Traco-romani

De la Wikipedia, enciclopedia liberă
Salt la: Navigare, căutare
Istoria României
Stema României
Acest articol este parte a unei serii
Preistoria pe teritoriul României
Epoca pietrei
Epoca bronzului
Epoca fierului
Dacia
Războaiele daco-romane
Dacia romană
Originile românilor
Formarea statelor medievale
Țările Române în Evul Mediu
Țara Românească
Principatul Moldovei
Dominația otomană
Țările Române la începutul epocii moderne
Epoca fanariotă
Modernizarea țărilor române
Regulamentul Organic
Revoluția Română de la 1848
Principatele Unite
Războiul de Independență
Regatul României
Primul Război Mondial
Unirea Basarabiei cu România
Unirea Bucovinei cu România
Unirea Banatului cu România
Unirea Transilvaniei cu România
Al Doilea Război Mondial
Comunismul
R.P. Română/R.P. Romînă
R.S. România
RSS Moldovenească
Revoluția Română din 1989
România Contemporană
Vezi și
Istoria militară a României
Istoria românilor

Portal România
 v  d  m 

Termenul traco-roman (sau daco-roman) se referă la limba și cultura populațiilor tracice care au fost încorporate în Imperiul Roman. Intrând în sfera sa de influență, au realizat un sincretism cultural și lingvistic, ale cărui cele mai importante urmări au fost apariția poporului român și a limbilor romanice de est (dacoromâna, aromâna, meglenoromâna și istroromâna).

Înțeles și utilizare[modificare | modificare sursă]

Termenul a fost folosit pentru prima dată în anul 1901 de către Ovid Densusianu,[1] pentru a descrie "cea mai veche epocă a creării limbii române", când limba latină vulgară vorbită în Peninsula Balcanică, ce avea propriile sale caracteristici,[2] a evoluat în cea ce numim limba proto-romană.[3] Prin extensie, istoricii folosesc termenul pentru a se referi la perioada de timp din istoria romanească ce a durat până în secolul 6, interval cronologic în care s-a finalizat procesul de romanizare al tuturor populațiilor tracice (daci, odriși, geți, moesi, tribali, carpi, dii, etc.). Teritoriul în care acest proces a avut loc, prin consens localizat la nord de Linia Jireček, e caracterizat de două mari particularități:

  • un spațiu creștin, având în componență atât un creștinism sedentar antic, moștenit din lumea romană, cât și un nou creștinism ce a apărut prin convertirea la creștinătate a triburilor daco-tracice rămase. Spiritul creștin a modelat civilizația poporului, influențând incluziunea în politica Romană (și Est-Romană) și a structurile de stat.
  • Un spațiu latinofon, ce a apărut prin zonele de provincie ale Romei. A dat naștere limbii romanice și a numelui roman, așa cum a fost păstrat în memoria românilor, aromânilor, megleno-românilor și a istro-românilor.

Populația[modificare | modificare sursă]

Populația nativă ocupată a început să devină din ce în ce mai implicată în viața politică a Imperiului. Tradiția Imperiului Roman de origine tracică datează de la începutul secolului III. Primul a fost Regalianus, rudă a regelui dac Decebal. Până în secolul al treilea, dacii ajunseseră o importantă parte a armatei romane.

Arcada lui Galerius. Detaliu al boltei.

Un număr de împărați a Imperiului Roman de Est au fost traco-romani:

Numele roman[modificare | modificare sursă]

Înainte de 212, în cele mai multe cazuri doar locuitorii Provinciei Romane Italia (atunci o regiune multi-etnică) aveau pe deplinătate cetățenie romană. Coloniile romane stabilite în alte provincii, romanii (sau descendenții lor) care trăiau în Provinciile Romane, locuitorii mai multor orașe din Imperiu și un număr mic de nobilimi locale (precum Regatul Clientelar) aveau cetățenie deplină. În schimb majoritatea provinciilor abia aveau drepturi cetățenești limitate (dacă le aveau).

în 212, edictul Constitutio Antoniniana (latinescul pentru "Constituția [ori edictul] lui Antoninu") a fost declarat de către împăratul roman Caracalla. Legea declara că toți oamenii născuți liberi în Imperiul Roman primeau cetățenie romană deplină și toate femeile născute libere ale Imperiului primeau de asemenea cetățenie romană ca bărbații. Caracalla a impus această lege în principal pentru a mări numărul oamenilor ce trebuiau să plătească taxe și să sporească numărul acelora ce trebuiau să îngroașe numărul legiunilor (doar cetățenii cu drepturi depline aveau voie să servească în legiunile armatei romane).

