Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Studia Ceranea 11, 2021, p.231–267
https://doi.org/10.18778/2084-140X.11.12
ISSN: 2084-140X
e-ISSN: 2449-8378
Vladislav Knoll (Prague)
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5112-2903
W L W R
N B (–)
Abstract. e reign of Neagoe Basarab (1512–1521) represented one of the cultural peaks of Wal-
lachian history. Using the written sources preserved from this period, we tried to present the written
Slavonic varieties and other languages (Romanian and Latin) that were used in that period. e Sla-
vonic varieties are examined according to three criteria: spelling, morphosyntax and vocabulary. e
standard variety (Church Slavonic) and the specic local written variety we may call Wallachian Sla-
vonic, most purely represented by the epistolography, are opposed in morphosyntax and vocabulary.
Both types of varieties are competing in acts and some colophons, eventually other original texts.
e spelling criterion permits us to distinguish up to four Church Slavonic varieties, whence two are
international ones (Moldavian Trinovitan (Tărnovo) variety and Resavian variety) and two comprise
local adaptations –the Trinovitan variety inuenced by the Wallachian liturgical pronunciation and
the administrative Church Slavonic representing a simplied combination of both Trinovitan
and Resavian norms. e Romanian language (written in Cyrillic) is not represented just by its ol-
dest dated coherent text (Neacşu’s letter), but also by frequent penetrations mainly in the documents.
e main common feature of the Latin documents with other Wallachian varieties is the presence
of the proper names.
Keywords: Neagoe Basarab, Romanian Slavonic, Wallachia, Church Slavonic, Old Serbian, Old
Romanian, Middle Bulgarian
The traditional functional stratication of the written varieties of the Church
Slavonic Cultural Area1 signicantly diered from that of the Latin or Greek
Europe2. e reason was a dierent method of written language acquisition,
which lacked, for a long time, a grammatical approach3. e most curious part
1 Let us remind us that the Church Slavonic Cultural Area is not equivalent to Slavia Orthodoxa as
it also includes the Croatian (Catholic) and Medieval Bosnian (with its own church) environments.
2 Cf...
, , vol., 2017, p.97–109.
3 Cf.the description of the traditional method from the time it was being replaced by the mod-
ern (Latin-inspired) one, e.g. in the Râmnic edition of Smotryc’kyj’s Church Slavonic Grammar
from 1755. , ed., , p. or
in D.C, Descriptio antiqui et hodierni status Moldaviae, Bucuresci 1872 (originally writ-
Vladislav Knoll
232
of the Church Slavonic Cultural Area was the territory where the Romanian lan-
guage was spoken4. As an example of the mutual relationship among the written
lects in this zone, we have chosen Wallachia of the second decade of the 16thcen-
tury, a rare time of a political and social stability and extraordinary cultural
ourishment5.
A probe to the period of the reign of Neagoe Basarab shows us already stabi-
lized written Slavonic varieties, whose functions were not yet really challenged
by written Romanian or other languages. e original writing in Slavonic of that
period had not lost yet its vivacity and did not fall completely into a petried for-
malism. Moreover, the main protagonist of the period provided one of the most
remarkable works of the Romanian Slavonic literature in general –the Teachings
of Neagoe Basarab to his son Teodosie –that likewise reect the characteristics
and structure of the language situation in Wallachia. Another prominent text
of this period is Neacşu’s letter, the rst extant dated text in Romanian that had
remained the only known similar text for several consecutive decades6.
Spoken languages
Before we discuss the character of the written varieties and languages used in Wal-
lachia of voivode Neagoe Basarab, let us stop shortly by the question of the spoken
languages of that period. e dominant spoken language was apparently Roma-
nian. is was manifested in the Slavonic texts mainly by onomastics and mor-
phosyntactic impact (including the insensibility to the main Slavonic grammatical
categories). Less frequently, the Romanian language background came up on the
phonological and lexical levels.
In Câmpulung, there was a German speaking community, which is attested e.g.
by an Early New High German (with new diphthongs) letter issued by the mayors
ten as manuscript in StPetersburg ca 1714), p.153, where the use of Slavonic in Moldavia until the
2nd half of the 17thcentury is described. It may be supposed the method was not different in Wallachia
of the early 16thcentury. V.M.Živov describes the full method in detail. He considered it had been
used from the beginning of the Church Slavonic culture. ..
, …, p.150–204.
4 We will not discuss here the complex question of the adoption of Church Slavonic as the cultural
language by the Romance population of the Balkan Peninsula. At this place, let us just mention that
many authors, from very different reasons, may agree about a very early adoption (i.e. already the
10thcentury). Cf.e.g. D.P.B, Paleografia romano-slavă. Tratat și album, București 1978, p.176;
G.S, Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5.–7. Jahrhunderts
im Lichte von Namen und Wörtern, München 1997, p.337–338.
5 St.Ș, ara Românească, [in:]Istoria românilor, vol.IV, De la universalitatea creștină către
Europa „patriilor”, București 2001, p.414.
6 Another candidate for the oldest extant Romanian text is the Hurmuzaki Psalter (Library of the
Romanian Academy, Ms. Rom. 3077, maybe even the first decade of the 16thcentury), cf.the intro-
duction to its edition: Psaltirea Hurmuzaki I. Studiu filologic, studiu lingvistic și ediie, ed.I.G,
M.T, București 2005, p.19.
233
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
and burghers of the town on the 11th February 15247. A more challenging ques-
tion is the existence of a Slavonic speaking population in Wallachia. It is mostly
accepted that the autochthonous Slavonic population had already been assimilated
long ago8. From the other side, a new colonization from the South likely began
already in the 15thcentury. Nevertheless, its intensity and impact remain question-
able9. e presence of such Slavs in the Wallachian society might be reected in the
presence of toponyms and anthroponyms derived from the stem 10, which
served as a general denomination of the South Slavs in that time11. In the early
16thcentury, we may count also with the business, cultural and family relations
with the South Slavs. Neagoe Basarab himself was married to Despina ()
a Serbian noble, daughter of Serbian despot John Branković. Among the cultural
7 Cf. the edition in Documentele privitoare la Istoria Românilor culese de Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki,
v o l . X V, Acte și scrisori din arhivele orașelor ardelene (Bistria, Brașov, Sibiu), parteaI, 1358–1600,
ed.N.I, București 1911 (cetera: I), p.277–278.
8 According to the generally accepted idea in the Romanian scholarship, the assimilation of the pre-
vious Slavonic population was completed before the establishment of the Wallachian state. The most
spread opinion refers to the 12thcentury. Cf.G.M, Dicionar al limbii române vechi (sfârșitul
sec. X –începutul sec. XVI), București 1974, p.14; A.R, Istoria limbii române, București 1968,
p.292. Panaitescu spoke about the period before the 14thcentury. Cf.P.P.P, Contribuii la
istoria culturii românești, București 1971, p.15. A later datation of the assimilation was proposed by
L.Miletič (14th–15thcenturies) and especially by S.B.Bernštejn, who dated the end of the assimilation
process to the 16thcentury. Cf..
, -
. - , [in:] , -
, vol.XIII, 1896, p.4; ..
, -
, vol., V–XV, –
1948, p.363.
9 ..
, , 1993, p.7. Early attestations of the set-
tlement of the population north of the Danube are linked with the military actions on the Ottoman
frontier, e.g. the settlement after the battle of Varna in 1444. Cf..
, .
,
15–19, 1999, p.63.
10 Such toponyms appearing in the documents until the reign of Neagoe Basarab comprise e.g. the
villages (27th January 1499, Documenta Romaniae Historica B. ara Românească, vol. I,
(1247–1500), ed.P.P.P, D.M, Bucureşti 1966 (cetera: DRHI), p.475),
(1stJune 1483, DRHI, p.301), (4th June 1521, Documenta Romaniae Historica B. ar a
Românească, vol.II, (1501–1525), ed.Ş.Ş, O.D, Bucureşti 1972 (cetera: DRHII)
,
p.404). Some persons mentioned in the administrative documents bear the lastname , espe-
cially the members of the voivodal council () (mentioned 1418, DRHI, p.87),
(mentioned between 1428–1441, DRHI, p.578). In the chrysobull to the monastery
of Koutloumousiou by Neagoe Basarab, there are two persons called mentioned (DRHII,
p.209, 210) serving as witnesses to the delimitation of a domain.
11 The older denomination for (South) Slavs, Şchei, was later attested in Câmpulung, where it might
have been related to the Bulgarian population of Transylvania. .
,
() . . . . . ,
1996, p.47. In the Wallachian documents until the early 16thcentury, this name () is
related (as today) to the quarter Şchei of Braşov. See the document from the reign of Radu the Great,
1495–1508, cf.534 Documente istorice slavo-române din ara-Românească și Moldova privitoare la
legăturile cu Ardealul 1346–1603, ed.G.G.T, București 1931 (cetera: T), p.206.
Vladislav Knoll
234
contacts, we must mention the Serbian Slavonic cultural background of the foun-
dation of the monastery of Bistria ()12 in West Wallachia (Oltenia) as
well as the support provided to the monastery of Hilandar ()13.
Types of texts
Which types of texts are datable to the nine years of Neagoe’s reign? Among the
books including the basic liturgical and biblical literature, there are just four manu-
scripts and one printed book possessing a colophon. e ruler himself ordered the
composition of the Tetraevangelion (), printed by hieromonk
Macarie in 1512, and the Menaion for November (First Romanian School in Braşov,
3, 1517)14 written for the metropolia of Târgovişte, whose new main temple was
built by Neagoe15. e composition of two manuscripts, Apostolos (, Libra-
ry of the Romanian Academy, Ms. sl. 202, 1519)
16
and Menaion for January (Library
of the Romanian Academy, Ms. sl. 262, 1521)17 was ordered by Preda of Craiova
()18, Neagoe’s cousin. Both these manuscripts were written by the most
famous Wallachian scribe of the turn of the 16thcentury: dean Dragomir of Bistria
(), the second one with the participation of his colleague
Dieniş (). e most precious manuscript of Neagoe’s time was Marcea’s Te t-
raevangelion (National Museum of Art of Romania, 7, 1518–1519)19 written on the
command of Neagoe’s brother-in-law, great postelnic Marcea (
)20. Independently, the colophons of these manuscripts should be considered.
A specic manuscript written by Neagoe himself is the manuscript of the National
Library St.St.Cyril and Methodius in Soa, 748 (from 1520–1521)21 containing
about one third22 of the Slavonic original of the already mentioned text Teachings
of Neagoe Basarab.
12 R.F, Relaiile iugoslavo-române. Sinteză, Lum 22.6, 1968, p.294.
13 Cf.DRHII, p.304–305.
14 E.L, Catalogul manuscriselor slavo-române din Braşov, Bucureşti 1985, p.42–44.
15 Viaa Sfântului Nifon patriarhul Constantinopolului, ed.T.S, BOR 55, 1937, p.5–6, 295.
16 ..
, , .
1905, p.330–331; P.P.P, Manuscrisele slave din Biblioteca Academiei RPR, vol.I, Bucureşti
1959, p.379–383.
17 ..
, …, p.402–403; P.P.P, Manuscrisele…, p.357–358.
18 Cf.N.S, Dicionar al marilor dregători din ara românească și Moldova. Sec. XIV–XVII,
București 1971, p.46.
19 E.L, L.D-D, O.S, Catalogul manuscriselor slavo-române din Bucu-
rești, București 1981, p.22–24; L.T et al., Miniatura și ornamentul manuscriselor din colecia
de artă medievală românească a Muzeului naional de artă al României, vol.II, Manuscrise slavone,
un manuscris latin și unul românesc, București 2006, p.99–111, pictures p.221–223.
20 N.S, Dicionar…, p.70.
21 Edited by Învăăturile lui Neagoe Basarab către fiul său Theodosie. Versiunea originală, ed.G.M-
, București 1996. Further cited according to the folio of the facsimile.
22 Învăăturile…, p.LXIII.
235
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
Besides these manuscripts, Vasiljev, Grozdanović and Jovanović23 dated ap-
proximately to this period further four manuscripts that might have been written
in Wallachia:
• Typikon (, Library of the Romanian Academy, Ms. sl. 212, ca 1505/1515)24,
• Nomocanon ( , Library of the Romanian
Academy, Ms. sl. 285, ca 1505–1515)25,
• Syntagma by Matthew Blastares (
, Library of the Romanian Academy, Ms.
sl. 286, 1st quarter of the 16thcentury, ca 1521)26,
• Bee (, Library of the Romanian Academy, Ms. sl. 310, ca 1515/1525)27.
ere are, of course, further manuscripts, currently dated to the 1stquarter
of the 16thcentury that shall be dated more exactly in the future28.
e second group of texts from this period includes the inscriptions. ese may
be divided into two corpora linked to two monasteries. e most famed inscrip-
tions of this period are two long ktetor inscriptions in the Church of the Dormition
of the Mother of God of the Argeş monastery that were written around 151729 and
were signed by Neagoe himself. ese inscriptions were related to the consecration
of the monastery held on the 15th August 1517 with the participation of patriarch
eoleptosI of Constantinople30. In the same monastery, there are further two
short tombstone inscriptions from ca 1518 relating the death of Neagoe’s children
Angelina and Ion31 and the tombstone inscription of Neagoe Basarab himself from
the 15th September 152132. e second set of inscriptions is linked with Church
of the Dormition of the Mother of God of the monastery of Bistria. e longest
inscription33 is signed by Dobromir (), Dumitru () and Chirtop
23 .
