Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/69

 SLAVS

47

SLAVS

tribes. Historical investigation lias shown that the Thraco-llhTian tribes are not the forefathers of the Slavs, but form an independent family group between the Greeks and the Latins. There is no certain proof in the Balkan territory and in the region along the Danube of the presence of the Slavs there before the first century. On the other hand in the region of the Dneiper excavations and archasological finds show traces only of the Slavs. In addition the direction of tlie general march in the migrations of the nations was always from the north-east towards the south-west, but never in the opposite direction. Those who main- tain the theory that the Slavs came from the region of the Danube sought to strengthen their views by the names of various places to be found in these dis- tricts that indicate Slavonic origin. The ctjTnology of these names, however, is not entirely certain; there are other names that appear only in the later author- ities of the first centuries after Christ. Some again prove nothing, .as they could have arisen without the occupation of these districts by the Slavs.

It can therefore be said almost positively that the original home of the Slavs was in the territory along the Dnieper, and farther to the north-west as far as the Vistula. From these regions they spread to the west and south-west. This much only can be con- ceded to the other view, that the migration probably took place much earlier than is generally supposed. Probably it took place slowly and by degrees. One tribe would push another ahead of it hke a wave, and they all spread out in the wide territory from the North Sea to the Adriatic and jEgean Seas. Here and there some disorder was caused in the Slavonic migra- tion by the incursions of Asiatic peoples, as Scj-thians, Sarmatians, Avars, Bulgars, and Magyars, as well as b}' the German migration from north-west to south- east. These incursions separated kindred tribes from one another or introduced foreign elements among them. Taken altogether, however, the natural ar- rangement was not much disturbed, kindred tribes journeyed together and settled near one another in the new land, so that even to-day the entire Slavonic race presents a regular succession of tribes. As early as the first century of our era individual Slavonic tribes might have crossed the boundaries of the orig- inal home and have settled at times among strangers at a considerable distance from the native country. At times again these outposts would be driven back and obliged to retire to the main body, but at the first opportunity they would advance again. Central Europe must have been largely populated by Slavs as early as the era of the Hunnish ruler Attila, or of the migrations of the German tribes of the Goths, Lombards, Gepidae, Heruli, Rugiansetc. These last- mentioned peoples and tribes formed warlike castes and military organizations which became conspicu- ous in history by their battles and therefore have left more traces in the old historical writings. The Slavs, however, formed the lower strata of the popula- tion of Central Europe; aU the migrations of the other tribes passed over them, and when the times grew more peaceful the Slavs reappeared on the .surface. It is only in this way that the appearance of the Slavs in great numbers in these countries directly after the close of the migrations can be explained without there being any record in history of when and whence they came and without their original home being depopulated.

III. Cla.ssification of the Slavonic Peoples. — The question as to the cla.ssification and number of the Slavonic peoples is a complicated one. Scien- tific investigation does not support the common belief, and in addition scholars do not agree in their opinions on this question. In 1822 the father of Slavonic philology-, .Joseph Dohrov.sky, recognized nine Slavonic peoples and languages: Russian, II- lyrian or Serb, Croat, Slovene, Korotanish, Slovak,

Bohemian, Lusatian Sorb, and Polish. In his "Slavonic Ethnology" (1S42) Pavel Safaflk enumer- ated six languages with thirteen dialects: Russian, Bolgarish, lllyrian, Lechish, Bohemian, Lusatian. The great Russian scholar J. Sreznejevskij held that there were eight Slavonic languages: Great Russian, Little Russian, Serbo-Croat, Korotanish, Polish, Lu- satian, Bohemian, Slovak. In 1865 A. Schleicher enumerated eight Slavonic languages: Polish, Lusa- tian, Bohemian, Great Russian, Little Russian, Serb, Bulgarian, and Slovene. Franc MikloSio counted nine: Slovene, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croat, Great Rus- sian, Little Ru.ssian, Bohemian, Polish, Upper Lu- satian, Lower Lusatian. In 1907 Dm. P'lorinskij enumerated nine: Russian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croat, Slovene, Bohemian-Moravian, Slovak, Lusatian, Polish, and Kasube. In 1898 V. Jagic held that there were eight: Polish, Lusatian, Bohemian, Great Russian, Little Russian, Slovene, Serbo-Croat, Bul- garian. Thus it is seen that the greatest represen- tatives of Slavonic hnguistics are not in accord upon the question of the number of Slavonic languages. The case is the same from the purely philological point of view. Practically the matter is even more complicated because other factors, which often play an important part, have to be considered, as religion, pohtics etc.

At the present time some eleven to fourteen lan- guages, not including the extinct ones, can be enu- merated which lay claim to be reckoned as distinct tongues. The cause of the uncertainty is that it is impossible to state definitively of several branches of the Slavonic family whether they form an independent nation or only the dialect and subdivision of another Slavonic nation, and further because often it is im- possible to draw the line between one Slavonic people and another. The Great Russians, Poles, Bohemians, and Bulgarians are imiversally admitted to be dis- tinctive Slavonic peoples with distinctive languages. The Little Russians and the White Russians are try- ing to develop into separate nationahties, indeed the former have now to be recognized as a distinct people, at least this is true of the Ruthenians in Austria- Hungary. The Moravians must be included in the Bohemian nation, because they hold this themselves and no philological, pohtical, or ethnographical rea- son oppo.ses. The Slovaks of Moravia also consider that they are of Bohemian nationaUty. About sixty years ago the Slovaks of Hungary began to develop as a separate nation with a separate literary language and must now be regarded as a distinct people. The Lusatian Sorbs also are generally looked upon as a separate people with a distinct language. A division of this Uttle nationality into Upper and Lower Lusa- tians has been made on account of linguistic, reli- gious, and political differences; this distinction is also evident in the literary language, consequently some scholars regard the Lusatians as two different peoples. The remains of the languages of the former Slavonic inhabitants of Pomerania, the Sloventzi, or Kasubes, are generally regarded at present as dialects of Polish, though some distinguished Polish scholars main- tain the independence of the Ka.sube language. The conditions in (he south are even more complicated. Without doubt the Bulgarians are a sejiarate na- tionality, but it is difficult to draw the line between the Bulgarian and the Servian peoples, especially in Macedonia. Philologically the Croats and Serbs must, be regarded as one nation; politically, however, and ethnographically they are distinct peoples. The population of Southern Dalmatia, the ^lohammedan population of Bosnia, and probably also the inliabi- tants of some parts of Southern Hungary, and of Croatia cannot easily be assigned to a definite group. Again, the nationality and extent of the Slovenes living in the eastern Alps and on the Adriatic coast cannot be settled without further investigation.