Caracalla's decree had thus effectively raised provincial populations to equal status with the city of Rome itself. The importance of this decree is historical rather than political. It set the basis for integration where the economic and judicial mechanisms of the state could be applied in all provinces, as was earlier done from Latium into all of Italy. Of course, integration did not take place uniformly. Societies already integrated within the Empire and situated in a central geographic position, such as Dacia, Moesia, Greece, etc, were favored by this decree, compared with those far away, too poor or just too alien such as Great Britain, Palestine or Egypt.

If, for the first centuries after the Roman conquest of Dacia, the antagonism between the occupied and free Dacian tribes and the Romans was clearly visible, as demonstrated by the episode when Emperor Galerius claimed that the name of the Empire should be changed into the "Dacian Empire"[4], the new law providing Roman citizenship to all Roman subjects was an important factor for complete political and cultural integration into the Roman world, having, as one of its most important results, the adoption of the Roman name as autonym, with its later dialectical variants, either Român, Rumân, Aromân, Rumân or Rëmëri. The last clear anti-Roman stances are from the 4th century, when Constantine the Great defeated the Dacians, assuming the title Dacicus Maximus in 336, and the last Carpian attack in the 5th century.

The Dark Ages[modificare | modificare sursă]

In the 6th century, the Thraco-Roman populations witnessed the invasion of the Avars. Under the dominion of the Avars, the Slavs made their appearance.

From this time, the area experienced a state of cultural regression with the population becoming strongly rural, concentrating on agriculture and animal husbandry, but having thus the opportunity to preserve the unity of the language. The future would see the detachment of a part of this Romance speaking population, called Vlachs, from the main body of this Danubian Romanity, as a result of the historical circumstances created by the Slavic and Bulgar invasions. Although scattered throughout the Peninsula and reduced to more modest, rural life forms, this population preserved its ethnic identity and habits and continued to speak the same language.

The Empire's loss of territory was offset to a degree by consolidation and an increased uniformity of rule. Emperor Heraclius fully Hellenised the Empire by making Greek the official language, ending the last remnants of Latin and ancient Roman tradition, thus isolating and ignoring the Latin-speaking populations of the Balkans. The use of Latin in government records fell into abeyance, which allowed the empire to pursue its own identity, becoming more and more Greek. Many historians mark the sweeping reforms made during the reign of Heraclius as the breaking-point with Byzantium's ancient Roman past. It is common to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire after this time as "Byzantine" instead of as "East Roman".

Although some Byzantine control remained in cities along the southern coasts, all of the northern and central Balkans were virtually overrun by the Slavs. Nonetheless, in the isolated and ignored lands north of the Danube, the Slavs were gradually absorbed and Romanized, and the Latin character of the language was preserved. The influence of the Slavs was greater on the right bank of the Danube, where attracted by the rich urban areas to the south, overwhelmed the native population by weight of numbers in Dalmatia, Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia and Greece, turning those provinces into so called “Sklavinias”. The impact of the arrival of the Bulgars in the seventh century, and the sequential establishment in the ninth century of a powerful state, was particularly great, having caused the end of the division of the Romanic population of the Balkan Peninsula started by the Avar-Slavic invasions. This process, split the population into two sections: one found shelter in the north and it’s thick forests (80% of the territory), while the other moved southwards to the valleys of the Pindus and of the Balkan Mountains, causing an "ebb and tide" phenomenon of the native populations.[5]

Creștinsmul[modificare | modificare sursă]

See main article: History of Christianity in Romania.

Early history[modificare | modificare sursă]

Biertan Donarium - un vechi obiect votiv creştin din secolul al VI-lea, dezgropat la Biertan, lângă Sibiu
Pe el stă scris EGO ZENOVIUS VOTUM POSUI
"Eu, Zenovius, am oferit acest dar"

Christianity began gradually to spread as early as late antiquity, moving toward one of the northern borders of the “classical” world, thus making the Carpathian and Danubian territories part of a chain whereby Rome, its provinces, and the missionaries of the Eastern Church preached the word of the new faith from Iberia to the Caucasus.

Christianity was brought to Romania by the occupying Romans. The Roman province had traces of all imperial religions, including Mithraism, but Christianity, a regio illicita, existed among some of the Romans.