, .
, .
, -
, 2, 1980, p.41–69.
24 ..
, …, p.355; P.P.P, Manuscrisele…, p.307–308.
25 ..
, …, p.431–433; P.P.P, Manuscrisele…, p.379–383.
26 ..
, …, p.355, 433–435; P.P.P, Manuscrisele…, p.383–385.
27 ..
, …, p.485–488; P.P.P, Catalogul manuscriselor slavo-
române şi slave din Biblioteca Academiei Române, vol.II, Bucureşti 2003, p.55–58.
28 E.g. Typikon (Library of the Romanian Academy, Ms. sl. 23), Paraenesis by Ephrem the Syrian (Li-
brary of the Romanian Academy, Ms. sl. 290) and Synaxarion (Library of the Romanian Academy,
Ms. sl. 274) that are all datable to the 1st quarter of the 16thcentury. P.P.P, Manuscrisele…,
p.36–37, 369, 389.
29 Edition: C.B, Inscripiile medievale și din epoca modernă a României, vol.II, Judeul istoric
Argeș (sec. XIV –1848), București 1994, p.203–212.
30 The consecration was described in detail by one of the participants, protos Gavriil, dwelling at the
court of voivode Neagoe, in his Life of StNephon. Cf.Viaa Sfântului Nifon…, p.296–297.
31 Ed. C.B, Inscripiile… Argeş…, p.217–221.
32 Ed. C.B, Inscripiile… Argeş…, p.222–224.
33 Ed. C.B [coord.]: Inscripiile medievale și din epoca modernă a României, vol.III, Judeul
istoric Vâlcea (sec.XIV –1848), București 2005, p.212–213.
Vladislav Knoll
236
(). It is dated to the 1st October 1519 and it mentions the ruler as well as
the ktetors of the monastery, the brother of Craiova, starting with great ban Barbul
()34. His tombstone inscription from 1520 is also placed in the
church together with the mention that he died as a monk in the monastery with
the name Pahomie ()35. Two small inscriptions from this period are placed
on liturgical objects: a silver goblet (, ca 1519)36 and a cover with a golden ring
(, 1514)37.
e largest group of the texts surely originating in the reign of Neagoe are the
letters (or correspondence) and acts. e great majority of them were issued by
the ruler. Seventy-six of them are the simple acts, or horismoi (traditional name:
, a newer name: )38. e simple acts are well distinguishable by
the incipit ‘By Grace of God’ and the promulgatio formula
39 ‘my lordship gives this horismos/command’. e second largest
group are the letters (fourty-one pieces, traditional name )40. ey mostly
have the same incipit, but the promulgatio formula sounds ‘my lord-
ship writes’ or ‘we write’. Neagoe Basarab le us also thirteen chrysobulls
()41, from which just two lack the full arenga. e chrysobull is simply rec-
ognizable by an arenga, made up usually of commented biblical citations or, in case
of a simple chrysobull, by the archaic incipit ‘Well-believing
in Christ the God’. Neagoe uses six of the existing ten Wallachian arengas, one
chrysobull starts untypically with an inscriptio42. All these documents were issued
by the voivodal chancellery mostly in the capital Târgovişte or in Piteşti, Bucha-
rest and Argeş, eventually in another place. Except in the correspondence, the
scribe may be mentioned. All chrysobulls are addressed to monasteries, while
the horismoi may be addressed to both monasteries and laymen (mostly Wallachian
boyars). e letters are mostly addressed to the mayor of Braşov. e head of the
chancellery was great logofăt Ivan Călinescu ( ) since 151243.
34 Uncle of the voivode. Cf.N.S, Dicionar…, p.17.
35 Ed. C.B, Inscripiile…Vâlce a …, p.214–215, 229. In his office of great ban of Craiova, he was
succeeded by his already mentioned nephew Preda.
36 Ed. C.B, Inscripiile…Vâlc e a…, p.534.
37 Currently placed in the Romanian National Museum of Art, inv. 837. Ed. A.E, Inscripiile me-
dievale și din epoca modernă a României, vol.I, Orașul București (1395–1800), București 1965, p.735.
38 Cf.D.P.B, Diplomatica slavo-romînă, [in:]Documente privind istoria Romîniei. Introducere,
vol.II, București 1956, p.24/22.
39 Both formulas have spelling and morphologic variants.
40 The letters issued by Neagoe Basarab were published by T, p.223–269.
41 The horismoi and the chrysobulls were published in DRHII, p.193–405. We cite them per number
in the edition.
42 DRHII, p.223–224.
43 Cf.N.S, Dicionar…, p.66.
237
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
Aer he became a monk of the monastery of Snagov in 1514, the responsibility
was given to his brother Harvat of Grozeşti ()44. Only three
dierent scribes of chrysobulls are known: grămătic Stoica ( ),
grămătic Florea ( ) and grămătic Vâlsan Furcovici (
).
From these traditional document types, two documents structurally dier.
ese are the homage act () to king Louis of Hungary and Bohe-
mia () from the 17th March 151745 and the agreement () with
voivode John Szapolyai of Transylvania () about the borders
() between Wallachia and Transylvania from the 9th June 152046. is
document was written by grămătic Bogdan.
Few letters in Slavonic were issued by other personalities. Six letters were sent
by
Neagoe’s great dvornic Calotă of Stoeneşti and Slăveni ()
47
, one
of them together with great logofăt Harvat. One letter was issued by spătar Lazăr
( 1520)48. A unique document is the act by Toma, mayor of Târgovişte
(), who issued an act conrming a purchase of a house in the capital49.
All the documents mentioned so far are in Slavonic, while the letter by Neacşu
of Câmpulung (, 29./30.6.1521)50 is written, except the inscrip-
tio and salutations, in Romanian (in Cyrillic). Besides these documents, there are
also ten Latin letters issued by Neagoe Basarab to the Transylvanian towns, one
of them to Braşov (Brassov), the remaining one to Sibiu (Civitas Cibiniensis), the
capital of the Saxon autonomy. e Latin letters were issued in the same towns
as the Slavonic ones, their scribes are not mentioned.
Varieties in the Church Slavonic cultural area
According to the current sociolinguistic models51, there were three types of
written Slavonic varieties employed in the Church Slavonic Cultural Area:
44 Cf.Ibidem, p.63.
45 Ed. T, p.261–264.
46 DRHII, p.375–379.
47 Ed. T, p.416–421. On the issuer, cf.N.S, Dicionar…, p.39–40.
48 Ed. T, p.421–422.
49 DRHII, p.192.
50 Ed. T, p.456–458.
51 Generally, this system is explained in R.M, The Church Slavonic Language Question:
an Overview (IX–XX Centuries), [in:]Aspects of the Slavonic Language QuestionI, ed.R.P,
H.G, New Haven 1984, p.45–55. For the East Slavonic area cf...
, …,
p.231; ..
, –VII .,
2003, p.29–31). Since the 15thcentury, the system of varieties of the East Slavs within the Moscow
State and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had been subjected to significant divergent changes.
Vladislav Knoll
238
• Bookish or standard variety (local variety of the Church Slavonic language),
patterned on the biblical-liturgical corpus.
• Vernacular-based variety manifested mostly in the administration, eventually
local law.
• Hybrid variety (eventually called lower style/norm, amalgam) representing
a mix of both preceding varieties that was mostly manifested in the non-litur-
gical sphere and particularly in the original narrative literature. e proportion
of the bookish or vernacular elements may be dierent in various text genres or
single texts depending on the theme, supposed readers and prestige of the text.
e basic contrast at the spelling, morphosyntactic and lexical level is supposed
to have been provided between the bookish and vernacular-based variety.
It is evident that in Wallachia, where the vernacular was a non-Slavonic lan-
guage, the system was more complicated. In order to understand it, we will rst
discuss each of the main language elements (spelling, morphosyntax, vocabulary)
found in the Wallachian texts and then divide the texts in accordance with the
occurrence of dierent types of these language elements.
Spelling systems
In the Slavonic texts of Wallachia, we can nd the traits of four interrelated spell-
ing systems. Two of them are represented by two coexisting52 Middle53 Church
Slavonic (CS) norms: the Trinovitan (Tărnovo) and the Resavian ones. e Tri-
novitan CS was based on the norm of the Late Second Bulgarian Empire and its
actual epicentre was Moldavia. e Resavian CS was mainly based on the Serbian
CS tradition. At the beginning of the 16thcentury, it was used mainly by Orthodox
South Slavs. e third spelling system was the one prevailing in the Wallachian
For the Croatian Glagolitic area cf.K.L K, G.G K, Odnos crkvenoslaven-
skoga jezika i govornoga jezika u hrvatskome srednjovjekovlju, ČHS 6, 2010, p.211; for the Serbian
area J.
-
, , 2007, p.444. A similar situ-
ation existed apparently in the Bosnian area, which is clearly distinguishable from both the Croatian
and Serbian ones (V.K, Církevní slovanština vpozdním středověku, Praha 2019, p.288). In the
Bulgarian area, we can actually not speak about such trichotomy (V.K, Církevní…, p.187).
Except for the st Slavonic area, this system was mainly functioning in the Late Middle Ages.
52 This situation is comparable to the area of current North Macedonia and Western Bulgaria, where
also two varieties were coexisting during the 14thcentury.
53 The Middle CS norms originated in the 14th –early 15thcenturies through the approximation and
mutual impact of the CS norms used by Orthodox Slavs. Based on R.M, The Church Sla-
vonic Language…, p.58–61.
239
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
correspondence. is system was patterned on the spelling of the Serbian chancel-
lery language, which became one of the models for the international dip
lomatic
language of the Balkans in the 15
th
and 16
th
centuries
54
. e specics of the spel-
ling system of the Wallachian correspondence in contrast with other Štokavian-
-based systems are linked to the traces of the older, Trinovitan-based chancellery
language used in Wallachia. e new Wallachian chancellery language stabilized
approximately since the 1470s.
Besides these three main spelling systems, we can already distinguish the fourth
one, used for recording of the Romanian language in Cyrillic. is spelling system
was developing from the very beginning of the Wallachian chancellery writing for
Romanian onomastics. It apparently stabilized ca 150055. It was based on the spel-
ling of Trinovitan CS and it kept its character even aer the deep language changes
happening in the Wallachian chancellery language mainly during the 2nd and 3rd
quarter of the 15thcentury. In the last quarter of the 15thcentury, it was enriched
by specic letters used only in Romanian words. One can count with the mutual
inuence of the Romanian spelling in dierent lands.
Let us characterize the most visible features of these spelling systems, without
going into details. e model manuscripts of the Trinovitan CS of this period are
the printed Macarie’s Tetraevangelion and the handwritten Marcea’s Tetraevan-
gelion. eir spelling is near to the ideal standard, patterned on the Moldavian
manuscripts. ese may be contrasted with the Resavian manuscripts represented
by the Typikon and Syntagma, both found in the monastery of Bistria. e spell-
ing represented by the language of the correspondence will be further called the
Administrative one.
e most visible dierence between all the spelling systems is the use of juses56.
is we may call a primary trait:
54 The letters, the language of which was patterned on the traditional Serbian chancellery language,
were being issued by Ottoman sultans and officials, Hungarian kings, Albanian leaders and of course
the local South Slavonic chancelleries –cf.editions .
, ,
vol., . , 1934; DRHI.Some of these letters contain
elements originating from the Bosnian or Dubrovnik chancellery. Likely, through the Wallachian
mediation, it had some impact on the Moldavian administrative and especially the epistolary writing.
55 Cf.I.G, A.M, Originele scrisului în limba română, Bucureşti 1985, p.137–141.
56 Letters that originally denoted Common Slavonic nasal vowels.
Vladislav Knoll
240
Trinovitan CS Romanian Administrative Resavian CS
Used for *ǫ, eventu-
ally *ę in specic
cases57. Characteristic
spelling ‘ bu t’.
Pronounced /ə/58.
/ə/ Interchangeable
with 59, being
more frequent
in Wallachia.
on place of *ǫ60.
Rarely used as /ə/61,
interchangeable
with
Not used. ere is
on place of *ǫ.
Used for *ę, eventu-
ally *ǫ in specic
cases. In Wallachia
apparently it was
pronounced /e/.
Corresponding to
/ja/62, thus inter-
changeable with ,
it appears rarely.
Not used, it corre-
sponds to .
Not used, it corre-
sponds to .
e secondary traits comprise the distribution of further letters, spelling strate-
gies, eventually the existence of specic letters:5758596061 626364656667
Trinovitan CS Romanian Administrative Resavian CS
It may denote both
*ě and *ja (behind
consonants)63.
Mostly /ea/64. Mostly denoting
*ja behind conso-
nants65, the posi-
tion *ě is mostly
replaced by .
Used only as *ě
being interchange-
able with , *ja
behind consonants
is denoted 66,
respectively
behind , 67.
57 We will not go into detail of the distribution rules, which significantly differ from the Old
Church Slavonic ones, but refer to V.K, Církevní…, p.273, where the Moldavian Trinovitan
standard is described in detail.
58 E.g. Marcea’s Tetraevangelion 11r (Matthew pericope 6) vs. Macarie ‘walking’.
59 E.g. DRHII, p.312: (Drăculea) ‘Dracula’, no.165: (dâmbul) ‘the hillock’; T-
, p.457: (ara Rumânească) ‘Wallachia’.
