 9th–10th centuries (see Pleter, Lambru and Puiu 2001: 60, text
XVII, The Life of Method):
[...] and came there [in Moravia] many Christian teachers [priests] from
Italy, from Greece and from Germany.
In Slovene, the personal family name Lah means ‘Italian’, and shows that
the precursors of that person had Italian origins. An ethnic origin of some
personal family names is usual, for example, Romanian Ungurean(u), Rus(u),
Sârbu, Neamţu, etc. point to the original ethnic origin of that family. This
typology is widespread in personal names, that is, showing the initial origin of
that family as seen or imagined by others.
This is why the ‘translation’ of the Late Latin term Blachus must be
carefully analysed in the context intended by the author of a given text, and not
automatically as ‘Romanian’, as situations may vary. This may be in
contradiction with OUR view on ethnicity, as we may see and analyse the ethnic
groups in a different way. From the point of a Medieval writer, such a detail
was not so relevant. From the perspective of an author in the Middle Ages —
naming ANY Romanised ethnic group offered sufficient identification details
and information. Let it be noted again that, in those times, ethnic names were
in continuous change, and their connotation far from being stabilised. In fact,
the first millennium C.E. witnessed many radical changes in former ethnic
names, along with the emergence of new names, initially those of tribes.
The problem has been highly politicised in modern times. The English
term Vlakh, pl. Vlakhs or Vlach, pl. Vlachs is mainly used now with reference to
the Romanians living outside Romania, specifically in the Balkans (see a recent
study on this topic, Madgearu 2015; the author analyses the situation of the
397
‘Vlachs’ in the Byzantine sources)519. The term is not used in the official
documents of the European Union, but it has a large, more or less ‘official’ use
in English language documents concerning the Balkan countries. According to
ethnologue.com (http://www.ethnologue.com/language/ron), Romanian is now
alternatively used together with Daco-Romanian, Moldavian (‘limba
moldovenească’) and (in English) Rumanian or Roumanian. In its English
version, wikipedia.org, uses the term Vlachs with exclusive reference to
‘Romanians’, even if the definition is ‘several Latin peoples’, but practically
speaking with direct reference to the Romanians only (including the
‘Moldavians’, of course, and the other Romance groups of the Balkans).
The contemporary use of the term Vlachs, Vlakhs in documents written in
English has, of course, a political influence, trying to suggest that these Balkan
Romanians would not be ‘pure Romanians’ (echt‑Rumänen), but a different
Neo‑Latin group, vaguely connected to the Romanians proper (living in
Romania).
The confusing use of several ethnic names referring to the same ethnic
reality defined as Romanian(s), reflects a tortuous political terminology, with its
Medieval roots and indeed with its confusing use of ethnic names from Late
Latin and the Early Middle Ages. Ethnicity was and still is, to a large—but
variable—extent a political issue, too. Illyrian, for example, was already extinct
in the 2nd century C.E., for which reason the use of terms like Illyria, Illyri in the
documents of Post Classical antiquity gradually took on geographical
connotations, even if some may be tempted to read them ‘as is’, that is, with
ethnic connotations.
In an attempt to clarify the meanings and evolution of the ethnic name
Vlakh, Vlach a minimal survey has shown that:
1. In late antiquity, approximately at the beginning of our Common Era,
the Celtic group of the Volcae was Romanised, like most of the Celtic groups in
fact, which were in a gradual the process of being Romanised. Surviving
communities, now in Ireland, Wales and some other isolated Celtic linguistic
‘islands’ of north‑west Europe are indeed rare.
2. This ethnic name was borrowed by the Germanic groups as *walχaz
and, not very late, by the Slavic groups in full expansion from the 6th century
C.E. The Slavs adapted the form as Vlachъ, with the expected metathesis of the
group -al‑ to -la-. The initial meaning in Early Slavic was evidently, as we may
surmise, ‘Romanised group’ and was applied to ANY ethnic group speaking
Latin, then a Romance language.
519. The Balkans proper, i.e. south of the Danube. The geographical name Balkans has been often
used inappropriately, with various cultural, political and linguistic connotations. As this is a
complex issue which I approached on an earlier occasion, it shall not be discussed here.
398
3. In the evolution of ethnicity in the Early and Mid Middle Ages, Slavic
Vlachъ was used with two basic meanings: ‘Romanian’ for the east Orthodox
Slavs; ‘Italian’ for the west Catholic Slavs. This use is reflected in traditional
terminology in Serbian and Bulgarian, where this ethnic name refers to the
Romanians; and to ‘Italian’ in modern Polish, also—obsolete—in Czech and
Slovene.
What was the meaning of Blachi in Anonymus? Did he really refer to ‘the
Romanians’ in that very part of the text? And who were the pastores Romanorum?
The Romanians too? And what about ac? Should this conjunction be translated
as an explanatory ‘id est’? The Anonymus’ text is, despite its numerous
399
interpretations and ‘translations’, limpid clear, if we abstain from re‑
interpreting its basic meaning. The Latin text is the following:
Dicebant enim, quod ibi confluerent nobilissimi fontes aquarum Danubius et
Tuscia et alii nobilissimi fontes bonis piscibus habundantes, quam terram habitarent
Sclavi, Bulgari et Blachii ac pastores Romanorum.
(Anonymus, ch. 9: de pace inter ducem et ruthenos, final part).
The part of ethnographic interest is: […] Sclavi, Bulgari, Blachi ac pastores
Romanorum. How many ethnic names are found here? Four, as the author
obviously notes? Three, as Popa‑Lisseanu translates? or two, in Madgearu’s
interpretation? And who are the Blachs? and the pastores Romanorum?