The earliest evidence of Christianity[necesită citare] is a grave inscription from the second century, found in Napoca, bearing the formula Sit tibi terra levis ("Să-ți fie țărâna ușoară" in Romanian).[6] The inscription was made by a "college" (a trading association) whose members originated from the Middle East. Among the other persons mentioned in the inscription, most of them bear Roman names, suggesting that Christianity had spread among the ranks of the soldiers as early as the 2nd century A.D.

When the Romanians formed as a people, it is clear that they already had the Christian faith, as proved by tradition, as well as by some archeological and linguistic evidence. Basic terms of Christianity are of Latin origin: such as church ("biserică" < basilica), God ("Dumnezeu" < Domine Deus), Easter ("Paște" < Paschae), Pagan ("Păgân" < Paganus), Angel ("Înger" < Angelus), Cross ("Cruce" < Crux). Some of them, especially "Church" - Biserica are unique to Romanian Orthodoxy.

After Christianity becomed the official religion, the first bishoprics were created in the area, of which the main archbishoprics were at Singidunum (Belgrade), Viminacium (now Kostolač), Ratiaria (now Arčar, near Vidin), Marcianopolis (now Devnya), and Tomis (now Constanța).[6]

Very few traces can be found in the Romanian names that are left from the Roman Christianity after the Slavic influence began. All the names of the saints were preserved in Latin form: "Sântămăria" (Mary), "Sâmpietru" (Saint Peter), "Sângiordz" (Saint George) and "Sânmedru" (Saint Demetrius). The non-religious onomastic proof of pre-Christian customs, like "Sânziana" and "Cosânzeana" (Sancta Diana and Qua Sancta Diana) is only of anecdotal value in this context[necesită citare]. Yet, the highly spiritualized places in the mountains, the processions, the calendars, and even the physical locations of the early churches were clearly the same with those of the Dacians[necesită citare]. Even Saint Andrew is known locally as the Apostle "of the wolves" - with very old and large connotations, whereby the wolf's head was an ethnicon and a symbol of military and spiritual "fire" for Dacians.[necesită citare]

Inscripţie din cripta celor patru martiri - Sunt scrijelite numele Zoticos, Attalos, Kamasis şi Filippos

Christianity in Scythia Minor[modificare | modificare sursă]

While Dacia was part of the Roman Empire only for a short time, Scythia Minor (nowadays Dobrogea) was part of it much longer and after the breakdown of the Roman Empire, it became part of the Byzantine Empire.

The first legendary encounter of Christianity in Scythia Minor was when Saint Andrew, brother of Saint Peter passed through it in the 1st century with his disciples. Later on, Christianity became the predominant faith of the region, as proven by the large number of remains of early Christian churches. The Roman administration was ruthless with the Christians, as the great number of martyrs demonstrates.

Bishop Ephrem, killed on 7 March 304 in Tomis, was the first Christian martyr of this region and was followed by countless others, especially during the repression ordered by emperors Diocletian, Galerius, Licinius and Julian the Apostate.

An impressive number of dioceses and martyrs are first attested during the times of Ante-Nicene Fathers. The first known Daco-Roman Christian priest Montanus and his wife Maxima were drowned, as martyrs, because of their faith, on March 26 304.

The 1971 archaeological digs under the paleo-Christian basilica in Niculițel (near ancient Noviodunum in Scythia Minor) unearthed an even older martyrium. Besides Zoticos, Attalos, Kamasis and Filippos, who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian (304-305), the relics of two previous martyrs, witnessing and dying during the repressions of Emperor Decius (249-251), were unearthed under the crypt.

The names of these martyrs had been placed since their death in church records, and the find of the tomb with the names written inside was astonishing. The fact that the relics of the famous Saint Sava "the Goth" (martyred by drowning in the River Buzău, under Athanaric on 12 April 372) were recovered by Saint Basil the Great conclusively demonstrates that (unlike bishop Wulfila) Saint Sava was a follower of the Nicene faith, not a heresiarch like Arius.

Once the Dacian-born Emperor Galerius proclaimed freedom for Christians all over the Roman Empire in 311[7], the city of Tomis alone (modern Constanța) became Metropolitanate with as many as 14 bishoprics.

By the 4th century, a powerful and organised nucleous of Christian monks existed in the area, known as the Scythian monks.