60 The letters in place of *ǫ do appear randomly, e.g. T, p.225: ‘derision,
offence’, p.228: ‘to neighbours’.
61 T, p.248: ‘he shall make an agreement’, p.258: ‘I sent’; DRHII,
– ‘monastery of Glavacioc’, no.122: ‘Vladislav’.
62 T, p.427: (voia) ‘the will’, (i-au dat) ‘he gave him’; DRHII, no.196:
(fiastru) ‘stepson’; Dobromir’s inscription: ‘Stoian (name)’.
63 E.g. Matthew pericope 16: Marcea’s Tetraevangelion 15r (nominative singular) vs. Matthew
pericope 49: 26r (accusative singular).
64 DRHII, ‘Laiotă (name)’; T, p.457: (el să treacă) ‘he may pass’;
DRHII, no.156: (valea) ‘the valley’.
65 E.g. T, p.227: ‘they (!) kill’, p.247: ‘your will’.
66 E.g. Syntagma: 3v ‘they leave’, 47r ‘now’; Typikon: 11v ⷨ҇ ‘s et’.
67 E.g. Syntagma: 2v ‘each’, 4r ‘of blending’.
241
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
Trinovitan CS Romanian Administrative Resavian CS
*ǐ > ,
*-ǔkǔ > -
Yes68. (Yes in Slavonic
loanwords in
Romanian)69.
Optional70. Mostly no71.
Specic
letters
/dʒ/, /ɨn /or
/ɨm/
It can marginally
include any specic
letter from other
spelling systems.
, most regu-
larly behind , ,
optionally in other
positions72.
Used even if ho-
mophonous with .
Missing. Missing73. Used even if ho-
mophonous with .
distri-
bution
e letter is used
in monosyllabs and
in the words inte-
rior74, otherwise .
Neacşu’s letter
mostly distin-
guishes /ə/ and
(mute), in other
documents this is
not fully respected.
Random distribu-
tion, is most fre-
quent in preposi-
tions and prexes.
Random distribu-
tion, is most fre-
quent in preposi-
tions and prexes.
Besides the above mentioned spelling dierences, there are further typical
forms of the administrative spelling that were partly inherited from the Serbian
chancellery and they are opposed to the CS spelling (both Trinovitan and Resav-
ian). We will call them tertiary traits. e frequency of these traits depends on
the type of the document or they can be randomly replaced by the CS elements:
68697071727374
68 Marcea’s Tetraevangelion, Gospel of Matthew, pericope 3, 9v , percope 43, 24r .
69 E.g. temniă ‘ j ai l ’, stare ‘elder’, dobitoc ‘ c a t t l e ’.
70 E.g. T, p.227: , p.236: , p.247: , p.249: – ‘pro-
perty’; DRHII, no.160: ‘elder’.
71 E.g. Typikon: 8r ‘having come down’, 12r ‘lover of men’, but 41r ‘w ho le’.
72 E.g. Typikon: 8v ‘(it) prepares’, 11v ‘(it) is’; Syntagma: 2 ‘about whom’,
3v ‘to parents’.
73 Exception: T, p.236: ‘we will do’ (such spelling is rather typical for Moldavian
chancellery documents).
74 Most frequent exceptions comprise the position behind that we find in the Marcea’s Tetraevan-
gelion. Nevertheless, Macarie’s Tetraevangelion prefers at this place, being stricter in following the
jer distribution rule. This is the ideal as represented in the Moldavian manuscripts, actually not thus
typical for Wallachia.
Vladislav Knoll
242
CS Administrative Romanian
*vjsja ‘all’ (nominative
plural neuter)
(Trinovitan),
(Resavian) 75 ()
*tj/*dj () / ()76 e Slavonic loan-
words in Romanian
have mostly /ʃt/ and
/ʒd/77.
*vǔ(-) (-) (-)78 ( ‘in’)
*xv or79 Slavonic loanwords
in Romanian have
older /xv/ and
younger /f/80.
757677787980
Less frequent tertiary administrative features comprise further South Slavonic
vernacular traits: the Serbian (Štokavian) traits, as the shi *ǔl > 81, the spelling
of the type ‘with them’82, the switch of nal *-l > -83, and the switch of
the Common Slavonic reduced vowels to 84. A reex of a widespread feature
of dierent Balkan languages can be revealed in the traces of the variation of the
unstressed e/i and o/u85.
75 T, p.247: ‘to take with all things’, p.262: ‘with the whole land’.
76 T, p.223: ‘a ls o’, ‘I want’, ‘(he) will be’, ‘(he) wants’, p.225:
‘before’, p.227: ‘among you’, p.251: ‘between us’.
77 E.g. peşteră ‘c av e’, primejdie ‘danger’.
78 T, p.223 ‘he took’, p.225 ‘do not let them in peace’, p.225
‘to take’, p.248 ‘who will not submit himself to the tax for small animals’.
79 T, p.228: ‘they captured’ vs. ‘to thank’. These traits can be found also
in the (almost) contemporary letters from 1507 and 1511 by Firuz Bey (), the sanjak-bey
of Bosnia: .
, …, p.384–385 ‘we thanked’, ‘of praise’.
80 E.g. Moxa’s Chronicle (Russian National Library f.87, no.64, 1620), 147r ‘p r ai s e’.
81 T, p.230: ‘due’, p.246: ‘I will send everything fully’, p.254:
‘Câmpulung (a town in Wallachia)’. Cf. the letter by sultan Selim the Strong from 1513,
.
, …, p.390 ‘debts’.
82 T, p.225.
83 T, p.247: ‘I left’, p.249: ‘he gathered’, p.244: ‘I under-
stood’, p.238: ‘you ordered me’. This trait can be found, e.g. in a contemporary letter
by future sultan Süleyman the Magnificent () from 1517: .
,
…, p.397: ‘he took’, ‘I brought’.
84 Horismos: DRHII, no.184: ‘with daughter’, border agreement: ‘we agreed’.
While in the Wallachian texts of this period it is a very rare feature, in the contemporary Štokavian
correspondence out of Wallachia, it is widespread, see e.g. the correspondence by sultan Selim the
Strong, .
, …, p.389–392.
85 T, p.227: ‘various things’, p.240: ‘to free’, ‘we write’,
‘to your’, p.242: ‘book’ (object), p.256: ‘we cannot’, p.258: ‘you will
243
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
From these spelling systems the most prestigious one was apparently the
Trinovitan CS. is was the variety that dominated in the printed books and it
was the one, which was used in the most precious manuscripts with colophons
including the Marcea’s Tetraevangelion and Menaion for November dedicated to
the metropolia. It was also chosen by Neagoe for his own work.
Now let us see how these four ideal spelling systems are realized in the con-
crete texts. In the CS texts modelled on Trinovitan CS, the most frequent devia-
tion is the replacement of by , which can be caused by both the pronunciation
and the impact of the administrative spelling. Such replacement is rare in the
above mentioned Tetraevangelia86, but very frequent in the Teachings of Neagoe
Basarab. e inscriptions of Argeş almost lack . Neagoe’s Teachings show mar-
ginally further Resavisms: the use of the letter 87, once the spelling (40r)
and very few cases of on the place of *ǫ88. e latter phenomenon can occur
in the second inscription of Argeş89. Dieniş’s part of the Menaion for January is
using practically just , while otherwise it follows quite attentive Trinovitan spell-
ing (with random switch > ).
Resavian manuscripts comprise all the above-mentioned features except those
already marked as Trinovitan. Dragomir’s Apostolos from 1519 is an example
of a text containing the primary traits of Resavian, but secondary traits of Tri-
novitan. us, the text does not use neither juses, nor behind consonants90.
It also shows behind consonants in the positions corresponding to the Resavian
/91 and the e-vocalization92. is spelling resembles the administrative spelling
without tertiary traits.
e administrative spelling is typical for the documents. e tertiary features
(reecting South Slavonic vernacular) are prevailing in the correspondence.
Nevertheless, also there, they may be interchangeable with the CS ones93. In the
take’. The same phenomenon in the formula in an arenga of a chrysobull (DRHII,
no.116) actually causes a change of meaning (‘from the serving to the world’ instead of
‘from the creation of the world’).
86 E.g. Marcea’s Tetraevangelion, Gospel of Matthew, pericope 4, 10r ‘when he died’;
pericope 6, 11r ‘going’.
87 This is lexicalized in the words ‘(it) is’ (18v, 20r, 30v) and ‘yet’ (18v, 19r, 30v), in few cases
in other places, e.g. in the typical Resavian spelling 80r ‘while’.
88 Found twice in the 1st singular of the present tense (73v , 68v ) and
more frequently in the instrumental singular of the nominal flexion: e.g. 61v ‘with my
force’, 61v ‘with his grace’, 92v ‘with much sorrow’.
89 E.g. ‘I make effort’, ‘they are’, variation ‘ h a n d ’.
90 E.g. 3r ‘(he) says’, ‘remission’.
91 E.g. 2r ‘they were surprised’, 4r ‘each soul’, but 5r ‘all’.
92 E.g. 1r ‘having met’.
93 E.g. T, p.223: ‘asking’, p.227: ‘hope’ (object), p.229: ‘they shall
pay’, p.234: ‘all merchandise’, p.235: ‘also’, p.247: ‘I/we want’ vs. p.248:
‘I want’, p.248: ‘all pay the tax for small animals’, p.262:
‘lords being before us’ (subject of the sentence).
Vladislav Knoll
244
chrysobulls and horismoi, such features can be found in the segment of dispositio,
which contains the lowest frequency of formulas and oen includes the descrip-
tion of the domain and rights conrmed to the addressee. e preposition ‘in’
appears typically in the datatio and generally before toponyms. All documents and
in particular horismoi may contain also the words using the Romanian spelling
–this concerns mainly the onomastics, eventually ad hoc borrowings from Roma-
nian94. In the chrysobulls and horismoi, these are concentrated in the dispositio and
corroboratio (list of the members of the voivodal council). e chrysobulls con-
tain larger parts written in CS (the segments of arenga and sanctio) that may
contain unsystematic traces of the strictly Trinovitan spelling95. In a lesser extent
this may happen in the xed forms of horismoi, especially those addressed to the
monasteries (description of the monastery). e tertiary administrative features
are widespread in the act of homage and the border agreement as they represent
rather non-formulaic texts. In addition, Neagoe’s tombstone in Argeş and the
Bistria inscriptions actually represent the administrative spelling without ter-
tiary traits. is is also caused by the fact they are too short. Dobromir’s inscrip-
tion shows also the Romanian spellings (Pârvul) and especially
(Stoian). Both Dragomir’s colophons use the administrative spelling, while the col-
ophon of the printed Tetraevangelion and the Menaion for November is patterned
on Trinovitan CS (with variation ). e colophon of Marcea’s Tetraevangelion is
too short to state anything.
Likewise, the Latin documents have to deal with the spelling of Romanian ono-
mastics, but using, of course, the Latin script. Moreover, the names can be submit-
ted to a certain Latinization
96
. In the few recorded names, we see the variation i/y,
o/u, the phoneme /ʃ/ is marked as s97, the cluster /ɘr/ or perhaps already /ɨr/ may
be written in two manners98. ere is a visible uncertainty of representing the
diphthong /ea/99. Curious spellings are Pwrwul (Pârvul)100 and Neagoe’s signature
Bozorab101.
94 T, p.246: ‘I sent our man Gheaă’, ‘of stoat’, p.256:
‘Sir Hanăş and Sir Giurgiu’.
95 Particularly the chrysobull to the monastery of Glavacioc by grămătic Stoica (DRHII, no.108),
where the Trinovitan forms prevail (except the low frequency of ). In some other chrysobulls, the
appearance of the Trinovitan forms is random or they reflect the Trinovitan pronunciation, e.g.
DRHII, no.153: ‘of water’, no.131: ‘for the glory’, no.189: ‘with glory’.
96 I, p.235 (1517) ex oppido arghensi ‘from Curtea de Argeş’, p.240 (13th October 1519) Ter-
govistia ‘Târgovişte’, p.240–241 (20th October 1519) Mylus ‘Miloş (name)’, Tergovysta ‘Târgovişte’.
97 I, p.220 (21st April 1512) Bocoresth ‘Bucharest’, p.238 (18th December 1518) Pytest ‘Piteşti’.
98 I, p.216 (1st February 1512): Targovistie, p.240 (13th October 1519) Tergovistia.
99 I, p.220 (21st April 1512) Oppre vs. p.238 (18th December 1518) Opra (Rom. Oprea), p.240–
241 (20th October) filius Woyvode Myhnye ‘son of voivode Mihnea’ (can be considered also as geni-
tive singular).
100 I, p.221 (4th December 1512).
101 I, p.216 (1st February 1512).
245
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
Morphosyntax
e Middle Church Slavonic morphosyntax diered minimally from the one
we know from Old Church Slavonic as the model texts did not change radically.
e most important dierences consisted in the use of concrete exional endings
–newer ones might have coexisted with the archaic ones, some of the newer ones
prevailed102. e morphosyntax of the biblical text contrasted with the morpho-
syntax prevailing in the Wallachian letters. eir grammar was highly balkanized
and clearly showed the Romanian background of the writers. us, the language
represented by the letters can be denominated as Wallachian Slavonic (WS). e
typical morphosyntactic features of this variety can be divided into two groups:
• systematic morphosyntactic features,
• neglected morphosyntactic features.
e systematic morphosyntactic features comprise the adaptation of Romanian
morphosyntax on the predominantly Serbian-like grammatical shape103. Its ten-
dency towards systematization does not mean the Grammar was regular as it was
facing various levels of Church Slavonic impact and included rests of older Bul-
garian traits.
