![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Ruthenian language is more properly called Rusyn (q.v.). This disambiguation notice has been deleted by User:Yeti. The entry at Rusyn language merely reports standard language information. This is an act of vandalism. I am reverting it and shall continue to do so. Information cannot be suppressed at Wikipedia. Wetman 23:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Two complaints with respect to the first definition:
First, it seems to be equating Ruthenia and Carpatho-Ruthenia. Ruthenia includes many areas outside the Carpathians and outside Carpatho-Ruthenia. For example, "White Ruthenia", now known as Belarus.
Secondly, it seems to be equating Subcarpathian-Ruthenia (AKA Carpatho-Ukraine, AKA Transcarpathian Oblast) with Carpatho-Ruthenia. Carpatho-Ruthenia includes many areas outside Subcarpathian-Ruthenia. For example, the Lemko region in Poland and the adjacent Rusnak region in Slovakia.
The conflation of "Ruthenia" with all of the "Rus" is not history. This entry needs to be recast by a person with a good grip on history. Wetman 20:32, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There is lots of confusion about Ruthenia, Russia, Little Russia and so on. What is the reason for this confussion? Basically, Ruthenia (as well as Russia) was taken into English language from Latin language. It is a literary translation of Slavic word Rus. This word is translated into English in many forms, mainly because of the political reasons. In this article are included all meanings of the word Ruthenia: 1. Rus - area inhabited historically by all East Slavic people (united by Kiyevian Rus), translated into English usually as Russia - according to me not very precisely. 2. Former name for Ukraine - after the Muscovy changed its name to Russia (Rossiya) and area later known as Ukraine was ceded by Lithuania to Poland. 3. Carpatho-Ruthenia (Karpatskaya Rus).
It should be stressed that Ruthenia always is translation of one word: Rus. The term 'Ruthenia has been used in English (and earlier in Latin) in all these meanings.
The word Rus appeared in 9th century and means territory inhabited by Eastern Slavs. It was translated into Latin in many forms: Rossia, Rosia, Russia, Rusia, Ruthenia etc. At that times there was no confusion about the translation, because the meaning was only one. The state Kiyevian Rus was fragmentated into several duches. The western ones were subdued to Poland (Halich or Galich duchy, in 13th and 14th centuries known as Kingdom of Ruthenia - area around Lviv) and Lithuania. Eastern parts were subdued in 13th century by Tatars. The Republics of Pskov and Novogorod kept independence until end of 15th century, when were destroyed by Muscovy. The problems began in 15/16th century. The rulers of Muskovy started to call themselve Emperors and their country - Muscovy - Rossiya. In following centuries this NEW term started to be translated into English also as Russia. In the meantime the territories of historical Rus included into Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samgotia (western part of former Kiyevian Rus) were still called Rus translated into Latin (and English) as Ruthenia and its inhabitans Rusiny - Ruthenians. Grand Duchy of Lithuania basically was also a Ruthenian state as it was populated mainly by Ruthenians, its nobles were of Ruthenian origins and Ruthenian was an only official language till 1697. In the end of 18th century Russian Empire, Prussia and Austria destroyed Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The term Rus (translated as Ruthenia in Latin and English) for territories of present Ukraine (not only for its Austrian part) was used until beginning of 20th century. However because of influence of Russia on British science from 18/19th century this region has been called in English also as Little Russia.
Lets summarize: Ruthenia is always translation of the word Rus. Russia has two meanings: 1. Rus 2. Rossiya – former Muscovy (present time Russia.
The above problem does not exists in Slavic languages. The different translations into English have mainly political reasons. For example a Russian would always translate Rus as Russia. In contrary Ukrainian or Belarusian (especially nationalist) would translate this word as Ruthenia.
P.S. An article from Encyclopedia 1911 is an example how cautious we have to be when we use this source.
User:Yeti
Hi,
I removed your definition because of the following reasons:
1. This article is about definition of the word Ruthenia, not Ruthenians.
2. The definition of Ruthenians (Rusini or Rusiny), which you have taken from Encyclopedia 1911 is not used any more neither in English nor in any other language at least since the World War the First. This definition regards to Ukrainians living in the former Austria. Untill the begining of 20th century they were named Rusini or Rusiny - and translated into English as Ruthenians. The term Ukrainians was not commonly used at that times. In Austro-Hungary their official name was Rusini -(y) (Ruthenians), in Russia Little Russians (Malorusy). Their own name was Rusiny - Ruthenians. The city Lemberg (in German) is just L'viv (Polish: Lwow) in Ukraine. Today this area is included into Ukraine and is the centre of Ukrainian nationalism.
3. You have put your definition into to article about the former Rus. It has got nothing to do with Ruthenians in 1911.
It has nothing to do with my "political agenda". Please, belive me. I know what I am writing about.
Regards,
User:Yeti
I don't understand the example of and Finnish (originally Sami) of being a tribal denomination of changed ethnicity. Aren't the Sami and Suomi related? How've the Suomi been Sami who have been Suomiised? Also, this article seems to be far too subjective. Crusadeonilliteracy 14:03, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The following information has been suppressed by "publicist" User:Yeti by deleting it from the article (where I took the trouble to post his rant, though I distrust some of its misinformation), and suppressed again here on the Talk page by deleting it. This might be how it's done in Ruthenia, but not here at Wikipedia. Wikipedians may judge whether this information is accurate as history. I hope you will mention to User:Yeti how you stand on suppression of information in general. Wetman 00:28, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
Ruthenians before World War I In 1911, the Encyclopaedia Britannica characterized the Ruthenians as those Little Russians who were at that time subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The name, it was pointed out, is a form of the word Russian. The Ruthenians were separated from the bulk of Russians by the accident of two feudal Russian principalities having fallen to Lithuania, which in turn was united with Poland. At the partition of Poland in the 18th century, none of the dynastic diplomats of the great powers troubled about ethnological boundaries. The Ruthenian language is in substance like the Little Russian of the Ukraine, though it has marked differences; the most interesting dialects are those in the extreme west, which approach Slovak and that of the Huzuli in Bukovina.