Language[modificare | modificare sursă]

The Roman occupation led to a Roman-Thracian syncretism, and similar to the case of other conquered civilisation (see Gallo-Roman culture developed in Roman Gaul), had as final result the Latinization of all Thracian tribes which where on the edge of the sphere of Latin influence, eventually resulting in complete Romanization and the extinction of the Daco-Thracian language. Starting from the second century AD, the Latin spoken in the Danubian provinces starts to display its own distinctive features, separate from the rest of the Romance languages, including those of western Balkans (Dalmatian).[8] The Thraco-Roman period of the Romanian language is usually delimited between the 2nd (or earlier, via cultural influence and economic ties) and the 6th or 7th century.[9] It is divided, in turn, into two periods, with the division falling roughly in the 3rd-4th century. The Romanian Academy considers the 5th century as the latest date when the differences between Balkan Latin and western Latin could have appeared [10], and that between the 5th and 8th centuries, this new language – Romanian - switched from Latin speech, to a neolatine vernacular idiom, called Română comună.[11][12]

First sample of Romanian language[modificare | modificare sursă]

Referring to this time period, of great debate and interest is the so called "Torna, Torna Fratre" episode. In Theophylactus Simocatta Histories, (circa 630), the author mentions the words "τóρνα, τóρνα". The context of this mention is a Byzantine expedition in the year 587, led by general Comentiolus, in the Haemus, against the Avars. The success of the campaign was compromised by an incident: during a night march...

"a beast of burden had shucked off his load. It happened as his master was marching in front of him. But the ones who were coming from behind and saw the animal dragging his burden after him, had shouted to the master to turn around and straighten the burden. Well, this event was the reason for a great agitation in the army, and started a flight to the rear, because the shout was known to the crowd: the same words were also a signal, and it seemed to mean “run”, as if the enemies had appeared nearby more rapidly than could be imagined. There was a great turmoil in the host, and a lot of noise; all were shouting loudly and goading each other to turn back, calling with great unrest in the language of the country “torna, torna”, as a battle had suddenly started in the middle of the night."[13]

Nearly two centuries after Theophylactus, the same episode is retold by another Byzantine chronicler, Theophanes Confessor, in his Chronographia (circa 810–814). He mentions the words: "τόρνα, τόρνα, φράτρε" [torna, torna fratre]:

"A beast of burden had thrown off his load, and somebody yelled to his master to reset it, saying in the language of their parents/of the land: “torna, torna, fratre”. The master of the animal didn't hear the shout, but the people heard him, and believing that they are attacked by the enemy, started running, shouting loudly: “torna, torna”".[14]

The first to identify the excerpts as examples of early Romanian was Johann Thunmann in 1774.[15] Since then, a debate among scholars had been going on to identify whether the language in question is a sample of early Romanian[16], or just a Byzantine command [17] (of Latin origin, as it appears as such–torna–in Emperors Mauricius Strategikon), and with “fratre” used as a colloquial form of address between the Byzantine soldiers.[18] The main debate revolved around the expressions πιχώριoς γλσσα (epihorios glossa - Theopylactus) and πάτριoς φωνή (patrios fonē - Theophanes), and what they actually meant.

An important contribution to the debate was Nicolae Iorga's first noticing in 1905 of the duality of the term torna in Theophylactus text: the shouting to get the attention of the master of the animal (in the language of the country), and the misunderstanding of this by the bulk of the army as a military command (due to the resemblance with the Latin military command).[19] Iorga considers the army to have been composed of both auxiliary (τολδον) Romanised Thracians—speaking πιχωρί τε γλώττ (the “language of the country” /”language of their parents/of the natives”) —and of Byzantines (a mélange of ethnicities using Byzantine words of Latin origin as official command terms, as attested in the Strategikon).[20]

This view was later supported by the Greek historian A. Keramopoulos (1939) [21], as well as by Al. Philippide (1925), who considered that the word torna should not be understood a solely military command term, because it was, as supported by chronicles, a word “of the country”[22], as by the year 600, the bulk of the Byzantine army was raised from barbarian mercenaries and the Romanic population of the Balkan Peninsula[23].