Let us make a basic description of the WS morphosyntactic system. At the
beginning, it should be said that the forms might be inuenced by the habit to
shorten the words by the above-writing of the last consonant omitting thus an
eventual nal vowel104. e noun system mostly distinguishes two main cases –the
common case and the dative. e common case serves as subject, object and it
dominates behind prepositions. In a-stem feminines and animate o-stem mascu-
lines, either original nominative or accusative singular may be used as both sub-
ject and object of the sentence105. In plural, it is the nominative of the masculine
o-stem that is mostly used as a common case106. e common case of the plural
102 The most typical new ending is - in the nominative plural of masculine jo-stems, e.g. Marcea’s
Tetraevangelion, Gospel of Matthew, pericope 36, 21v.
103 This combination reminds us the current Timok-Prizren dialects.
104 This tendency is most evident in a-stems: e.g. T, p.223: ‘on the head’, p.225:
‘for need’. It contributed to the confusion of the 1st singular and plural in voivodal letters, cf.e.g.
the self-addressing of the voivode in the same letter: T, p.242: ‘we write to
our’ – ‘I/we give’ – ‘what you ordered me’ – ‘I understood’ –
‘we/I thank’ – ‘for our need’ – ‘I sent’ – ‘we will
sent’ – ‘I will send’.
105 E.g. T, p.225: ‘we sent our servant’ –vs. p.231: ‘our
servant will come’, p.225: ‘I shall get the damage’ vs. p.234:
‘we/I will not leave my subjects in danger’, p.227: ‘this our
man came’ vs. p.244: ‘through your man’.
106 E.g. T, p.227: ‘we sent our men’ vs.
‘our men and they came’ –p. 230: ‘from your men’, p.247: ‘to execute
Vladislav Knoll
246
feminine a-stems prefers the Štokavian ending -107. A specic, Romanian-inspired
ending may optionally appear in the common case of masculine o-stems and
neuter jo-stems108. e inspiration of the rst case is the older Romanian -ǔ ending
of masculines, the second case is surely provoked by the regular transfer of Sla-
vonic neuter jo-stems to the feminine declension in Romanian. e latter form we
found more frequently in horismoi. e -/ ending of the common case in neuter
jo-stems is a feature more frequently found in the acts and it is linked to the fact
that such nouns are borrowed to Romanian as feminines109. e same may also
concerns the neuter o-stems in case they represent the shared Slavonic-Romanian
vocabulary110.
e dative case expresses both the indirect object and the possessiveness111. As
it appears just in few, mostly xed phrases, there are few dierent forms attest-
ed in the correspondence, mostly o-stems and jo-stems. As the singular dative
form of these declensions has the ending -, it may be homophonous to the
Romanian-inspired common case
112
. In dative plural, both the CS ending and the
nominative enriched with an above written can be found
113
. In exceptional cases,
the dative can be replaced by a common case in a simple apposition (mainly if the
dative is expressed e.g. by the pronoun or adjective)114, once the preposition is
used115. Sometimes, the appositional common case appears by the jjo-stems in the
acts and colophons, specically in the description of a religious establishment116.
Behind the preposition / ‘with’, the CS or Štokavian form of instrumental
the shepherds’, but p.227: […] ‘you took 50 silver coins’ vs. p.237:
‘for 200 silver coins’.
107 E.g. T, p.223: ‘books’, p.223: ‘on the heads’, p.225: ‘hands’, p.262:
‘over the mountains’.
108 E.g. T, p.227: ‘a bandit raised’, p.238: ‘everything
up to the last silver coin’, and even p.245: ‘regarding our official’. An analogic
form can be found in the tombstone inscription of voivode’s son Ion ( ‘God’s
serf died’).
109 T, p.258: ‘for eating’; DRHII, no.107: ‘on the field’, no.112:
‘they had a quarrel’, no.191: ‘this horismos’, no.178: ‘for the
support’.
110 DRHII, no.106: ‘a lake’ (Rom. vreo baltă), no.203: ‘in Baltă Neagră
(Black Lake)’, no.188: ‘of rivulet’.
111 The possessive genitive is generally absent in the letters excerpt for the fixed phrase ‘of
my lordship’.
112 E.g. T, p.251: ‘regarding a Gypsy of the boyar of
my lordship’. The first noun represents the common case, while the second one the possessive dative.
113 E.g. T, p.223, 225: –p. 224, 228: –p. 231: ‘to the friends’; e.g.
T, p.224: –p. 231: ‘to the neighbours’.
114 250 ‘regarding those subjects’, 223 ‘regarding
that man’, p.253 ‘to good friends’.
115 T, p.230: ‘silver coins owed to a women’.
116 Colophon of the Menaion for January: ‘temple of Dormition’.
247
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
can be found along with the prevailing common case117. In few cases, there is the
locative behind the preposition 118. Other appearance of case endings in the let-
ters is mostly limited to random xed phrases119. A specic feature of the horismoi
(mainly in the xed formulas) is the use of locative plural behind the preposition
‘of, from’ inspired by the confusion of adjective and noun paradigm120. e
declension of adjectives and personal pronouns in letters uses the Štokavian
ending, but they mostly do not agree with the noun.
e paradigm of personal pronouns is very regular and generally corresponds
to the one known in fully balkanized Slavonic languages. e personal pronouns
distinguish nominative, accusative and dative short forms that all precede the
verb121. e dative form may be used as the postpositive possessive form122. In
the 3rd person, a special form is preferred123. A dierent long form of the pronoun
is used behind prepositions
124
. e characteristic form of the 3
rd
person of the sin-
gular masculine is the Štokavian found also in the masculine adjective para-
digm –in Wallachian documents it should be considered common case singular
animate. Sometimes, the double object is expressed125. ere is a typical WS set
of indenite pronouns introduced by (Romanian oare)126. Less frequently,
further types of pronouns appear127.
e WS verb exion has the following characteristics. Its most visible feature
is the analytical creation of the future tense using the short form of the verb velle
(preferring the Serbian chancellery spelling) and the innitive128. e use of the
preterite with l-participle and simple tenses is equivalent. e typical 1st plural
117 E.g. T, p.228: ‘with love’, p.232: ‘with our
needed things’, p.234: ‘with Radul’, p.247: ‘with sheep and pigs’,
p.262: ‘by just service’, p.259: ‘with a seal’.
118 E.g. T, p.256: ‘in all markets and towns’, p.223:
‘after that’.
119 T, p.247: ‘by God’s will’, p.247: ‘God donated
me the Wallachian land’, p.254: ‘in Câmpulung’, p.251: ‘between us’.
120 DRHII, no.98: […] ‘exempted from all services and taxes’,
‘nobody from the servants’, no.125: ‘of woods and fields’.
121 DRHII, no.125:‘he gave her to them’; T, p.255: ‘I am/we are waiting
for you’, p.255: ‘they killed him’, p.235: ‘what did you take him’, p.228:
‘you shall release them’, p.223: ‘I sent him’.
122 230 ‘to your lordship’, 229 ‘from her husband’.
123 DRHII, no. 122: ‘their family’; T, p.240: ‘his merchandise’,
p.239: ‘regarding his issue’.
124 E.g. T, p.227: ‘between you’, p.260: ‘for him’.
125 E.g. T, p.224: ‘If I will find the right man’.
126 E.g. T, p.230: ‘whatever’, p.225: ‘whomever’.
127 E.g. T, p.225: ‘nothing’, p.227: ‘who’, p.235: ‘nobody’, p.257:
‘everywhere’.
128 Eg. T, p.231: –p. 238: ‘he will come’, a unique form is p.258:
‘you will provide’.
Vladislav Knoll
248
ending is - (both in present and aorist) that can be reduced to the above-written
nal , which can be interpreted as both plural and singular. ere are examples
of an analytical comparison of adverbs (no example for adjectives)129. A rare, but
remarkable feature is the use of calqued composed prepositions130.
In the interpretation of the texts impacted by WS, one must take into con-
sideration the morphosyntactic features that are caused by the negligence of the
writers to these phenomena. We already mentioned the neglecting of the dier-
ence between nominative and accusative and the use of the common case, whose
outcome is the non-distinction of expression of the position and direction. We also
mentioned the frequent lack of distinguishing the 1st person singular and plural
of verbs, rarely found also in the 3
rd
person. In some cases, we see the confusion of
aorist, present and innitive. is is supported by the above-writing of the nal
in the 3rd person present and innitive or its simple omission131. However, the
most frequently neglected morphosyntactic feature is the agreement in case and
gender between adjective, numeral or pronoun and noun132. Otherwise, the end-
ings of the adjectives and personal pronouns are Štokavian-based. Just in a few
cases both endings are totally random.
e WS morphosyntax is the typical feature of the correspondence and actu-
ally also of horismoi, which might, however, suer some CS impact in the xed
formulas. e chrysobulls follow the CS morphosyntax, the impact of the WS
can be noted in the dispositio. An important impact of the WS morphosyntax can
be traced in Dragomir’s colophons, Argeş and Dobromir’s inscriptions, even if
these texts are patterned on CS.ese texts show a frequent use of common case
including the appositional possessive with variations shown above besides the
correct Middle CS endings. e colophon in Dragomir’s Apostolos contains
the pronoun forms (as accusative singular animate), ‘him’, ‘ w h a t ’,
l-preterite ( ‘I was looking’), analytical future and the replacement
of the innitive by the -construction133. e colophon in the Menaion for
January contains the feminine a-stem treatment of the word for ‘monastery’134.
129 E.g. T, p.225: ‘more’, p.238: ‘better’; DRHII, no.116: ‘to the lowest
place’, ‘upper’.
130 E.g. T, p.239: ‘from the side’ (Rom. de către); DRHII, no.205:
‘from my lordship’ (Rom. dinainte), no.140: ‘between sources’ (Rom. dintre).
131
E.g. T, p.225: ‘I will not leave’ (expected ), p.253:
‘your Grace believes him’ (expected ), p.244: ‘our man will come’
(this auxiliary form is otherwise used as 3
rd
plural), p.238: ‘I will pay’ (2
nd
plural instead of
infinitive), p.230: ‘silver coins should be paid to him’ (singular instead of plural).
132 E.g. T, p.224: ‘to the voivode of Transylvania’, p.225:
‘for our affair’, p.228: ‘another guilt’, p.225: ‘a necklace’, p.234:
‘no discord’, p.237: ‘to your Grace’, p.242: ‘for our need’, p.249:
‘the whole property’.
133 ‘who will try to bring it’.
134
‘to the holy monastery’. Masculine o-stem in CS, but feminine in Romanian. This
is actually the most frequently found word in Slavonic written by Romanians with a switched gender.
249
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
e second Argeş inscription contains the pronouns ‘his’ and ‘nothing’
and the use of common case135. e Teachings of Neagoe Basarab do not contain
the common case except for unique cases
136
, few cases of confusion of position and
direction137, and variation in agreement of the noun 138. ere are, however,
few forms of analytical comparative139. In a-stems, there are few Štokavian forms140.
Specically in horismoi (and of course in Neacşu’s letter), we may nd the
Romanian or mixed exional forms. ese are linked to the landscape appella-
tives or proper names of places or persons. Most frequently, we see the Roma-
nian article of the common case in the Romanian words141. e genitive-dative
ending appears rarely142. Otherwise, mixed endings ( for -lui and for -lor)
may be applied in the toponyms143. e Romanian common case endings with-
out articles resemble the Slavonic ones, even if sometimes the clearly Romanian
ending is applied144. A curious expression is used in the adjective sense
‘free; allowed’145, which can be considered a Romanian adaptation, as the Slavonic
adjective sux -*nyj is regularly borrowed as -nic.
Vo c ab u l ar y
ere are many ways to deal with the vocabulary. For our needs, we will divide
it according to the part of speech, thematic group, origin and their attestation
in Romanian146. We will present here a short overview of some typical terms
found in the original Slavonic texts.
135 2nd inscription: ‘from own officials’, ‘from your lordship’.
136 E.g. 67v ‘your treasury’, 80r ‘there is the water of life’,
76v ‘with two great damages’, 97r ‘from the emperors’, 104v
‘from voices’.
137 E.g. 13v ‘you fall on earth’, 31v ‘let us
go to that unworthy lord’, 32v ‘you are sitting at the table’.
138 42v ‘my sweet servant’, 43v ‘my beloved servant’.
139 44r ‘higher’, 48r ‘lower’, 94r ‘ mor e’.
140 Acc. pl. 27v , 27v ‘with right service’, but also Šumadija-Vojvodina forms 29r
‘at the table’, 89v ‘to Eve’, otherwise absent in WS.
141 DRHII, no.156: ‘the peak’, ‘the plateau’, ‘the lake’, ‘the border sign’, no.184:
‘the hill’, no.156: ‘the valley’, no.142: ‘with the villages’, no.132:
‘the plateaux and the meadows’.