In 1911, the Ruthenians numbered some three million in Galicia, Bukovina, and in the Carpathians along the edges of Hungary. Throughout Galicia the Poles formed a landed aristocracy, though in two-thirds of it Ruthenians formed the bulk of the population, while The Ruthenians were therefore under an alien yoke both politically and economically, as the Britannicas British writers recognized.
In religion the Ruthenians mostly belong to the Uniate Church, acknowledging the Pope, since the meetings at Brest in 1508, but retaining their Old Slavonic liturgy and most of the outward forms of the Greek Church. Their intellectual centre was Lvov, which the Austrians called "Lemberg", where some lectures in the university were being given in Ruthenian, and they were agitating for it to have equal rights with Polish. Yet there Little Russian was freer than in imperial Russia, and in Lvov/Lemberg it found the centre of its literature.
User:Yeti responds at Wetman's Talk page (copy-and-pasted verbatim) as follows: User:Wetman, I do not understand what are you writing about. You have copied into the article about Ruthenia an article about entirely different subject. To be worse this article didn't match the present day reality at all. Including information from encyclopedia 1911 in this subject is ridiculous. I explained you why. Unfortunatelly I did not receive any answer from you. You did not start any discuss and you began to threaten me. You also removed my corrections without a word of explanation. Your behaviour is rude and I am shocked because of this. I thought that Wikipedia is a tool of serious discuss of adult people. Mayby I am wrong? I am afraid you are the problem user, not me. If you do not stop behave like a child I will report you as a Problem User.
The article describing Ruthenia as it was reported in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with the source for the material attributed, has been edited for irrelevant content and recast.If User:Yeti would follow up with an report of what was actually mistaken in this capsule view of the Western European of Ruthenia before World War I, we'd be getting a more balanced view of a part of Ruthenian history. More balanced perhaps than a view of a Greater Ruthenia that stretched to the Urals, as Yeti would have us believe. Perhaps this is a language-barrier issue and can be resolved. I am certainly not cowed by offensive threats.
BTW the small urban middle class before World War I was Jewish or German. The Germans must have been moved out. Perhaps Yeti would like to tell the story of Ruthenia's vanished Jews. Wetman 15:01, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Dear Wetman. The meanings of the name of Rus' - translated into English as Ruthenia or (ancient) Russia - were explained in this article and you could find some information in many others in Wikipedia. Please read the following: Ruthenians, Kievan Rus', Ukraine, Ukrainian, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Belarusian, Belarus. Unfortunately, that is not my fault that this name has been used through centuries in many contexts. Why ask me about Jews? Do you think I am responsible for their extinction in Central Europe? User:Yeti
In Slavic languages, the suffix "-in" is one of possible ways for deriving a word to dnote a person of given nationality: "Rus" -> rusin (i.e., a person of Rus, tribe or land), Bialorus -> bialorusin, "mordva"(people of Mordovia) -> "mordvin", Gruzia (Georgia) -> "gruzin"; just like English -> Englishman. Now, the land of "rusins" ("ruthenes") becomes "Ruthenia". And then further, inhabitants of Ruthenia become "Ruthenians". For a person who feels languages, this looks as bizarre, as a chain Englas -> England -> English -> Englishman -> Englishmanland -> Englishmanlander. One may think that my example is funny and artificial, but right now the word "ingermanlander" is coined by modern ignoramuses and has already popped up in google.
Please keep the above in mind when discussing "correct" name and "correct" attribution. Mikkalai 04:44, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Mikkalai. Have a look into the Wetman's work on Carpathian Ruthenia. Real curiosum. User:Yeti
I recently tried to copy-edit this article. A few phrases were sufficiently unclear that I do not think I can render them fairly and clearly. Would someone who knows the topic please fix:
This language is usually described in literature as: Ruthenian or Old Belarusian. As far as I know it was just early stage of Belarusian language with some Old Slavonic (Orthodox) influence. Yeti 00:45, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2. "...the territories of present-day Ukraine (not only the Austrian-ruled part)." As this stands, the parenthetical clause seems to refer to the (once Austrian-ruled part of present-day Ukraine. Is that the intent? If so, OK, but I suspect what it meant to say was "...the territories of present-day Ukraine (not only the Austrian-ruled part of the historic "Rus")." If the latter is what is meant, please edit accordingly, if not, please note here so that I know someone has addressed my question.
Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel 01:51, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion but I didn't intend to past this fragment into article so there is some mess. As you know the name of Rus has a few meanings. One of them was given untill beginning of 20th century to present day Ukraine and the own name of present day Ukrainians was Rusini or Rusiny (Ruthenians). The name Ukrainians was introduced in 19th century and was not commonly used untill beginning of 20th century. The former Ruthenians-Ukrainians used to live as well in Austria-Hungary (Galicia, Carpathian or Hungarian Ruthenia) as in Russia. I did not mean the historic Rus' in this case, but simply present day Ukraine. Yeti 01:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. Another ambiguity: "It takes its name from the Ruthenes (also called Rusyns, Rusins, Carpatho-Rusin, or Russniaks), a small Slavonic people related to the Ukrainians and Slovaks." What is meant by "a small Slavonic people"? Presumably not small in stature. Is "small Slavonic" a term like "Little Russian" that I just happn not to know? Or does this simply mean a Slavonic people who are few in number? Clarification highly welcomed. -- Jmabel 07:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No. It is just a small Slavonic ethnic group. Little Russians (Malorusy)is an ethnic name given by Russians to present time Ukrainians. For more explanations see: Ruthenians - the third definition.Yeti
4. While I am reaising issues, here's an orthographical issue. Would someone who knows what they are doing please get the typography right about "Rus", "Rus'", and "Ruś"? Yes, there is an article entitled Kievan Rus', but that's presumably just because we can't get "ś" into a title in this crippled English-language wiki. I would guess it should be referred to as Kievan Ruś, but I don't really know for sure, so someone else should make these edits.