Starting from the second half of the twentieth century, the general view is that it is a sample of early Romanian language, a view with supporters such as Al. Rosetti (1960)[24], Petre Ș. Năsturel (1956)[25] and I. Glodariu (1964).[26]

Vezi și[modificare | modificare sursă]

Note[modificare | modificare sursă]

  1. ^ Ovide Densusianu, Histoire de la langue roumaine, I, Paris, 1901. DLR 1983.
  2. ^ Ovid Densusianu: "Nu există nici o îndoială că romanica din Peninsula Balcanică a prezentat încă din primele secole ale erei noastre câteva trăsături caracteristice."
  3. ^ Ovid Densusianu, 1901: "latina vulgară și-a pierdut unitatea, fărâmițându-se în limbile ce aveau să devină limbile romanice de astăzi."
  4. ^ Lactanius, "Of the manner in which the persecutors died"[1]: "Whatever, by the laws of war, conquerors had done to the conquered, the like did this man presume to perpetrate against Romans and the subjects of Rome, because his forefathers had been made liable to a like tax imposed by the victorious Trajan, as a penalty on the Dacians for their frequent rebellions." [...] "Long ago, indeed, and at the very time of his obtaining sovereign power, he had avowed himself the enemy of the Roman name; and he proposed that the empire should be called, not the Roman, but the Dacian empire."
  5. ^ Matyla Ghyka: A documented chronology of Roumanian history
  6. ^ a b Petre P. Panaitescu, Istoria Românilor ("History of the Romanians"), Bucharest, 1942
  7. ^ See Galerius and Constantines edicts of Toleration from 311 and 313, at Medieval Sourcebook
  8. ^ Al. Rosetti: “Istoria limbii române” ("History of the Romanian Language"), Bucharest, 1986
  9. ^ Dicționarul limbii române (DLR), serie nouă ("Dictionary of the Romanian Language, new series"), Academia Română, responsible editors: Iorgu Iordan, Alexandru Graur, Ion Coteanu, Bucharest, 1983;
  10. ^ “Istoria limbii române” ("History of the Romanian Language"), II, Academia Română, Bucharest, 1969;
  11. ^ I. Fischer, “Latina dunăreană” ("Danubian Latin"), Bucharest, 1985.
  12. ^ A. B. Černjak “Vizantijskie svidetel’stva o romanskom (romanizirovannom) naselenii Balkan V–VII vv; “Vizantinskij vremmenik”, LIII, Moscova, 1992
  13. ^ Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae, II, 15, 6–9, ed. De Boor, Leipzig, 1887; cf. FHDR 1970
  14. ^ Theophanis Chronographia, I, Anno 6079 (587), 14–19, ed. De Boor, Leipzig, 1883; cf. FHDR 1970: 604.
  15. ^ Johann Thunmann: “Untersuchungen über die Geschichte der östlichen europäischen Völker” ("Investigations into the histories of eastern European peoples"), 1. Theil, Leipzig, 1774, p. 169–366.: "Gegen das Ende des sechsten Jahrhunderts sprach man schon in Thracien Wlachisch" ("Towards the end of the sixth century, someone already spoke in Tracian Vlachish")
  16. ^ This view, which suggested that the expression should be taken as such: the language of the country and the language of their fathers/of the natives, thus being a sample of Romanian was supported by historians and philologists such as F. J. Sulzer in “Geschichte des transalpinischen Daciens” ("History of the Transalpine Dacians"), II, Vienna, 1781; G. Șincai in “Hronica românilor și a mai multor neamuri” ("Chronicle of the Romanians and of many more peoples", I, Iași, 1853; C.Tagliavini in ”Le origini delle lingue neolatine” ("The origins of the Neo-Latin languages"), Bologna, 1952; W. Tomaschek in “Über Brumalia und Rosalia” ("Of Brumalia and Rosalia", Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, LX, Viena, 1869; R. Roesler in “Romänische Studien” ("Romanian Studies"), Leipzig, 1871; Al. Rosetti in “Istoria limbii române” ("History of the Romanian Language", Bucharest, 1986; D. Russo in “Elenismul în România” ("Hellenism in Romania"), Bucharest, 1912.; B. P. Hasdeu in “Strat și substrat. Genealogia popoarelor balcanice” ("Stratum and Substratum: Genealogy of the Balkan Peoples"), Analele Academiei Române, Memoriile secțiunii literare, XIV, Bucharest, 1892; A. D. Xenopol in “Une énigme historique. Les Roumains au Moyen Âge” ("An historic enigma: the Romanians of the Middle Ages"), Paris, 1885 and “Istoria românilor” ("History of the Romanians"), I, Iași, 1888; H. Zilliacus in “Zum Kampf der Weltsprachen im oströmischen Reich” ("To the struggle of world languages in the Eastern Roman Empire"), Helsinki, 1935; R. Vulpe in “Histoire ancienne de la Dobroudja” ("Ancient history of Dobrugea"), Bucharest, 1938; C. Popa-Lisseanu in “Limba română în izvoarele istorice medievale” ("The Romanian language in the sources of medieval history"), Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile secțiunii literare, 3rd series, IX, 1940. Lot 1946; G. I. Brătianu in “Une énigme et un miracle historique: le peuple roumain” ("An enigma and an historic miracle: the Romanian people"), Bucharest, 1942; etc.