142 DRHII, no.135: ‘monastery of postelnic Radu’.
143 E.g. DRHII, no.156: ‘mud peak’ (piscul glodului), ‘mine peak’ (piscul
minelor), no.208: ‘mud meadow’ (lunca glodului), no.146:
‘of Stanciu logofăt’, no.208: ‘rook hillock’ (predealul corbului).
144 DRHII, no.161: ‘meadows’.
145 T, p.257: ‘they are free to sell’.
146 We are aware this criterion is very tricky as all fully Romanian texts were created after the period
we are evaluating, but still we consider such consideration is valid. As the reference point for the at-
testation, we choose the database https://dexonline.ro/.
Vladislav Knoll
250
e rst group of terms will concern the titles and functions147. Here we may
distinguish the following types:
• Old terms attested already in Old Church Slavonic148: () ‘lord,
head of a country’149, ‘boyar, nobleman’150, ‘boyar’s title’151,
‘(Ottoman) sultan’152, ‘voivode’153, ‘king (of Hungary)’154,
‘judge, mayor’155, ‘secretary of the chancellery, grămătic’156.
• Terms of Byzantine origin borrowed at least partly through the mediation of
the Bulgarian and Serbian state organization: ‘court ocial in charge of the
provisioning’157, ‘commander of cavalry’158, ‘head of nance’159,
147 As the lexemes denoting titles and functions are very frequent especially in the documents, we
note just one attestation.
148 Here and further, if the term is attested in OCS, it means it can be found in the database Old
Church Slavonic Dictionary, [in:]GORAZD. The Old Church Slavonic Digital Hub, ed.Š. P,
Prague 2016–2020. Online: http://gorazd.org/gulliver/ [28 IV 2021]. The spelling corresponds to the
usual form attested in the documents.
149 T, p.223. In Latin corresponding to dominus (I, p.243). The typical form of ad-
dress related to this title is () ‘lordship’, translated into Latin as Dominacio (I,
p.221), eventually dominium ‘dignity of being lord’ (I p.243). The self-addressing in the Latin
letters is just nos ‘we’. In Romanian corresponding to domn.
150 T, p.251, in a Latin document as boyero (I, p.243). Romanian boier.
151 DRHII, no.94.
152 T, p.261. In Latin imperator Turcorum (I, p.240) or even Imperator Cesar Turco-
rum (I, p.243). In Neacşu’s letter .
153 T, p.261, in Latin waywoda (I, p. 218), there is also a neologism Waywodatum
‘function of the voivode’ (I, p.246), Romanian voevod, voivod, voivodă, etc.
154 T, p.262. Corresponding to Latin rex (I, p.243). ‘His majesty’ is denoted, on the
same place as ‘holy crown’.
155 DRHII, no.116; T, p.223, in Latin iudex (I, p.222). Romanian jude, cf.Diciona-
rul elementelor românești din documente slavo-române 1374–1600, ed.G.B, București 1981,
p.117 since 1409 in Moldavia, 1510 in Wallachia.
156 DRHII, no.103, in no.114 translated as , in no.161 as .
157 T, p. 236. Cf. Dicionarul…, p. 52 (Moldavia and Wallachia) comis; .
,
.
, , 2005, p.205–206 (Bulgaria); Lexikon zur by-
zantinischen Gräzität, vol.IV, ed.E.T et al., Wien 1994–2017 (cetera: LBG), p.852 κόη ‘Graf’.
158 DRHII, no.100; Teachings 28v, in Latin spatarius (I, p. 218) or zpatayr (I, p. 221).
Cf.Dicionarul…, p.219 spătar (Moldavia and Wallachia); , [in:]Cyrillometho-
diana, https://histdict.uni-sofia.bg/dictionary/show/d_08826 [28IV 2021]; LBG, vol.VII, p.1588:
σπαθάριο.
159 DRHII, no.100; Teachings 59r, less (T, p. 262), in a Latin document vizter
(I, p.238). Cf.Dicionarul…, p.261–262 vistiar (Wallachia), vistiarnic (Moldavia); LBG, vol.II,
p.275 βεστιάριο ‘ein Hofbeamter’.
251
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
‘head or ocial of the chancellery’160, ‘master of court ceremo-
nies’161, ‘envoy’162, ‘court ocial in charge of the court protocol’163.
• Terms attested in the Bulgarian or Serbian context: ‘head of a group
of courtiers’164, ‘lord, owner’165, ‘court ocial in charge of the
food storage’166.
• Terms taken or adapted from the Hungarian (respectively Transylvanian)
administration: ‘administrator of Oltenia’167, ‘owner of the neigh-
bouring domain’168, ‘mayor’169, ‘head of an administrative
district’170, ‘town councillor’171.
160 T, p.262. In a Latin document, the 2nd logofăt is denoted as vicecancellarius. Also in OCS,
as Serbian official cf..
, , vol.II, 1863,
p.18. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.126–127 logofăt (Wallachia and Moldavia); LBG, vol.V, p.945 λογοθέ-
τη ‘Vorsteher einer Kanzlei’.
161 DRHII, no.118. Cf..
, , vol.III,
1864, p.184; .
, .
, …, p. 359 ; LBG, vol. VII, p. 1621
στράτωρ ‘Stallmeister’.
162 T, p.261; Teachings 37r, also 18v ‘delegation’. Both terms also in .
, …, vol.II, p.345–346 (Serbian and Ottoman chancellery). The term is attest-
ed also in Moldavia, cf. V–V ., vol.I–II, ed...,
1977–1978, p.178. Cf..
, .
, …, p.61 (Bulgaria),
2, 178; LBG, vol.I, p.169 ποκρισιάριο ‘Gesandter’.
163 DRHII, no.132, also spelled 232 (T, p.232). Cf.Dicionarul…, p.190 portar
(Wallachia and Moldavia); LBG, vol.VI, p.1354 πορτάρη ‘Pförtner’.
164 T, p.243; Teachings 28v. Cf..
, .
, …, p.90 (Bulgaria);
Dicionarul…, p.257 vătah (Wallachia and Moldavia).
165 Teachings 71r 85v, comp. Romanian stăpân, Bulgarian (), cf.
, vol.VII, 2013, p.477–478.
166 DRHII, no.116. Cf. .
, , vol.I,
1863, p.450 ‘claviger’; , https://histdict.uni-sofia.bg/dictionary/show/d_03725;
Dicionarul…, p.48 clucer (Wallachia only), in Moldavia , cf.…, vol.I, p.477.
167 T, p.262, also in Dobromir’s inscription. Cf.Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungari
schen,
ed.L. B, Budapest 1992–1995, p.77 ‘Ban’. Dicionarul…, p.11 (Wallachia only);
.
,
…, vol.I, p.25 for lord of Bosnia, Croatia and a Dubravnik official.
168 DRHII, no.114, also spelled (DRHII, no.116). Cf.Dicionarul…, p.140 megiaş; Magyar
nyelvtörténeti szótár a legrégibb nyelvemlékektől a nyelvújításig, vol.II, ed.G.S, Z.S,
Budapest 1891, p.720 megyés ‘habens districtum, circuitum’.
169 T, p.261. Cf.Magyar nyelvtörténeti…, vol.II, p.791 polgármester ‘c o n s u l ’.
170 T, p.261. Cf.Etymologisches…, p.1189 porkoláb ‘Burgvogt’; Magyar nyelvtörténeti…,
vol.II, p.1315 ‘castellanus’; Dicionarul…, p.179–180 pârcălab (Moldavia and Wallachia).
171 T, p.223, in Latin consul (I, p.221). Cf. Etymologisches…, p.1182 polgár; Mag-
yar nyelvtörténeti…, vol.II, p.1307 ‘civis’; Dicionarul…, p.181 pârgar (Wallachia, exceptionally
Moldavia).
Vladislav Knoll
252
• Specic terms used in Wallachia and Moldavia: ‘head of state admin-
istration’172, ‘master of court ceremonies’173, ‘court ocial
responsible for the provisioning of meat’174, ‘military ocial in charge
of the provisioning of military campaigns with the tents and weapons’175,
‘court ocial in charge of the provisioning of voivode’s table’176,
‘any ocial in charge of the execution of voivode’s will’177, ‘border sur-
veyor’178, ‘court ocial in charge of the wine cellars’179,
‘court ocial in charge of the provisioning with bread’180.
• Terms specically used in the Teachings: ‘courtier’181,
‘condant’182.
is type of terms appears in all acts, always in the corroboratio contain-
ing the list of the members of the voivodal council. Less regularly, but still fre-
quently, they can be found in the letters (both Slavonic and Latin ones) and other
original texts, where an ocial is involved: the inscriptions (ktetor or defuncted
person), colophons (orderer) and the Teachings of Neagoe Basarab.
e terms related to the war are much less frequent. ey mostly appear
in the letters, the border agreement, eventually in the corresponding parts of the
Teachings. e most typical terms found in the texts in question are
‘conict’
183
and ‘enemy’
184
. Very specic terms can be found in the Teach-
ings: 54v
‘simple soldiers’185, 56r ‘core of the army’186, 74v
172 T, p.262, also in Dobromir’s inscription. In a Latin document spelled dwornick (I,
p.221). Cf.Dicionarul…, p.72–73.
173 DRHII, no.99. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.191–192. A more recent term for .
174 DRHII, no.135, also spelled (no.165). Cf.Dicionarul…, p.225–226 sulger (Wallachia and
Moldavia).
175 DRHII, no.99. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.230 şetrar.
176 DRHII, no.99. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.223 stolnic.
177 DRHII, no.99. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.112 ispravnic.
178 DRHII, no.208. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.107–108 hotarnic.
179 DRHII, no.100. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.167–168 păharnic.
180 DRHII, no.139, in a Latin document pytar/pyttar (I, p.238). Cf.Dicionarul…, p.177 pitar.
181 Teachings 57v. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.62 curtean.
182 Teachings 28v. Romanian credincer.
183 T, p.255, in the border agreement (DRHII, no.194) with the morphological variants
(T, p.255; Teachings 53r) and (Teachings 50v). Cf.
in Moldavian (…, vol.II, p.287), Serbian and Ottoman documents (.
, -
…, vol.II, p.27). Cf.Dicionarul…, p.200 răzmiriă.
184 T, p.223. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.265 vrăjmaş.
185 Cf.…, vol.I, p.251 ‘crowd, group’, Romanian gloată.
186 OCS ‘guard, watch’, Romanian strajă.
253
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
‘battalion’187, 28v ‘mercenaries’188, 60r ‘re weapons’189. A curious
lexeme is ‘distance covered by a shot of an arrow’190. A specic lexeme,
denoting a person provoking a conict is ‘bandit’191.
e largest terminological group concerns the administration, law, trade and
nance, which are hardly dividable. From the perspective of the origin of the term,
we can distinguish the following types:
• Terms attested in the Old Church Slavonic corpus or found in various Slavonic
varieties: ‘inherited property’192, ‘tax’193, ‘seal’194, ‘ser-
vice, attendance’195, ‘inherited domain’196, ‘property’197,
‘cellar’198, ‘load, property’199, ‘tax in kind’200.
• Terms of Byzantine origin mediated via Bulgarian and/or Serbian admin-
istration: ‘monastery property out of the monastery complex’201,
187 Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.115 ‘agmen’; , [in:]Cyrillomethodiana,
https://histdict.uni-sofia.bg/evtdict/evt_show/d_04684; LBG, vol.VII, p.1566 σκπρον ‘Schwadron’.
188 Cf.Dicionarul…, p.124 lefegiu.
189 Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.320 ‘fragores’.
190 DRHII, no.161. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.177 pistreală.
191 T, p.227, also in Neacşu’s letter as an insult. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.127–128 lotru.
192 DRHII, no.184. In this meaning used in the East Slavonic milieu, cf. -
(XI–XVII.), 14, p.64–65 , but almost absent in Moldavia, cf.Dicionarul…,
p.161 ocină.
193 T, p.257. Not used in Moldavia. Cf.OCS ‘contributing; bribe’. Romanian dajdie, dajde.
Not used in Moldavia.
194 T, p.260. Also in OCS.Cf.Dicionarul…, p.172 pecete.
195 DRHII, no.116. Also in OCS, Romanian slujbă.
196 DRHII, no.122. Romanian dedină. Cf.…, vol.I, p.335 (Moldavia); .
, -
…, vol.I, p.325 (Serbia); …, 14, p.64 (East Slavonic milieu).
197 T, p.260. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.285 ‘facultates’; .
, .
, …, p.138 ‘gain, profit’; …, vol.I, p.305; Romanian dobitoc ‘c a t t l e ’.
198
DRH II, no. 94. Romanian pivniă. Attested in Ruthenian since 1489 (…, vol.II,
p.144–145).
199 DRHII, no.160. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.294 ‘onus’; …, vol.II, p.433
‘merchandise; cattle; property’ (in Moldavia and Wallachia), Romanian (Banat) tovar ‘load’.
200 DRHII, no.109. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.160 obroc (Moldavia and Wallachia); .
, -
…, vol.II, p.191 ‘stipendium; viaticum’.
201 DRHII, no.185. Cf..
, .
, …, p.185; .
, …,
vol.II, p.59 ‘terra monasterio subjecta’; Dicionarul…, p.141 metoh; LBG, vol.V, p.1017 ετόχιον
‘Dependance eines Klosters’.