I think that the proper best will be: Rus'. Rus is simplification and "Ruś" is Polish typography.Yeti
5. And to continue in an orthographical vein, it would really be appropriate to write words also (not instead, also) in Cyrillic where that is the way they would commonly be written.
-- Jmabel 07:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Basically, the article is clearly getting out of control :-). Maybe should be reduced to disambiguation page with links to different meanings of the name Rus'? User:Yeti
From the article: "...British (originally Celts)..." is not really on the mark. The Celts who were the "Britons" of Roman times are now, more or less, the Welsh, Cornish, and even Bretons. The people now known as the "British" are a mixed lot, as the term includes the Scots (a term that originally derives from a name for Ireland!), the descendents of the (Germanic) Anglo-Saxons, the Cornish and Welsh (but not the Bretons), and, arguably such unrelated groups as British Moslems. Would anyone be opposed to dropping this very confusing off-topic would-be parallel from the article? It gives other, better examples. -- Jmabel 06:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
On February 24th, 2004, an anonymous user from 24.105.197.133 added a lot of content, but also removed all links to Carpathian Ruthenia. It seems that we need to pay a bit more attention to this article, probably list it as controversial... --Shallot 16:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Historically and factually incorrect phrase replaced.
Also in the early 1700s, the state of Muscovy, having recently expanded to include the Rus' at Kiev, changes its name to the Greek translation of Rus', and calls itself Rossiya.
--Mikkalai, 00:06, 22 May 2004
I've just done a major overhaul of the article. The previous version was a mishmash of stuff written from a Ukrainian viewpoint. I think I've made the language vaguely encyclopedic now, but the description of what Muscovy and the Russians did still sound somewhat antagonistic to me. --Shallot 19:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear colleagues,
as you maybe know, I have started wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization project some time ago. I didn't want to make changes into any related article before NPOV consensus is found within this project. However, Shallot suggested me to be bold in editing instead of finding consesus. So it is - I'm bold in editing. If you don't share the opinion that bold editing is better than finding compromise before editing, please be invited to the wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization. Thank you! Drbug 22:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I mistyped in "Edit summary": Please read "Rus (etimology)" instead of "Rus (Etimology)". I'm sorry! Drbug 22:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1. Ruthenia is not derived from the word Rus'. This is one of two possible translations of the word Rus'. The word Ruthenia was not created to distinguish KR from anything.
2. The term Rus' was not used in papal documents only. It was commonly accepted translation of the Slavic word Rus' into Latin at least in Poland-Lithuania (including Bealrus and Ukraine) and in Kingdom of Hungary. This is the fact, not my opinion.
3. Northern part fall under Mongol influence, that, however, were not so wishful to change culture of conquered nations comparing to Poles, so northern principalieties of Rus were using original form of Rus a bit longer; however, later it evolved into Russia in English, and Rossija in Russian. - this is an unacceptable bias. There is no reason to claim that culture of modern Russia is more "original" that culture of modern Ukraine. As I stated before the term "Russia" is not more original than "Ruthenia": BOTH are barely translations of the same word - Rus'. The claim that that Rus in Muscovy evolved into Russia is obvious false as this translation of the word Rus' was used long time before the period described (at least from 12th century) and was nothing more that LATINIZATION of the name Rus' - I know that you know that because it was YOUR argument in one of our discussions.
4. If the term of Rus evolved into Rossiya, what about the title: The Emperor of All Rus? As far as I know Russian the term Rus' is still in common use.
As I mentioned I reverted removed stuff, because it explained controversy. If you want to remove anything, please discuss what is wrong with every fragment removed.Yeti 01:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Are we done now? I restored the paragraph about the name stopping being applied to the Belarusians, and then to Ukrainians because it makes sense, doesn't look like it would be controversial (?), and it provides context for the later text. --Shallot 19:40, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This phrase is simply wrong.
The only people who talk about "triedinstvo" (unity of the three Eastern Slav nation) was the Russian empire empiral historians and Stalin in his 1950 "Marxism-Leninism" book.
Here are some excerpts from some other discussions I had about it earlier (taken from my blog http://www.livejournal.com/users/rydel23/282295.html )
My biggest concern is the word "separated". Where did that came from? From what I read about our history, I got the impression that Belarusans of that day (i.e. the "Litvins" and "Ruthenians" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) were much more different from Russians. I would say that modern-day Belarusans (who are in many ways different from Russians in terms of language, culture, mentality) are perhaps 10 times more Russified than our forefathers of those times. Let me give you some examples:
- In 1517-1519 Francyska Skaryna published "Biblija Rus'ka" (Ruthenian Bible) which was studied by many scholars, and shows a big number of differences from Russian (not only lexically, but also in terms of syntax). If you look at the lexicon of the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it appears that "Old Belarusan" (Old Ruthenian) had so much richer lexicon coming from Polish and Latin. It's all gone in modern Belarusian. And I guess 97-98% of modern-day Belarusians perfectly understand Russian and speak at least at a passable level. Back then that was not the case. I think Litvins of the Grand Duchy wouldn't understand everything a Muscovite would say.
- Religion. Muscovites then were Russian Orthodox, nothing else. But back then we were not only "Russian" Orthodox, but also Catholic, Uniates, and ... Protestant! Don't forget the Reformation in our lands that brought amazing results to GDL in terms of enlightment, education, prosperity. (Religiously we were never close to each other.) But it was then all over...