  17. ^ This view had proponents such as J. L. Pić in “Über die Abstammung den Rumänen” ("On the descent of the Romanians"), Leipzig, 1880; J. Jung in “Die romanischen Landschaften des römischen Reiches” ("Romanian landscapes of the Roman Empire") , Innsbruck, 1881; A. Budinszky in “Die Ausbreitung der lateinischen Sprache über Italien und Provinzen des Römischen Reiches” ("The propagation of the Latin language in Italy and the provinces of the Roman Empire"), Berlin, 1881; D. Onciul: “Teoria lui Roesler” ("Rosler's Theory") in “Convorbiri literare”, XIX, Bucharest, 1885; C. Jireček in “Geschichte der Bulgaren” ("History of the Bulgarians"), Prague, 1876; Ovide Densusianu: “Histoire de la langue roumaine” ("History of the Romanian language"), I, Paris, 1901; P. Mutafčief: “Bulgares et Roumains dans l'histoire des pays danubiens” ("Bulgarians and Romanians in the history of the Danubian lands"), Sofia, 1932; F. Lot: “La langue de commandement dans les armées romaines et le cri de guerre français au Moyen Âge” ("The language of command in the Romanian armies and the French war cry in the Middle Ages") in volume “Mémoires dédiés à la mémoire de Félix Grat” ("Memoirs dedicated to the memory of Félix Grat"), I, Paris, 1946;
  18. ^ Idea supported by Franz Dölger in “Die „Familie” der Könige im Mittelalter” ("The 'family' of the king in the Middle Ages"), „Historisches Jahrbuch” ("Historical Yearbook"), 1940, p. 397–420; and M. Gyóni in “Az állitólagos legrégibb román nyelvemlék (= "Das angeblich älteste rumänische Sprachdenkmal", "The allegedly oldest spoken evidence of the Romanian language")”, „Egyetemes Philologiai Közlöny (Archivum Philologicum)”, LXVI, 1942, p. 1–11
  19. ^ Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor ("History of the Romanians"), II, Bucharest, 1936, p. 249.
  20. ^ “Într-o regiune foarte aproape de Haemus, unde se găsesc nume romanice precum Kalvumuntis (calvos montes), unul dintre soldații retrași din cel mai apropiat ținut primejduit strigă «în limba locului» ( πιχωρί τε γλώττ ) unui camarad care-și pierduse bagajul «retorna» sau «torna, fratre»; datorită asemănării cu unul din termenii latinești obișnuiți de comandă, strigătul e înțeles greșit și oastea, de teama unui dușman ivit pe neașteptate, se risipește prin văi”. ("In a region very close to Haemus, where one finds Romanic names such as Kalvumuntis (calvos montes), one of the soldiers retreated from the nearest endangered land shouts «in the local language« (πιχωρί τε γλώττ) to a comrade who had lost his baggage retorna or torna, fratre ("turn back" or "turn, brother"); given the similarity to one of the customary Latin terms of command, the shout is understood heavily (?) and the host, fearing that an enemy had unexpectedly appeared, disperses through the haze." Nicolae Iorga, Istoria românilor ("History of the Romanians"), II, Bucharest, 1936.
  21. ^ A. Keramopoullos (A. Κεραµóπουλλου): “Τ ε ναι ο Kουτσóβλαχ” ("Who are the Aromanians"), Athens, 1939: “moreover, the term fratre, betraying the familiarity of the comrades, dismissed the possibility of a military term”
  22. ^ Al. Philippide, Originea românilor ("Origin of the Romanians"), I, Iași, 1925: „Armata, dacă a înțeles rău cuvântul torna, ca și cum ar fi fost vorba că trebuie să se întoarcă cineva să fugă, l-a înțeles ca un cuvânt din limba țării, din limba locului, căci doar Theophylactos spune lămurit că «toți strigau cât îi ținea gura și se îndemnau unul pe altul să se întoarcă, răcnind cu mare tulburare în limba țării: retorna»” ("The army, if it understood badly the word torna, which also could have been the word that turned back someone who ran away, understood it as a word of the language of the country, of the language of the place, because only Theophylactos says clearly that 'everyone shouted it from mouth to mouth the gave one another the impetus to turn around, yelling with great concern in the language of the country: turn back'")