Vladislav Knoll
254
‘silver coin’202, ‘golden coins’203, ‘dowry’204, 205, ‘rural
area’206, ‘pieces’207,
• Other terms attested in the Bulgarian or Serbian context: ‘tithe’208,
‘esche at’209, ‘service’210, ‘ne’211, ‘tax’212, ‘simple
subject of a ruler’213, ‘administrative unit’214, ‘income’215,
‘water mill’216, ‘expense’217, ‘with increase, as
a wholesale’218, ‘justice; just amount’219.
202 T, p.238. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.19 ; Dicionarul…, p.7 aspru; LBG,
vol.II, p.217 σπρον ‘Sibermünze’.
203 DRHII, no.98. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.285 ; Dicionarul…, p.173 perper
‘ancienne monnaie utilisée dans la Valachie’; LBG, vol.VIII, p.1867 πέρπερον ‘Goldmünze’.
204 DRHII, no.129. Cf.F.M, Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum, Vindobonae 1862–
1865, p.668 ; …, vol.V, p.714 , ; LBG, vol.VIII, p.6, 1395 προί-
κιον ‘Mitgift’.
205 DRHII, no.94. Cf..
, .
, …, p.266; .
, …,
vol.II, p.229 ‘decretum’ (in a Bulgarian document); G.W.H.L, A Patristic Greek Lexi-
con, Oxford 1961, p.973 ρισό ‘decree’.
206 DRHII, no.98. Cf..
, .
, …, p.397 ‘Bulgarian administrative
unit’; .
, …, vol.I, p.419 ‘regio’; LBG, vol.VIII, p.2031 χώρα ‘Ortschaft, Dorf’.
In the Teachings, there is the expression 67r ‘of peasants’, cf.Romanian regionally horean
‘big boy; healthy boy’, https://dexonline.ro/definitie/horean.
207 DRHII, no.22 and the 2nd Argeş inscription. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.466 ‘pars,
frustum, aliquantum’; LBG, vol.IV, p.853 κοάτιν ‘Stück, Teil’.
208 DRHII, no.98. Cf..
, .
, …, p.133.
209 DRH II, no. 94. Cf. .
, .
, …, p. 318; Dicionarul…, p. 195
prădalică.
210 Teachings 33v, 37r, 69r. Cf.F.M, Lexicon…, p.156 ‘servitium’; Cyrillomethodiana (Trojan
Story).
211 DRHII, no.98. Cf..
, .
, …, p.118; .
, …,
vol.I, p.209 ‘mulcta’.
212 DRHII, no.98. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.40–41 ‘census clero praebendus’; .
,
.
, …, p.68 ; Dicionarul…, p.16–17 bir.
213 T, p.234, Teachings 28v. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.113 ‘pauper’.
214 DRHII, no.108. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.199 ‘conventus, terra judicis’, whence the
current Romanian jude ‘county’.
215 Teachings 41r. Cf. .
, .
, …, p.143; .
, …,
vol.I, p.296–297 ‘reditus, tributum’.
216 DRHII, no.122. Cf..
,
.
,
…, p.98; .
, …,
vol.I, p.144 ‘mola aquaria’.
217 DRHII, no.109. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.142 ‘expensa’.
218 T, p.257, 262 (homage act). The form may have been created both from an o-stem or
a-stem. Cf.Štokavian dignuti, Bulgarian ‘to raise’, …, p.386.
219 T, p.262. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.409–410 ‘jus, justitia; justa’.
255
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
• Terms taken from the Hungarian administration: ‘toll’220, ‘tithe’221,
‘payment in kind’222, ‘border’223, ‘town’224, ‘owne r’225,
‘expense’226, ‘merchandise’227, ‘Hungarian oreni’228,
• Specic Wallachian and Moldavian terms: ‘agreement’229, 249
‘tax from sheep and pigs’230,
• Specic Wallachian terms: ‘inalienable heritable property’231, ‘ser f ’232,
‘collectors of a specic tax’233, ‘wine tax’234.
A linguistically very specic group of terms comprises the professions and mer-
chandise. A specic Wallachian term, integrated into the local Slavonic, is
‘jewellery, treasury’235. Another typical term, this time of the Bulgarian origin,
comprises ‘clothing’236.
220 T, p.262, 2nd Argeş inscription. Etymologisches…, p.1603 vám ‘Zollstelle; Abgabe für
Waren’; Dicionarul…, p.253–254 vamă. A linked substantive is DRHII, no.108 ‘income
of a customs point’, cf.Dicionarul…, p.257 vămeșerie.
221 DRHII, no.98. Etymologisches…, p.259 dézsma; Dicionarul…, p.68 dijmă. From this lexeme, the
term ‘collectors of taxes’ on the same place is derived. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.68.
222 DRHII, no.98. Cf.Magyar nyelvtörténeti…, vol.II, p.776 mérték ‘mensura, metrum; modius;
pondus’; .
, …, vol.II, p.105 ‘demensum’; Dicionarul…, p.140 ‘ration;
don annuel en nature ou en espèces; messure de capacité pour les grains’.
223 DRHII, 140. Dicionarul…, p.105–107 hotar (both Wallachia and Moldavia); Etymologisches…,
p.537 határ.
224 T, p.251; DRHII, no.140, 161. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.102; Etymolo-
gisches…, p.1609 város. On DRHII, no.175, there is also the derivation ‘burghers’.
225 T, p.260. Cf.Etymologisches…, p.450–451 gazda ‘Hauswirt; 1544 Verwalter; 1570
Besitzer’; Dicionarul…, p.89 hôte.
226 T, p.260. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.40 chelciug; Etymologisches…, p.815 költség.
227 T, p.234. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.51 ‘merx’; Etymologisches…,
p.938 marha ‘Vermögen; bewegliches Gut’.
228 DRHII, no.108. Dicionarul…, p.82 florin.
229 DRHII, no.196. Cf.…, vol.II, p.435 .
230 T, p.249. Cf.…, vol.I, p.253; Dicionarul…, p.95.
231 DRHII, no.184. Dicionarul…, p.163–164. In most documents replaced by .
232 DRHII, no.98. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.258 vecin.
233 DRHII, no.98; Dicionarul…, p.192 povodnicar.
234 DRHII, no.98; Dicionarul…, p.260 vinarici.
235 Teachings 48v and the 2nd Argeş inscription.
236 T, p.246. …, vol.VI, p.353.
Vladislav Knoll
256
Further terms are rather occasionalisms:
• professions: ‘jeweller’237 ‘tailor’238, ‘crasman’239,
• merchandise: 240 ‘wheels of vehicle’, ‘old units of measure-
ment’241, 242 ‘pearl necklace’, ‘of stoat’243, ‘casting
forms’244, ‘armours’245, ‘horse harness’246, ‘saddles’247,
‘lead’248.
One must mention the very curious phonological adaptation of the lexeme
‘pig’249. All these terms appear mostly in the letters, rarely in other texts.
A very specic semantic group are the lexemes describing the landscape. Such
words can be divided into the following types:
• General Slavonic (or OCS) terms: ‘top of a hill’250, ‘desert’251,
‘cave’252, ‘riparian forest’253, ‘oak forest’254, ‘valley’255,
‘brook’256, ‘border sign’257, ‘little lake; pond’258, ‘river mouth’259,
‘little lake’260, ‘vineyard’261.
237 T, p. 225. Linked to the Greek αγγανεία ‘trickery’, while αγγανάρι is used for
‘mechanical engineer’. Cf.G.W.H.L, A Patristic…, p.818.
238 DRHII, no.146. Dicionarul…, p.59 croitor.
239 T, p.224. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.43 ‘opifex’; …, vol.III, p.617.
240 T, p.243. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.202 roată ‘wheel’.
241 T, p.207. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.76 falce.
242 T, p. 225. Homophonous to ‘brook’, metonymy linked to ‘throat’. Cf.
.
, …, vol.I, p.241 ‘guttur’.
243 T, p.246. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.104 helge.
244 T, p.225. Dicionarul…, p.236 tipar ‘moule, matrice’.
245 T, p.243. Dicionarul…, p.102 ham ‘harnais’.
246 T, p.243. Dicionarul…, p.233 ştreang ‘courroie d’attelage’.
247 T, p.243. Dicionarul…, p.235 tarniă.
248 T, p.238, 242. Dicionarul…, p.55 cositor.
249 T, p.252.
250 DRHII, no.140. Romanian vârf.
251 Teachings 110v. An OCS lexeme. Romanian pustie.
252 Teachings 110v. An OCS lexeme. Romanian peşteră.
253 DRHII, no.105. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.21 ‘nemus’.
254 DRHII, no.105. Dicionarul…, p.71–72 dumbravă.
255 DRHII, no.105. Cf. .
, …, vol.I, p.289 ‘vallis’. Romanian dolină ‘a hollow
or basin in a karstic region’.
256 DRHII, no.105. Romanian of Banat potoc.
257 DRHII, no.105. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.22 stâlp.
258 DRHII, no.141. Dicionarul…, p.110 iaz.
259 DRHII, no.143. An OCS lexeme.
260 DRHII, no.106 and 183. In OCS ‘swamp, mud’. Romanian baltă.
261 DRHII, no.161. Already in OCS.
257
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
• Lexemes of South Slavonic origin attested in Romanian: ‘brook’262,
‘slope’263, ‘small bank’264, ‘top of the hill’265, /
‘forest or place forbidden for hunting or shing’266, ‘upper part
of a watercourse’267, ‘source’268, ‘ridge’269, ‘slope’270,
‘whirlpool’271.
• Greek terms mediated through South Slavonic: ‘meadows’272,
‘garden’273.
• Slavonic terms not attested in Romanian: ‘small river’
274
, ‘m outain’
275
,
‘ford’
276
, ‘f orest’
277
, ‘eld’
278
, ‘pear tree’
279
, ‘mountain’
280
,
262 T, p.256. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.92 gârlă. , https://ibl.bas.bg/
rbe/lang/bg// ‘place where the groundwater flows up on the surface’.
263 DRHII, no.105. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.160 obrejie ‘colline, taules, pente, flanc de coteau’. -
…, vol.IV, p.754 ‘path to the steep top, highlands’.
264 DRHII, no.105. Cf. .
, …, vol. I, p.217 ‘collis’. Romanian in Banat gomilă
‘small uplift of earth or stones, made to serve as a boundary between two places’.
265 DRHII, no.105. Cf. …, vol.VI, p.867 ‘beam’; Dicionarul…, p.216 ‘sommet d’une
montagne, crête’.
266 DRHII, no.144. Cf.…, p.74; Dicionarul…, p.21–22.
267 Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.192 ‘collis’; .
, .
, -
…, p.262 ‘highlands’.
268 DRHII, no.120. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.395 ‘fons’.
269 DRHII, no.143. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.429 ‘rupes’; .
, .
,
…, p.398 ‘ridge’.
270 DRHII, no.156. Dicionarul…, p.194 pripor ‘pente, versant raide, talus’. Cf.…, vol.V,
p.760 ‘steep place’.
271 DRHII, no.156. Dicionarul…, p.264 vârtej. Cf. , https://ibl.bas.bg/
rbe/lang/bg// ‘going around’.
272 DRHII, no.161. Dicionarul… p.125 livadă ‘verger; prairie’. Cf..
, …, vol.II,
p.11 ‘pratum’; .
, .
, …, p.219; G.W.H.L, A Patristic…, p.801
λιβάδιον ‘marshy place, damp meadow’.
273 DRHII, no.161. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.284 ‘hortus’; .
,
.
, …, p.279 ‘garden; court’; LBG, vol.VI, p.1267 περιβόλη ‘Garten’.
274 DRHII, no.105 and 106. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.27 ‘palus’; …, vol.I,
p.32 ‘small river, waterlogged place’.
275 T, p.244. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.309–310 ‘mons’; …, vol.II,
p.150 (Moldavia).
276 DRHII, no.122. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.79 ‘vadum’.
277 DRHII, no.105, 107, 120. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.492 ‘silva’.
278 DRHII, no.105. In OCS.
279 DRHII, no.105. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.497 ‘pirus’.
280 DRHII, no.105. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.80 ‘mons’; .
, .
,
…, p.83.
Vladislav Knoll
258
‘linden’281, ‘to the top’282, ‘a sh’283, ‘well’284, ‘threshing
oor’285, ‘oak’286.
• Slavonic lexemes adapted to Romanian: ‘river meadow’287, ‘c lear-
ing’288, ‘on the lake’289, ‘plateaux’290, ‘orchards’291,
‘the hill’292, ‘marshy place’293, ‘pasturage’294,
• Specic Romanian lexemes: ‘r’295, ‘beech’296, (dâmbul) ‘the hil-
lock’297, ‘depression on the top of a hill’298, ‘the top of the
mountain’299, ‘apiar y’300, ‘tren ch’301, ‘the hillock’302,
‘the valley’303.
Among the abstract terms, we can mention those that are not limited to the
religious sphere, but also appear in the documents or in other original works.
Among such, we will mention:
281 DRHII, no.105. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.13 ‘tilia’.
282 DRHII, no.105. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.66–67 ‘apex’.
283 DRHII, no.105. , https://ibl.bas.bg/rbe/lang/bg//.
284 DRHII, no.208. In no.112 and 156, there is the form . Cf..
, …,
vol.I, p.444 ‘p u t e u s ’.
285 DRHII, no.178. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.244 ‘area’; …, vol.I, p.294
‘threshing floor, stackyard’.