- Because of 1654-1673. For 13 years Muscovites/Russians waged a most bloody war against GDL, killing 50% of our population, destroying most of our cities, totaly erasing our European culture. I can't imagine Russians in 2004 waging a war against Belarus in which they kill 50% of our population.
So where's this thing with "separation"? Where does that come from? When were we "together"?
I think Belarusans are ten times closer to Russians in 2004, then they were in 1654, exactly 350 years ago.
- There was never a single "East Slavic Russian nation". There was never a single "East Slavic Old Russian language". This is an invention of Russian empiral historians and Stalinists. Dixi. -- Rydel, July 9, 2004.
I just give you some samples from those writings (the first ones that I could locate on my hard drive, no special pre-screening):
1) Book title: Катехизис, то есть наука стародавняя христианская и святого писания для простых людей языка руского в пытаниях и отказах собрана. Несвиж, 1562.
In modern Belarusian: Катэхізыс - то ёсьць навука старадаўняя хрысьціянская і святага пісаньня для простых людзей языка беларускага ў пытаньнях і адказах сабраная. 1562
In modern Russian: Катехизис - это древняя, христианская наука святого писания для простых рускоговорящих людей языка, собранная в вопросах и ответах. 1562.
2) Skaryna's preface to one of the books: не к пожитку единого человека, но к посполитому доброму написанный. 1517
In modern Belarusian: Не да ўжытку адзінага чалавека, але да паспалітага дабра напісаны. 1517
In modern Russian: Не к использованию одним человеком, а для всеобщего блага написанный. 1517
3) Skaryna's Bible cover: Библия руска выложена доктором Франциском Скориною из славного града Полоцка, Богу ко чти и людем посполитым к доброму научению
In modern Belarusian: Біблія руская, вылажаная доктарам Францыскам Скарынаю з слаўнага гораду Полоцка, Богу да чци і людзям паспалітым к добраму навучаннью
In modern Russian: Библия руская, выданная доктором Франциском Скориной из славного града Полоцка, во славу Богу ко и для обучения простым людям
These translations are stretched for Belarusian to be as similar as possible to the original and for Russian to be as dissimmilar as possible. As an example, last part of the last translation says "in God's honour and to people (?) (to be) towards good learned" in original and Belarusian and "in the glory of God and and for education of simple people" in Russian. Nikola 16:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dr Bug, I am sorry I just took the first thing that came to my attention - several titles. Maybe, they are bad examples. Indeed, they are. It's just from the titles. And I apologize for any distortion of the modern Russian translation. All I wanted to do is just provide some very basic samples of how "ruski jazyk" (Old Ruthenian) of the 1510-1550's looked like. That's all. Sorry. rydel 22:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dear Rydel,
sorry if my response looked like an overreaction, but the claim that the unity of the three Eastern Slav nation is just an artificial invention of imperial historiography and Stalin, is not correct.
There are many Soviet and western scholars who consider(ed) this unity is evident, and it is widely accepted hypothesis.
As for me, it seems to be evident that there was some sort of unity in Ancient Rus. And separation (or, if you prefer this wording, formation) into these three Great/Little/White Russians started only under influence of Lithuania and Poland.
Comparing early Russian sources (like Primary Chronicle or Slovo o Polku igoreve), 16th century Muscovite Russian sources and 16th century GDL sources like that you cite, it's hard to belive that your "I think Litvins of the Grand Duchy wouldn't understand everything a Muscovite would say" is a correct assumption...
In the English historiography, "Old Ruthenian" is used extremely rarely; mostly by Polish and Lithuanian scholars. Almost all others use "Old Russian". We here in Wikipedia prefer to use well-established academic terms rather than nationalistic pseudo political correct invented terms.
Sorry if my words look offending! I didn't mean to insult you! You are evidently not one of these boring nationalists who even often don't bother to read others' texts...
[[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 23:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't claim to have scholarly knowledge in this area. These are langauges where I am pretty lost. I do know, however, that without any apparent consensus, Rydel has once again deleted the phrase in question. -- Jmabel 04:42, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
Much of the above -- conflicting views from different scholars and all -- probably belongs (with clear citations) somewhere in the Wikipedia (although probably not in this article). Does anyone have suggestions where? -- Jmabel 04:42, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
Origin of Ruthenian mess is polical processes in Austro-Hungary. Ruthenes were invented to prevent unification with other Russians. I'd like to cite:
In 1866 Halich Rusyn wrote in "Slovo" paper: "Въ 1848 роцЪ вопрошали насъ, що мы? Мы сказали, що мы всесмиреннЪйшіи Ruthenen (Господи! Если бы праотцы наши узнали, що мы сами прозвали себе тымъ именемъ, якимъ окрестили насъ во время гоненія наши найлютЪйшіи вороги, они въ гробахъ зашевелили-бъ ся.) [...] А може вы русскіи? допрошалъ насъ Стадіонъ. Мы кляли душу-тЪло, що мы не русскіи, не Russen, но що мы таки собЪ Ruthenen, що границя наша на ЗбручЪ, що мы отвращаемся отъ такъ званыхъ Russen, яко отъ окаянныхъ шизматиковъ, съ которыми ничого вспольного имЪти не хочемъ. Якое ваше письмо? допрошали насъ далЪй. Мы сказали, що письмо наше тое, що въ церковныхъ книгахъ, и знову кляли душу-тЪло отъ гражданки [...], которой мы отрицаемся, яко чужой."