  23. ^ „Dar se pare că Jireček n-a cetit pagina întreagă a descripției din Theophylactos și Theophanes. Acolo se vede lămurit că n-avem a face cu un termin de comandă, căci un soldat s-a adresat unui camarad al său cu vorbele retorna ori torna, torna, fratre, pentru a-l face atent asupra faptului că s-a deranjat sarcina de pe spatele unui animal” ("But it seems that Jireček hadn't read the whole page of description by Theophylactos and Theophanes." There one sees clearly that they it wasn't made as a term of command, because a soldier addressed a comrade of his with the words "turn back" or "turn, turn, brother" to draw his attention to the fact that the burden was disturbed on the back of an animal") […] “Grosul armatelor bizantine era format din barbari mercenari și din populația romanică a Peninsulei Balcanice” ("The bulk of the Byzantine army was formed of mercenary barbarians and of the Romanic population of the Balkan Peninsula") […] „armata despre care se vorbește în aceste pasaje [din Theophylactus și Theophanes] opera în părțile de răsărit ale muntelui Haemus pe teritoriu thrac romanizat” ("The army about which they are speaking in these passages [of Theophylactus and Theophanes] was raised in part in the Haemus mountains in the Romanized Thracian territory.")[…] „Ca să ne rezumăm părerea, cuvântul spus catârgiului era un termen viu, din graiul însoțitorilor lui, sunând aproape la fel cu cuvântul torna din terminologia de comandă a armatei bizantine” ("To sum up the opinion, the word spoken catârgiului (? - word somehow related to catâr = "mule") was a live term, from the dialect [here and below, we render grai as "dialect"; the term falls between "accent" and "dialect" - ed.] of their guide, being almost the same as the word torna from the terminology of command of the Byzantine army.") „nimic nu este mai natural decât a conchide, cum au făcut toți înainte de Jireček, că vorbele torna, retorna, fratre sunt cuvinte românești din veacul al șaselea” ("Nothing is more natural than to conclude, as did everyone since Jireček, that the words torna, retorna, fratre are Romanian words from the 6th century.") […] „Preciziunea povestirii lui Teofilact nu a fost până acum luată în seamă așa cum trebuie. Totuși reiese clar din aceste rânduri: 1) că cuvântul întrebuințat de însoțitorii stăpânului catârului nu era chiar același cu cuvântul pe care oștenii și-au închipuit că-l aud și 2) că, pe când în gura tovarășilor lui cuvântul însemna doar «întoarce-te», ε ς τo πίσω τραπέσθαι, așa cum susțin cu bună dreptate mai toți cercetătorii români, în schimb cuvântul așa cum l-au înțeles ostașii însemna «înapoi, la stânga împrejur», precum și-au dat seama tot cu bună dreptate Jireček și alți învățați, fiind, prin urmare, după chiar mărturia Strategikon-ului așa-zis al împăratului Mauriciu, un cuvânt din graiul oștirilor bizantine” ("The precision of Theophylactus' story has still not been given the account it deserves. Everything follows clearly from these lines: 1) that the word employed the guides of the master of the mules was not even the same as the word the soldiers thought they heard and 2) that, although in the mouth of their comrade the word meant merely "turn around, ε ς τo πίσω τραπέσθαι, just as all the Romanian researchers still sustain, instead the word as understood by the soldeirs meant "turn back, left about!", according to what Jireček and other scholars have correctly understood, being, through its consequences, after even the witness of the Strategikon so in this manner by the emperor Maurice, a word in the dialect of the Byzantine army.")
  24. ^ Al. Rosetti, “Despre torna, torna, fratre” ("About torna, torna, fratre"), Bucharest, 1960, p. 467–468.: „Așadar, termenii de mai sus aparțineau limbii populației romanizate, adică limbii române în devenire, după cum au susținut mai demult unii cercetători și, printre ei, A. Philippide, care a dat traducerea românească a pasajelor respective, însoțită de un comentariu convingător. Termenii coincid cu termenii omonimi sau foarte apropiați din limba latină, și de aceea ei au provocat panică în împrejurarea amintită.” ("Thus, the terms from above belong to the language of the romanized population, that is, the Romanian language in the process of development, as has long been sustained by some scholars and, among them, A. Philippide, who gave the Romanian translation to the respective passages, guided by a convincing commentary. The terms coincide with homonymic terms or very close from the Latin language, and from that caused panic in those nearby who heard it.")