286 DRHII, no.184. OCS .
287 DRH II, no. 107. In the no. 132, there is the Romanian plural . Cf. Dicionarul…,
p.128 luncă.
288 DRHII, no.118. On DRHII, no.184, there is a spelling variant , on DRHII, no.119, the
Romanian plural . Cf.Dicionarul…, p.186 poiană.
289 DRHII, no.105. Dicionarul…, p.111 iezer, OCS , .
290 DRHII, no.132. Dicionarul…, p.182 plai ‘plateau d’une haute montagne’.
291 DRHII, no.132. Dicionarul…, p.206 sad ‘jeune vigne, verger’.
292 DRHII, no.184. Dicionarul…, p.65 deal.
293 DRHII, no.105. Dicionarul…, p.58 crivină.
294 DRHII, no.105. Dicionarul…, p.168 pajişte. Cf.OCS ‘grass, pasture, lawn’, also .
, .
, …, p.274.
295 DRHII, no.105. Dicionarul…, p.21 brad.
296 DRHII, no.208. Dicionarul…, p.76 fag.
297 DRHII, no.165. Dicionarul…, p.69 dâmb; Etymologisches…, p.272 domb ‘Hügel; Erdauf-
schüttung’.
298 DRHII, no.156. Dicionarul…, p.62 curmătură.
299 DRHII, no.156. Dicionarul…, p.175–176 pisc(ul).
300 DRHII, no.178. Dicionarul…, p.225 stupină.
301 DRHII, no.184. Dicionarul…, p.205 ruptură ‘rupture; fondrière’.
302 DRHII, no.105. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.136 măgură.
303 DRHII, no.105. Dicionarul…, p.251–253 vale(a).
259
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
• Words attested in Old Church Slavonic: ‘dama ge’ 304, ‘insult’305,
‘following the habit’306, ‘hope’307, ‘time’308, ‘age’309,
‘glory’310, ‘praise’311, ‘need’312, ‘dispute, accusation’313,
• Words of Greek origin: ‘anger’314, ‘base’315, ‘to
thank’316, ‘disturbance’317, 318,
• South Slavonic lexemes: ‘violence’319, ‘reason’320, ‘trace’321,
‘sign’322,
• Church Slavonic lexemes absent in Romanian: ‘disput e’323,
• Specic Romanian words: ‘occasion’324.
304 T, p.260. Romanian pagubă.
305 Teachings 58r. Romanian hulă.
306 DRHII, no.97. Romanian obicei.
307 Teachings 50v. Romanian nădejde.
308 DRHII, no.109. Romanian vreme.
309 DRHII, no.109. Romanian veac.
310 DRHII, no.109. Romanian slavă.
311 DRHII, no.131. Romanian pohfală.
312 T, p.258, Romanian nevoie. Teachings 59r . Romanian a avea nevoie
‘to need’.
313 DRHII, no.143. Romanian pâră.
314 DRHII, no.98, Teachings 32r. Cf..
, .
, …, p.266; .
,
…, vol.I, p.230 (in a Bulgarian document); G.W.H.L, A Patristic…, p.970 ργή.
315 Teachings 25r. .
, …, vol.III, p.286 ‘fundamentum’; G.W.H.L, A Patris-
tic…, p.623 θεέλιον ‘foundation’.
316 Teachings 72r. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.408 ‘gratia’, Romanian har.
317 T, p.225; DRHII, no.143. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.114 ‘scan-
dalum’; G.W.H. L, A Patristic…, p.1235 σκάνδαλον ‘obstacle; difficulty; offence’, Romanian
scandal.
318 T, p.234; DRHII, no.161. Cf.…, vol.III, p.768 ‘I make a mistake;
I hinder’ from Greek ετέχω ‘I participate’.
319 T, p.229. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.381 ‘violentia’. There is a variant
at the same place.
320 T, p.246. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.25–26 ‘ratio; argumentum’. Romanian
archaic răzlog ‘advice’.
321 DRH II, no.105. Cf. , https://www.srpskirecnik.
com/stranica/6/248.
322 DRHII, no.105. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.100 ‘signum’. Romanian archaic
beleag ‘watchword’.
323 DRHII, no.143. With the spelling variant of no.112 and no.132 . Cf.…,
26, p.126 /.
324 Teachings 28v. Romanian prilej.
Vladislav Knoll
260
To this group, we could also order the names of months.
Separately, we must evaluate the verbs that may be divided into the follow-
ing types:
• Verbs attested both in Church Slavonic and Romanian: ‘to order, to
command’325, ‘to advice’326, ‘to nish’327, ‘it is
needed’328, 329.
• Verbs of Greek origin mediated via South Slavonic: ‘to instruct’330,
‘to witness’331.
• Verbs attested both South Slavonic and Romanian: ‘to care; to guard’
332
,
‘to execute, to arrange’333, ‘to free, to liberate’334,
‘to support materially’335, ‘to trade’336.
• Verbs diering from the form attested in Romanian by a prex: ‘to
arrange; to agree’
337
, ‘to utter’
338
, ‘to command’
339
,
325 T, p.223, 238. OCS . Romanian a porunci.
326 T, p.257. Attested in OCS.Romanian a sfătui.
327 T, p.258. Attested in OCS.Romanian a sfârşi/săvârşi.
328 T, p.243; Teachings e.g. 37v, 41v, 52v. Thus is OCS.Romanian trebuie.
329 T, p.255. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.218 ‘inimicitias suscipere’,
Romanian a se sfădi.
330 Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.283–284 ‘punire’ Romanian a pedepsi ‘to teach, to educate,
to instruct, to convict’; G.W.H.L, A Patristic…, p.996 παίδευω ‘to instruct, to educate; to train,
ro discipline; to chastise’.
331 DRH II, no. 101. Cf. …, vol.III, p.364 (17thcentury); Dicionarul…,
p.139 a mărturisi ‘avouer, déclarer, affirmer’; LBG, vol.V, p.976 αρτυρίζω ‘zum Zeugen anrufen’.
332 T, p.255. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.268 ‘custodire’.
333 T, p.237. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.420–421 ‘perficere; absolvere, compo-
nere; solvere’, Romanian a isprăvi.
334 T, p.257. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.126 ‘liberare’. Romanian
a slobozi.
335 Cf.OCS ‘to protect; to guard; to hide; to keep; to take care’; .
, …, vol.III,
p.425 ‘custodire’, Romanian hrăni ‘to sustain, to nourish, to feed’.
336 T, p.23, 262. .
, …, vol.III, p.310–311 ‘mercaturam facere’. Roma-
nian a târgui ‘to buy’.
337 T, p.227. Cf..
, …, vol. III, p.394 ‘constituere; convenire’; -
…, vol.II, p.491 . Romanian a întocmi. In the Teachings (55r), there is the deverbative
‘arrangement, agreement’. Romanian întocmire.
338 T, p.244. Romanian a besedui. Cf.…, 6, p.96–97 ‘to express; to
explain’.
339 T, p.242. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.123 ‘mandare’. Romanian a porunci.
261
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
‘to make suer’340, ‘to liberate’341, ‘I thank’342, ‘to
get impoverished’343.
• Verbs borrowed or adapted from Hungarian: ‘to bother’344,
‘to spend’345, ‘to border’346.
• Specic Romanian Slavonisms: ‘to hurry’347, ‘to serve, to
discuss’348.
• CS-lexemes with a dierent vernacular meaning not attested in Romanian:
‘to wait’349, ‘to speak’350, ‘to do’351, ‘to say’352,
‘to know’353.
• Non-CS lexemes not attested in Romanian: ‘to rob’354, ‘to
litigate’355, ‘to care’356, ‘to reach’357, ‘he made an action’358,
340 T, p.260. Cf. a, https://www.srpskirecnik.
com/stranica/2/164 ‘to expose to torment’. Romanian a munci.
341 T, p.229 with spelling variant on p.240: . Cf..
, …, vol.II,
p.235 ‘liberare’. Romanian a slobozi.
342 T, p. 223. Cf. .
, …, vol. I, p. 369 ‘gratias agere’. Old
Romanian făli ‘to praise’.
343 Teachings 41r. Linked to cf..
, …, vol.III, p.492 ‘mancus’. Romanian
a ştirbi.
344 T, p. 240. Cf. Etymologisches…, p.78 bánt ‘mißhandeln; hindern’, Romanian bântui/
băntui.
345 T, p. 260. Cf. Etymologisches…, p. 815 költ ‘verbringen (Zeit); ausgeben (Geld)’,
Romanian a cheltui.
346 DRHII, no.105. Cf.…, vol.II, p.513.
347 T, p.223.
348 Dicionarul…, p.72.
349 T, p.239. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.459 ‘exspectare’.
350 T, p.241. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.212 ‘loqui’.
351 Cf.in OCS ‘to arrange; to appoint; to turn something into something’; .
, …,
vol.III, p.398–399 ‘facere’.
352 T, p.227. OCS ‘to show; to instruct; to order; to preach’. Cf..
, …,
vol.I, p.429 ‘dicere; ostendere; monere; punire’.
353 T, p.261. Already in OCS attested as ‘to know’. In the letters, it fully replaces the verb
as in most South and East Slavonic languages.
354 DRHII, no.194. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.438 ‘latrocinari’.
355 T, p.234. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.324 ‘lamentari; conqueri’.
356 T, p.225. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.409 ‘curare’.
357 T, p.224. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.178 ‘ingredi’.
358 DRHII, no.146. .
, …, vol.I, p.269 ‘surgere’. In T, p.227
with a prefix ‘he raised’. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.332 ‘tollere’.
Vladislav Knoll
262
‘to spend’359, ‘to hinder’360, ‘to understand’361,
‘spoiled’362, ‘to put a value’363, ‘to take out’364,
‘to burden’365, ‘to break’366, () ‘to reject (an advice)’367.
Some of the above mentioned verbs create a stylistical opposition with the
stricly CS ones, e.g. vs. , vs. 368.
e correspondence and the dispositiones of other documents contain a typical
set of function words, the biggest part of which comprise the conjunctions attested
in the Serbian chancellery tradition: ‘if’369, ‘and’370, ‘that; while’371,
‘but’372, ‘until’373, ‘that’374 the adverbs ‘when’375 and ‘now’376,
‘here’377, ‘together’378, ‘even’379, ‘very’380, the prepositions
‘regarding’381, ‘by, near, at’382, the particle ‘let it’383 and the invariable
relative pronoun ‘which’
384
. In other original texts, such words appear randomly.
359 T, p.223. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.141 ‘expensa’.
360 DRHII, no.123. Cf.…, vol.III, p.768 ‘I make a mistake; I hinder’.
361 T, p.260. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.20 ‘comperire’.
362 T, p.258. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.406 ‘damnum inferre’;
, https://ibl.bas.bg/rbe/lang/bg// ‘I spend in vain; I spoil, I make something
unusable’.
363 T, p.246. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.397 ‘pretium stature’.
364 T, p.241. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.391 ‘eximere’.
365 T, p.227. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.284 ‘pondo valere’.
366 T, p.260. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.35 ‘conscindere, abolere; diruere’.
367 T, p.257. Cf.…, 13, p.247 ‘to reject’.
368 See the occurrence in the CS correspondences in the homage act.
369 E.g. T, p.223. .
, …, vol.I, p.6; .
, .
, -
…, p.58.
370
E.g. T, p.223; Teachings 28v. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.283–284 , , ‘e t ’.
371 E.g. T, p.223; Teachings 108r. In the meaning ‘because’ cf.T, p.229. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.523–526 ‘quod’.
372 E.g. T, p.255; Teachings 28r 49r. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.8 ‘sed’.
373 E.g. T, p.238; DRHII, no.122. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.288 ‘quousque’.
374 E.g. T, p.223. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.430–431 in this meaning. As the
same place also combined with as the conjunction ‘in order to’.
375 Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.516 ‘quando’.
376 E.g. T, p.241. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.232 ‘nunc’.
377 T, p.254. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.203 ‘hic’.
378 DRHII, no.175. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.370–371 ‘una’.
379 DRHII, no.140. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.292 ‘usque’.
380 T, p.228. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.109 ‘valde’.
381 E.g. T, p.229. It may be combined with as the conjunction ‘in order to’ (T,
p.230). Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.364 ‘propter’.
382 DRHII, no.146. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.461.
383 Teachings 71r. Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.140–141.
384 E.g. T, p.223. Cf..
, …, vol.III, p.483–484; .
, .
, …, p.403; …, p.564–565.
263
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
A typical expression of the dispositio of some acts is the Greek preposition
‘each, per’385. Some of these function words are clearly opposed to the CS ones as
e.g. vs. , vs. , / vs. , vs. .
e religious terms are, of course, largely present in the biblical and liturgical
writings including the Teachings, the majority of which comprise moral instruc-
tions. e documents addressed to the monasteries, colophons and inscriptions
may share a part of the strictly religious vocabulary, which comprises the titles
of clerics, religious terms, religious establishments and few, already mentioned
abstract terms. Few terms of religious contents are specic for the documents
addressed to monasteries or inscriptions, the most particular is the request of the
voivode to the monks to do in his favour 386 387 388
‘preaching with the ritual drinking of wine and cooking of wheat’389. e family
terminology is generally the Slavonic one, with the exception of the frequent Gre-
cism ‘nephew’390 and the occasionalism once appearing ‘stepson’391
of Romanian origin.