(In year 1848 they asked us, who are we? We said that we are completely prideless Ruthenen (Our Lord! If our forefathers knew that we called ourselves by the name, given by our worst enemies during persecution, they would roll in their coffins.) [...] But maybe you are Russians? - Stadion interrogated us. We swore by sole and flesh, that we are not Russians, not Russen, but we are really Ruthenen, that our border at Zbruch [river] (Polish: Zabrotz), that we turn away from so called Russen, that are cursed schismatics, we don't wish to have anything common with them. What is your script? - they interrogated further. We said that our script is that one presented in clerical books, and swore by sole and flesh again apart the citizenship [...], that we reject as alien one.")
And they explained: "Бо тогды настрашилибы ся насъ были, щобы мы, связаны исторіею тысячилЪтною, обрядомъ церковнымъ, языкомъ и литературою съ великимъ русскимъ народомъ, не забагли коли отъ Австріи оторватися, и не были насъ допустили до свободъ конституційныхъ, были бы насъ слабенькихъ тогды придушили, щобысьмо и не дыхнули дыханьемъ русскимъ." (Because otherwise they could be afraid that we tied by thousand-year history, by clerical ceremonialism, by language and literature with great Russian people, and could wish to run away from Austria, and they wouldn't allow us constitutional freedoms, and they would suffocate weak us, to stop us breath by Russian breathe.")
(The English translation from original 19th century text is mine, but I suppose it's accurate enough.)
I suppose, this 1866 text explains a lot. Comments are appreciated. Maybe it should be somewhat included into the article? [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 21:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The modern Russians are "Russky". They arose as a nation in the conversion of the Finno-Ugric majority in the north to Christianity using the Old Church Slavonic language, which became the backbone of modern Russian. Their political mentality was foundationally Mongolian. They spelled things differently than the Ruthenians of Rus' proper (Kiev region), who called themselves "Rusky" (Ruthenian)--even into this century. This difference of language is seen in the "Lay of Ihor's Campaign" and in the "Tale of Bygone Years," which does not speak of the "Russians lands" (which didn't exist yet) but speaks of the "Rus'ka zemlya" (Ruthenian lands). Equating Rus' with Russia is an imerialist fantasy. Genyo 22:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't like newly invented interpretations of the history - neither from Ukrainian nationalists, nor from Russian new chronologists, or any other talented dreamers. And I will fight for well established academic theories prevail over newly invented fantasies. Unconcerned foreign description are often more truthful (despite less accurate), because foreigners do not tend to completely rewrite the history like nationalists do.
I see no comments related to the facts presented by me, but I only see word-of-mouth accusations in imperialism, nationalism, and maybe cannibalism. Thank you, my dear opponents, it a nice indicaion that these facts are really truthful...
Sorry for possible emotions, but I tired with this anti-Russian bias.
By the way, a curious thing: please pay attention to the order in which countries are listed in the article - Ukraine, Belarus, Russia. I didn't touch this order, but always was smiling. In the sake of NPOV, the order should be "Russia, Ukraine, Belarus" (most-referenced first rule) or "Belarus, Russia, Ukraine" (alphabetical rule). I've checked the fate of the contributor who put these names in this order, and I absolutely wasn't surprised when discovered that he ended up with threats to make Wikipedia servers down. He-he. User:Drbug 14:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dear DrBug or anyone else reading this, can you explain why you reverted Genyo's additions? He gave correct facts. And they are important and relevant.
Yes, indeed, "Ruce" was used to denote "Ruthenia" in Old English. Auld Guid White Ruce (Scotland & Belarus) - http://www.pravapis.org/art_scotland_belarus.asp ;)
And, yes, indeed, Muscovites (modern-day Russians) basically stole the name "Rus'" from the Belarusians and Ukrainians. First, using just the Greek form "Rossia". And, yes, it WAS met with resistance in Europe, including Rzecz Pospolita and the Grand Duchy. They didn't want Muscovites to use the name "Rossija" without having any right for it.
Can you explain why you reverted? And explain what is the problem with the two facts that he added?
unsigned, but added by User:Rydel; sig added by Jmabel
Yes, I can easily explain my reverts.
1. "Ruce". This is a very inaccurate insertion. Just read it: "In Old England, the term, "Ruce," appeared." Do you understand it? Just for your information - New England is a region in the US, and a city. "Old England" sounds like a territory either. Then, it doesn't belong to this article. It belongs to the Etymology of Rus and derivatives article, and I've included the mention of Ruce there: "In the Middle English, the Ruce form was used (f.e. in The Canterbury Tales)."
2. "Muscovy, which had began to call itself "Rossiya," in 1713." It's a definitely invented nonsense. I don't know exactly when the single "s" letter became to be the double one, but "Rosiya" is officially used by the Russian rulers since 1653, "Rusiya" since ca. 1600, "Rus'" earlier than 1493. It is also mentioned in the West, f.e. by Jan Janszoon Struys in his book (English title: "The Voyages and Travels of John Struys").
3. We worked too long to make this article to be near to a neutral reflection of the most common mainstream historiography. Therefore I will persist reverting all these inaccurate propagandistic changes made by the nationalists to promote their newly invented political agenda. Point.
Thank you for your interest and cooperation!
Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 11:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
1. All right. I agree. Anyway, "Ruce" is just a minor addition, nothing we should argue about.
3. Ok. ;)
2. Well, here is one link for you:
http://txt.knihi.com/mova/dyplamat.html Dimplomatic controversy for Belarusian language in year 1646.