400
the Central European Romanised population (Blachi) from the pastores
Romanorum ‘the shepherds of the Romans’, who are, without any reasonable
doubt, the transhumant shepherds, the precursors of the Romanian
transhumant shepherds living east of Pannonia, in the Western Carpathians
and the neighbouring area.
Anonymus therefore builds his description on a dual dichotomy: a. the
Central European Slavs ~ the Balkan Slavs; b. the Central European Romanised
groups ~ the (more eastern) Romanised groups represented by the transhumant
shepherds. Entirely clear, logical, beautifully presented and absolutely correct
from the historical point of view. All in all, following the general version of
Martyn Rady, but with our corrections, the paragraph would run:
For they said that there flowed the most noble spring waters, the Danube
and Tisa [Hungarian spelling Tisza, in Anonymus Tyscia] and other most noble
springs, abounding in good fish, in which land there lived the [Central
European] Slavs [Lat. Sclavi], Bulgarians [Bulgari, that is, Balkan Slavs] and the
Central European Romanised groups [Blachii, obviously not the Vlachs, as
Martyn Rady says, as this would indicate the Balkan Romanised groups], and
[as well as] the shepherds of the Romans [= pastores Romanorum, that is, the
transhumant shepherds, the precursors of the Romanian transhumant
shepherds, well attested in the Middle Ages].
Blachi, Blasi
401
defeated; and how they finally settled in Pannonia, where the prosperous land
and rivers abundant with fish offered them good living conditions. There, the
Hungarians met the local, Central European Slavs (Sclavi), some other Slavic
groups originating in the Balkans (Bulgari); and also the local, Central European
Romanised groups (Blachi) and, from a more eastern area, the shepherds of the
Romans (pastores Romanorum). Further east, the Magyars later met the Blasi(i)
and their leader Gelu. Here, Blasi refers, beyond any doubt, to the Romanians
living in the Carpathian mountainous area.
The answer is very brief: depending on the context! As long as the Slavic
form Vlachъ, later adopted in the Medieval Latin texts as Blachus, pl. Blachi and
Blasi, gen. pl. (terra) Blachorum, referred to ANY Romanised group it is obvious
that the translation must consider these local differences. For the authors of the
early and mid Middle Ages, when the ethnic names had not yet been stabilised,
Blachi and Blasi referred to a vast area of Romanised population. The translation
cannot be unique therefore, as our understanding of ethnicity does not
correspond to that specific of the historical period when Anonymus wrote his
chronicle.
The variable connotation of Blachus occurs obviously in the modern Slavic
languages, where the derived forms from Vlachъ refer to either the Italians (in
the west Catholic Slavic countries) or to the Romanians (in the eastern Orthodox
Slavic countries). The Central European Romanised groups still exist in very
isolated, scattered areas, like the Friulani in north‑east Italy and the Romansh
groups in Switzerland. The Blachi of Pannonia and the neighbouring area,
whom Anonymus mentions in his text, do not exist any more, but those less
important, mentioned last, pastores Romanorum. have had a persistent role and
have survived down to our times.
History is ‘as is’, it does not need making‑ups and does not need wrong
translations. History is as good as we are and as we interpret it. For a recent
view of the period around the year 1,000 see Curta 2001; and for the long
evolution of Blachus see Skok 1971–1974, 3: 606–608 (s.v. Vlah).
402
spectacular relationships and changes were common in those times. Other
examples:
– The Germanic group of the Franks conquered the Romanised area of
western Europe and transferred their name onto that group, later known as
Français, the French.
– The Turkic group Bulgari, sometimes (incorrectly) labelled Proto‑
Bulgars transferred their names to the Slavic groups they dominated for
approximately two centuries. When Anonymus wrote his Chronicle, the Proto‑
Bulgars had been completely assimilated, therefore the Bulgari in Anonymus
did not refer to the Turkic groups, but to the Balkan Slavs.
Given the limited scope of this paper, the analysis must stop here. A
continuation would require a wider horizon to be analysed in a volume. But the
purpose has been hopefully achieved: to explain the meaning and connotation
of Slavic Vlachъ and postclassical Latin Blachi and Blasi.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Dennis Estill for revising the text as a native speaker.
References
2. Studies
Curta, Florin 2001. Transylvania around A.D. 1000. Europe around the
year 1000, ed. by P. Urbańczyk. Warsaw:DiG.
Madgearu, Alexandru 2005. The Romanians in the Anonymous GESTA
403
HUNGARORUM. Truth and Fiction. Bibliotheca Rerum Transsilvaniae XXXIV.
Romanian Cultural Institute: Cluj‑Napoca.
Madgearu, Al. 2015. Vlach military units in the Byzantine army. Samuel’s
state and Byzantium: history, legend, tradition, heritage. Proceedings of the
International Symposium ‘Days of Justinian I’, Skopje, 17–18 October 2014, ed.
by Mitko B. Panov. Skopje: Universitet Evro‑Balkan. pp. 47–55.
Paliga, S. 2015. Sclavi, Bulgari, Blachi ac pastores Romanorum. Omagiu
profesorului Ioan Rebuşapcă la 80 de ani. Volum coordonat de Constantin
Geambaşu. Bucureşti: Editura RCR Editorial, pp. 467–476.
Pleter, Tiberiu – Lambru, Ruxandra – Puiu, Cătălina 2011. Limba slavă
veche. Culegere de texte. Ed. a 3‑a revăzută şi adăugită. Bucureşti: Editura
Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Skok, Petar 1971–1974. Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika,
I–IV. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.
3. Webographie
http://www.ethnologue.com/language/ron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs
404