From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 22 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <371fb5a6.150957194@news.yale.edu> References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$qi0$1@whisper.globalserve.net> <369F52FE.2B6@sbu.ac.uk> <77rc86$auj$1@brokaw.wa.com> <36A444B3.F3B70F1C@alum.mit.edu.-> <7827sb$269$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36A52D70.9E372DD2@alum.mit.edu.-> <36A556AB.9927BD29@montclair.edu> <36a63533.58309714@news.yale.edu> <7866ud$i9m$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36cdb21e.883120019@news.wxs.nl> <36A7FCC8.79790A6B@earthlink.net> <36d77e23.1000882888@news.wxs.nl> <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu> <78pl3c$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> <78v30o$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b34d7c.60430113@news.yale.edu> <794e84$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3744d12a.1873763068@news.wxs.nl> <796m95$eq2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <375c0ea6.1954957123@news.wxs.nl> <79fo99$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3718c0d8.988421@news.yale.edu> <7fhjus$h91@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <371e5362.14471999@news.yale.edu> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:53:54 GMT, cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) wrote: > >apprarently dobrev recently came up with some "pamirian" word CHAR, >with which according to dobrev until recently (until the 19th c.) >these people used to denote their highest ruler. he takles this to be >the origin of tsar. > >now car i.e. tsar seems to have a solid latin etymology - from caesar >- old russian tsesar' (>ts'sar' > tsar'). caesar (in classical latin >pronounced "kaisar" - hence the german title) became like *ch*esar in >church latin (hence the italian pronounciation and hence the french >thus english). > >how was "czar" in old slavonic? > >I don't believe him. any thoughts? would the early christrian bulghars >be too proud to merely accpet byzantine "caesar"? or perhaps the use >of the term by the germans (serbian apparently reffers to kaisar as >"tsesar") have increased it's prestige? > ========================================= to which I recieved the reply from stephan nikolov: >The traditional interpretation is: from Latin, since c~ar^ [where ~ stays >above the the word and is abreviation symbol and ^= the letter "small er", >the vowel for ending). You will find this title in most Old Church Slavic >MSS. Most funily, the same form is attested in the Life of Constantine the >Pholosopher, which is allegedly written by his disciples about 880 in >Moravia. The problem is that the earliest MS if srom 15th century. Hence the >title might be a substitute of another one, which is unknown. I personally >can't imagine Cirillo-Methodian origin of the word: both Constantine and >Methodios were high ranked Byzantine officials and they would't call the >emperor (basileus) -- Caesar (c[jas]ar). Precisely in this period the >emperors of Constantinople were particularly sensitive on the matter of >titles. >The same in Bulgaria. The title car^ is the earliest attested in a seal by >Peter of Bulgaria (927 - 971), dated the middle of the 10th c. In the >earliest Slavic MSS the same form indicates the Byzantine emperor (12 >century where the text is taken). If it is the title kaisar (gr for Caesar) >it would have hardly been translated C ja s a r ^ (abbr. car) in the court >of Simeon -- who was student in Constantinople, wanted to marry his daughter >to the emperor and demanded the title basileus(imperator = emperor) for >himself. The letters of Romanus Lacapenus and Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos >indicate that indeed, the title basileus [of the Bulgars] was given to >Simeon and later to his son Peter. Neither Simeon, neither Emperor Romanus, >neither the patriarch Nicholas, nor the son of Simeon Peter, who was married >to the grand-daughter of the Byzantine emperor would have mistaken Caesar >for Emperor. In Latin, precisely in the same period (9th - 10th century) the >imperial title in the West was Augustus (August) not Caesar.