Here is one of the relevant quotes:
Âîñü íàçîâó «ðóñê³», ÿê³ òàäû áû¢ àô³öûéíûì ³ ¢ Áåëàðóñ³, ³ ¢ Ïîëüø÷û, ïàíû êàðàëå¢ñêàå ðàäû é òðûìàë³ñÿ. Ïðûïîìí³öü òóò òðýáà, øòî «ðóñêàþ» áåëàðóñêóþ ìîâó íàçûâàë³ òàêñàìà Ñêàðûíà, Áóäíû, Öÿï³íñê³ äû ¢ñå ³íøûÿ ï³ñüìåíüí³ê³ Áåëàðóñ³ òàå ïàðû. Íÿ «ðóñêàþ», àëå «ìàñêî¢ñêàé» íàçûâàë³ òàäû çàòîå ¢ Áåëàðóñ³ ìîâó Ìàñêî¢ø÷ûíû, ìîâó ðàñåéñêóþ. Ïðûêëàäàì, «ìàñêî¢ñêàé» íàçûâࢠÿå Ñûìîí Áóäíû, «åíçûê ìîñêåâñê³», êàçàë³ òàäû é ó Ïîëüø÷û. Ó Ïîëüø÷û íàçî¢ ãýòû ïà÷àë³ çàê³äàöü òîëüê³ àä ïà÷àòêà¢ Õ²Õ ñòàãîäçüäçÿ íà âûìàãàíüíå ðàñåéñê³õ óëàäà¢. Òàäû ïàä ðàñåéñê³ì íàö³ñêàì áû¢ çàâåäçåíû äëÿ ðàñåéñêàé ìîâû íàçî¢ «åíçûê ðîñûéñê³».
As you can see, under pressure Polish and Litvins (Belarusans) started calling the language of Muscovy "jezyk rossyski" instead of "jezyk moskiewski". And we are talking about year 1646.
4. My personal thoughts about this entry: http://www.livejournal.com/users/rydel23/295985.html
Regards, rydel 13:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1) About your spelling "Belorussian" - fyi, that's considerate obsolete. Most serious publications use "Belarusian" (and pronounced respectively, with an "s", not "sh").
2) The only reason I gave a link to the text is to give an example how in 17th century there was a controversy. Your Muscovites were saying - "Call us Russians! Call us Russians! We are Rossia". And the other nations (Belarusans-Litvins, Poles, for example) were saying "Wait a second, you are not Russians, you shouldn't use the word Rossia". But it was very much needed to Ivan the Terrible to justify his "liberation" wars against the Catholic "oppressors" and to "save" the poor "Russian" souls (the Ruthenes who were of "Russian" faith).
I only wanted to remind you that there was very bad evil intent in starting to use the word "Rossia". It was all about occupation and bloody wars against your closest brothers, Belarusans and Ukrainians.
3) When I said "East" I didn't mean Asia. Here I refer to the Great Schism. East meaning Ottoman traditions (as opposed to Western European), East meaning Orthodox traditions (as opposed to Catholicism and Protestantism), East meaning oppression and despotism (as opposed to democracy and freedom).
And there is nothing bad in "Asian". I wish you, Russians, were as Asian as South Koreans or Japanese are.
Regards, rydel 16:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Vladimir Bug (I see you've changed your name--and your website to match, recently to talk to a Belarusian--what happened to Volodymyr, added only recently too?) The term is Belarusian. And Belarus' is being pulled to the Russian Empire via the last dictatorship in Europe. Russian arose in the fusion of Old Slavonic with some native Slavic elements--that's why Russian scholars note that Old Slavonic forms the backbone of Russian--see Vernadsky, for example. Belarusian on the other hand, flows directly from Old Rusian/Ruthenian. As for Russia being distinct, that oversimplifies Russian intellectual thought of a century and a half ago. The Russian encounter with Europe was marked by a deep sense of otherness.
Uladzimir Rydel, your essay was not oversimplified: keep up the contributions. An authentic Belarusian perspective here is greatly need, Thank you! Genyo 22:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Russian scholars themselves tesify that OCS forms the backbone of the Russian language. See, for example, Vernadsky, A History of Russia: Kievan 'Russia' Vol. II. Yale Universty Press, 1942. For the record, English IS descended from Old Germanic but 60% of it's content is Latin! Genyo 22:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
NO, English, is a Germanic language, because in history, English grew out of Old Germanic--later adoptions of Latin vocabulary were not foreseen! Genyo 01:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why would adding South Slavic elements make Russian worse? Why would you say that?
My position is only that factually, the addition of South Slavic elements (OCS) made Russian what it is.
The word "backbone" is Vernadsky's word. Factually, it conveys a large contribution.
Your assertion about Russian arising out of "Old Russian"--a loaded label-- since Russia didn't exist then as a state, and it's roots were barely starting as a people is a very widespread opinion. There is some scholarly concern about the unicity of language among the East Slavs. Local variations may or may not have been great.
Nonetheless, there is a thin line of continuity from the East Slavic kernals in the Finno-Ugric sea that evolved into Russian. South Slavic contributions were an early large contributor, but certainly not the first start of the Russian language. Genetically, the Russian language is East Slavic.
Facing further truths about the Russian language doesn't have to threaten previously perceived truth.
Thank you for your attention to me.
Genyo 12:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Even after the 12th century?
What about the much earlier linguistic view, widespread, that sees the Slavic break-up by the 7th century into East/West/South. That's political too? How?
Finally, isn't calling the language of Rus' "Old Russian" very political? The erly Russians were then tiny minorites of Slavic ouposts and the surrounding Finno-Ugric sea at the north-eastern periphery of Rus', at least for the earliest Rus' period.
Genyo 12:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(UTC)
Mutual intelligibility is one characteristic of languages and language difference--it is not the same thing. There can be partial, even large amounts of mutual intelligibility among languages and yet they can still be separate languages, not just dialects. The language of Rus' wan't Russian--you admit that. Then why call the language of Rus' "OLD Russian. That's political ideology. Genyo 14:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is getting non-sensical! First of all how do posit that they would have known there langauge was old?