Written varieties in Wallachia
At the very end, it is needed to sum up the system of existing written lects used
in Wallachia in the second decade of the 16thcentury. It can be stated that one can
distinguish actually four varieties of Church Slavonic applied in the Wallachian
environment. e most prestigious one was the Trinovitan Church Slavonic pat-
terned on the Moldavian norm, which was the variety used in the most prestigious
books containing the biblical texts. Another variety exclusive for the manuscripts
containing shared texts was the Resavian CS. As the books containing a most
characteristic example of this variety are not signed, one cannot denitively say,
if they were just used in Wallachia and brought from abroad (Athos, Serbia, Bul-
garia) or they were copied exactly according to the Resavian models particularly
in the Western Wallachian (Oltenian) monasteries. e traces of some Trinovitan
385 DRHII, no.97 , comp. DRHII, no.108 ‘every year’. Cf.
‘quotannis’ in Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.441 and …, vol.II, p.266.
386 Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.275 ‘preces’; G.W.H.L, A Patristic…, p.1018 ‘con-
s o l a t i o n ’.
387 Cf..
, …, vol.II, p.429 ‘additamentum vini’.
388 DRH II, no.153. For cf..
, …, vol.I, p. 463 ‘frumentum coctum’;
…, vol.III, p.556 ‘boiled wheat in memory of the dead’; LBG, vol.IV, p.850 κόλλυβα
‘gekochter Weizen’.
389 For more details on this ritual, cf..,
1504. , [in:] ,
ed.. -, ., 2013, p.483–484.
390 DRHII, no.102. Cf..
, …, vol.I, p.10; LBG, vol.I, p.106 νεψιό.
391 DRHII, no.196. Cf.Dicionarul…, p.79 fiastru ‘beau-fils’.
Vladislav Knoll
264
features (especially the jer vocalization) could speak in favour of the relationship
with an earlier Trinovitan tradition or copying in Wallachia (or Bulgaria).
A little lower variety was the Wallachian Trinovitan, i.e. the variety used in both
shared and original texts (Teachings, some colophons and inscriptions) that was
patterned on the Trinovitan norm, but was submitted to a more visible inu-
ence of the bookish pronunciation (in particular > , / variation, eventually
traces of Resavian elements). A compromise variety, representing a combina-
tion of primary Resavian traits (no juses) and the secondary Trinovitan features,
can be called Wallachian Administrative Church Slavonic. Such variety could be
also used in the literature of the basic corpus, but its main eld were the Church
Slavonic parts of the documents (especially arengas and sanctions), colophons and
inscriptions. e CS production in such smaller texts is generally less attentive that
the copied texts of the basic corpus.
e variety, opposed to the Church Slavonic, i.e. to the bookish variety, is the
Wallachian Slavonic. Functionally, the Wallachian Slavonic corresponded to
the vernacular-based varieties in Slavonic speech communities including their
impact in the various types of acts392. Linguistically, the Wallachian Slavonic repre-
sented a specic, articial language of a complicated origin. It was denable by the
use of the administrative spelling generally patterned on the Serbian chancellery
tradition393. e morphology was formally based on the Štokavian and thus showed
similarities with the administrative texts issued by other contemporary chancel-
leries of the Balkans. Nevertheless, the morphosyntax was highly balkanized and
generally patterned on Romanian. is was mostly manifested by the two-case
system (opposition of the common case and dative) and especially by the spread
negligence to agreement of gender and number revealing thus a non-
Slavonic
speaker behind the text. e main components of the vocabulary were the basic
South Slavonic vocabulary, which was enriched with the Wallachian chancel
lery
terminology, comprising the inherited Bulgarian and Serbian chancellery tradi-
tions (including the Byzantine terminology absorbed by those traditions), Hun-
garian loanwords, Romanian Slavonic neologisms and rather rare words taken
directly from Romanian. Such Romanian expressions comprised mainly the land-
scape phenomena (that can be oen considered toponyms) and few occasiona-
lisms. In its purest shape, the Wallachian Slavonic appeared in the correspondence.
In the Wallachian context, we would thus dene the hybrid variety to be a com-
bination of the Church Slavonic and Wallachian Slavonic features. e most cha-
racteristic representant of this variety would be the horismoi. In the chrysobulls,
the hybrid variety or the Wallachian Slavonic is oen recognizable in the disposi-
tio. In addition, some colophons can be of hybrid character.
392 Thus, the Wallachian diplomatic trichotomy resembles to the linguistically three types of Serbian
documents as described by .
-
, …, p.448–449.
393 Thus being opposed to the Wallachian Chancellery Language of the late 14th and early 15thcentury
that was Bulgarian based.
265
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
Out of Slavonic, but not fully separated from it yet, is the Romanian writ-
ten in Cyrillic. In our period, it is represented by Neacşu’s letter, but also by the
examples of code-switching in the horismoi (description of the domain). Actu-
ally, also Neacşu’s letter represents an example of the code-switching as it con-
tains Slavonic formulas. e Latin documents represent a dierent chancellery
tradition based on the Hungarian one, which shows a minimal penetration of the
Wallachian Slavonic features, reduced practically just to onomastics and specic,
hardly translatable Wallachian titles.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
534 Documente istorice slavo-române din ara-Românească și Moldava privitóre la legăturile cu
Ardealul 1346–1603, ed.G.G.T, București 1931.
Documenta Romaniae Historica B.ara Românească, vol.I, (1247–1500), ed. P.P. P,
D.M, București 1966.
Documenta Romaniae Historica B.ara Românească, vol.II, (1501–1525), ed.Ș. Ș, O.D-
, București 1972.
Documentele privitoare la Istoria Românilor culese de Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki, vol.XV, Acte și scrisori
din arhivele orașelor ardelene (Bistria, Brașov, Sibiu), partea I, 1358–1600, ed.N.I, Bucu-
rești 1911.
Inscripiile medievale și din epoca modernă a României, vol.I, Orașul București (1395–1800),
ed.A.E, București 1965.
Inscripiile medievale și din epoca modernă a României, vol.II, Judeul istoric Argeș (sec.XIV –1848),
ed.C.B, București 1994.
Inscripiile medievale și din epoca modernă a României, vol.III, Judeul istoric Vâlcea (sec. XIV
–1848), ed.C.B, București 2005.
Învăăturile lui Neagoe Basarab către ul său eodosie. Versiunea originală, ed.G.M, Bucu-
rești 1996.
Marcea’s Tetraevangelion, Romanian National Museum of Art, 7, 1518–1519.
Moxa’s Chronicle, Russian National Library coll. 87, no.64, 1620.
Nomocanon, Library of the Romanian Academy, Ms. sl. 285, ca1505–1515.
Psaltirea Hurmuzaki I.Studiu lologic, studiu lingvistic şi ediie, ed. I. G, M. T,
Bucureşti 2005.
Stare srpske povelje i pisma, vol.I, Dubrovnik i susedi njegovi. Drugi deo, ed.L.S, Beo-
grad 1934.
Tetraevangheliarul lui Macarie 1512/2012, Târgovişte 2012.
Typikon, Library of the Romanian Academy, Ms. sl. 212, ca 1505/1515.
Viaa Sfântului Nifon patriarhul Constantinopolului, ed.T.S, “Biserica Ortodoxă Română”
55, 1937, p.5–6, 257–299.
Vladislav Knoll
266
Dictionaries
Bălgarski etimologičen rečnik, Soja 1971–.
Cyrillomethodiana, Soja 2012–, https://histdict.uni-soa.bg/textcorpus/search
D Đ., Rječnik iz književnih starina srpskih, vol.I–III, Biograd 1863–1964.
D A., R M., Gramoti na bălgarskite care, Soja 2005.
Dexonline. Dicionare ale limbii române, https://dexonline.ro/
Dicionarul elementelor româneşti din documente slavo-române 1374–1600, ed.G.B, Bucu-
reşti 1981.
Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen, ed.L.B, Budapest 1992–1995.
L G.W.H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961.
Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität, ed.E.T et al., Wien 1994–2017.
Magyar nyelvtörténeti szótár a legrégibb nyelvemlékektől a nyelvújításig, vol.I–III, ed.G.S,
Z.S, Budapest 1890–1893.
M G., Dicionar al limbii române vechi (sfârşitul sec. X –începutul sec. XVI), Bucureşti 1974.
M F., Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum, Vindobonae 1862–1865.
Old Church Slavonic Dictionary, [in:]GORAZD.e Old Church Slavonic Digital Hub, ed.Š. P ,
Prague 2016–2020, http://gorazd.org/gulliver/
Rečnik na bălgarskija ezik, https://ibl.bas.bg/rbe/
Rečnik sprskohrvatskoga kniževnog jezika, https://www.srpskirecnik.com/
Slovar’ russkogo jazyka (XI–XVIIvv.), Moskva 1975–.
Slovnyk staroukrajins’koï movy XIV–XVst., vol.I–II, ed.L.L. H, Kyïv 1977–1978.
Secondary Literature
B T., Transilvanskite (sedmigradskite) bălgari. Etnos. Ezik. Etnonimija. Onomastika. Proso-
pograi, Veliko Tărnovo 1996.
B S.B., Razyskanija v oblasti bolgarskoj istoričeskoj dialektologii, vol. I, Jazyk valašskich
gramot V–XV vekov, Moskva–Leningrad 1948.
B D.P., Diplomatica slavo-romînă, [in:] Documente privind istoria Romîniei. Introducere,
vol.II, Bucureşti 1956, p.5–227.
B D.P., Paleograa romano-slavă. Tratat şi album, Bucureşti 1978.
C D., Descriptio antiqui et hodierni status Moldaviae, Bucuresci 1872.
F R., Relaiile iugoslavo-române. Sinteză, “Lumina” 22.6, 1968, p.291–396.
G C., G N., Istorija na Bălgarija 15–19.vek, Soja 1999.
G I., M A., Originele scrisului în limba română, Bucureşti 1985.
Grammatika, ed.P.N, Rymnik 1755.
G-M J., Spisi iz istorijske lingvistike, Novi Sad 2007.
J A.I., Slavjanskija i russkija rukopisi rumynskich “bibliotek”, S.Peterburg 1905.
K V., Církevní slovanština vpozdním středověku, Praha 2019.
L E., Catalogul manuscriselor slavo-române din Braşov, Bucureşti 1985.
267
Written Languages in Wallachia during the Reign of Neagoe Basarab…
L E., D-D L., S O., Catalogul manuscriselor slavo-române din Bucureşti,
Bucureşti 1981.
L K K., G K G., Odnos crkvenoslavenskoga jezika i govornoga jezika
u hrvatskome srednjovjekovlju, “Časopis za hrvatske studije” 6, 2010, p.211–226.
M R., e Church Slavonic Language Question: an Overview (IX–XX Centuries), [in:]Aspects
of the Slavonic Language Question I, ed.R.P, H.G, New Haven 1984, p.45–65.
M L., Dako-roměnite i těchnata slavjanska pismenost’ II.Novi vlacho-bălgarski gramoti ot Bra-
šov, [in:]Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, nauka i knižnina, vol.XIII, 1896, p.3–152.
M M.S., Bălgarskite govori vRumănija, Soja 1993.
P P.P., Catalogul manuscriselor slavo-române şi slave din Biblioteca Academiei Române,
vol.II, Bucureşti 2003.
P P.P., Contribuii la istoria culturii româneşti, Bucureşti 1971.
P P.P., Manuscrisele slave din Biblioteca Academiei RPR, vol.I, Bucureşti 1959.
R M.L., Puti razvitija russkogo literaturnogo jazyka XI–XVIIvv., Moskva 2003.
R ., Istoria limbii române, Bucureşti 1968.
S V., Liturgijski elementi u povelji despotice Jelene manastiru Hilandaru iz 1504. godine, [in:]Teo-
lingvistička proučavanja slovenskih jezika, ed.J.G-M, K.K, Beograd
2013, p.473–491.
S G., Ein Damm br icht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5.–7. Jahrhunderts
im Lichte von Namen und Wörtern, München 1997.
Ș S., ara Românească, [in:]Istoria românilor, vol.IV, De la universalitatea creștină către
Europa „patriilor”, București 2001, p.409–426.
S N., Dicionar al marilor dregători din ara românească și Moldova. Sec. XIV–XVII, Bucu-
rești 1971.
T L.et al., Miniatura și ornamentul manuscriselor din colecia de artă medievală românească
a muzeului naional de artă al României, vol.II, Manuscrise slavone, un manuscris latin și unul
românesc, București 2006.
V L., G M., J B., Novo datiranje srpskih rukopisa u Biblioteci Rumunske
akademije nauka, “ ” / “Arheografski prilozi” 2, 1980, p.41–69.
Ž V.M., Istorija jazyka russkoj pis´mennosti, vol.I–II, Moskva 2017.
Vladislav Knoll
Institute of Slavonic Studies of the Czech Academy of Sciences
Department of Old Church Slavonic and Byzantine Studies
Valentinská 91/1
110 00 Praha1, Czech Republic
knoll@slu.cas.cz
© by the aut hor, licensee Univ ersity o f Lodz – Lo dz Univer sity Pre ss, Lod z, Poland. T his art icle is an
open acc ess ar ticle dis tribu ted under t he terms and c onditi ons of the C reative C ommons At tribu tion
license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)