  25. ^ Petre Ș. Năsturel, “Quelques mots de plus à propos de «torna, torna» de Théophylacte et de «torna, torna, fratre» de Théophane” ("Those words more appropriate than Theophylactus' torna, torna and Theophanus' torna, torna, fratre"), in Byzantinobulgarica, II, Sofia, 1966: Petre Ș. Năsturel “Torna, torna, fratre. O problemă de istorie și de lingvistică” ("Torna, torna, fratre: a problem in the history of linguistics") in Studii de cercetări și istorie veche, VII, Bucharest, 1956: “era un cuvânt viu din graiul populației romanice răsăritene și poate fi socotit ca cea mai veche urmă de limbă străromână; la fel ca și φράτρε ['fratre']. Dar tot atunci se păstra în armata bizantină același cuvânt cu înțelesul de «înapoi», «stânga împrejur», ceea ce a amăgit pe oștenii lui Comentiolus, punându-i pe fugă” ("was a live word in the Eastern Romanic population and could have been reckoned as the oldest utterance of the Old Romanian language; the same also for φράτρε ['fratre']. But still, the Byzantine army retained this word with the sense of "turn back", "left about", as had deluded the soldiers of Comentiolus, putting them to flight") […] “făceau parte din așa-zisul το⋅λδον, care cuprindea samarele, slugile și vitele de povară. Măcar ei erau băștinași, în sensul larg al cuvântului [...]; ei făceau parte din latinitatea răsăriteană din veacul al VI-lea” ("made up part of the so-called το⋅λδον ['the auxiliary troops'], which includes pack-saddles, servants and draft cattle. Even those were natives, in the broad sense of the word [...]; they formed part of the Eastern Latinity of the 6th century") […] “Reieșe din aceasta în chip limpede și cu totul neîndoielnic că cel puțin pentru catârgiu și pentru tovarășii lui vorba torna era un cuvânt din graiul lor – la fel cu siguranță și φράτρε – pe când la urechile și în gura oștenilor apărea, cum dovedește Strategikon-ul, ca un cuvânt ostășesc de poruncă. [...]. Cu alte cuvinte, chiar dacă oastea nu a fost alcătuită din băștinași, se aflau împreună cu ea oameni care vorbeau o limbă romanică” ("The result of this clearly and without the least doubt, is that for the muleteer and for his comrades, the word torna was a word in their own dialect – as certainly was φράτρε ['fratre'] – which when it appeared in the ears and mouths of the soldiers, as the Strategikon proves, was a was a soldiers word of command. [...]. In other words, even if the army had not been made up of natives, it would turn out that those men spoke a Romanic language") […]„torna era un cuvânt din graiul lor” ("torna was a word of their dialect".)
  26. ^ I. Glodariu: “În legatura cu «torna, torna, fratre»” in „Acta Musei Napocensis”, I, Cluj, 1964: „din oameni care transportau bagajele armatei, rechiziționați cu acest scop și, în sens[ul] larg al cuvântului, erau localnici” ("among the men who transported the army's baggage, requisitioned with such a scope and, in the broad sense of the word, they were locals") […] „torna era un cuvânt din graiul viu al populației băștinașe” ("torna was a word in the live dialect of the local population") […] “e cert că cei din jur l-au interpretat ca «întoarce-te», dacă nu erau soldați (și termenul folosit de Theophanes ne face să credem că nu erau), sau ca «stânga-mprejur», dacă erau ostași” ("It is certain the those nearby interpreted it as "turn around", if they weren't soldiers (and the term used by Theophanes does not make us believe they were), or as "left about!", if they were soldiers")[…] „exista o verigă sigură între lat. frater și rom. frate” ("there is a sure link between Latin frater and Romanian frate").

Referințe[modificare | modificare sursă]

  • Nicolae Saramandru: “Torna, Torna Fratre”; Bucharest, 2001–2002; Online: .pdf.
  • Nicolae-Șerban Tanașoca: “«Torna, torna, fratre» et la romanité balkanique au VI e siècle” ("Torna, torna, fratre, and Balkan Romanity in the 6th century") Revue roumaine de linguistique, XXXVIII, Bucharest, 1993.
  • Nicolae Iorga: “Geschichte des rumänischen Volkes im Rahmen seiner Staatsbildungen” ("History of the Romanian people in the context of its statal formation"), I, Gotha, 1905; “Istoria românilor” ("History of the Romanians"), II, Bucharest, 1936. Istoria României ("History of Romania"), I, Bucharest, 1960.