The argument isn't about what they called their langage, but what language they did speak and how that language evolved. Russians prefer to name the language of Rus' after their own country that developed later, and call it Russky. Ukrainins see a divergence of their Kyivan inheiritance from that of the Russians, their northern neighbors, as early as the time of Rus', and so prefer to call it by the original and long-enduring form, (rus'ki) Rusian/Ruthenian (or, "Rusyn"). I'm happy to settle on a neutral anlysis and just characterize things of this era as being "of Rus'!"
25.08.2004. Another "update" from DrBug... I don't know what's the proper way of handling this situation, maybe someone can help me out. How do you deal with this Orwellian 1984 situations? The user DrBug's keeps making "small" "improvements" to this page, "slightly" changing it every time. Like the drops of water in an infamous Chinese torture. If I want to have my mood spoiled for the whole day, I just need to open my watchlist and see what DrBug "improved" today on Ruthenia page. And he dares to refer to his efforts as "harmonization" project. How Orwellian. How 1984! What he is doing in this free and open encyclopedia is filling it with the old lies of the Imperial Russian propaganda.
I ask anyone who is reading this to advice me, how to proceed in this situation. rydel 21:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I will address all you dear readers, and Dr Bug as if facts mattered to everyone. See the Davies' source, p392, for the fact that Belarusians did at times call themselves Ruthenians/Rusyny! The proper defined notion of Rus' included the small region around Kyiv (still after 1,000 years, today's Ukrainian heartland, Velyka Ukrayina)! This is testified to even by Vernadsky's imperialistically-drenched POV, please excuse my language here, "Kievan 'Russia'!" Davies' "History of Europe" also notes the fact so well known, that it's mentioned merely in passing, that Ruthenia is used in European history as the term of opposion for people of the same nation as Rus' proper (today's Ukrainians and Belarusians) alone, as opposed to those, as Vernadsky puts it, on the periphery of Rus' propria--the "Russians." Let's not let this article be deformed to fit the modern Soviet myth of "three equal Rus' peoples"--each individual nation is always unequal to others on various historical phenomena. When people deal in facts not ideology, they can face this. Genyo 16:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
... the different views should both (or all) be in the article with appropriate citations. This is a stupid thing over which to have edit wars, each side claiming a monopoly on truth. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Mr. Jmabel, the disagreement is obvious, but scholarly? Please fill in your fantasy on how this is a scholarly disagreement! Please provide a fantasy scenario on how this is not scholarship vs. propaganda! Genyo 03:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your travels to other pages don't interest me! Speak to what is already on the pages! Speak to what is, not your fantasy model of what you think it should be! Genyo 05:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to get in touch with someone who made this reference. I am looking for an original passage (by Gervasius Tilleberiensis or Honorius Augustodunensis?) which I need for the 2nd edition of my book. Could you kindly write to:
bely@infonet.by - Alies' Biely
having read the discussion on Old Russian not really being "Russian" and instead should be called Rus', it struck me that those who asserted such a claim seemed to have ignored other old languages. For example "Old English". England had never been truly united as we consider it to be today back when Old English was spoken. It was divided into a number of kingdoms including Wessex. There is also the example of Old French being around when the nation we now call France had still not been properly defined. Then there is Old Spanish, even though Spain as a united entity only came into existence with the union of Castile and Aragon in the 1400s. And then we have German! Old High German, Old Low German, Old German, etc. even though Germany was only united at the time of the Holy Roman Empire (and even then some people would not call that a German state, just as how Rus is not considered a Russian state by some) or more recently during the time of Napolean and then indisputably in 1871. Also talk about there never being East Slav unity and that the Rus only refers to Belarus and Ukraine (in opposition against Russia) is clear bias as shown by how some of the contributors here seem to have adopted the old Lithuanian entities as their "own" and referring to how Russians slaughtered "our" people and how "their" people were oppressed for 600 years. That POV is so nuetral that is becomes biased. Rus referred to the lands now in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and despite what some would have us believe there was East Slav unity, just as how there was Western Germanic unity (e.g. the Angles, Jutes and Saxons coming from what is now Frisia and Denmark) at one time and Norse unity. -Anonymous user
Well mainly to stir up conversation and to show that some arguments placed before were biased or myopic in outlook, however I would suggest changes in the article on White Russia, especially this section:
"The failure to properly translate the name of Belarus into other languages arises from the fact that very few of the world languages have two separate words for Russia and Ruthenia. The reasons this happenned is because during the Russian empire times, the official tsarist propaganda said that Russia and Ruthenia are the same thing."
How is that neutral? It is anti-tsarist to begin with and takes no account of the fact that the name of a country is almost never translated properly into English. For example Deutschland is Germany in English, Osterreich is Austria and Cymru is Wales! In fact of all the countries in Europe the only ones the English language has spot on for correctness is England (naturally), France, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg and I believe Romania. The rest range from close to far off the mark. The close ones are Bulgariya, Macedonija, Slovenija, Danmark,Nederland and Bosna i Hercegovina. After that things from fairly close with Rossiya/Rossija to so bad that you wonder how such names arose, such as Croatia (Hrvatska), Germany, Albania (Shqiperia) and Wales (Cymru). The other thing about the paragraph quoted above is that is seems to say that Russia and Ruthenia are not the same thing at all, when as is stated elsewhere, in the 12th century the words were used interchangeably (and thus anyone hearing that statement would give you a blank stare and probably laugh back in that time).
Of course, this will probably change little, since those who are so heartfelt over a simple name, seem to be the most vocal. They should take an example from Ireland, which said its name is both Eire and Ireland (Republic of) and got on with its life. -Anonymous user
Russian, Ukranian, Belarussian, Polish, Rusyn/Ruthenian/Rusnacina, Slovak, Czech, Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian and any other SLAVONIC languages are all modern established dialects of the "OLD" SLAVONIC LANGUAGE. We all speak the same language, but we speak different dialects of it. Just as there are many dialects of French around the world, as in France, Canada, Africa and so on. Even the the French in France is a dialect of the umbrella concept FRENCH. They are all called languages in common use terms, however, linguistically they are dialets of the FRENCH FORM.
Similarily, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak and so on are all "dialects" of the SLAVONIC FORM LANGUAGE. if you keep an open ear, you will hear this truth.
Old Russian and Old Ruthenian are really OLD SLAVONIC, just used in these terms politically.
Ruthenian and Ukranian are the closest modern day languages to the old SLAVONIC language form.
Michael Z,
No they are not the same thing.
Rusyns, speak a diffrent dialect of Slavonic then Russians do, just ask any one of them. I wonder how many slavs are contributing to this space who have any knowledge of their own dialect and others hopefully too.
Ruthenia, the area roughly surrounding the trippple borders of present day Slovak Repbulic, Ukraine, Poland & Hungary, was the cradle-land of the "PROTO-SLAVS". This is where all slavs came from, and the language evolved and seperated into dialects taking on foreign words as well.
Ruthenian is not Russian Rusnacina nie je Russcina
although they are both very close to Old Slavonic, because their geographical proximity most likely helped preserve the originality of SLAVONIC
once again...all dialects of the mother language: SLAVONIC!!!!
This page says that Ruthenia is a region in France around the city of Rodez. It also states that Rutenic language = Langue d'oc. — Monedula 13:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This section contains several errors, and I am in doubt of its credibility as a whole. It also completely ignores the so-called "normanist theory". Please verify.--Wiglaf 18:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wiglaf, what are the errors in the Early Middle Ages section? Since the section mainly discusses Latin terminology for Rus’ lands, how would the Normanist theory be added to it? Do you propose expanding on the earlier etymology of the name Rus’? If the article's deficiency is simply that the etymology of Rus’ isn't covered here in detail, then I don't think that justifies a NPOV tag. —Michael Z. 2005-06-14 14:53 Z
Ghirlandajo has based this section on Vasily Tatishchev, about whom the article says:
I do think that a discussion on the normanist theory is much more desirable than a section which is uncritically based on Tatishchev, who used his imagination and "lost chronicles".--Wiglaf 08:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do think that detailed discussion of the "normanist theory" should not be scattered accross too many articles (if only to facilitate consistency). However, it should by all means be mentioned (it is, unless I am quite mistaken, pointed to already, by the links to Etymology of Rus and Kievan Rus, but I don't see the harm in adding a brief explicit reference, not a lengthy explanation). dab (ᛏ) 09:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The disputes seem to have calmed down. Could we remove tags? If someone objects, please address the issues so that we can resolve this rather than keep the tag and do nothing. -Irpen 20:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
RUTHENIUM is a hard brittle grayish polyvalent rare metallic element which was discovered in the Urals by Osann in 1828, and re-discovered by Claus in 1845.
It is a controversy, too, as to whom to give the credit.
June 24th, 2005 21:18 GMT
The above links were pasted here 22 Aug 2005, with no indication of why they are here. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
My neutral views on this would be as such. I think that the see also list as presented in the diff is not very useful and adds to confuse of the article rather than help it. For example, one of the first links in the places section is Baptism of Kievan Rus' - I naturally thought that this was probably redundant since there is a link in the main article to Kievan Rus' and I presumed that the baptism would be linked from it - that is not the case. A random assortment of see also links that don't fit into a definitive style is not really very helpful to the end user. I am a nice typical example, as my eastern history is not top marks, so I am a fresh reader. I realise that this stuff is quite complex, and often heated, and I don't know if content is the issue here, or whether it is just a style problem. My opinion would roughly fall along the lines that some of the see also's seem perfectly valid (Ruthenians, Ruthenian language, the various "history of..." links etc etc - but some of the other links seem like more minor links that should be linking off other pages, Baptism of Kievan Rus', for example). Basically it depends on what the point of this page is - a great big long list of see also's which provide no context is just going to confuse the reader - but equally a page with little linkage is not going to be useful to anyone, and create a disjointed browsing experience. As I said my eastern history is not top notch, so I don't know the context and background of this particular case, but I don't think a great big list of see also's is an effective way of helping the reader. If most (or even all) of the see also's are valid (and I am not in a good position to judge) then as an alternative I would suggest creating a navigation template to tie all the various pieces of this puzzle together, such as: (apologies this nav box is completely unrelated but it was just on a page I was browsing!) That way the user would have a central navigation tool to help them around. Basically I would say that there needs to be some organisation here to best point the reader in the right direction for what he/she wants. I hope my opinion has been of some help, and I am happy to post some more thoughts if either side feels I have missed an element of this issue. SFC9394 11:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the monopoly of Russians? It's English wikipedia, so it will be fair if Enlish-speaking (native English-speaking I mean) people will conduct this article. Аnd it will be interesting for Ukrainians, Russians and Byelorussians to know indifferent point of view
There are maps only for Ruthenia as a part of Polish-Lithunian Commonwealth and Carpathian Ruthenia...
The first map entitled "10th century ancient Rus' region", but nevertheless it fancy shows Moscow there.
Did Moscow really existed in 10th century as a principal city as shown there?
If not may be it's better to replace the map with unbiased one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.142.36 (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Compare: http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/R/Ruthenia.html http://www.consultsos.com/pandora/ruthia.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/ruthenia
So many enciclopedies have to edir material: http://bopedia.com/en/wikipedia/r/ru/ruthenia.html
Author just stated his opinion on Rus' and do not permit any editing.
Why are there no in-line citations? I see a few {fact} tags, but I think the whole article needs {Unreferenced}. How much of this is original research?? Jd2718 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The word "Ruthenophile," which appears several times in this article, appears to be a neologism. It needs to be replaced. This again raises the question of how much, if any, of this article is original research. Jd2718 02:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)